Rajnath Singh To Attend SCO Defence Ministers' Meet In China From June 25 To 27
Last Updated:
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh will visit China for the SCO Defence Ministers' meet in Qingdao from June 25-27, meeting his Chinese counterpart, Admiral Dong Jun.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh will travel to China to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Defence Ministers' meet in Qingdao from June 25 to 27 in his first such visit since Operation Sindoor. Pakistan Defence Minister Khwaja Asif will also attend the meeting.
The visit coincides with India and China working to normalise relations, marked by the resumption of trade, travel, and dialogue.
Singh will have bilaterals with his Chinese counterpart, Admiral Dong Jun, on the sidelines of the SCO meet.
The meeting is happening at a time when the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra has resumed. Patrolling is happening in Depsang and Demchok.
India and China are holding talks to reduce border tensions and enhance bilateral ties. Singh's visit follows his meeting with China's Defence Minister Admiral Dong Jun at the ADMM-Plus summit in Laos, their first interaction after the border disengagement agreement.
The potential visit is part of ongoing diplomatic efforts to normalise India-China ties, which may include discussions on reviving the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, restoring air links, exchanging hydrological data, and enhancing visa and people-to-people exchanges.
India reiterated its support for China's SCO presidency during recent talks in Delhi between Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Sun Weidong.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
15 minutes ago
- The Wire
Nationalism Is a Dishonourable Social Construct
Two thought-provoking pieces by Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar made for a fascinating debate on the texture and trajectory of Indian nationalism. Yadav argues that the rich legacy of Indian nationalism from our freedom movement which was about 'belonging without othering' and unity sans uniformity, has been overwhelmed in the last decade by a Nazi version that upholds national interest over individual freedom and identifies the government with the nation. But he also blames the liberal, secular elite for the regression in the pristine nationalist spirit, charging them with a 'deracinated cosmopolitism' that ignored the cultural and spiritual undertone, because of which they lost touch with the common man. Palshikar is emphatic that nothing can mitigate the virtual dismantling of nationalism by the current regime through practice and ideology which, he believes, is not backsliding 'but a resolute replacement of Indian nationalism'. He contends that excoriating the secular-liberal elite as abettors for the crisis in Indian nationalism, as Yadav has done, is to attach significance to a marginal force. Of much greater import were the deep fissures that were evolving in the late 19th and early 20th century between an inclusive Indian nationalism and its phoney alternative that was 'rooted in othering and instrumental unity without genuine belonging.' To add my twopenny bit, notwithstanding the toxic faith-based majoritarian nationalism germinating on the side, our nationalism was not in a bad place until the 1980s. Yogendra Yadav may turn up his nose at my lived experience of an that was pluralistic, inclusive and grounded in democratic values where we didn't need to prove our Indianness or be judged by the clothes we wore or the size of our eyes; nor did we feel the need to tamper with historical facts or denigrate our freedom fighters in order to craft an alternative Hindutva nationalist vision. I remember an unselfconscious nationalism, respectful of religion but not obsessed with it, a milieu where our patriotic instincts were fired up by the histrionics of 'Mr Bharat' Manoj Kumar and the dulcet tones of Mohammad Rafi and Lata Mangeshkar. There was no deliberate fostering of deep cultural and spiritual traditions but that 'shallow modernity and deracinated cosmopolitanism' worked very well for us. If only we could get back that nationalist spirit. In debating Indian nationalism – good and bad – these two public intellectuals have broached a subject of the greatest significance. It has turned the world upside-down, particularly in the last decade. The nationalism that we witness today is the depraved patriotism of the mob. In truth, nationalism has been commandeered to legitimise all forms of bigotry. In the crazy world that we live in, the insurrectionists who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, are released and hailed as nationalists whereas the protestors in Los Angeles fighting for justice against the authoritarian Trump regime are hounded as anti-nationals. It is necessary to draw a distinction between nationalism and patriotism in terms of the emotive quality of loyalty to the nation. Nationalism invokes blind support for everything the country does –a syndrome that incites aggressive assertion and a lust for power, whereas patriotism is tolerant, humane and critical of actions that are destructive of the values that the country cherishes. Is it any wonder then that the world's great minds were not enamoured of nationalism? H.G. Wells condemned nationalism as 'a monstrous can't that has darkened all human affairs.' He believed that our true nationality was mankind. Rabindranath Tagore was no devotee of the constrictive tendencies associated with attachment to the nation which he viewed as 'holding up gigantic selfishness as the one universal religion.' Dr B.R. Ambedkar was wary of a nationalism 'that is at once a feeling of fellowship for one's own kith and kin and an anti-fellowship feeling for those who are not one's own kith and kin.' He warned that loyalty to the nation was endangered by competitive loyalty to religion, to culture and to language. The iconic revolutionary Bhagat Singh represented a nationalism that was the very antithesis of what's being practised today. His nationalism was anchored in his atheism and signified much more than driving out the British. It meant ridding our society of the evils of casteism, untouchability and communalism. Sadly, today he is glorified but his revolutionary nationalism that was centred on the oppressed and the poor has been overwhelmed by one that is cruelly majoritarian and focussed entirely on the needs of the privileged. 'Where guns boom' Today's nationalism bears an eerie correspondence with the German experiment of the 1930s that played on the fears and prejudice of the majority. The most obvious similarity is between the Nazi doctrine of nationhood based on an exclusive ethnic German-Aryan homogeneity and rabid antisemitism vis-a-vis our indigenous fascist mobilisation constructed on a deviant interpretation of religion and morbid hatred of the Muslim. And just as Hitler expanded his enemy list of Jews to include communists, Catholics and liberals, the current regime has gone way beyond targeting Muslims and Christians as the archetypal 'Other', to branding all dissenters as the 'ant-national, tukde - tukde gang'. Prime minister Narendra Modi has been given the credit for bestowing the name 'Operation Sindoor' to the military operation post Pahalgam, so clearly his camp followers think it's a great appellation. But how blasphemous to bestow an offensive military campaign with the moniker of 'sindoor' which is so sacred to the institution of the Hindu marriage, especially for the woman. It is as inappropriate a name as the one given by the USA to its largest non-nuclear explosive weighing 9,800 kgs, labelled 'the mother of all bombs'. That great humanist, the late Pope Francis was outraged: 'A mother gives life and this one gives death…What's going on?' The fig leaf of national interest and security have been used by this Government as a pretext for the furtive secrecy surrounding the Pahalgam horror and the aftermath. The nation is still in the dark about the murderers, the intelligence failure, the number of our planes shot down and fate of the pilots, Jaishankar's self-defeating forewarning to Pakistan, Trump's alleged intervention, our suicidal foreign policy that has all our neighbours gunning for us and a lot more. The bizarre decision to keep Operation Sindoor alive is clearly intended to avoid owning up to failure on multiple fronts. Arthur Miller had observed that 'when the guns boom, the arts die', but with Operation Sindoor it is not the arts but truth that has got buried. The nationalist fervour gripping the country has confused and equated loyalty to the nation with fealty to the government, though crafty ones like Shashi Tharoor have used it for their own self-serving purposes. Nationalism is the subterfuge for officially sponsored propaganda, downright falsehoods, jingoism, moral grandstanding and for treating dissent as anti-national. Modi's flurry of ' goli khaao' speeches following the ceasefire, are testimony to this ugly manipulation of nationalism. Look at what nationalism has spawned across the world. The likes of Zionist nationalist Benjamin Netanyahu and MAGA white racist Donald Trump – post-modern versions of the Fuhrer and Duce – flaunt the badge of nationalism to wreak death and suffering. Let's all agree that Howard Zinn was spot on when he observed: 'Nationalism – that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder – is one of the great evils of our time along with racism and religious hatred.' Mathew John is a former civil servant. Views are personal. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
19 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Canada not just a passport stop: 95% Indian migrants stay post-citizenship
Do Indians treat Canada as a mere stepping stone to secure a powerful passport before leaving for better opportunities elsewhere? A new report by Statistics Canada suggests otherwise. The study, titled An Analysis of Immigrants' 'Active Presence' in Canada, tracked the long-term presence of immigrants based on their tax filing behaviour—a key indicator that they are still residing in or closely tied to Canada. What counts as active presence? 'Active presence' refers to immigrants who continue to file income taxes in Canada. While not a definitive proof of residency, it is widely used as a practical measure of engagement in the country's economy and social systems. According to the data, 63.8% of Indian immigrants become Canadian citizens within ten years of arriving. Of those, 94.6% continued to file taxes after naturalisation—an indicator of strong ongoing ties. By contrast, only 65% of Indian immigrants who did not take up citizenship remained active, meaning 35% either left the country or stopped participating in the formal economy. Even three years after gaining citizenship, 93% of Indian immigrants were still filing taxes. That's only a slight drop from the 97.1% seen in the three years before naturalisation. Citizenship boosts long-term presence: Among immigrants aged 25–54 who arrived between 2008 and 2012, 93% of those who became citizens were still actively present ten years later, compared to 67% of those who didn't. Retention improving over time: For those who arrived between 2003 and 2007, 91% of citizens remained active, while only 58% of non-citizens did—a wider gap than in newer cohorts. Origin matters: Immigrants from the Philippines showed a 97% active presence rate, higher than those from developed countries like the US and France, where retention hovered around 87%. Education and mobility affect retention: Highly educated immigrants who didn't pursue citizenship were more likely to leave, reflecting greater international mobility. Citizenship matters: The data directly challenges the notion of 'Canadians of convenience,' often used to question immigrants' loyalty. Why some stay, and others don't The Statistics Canada study also looked into factors shaping whether immigrants remained in Canada after gaining citizenship. Country of origin: Immigrants from countries like Pakistan and Colombia also had high retention, while Americans, Britons and the French were more likely to leave. Education: Those with graduate degrees were more likely to leave if they didn't obtain citizenship. The global demand for high-skilled workers plays a role here. Economic class: Skilled immigrants selected for their abilities were more likely to leave if they did not commit to Canadian citizenship. Time taken to naturalise: The longer an immigrant waited to become a citizen, the more likely they were to leave post-citizenship, suggesting weaker ties to Canada at the outset. Daniel Bernhard, CEO of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, said, 'Highly skilled immigrants have global options. If Canada can't offer a better life—affordable housing, career growth—they'll take their talents elsewhere.' Breaking the 'Canadian of convenience' myth The term 'Canadian of convenience' has often been used in political debate to describe immigrants who obtain citizenship for benefits and then leave. The Statistics Canada report directly addresses that concern: Citizenship isn't hollow: 93% of naturalised immigrants were still filing taxes ten years later, showing active engagement with the country. Inactive immigrants less likely to be citizens: Among those without any tax filing (considered inactive), only 28% were citizens. For example, among inactive Iranian immigrants, 50% held citizenship, compared to just 14% of inactive Americans. Why fewer people may be choosing citizenship Despite the positive retention figures, the report notes a slowdown in citizenship uptake. Some immigrants may delay or skip citizenship due to better global mobility or dissatisfaction with economic conditions in Canada. Rising housing costs, stagnant wages, and limited job opportunities may be pushing some to consider alternatives. Bernhard warned, 'If Canada can't provide a better future, immigrants will leave.' Andrew Griffith, a former director general in Canada's immigration department, said citizenship policies currently 'strike a good balance,' but added they may need updating to keep pace with changing realities.
News18
20 minutes ago
- News18
'List Included His Name, Was Invited': Congress Debunks Shashi Tharoor's 'Exclusion' Claim
Last Updated: KPCC chief Sunny Joseph denied Shashi Tharoor's claim of being excluded from the Congress star campaigners list for the Nilambur bypoll, stating his name was included. Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) chief Sunny Joseph on Friday denied Congress MP Shashi Tharoor's claims of being left out of the party's star campaigners list for the bypoll in the Nilambur constituency in Thiruvananthapuram. Joseph also said the party had published the list officially and had submitted it to the Election Commission, and that Tharoor was abroad with the parliamentary delegation during that time. 'We had published the list and submitted it to the Election Commission," Joseph said while talking to reporters. 'The list included Shashi Tharoor's name. He was abroad most of the time, and then in Delhi. I don't know if he even came to Kerala," he added. On Thursday, Tharoor had said he has differences of opinion with some in the party leadership, but he is not going to speak about them in light of the bypoll in the Nilambur constituency. Tharoor had also claimed Congress had excluded him from its list of star campaigners. Speaking to reporters in Thiruvananthapuram, Tharoor, who came under attack from some party colleagues for supporting the Modi government's stand following the Pahalgam terror attack, said that the Congress, its values, and its workers are very dear to him. He said he has worked closely with party workers for 16 years and regards them as close friends and brothers. Tharoor, however, did not clarify whether his differences of opinion were with the national or state leadership. The Thiruvananthapuram MP indicated that he might talk about those differences after the bypoll results. Tharoor's remarks come at a time when the Congress has not publicly backed him, after a party leader described him as the 'super spokesperson of the BJP. Former Congress MP Udit Raj had termed Tharoor as the 'super spokesperson" of the BJP over his remarks during his international delegation visits when he allegedly said that India crossed the LoC for the first time in 2015. Responding to the same, Tharoor on Thursday termed it as a 'misconception". Defending his decision to accept the Centre's invite to head one of the delegations, Tharoor said that when he became the chairman of the External Affairs Committee of the Parliament, he had made it clear that he was focused on India's foreign policy and its national interest and not the foreign policy of the Congress and BJP. 'I have not changed my line. When an issue concerning the nation comes up, we are all obligated to work and speak for the country. What I said during 'Operation Sindoor' was my own opinion. 'The Centre asked for my services. Indeed, my party did not. So, I proudly did my duty as an Indian citizen," he said. First Published: June 20, 2025, 13:15 IST
