Kerala Cabinet expresses condolences over V.S. Achuthanandan's passing
Achuthanandan's political journey began through struggles against British imperialism, feudalism and casteist hegemony and later evolved into struggles against authoritarian rule and communal divisive forces. He dedicated his life to an uncompromising struggle for the protection of democratic values. His name is synonymous with the Punnapra-Vayalar uprising.
His life of more than a century, where he stood with the people and raised their issues, is inextricably linked with the history of modern Kerala. With the demise of VS, democratic progressive movements have suffered an irreparable loss. He led the struggles to end wage and caste slavery faced by agricultural workers in Kuttanad, organising them into an organised force. He intervened in various areas from environment and human rights to women's equality and called social attention to them.
During his tenure as the Chief Minister, he led Kerala forward through several administrative measures. As Leader of the Opposition, he raised many popular issues in the House. VS is a personality who has made unparalleled contributions in the field of administration, legislative matters and the political history of Kerala, said the Cabinet note.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
How Trump's ‘America First' obsession has pushed India-US ties into uncertainty
Lord Palmerston, a 19th-century British statesman and former prime minister, had said, 'We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.' His words are often paraphrased as 'There are no permanent friends or enemies in diplomacy, only permanent interests,' a statement that reflects a key aspect of the Realist School of thought in International Relations, which emphasises the role of the state, national interest, and power in world politics. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This concept is important in diplomacy for several reasons. Countries prioritise actions that benefit their own security, prosperity, and influence in the world; alliances and rivalries can shift as national interests change in response to evolving geopolitical landscapes, technological advancements, or domestic priorities; and diplomatic decisions are often guided by practical considerations and a calculated assessment of costs and benefits rather than abstract moral principles or rigid ideologies. US President Donald Trump's foreign policy is demonstrably centred on what he perceives as 'national interests', particularly prioritising a transactional approach. Trump's policies, encapsulated in his 'America First' slogan, favour bilateral agreements and actions over multilateral engagement and alliances. The evolution of his policy towards Pakistan is a good example of his transactional approach. It may be recalled that in his first term, Trump's first tweet on January 1, 2018, was about Pakistan. Trump had said, 'The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!' Not surprisingly, the Pakistani establishment was livid about his remarks. The Pakistan Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua had summoned the US Ambassador and lodged a formal complaint. In his first term, Trump's South Asia strategy was heavily influenced by the war in Afghanistan, focusing on counterterrorism and a conditions-based withdrawal of US troops. Trump relied on tools like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to pressure Pakistan on counterterrorism. While relations with Pakistan were initially strained, they improved after 2019 due to Pakistan's role in the Afghan peace process. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD How is Trump's policy towards Pakistan playing out in his second term? Recent developments suggest an unprecedented warming of relations between the United States and Pakistan. On June 19 this year, Donald Trump hosted Pakistan's army chief, Asim Munir, for lunch in an unprecedented White House meeting. He even told reporters afterwards that he was 'honoured to meet Field Marshal General Asim Munir"! This was the first time in many years that a Pakistani army chief was hosted by a sitting US president at the White House, highlighting Trump's interest in building close ties with Pakistan, which has also taken all possible steps to win over US support. Earlier this week, Pakistan conferred its big military honour, 'Nishan-e-Imtiaz (Military),' upon US Central Command chief General Michael Kurilla. Against this background of the warming of bilateral relations, Donald Trump announced a trade deal with Pakistan. 'We have just concluded a deal with the country of Pakistan, whereby Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive oil reserves,' Trump wrote on social media, adding, 'We are in the process of choosing the oil company that will lead this partnership.' In his characteristic style he said that 'maybe' Islamabad will sell oil to New Delhi 'some day'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is ironic that Trump has said that Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their 'massive oil reserves'. While there are potential hydrocarbon reserves, particularly offshore, the country's current proven reserves are modest. Pakistan relies heavily on oil imports to meet its domestic demand. While President Trump has spoken about 'massive oil reserves' in Pakistan, experts suggest his claims are overstated. Recent seismic surveys and geological studies have no doubt indicated potentially sizable oil and gas reserves, particularly in the Indus Basin and offshore areas. Perhaps, these findings have generated optimism about future exploration and extraction. However, the recent discovery of potential reserves is not equivalent to 'confirmed, massive reserves'. Moreover, despite the potential, there are significant challenges to realising these reserves, including security concerns, high costs of exploration and development, and the need for substantial investment. It has not been specified where the exploration would take place, but most of Pakistan's reserves are believed to be in the southwestern province of Balochistan, where an insurgency is going on. The Baloch separatists say that their province's natural resources are being exploited by the Punjabi-dominated army and central government in Islamabad. Balochistan has long been the centre of violence, mostly blamed on groups including the outlawed Balochistan Liberation Army, or BLA, which the US designated a terrorist organisation in 2019. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Separatists in Balochistan have opposed the extraction of resources by Pakistani and foreign firms and have targeted Pakistani security forces and Chinese nationals working on multi-billion-dollar projects related to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. In response to President Donald Trump's recent announcement of a deal to help Pakistan develop its 'massive oil reserves,' Baloch human rights activists issue a stern warning that the oil and mineral resources 'belong to Balochistan—a historically sovereign nation currently under illegal occupation by Pakistan.' Activists articulate that the Pakistani government's claim over them is 'false' and a 'deliberate attempt to misappropriate Balochistan's wealth for political and financial gain'. A prominent Twitter handle declared, 'Balochistan is not for sale. We will not permit Pakistan, China, or any other foreign power to exploit our land or its resources without the explicit consent of the Baloch people. Our sovereignty is non-negotiable.' Oil reserves are also thought to exist in the southern part of Sindh and the northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces. However, an insurgency is also underway in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, while the Sindhis are also opposed to the exploitation of the resources of their province for the benefit of the Punjabis. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There have been several attacks targeting Chinese nationals in Pakistan. These attacks, often involving bombings or armed assaults, have led to casualties and injuries among Chinese citizens working on various projects, particularly those related to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Militant groups, including the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), have claimed responsibility for some of these attacks. Thus, despite the potential reserves, there are also significant challenges to realising these reserves, including security concerns, high costs of exploration and development, and the need for substantial investment. Trump will exert pressure on US companies to do this work, but working in the oil and gas sector in Pakistan, especially in regions with ongoing conflicts, like Balochistan, will pose significant security risks for US nationals and other foreign workers. US nationals working in the conflict-prone areas like Balochistan will face heightened security risks due to the activities of separatist militant groups. The Pakistanis have said that this deal will enhance the growing cooperation with the US and expand the frontiers of their partnership in days to come. US total goods trade with Pakistan was a measly $7.3 billion in 2024, up from about $6.9 billion in 2023. The trade agreement aims at boosting bilateral trade, expanding market access, attracting investment, and fostering cooperation in areas of mutual interest. The agreement will result in a reduction of reciprocal tariffs, especially on Pakistani exports to the United States. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The question arises: What does the US-Pakistan deal mean for India? By concluding this deal with Pakistan, Trump wants to send a message to India. Surely, an increased closeness between Pakistan and the US will not be in India's interests. The announcement of the deal with Pakistan came hours after Trump announced a 25 per cent tariff on all goods coming from India, plus an additional unspecified penalty for purchases of Russian military equipment and energy. It's not unlikely that Trump's announcement is a pressure tactic to get New Delhi to agree to demands made by the US, which has, in recent days, gotten favourable trade deals with major partners like Japan, the UK, and the European Union. Trump posted on Truth Social, 'Remember, while India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the world, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary trade barriers of any country.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump has spoken multiple times about the tariffs that India imposes and referred to India's membership of the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) grouping, which he described as 'anti-US'. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said that 'President Trump is frustrated with the progress we've made with India' and that 'a 25 per cent tariff will address and remedy the situation in a way that's good for the American people'. Despite initial announcements during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the United States about pursuing a bilateral trade agreement, India and the US have yet to finalise even an interim deal, although five rounds of negotiations have been held between officials from both sides. A sixth round of talks on the trade deal is scheduled to be held towards the end of August when a US delegation is expected to visit India. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who had earlier said that a deal with India might be imminent, has now said that it needed to be understood that Delhi's trade policy has been 'protectionist for a very long time' and has been 'premised on strongly protecting their domestic market'. In a statement, the Indian government said that it has 'taken note' of Trump's statement and is 'studying its implications'. The statement adds: 'India and the US have been engaged in negotiations on concluding a fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement over the last few months. We remain committed to that objective.' India has reasons to be concerned about the 25 per cent tariffs imposed by Trump. The US is India's largest trading partner. The US imports significantly more from India than it exports. In 2024, the total value of goods traded between the two countries reached an estimated $129.2 billion. Imports from India amounted to $87.4 billion, while exports were $41.8 billion, resulting in a trade surplus of $45.7 billion for India. India is one of the significant sources of imports for American consumers and companies. The United States imports a variety of goods from India, including pharmaceuticals, gems and jewellery, chemicals, textiles and apparel, leather goods, metals, machinery and parts, plastics, and agricultural products like spices, tea, and rice. The United States' largest exports to India are crude oil and machinery, including agricultural and construction equipment. According to data reported by Bloomberg, India recently became the top source of smartphone imports after Apple shifted production away from China to avoid high tariffs and geopolitical conflicts. Apple CEO Tim Cook said that he expected 'the majority of iPhones sold in the US will have India as their country of origin' starting this quarter. The trade relationship between the US and India is substantial and growing, with both imports and exports seeing increases in recent years. However, the 25 per cent tariff, along with the potential penalty, could negatively impact India's export prospects. While the 25 per cent tariff rate would be slightly lower than the 26 per cent that Trump threatened on April 2, it is still a sharp increase from 2.4 per cent, which is the average tariff rate applied to Indian imports in recent years. Industries such as pharmaceuticals, gems and jewellery, textiles, and automobiles are expected to be particularly affected. Indian government officials reportedly believe any US tariffs imposed are likely to be temporary, as negotiations to reach a comprehensive trade pact are still ongoing and could be concluded by the fall. However, finalising the deal could still face hurdles, as has been the case till now. Key sticking points remain, particularly about access to India's agriculture and dairy sectors. Indian officials have maintained a firm stance, refusing to open these sectors to US exports. On the other side, the Trump Administration will continue to press India to fully open up its markets to American goods. In conclusion, it may be pertinent to recall that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Trump have expressed a commitment to more than doubling the bilateral trade between the two countries to $500 billion by 2030. However, this ambitious target now faces serious challenges. Trump's recent decision to impose tariffs and penalties on India indicates a significant strain on the bilateral trade relationship. The future of India-US trade relations and the viability of achieving the $500 billion target will largely depend on the outcome of these ongoing trade negotiations, as well as on how both nations navigate the complex interplay of economic and geopolitical interests. Despite widespread optimism about the future of the US-India partnership as Trump's second term started, relations are considerably more fragile than they might appear. The bottom line is that the impact of Trump 2.0 on the US-India relationship remains simply unpredictable. The writer is a retired Indian diplomat and had previously served as Consul General in New York. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
UK ninja sword ban begins; 1,000 weapons surrendered to govt in knife crime crackdown
At least 1,000 weapons have been surrendered under a British government amnesty launched last month to combat knife crime, the interior ministry announced on Friday, as a new ban on ninja swords came into effect. The interior ministry said that knife-related robberies have fallen in seven highest-risk areas.(Representative Image/Unsplash) Overall, knife crime in England and Wales has risen 87% over the past decade, with 54,587 offences recorded last year alone, a 2% rise from 2023 and among the highest rates in Europe. On July 29, 2024, teenager Axel Rudakubana attacked a Taylor Swift-themed children's dance event in the northern English town of Southport, killing three girls and stabbing 10 people in one of Britain's most harrowing knife assaults. Since then, the government has pledged tougher age checks for knife buyers, warned social media firms they could face fines for failing to curb sales and promotion of weapons, and banned zombie-style knives, machetes and ninja swords. Over the month of July this year, the government urged young people to drop off weapons, including bladed ones, at "amnesty" bins or a mobile van - part of efforts to control knife crime, particularly when it involves youths. The government said at least 1,000 weapons have been handed in. A mobile van will be deployed at the Notting Hill Carnival in London later this month in response to past knife-related violence by a small number of attendees. It is unclear whether the "amnesty" bins will stay in place once the month-long campaign comes to an end. The interior ministry did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for comment. Charities and experts call the government's efforts a step forward but say they fail to address the root causes. The interior ministry said that knife-related robberies have fallen in seven highest-risk areas, dropping from 14% of all robberies in the seven highest-risk areas in the year ending June 2024 to 6% in the same period to June 2025. The ban on buying and selling ninja swords is part of the government's pledge to introduce Ronan's Law, named in honour of 16-year-old Ronan Kanda, who was fatally stabbed with a ninja sword in 2022. Campaigner Martin Cosser, whose son was killed in a knife attack two years ago, previously told Reuters that the issue was not just about the weapon itself, but about the "emotional drivers" that lead people to carry knives in the first place.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
A manager's guide to handling crises
No boardroom cliché is more hackneyed than the idea that this is the age of uncertainty. Annual reports and executive speeches repeat that things have never been less predictable, that crises have never hit with such force and frequency. That might surprise people who had to cope with bubonic plague, ice ages, Vikings, world wars, colonisation and the rest. But it is true that managers everywhere have had to navigate unexpected events in recent years, and that crisis management—the subject of the latest episode of our Boss Class podcast—is a big test of a leader's mettle. One way to think about handling a crisis well is that managers have to resist their natural instincts. An obvious temptation, despite all the rhetoric, is to put off preparing for disaster. No company's risk register would be complete without mentioning cyber-attacks. Yet a quarter of large British businesses still lack a formal incident-response plan in the event of one. Table-top scenarios and planning workshops are not really about predicting the future. They are a way to hone thinking, to press organisations to articulate their guiding principles, to create the building-blocks from which an actual crisis response will materialise. Paul Ingram of Columbia Business School tells the story of a former student who drew up multiple crisis scenarios in his role as a logistics commander for the US Navy in the Pacific; they included a tsunami, a nuclear accident and an earthquake. The fact that none of his scenarios envisaged all three occurring at once, as happened in Japan in 2011, did not make the exercise futile. Planning is not about 'developing a complete response", says Mr Ingram, but 'elements that are going to be recombined into a pattern that suits the unexpected". When a crisis does strike, a second urge is to centralise: for bosses to set up command centres, form task-forces and start using words like 'sitrep". But by its nature, a crisis confronts organisations with novel, fast-moving problems. Previous experience counts for less; running things up the chain means delays. In a paper published in 2015, Eric Anicich of the University of Southern California and his co-authors looked at the outcomes of more than 5,000 mountain-climbing expeditions in the Himalayas. Their conclusion was that climbers from more hierarchical cultures achieved more summits but also suffered more fatalities. Their explanation was that hierarchy enabled greater co-ordination in normal circumstances, but also meant people were less likely to voice concerns if they thought things were going wrong. Svein Tore Holsether, the boss of Yara, a Norwegian fertiliser giant, is an advocate for a decentralised approach. The firm handed much more control to local managers to get through the initial phase of the covid-19 pandemic, and found it worked so well that it reorganised along regional lines in May 2020. Mr Holsether argues that this structure served the firm well again in early 2022, when it had to respond to another crisis—Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russia was a huge supplier of the raw materials that go into fertiliser; Ukraine was a big sales market. Local employees scrambled to change procurement deals, plant operations and distribution channels to cope; things did not need to go back to Oslo for approval. When a crisis hits, a third instinct is to focus on getting through the immediate problem. But it pays for bosses to look ahead to a post-crisis future. When the pandemic took the wheels out from under Lime, whose bright-green e-bikes may well block a pavement near you, its boss, Wayne Ting, faced tough choices. Plenty of people advised him, for example, to outsource the manufacturing of Lime's vehicles in order to slash costs. He ignored them, because making the most durable bikes and scooters was critical to the firm's long-term success. Keeping production in-house was the best way to achieve that goal. 'Whatever we cut," he says of that period, 'we don't cut to the core because then we have nothing to come back from." Plan. Decentralise. Prioritise. As advice, this might seem clichéd, too. But it will make a crisis more navigable. Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
