US President Trump extends China tariff suspension until November
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘BrahMos chalega': Mithun Chakraborty's fiery retort to Pakistan's Bilawal Bhutto's ‘threat of war' amid tensions around Indus Waters Treaty
In a sharp reaction to Pakistan's Bilawal Bhutto Zardari's reported comments on the Indus Waters Treaty, BJP leader and veteran actor Mithun Chakraborty issued a fiery warning. The actor-turned-politician's remarks came after Bhutto reportedly stated, 'If Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announces an attack on the Indus River, he will be attacking our history, culture and civilization… The people of Pakistan have the strength to confront Modi in case of war.' Bhutto also reportedly warned that in the event of another war, Pakistan would 'restore all its six rivers'. Zardari was formerly Pakistan's 37th Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2022 to 2023. Chakraborty responded by saying: 'Agar aisi baatein karte rahenge aur hamari khopdi sanak gayi toh phir ek ke baad ek BrahMos chalega (If you keep talking like this and we lose our minds, then one BrahMos after the other will be launched)… After that, we will open the dam, and a tsunami will occur. I have nothing against the people of Pakistan. I have said all of this to (Bhutto).' He had started his comment in a soft tone: 'I don't want to say anything against the country of Pakistan. People of Pakistan are good, they also don't want war.' #WATCH | Kolkata, WB: On Bilawal Bhutto's reported statement on Indus Waters Treaty, BJP leader Mithun Chakraborty says, '…Agar aisi baatein karte rahenge aur hamari khopdi sanak gayi toh phir ek ke baad ek BrahMos chalega… We have also thought of building a dam where 140… — ANI (@ANI) August 12, 2025 Chakraborty's comments come amid renewed tensions over the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. India had previously suspended the treaty following a terrorist attack in Pahalgam that killed 26 people on April 22. Union Home Minister Amit Shah recently announced that India would not be reactivating the historic agreement, stating that the treaty was for 'peace and progress,' which Pakistan had violated. This is not the first time Chakraborty has been at the centre of controversy for his inflammatory statements. In 2024, he faced a police complaint for a speech where he allegedly said, 'We will chop them (up) and bury them in the ground.' He has also been a vocal critic of the West Bengal government, calling for the imposition of President's Rule in the state following alleged incidents of political violence.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Aadhaar not sole proof of citizenship in voter rolls, must be verified: SC
The Supreme Court today agreed with the Election Commission of India (ECI) that the Aadhaar card cannot be treated as final proof of citizenship and must be independently verified. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made this observation while hearing petitions against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. 'The Election Commission is correct in saying that Aadhaar can't be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship; it has to be verified. See Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act,' Justice Kant told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the petitioners, as reported by Bar and Bench. The judge also said, 'Are petitioners saying that an Aadhaar card is proof of citizenship? They are not saying that it is not a measure… the Aadhaar Act says so.' The court is examining whether the ECI has the legal power to carry out this verification exercise. Justice Kant remarked, 'If they don't have the power, everything ends. But if they have the power, there can't be a problem.' The petitions challenge the ECI's June 24 order to conduct the SIR in Bihar. Petitioners fear mass deletions Speaking for the petitioners, Sibal argued that the ECI's process could lead to large-scale voter exclusions, especially for those unable to submit the required forms. He argued, even voters from the 2003 rolls had to fill fresh forms, and failure to do so would lead to deletion, even without a change in residence, the news report said. Sibal pointed to ECI data showing 72.4 million forms submitted, but about 6.5 million names were excluded without proper checks on deaths or migration. 'They admit in their affidavit that they did not conduct any survey,' he told the court. The Bench asked how the 6.5 million figure was calculated and whether this fear was based on facts or just an assumption. It noted that those who submitted forms were already in the draft rolls. Missing voter data allegations Sibal mentioned that there were 79 million voters in the 2025 list, with 49 million from the 2003 list, and that 2.2 million were recorded as dead. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, also appearing for the petitioners, alleged the ECI had not made public the list of voters removed due to death or change of residence. 'They say they have given some information to booth-level agents, but claim they are not obliged to give it to anyone else,' he told the SC Bench. The court said that if a voter provides an Aadhaar and a ration card, the ECI must verify the details. ECI's defence on SIR The ECI has defended the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), citing its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It said the revision was essential due to urban migration, demographic changes, and outdated rolls that had not been intensively revised for nearly 20 years. The commission maintained that the SIR would ensure only eligible citizens were on the rolls before the Bihar Assembly elections. On July 10, the court had asked the ECI to consider Aadhaar, ration card, and EPIC card for verification. Later, the ECI filed an affidavit stating neither Aadhaar nor a ration card could prove eligibility to vote. The petitioners have called this 'absurd'.
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Why Donald Trump is wrong to take over the DC police
AMERICA'S CAPITAL city was designed as a showcase for its democracy: sweeping boulevards, white-marble palaces of administration, monuments aplenty. This week, however, Washington, DC has become a manifestation of something less inspiring: the grandstanding instincts of the current president. This time, Donald Trump's preoccupation is violent crime. Mr Trump has been banging this drum for decades. 'Roving bands of wild criminals roam our neighbourhoods dispensing their own brand of twisted hatred,' warned Mr Trump nearly 40 years ago. The occasion then was the rape and assault of a white woman in New York's Central Park, for which five black and Hispanic men were later wrongfully convicted. On August 11th Mr Trump all but quoted himself: 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people,' he said from the White House briefing room. Then he deployed the National Guard to Washington; took control of its police force; and promised to 'get rid of the slums' and clear out its homeless population. This is not the president's first use of the armed forces for civilian law enforcement in a city that reviles him and that he reviles right back. Earlier this summer Mr Trump sent National Guard troops to protect federal property during protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles. In 2020 he ordered them to disperse Black Lives Matter demonstrators in Washington. In neither instance did local Democratic leaders ask for his intervention. Now Mr Trump hints that the Washington deployment could be a blueprint for other troublesome (ie, Democratic-run) places. That will be easier said than done, however. The capital has an unusual legal status as a territory of the federal government granted qualified home rule. Elsewhere the president would face more legal impediments. The practical impact of the president's order may be modest. He has authorised the DC National Guard—which is tiny—to act as cops. About 200 troops will support law enforcement. By law his control of the city police can last for only 30 days; after that Congress would need to extend it. It is a far cry from a federal takeover of Washington. Seeking to justify his order, Mr Trump cited several awful attacks against government workers. In early August carjackers beat up and bloodied a former DOGE staffer. In June stray gunfire killed a congressional intern. Last year an official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was shot to death in a carjacking. In 2023 a Senate aide was stabbed and a congressman was robbed at gunpoint. 'It's becoming a situation of complete and total lawlessness,' said Mr Trump, likening the capital to Baghdad and Bogotá. The president is right that violent crime in Washington surged in 2023 and that it numbers among the most dangerous cities in America. He neglected to say that crime there has since tumbled. This year's murder rate is falling towards the pre-pandemic trend. The number of carjackings, which doubled between 2022 and 2023, is declining too, though they are still more frequent than they were before the pandemic. Overall the capital is considerably safer than it was in the 1990s, when it had the highest murder rate in the country, and it is a bit less dangerous than it was a decade ago. Mr Trump's action will irk the 700,000-odd citizens of Washington, whose elected government is being sidelined. And it is hypocritical. Mr Trump and his fellow Republicans in Congress have been impeding the city government, preventing it from spending the taxes it has raised and forcing cuts to services like policing. Republicans have thus exacerbated Washington's crime problem. Mr Trump's focus on the city over more violent ones is not just because he can see it from his bedroom window. It is because the federal government retains more authority over the capital than over states or even other federal territories. The president commands the DC National Guard—in states, governors have that job—and he can take temporary control over the police department. Washington's unique status means these same tactics cannot easily be replicated outside the capital. To 'federalise' the National Guard for arrest purposes elsewhere—to empower troops to act as cops—Mr Trump would have to invoke the Insurrection Act. Only then can the armed forces legally be put to use to quell a domestic uprising. The act was last used in 1992. Invoking it again would be immensely controversial. Mr Trump's approach in Washington, then, is clever when viewed through a lawyer's lens. Which is not to say that his order is justified or good policy. Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
