
Veteran journalist K Vikram Rao no more; Rajnath, Yogi, others express grief
His mortal remains will be kept at the UP Press Club for the people to pay their last respect to the departed soul. His last rites will be performed at Bhainsakund cremation ground here at 10 am on Tuesday.
Defence minister and Lucknow MP Rajnath Singh in a post on X wrote: 'Saddened by the demise of Dr. K. Vikram Rao, a veteran journalist who served as the National President of the Indian Federation of Working Journalists (IFWJ). He was a prolific writer and an insightful commentator who made noteworthy contribution to Indian journalism. My condolences to his bereaved family. Om Shanti!'.
Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath, his Uttarakhand counterpart Pushkar Singh Dhami, UP Vidhan Sabha speaker Satish Mahana, former U.P. governor Ram Naik, U.P. deputy CM KP Maurya, U.P. minister Swatantra Dev Singh, state BJP chief Bhupendra Chaudhary, Samajwadi Party leaders Shivpal Yadav and Arvind Singh 'Gope' have also express their grief over Rao's demise.
Apart from his long career as a journalist, columnist K Vikram Rao had been a prominent voice for press freedom, better wages and working conditions for journalists.
UP Working Journalist Union president Haseeb Siddiqui, UP Press Club president Ravindra Kumar Singh, UP Working Journalist Union's Lucknow division president Shiv Sharan Singh, UP Accredited Journalist Committee secretary Bharat Singh and several others also express their grief over Rao's demise and paid him tribute.
Senior journalist and former secretary of IFWJ Ram Dutt Tripathi said K Vikram Rao was a journalist of exceptional organisational and writing skills and his passing is a significant loss to the journalistic community.
Rao had been the bureau chief of an English daily in nine different states and also worked in the South Asia bureau of an American media house. He authored several books.
He also served as a member of Indian Press Council for six year. Rao was sent to five different jails of the country where he spent a total 13 months there during the Emergency. Rao is survived by his wife Sudha Rao, two sons—Sudev Rao and Vishwa Dev Rao—and a daughter Vinita Rao.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hans India
3 minutes ago
- Hans India
Trump tariffs a 'slow burn' for Wall Street, likely to hit US economy hard
New Delhi: The reciprocal tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump are a "slow burn" for Wall Street, as they rarely trigger an immediate crisis - but over time, they warp markets, squeeze consumers, and invite retaliation, according to a new report. Investors and policymakers alike would do well to remember that just because the storm isn't here yet doesn't mean it isn't coming, says Zoya Najeeb in an opinion piece in One World Outlook. "While Wall Street pours champagne over record-high stock indexes, the US economy is quietly swallowing a bitter pill: tariffs. The same markets that panicked in April are now shrugging at the reality of a new trade regime - one that could be far costlier than investors seem willing to admit," the article highlighted. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt recently cheered $29 billion in tariff revenue collected in July, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick predicting $50 billion a month soon. "But tariffs are taxes by another name, and this is a tax hike on Americans at a time when the bottom half of the income ladder is already straining," according to the write-up. Caterpillar Inc., an American construction, mining and other engineering equipment manufacturer, estimates the new tariffs will cost it up to $1.5 billion this year - half a billion in the current quarter alone. "Yet its stock barely flinched, thanks to investor faith in unrelated booms in AI data centres and infrastructure spending. It's a neat metaphor for today's K-shaped economy: Wall Street soars while Main Street watches grocery bills spike and more households turn to 'buy now, pay later' plans just to make ends meet," the report highlighted. The AI gold rush may be propping up the stock indexes, but strip out tech and the S&P 500 is flat. "Even Warren Buffett - hardly a doomsayer - has been quietly selling for 11 straight quarters, amassing a $344 billion war chest to deploy when prices fall. He's betting on a downturn, even if the rest of the market isn't," said the report. In the meantime, former US House Speaker Paul Ryan has warned that "choppy waters are ahead because I think they're (tariffs) going to have some legal challenges."


Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- Indian Express
When US promised not to let Pakistan down: ‘If there is another attack, we will react violently'
Post Operation Sindoor, Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir was hosted by the United States and, if news reports are correct, he is again headed to America for a second visit in three months. The US has always maintained friendly relations with Pakistan, even during conflicts with India, and this was amply demonstrated before and after the 1971 war. There were active attempts by the US at the highest level of President Richard Nixon and his advisor on national security affairs, Henry Kissinger, to channel military aid to Pakistan through Jordan and Iran. In this week's column, we look at how, post the 1971 war, the US reassured Pakistan that it would stand by it if India initiated any military action against what was then West Pakistan, and also considered a Pakistani offer of military bases on Pakistani soil for the US. The memorandum of a conversation in the US State Department Archives for March 29, 1972, records a meeting where Nixon, Kissinger, and Aziz Ahmed, secretary-general of Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, and many others participated. Kissinger referred to how 'we went through tragic days together in December (1971)' and said that Pakistan enjoyed the US' goodwill. He further said it was important for Pakistan to get through the next six months, and felt that it was inconceivable that there would be an Indian attack before the forthcoming summit meeting in Moscow, or even for some time after that. 'Dr. Kissinger continued that the President makes the policy, and 'we won't let Pakistan down. If there is another attack, we will react violently'. He noted that we have told the Indian Ambassador that we cannot cut off military aid to Pakistan unless India is prepared to forego Soviet military aid. We have said that we will not restore the $87 million of aid that had been suspended,' the memorandum records Kissinger as saying. He went on to say that the US did not believe that one country should have the right to impose its will on its neighbours. 'The President has very warm feelings for Pakistan,' he added. Aziz Ahmed expressed concerns that India had moved three Army divisions to the West Pakistani border. 'General Manekshaw has gone to Moscow, presumably to seek equipment to replace India's war losses. India is going ahead—with whatever plans it has-either exerting pressure on Pakistan for the negotiations or for a more serious attack. There has been some thought that the Indians would seize Azad Kashmir. The Chinese, however, felt that an attack on Azad Kashmir would be unlikely until after President Nixon's visit to Moscow,' he said. On March 17, 1971, US Secretary of State William P Rogers wrote a memorandum to President Nixon titled 'President Bhutto's Proposals for Closer Military Collaboration'. This memo discussed specific proposals, which involved: The memo further quotes the Pakistani Defence Secretary Ghias Uddin Ahmed as suggesting that Pakistani military facilities could be made available to the US if that country wished. 'He said this would include facilities on land or at ports. With regard to the latter, he mentioned locations along the Arabian Sea coast, including (from west to east) Jiwani, Gwadar, Sonmiani Bay, Karachi, and the area south and east of Karachi. He thought the US might be interested in developing a port such as at Gwadar, which would be important for the economic development of that region of Pakistan,' the memo notes. The reason for this approach, Ghias said, was that Pakistan now faced an entirely new situation after the recent war, when it had suffered defeat by India with Soviet collaboration. The Pakistani Government was increasingly concerned about the intentions of both the Soviets and the Indians. 'Pakistan needed to bolster up its defenses in order to provide some credible deterrent. Ghias acknowledged that Pakistan was now only a small fraction compared to India in size and strength. He went on [to say] that Pakistan could not contemplate attacking India, but it needed some assurance about its defense. In this regard, he thought Pakistan would be looking to closer defense collaboration with Iran and Turkey, and seeking to improve its relations with Afghanistan,' the memo says. Ghias also referred to close Soviet collaboration with Indians both at the port of Visakhapatnam and on the Andaman Islands, which he interpreted as providing important naval facilities for the USSR. A month earlier, on February 3, 1972, President Nixon had a meeting with the US Ambassador to India, Kenneth Keating, and Henry Kissinger. Referring to India and Pakistan, President Nixon said, 'Neither country should be a country. They are too poor, too bloodthirsty'. Ambassador Keating responded, 'Yes, there should be a regional solution, like the EEC (European Economic Community)'. President Nixon was of the opinion that India shouldn't waste its resources fighting Pakistan and that China was India's bigger problem. 'Let me give you my view. I'll tell you what I'll do. I am afraid they'll leak it, so of course we can't announce it. Let me tell you where we went wrong. I was too soft on Mrs. Gandhi. When she was here. I led her on. If we were going to restrain them at all, we should have been tougher. I am not mad at Mrs. Gandhi. She has not had a better friend in this office than me. I have taken the line that India should have to compete with the PRC. I have always defended India,' he said. Nixon went on to say that India has a friend in the White House. 'They should know this. We are going to China for reasons of our own. We took action on India because our law requires it. In reality, we are India's best friend. Right, Henry?,' he said. Henry Kissinger gave a guarded reply, reflecting his pro-Pakistan stance. 'That is true. But we must move at a measured pace,' he said.


Economic Times
3 minutes ago
- Economic Times
No president's gift collection looks like Trump's: Here's what makes it so different
Reuters A gift given by Apple CEO Tim Cook to U.S. President Donald Trump Donald Trump, throughout his presidency, has been the recipient of an extraordinary array of gifts—from luxury jets worth hundreds of millions to golden golf clubs and bespoke plaques. These presents reflect not only diplomatic gestures but also the spectacle around Trump's unique place on the global stage. The latest dazzling addition to the collection was a commemorative plaque gifted by Apple CEO Tim Cook in August 2025. This plaque features a circular piece of Corning Gorilla Glass mounted on a 24-karat gold base crafted by a former US Marine working at Apple. It was presented alongside the announcement of Apple's $600 billion investment in American manufacturing, symbolizing an intertwining of corporate influence, patriotism, and the Trump-era flair for ostentation. Yet, this shining gift is but one of many that have sparked media attention and public debate over the years. Earlier in 2025, Trump accepted perhaps the most expensive gift ever bestowed upon a US president—a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar. Valued at approximately $400 million, this 'palace in the sky' was intended as a replacement for Air Force One during his remaining time in office, later to be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation. This gift sums up to be more in cost and spectacle than nearly all presidential gifts in recent history. According to White House spokesman Davis Ingle, these lavish gifts often symbolize historic investments and diplomatic goodwill inspired by Trump's 'bold vision' for American industry and international relations, reported Axios. Other eye-catching presents include: A full set of 1984 Olympic medals recognizing Trump's role as Chair of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games. Gold-plated luxury golf clubs gifted by former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, intended to cement a "special relationship," although these clubs are notably missing from the National Archives. Diplomatic gifts during his tenure range from a ruby and emerald pendant necklace from Saudi King Salman, valued at $6,400, to a bronze Arabian horse sculpture from Bahrain's Crown Prince, as well as intricately carved stone artifacts and personalized books of Psalms from religious officials during high-profile visits. A nearly $5,000 Mont Blanc writing set from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and gemstone portraits from world leaders like Vietnam's Prime Minister contributed further to the eclectic trove. The White House in the Trump era is witnessing a marked shift from the traditionally understated to the extravagant and personalized, reflecting Trump's personality and the global political dynamics of his time. However, the acceptance of such lavish gifts has also drawn legal and ethical scrutiny. A 2023 report by the then Democrat-led House Committee on Oversight and Accountability revealed that the Trump administration failed to report at least 117 foreign gifts during his first term. Some of these valued up to $24,000, including Saudi daggers, swords, and luxury winter coats, breaching disclosure rules governing presidential gifts. The missing gold golf clubs from Japan symbolize concerns about formal record-keeping and these gifts have been accepted, there are provisions that, in cases, prohibits the US president from accepting gifts from foreign governments. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the US Constitution prohibits any federal official, including the President, from accepting personal gifts from foreign governments or foreign officials without the consent of Congress. The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (1966) governs acceptance of gifts from foreign governments. Gifts from foreign officials above a minimal value threshold (set by the General Services Administration) must be declared and typically become property of the United States, housed in the National Archives or presidential libraries unless purchased by the President.