Ragi Millet Idli To Grilled Fish: Parliament Gets New Health Menu For MPs
From ragi millet idli and jowar upma to moong dal chilla and grilled fish with vegetables, Parliament's new 'Health Menu' plans to serve up a plateful of nutrition for lawmakers, officials and visitors to the temple of democracy.
Designed at the instance of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to support wellness without sacrificing flavour, the revamped culinary offerings aim to nourish parliamentarians and officials as they navigate long hours of debate and decision-making during Parliament's sessions.
The Parliament canteen has rolled out this special menu that blends tradition with nutrition to promote healthier lifestyles in the corridors of power.
Along with delicious curries and elaborate 'thalis', also on offer are millet-based meals, fibre-rich salads and protein-packed soups, part of a broader effort to support a healthy diet.
Each dish has been carefully crafted to be low in carbohydrates, sodium, and calories while remaining high in essential nutrients. Besides, the Health Menu has the number of calories mentioned against the names of the dishes.
"Each dish is carefully curated to meet the highest nutritional standards - low in carbohydrates, low in sodium and low in calories, while being high in fibre and rich in protein," the menu stated.
Millets, thrust into the national spotlight during the UN-declared International Year of Millets in 2023, take the centrestage in the menu.
Highlights include 'Ragi Millet Idli' with 'Sambhar' and 'Chutney' (270 kcal), 'Jowar Upma' (206 kcal) and a sugar-free 'Mix Millet Kheer' (161 kcal).
Popular Indian staples like 'Chana Chaat' and 'Moong Dal Chilla' also feature prominently.
For lighter snacks, MPs can choose from a range of colourful salads such as 'Barley' and 'Jowar Salad' (294 kcal) and 'Garden Fresh Salad' (113 kcal), alongside warming bowls of 'Roast Tomato' and 'Basil Shorba' and 'Vegetable Clear Soup'.
Those preferring non-vegetarian meals have not been left out, with lean options like 'Grilled Chicken' with 'Boiled Vegetables' (157 kcal) and 'Grilled Fish' (378 kcal) on offer.
The beverage menu mirrors this health-first approach with green and herbal teas, 'Masala Sattu' and jaggery-flavoured 'Mango Panna' replacing sugar-laden sodas and traditional sweets.
Recognising the urgency of promoting healthier choices, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his recent Mann Ki Baat address, stressed the need for nationwide awareness and collective action to combat obesity -- particularly through reducing edible oil consumption.
The Lok Sabha Speaker has been organising regular health check-up camps for parliamentarians when the House is in session. Several experts have also delivered lectures on having a healthy lifestyle and diet for parliamentarians.
Reinforcing this commitment, the government has launched several initiatives, including the Fit India Movement, National Programme for Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases (NP-NCD), POSHAN Abhiyaan, Eat Right India and Khelo India
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
India claims to be a leader of the Global South – but its strategic silences subvert that assertion
'It's time for us to work together to give the Global South its rightful seat at the table,' Prime Minister Narendra Modi told the Trinidad and Tobago Parliament earlier this month. This rallying cry, echoed by External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's assertion that India had 'walked the talk' on amplifying the voice of the Global South during its G20 presidency in 2023, suggests a deep commitment to justice, equity, and solidarity among formerly colonised nations. Yet, beyond the stage-managed speeches and summit diplomacy lies a starkly contradictory reality. India's foreign policy under the Modi regime has demonstrated a troubling dissonance between word and deed, particularly when it comes to supporting contemporary anti-colonial, anti-imperial struggles – the very foundation upon which Global South solidarity has been built historically. While India continues to posture as a champion of decolonial justice, its abstentions, evasions and silences on key issues indicate a growing complicity with forces driven by the impulses New Delhi claims to be standing against. Shared history The Global South is united not simply by geography but a shared history of political and economic subjugation, a history shaped by centuries of colonisation and extractive global capitalism. The fight of formerly colonised nations to assert their sovereignty and self-determination is not merely a legacy struggle – it is ongoing. The Palestinian resistance, the Iranian challenge to Western hegemony and the Tibetan struggle for cultural and political autonomy are contemporary examples of this unfinished decolonial project. India's recent positions on these issues, however, reveal a pattern of selective advocacy, where solidarity is expressed only when it does not offend powerful global interests. Take Palestine. For decades, India was among the most steadfast supporters of Palestinian statehood, reflecting its own anti-colonial roots. But under the Narendra Modi government, this solidarity has been eroded. India has cultivated an increasingly close strategic relationship with Israel, evident not just in defence and intelligence cooperation, but in diplomatic alignments as well. Despite widespread international condemnation of Israel's military actions in Gaza, including from traditional Western allies such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, India chose to abstain from the latest United Nations General Assembly resolution on June 12 calling for an immediate ceasefire. A nation that once prided itself on principled non-alignment has, in this case, aligned itself with occupation and impunity. Civilisational ties The case of Iran presents a different but related form of hypocrisy. India and Iran share strong civilisational ties and the two nations have often found common ground in opposing Western domination. Yet, India's response to the recent illegal Israeli and American strikes on Iranian nuclear scientists and facilities has been disappointingly muted. When the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation issued a statement condemning these attacks, India conspicuously distanced itself. In doing so, it failed not only a long-time partner, but also the broader principle of sovereignty in the face of imperial aggression. Iran's anti-imperial history – from the 1953 Central Intelligence Agency-backed coup to the 1979 revolution – may be ideologically inconvenient for Western powers, but it is central to any serious conversation about Global South resistance. India's silence here is not neutrality. It is acquiescence. Then there is Tibet, a far more uncomfortable test for India's claims, given the oppressor is China, a fellow member of the Global South. India has long hosted the Tibetan exile community and the Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamshala, but it has increasingly adopted a policy of studied disengagement. Most recently, the Ministry of External Affairs declared it 'does not take any position' on the Dalai Lama's succession, on the grounds that the matter is a purely religious one. But the stakes of the Dalai Lama's succession are political not merely spiritual. Beijing's attempt to impose its own candidate for the next Dalai Lama is part of a broader strategy of cultural colonisation and political control over Tibet. For India to pretend otherwise is to abandon a people whose resistance it once quietly supported. Again, this is not impartiality. It is strategic cowardice. A clear pattern What emerges is a clear pattern: when support for oppressed peoples comes at no geopolitical or economic cost, India is willing to speak. But when taking a stand would require confronting global or regional powers – be it China, the United States, or Israel – the Modi government prefers silence dressed up as non-alignment. This is not the behaviour of a principled leader of the Global South. It is the behaviour of a state guided more by realpolitik and economic self-interest than by any genuine commitment to decolonial solidarity. To be a true voice of the Global South is not merely to invoke its name at summits or in speeches before foreign parliaments. It is to stand up for the people who suffer under the same structures of power that once subjugated India itself. It is to challenge, not appease, the powers that perpetuate occupation, intervention, and cultural erasure. It is to walk the talk – even when the path is uncomfortable. However, India's current foreign policy attempts to have its cake and eat it too. It wants the prestige of leading the Global South without paying the political costs of standing with its oppressed. It wants to appear as a moral power while remaining diplomatically cosy with economic and military hegemons. But in the crucible of global justice, such duplicity does not go unnoticed. Solidarity, after all, is not a slogan – it is a choice. India, tragically, is choosing silence.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
How genocide came to be named and codified
According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian occupied territories Francesca Albanese, 'Israel's genocide on the Palestinians is an escalatory stage of a longstanding settler colonial process of erasure'. Her latest report urges UN member states 'to enforce the prohibition of genocide' in accordance with their obligations under international law. The debate is no longer about whether what Israel is doing in Gaza is genocide. It is about whether the international community, including private citizens, will uphold their moral obligation to oppose the genocide unfolding before them in full social media glare. On naming evil The term 'genocide' belongs to the language of transgression — words that describe the wilful violation of basic moral codes such as, for instance, the universal taboo on killing children. But there are gradations even in the forms of extreme violence that determine whether a given atrocity is to be deemed a war crime, a crime against humanity, or genocide — a category of evil so unspeakable that humanity hadn't thought of a word for it. It was a Jewish lawyer from Poland, Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term in his book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944). As a university student in the 1920s, Lemkin was horrified by the mass killing of Armenians during World War 1. He couldn't believe there was no international law under which the Ottoman leaders could be tried. 'Why was killing a million people a less serious crime than killing a single individual,' he wondered. Lemkin's interest in the crime of mass murder took a different colour after World War 2, during which he lost 49 members of his own family in the Holocaust. He devoted the rest of his life to the mission of getting recognition in international law for what Winston Churchill called 'a crime without a name'. As Lemkin explains in his book, he formed the word from the Greek 'genos', meaning 'race' or 'tribe', and the Latin 'cide', meaning 'killing'. He defined 'genocide' as 'the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group'. Despite serving as advisor to Justice Robert H. Jackson, the lead prosecutor at the International Military Tribunal (IMT) that conducted the Nuremberg trials, he wasn't happy with how it dealt with the Nazi leaders. The IMT prosecuted them for 'war crimes' and 'crimes against peace'. But how should they be prosecuted for crimes against civilians who were their own citizens — German Jews targeted for their ethnicity? British and French prosecutors sought to use Lemkin's concept of genocide, but the Americans steered clear of it. Given their own (then prevalent) Jim Crow laws of racial segregation, they were anxious not to grant international court jurisdiction over how a government treated its own citizens, a sentiment that was shared by the Soviets as well. Lemkin was disappointed as the IMT prosecuted the Nazis politicians only on charges of 'crimes against humanity', a juridical approach that failed to account for the criminal logic of the Holocaust, which picked out specific ethnic and political groups, including Jews, gypsies and communists. As Lemkin put it, 'The Allies decided a case in Nuremberg against a past Hitler — but refused to envisage future Hitlers.' His fears have come true in Gaza, where the Israeli military continues to enjoy impunity for its mass murder of Palestinians even as Western governments seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that these crimes have surpassed the threshold of genocide. Codifying genocide In the years following the Nuremberg trials, Lemkin worked relentlessly to get genocide codified in international law. His efforts bore fruit in 1948 with the United Nations adopting the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Although the Genocide Convention included much of Lemkin's ideas, it did not accept all of them. It had a rather narrow legal definition of genocide, with two main elements. It had a mental element, the 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group', and a physical element, consisting of any of these five acts: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Initially, this definition was criticised on the grounds that 'intent' is difficult to establish since no government publicises its intent to commit genocide. Also, it is tough to attribute genocidal intent to individuals who can claim to be merely carrying out orders in their official capacity. However, subsequent proceedings, including those of the tribunals set up to try the accused in the Rwanda genocide (1994) and the 1995 genocide of Bosnia Muslims in Srebenica have clarified that 'a pattern of purposeful action' leading to the destruction of a significant section of the targeted group would suffice to establish genocidal intent. While the 1948 Genocide Convention defines the crime and obligates the states that are parties to the Convention to prevent and punish it, the 2002 Rome Statute gives the International Criminal Court the jurisdiction to take up and try cases of genocide. The Genocide Convention, however, still does not recognise mass murder of any social or political group — say, communists — as genocide, an aspect considered a major lacuna by genocide experts. The concept of genocide has also not been adequately applied to understand colonial mass murder, slavery, deportation and other atrocities inflicted upon native populations, including aboriginals by erstwhile coloniser nations and empires. Away from the media spotlight, the egregious practice of forcefully transferring children away from their Aboriginal families — now seemingly benevolent in intent but barely distinguishable from genocide in practice — still goes on in Australia, according to a 2025 report by Human Rights Watch. The importance of 'thinking' Mass murder is by no means a modern phenomenon. Even in ancient times, it was not uncommon for the victors in a war to massacre the entire male population of the conquered kingdom or state. Typically, however, genocides occurred against an enemy population, or in the context of a war. The phenomenon of a state conducting mass murder of a certain ethnic or national group among its own citizens is a more recent phenomenon — one that has raised fundamental philosophical questions about human nature and evil. Some of the most profound engagement with these questions came from Hannah Arendt, a German American Jewish historian and philosopher who covered the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a key architect of the Holocaust. In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963), Arendt asks the question: does a person have to be evil in order to do evil? Her answer is 'no'. All that is required for a person to do evil is to suspend thinking. Arendt argued that it is the exercise of the capacity to think that connects one human with others. What gave Nazism its power was its all out assault on thinking, and on the very impulse to reflect. Eichmann's crime, in this sense, was the banality of doing what seemed to be in the best interests of his career — to please his bosses. This is because for him, thinking had been outsourced to the Nazi bureaucracy and leadership. It is this failure to think — achieved on a mass scale through institutionalised assault on intellectual life, on the life of the mind — that is banal. This banality creates the space for evil to assume the garb of the routine, the normal, and the quotidian, all of which are in ample evidence in the routinised daily massacres of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. As the philosopher Judith Butler observed in an essay on the banality of evil, '[Arendt's] indictment of Eichmann reached beyond the man to the historical world in which true thinking was vanishing and, as a result, crimes against humanity became increasingly 'thinkable'. The degradation of thinking worked hand in hand with the systematic destruction of populations.'
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
‘Haven't learned their lesson': MAGA rift deepens as Trump lashes out at ‘past supporters' over Epstein case, calls them ‘weaklings'
A growing split is emerging in the Republican ranks as US President Donald Trump lashes out at some GOP allies, accusing them of succumbing to Democratic 'propaganda' surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. The controversy began after Trump criticised lawmakers who want to release justice department files on Epstein, a pedophile who died by suicide in 2019 and has been at the centre of many conspiracy theories. Trump lashes out at 'weaklings' in his own party In a post on Truth Social, Trump called these critics 'weaklings' and said they had fallen 'hook, line, and sinker' for a Democratic-orchestrated scam. He wrote: 'Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this 'bull***t', hook, line, and sinker.' He added: 'Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work … I don't want their support anymore!' Trump argued that the focus on Epstein distracts from his achievements. 'I have had more success in 6 months than perhaps any President in our Country's history,' he wrote. 'All these people want to talk about… is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.' Later, speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said that Attorney General Pam Bondi could release credible files but criticised 'some stupid and foolish Republicans' for pushing too hard. He said: 'They only want to talk about that 'hoax'. Don't give me their support.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Republicans divide over document release The demand for transparency has gained traction in Congress. House Speaker Mike Johnson, alongside influence from former vice president Mike Pence and other Republicans such as Senators Anna Paulina Luna and Lauren Boebert, have urged the administration to publish the relevant documents. Pence told CBS News: 'The time has come for the administration to release all of the files regarding Jeffrey Epstein's investigation and prosecution. … Anyone who participated or was associated with this despicable man ought to be held up to public scrutiny.' In the House, Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie are pushing a discharge petition to compel a vote on releasing the files. This effort requires 218 signatures and is unlikely to proceed before Congress reconvenes in September. Trump links Epstein probe to broader grievances In a recent interview, Trump equated the Epstein investigation with other probes he views as politically motivated. 'It's all the same scam. They could look at this Jeffrey Epstein hoax also,' he said. He insisted the material only needed to be credible to be released. 'In the case of Epstein, they've already looked at it and they are looking at it, and I think all they have to do is put out anything credible.' Trump aide and Attorney General Pam Bondi had said that there was no 'client list' and also declined to comment on releasing additional files. Trump has urged her to exercise discretion in making any more documents public.
