Latest news with #Indian-ruled
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Indian border villagers want recompense for damages in Pakistan clashes
By Adnan Abidi and Fayaz Bukhari JAMMU/SRINAGAR (Reuters) - Nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan are maintaining a ceasefire that ended four days of intense military clashes, but many in the Indian-ruled part of disputed Kashmir are demanding compensation for damages from cross-border firing. Hundreds of villagers evacuated their homes as the rivals targeted each other's military installations with missiles and drones, killing about 70 civilians, after New Delhi struck what it called terrorist camps across the border. Many returned to find their homes destroyed or roofless. "Where will we go with our kids? We don't have anywhere to live and anything to eat," said Roshan Lal, from the village of Kot Maira in Akhnoor in India's district of Jammu, about 7 km (4 miles) from the de facto border. The shelling had left his home uninhabitable, the 47-year-old added. "I want to ask Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government for justice," he said. "We need compensation for the damages." In the nearby village of Pahari Wala, farmer Karan Singh said he buried seven cattle in his field, while his family are living in makeshift shelters. "I left the village when the conflict began," he said. "We don't have a place to stay." In Salamabad, a border village in the Kashmir Valley, shelling injured Badrudin Naik and his six-year-old son, but both returned home after five days. "I am happy to return," he said. "But my house is damaged. My two uncles' houses were completely destroyed. We want a permanent peace as it is we on the border who suffer more." Hindu-majority India and Muslim Pakistan, which both rule part of Kashmir, but claim it in full, have fought two of their three wars over the region and engaged in several smaller clashes over the decades. Teams have fanned out in the region to assess damage to homes, shops and other facilities, said a senior local government official, who sought anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to media. "Today our teams have gone to the areas which were affected," he said, adding, "The government will decide the amount of compensation." On Monday, Modi warned Pakistan that New Delhi would target "terrorist hideouts" across the border again if there were new attacks on India. Pakistan denies Indian accusations of supporting militants who attack India. Standing in front of the cracked wall of his Pahari Wala home, Joginder Lal said Modi should ignore U.S. President Donald Trump, who announced the ceasefire, saying Washington had played a role in halting the fighting. "We want to take full revenge against Pakistan," the 60-year-old added.
Straits Times
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
Indian border villagers want recompense for damages in Pakistan clashes
Many villagers who evacuated due to military clashes returned to find their homes destroyed or roofless. PHOTO: REUTERS JAMMU/SRINAGAR - Nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan are maintaining a ceasefire that ended four days of intense military clashes, but many in the Indian-ruled part of disputed Kashmir are demanding compensation for damages from cross-border firing. Hundreds of villagers evacuated their homes as the rivals targeted each other's military installations with missiles and drones, killing about 70 civilians, after New Delhi struck what it called terrorist camps across the border. Many returned to find their homes destroyed or roofless. 'Where will we go with our kids? We don't have anywhere to live and anything to eat,' said Mr Roshan Lal, from the village of Kot Maira in Akhnoor in India's district of Jammu, about 7km from the de facto border. The shelling had left his home uninhabitable, the 47-year-old added. 'I want to ask Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government for justice,' he said. 'We need compensation for the damages.' In the nearby village of Pahari Wala, farmer Karan Singh said he buried seven cattle in his field, while his family are living in makeshift shelters. 'I left the village when the conflict began,' he said. 'We don't have a place to stay.' In Salamabad, a border village in the Kashmir Valley, shelling injured Mr Badrudin Naik and his six-year-old son, but both returned home after five days. 'I am happy to return,' he said. 'But my house is damaged. My two uncles' houses were completely destroyed. We want a permanent peace as it is we on the border who suffer more.' Hindu-majority India and Muslim Pakistan, which both rule part of Kashmir but claim it in full, have fought two of their three wars over the region and engaged in several smaller clashes over the decades. Teams have fanned out in the region to assess damage to homes, shops and other facilities, said a senior local government official, who sought anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to media. 'Today, our teams have gone to the areas which were affected,' he said, adding, 'The government will decide the amount of compensation.' On May 12 , Mr Modi warned Pakistan that New Delhi would target 'terrorist hideouts' across the border again if there were new attacks on India. Pakistan denies Indian accusations of supporting militants who attack India. Standing in front of the cracked wall of his Pahari Wala home, Mr Joginder Lal said Mr Modi should ignore US President Donald Trump, who announced the ceasefire, saying Washington had played a role in halting the fighting. 'We want to take full revenge against Pakistan,' the 60-year-old added. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
New Statesman
08-05-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
Will India or Pakistan resort to the nuclear option?
Photo by Basit Zargar/ZUMA Press Wire After the April 22 terrorist attack that killed at least 26 people and wounded dozens more – all of them civilians – in Pahalgam, a scenic hill station in the Indian-ruled portion of Kashmir, the question was when, not whether, India would strike back at Pakistan, which it immediately blamed for the carnage. Aside from the widespread outrage the killings ignited in India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has assiduously cultivated his tough-guy persona and vowed to chase the perpetrators 'to the ends of the earth,' had to retaliate. Yet Modi isn't captive to Indian public opinion. Instead, he orchestrates and manipulates it masterfully, and won't permit popular passions to dictate his decisions without regard to consequences. India waited until 7 May before using missiles and air strikes to target several military sites located in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and inside Pakistan. Though Pakistan's military said that the strikes killed at least 31 and injured at least 46 more, India has described its retaliation as 'focused, measured and non-escalatory,' adding that it had 'demonstrated considerable restraint' – a choice of words that signaled the desire to prevent the crisis from careening out of control. As for Pakistan, it has vowed to hit back; national pride, together with the need to show India that it can't act with impunity, ensure that it will make good on the threat. Indeed, it claimed that it had already done so by shooting down five Indian jets and at least one drone during the strike. Still, Pakistan, like India, has compelling reasons to avoid an all-out war, which would be hugely destructive. Paradoxically, the fact that this crisis involves two nuclear-armed states offers grounds for optimism. Though nuclear weapons rightly evoke horror, military strategists have generally assumed that they will prevent both nuclear and 'conventional' war between states that possess them. The prospect of immediate mass carnage will, it is hoped, deter leaders from firing their nuclear weapons at states that can retaliate in kind. An extension of this claim has it that even if nuclear-armed states do embark on a conventional war, they will strive to keep it limited so as to avert nuclear escalation. This two-step logic, though hardly the equivalent of an ironclad law, has held up for a generation and extends to other adversaries who have nuclear weapons, such as India and China, China and the United States, and the United States and Russia. That said, in South Asia the reliability of the 'balance of terror' claim is currently being tested to a degree we've not witnessed since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. What's more, the fact that there hasn't been an unbridled war between nuclear-armed states doesn't guarantee that the fear of catastrophe will prevent the leaders of India and Pakistan from turning to their nuclear weapons – or threatening to. Nor can we be certain that the current crisis won't beget a runaway conventional war. On balance, however, it's reasonable to expect that the spectre of nuclear war will check recklessness on both sides. The great powers will, albeit in different ways, also help contain this crisis. China, seen by India as its biggest threat, has had a decades-long alignment with Pakistan and bills itself as the latter's 'all-weather friend' – not out of benevolence but because Pakistan sits on India's western flank, which adds to India's vulnerability given that China lies across its northern border. Yet the Chinese leadership, preoccupied with an economic slowdown and a trade war with the US, isn't likely to compound its problems by risking a conflict with India simply to demonstrate its loyalty to Pakistan. But it won't have to: Beijing's verbal support for Pakistan will suffice to get India's attention. China has reaffirmed its support for Pakistan, but it has urged both sides to act cautiously and has also called for an impartial inquiry into the Pahalgam attack. In sharp contrast to the Cold War era, when Pakistan was the US's military ally, Washington has drawn steadily closer to India – part of its larger effort to checkmate China. But though Donald Trump is prone to bouts of braggadocio, he hasn't generally been a hothead when it comes to war and isn't likely to offer India the kind of backing that would lead Modi to believe he has a free hand. Trump has nothing to gain by encouraging India to expand the war in response to a Pakistani retaliatory strike. That could draw China into the fray and confront the White House with a terrible choice: look weak or get sucked into a war no one wants. Accordingly, though Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the Pahalgam attack, he has urged India and Pakistan to 'de-escalate tensions' and 're-establish direct communications'. Russia – an India ally since the mid-1950s – has adopted a similar stance. History also gives grounds for optimism. Yes, Kashmir and its contested border has been the venue for intermittent cross-border terrorist attacks or ones traced to groups operating in Indian-controlled Kashmir. These incidents have produced skirmishes along the so-called Line of Control (LoC), as the ceasefire line from the 1947-1948 India-Pakistan war over Kashmir has been called since a landmark 1972 agreement. In February 2019, India went much further after a suicide bombing in Pulwama, Kashmir, by the Islamist militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) killed 40 members of India's Central Reserve Police Force. India has long linked the JeM to Pakistan, and Modi responded to the suicide bombing by ordering airstrikes on the group's strongholds near Balakot, in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Pakistan responded in kind. Dogfights between the two countries' fighter jets ensued and an Indian pilot was captured after his jet was downed. But the fear that a wider war, one that could turn nuclear, and calls for calm from Washington and Beijing, helped de-escalate the tensions. Ultimately, both antagonists claimed victory while avoiding a larger armed confrontation. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe None of this means that the current crisis isn't worrisome. After the 22 April attack in Kashmir, India beefed up its military presence near the LoC, Pakistan responded with parallel moves, and their armies have since traded fire. According to India, shelling from Pakistan has killed at least 15 Indians and wounded 43 more. Both countries have closed the sole land crossing connecting them (at Attari-Wagah), each has closed its airspace to the other's aircraft, and their navies have conducted drills in the Arabian Sea barely 100 miles apart. More alarmingly, Modi suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, which was brokered by the World Bank in September 1960 and has regulated the sharing of the waters of the Indus river network between India and Pakistan. The waters of the Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi, the Indus's eastern tributaries, were allotted to India, those of the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab to Pakistan. The treaty requires disputes to be resolved through negotiation and prohibits unilateral steps to disrupt the water-sharing arrangement. Pakistan was therefore alarmed by Modi's precipitous suspension of the treaty: a downstream state, it relies on water from the Indus for crop irrigation and power generation. Recent video footage shows low water levels in the Chenab ahead of its crossing into Pakistan, the apparent result of India's closure of the sluice gates of two upstream dams, supposedly for desilting operations. Modi won't take the extreme step of completely blocking the water flows that nourish 80 per cent of Pakistan's irrigated agricultural land, but Pakistan has warned that a stoppage will be treated as 'an act of war' and met with 'full force across the complete spectrum of national power'. That sounds ominous, especially because Pakistan's nuclear doctrine (unlike India's) doesn't include a no-first-use pledge. Pakistan has, however, set a high bar for the circumstances under which it would consider the use of nuclear weapons. It might do so if India shuts off water from the Indus, occupies large chunks of Pakistan's territory or destroys a substantial part of its armed forces. India won't cross the first of these red lines and lacks the military muscle required to cross the other two. Still, as Barbara Tuchman's classic work on World War I, The Guns of August, demonstrates so vividly, during crises, hubris, bravado, miscalculation, fear, even sheer stupidity, can together lead to outcomes that no leader sought – or even imagined. Though this could happen to India and Pakistan, there's one big difference between 1914 and today: back then there were no nuclear weapons to concentrate leaders' minds. [See also: India must step back from the brink] Related
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Unpacking the State Department Overhaul
From the The Morning Dispatch on The Dispatch Happy Friday! In case you missed it, we're offering $50 off Dispatch Premium memberships with the promo code SCOTUSBLOG. Join today! Pakistani and Indian troops exchanged fire along the line of control separating the two countries overnight, three days after separatist gunmen killed 26 people in Indian-ruled Kashmir. The cross-border fire, which Indian military officials accused Pakistan of initiating, came as both countries moved to revoke visas for one another's citizens, ordering them to leave in the coming days. Also this week, India closed a primary border crossing and terminated a 65-year-old water-sharing treaty with Pakistan. A separatist group known as the Resistance Front took credit for the Tuesday terrorist attack, which India alleged contained 'Pakistani elements.' New Delhi has long accused Pakistan of arming militants to carry out terrorist attacks—charges Islamabad denies. President Donald Trump said Thursday that he was 'not happy' with Russia's overnight missile and drone barrage on Kyiv, which killed at least 12 people and injured more than 90 others to become the most fatal airstrike on Ukraine's capital since July 2024. 'Vladimir, STOP!' Trump wrote on Truth Social, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. '5000 soldiers a week are dying. Lets [sic] get the Peace Deal DONE!' A day earlier, Trump criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his refusal to recognize Russia's occupation and annexation of the Crimean peninsula, saying his insistence 'will do nothing but prolong the 'killing field.'' A Russian military court on Thursday sentenced Ivan Popov—a former Russian commander who criticized senior military leaders after he was removed from his post—to five years in a penal colony after finding him guilty of large-scale fraud. After his dismissal in July 2023, Popov sent a voice memo to his troops claiming he had been pushed out for highlighting the military's poor reconnaissance capabilities and the high number of casualties—remarks that were later made public. Speaking to Russian state media, Popov's lawyer indicated plans to appeal the ruling, which supporters denounced as politically motivated. U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration must issue a 'good faith request' to the El Salvadoran government for the return of a 20-year-old Venezuelan man, identified only under the pseudonym 'Cristian,' who the White House deported to the El Salvador's megaprison last month over his alleged involvement in the Tren de Aragua gang. Cristian initially entered the U.S. illegally as an unaccompanied minor, and, in 2019, was one of four plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the government seeking temporary protection from deportation. A settlement reached in 2024 established that all four could not be removed until their asylum applications were processed. The White House argued that Cristian's alleged gang connection breached the settlement, but Gallagher ruled that the settlement's text made no such stipulation and that all four were protected from deportation. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled on Thursday that Trump's executive order on securing election integrity cannot require voters to present documentary proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. 'Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the states—not the president—with the authority to regulate federal elections,' Kollar-Kotelly wrote in a 120-page opinion, adding that 'Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the president purports to order,' a reference to the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which recently passed the House but reportedly faces an uphill battle in the Senate. Other provisions in Trump's March 25 executive order on elections, including increasing oversight into the security of electronic voting tabulators and prosecution of election law violations, are allowed to remain in effect. In his first speech from the State Department's Washington, D.C., headquarters in January, Secretary of State Marco Rubio praised the distinguished work of its employees. 'This is an extraordinary honor and a privilege to serve in this role,' he said. 'To oversee the greatest, the most effective, the most talented, the most experienced diplomatic corps in the history of the world.' But just three months later, he's striking an altogether different tone. 'We will drain the bloated, bureaucratic swamp, empowering the Department from the ground up,' Rubio wrote on State's official Substack on Tuesday, announcing plans to overhaul the agency. He outlined a significant consolidation of several departments and bureaus, singling out offices—including the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration—that he accused of '[pushing] through their own agenda.' 'The American people deserve a State Department willing and able to advance their safety, security, and prosperity around the world, one respectful of their tax dollars and the sacred trust of government service,' Rubio concluded. Reorganizing the State Department is not an unusual step for a new secretary of state to take—most previous secretaries have sought to put their stamp, and the president's, on their department. But Rubio's move may be part of the battle taking place behind the scenes of the administration in dozens of different areas: the clash between the cost-cutting ambitions of the Department of Government Efficiency and career politicians like Rubio who generally want to reshape, not just radically reduce, the size and scope of the federal government. Rubio's announcement was only the first part of the plan, and weeks or months will pass before the full details emerge. But the main thrust of the initiative, as shown in the announcement statement and an organizational chart posted to the State Department's official website, is clear: a leaner, meaner, and markedly less 'woke' agency. There are two main structural components of Rubio's plan. Firstly, the secretary is looking to take a side in a longstanding State Department balancing act between regional and 'functional' bureaus. Regional bureaus are exactly what they sound like, focusing on geographical areas—take the Bureau of African Affairs and the Bureau of Near East Affairs, for example. Functional bureaus focus on specific policy areas, like the Bureau of Global Health Diplomacy and Security. Rubio aims to concentrate more policymaking power in the heads of regional bureaus, which 'will now have the tools necessary to advance America's interests abroad because region-specific functions will be streamlined to increase functionality.' In non-bureaucratic language, that means that different bureaus will, at least in theory, be less likely to step on each other's toes. For example, the secretary announced that all non-security foreign assistance, such as food aid and democracy promotion, will be 'consolidated' under regional bureaus, rather than functional ones. For many foreign policy experts, efforts to streamline some of the State Department's functions are a welcome change. 'State has always had the geographic bureaus as its center of gravity,' Kori Schake, the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and a former official in the State Department, National Security Council, and Department of Defense, told TMD. 'The functional bureaus often don't think regionally enough,' she added. But others argue that Rubio could be too optimistic about the ability of regional bureaus to quickly adapt to their new role. 'They primarily focus on the business of the embassies,' said Frederick Barton, a lecturer at Princeton's School of Public and International Affairs and the first assistant secretary of state for conflict and stabilization operations under President Barack Obama (a position which is slated to be eliminated). Dealing with emergent situations like ethnic conflict or corruption, which are often handled by functional bureaus, might be difficult for diplomats used to working closely with foreign governments to handle. 'Those are awkward issues to raise in a country, and so striking that balance has always been sought by a secretary of state,' Barton told TMD. But Rubio appears convinced that paring down the department is the best strategy. The Bureaus of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, the Office of Global Women's Issues, and the Office of Global Criminal Justice will all be eliminated. And offices dedicated to arms control, energy, and human trafficking will be merged with existing bureaus. It's clear, however, that the move isn't solely about cutting down on bureaucratic turf wars. This is where the second goal of the plan, eliminating entrenched progressivism, comes in. Many of the offices that were eliminated or downgraded in status were those overseen by the under secretary for civilian security, human rights, and democracy. This 'expansive domain,' Rubio said, 'provided a fertile environment for activists to redefine 'human rights' and 'democracy.'' The secretary claimed that the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, for example, had pursued 'vendettas' against ''anti-woke'' politicians in Hungary, Brazil, and Poland. Meanwhile, he accused the Bureau of Population, Human Rights, and Migration of funnelling 'millions of taxpayer dollars' to groups that 'facilitated mass migration around the world.' Democratic members of Congress, meanwhile, characterized the reforms as another example of executive overreach. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the ranking Democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, condemned the 'potentially sweeping changes' and called for Rubio to testify immediately before Congress. 'Secretary Rubio's proposed reorganization of the State Department, developed with zero consultation with Congress, raises significant concerns about the future of American diplomacy,' Meeks said in a Tuesday statement, arguing that the State Department was abandoning the defense of human rights and democracy and 'eviscerating American soft power.' Meeks may be right that Congress will eventually have to be consulted on the moves. According to some former State officials, the cuts risk eliminating positions and departments that are mandated by Congress. In order to get rid of these programs, Rubio may have to seek congressional approval, although there are no indications as of yet that he intends to do so. Earlier this year, Rubio oversaw the effective dismantling of the United States Agency for Aid and International Development, which was codified by Congress in 1998. Schake, however, noted that it was 'fair' for a secretary of state to attempt to ensure that the federal department's operations reflect a president's agenda. There is sometimes 'a belief at State that they are the guardians of American foreign policy,' she told TMD. 'We would never tolerate that [view] from the Pentagon.' And a pared-down version of proposals to reform the department appears to have won out. Last week, the New York Times reported on leaked internal memos from the State Department, which outlined plans to potentially cut the agency's budget by nearly half, with a particular target on funds earmarked for humanitarian assistance. Another draft executive order, also reported on by the Times, envisioned shutting down almost all of the State Department's operations in Africa. The flurry of conflicting proposals may represent fluid and shifting debates within the State Department and the White House, driven in large part by the Department of Government Efficiency's drive to drastically reduce the size of the federal workforce. Rubio's plan would close or consolidate more than 100 of the State Department's roughly 700 offices and bureaus and cut about 700 positions of a total departmental workforce of nearly 80,000. It's not nearly as drastic as early leaks, although embassy closures and further firings are not off the table as the reorganization proceeds. Rubio, who has sought to defend his department from the more extreme reforms of Elon Musk, DOGE's leader, appears to have won at least a temporary reprieve. But as the secretary of state attempts to leave his mark on his department while also managing brewing and existing crises in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Asia, he will need to lean on the institutional knowledge of existing staffers. Working with, rather than against, the State Department will be how Rubio ensures that his reforms are effective and lasting, analysts noted. Too often, 'they [administration officials] act like the government is working against them, instead of using people who actually know the system' and genuinely 'want positive change,' Schake said. 'I've seen people waste all of their energy on reorganizations,' Barton cautioned. 'It totally destabilizes institutions, and then you can't get anything done.' Rubio, like much of the rest of the Trump administration, is betting that his reorganization will revitalize, rather than hamstring, the State Department. He wrote Tuesday that the American people deserve a State Department 'prepared to meet the immense challenges of the 21st Century.' We will see if he can deliver one. Michael Warren It was a long and winding road after losing a primary bid for a U.S. Senate seat from Minnesota in 2012, but Pete Hegseth has (for now at least) leapfrogged back into politics after being denied all those years ago. He's not alone. Hegseth is only one member of the second Trump administration to have been plucked from the pantheon of electoral duds and given a second lease on political life. From the Cabinet all the way to high-profile White House aides, there are failed candidates for major office who might have otherwise toiled for years in obscurity or, even worse, local politics if not for Trump's magnanimity. Contrary to the president's boasted affection for winners, it's loyalty to Trump, sometimes even in the face of defeat, that remains the most valuable characteristic for a Republican looking to get ahead these days. Policy April 24, 2025 Nick Catoggio How Trump's Ukraine peace plan resembles his trade war. Politics April 25, 2025 Kevin D. Williamson This moment is what all that money is for. Politics April 25, 2025 Matthew J. Franck If nominated, I will consent to be elected, but don't expect me to do much else. Politics April 25, 2025 Charles Hilu To reach its spending cut requirements, the GOP must target a popular social program. Fact Check April 24, 2025 Peter Gattuso The drug is approved only for treating parasitic diseases. Podcast April 25, 2025 Jonah Goldberg, Steve Hayes, Sarah Isgur, and David French 'A lot of people in politics don't believe in anything.' Podcast April 24, 2025 Sarah Isgur and David French The Dispatch is well-positioned to become the definitive source for authoritative reporting and analysis of the Supreme Court. Yesterday, as the world observed Holocaust Remembrance Day, the Times of Israel's Zev Stub interviewed 99-year-old Michael Smuss, the last known living fighter from the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. 'On the first day of the uprising, the Jewish resistance caught the Germans completely off guard. 'We had some Polish Jews who had previously fought in the army against Germany, and they thought of everything,' Smuss said. 'They were shooting from the balconies with the Italian Berettas, protected by helmets and beds they had set up as shields. When the Germans spread out over the ghetto, they were sitting ducks. Their leaders had no idea what to do. It was a perfect ambush,'' Stub wrote. 'Smuss continues to speak to groups about the horrors he saw during the Holocaust and to serve as an inspiration for others. 'I've dedicated my life to helping to make sure this never happens again,' he said. 'I've gone to Poland with students many times, and I continue to speak about it.' … 'During the Shoah, we didn't have an army of our own. Today, we have a country with God watching over us and an air force protecting us. I'm very grateful for that.'' For Public Books, Harry Stecopoulos profiled America's literary Mecca: Iowa City, Iowa. 'Iowa City is the place where contemporary English literature matters more than anywhere else on earth. The home of arguably the world's most famous MFA program, Iowa City has authors' plaques embedded in the sidewalk (yes, our streets are paved in literary gold), over 100 literary readings per year, and roughly 1,000 writers—young and old, town and gown—in a community of 75,000. No surprise, then, that in 2008 Iowa City was named a UNESCO City of Literature,' he wrote. 'If we want to keep these communities dynamic, we should work hard to keep them weird. Places like Iowa City often have scandalous reputations, particularly when embedded in red states. Yet that reputation sometimes stems not from bacchanalian excess, but rather from a refusal to accept the status quo. Ensuring that our college towns remain places of real not rote learning, of innovative education not AI simulation, means encouraging their residents, within and without the university, to forge ahead, push the limit, break through.' New York Times: [Former New York GOP Rep.] George Santos, Facing a Possible 87 Months in Prison, Is Out of Jokes 'Right now, my expectation is I'm going to prison for 87 months,' he said flatly when reached by phone on Wednesday. 'I'm totally resigned.' Gone was the pugnacious rhetoric and quick wit that became part of his mystique as he lied his way to Congress, his deceits leading to criminal fraud and a guilty plea. Instead, Mr. Santos was disconsolate and bitter. 'I came to this world alone. I will deal with it alone, and I will go out alone,' he said. ABC News: DOJ Accidentally Files Document Outlining Flaws With Trump Administration's Plan To Kill NYC Congestion Pricing Lawyers with the Department of Justice accidentally filed a document overnight that outlined a series of legal flaws with the Trump administration's plan to kill New York City's congestion pricing tolls. In an 11-page letter to the Department of Transportation, lawyers with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York wrote that Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy's attempt to terminate congestion pricing faces 'considerable litigation risk' and is 'unlikely' to be accepted by the court. NBC News: 'Trump 2028' Apparel on Sale at the Trump Organization's Online Store Comedian Nathan Fielder's latest project, HBO's The Rehearsal, debuted its second season this week. The show's premise? Stage meticulously planned 'rehearsal' scenarios of real-life events, and have real people act them out as practice for the real thing. Do you think the United States needs more or less presence overseas?
Straits Times
24-04-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Pakistan closes air space for Indian airlines, warns against water treaty violation as ties plummet
Like India, Pakistan claims both the Indian- and Pakistani-ruled parts of Kashmir. PHOTO: REUTERS ISLAMABAD/SRINAGAR, India - Pakistan closed its airspace for Indian airlines and rejected New Delhi's suspension of a water sharing treaty on April 24 in retaliation for neighbouring India's response to a deadly militant attack in the Indian-ruled part of Kashmir. The tit-for-tat announcements took relations between the nuclear-armed neighbours, who have fought three wars, to the lowest level in years. The latest diplomatic crisis was triggered by the killing of 26 men at a popular tourist destination in Indian Kashmir on April 22, in the worst attack on civilians in India since the 2008 Mumbai shootings. New Delhi said there were cross-border elements to the attack and downgraded ties with Pakistan on April 23, suspending a 1960 treaty on sharing waters of the Indus River and closing the only land crossing between the neighbours. Indian police published notices naming three militant suspects and saying two were Pakistanis, but New Delhi has not offered any proof of the linkages or shared any more details. On April 24, Pakistan said it was closing its air space to Indian-owned or operated airlines, suspending all trade including through third countries and halting special South Asian visas issued to Indian nationals. Islamabad will also exercise the right to hold all bilateral accords with India, including the 1972 Simla Agreement, in abeyance until New Delhi desists from 'fomenting terrorism inside Pakistan', Pakistan's Prime Minister's office said in a statement. The Simla Agreement was signed after the third war between the two countries and lays down principles meant to govern bilateral relations, including respect for a ceasefire line in Kashmir. There was no immediate response from New Delhi to Pakistan's announcement. Pakistan's dollar-denominated government bonds dropped more than 4 cents on April 24 as the tensions escalated. Muslim-majority Kashmir has been at the heart of the animosity between India and Pakistan, with both claiming it in full and ruling it in part. It has been the cause of two of their three wars and also witnessed a bloody insurgency against Indian rule. Islamabad also said it 'vehemently rejects' India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and said that any attempt to stop or divert water belonging to Pakistan would be considered an 'act of war and responded with full force across the complete spectrum of national power'. The water treaty, mediated by the World Bank, split the Indus River and its tributaries between the neighbours and regulated the sharing of water. It had so far withstood even wars between the neighbours. Pakistan is heavily dependent on water flowing downstream from this river system from India for its hydropower and irrigation needs. Suspending the treaty would allow India to deny Pakistan its share of the waters. Modi pledges to punish attackers Pakistan's response came hours after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed to pursue, track and punish the militants who separated the men among the tourists in Kashmir's Pahalgam area and shot them dead. It also came after the Indian foreign ministry announced the suspension of all visa services to Pakistanis and revoked visas that have already been issued. Ahead of his public speech at an event in the eastern state of Bihar, Mr Modi folded his hands in prayer in remembrance of the men killed in Kashmir, exhorting thousands gathered at the venue to do the same. 'We will pursue them to the ends of the earth,' Mr Modi said, without referring to the attackers' identities or naming Pakistan. 'They have made the mistake of attacking the soul of India. I want to say clearly, that those who have planned and carried out this attack will be punished beyond their imagination,' Mr Modi said to cheers from the crowd. Mr Modi has called an all-party meeting with opposition parties later on April 24 to brief them on the government's response to the attack. In New Delhi, dozens of protesters gathered outside the Pakistani embassy in the diplomatic enclave, shouting slogans and pushing against police barricades. A film that starred Pakistani actor Fawad Khan in the lead with Bollywood actor Vaani Kapoor will now not be released in India, local media reported, citing federal information ministry sources. Diplomatic relations between the two countries were weak even before the latest measures were announced, as Pakistan had expelled India's envoy and not posted its own ambassador in New Delhi after India revoked the semi-autonomous status of Kashmir in 2019. April 22's attack is seen as a setback to what Mr Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party have projected as a major achievement in revoking the special status Jammu and Kashmir state enjoyed and bringing peace and development to the long-troubled Muslim-majority region. India has often accused Islamic Pakistan of involvement in the insurgency in Kashmir, but Islamabad says it only offers diplomatic and moral support to a demand for self-determination. Tens of thousands of people have been killed in Kashmir since the uprising began in 1989, but it has tapered off in recent years and tourism has surged in the region. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
