Latest news with #NAM
Associated Press
6 days ago
- Business
- Associated Press
Bharat Summit brings 450+ delegates from 100 nations to Telangana to rethink global justice; opens with a candlelight vigil condemning the Pahalgam attack
The Bharat Summit in Telangana brought together over 450 delegates from 100 countries to advance global justice. Leaders adopted a 44-point agenda promoting equality, peace, and democracy, emphasizing empathy and collaboration to address global challenges while honoring India's legacy in justice and solidarity. India, May 29, 2025 -- 450+ global delegates, 100 nations, one united call — delivering global justice from Hyderabad to the world In what is probably one of the first of its kind conference, the Govt. of Telangana, India in collaboration with Samruddha Bharat Foundation, an NGO based in New Delhi, India, hosted the first edition of the Bharat Summit- a global conference to mark the 70th anniversary of the historic Bandung Conference that laid the foundation for the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), bringing together over 450 delegates representing progressive parties from 100 countries to 'deliver global justice'. The Summit began with the INC along with participating political parties from over 100 nations joining a candle-light vigil, in solidarity with the victims of the terror attack in Pahalgam, J&K and registering a strong stance against cross border terrorism. The vigil, led by Telangana CM Revant Reddy, was joined by several senior Congress leaders like Salman Khurshid and Gurdeep Singh Sappal. The theme of the Summit, which included incumbent and former ministers from EU, Africa and Asia and the US as well heads of political parties and think tanks, was to rethink and deliver global justice- social, economic, ecological and geo-political. For the first time, international alliances like Progressive Alliance, Progressive International, NAM, SocDem and others shared a stage to address common threats and concerns facing countries globally. Apart from senior ministers of the Telangana Government and several prominent leaders from the Opposition alliance of India including Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, the Summit was attended by former ministers and incumbent members of Parliament from across the world. Anne Linde, Former Foreign Minister of Sweden, Bert Koenders, Former Foreign Minister, Netherlands, Jorge Taiana, Speaker of Mercosur, Former Foreign Minister & Former Defence Minister, Argentina, Monica Fein, President Socialist Party of Argentina, Arena Williams, MP, Labour Party, New Zealand were among some of the speakers and delegates at the Summit. Apart from the fact that the Summit hosted over 450 leaders from social-democratic parties to 'rethink global justice', the Summit's timing was significant since it was organised to mark 70 years of the Bandung Conference. But while the Bandung Conference was attended by 29 parties and the NAM hosted 56 parties, the Bharat Summit expanded its umbrella to bring within its ambit over 100 countries from 5 continents. In a significant milestone, Congress leaders and global delegates collectively adopted the Hyderabad Resolution, a 44-point agenda under the theme 'Delivering Global Justice'. The resolution reaffirms a shared commitment to the values of freedom, equality, justice, and solidarity, uniting social-democratic, socialist, and labour movements from around the world. Key agenda items include reshaping the economic paradigm, advancing environmental justice, striving for gender equality and social inclusion, defending democracy and social justice, working for peace and human security, and reforming global institutions. Underscoring the common concerns of rollback of democratic rights and freedom, of the sustained attack on civil liberties, undermining of institutions, disregarding multilateral agreements, spreading lies and fuel division, the Resolution highlights the role it envisages for the progressives to collectively take on. Senior Congress Leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi delivered a powerful address reflecting on the changing nature of democratic politics around the world. He called for a political shift from fear and hatred to listening, empathy, and love. 'Democratic politics has fundamentally changed. The rules that applied a decade ago don't work anymore,' Gandhi said, pointing to how concentrated capital and media control have reshaped the political landscape. 'This is the new politics—where the opposition is not engaged with but crushed. All our avenues were compromised, including the media. That's when we reached back into history and decided to walk from Kanyakumari to Kashmir—a 4,000-kilometre journey.' Reflecting on his Bharat Jodo Yatra, Gandhi shared two key lessons: 'First, our opponents have a monopoly on anger and fear—we cannot fight them on that ground. But during the yatra, I discovered the transformative power of listening. I spoke less and listened more, and that changed everything.' The second lesson, he said, was about embracing love in politics. 'Until the yatra, I had never used the word 'love' in politics. But once I did, people began to respond. Love and affection can disrupt hate more powerfully than any argument.' Rahul Gandhi concluded by saying, 'Disagreements on policy will always exist. But while their lens is anger, hatred, and fear, our lens must be love, affection, and deep listening. I am confident this summit will help build the ideas we need for a new kind of politics in India and the world.' Agreeing with the vision of the Bharat Summit, Senior German politician Lars Klingbeil of the Social Democratic Party said, 'The topics being discussed at the Bharat Summit are closely related to the issues we are facing in Germany. Our international rules-based order has come under great pressure. There are attempts to disrupt this order and to replace the 'rule of law' with the 'rule of might.' These developments must stop.' Wayne Swan, National President of the Labor Party and former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, said, 'We believe in the power of public policy to change people's lives. In this era of hyper-individualism and the growing influence of oligarchs, it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure economic equality.' He also added that party activism has never been more important, particularly in the face of rising fascism and the concentration of power among oligarchs in countries like the United States. Telangana Chief Minister Shri Revanth Reddy, addressing international delegates, showcased his government's progressive welfare policies. 'We have implemented the largest farmer debt waiver in India—Rs 20,674 crore—and provide over Rs 20,000 crore annually in agricultural subsidies,' he said. Highlighting women's empowerment, he added, 'Our women entrepreneurs are competing with Adani and Ambani.' Deputy Chief Minister Shri Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka noted that the presence of over 450 international delegates had provided the right platform to exchange ideas on global justice and peace, in alignment with Rahul Gandhi's vision of NYAY. The Bharat Summit is poised to be a defining moment for the global progressive movement, committed to a democratic, liberal, and just world order, while honouring India's legacy in global peace and justice. About the company: About Government of Telangana The Government of Telangana is committed to progressive governance, social justice, and inclusive development. As host of the inaugural Bharat Summit 2025, Telangana showcased its leadership in fostering global dialogue on justice, equality, and peace. With landmark initiatives such as the largest farmer debt waiver and robust support for women entrepreneurs, Telangana continues to drive transformative welfare policies that empower communities and promote sustainable growth. The state stands as a vibrant hub for innovation, collaboration, and a people-first approach to governance, shaping India's future while contributing to a just and democratic world order. Contact Info: Name: Masuma Siddique Email: Send Email Organization: Stellaratti Brand Consultants Address: 10, 29th Rd, Bandra West, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400050 Website: Release ID: 89160047 In case of encountering any inaccuracies, problems, or queries arising from the content shared in this press release that necessitate action, or if you require assistance with a press release takedown, we urge you to notify us at [email protected] (it is important to note that this email is the authorized channel for such matters, sending multiple emails to multiple addresses does not necessarily help expedite your request). Our responsive team will be readily available to promptly address your concerns within 8 hours, resolving any identified issues diligently or guiding you through the necessary steps for removal. The provision of accurate and dependable information is our primary focus.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
India-Pakistan Hostilities Complicate India's Diplomatic Options
The dust is settling, slowly, from India and Pakistan's military collision as a delicate U.S.-brokered ceasefire took hold May 10. The origins of the conflict are clear enough: India sought to severely punish Pakistan for alleged links to a barbarous Islamist terror attack in late April in Kashmir, a region that both countries claim and have previously fought wars over. But the details of the fighting thereafter remain hazy at best, obscured by the two governments' reluctance to admit losses, rampant misinformation on social media, and hypernationalist 'news' shows fabricating everything from military coups to cross-border invasions on live TV. Even without total clarity, what is known about the eruption of hostilities between the two nuclear powers was enough to unnerve world leaders: massive aerial dogfights, relentless shelling, and the deepest strikes into each other's states in the last half-century. While confusion reigned on the battlefield, the fighting simultaneously brought into much sharper focus broader trends in the geostrategic environment, especially the dramatic changes reshaping India's foreign policy options. India has historically held to a strategy of 'nonalignment,' avoiding alliances with great powers to preserve its diplomatic independence. Yet this proud tradition—initially designed to protect against the pitfalls of taking sides in the Cold War—has grown increasingly difficult to sustain in a world increasingly divided again, now by U.S.-China rivalry. The United States faces a delicate balancing act: how to deepen cooperation with India as their strategic interests converge, while respecting India's deeply rooted commitment to diplomatic autonomy over formal alliances. For a country that had just achieved hard-fought independence from Britain, a receding global superpower, asserting uncompromising independence from—and skepticism toward—the intrigues of the new superpowers was as much an innate reflex of the new republic as a calculated policy decision. The approach allowed India to take firm stances on international affairs in seemingly contrary directions. In 1956, for example, India both condemned the Anglo-French-Israeli incursion into Egypt during the Suez Crisis and criticized Soviet intervention in Hungary's anti-Soviet uprising. Building on Gandhi's moral vision and international fame, India bundled idealistic commitments like support for decolonization, peaceful resolution to disputes, and 'non-interference' in internal affairs with its nonalignment brand to garner moral authority in a world riven by conflict and international meddling. India's approach helped it to punch above its weight globally as a leader among developing nations, instrumental in founding the broader Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), a forum which today includes 120 countries. India's nonalignment brand was so successful, in fact, that some India watchers express exasperation that India can't shake its association with it, despite shifts in its approach since the policy's heyday in the '50s and '60s. Pressure from India's wars with Pakistan in 1965 and 1971 forced the country to tilt toward the Soviet Union in the later Cold War, despite retaining nonalignment rhetoric. The Soviet Union's collapse naturally also forced a redefinition of 'nonalignment'—resisting taking a side is hard when one side has disappeared. India shifted to stressing 'strategic autonomy' instead, suggesting that it could still avoid joining military alliances or picking permanent friends, while being more practical in how it dealt with powerful countries. And in the early- to mid-2000s, 'multialignment' became the new buzzword, emphasizing India's ability to juggle active relationships with (sometimes conflicting) groups and powers—an approach that probably wouldn't fit with nonalignment's original meaning. U.S. policymakers used to managing groups of friends or foes often become frustrated with what they perceive as stubborn Indian duplicity. To American sensibilities, it's scandalous that India can simultaneously play a key role in the Quad—a grouping of the U.S., Australia, India, and Japan designed to counter Chinese power in the Indo-Pacific—as well as in BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, two bodies that include China and Russia as founding members and aim to act as counterweights to Western-led institutions. At its worst, American policymakers complain, India's nonalignment tradition is simply an excuse to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, with whomever it wants—without regard to any other relationships. Still, there is a certain respect for such dogged insistence on one's own interests and independence that India's approach can command even among those who have felt crossed by it. Henry Kissinger once lambasted Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for her perceived intransigence with Richard Nixon. Decades later, however, he praised her statesmanship and expressed admiration for India's unyielding strategic mindset that once drove him up the wall. Whether one admires or resents India's nonalignment tradition, America's ability to effectively engage with it hinges on both nations' capacity to adapt nimbly to the world's changes. Nothing clarifies geopolitics quite like military confrontation, which cuts through diplomatic pretenses to show who really stands where, and why. India's clash with Pakistan is no different. Most obviously, the conflict showcased how much new Cold War-like dynamics have seeped into the ever-persistent Indo-Pakistani rivalry. A barrage of coverage about the conflict as a litmus test of Chinese military technologies' prospects against Western equivalents unmistakably echoes Cold War technological rivalries, with one New York Times headline declaring that 'India vs. Pakistan Is Also U.S. vs. China When It Comes to Arms Sales' as each South Asian country has rejigged its weapons suppliers in recent years. Much has been made of U.S. officials' confirmation that a Chinese-made J-10 jet from Pakistan shot down at least one of India's French-made Rafale fighter jets. No less notable is India's touting of its successful use of kamikaze drones manufactured in India using technology from Israel, one of America's closest allies. That level of collaboration is particularly remarkable given that India's nonaligned posture historically strongly favored Palestine over Israel. Diplomatically, too, the onset of the crisis further solidified years of growing U.S.-India and China-Pakistan ties, respectively. Many officials in Delhi took the robust support expressed by both President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance in the wake of the Pahalgam terrorist attack as approval for a strong retaliation against Pakistan, a country whose strategic relevance to the United States has diminished still further since the United States' withdrawal from neighboring Afghanistan in 2021. China has meanwhile spearheaded support for Pakistan in the face of India's response, confirming that the country is an 'ironclad friend and all-weather strategic cooperative partner,' not to mention a leading recipient of Chinese investment and advanced weaponry. India finds itself on the other side of this conflict needing to recalibrate its fiercely independent diplomatic tradition. The world—and especially its region—is rapidly realigning around Sino-American rivalry. Meanwhile, India continues its ascent as a global power in its own right, evolving into the kind of major player its nonalignment principles initially cautioned against allying with. Recent conflict dynamics are a case in point: India's conventional military and economic dominance over its fragile archenemy appears decisive, with India dwarfing Pakistan's GDP by an order of magnitude. However, its neighbor to the north maintains an economy now five times the size of India's, unambiguously supports its archnemesis in conflict, and still harbors territorial disputes with India of its own. These realities—and emerging allegations that Beijing provided direct intelligence and air defense support to Islamabad in advance of the clash—would seem to demand still closer collaboration with the United States, fast. Given India's diplomatic tradition, these facts won't translate into the typical alliance model that the United States is accustomed to and longs to see from the only country with the long-term potential to counterbalance China in the Indo-Pacific. It's not just that India's prior history of colonialism grates against such a commitment. Equally, India's forward-looking ambition to become an independent pole of an emerging multipolar world makes it allergic to becoming one among the U.S.'s many allies, expecting instead a unique working relationship of equals, commensurate with its status as the world's largest nation and one of its oldest civilizations. If India's legacy of nonalignment inhibits its consistency in growing the U.S.-India relationship, America's lack of recent experience partnering with a peer power complicates its ability to engage well with India. The best chance of balancing the Indo-Pacific in the 21st century may ride on how well, or poorly, each nation addresses these tendencies. The violence we witnessed in early May should drive home the need for India and the U.S. to collaborate more closely. But the aftermath of the conflict has demonstrated how a lack of attentiveness threatens to derail that imperative: The Quad missed its opportunity to express support to India on a comparable level to China's support for Pakistan; India neglected to even mention the United States' role in brokering a ceasefire in its initial public statement, underscoring the country's insistence on strategic independence; and President Trump's repeated descriptions of the negotiation process have been deeply offensive to India's nonalignment tradition. Much as the recent violence has highlighted the need for greater U.S.-India cooperation, there remains much space for improvement.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Climate
- Yahoo
Let the rains begin! Measurable rain across the Twin Tiers through Memorial Day
ELMIRA, N.Y. (WETM) – There was a chance that we would have a dry Memorial Day, but I kept the possibility there for good reason. Our chances of a completely dry holiday are not looking as good as they did a few days ago. A slow moving upper level low keeps us rainy and will carry with it lots of cloud cover – which in turn leads to well-below average temperatures for the next seven days because of the lack of sunlight. The rain will start to wane early next week, and it looks like we will get a break in the cooler temperatures too. Clouds move in overnight, and then around sunrise, the Southern Tier will start to get the heavy rain. The NAM, GFS, and Euro models all bring in several chances for multiple rounds of heavier rain showers Wednesday and tomorrow night. One unfortunate change to the forecast is the rain is scheduled for Memorial Day. I tried to keep it out, but that is not going to be the case. There is at least a small chance of rain on the unofficial start of Summer, and those chances stay around through Tuesday as we are on our way back to work and school. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- Climate
- Yahoo
Soaking storm system to impact Minnesota early this week
The active weather pattern now gripping the country will bring steady rain to Minnesota Monday and Tuesday. "Showers arrive Monday and continue Tuesday with the highest amounts favoring southern Minnesota. A few thunderstorms are possible, but no severe weather is expected," the National Weather Service says. According to the NWS, the best chance for soaking rain will be in western and southern Minnesota, near the Interstate 90 corridor. The chances lower north of Interstate 94. Rain should begin Monday morning in southwestern Minnesota, leaving the Twin Cities mostly dry until later in the day. However, the rain will ramp up in coverage throughout the day Monday, and likely continue raining until Tuesday night. Sign up for our BREAKING WEATHER newsletters The NBM model (National Blend of Models) does a nice job showing rain potential, with the highest amounts — 1.5 to 2 inches — in far southern Minnesota. However, we can't throw the other models out just yet. The European model goes big, with totals of 2-4+ inches over a very large area, including the Twin Cities, Mankato and Rochester. The NAM model is showing signs of agreeing with the Euro. On the flip side, the Canadian model leaves the Twin Cities mostly dry.
Indian Express
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
India's amnesia on Bandung conference is a symptom of what ails our foreign policy
Anniversaries serve as powerful moments of reflection in the realm of international diplomacy. Yet, the 70th anniversary of the Bandung Conference – the watershed moment in 1955 when 29 newly-independent Asian and African nations gathered to chart a course distinct from Cold War polarities – passed without ceremony or commemoration in India. We can take this lapse in memory as one of the many signs of the transformation of Indian foreign Bandung Conference was much more than a diplomatic gathering. Emerging from the shadows of colonialism and devastating wars, it was the collective expression of the aspiration of young nations to define their own destinies unencumbered by the push and pull of superpower politics. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) sprang out of this radical context, and India assumed its moral leadership under Jawaharlal Nehru's visionary stewardship. The fading of such a significant anniversary points towards the paradoxical and lamentable spread of what seems to be a superficial and insecure diplomatic identity of India. In the decades after Independence, India's foreign policy was based on certain fundamental principles: Anti-colonialism, sovereignty and equality of nations, peaceful coexistence and multilateral engagement. These weren't then, and aren't now, abstract ideas. For a young nation seeking to secure its identity and autonomy in a world order structured by the Cold War, these were non-negotiable political and policy instruments. India's stance earned it respect that may have been disproportionate to its material heft, but it was certainly a recognition of our country's moral authority at international fora. India's leadership within NAM communicated to its peers as well as to the world powers several important lessons. Politically, it demonstrated to the post-colonial countries that pluralism and progress can and should go hand in hand. An inclusive deliberative democracy is essential for nation-building. Economically, India pursued an industrial policy aimed at self-reliance, offering a development model that was an alternative to both Western capitalism and Soviet communism. From such a position, India earned goodwill that extended beyond its physical boundaries. Intellectually, Indian universities were seen as alternative centres of learning for students from Africa, West Asia and South Asia. We accumulated 'soft power' and used it strategically even before it became popular as a concept. When India spoke in international fora, it did not speak only for itself. It represented a broad constituency of developing countries. Today, Indian foreign policy has gone far away from these foundational principles. I would try to make a few points that can help understand the extent and impact of this shift. It is counterintuitive to waste the international goodwill by actively attempting to distance India from historical positions that once defined its identity. Nothing explains the deep reluctance to acknowledge the sophisticated diplomatic positioning of the NAM era except that India's approach to international relations seems to have shifted from institution-based multilateralism to personality-driven engagement. While it is true that personal diplomacy has always been an element of statecraft, foreign policy and relations now increasingly revolve around leader-to-leader dynamics. Disproportionate staging of personality by the present regime seems to be at the cost of institutional memory and professional diplomatic expertise. There is rarely any evidence of long-term and India-first thinking. Rather than being based on coherent principles, our foreign policy decisions appear to be reactive and opportunity-driven. While such an approach may yield short-term advantages or concessions, it risks undermining long-term objectives. Coherence and reliability are essential qualities for a rising power that seeks to inspire trust among international partners. Our long-standing partners increasingly perceive India not as the stable, principled actor that once anchored regional stability, but as an unpredictable force. But what is most worrying is the subordination of foreign policy to domestic political imperatives. Traditionally, nations believe that international engagement requires continuity. Therefore, they attempt to build domestic consensus around foreign policy priorities, overcoming electoral cycles and political rivalries. This principle seems to have been completely abandoned in India today. Foreign policy decisions are increasingly framed not through the lens of national interest but through narratives designed to strengthen the domestic political position of the ruling party. Diplomatic events are choreographed as spectacles for domestic consumption. The recent conflict with Pakistan presents a revealing case of these dynamics. It is a matter of deep concern when the announcement of ceasefire talks comes not from New Delhi but from Washington. The equivocation in holding Pakistan responsible for cross-border terrorism by the US, which has long been the bedrock of India's diplomatic posture, weakens India's ability to dictate terms in its immediate neighbourhood. Add to this, US President Donald Trump's statement that the issue is viewed simultaneously as a security issue and a business opportunity, where India could be persuaded by the US to its bidding through an offer of a 'lot of trade'. Presenting diplomatic intervention as a matter of transaction has diminished the distinctiveness of India's position. From being a nation that once articulated a broad vision of international justice, we are maintaining international relations primarily through commercial considerations. Or, at least, this is what we have allowed our partners to suggest and get away with. This further underlines the reduced capacity of our country to manoeuvre and shape global discourse. Large parts of our so-called national media have become a diplomatic liability rather than an asset. The ascendance of 'strongman' politics, characterised by personalisation of power, confrontational rhetoric, and performative displays of national strength, is no longer a domestic concern but also a real and imminent risk in international relations. Once such messaging takes root, deviating from it is difficult, as the treatment of our foreign secretary by hateful trolls has regrettably shown. India's historic foreign policy was fundamentally pragmatic. Even if aspects of it may seem idealistic today, the policy recognised that for a developing nation with limited material capabilities, principled and reliable consistency offered strategic advantages. Non-alignment was never about disengagement but about preserving decision-making autonomy in a polarised world. I am not advocating for an uncritical embrace of historical positions. The world has, of course, changed dramatically since Bandung. India's approach must, as a consequence, evolve accordingly. Our country's regional and global aspirations remain substantial and legitimate. However, realising these ambitions requires a rejuvenation of the diplomatic strengths that once defined its international identity. The lack of enthusiasm for Bandung's anniversary is not just a failure to observe an important historical moment. It represents a missed opportunity that might have been used to express a new vision for India's engagement in the international arena, building upon the principles of that era. India can and must reclaim the distinctive voice that once commanded attention in global forums, not through volume or verbosity, but through the moral clarity and consistency of its positions. The writer is Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, Rashtriya Janata Dal
