Latest news with #SushantSareen
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
02-07-2025
- Automotive
- Business Standard
'Single most stupid rule': Delhi's fuel ban on old vehicles faces flak
Effective July 1, Delhi has implemented a complete halt on refuelling End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs), barring fuel stations from serving diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years. The measure aims to curb vehicular pollution and phase out older, high-emission vehicles from city roads. The decision triggered widespread discontent on social media. Citizens questioned the logic of age-based bans despite valid Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificates. Enforcement underway; 80 vehicles seized on Day 1 On the first day of enforcement, citywide checks led to the seizure of 80 vehicles — including 67 two-wheelers and 12 cars — for violating the new regulation, according to news agency PTI. Teams from the Transport Department, Delhi Police, Traffic Police, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi joined the drive that began at 6 am. The move has left many social media users shocked and perplexed. Some questioned the relevance of continuing to mandate Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificates if vehicles were to be banned solely based on age. Strategic affairs analyst Sushant Sareen criticised the policy's logic in a post on X, stating, "Single most stupid rule. Scrap a polluting vehicle even if it's 1 year old; allow a non-polluting vehicle even if it's 20 years old. Enforce pollution norms strictly. But scraping vehicles just on age of vehicle is a brainless thing to do. Since it's NGC-dictated, no one wants to challenge this foolishness." Policy slammed for hurting middle-class vehicle owners Entrepreneur Arun Prabhudesai also criticised the ban's lack of support measures for car owners: "Out of these 62 lakh car owners, most would have spent their entire life savings to buy their dream car, taken it on EMI, spent years paying it off and then one day, it's suddenly banned. For those who've maintained their vehicle well, this policy shouldn't apply. There's a reason why PUC (Pollution Under Control) certificates exist." So, Delhi has banned fuel stations from refuelling 15-year-old petrol and 10-year-old diesel vehicles starting today. Great for headlines, but what about those who can't afford a new car or EV? Poor scrappage support, no exchange offers, no EV infrastructure! Just a sudden ban.… — Arun Prabhudesai (@8ap) July 1, 2025 Prabhudesai said the policy looked good on paper but failed to consider ground realities such as the high cost of electric vehicles (EVs), limited exchange schemes, and poor charging infrastructure. A Delhi resident posted that he is being forced to sell his Range Rover SUV at a throwaway price due to the new rule. He also shared a photograph of his Range Rover -- an SUV currently in its eighth year. My car is in its 8th year — a diesel vehicle, meticulously maintained, just 74,000 km on the odo. It spent two years parked during Covid and easily has over 2 lakh km of life left. But thanks to the 10-year diesel ban in NCR, I'm now forced to sell it — and that too to buyers… — Ritesh G (@Ritesh_Gandotra) July 1, 2025 Another user remarked that India was attempting to impose Nordic-style regulations while lacking basic urban infrastructure. 'We don't even have footpaths,' the post read, comparing the policy to practices in Sweden and Norway. Why the rule is being enforced The BJP-led Delhi government's action follows directives from the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) aimed at tackling emissions from older vehicles. It builds on previous orders from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) banning aged diesel and petrol vehicles from plying on roads. The Delhi government has now extended this to fuel stations, preventing refuelling as a means to ensure stricter compliance.
Time of India
02-07-2025
- Automotive
- Time of India
'No decent footpath, but rules like Sweden': Users slam Delhi's ban on fuel for old vehicles
Starting July 1, Delhi has enforced a fuel ban on older vehicles as part of its pollution control drive. Petrol vehicles over 15 years old and diesel vehicles over 10 years are no longer allowed to refuel at any pump in the capital. The move is aimed at removing End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs) from the roads and is backed by surveillance and enforcement measures. Violators face fines of Rs 10,000 for four-wheelers and Rs 5,000 for two-wheelers. In addition, the vehicles can be impounded or scrapped immediately, and offenders must also pay towing charges. Rule sparks debate over fairness and enforcement This new rule is part of Delhi's ongoing effort to reduce air pollution and promote greener urban mobility. However, it has sparked criticism from vehicle owners and citizens online. Many argue that the rule penalises vehicles solely based on age, without considering their actual pollution levels. The debate has brought into question the relevance of the Pollution under Control ( PUC ) certificate system and raised concerns about the financial burden on families dependent on older vehicles. — sushantsareen (@sushantsareen) by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Fast ausverkauft! 60% Rabatt auf die top Damensandalen 2025! Wolkenstock Undo Public voices concern on social media Several social media users have called the rule 'senseless' and questioned its logic. A user wrote, "I completely agree on it. If PUC is there, whats the point of bringing such senseless 1510 Year rule? That means they don't trust their PUC system. Then simply discontinue PUC. I wonder who brought this idea. Vehicles not creating pollution under PUC should be allowed to run. I support the idea of Public finning the govt department on bringing such senseless ideas." Another user described the situation of losing their vehicle overnight: "As per Delhi govt orders, police today seized overage bikes and handed them over to registered scrappers, who will scrap them and pay the scrap value. And just like that, the bike is gone. It could have been the family's only vehicle, the daily commute to work, essential for a job that required personal conveyance, or even the child's ride to school. But now it's gone, and the owner is forced to urgently arrange funds, buy a new bike, pay tax on it to the very system that took away the first one, or simply cope. Third-world country, third-world infrastructure, first-world emission norms, seventh-world enforcement, and eleventh-world knee-jerk reactions." Live Events Critics question logic of rule based on age Strategic affairs analyst Sushant Sareen strongly criticised the rule, saying, "Single most stupid rule. Scrap a polluting vehicle even if it's 1 year old; allow a non-polluting vehicle even if it's 20 years old. Enforce pollution norms strictly. But scraping vehicles just on age of vehicle is a brainless thing to do. Since it's NGC-dictated, no one wants to challenge this foolishness." Political analyst Yashwant Deshmukh echoed similar frustration. "I was forced to sell my perfectly running Fortuner, which did not even run 1 lakh km in 10 long years. I was so damn frustrated. Taka set bhaji, taka set khaja... This is the dumbest rule possible." Many say their vehicles are roadworthy despite age Several users claimed that their old vehicles were still efficient and compliant with emission norms. One user said, "Absolutely right sir. My 13 year old Skoda Rapid is fit as per the emission norms, gives 28 kmpl mileage. How do I throw it away?" Others pointed out the mismatch between India's infrastructure and global policy inspiration. "Not a decent footpath in the whole country, but will have the rules of Sweden and Norway," said a user. Another added, "All rules are for the public while no control on the government officials, bureaucracy or convenience of the common man. New rules get formed every day to squeeze the public alone." Enforcement to continue despite criticism Despite criticism, the authorities continue to implement the order across Delhi. Vehicles found violating the rule will be seized, and scrapping will be carried out through authorised recyclers. The Delhi government has not responded to the public's criticism so far.
Time of India
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
'Three wars, no clear endgame': Sareen explains messy geopolitical situation amid US-Iran escalation
Speaking on US President Donald Trump's statements, Foreign Affairs Expert Sushant Sareen slammed Donald Trump for not sticking to his statements. He said that 'Donald Trump says many things, and you don't know what he will stick to and won't.' He said, "...How seriously does one take Donald Trump?... Donald Trump says many things, and you don't know what he will stick to and won't... Numerous statements are also coming from the Iranian side, accompanied by many rhetorical flourishes... Do the Iranians want a never-ending war with a country like the United States? Does the United States want a prolonged conflict? It has already engaged in two or three wars without a clear endgame. It's a very messy situation. Although statements will be amplified, I don't believe statements necessarily indicate the trajectory of future events..." Show more Show less
&w=3840&q=100)
India.com
05-06-2025
- Business
- India.com
How Does Pakistan Keep Getting Loans? Unpacking The Dirty Secrets Behind The Global Funding That Shields A Failing State
New Delhi: Pakistan is broke. Its economy is shattered. Foreign reserves are vanishing. Yet it keeps getting blank cheques. Weeks after the International Monetry Fund (IMF) handed it over $1 billion in emergency funds plus an additional $1.3 billion in loans, the nuclear-armed state got another $800 million from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). India protested. The world ignored. And it is not the first time. Why does a nation with internal chaos and globally infamous for harboring terrorists keeps getting rewarded? Despite global acknowledgment of Pakistan's double-faced policies – begging for aid while exporting 'jihad' – the money keeps flowing. So what makes Pakistan the global community's 'spoiled child with a nuclear button'? The answer is not economic. It is political, strategic and dangerously hypocritical. Let's get this straight: Pakistan is not getting loans because it deserves them. It is getting them because the world is afraid of what will happen if it collapses. Its economy is in tatters. Pakistan's forex reserves dipped in 2023 below $3 billion – barely enough for three weeks of imports. The 2022 floods cost the country more than $30 billion in damages. 1. Too Nuclear to Fail: Pakistan's debt has ballooned to over $130 billion. If it defaults, global banks lose billions. It is financial blackmail that is working. 2. Location: Sitting between China, Afghanistan and Iran, the country holds strategic real estate. The West, especially the United States, does not want it slipping entirely into China's orbit. 3. A Loan with Strings: These are not freebies. IMF and ADB loans come with demands – raise taxes, cut subsidies and sell public assets. Western companies often swoop in to buy the leftovers. Global lending institutions like the IMF and the ADB may present themselves as neutral bodies, but their actions suggest otherwise. They claim to operate on technical grounds, but do not blink twice when handing over billions to a country that fuels terrorism in Kashmir and harbors global fugitives. And where is India in this equation? Despite protests after attacks like Pahalgam, New Delhi's influence is minimal. India's voting share in the IMF is small compared to the United States and Europe. Meanwhile, Pakistan's removal from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list in 2022 made getting loans even easier. The United States sees Pakistan as a pawn in its Afghanistan endgame. China, through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), is turning it into a client state. Loans are just the leash – a way to pull Pakistan closer when needed and push it when not. Who Really Benefits? Not the people of Pakistan. Experts like Sushant Sareen argue these loans fatten the Pakistani military, not fuel reforms. Former diplomat Kanwal Sibal warns that the IMF funding indirectly supports terror. Even former Pakistani envoy Husain Haqqani admits that the IMF is an ICU for Pakistan, not a cure. These loans do not save Pakistan. They sustain it just enough to remain a useful mess. A mess that is allowed to fester because it serves the interests of those who pretend to fix it. Pakistan is not only playing the victim, it is gaming the system and the system is letting it.
News18
30-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
Indus Waters Treaty: Implications of India's Notice to Pakistan
Last Updated: Some reports have hinted at Pakistan not responding to India's notice, after the mandated 90-day period. But for how long? Will that position be tenable, sustainable and eternal? We seem to be heading for Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) 2.0, a newer version, after India sent a notice to Pakistan on January 25, 2023. The Indian side has neither released, nor leaked, the contents of the official notice. The Pakistan government, too, has kept silent so far, preferring to choose discretion over valour and has not released the notice in the press either. However, some articles have started appearing in the newspapers of both countries regarding the notice. If we scan the Pakistani press and read their leading newspapers like Dawn, The News International, The Friday Times etc, we find that they have started discussing the treaty, the implications of India's notice and what it can mean for Pakistan. The point being made repeatedly in most papers is that the treaty can't be changed, in a very unconvincing manner. This is the crux of the matter, that the treaty can be amended under Article 12 (3). However, the prevailing narrative about the treaty, carefully constructed by Pakistan and its lackeys, is that the treaty is eternal and can't be changed. It is such a falsehood that it needs to be dismissed out of hand and thrown into the dustbin straightaway. By now, we all know that India's notice has been sent under Article 12 (3). What does this article say? We hereby reproduce verbatim what Article 12 (3) reads. It says: (3) The provisions of this Treaty may from time to time be modified by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments. It is a different matter that right from its signing on September 19, 1960, till January 25, 2023, a period of over 62 years, India never even once evoked this article and clause. This right to seek amendment has always existed specifically within the text of the treaty, clearly defined in Article 12 (3). It is Pakistan's intransigence vis-à-vis different IWT provisions that has forced India to move towards a revision of the treaty. Some reports have hinted at Pakistan not responding to India's notice, after the mandated 90-day period. But for how long? Will that position be tenable, sustainable, useful and eternal? Technically and legally, under the relevant provisions of the treaty, Pakistan has to respond within 90 days to India's notice. The notice is truly unprecedented but the Modi government is on very sound 'legal and technical grounds." This is why there is hushed silence on the Pakistani side officially. In a recent article, titled Indus Waters Treaty: Opening the water front, Sushant Sareen of the Observer Research Foundation wrote that India has sound 'legal and technical grounds" for seeking amendment of the treaty. Incidentally, the Preamble of the treaty says that it is being signed for 'attaining the most complete and satisfactory utilisation of the waters of the Indus system of rivers" and 'in a spirit of goodwill and friendship." This goodwill, friendship, and spirit of cooperation that the Preamble talks of are empty words today because of Pakistan's behaviour over the last six decades. Article 12 is titled 'Final Provisions" and has four clauses. We reproduce it verbatim hereunder. This Treaty consists of the Preamble, the Articles hereof and Annexures A to H hereto, and may be cited as 'The Indus Waters Treaty 1960." This Treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged in New Delhi. It shall enter into force upon the exchange of ratifications, and will then take effect retrospectively from the first of April 1960. The provisions of this Treaty may from time to time be modified by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments. The provisions of this Treaty, or the provisions of this Treaty as modified under the provisions of Paragraph (3), shall continue in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments. What is the cause for India's apparent anger for seeking modification of the treaty? If truth be told, it is Pakistan's fancy interpretation of the written word under Annexure D of the treaty. Incidentally, this Annexure D deals with the 'Generation of Hydro-Electric Power by India on the Western Rivers.' It is Pakistan's objections to the 330 MW Kishenganga and 850 MW Ratle Hydro Electric Project, located on river Chenab, which have precipitated matters. What is the mechanism to resolve any issues that the two sides may face? Well, this is defined under Article IX of the treaty wherein procedures for 'Settlement of Differences and Disputes" have been given. It is a step-wise escalation that the treaty talks of. Initially, the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), comprising Indus Commissioners of the two nations, come together and try to resolve a 'question.' If they fail, it escalates to become a 'difference,' as per the treaty. The 'difference' is then sent to a 'Neutral Expert (NE)' who hears arguments from both sides and tries to settle the issue at stake. If the 'Neutral Expert' fails to satisfy both parties, it escalates to the next level of being declared a 'dispute.' A 'dispute' is then the subject matter of adjudication by the 'Court of Arbitration (COA).' So, broadly, it is in a linear fashion, 1, 2 and 3, that the parties should proceed. Pakistan has, however, short-circuited the entire process and invoked the jurisdiction of a Neutral Expert and the Court of Arbitration simultaneously. India has questioned this on the basis of genuine concerns regarding the outcomes. It has pointed out that the NE and COA can come to different conclusions, which may be diametrically opposite to one another. In that case, how will the issues be resolved between the two parties? Put in simple words, India has been stressing that for resolving any issues, step 1 has to be PIC, step 2 has to be NE and step 3 has to be COA, in a chronological fashion. Since Pakistan has deviated from this, India has termed it a 'material breach," something the former does not agree to. For years, we did not hear much about the IWT but it appears we will continue to hear about it from now onwards. The author is a veteran journalist from Jammu and Kashmir. Views expressed are personal. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: February 22, 2023, 15:55 IST News opinion Indus Waters Treaty: Implications of India's Notice to Pakistan
