Day: June 18, 2024

SACRAMENTO—Senate Bill 971, authored by Senator Anthony J. Portantino (D – Burbank), today passed the Assembly Higher Education Committee. The measure will make higher education more affordable for low income refugees by exempting them from paying the nonresident tuition fee. The Senator was inspired to author the bill when Glendale Community College students raised tuition funds to help students who were displaced from Artsakh by Azerbaijan.  

“Helping young people attain a higher education degree is the sensible and nurturing thing to do and I am grateful to my friends at GCC for bringing this bill idea to me,” stated Senator Portantino. “California and the 25^th State Senate District have a strong, recent history of supporting and welcoming immigrants, who have contributed positively to our community.”

Due to a growing number of regional conflicts throughout the world, many individuals seek safe haven through immigration to the United States and establish residency in California. These individuals often turn to education to improve their lives and become full participants in our communities. Ineligibility for financial aid can make the cost of college disproportionately higher and unaffordable. 

“Glendale Community College is proud to sponsor SB 971 – a measure that will bring much needed support to those escaping hardship and seeks educational opportunities. Seeing an influx of those impacted by regional conflicts, this bill supports the full integration of refugee students into our community as well as our local economy,” stated Dr. Sevan Benlian, Board President of Glendale Community College.

SB 971 would exempt from the nonresident tuition fee a nonresident, low-income student who is a resident of a region impacted by war or other regional conflict and registers for lower division courses at Glendale Community College or two other community colleges selected by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. The measure requires the governing boards of community colleges that choose to use this exemption to adopt one uniform policy to determine a student’s residence classification, establish procedures for an appeal and review of the residence classification, and determine whether a student is low income.

“Our mission includes fostering a strong community bond and supporting every student with an educational environment where they can take the next steps toward their future endeavors,” said Dr. Ryan Cornner, Superintendent/President of Glendale Community College. “Glendale has a history supporting recent immigrant communities who have become integral parts of our community. This legislation will allow us to more effectively meet the needs of our community and ensure that we fulfill our mission.”

A large number of Armenians were displaced from Artsakh, which totaled more than 100,000 individuals, even prior to the escalations in the conflict in 2023. California is home to a large diaspora of Armenian people and will continue to see the immigration of individuals seeking safety. Similar displacements have been seen in Ukraine.

“SB 971 will provide equitable educational opportunities for refugee students affected by global conflicts,” stated Amaras Issagholian, President of the Armenian Students Association of Glendale Community College. “This bill underscores our commitment to inclusivity and acknowledges the hardships that refugees students face when escaping from violence. We are proud to support Senator Portantino’s bill, which helps build a brighter future for those who seek refuge.”

Prosecutors try to link alleged bribes of Sen. Bob Menendez to appointment of federal prosecutor  The Associated Press

Israeli military triumphs and exploits often produce battlefield victories that fail to garner political gains.

The Gaza war has changed that paradigm.

It has produced neither a military nor a political victory.

Adding fuel to the fire, Israel has abandoned the notion that soft power is as important as hard power in the vein of scholar Joseph Nye, who recently cautioned that “ignoring or neglecting soft power is a strategic and analytic mistake.”

Mr. Nye noted that “in the short run, swords are mightier than words, but in the long run, words guide swords.”

It’s advice Israel has failed to heed. As a result, Israel is losing two wars in Gaza, the war itself and the battle for hearts and minds.

All Hamas needs to do to declare victory is to survive.

Israel has enshrined on an altar that notion, valid for most non-state actors battling conventional military forces, by insisting it will destroy Hamas militarily and politically.

Israel’s problem is that Hamas is likely to survive even if it were to kill Hamas’ Gaza leader, Yahya Sinwar. Israel’s most wanted man, Mr. Sinwar, has eluded Israeli forces since the war erupted last October.

Israel has also failed to achieve its other war goals – the rescue of Hamas-held hostages and ensuring Gaza does not remain a launching pad for Palestinian resistance.

This weekend, Palestinians killed ten Israeli soldiers, the highest toll in one day since January, while Israel Defence Forces (IDF) spokesman Daniel Hagari conceded that Israeli would not be able to militarily rescue all the remaining 116 hostages, 41 of which are believed to have been killed in captivity during the war.

“We will not be able to return everyone home in this way,” Mr. Hagari said.

In the battle for hearts and minds, Israel wasted no time in destroying initial empathy in response to the brutality of Hamas’ October 7 attack that killed more than 1,100 primarily civilian Israelis and foreigners and led to the kidnapping of 250 others.

The vast majority of more than 100 hostages who have regained their freedom since October 7 were released in November in a prisoner exchange with Hamas. Israel’s military has rescued only seven.

Israel’s self-inflicted defeat in the war for hearts and minds may be more consequential than its inability to crush Hamas on the battlefield despite severe body blows inflicted on the group.

Within a matter of months, Israel went from being able to claim a moral high ground to a country indicted in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on charges of genocide and whose leaders risk the International Criminal Court issuing arrest warrants for alleged war crimes.

Winning the war for hearts and minds would have been an uphill battle no matter what, given the tens of thousands of Palestinians killed and wounded;by Israeli forces and the physical devastation of Gaza’s infrastructure, not to mention stepped-up Israeli repression on the West Bank;and tacit endorsement of vigilante settler attacks;on Palestinians and aid convoys en route to Gaza.

Israel seems bent on ensuring it ends the war as a pariah in much of the world by hindering the unfettered flow of humanitarian relief;needed to address the consequences of its curtailing of food, fuel, water, and electricity and destruction of Gaza’s health sector.

Adding fuel to the fire, Israel has shown no empathy for the plight of innocent Palestinians;and no acknowledgment that Palestinians have rights, too. Instead, Israeli leaders have repeatedly made genocidal statements and obstructed efforts to achieve a ceasefire.

To be sure, Hamas has displayed similar insensitivity but that has no impact on Israel’s global standing.

Israeli denunciation of mass anti-war protests across the globe as anti-Semitic and dismissal of public opinion polls that show Western public opinion turning against Israel has only deepened the hole Israel finds itself in.

It’s a hole that Israel will find difficult to extricate itself from.

Worse, Israel’s Gaza war conduct and antithetical public relations posture, like its West Bank settlement and other policies, have hardened positions on both sides of the divide, making a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ever more elusive.

It risks giving currency to Hamas’ notion that a long-term ceasefire in Gaza, and more broadly between Palestinians and Israelis, may be the only thing that is achievable.

Israel’s self-dug grave will likely reinforce Hamas’ contention that a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should entail a long-term ‘hudna’ or armistice rather than Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state.

Israel asserts that Hamas’ notion of a long-term ‘hudna’ or armistice rather than Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state in the context of two states demonstrates the group’s determination to destroy Israel and maintain the right to armed resistance.

Unlike the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s (PLO) recognition of Israel in the 1980s as the prelude to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, Hamas’ 2017 amended Charter envisions two states living side-by-side without recognising one another and, presumably, without maintaining full diplomatic relations.

Rejecting any Israeli rights and all United Nations resolutions and other international agreements that recognize equal national rights for Israelis and Palestinians, the Charter stipulates that “there shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity… Without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital, along the lines of the 4th of June 1967…to be a formula of national consensus… ;Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty, and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah,” the global Muslim community of the faithful.

Some Hamas officials have since sought to walk back their insistence on the right to wage armed struggle.

Ceasefire negotiator Khalil al-Hayya suggested in April that Hamas would agree to a truce of five years or more, lay down its weapons, and convert into a political party;if an independent Palestinian state is established along pre-1967 borders.

With support among Palestinians for a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dropping dramatically, according to a recent public opinion survey, Hamas’ position is likely to gain increased currency among Palestinians, even if Israel rejects it out of hand.

This month’s survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research showed that support in Gaza for two states had almost halved from 62 per cent in March to 32 per cent in June while remaining constant at one-third of the West Bank population.

Azzam Tamimi, a 69-year-old scholar and journalist with close ties to Hamas, suggested that a long-term hudna rather than a peace agreement “is the only way you can have disengagement; you can have a real ceasefire.”

Mr. Tamimi argued that Hamas’ notion “is a de facto recognition of the status quo, but it’s not a de jure recognition.”

Insisting that he would “never, ever accept the legitimacy of the occupation of my mother’s house in Beersheba,” Mr. Tamimi said he “would accept, and, I believe, most Palestinians represented by Hamas would accept, the idea that this conflict is not delivering what either side is expecting, and therefore it’s not a bad idea to disengage to stop fighting…for ten years, 15 years, or 30 years… During that period, people can have a respite. Then there will be a new generation emerging and let future generations decide what they want to do about this conflict.”

Hamas and Mr. Tamim’s notion may strike a chord with Palestinians but is certain not to nudge Israel closer to the negotiating table.

Leaving aside Israel’s goal of destroying Hamas and the Netanyahu government’s rejection of a two-state solution, Israel for decades insisted that any Palestinian counterpart would have to recognize the Jewish state de jure and abandon armed struggle.

It also demanded the Palestinians agree to prioritisation of Israeli security concerns even if Palestinians have equally legitimate worries.

To be sure, two states in historic Palestine irrespective of whether they have de jure or de facto relations, would likely resemble India and Pakistan, nations carved out of one another in 1947, that remain at loggerheads 77 years later.

Even so, many in the West echo Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s belief that “Israel has fallen into a trap, a Hamas trap;that had the aim of isolating it.” Ms. Meloni added at this weekend’s Group of Seven summit that “it seems to be working.”

Expanding on Ms. Meloni’s belief, former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy argued that “by using its force in this indiscriminate way, from day one saying it would cut…all food, fuel, water, and electricity from the civilian population in Gaza, this is a huge self-inflicted defeat for Israel. Reputational, moral, legal, economic… This is going to shift the power balance…Hamas is going to come out of this stronger… Israel is going to come out of this weaker… and this is of Israel’s own making.”

By Thomas Moller-Nielsen

(EurActiv) — EU-China relations are at risk of severely deteriorating if the current trade tariffs “tit-for-tat” develops into a hardline approach from the two blocs, European and Chinese panellists said at a Brussels event on Tuesday (18 June).

European Policy Centre (EPC) chief executive and chief economist Fabian Zuleeg said at a EPC-hosted event that, in addition to a lack of “trust”, Brussels and Beijing share widely different “perceptions” on the legitimacy of the provisional tariffs;announced;last week by the European Commission on China-manufactured electric vehicles (EV).

While European leaders have;targeted;what they see as a competition distortion created in the global EV market by Chinese subsidies, Chinese officials have;denounced;the new measures as protectionist and possibly in breach of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules (an accusation the Commission;countered;on Friday).

“I don’t think anyone wants a trade war, it is an extremely costly exercise for both sides,” Zuleeg said, “But the risk of escalation is there.”

“We are going to see some tit-for-tat as we go along. The question is whether that’s going to be limited or [it’s] going to be full-out. We will see in the next [few] weeks,” he added.

Zuleeg’s comments came the day after China;announced;that it would respond to the Commission’s EV tariff decision by launching its own “anti-dumping” investigation into European pork exports.

The move would; primarily hit Spain as the EU’s top pork exporter to China, followed by the Netherlands, France and Denmark – which prompted Spanish officials to call for balanced solutions and negotiations.

EU’s ‘systemic rival’ definition of China highly problematic

Zuleeg’s remarks about the decaying state of EU-China relations were echoed by Ling Jin, the director at the department for European studies at the China Institute of International Studies.

Jin emphasised that the EU has;officially;described Beijing as “a partner for cooperation, an economic competitor, and systemic rival” – with the last element becoming predominant. This could exacerbate already tense relations, she argued.

“[‘Systemic rival’ is] a complicated word. It confused us a lot,” Jin said.

“What’s the exact meaning of that? If you follow the debates, especially by the politicians here, I think the kind of definition [of systemic rival];has been expanded to more and more areas that actually will fundamentally shake the root of China-EU relations,” she said.

Huiyao Wang, the founder and President at the Center for China and Globalisation, accused Europe of “double standards” – arguing the bloc simultaneously commits to combating climate change whilst introducing tariffs on Chinese EVs.

Wang also urged European policymakers to distance themselves from the US’s more hawkish views on China.

“I don’t think you should follow the US so closely… We probably should have more independent thinking,” he said.

Wang’s remark contrasted with the views expressed to Euractiv by a former top US trade official, who said the levels of duties unveiled by the EU last week;would stop short of providing any meaningful protection;to the European industry.

By Taejun Kang

Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in North Korea in the wee hours Wednesday for a meeting with counterpart Kim Jong Un, promising hours before the visit that the two nations will develop an “alternative settlement system” to facilitate commercial cooperation outside the control of the West and fight its sanctions.

Kim greeted Putin on the red carpet with a handshake and an embrace as soon as the Russian president disembarked his plane. Smiling, the two leaders chatted through interpreters before departing the airport by limousine.

Prior to his departure, Putin said in a commentary in North Korea’s state-run Rodong Sinmun newspaper, that they would work together to bring more democracy and stability to international relations.

”We will develop alternative trade and mutual settlements mechanisms not controlled by the West, jointly oppose illegitimate unilateral restrictions and shape the architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia,” he said.

Putin said Russia would ramp up exchanges and cooperation with North Korea in other areas such as education, tourism and culture.

“We are firmly convinced that we will put bilateral cooperation onto a higher level with our joint efforts,” he said.

Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov was cited by Russia’s TASS news agency as saying that Putin was expected to sign “important” documents with Kim on Wednesday that would; likely include a treaty on a comprehensive strategic partnership.

He said the deal would not be directed against any other country but would “outline prospects for further cooperation, and will be signed taking into;account what has happened between our countries in recent years – in the field of international politics, in the field of economics … including, of course, taking into account security issues.”

Russia has been cozying up to North Korea since Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The United States has accused Russia of using North Korean weapons there, which North Korea and Russia deny.

Putin, in the newspaper commentary, extended his appreciation to North Korea for supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine and voiced his support for North Koreans’ struggle to defend their sovereignty against “the cunning, dangerous and aggressive enemy.”

“We highly appreciate that the DPRK is firmly supporting the special military operations of Russia being conducted in Ukraine, expressing solidarity with us on major international issues and maintaining the common line and stand at the U.N.,” Putin said.

DPRK, or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, is North Korea’s official name.;

Citizens prepare

In preparation for Putin’s arrival, authorities decorated the streets of Pyongyang with banners, Russian flags and large portraits of Putin’s face.

But the preparations extended beyond the capital. Citizens in the northeastern port city of Chongjin were ordered to spruce up a monument commemorating the Soviets liberating North Korea from Japanese rule, and a cemetery for Soviet servicemen – neither of which are on Putin’s itinerary.

“Until now, the city has never mobilized factory and company workers to clean up the Liberation Monument and the Cemetery of Soviet Servicemen,” a resident in Chongjin told RFA Korean on condition of anonymity for security reasons.

He said it was not clear to the citizens why they had to clean up the monuments, but on Monday they saw news of Putin’s visit, so they assumed that must be the reason.

Meanwhile in nearby Rason, home to a Russian and Chinese-invested special economic zone close to the borders with both countries, housewives were pressed into service to clean another Soviet tomb.

A resident there said that Russians almost never visit the site, but many believe that Rason will benefit economically in the aftermath of a Kim-Putin summit.

Putin ‘desperate’, US says

In Washington, the White House said it was troubled by the deepening relationship between Russia and North Korea, and the U.S. State Department said it was “quite certain” Putin would be seeking arms to support his war in Ukraine.

U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller repeated charges on Monday that the North had supplied “dozens of ballistic missiles and over 11,000 containers of munitions to Russia” for use in Ukraine.

He said the U.S. had seen Putin “get incredibly desperate over the past few months” and look to Iran and North Korea to make up for equipment lost on the battlefield.

The visit is no surprise, according to Michael McCaul, the U.S. House of Representatives foreign affairs chairman.

“Desperate for friends to fuel his genocidal war machine against Ukraine, Putin is increasingly turning to the rogue regimes of the world for help,” said McCaul. “His visit to North Korea is yet another effort to cement this unholy alliance against America, our friends, and our allies.”

The trip represents Putin’s commitment to contesting U.S. interests worldwide, Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Jim Risch said.

“This cooperation is particularly troublesome given the DPRK’s nuclear program and past record of aggression directed at U.S. allies in East Asia,” he said.

Japan was monitoring Putin’s visit to North Korea with concerns, including the possible transfer of weapons and related materials between Moscow and Pyongyang, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said.

“We will continue to work closely with the international community, including the United States and South Korea, to ensure the full implementation of the U.N. Security Council resolutions,” he said, noting that the security environment in the region had become more tense due to increased military cooperation between Russia and the North.;

Putin’s two-day trip comes as a reciprocal visit following Kim’s visit to Russia’s Far East in September last year where the two held a rare summit.

Putin last visited North Korea in July 2000, when he met its former leader Kim Jong Il, the late father of the current leader.

After North Korea, Putin will visit Vietnam on June 19-20, the Kremlin said.;

The UN’s top political affairs official on Tuesday reiterated that attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure are prohibited by international law. More than 170 civilians lost their lives and a further 690 were injured in continued Russian strikes across Ukraine last month.

That’s the highest number of civilian casualties in a single month since June 2023, Rosemary DiCarlo, UN Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs told the Security Council.

Over half of the casualties occurred in Kharkiv during a new Russian offensive, with numerous attacks in other locations killing civilians and causing widespread destruction.

“The escalation of attacks impacting Ukrainian civilians is unconscionable,” Ms. DiCarlo said.

“Since February 2022, OHCHR has recorded 11,126 civilians killed, and 21,863 civilians injured. The actual figures are likely significantly higher,” she added.

Russian casualties

In the same period, Russian authorities have reported that at least 91 civilians have been killed and 455 injured in Russia, primarily in the Belgorod, Briansk, and Kursk regions bordering Ukraine.

“We once again stress that attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure are prohibited by international law…they must stop immediately,” she stressed.

Massive damage to infrastructure

Ms. DiCarlo further informed Council members of massive damage to civilian infrastructure, particularly its energy and critical nuclear power infrastructure.

A joint needs assessment conducted by Ukraine, UN, World Bank and European Commission – prior to the latest escalation – estimated that as of December 2023, reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine would cost some $486 billion dollars over the next decade.

“But the worst consequences of the attacks against energy infrastructure are yet to be felt. That is because the shelling and airstrikes are also making it difficult to complete the repair of damaged facilities before next winter,” she warned.

Humanitarian crisis

Under-Secretary-General DiCarlo also highlighted the dire humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, as well as disruptions to the food supply worldwide resulting from damage to shipping and disruptions in navigation through the Black Sea.

In 2023 nearly 282 million people in 59 countries faced high levels of acute food insecurity, an increase 24 million people since the previous year, she said.

Within Ukraine, together with its partners, the UN reached more than 4.4 million people with humanitarian assistance, however, aid efforts are constrained by lack of sufficient funds.

The 2024 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan is currently 27 per cent funded, Ms. DiCarlo said, urging donors to sustain their generous financial support.

“This will allow us to continue to deliver life-saving assistance to the vulnerable population.”

On June 18, Nirjala Ekadashi, a day that holds great religious and spiritual significance in Hindu religion, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in his parliamentary constituency of Kashi Vishwanath (Varanasi), for the first time since he clocked a historic hattrick and became PM for the third consecutive term.

Amidst chants of Har Har Mahadev at the holy precincts of Lord Shiva’s ancient temple, Modi made a fierce political statement with just his actions. He performed the Ganga Aarti at the majestic Dashashwamedh Ghat of the holy Ganga river, performed the Jalabhishek ceremony at the Jyotirlinga and announced that he had returned to “his people” to “thank them for reposing their faith in his leadership”. All throughout, Modi maintained his usual unapologetic “staunch Hindu nationalist image”, calling himself the “adopted son of Ma Ganga”. 

The imagery of the videos that the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party flooded on social media dashed the hopes of the so-called Liberals, who have been expecting Modi to mellow down and also play down the Hindutva image. Those who have been speaking out vociferously against Modi after the recent reduction in popular mandate that BJP has seen, were surprised to see Modi in his “grand old avatar”.;

In the last ten days since he took oath as PM, the buzz in the capital city has been that Modi 3.0 is a coalition government in a precarious position and may collapse anytime. There are top analysts and political soothsayers ready to bet that Modi’s two partners – Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the Janata Dal United (JD-U) – can ditch him anytime. Some have said that they will stage a walkover to the INDIA Bloc even before Parliament session begins. Everytime a leaf moves in the lush green New Delhi area, and two top political leaders meet or talk over phone, there are murmurs of a “ NDA government breakdown”.

While Modi completed his religious ceremonies in Kashi today and went on to announce a substantial largesse to farmers as well as women social workers and their self-help groups, the anti-Modi brigade bragged about an interview that appeared in the foreign press with Congress MP Rahul Gandhi where he has raised a question mark over the stability of the NDA government claiming that there is “a; tectonic shift in Indian politics” and the Modi-led government will “struggle to survive”. Gandhi has claimed that there is “great dissent” brewing in the Modi camp and “people were getting in touch with the Congress” for exploring various political possibilities and opportunities, thereby signaling in no uncertain terms that he has ways and means to destabilize Modi 3.0.

So, let us examine the “great dissent” claim being made by the Gandhi scion. For one, there is nothing in the air about dissent from the two major coalition partners, TDP and JD-U. There is also nothing to suggest that there is a change in who is calling the shots in the new government. I remember the conversation on the eve of the swearing-in day when speculations overtook commonsense and media began to expect a ridiculously high number of ministers to be absorbed from both the coalition partners, apart from several other demands doing the rounds. However, contrary to expectations, many stalwarts who were ministers in Modi 1.0 and Modi 2.0 took oath for the third time and there was a healthy addition from all other NDA partners.;

The distribution of portfolios was the same story. Detractors had changed the portfolios of the entire cabinet in their social media discussions the previous evening, starting with Amit Shah, Rajnath Singh, Nitin Gadkari, S. Jaishankar, Nirmala Subramanian, Piyush Goel, Ashwini Vaishnaw, Manuskh Mandaviya, Jyotiraditya Scindia and J.P. Nadda, to name a few. However, Modi signaled continuity in portfolios and this continuity also re-energised the market, which saw a big jump that erased the losses recorded on June 4th. The top ministers and ministries remained intact, which was Modi’s way to demonstrate that he is in full command. The Liberal Gang still did not give up. Stories floated in the Press and in the What’s App University that TDP chief Chandrababu Naidu as well as JD-U Chief Nitish Kumar were not letting Modi breathe and were ready to part ways anytime.;

It is not my case that bickering between the coalition partners will not continue, because consensus despite the differences is the healthy coalition government that people have been waiting for. It is also not my case that Modi will not need to soften his approach towards his own senior leaders as well as the opposition leaders. Yet, I firmly believe that Modi 3.0 is here to stay for a good five years, all the talk by the Liberals notwithstanding.;

The first signal came three days ago in Italy at the G7 Summit, where Modi made his first overseas appearance since he took over as PM for the third term. From the bilateral meetings that he held and the indications that he gave in each one of them, it is apparent that Modi will not change a leaf in his foreign policy book. In any case, there is little dispute that Modi has managed to drive India towards becoming a global force as well as the world’s third-largest economy by 2027. Despite a reduced mandate, people vouch that the Modi government’s pursuit of consensus and multilateralism will continue to boost the country’s image as well as the economy. At the G7 Summit, foreign press wrote emphatically about India’s bid to move its status from the middle power rung to the super power rung.;

Collective wisdom suggests that there is no reason for instability. First, any cobbling together of numbers that the INDI alliance attempts now, is a post-poll alliance which is always unstable. Look at Modi 3.0 – While 60 ministers are from the BJP, 11 are from alliance partners. Almost all allies – ranging from the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), the Janata Dal (United) (JD-U), the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP), the Apna Dal, the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), the All Jharkhand Students Union (AJSU), the Hindustani Awam Morcha (HAM), the Janata Dal (Secular) (JD-S), the; Republican Party of India (Athawale) (RPI-A), the Shiv Sena – have found representation. Second, Modi 3.0 is now smugly in the saddle and there is no political party which will not want to share power with them. BJP accounts for eighty percent of the seats of the NDA. Third, INC forgets that BJP is almost two and a half times its numbers and more than the combined INDI alliance tally.

Please recall the PV Narasimha Rao-led Congress government in the early nineties (1991-96) which had barely 244 MPs, but cobbled together the numbers and completed a full term. Rao will always be remembered as the Father of Economic Liberalization as he managed to usher in massive economic reforms, paving the way for what we call a modern and new India. How can the Congress party forget their own ‘Chanakya’; who managed to steer economic and political legislation through the Parliament at a time when he headed a minority government?

There is another fact that we should not overlook. The voters have voted for continuity of the BJP-led NDA government, albeit with a reduced majority. The mandate in one way rewards the BJP and Modi for the development carried out during the last 10 years, but at the same time also places checks and balances.;

Modi who is a seasoned politician signals continuity of his party’s policies and programmes, in continuous consultation with allies. The BJP’s economic policy of focusing on growth with welfare receives an impetus with its two key allies, Chandrababu Naidu and Nitish Kumar, also championing these aspects.;

The Liberals are talking about an unstable alliance, hoping in their dreams that Naidu and Nitish, either or both, shall stage a walkout. Assuming for once that they do so and cross over to the INDI alliance, the group will still lack a majority. Even if they run around trying to add to numbers, they have competition from the Machiavellian mastermind Amit Shah who could beat them at the game any day. In today’s date, BJP is far more politically swift and capable of putting the numbers together than INC. Do not be surprised if they add to their numbers, even if they don’t require them right now.

Look at how Modi conducted himself on the very first day of his office. The first document he signed was an order authorizing the release of the 17th installment of PM Kisan Samman Nidhi to distribute Rs 2,000 each to the 93 million farmers in the country, an expense of Rs 20,000 crore for the exchequer. Look at his long innings as Gujarat chief minister(2001-14) or as Prime Minister (2014-24) and now his third innings. Many who have known Modi since the mid-seventies will tell you that he handled ideologically diverse parties during the Emergency when, as a young RSS pracharak, he coordinated with major Opposition leaders, RSS ideologues and even Jamaat-e-Islami leaders who were a part of the underground movement to protest its imposition.

Everyone will tell you that Modi is an ace negotiator. He reportedly played a key role in coordinating with allies, including Nitish Kumar, Sharad Yadav, Jayalalithaa and Mamata Banerjee when Atal Behari Vajpayee became Prime Minister for the second time. What stops Modi from using this experience to handle the nitty-gritty of running a coalition government?

The message has been unambiguous ! Modi and the BJP may not have a majority on their own, but there shall be no bending over to appease anyone. Many have pointed out that there is not a single Muslim in the Modi 3.0 cabinet. This itself should serve as a signal to all that Modi will run the government pretty much how he wants to.;

Last of all, the “New BJP” led by Modi is also not rigid on issues of religion and Hindutva. Modi has put the Nation First, while at the same time stirring the emotions of the majority community by displaying heroic and staunch nationalism. Both, BJP and its ideological mentor the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), have asserted that there is a need to integrate, the need to co-exist, and that the very phrase “minority” is avoidable in an inclusive society.

Although BJP and RSS have asserted through abrogation of Article 370, the grand opening of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya and the proposed bringing of a uniform civil code (UCC), they have time and again clarified that they did not espouse persecution. Vigilantism has also been punished. In the context of the stability of Modi 3.0, Naidu and Nitish are no novices, and they know what to expect. They have their regional issues which are of higher concern and Modi will be seen going out of his way to help them tide over. Having said this, expect a five year innings for the Coalition with political tussles that shall continue.

Duped by travel agents, 2 Punjab youths among 12 Indians stranded in Armenian jail  Hindustan Times

Keralite’s ‘detention’ in Armenia a mix-up  The Times of India

Prime Minister Pashinyan holds telephone conversation with the President of Türkiye  NEWS.am