Letters to The Editor — June 17, 2025

A path to peace
The prolonged Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to cause widespread suffering. A realistic ceasefire must involve compromises being made by both sides and commitments from the global community. First, Ukraine and the neighbouring countries could adopt a neutral stance, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization formally agreeing not to expand into Russia's immediate neighbourhood. In return, major powers, including India and China, should jointly warn that any future unprovoked Russian aggression would face united global opposition. This would give regional countries a sense of security without the need for NATO membership. Second, Russia should return a portion of the occupied territories as a gesture of goodwill. While full territorial resolution may take time, partial withdrawal could help rebuild trust and open space for lasting peace talks. These steps will protect national sovereignties, reduce military tensions, and prevent further bloodshed.
Lakshay Siwach,
Rohtak, Haryana
West Asia tensions
The conflict between Israel and Iran is one where India cannot execute its ace de-hyphenation policy. It needs Iran for black gold and Israel for technology. The only thing that India can do is to hope for a de-escalation.
Nayan Parashar,
Indore, Madhya Pradesh
Ending the drought
South Africa's well-deserved win in the World Test Championship against arch rival Australia not only represents its long- awaited tryst with destiny — reminding it of its Rugby World Cup triumph in 1995 — but also overcoming the long-standing fear of being bad finishers in critical times.
In fact, the new team has reaffirmed Nelson Mandela's slogan of one team one country. Temba Bavuma's cricket team is the embodiment of a rainbow nation. It would not be an exaggeration to say that sports has the potential to act as a balm for wounded souls and nations.
Vijay Singh Adhikari,
Nainital, Uttarakhand

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

India Gazette

an hour ago

• India Gazette

'Op Sindhu' not only homecoming, but live example of Modi govt's 'nation first' policy: Tarun Chugh

New Delhi [India], June 22 (ANI): Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) National General Secretary Tarun Chugh on Saturday praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the successful evacuation efforts under Operation Sindhu, calling it a unique example of the Central government's 'nation first' policy. 'Under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, even during a global crisis, India prioritises ensuring its citizens' security. In the middle of an ongoing war, a conflict-ridden country like Iran opening its airspace is a big win for India's foreign policy, diplomacy and India's reliability,' Tarun Chugh said while speaking to ANI. ''Operation Sindhu' is not only a homecoming of Indian students but is a live example of the PM Narendra Modi government's 'nation first' policy. Even earlier, during the Russia-Ukraine war or any natural calamity, India has given priority to security for its citizens,' he said. Meanwhile, a special flight carrying 290 Indians stranded in conflict-hit Iran landed safely in New Delhi on Saturday night, bringing the total number of evacuees under Operation Sindhu to 1,117. This marks the fifth batch of Indians evacuated from Iran as part of the ongoing operation. In a post on X, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated, 'Operation Sindhu gains momentum. 290 Indian nationals have returned home safely from Iran on a special flight from Mashhad that landed in New Delhi at 2330 hrs on 21 June 2025.' 'With this, 1,117 Indian nationals have been evacuated from Iran,' the MEA added. The evacuees, including students, shared their experiences of the tense situation in Iran and expressed deep gratitude to the Indian government and embassy officials. An Indian national from Bihar's Siwan, studying medicine at Tehran University of Medical Sciences, said, 'I am from Siwan, Bihar. I have been in Iran for the last 2 years. I study medicine at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The situation in Tehran is critical. Other places are normal. I am thankful to the government (for the evacuation).' Another evacuee, Naveed, a second-year MBBS student, added, 'I am from Kashmir. I am a 2nd-year MBBS student. I feel very good now. I am thankful to India. They evacuated us.'Describing the fear they faced, one evacuee said, 'I feel very good. There were missiles firing. We were feeling very afraid there. We were stuck there for 1 week.' Momin Ushtaq from Kashmir praised the government's efforts, saying, 'I am from Kashmir. The situation is not good there. We are very thankful to the government of India, Kashmir, and the Embassy. They deserve a special thanks, as they evacuated us and brought us back home.' Gratitude was also directed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Parveen, another evacuee, said, 'I am very happy. I am thankful to PM Modi from the bottom of my heart. Our government helped us to get back here.' Indira Kumari added, 'We have returned. I am thankful to the Indian government and the Prime Minister of India.' Earlier on Saturday, a special flight from Mashhad carrying 310 Indian nationals landed in New Delhi at 4:30 PM. Meanwhile, Israeli airstrikes targeted a significant nuclear facility in Iran's Isfahan province, as reported by Al Jazeera. As per Al Jazeera, citing an Israeli military spokesperson, the air force struck the main complex as well as buildings involved in centrifuge production. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that a centrifuge manufacturing workshop was hit but clarified that no nuclear material was present at the site, so there were no radiological impacts. (ANI)

Hans India

an hour ago

• Hans India

BRICS summit to focus on local currency trade

Weeks before top BRICS leaders converge in Rio de Janeiro for summit talks, envoys of leading member nations of the grouping hinted that it could focus on greater use of national currencies for trade in the face of uncertainties over Trump administration's aggressive policy on tariff. Russian Ambassador Denis Alipov reaffirmed Moscow's strong support for trade in local currency among BRICS member nations and described the grouping as 'a serious platform for discussing joint soluti'ons to big challenges'. The summit is unlikely to make any significant progress on the proposed BRICS currency as it will need significant structural changes and reforms. In the last few months, President Donald Trump has cautioned BRICS member nations against rolling out a BRICS currency to replace the US dollar. 'BRICS is not a counter-bloc. It is a centre of gravity for countries seeking mutual respect and non-interference,' Alipov said at a conference titled 'BRICS in Rio: Shaping an Inclusive and Sustainable World Order' that was co-organised by the Embassy of Brazil in India and Centre for Global India Insights (CGII), a leading think tank focused on global affairs. The 17th BRICS ((Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) summit will be held in Rio de Janeiro on July 6 and 7. Brazil is hosting the summit in its capacity as the chair of the influential bloc. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chinese President Xi Jinping, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and several other leaders of the member nations of the grouping are expected to attend the summit. Enhancing the use of national currencies in settling intra-BRICS trade figured prominently in discussions, with all panellists backing the proposal, which is already being implemented by BRICS countries. However, the panellists found the idea of a BRICS common currency impractical. Besides Alipov, India's BRICS sherpa and Secretary (Economic Relations) in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Dammu Ravi, Brazil's Ambassador to India Kenneth Felix Haczynski da Nobrega, Indonesia Ambassador Ina Hagniningtyas Krisnamurthi and Egypt's envoy Kamel Zayed Kamel Galal attended the conference. In his remarks, Ravi clarified that discussions around a BRICS common currency are still at a very early stage. 'Today, for now, we are only looking at trade settlement in national currencies. Harmonisation of fiscal and monetary policies is very, very difficult to achieve, he said. Nobrega and Ravi both reiterated that a common currency would require far deeper policy harmonisation -- something the EU struggled with despite far more economic alignment.

Mint

an hour ago

• Mint

Europe wants to show it's ready for war. Would anyone show up to fight?

Nice tanks you got there, Europe—got anyone to drive 'em? Such are the taunts the continent's generals might have to endure following the announcement of a splurge in defence spending expected from the NATO summit in The Hague on June 24th-25th. Assuming European governments don't bin their commitments to bigger defence budgets once some kind of peace is agreed to in Ukraine—or Donald Trump leaves the White House—spending on their armed forces will roughly double within a decade. A disproportionate slug of the jump from a 2% of GDP spending target to 3.5% will go towards purchasing equipment. But armies are about people, too. Attracting youngsters to a career that involves getting shot at has never been easy; a bit of forceful nagging (known in military jargon as 'conscription") is already on the cards in some countries. Even dragooning recalcitrant teens into uniform will not solve a problem that is lurking deep in the continent's psyche. Europeans are proud of their peaceful ways. If war breaks out there, will anybody be there to fight it? Polling that asks people how they would behave in case of an invasion ought to send shivers down the spines of Europe's drill sergeants. Last year a Gallup survey asked citizens in 45 countries how willing they would be to take up arms in case of war. Four of the five places with the least enthusiastic fighters globally were in Europe, including Spain, Germany and notably Italy, where just 14% of respondents said they were up for taking on a foreign foe. Given Russia's snail-paced advances since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, countries over a thousand kilometres away from today's front lines may not feel the chill wind of the Kremlin. But even in Poland, which shares a border with Ukraine (and with the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad), fewer than half of respondents say they would fight in a war involving their country. In a separate poll taken before the invasion, 23% of Lithuanian men said they would rather flee abroad than fend off an attack. Citizens asked to stand up and be counted are giving a resounding shrug instead. To some Europeans, a citizenry with no appetite for fighting is the reflection of a job well done. The union at the continent's heart bills itself as a 'peace project". The past seven decades have been about ensuring Germany would never take up arms against France and vice versa. Meshing economies together within the European Union and even outside it was meant to make invasions impractical at first and unthinkable in time. The bureaucratic pacificism that endures within the EU—'make meetings not war!" would be a fine motto—may have resonated a bit too much with some citizens. Some may have forgotten that those outside the club, like one Vladimir Putin, were not privy to such arrangements. Military matters were at most an afterthought. Only in the past year has the bloc appointed a commissioner for defence, while making clear the job is about overseeing the companies making shells and missiles, not the armed forces per se. To what can the broader population's lack of appetite to bear arms even in case of war be attributed? Sociologists speak of Europe as a 'post-heroic" society, where individualism and aspirations of 'self-realisation" trump the supposed patriotic fervour of generations past. T he continent's polarised politics have played a part: support for parties of the hard right and left has surged in recent decades, and their voters are notably cooler on the idea of fighting for their country. Older people tend to be less gung-ho about taking up arms, and Europe is an ageing continent. Places with recent histories of dictatorship, such as Spain and Portugal, are also gun-shy. Seeing misfiring American operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (in which Europeans had at best a supporting role) comforted pacifists that theirs was the right way. Notwithstanding its peace-mongering ways, Europe does not lack men and women in uniform. Despite a scything in the number of troops since 1990, to less than half the previous figure in many countries, the continent still has more soldiers than America, and roughly as many as a share of its overall population. Still, some countries like Poland are now talking of bringing some form of conscription back (a few, like Denmark and Greece, never quite got rid of it). Abolishing military service was once hailed as a liberal accomplishment. Now drafting youngsters is seen as a way of promoting the idea that national defence is everybody's job, not just the role of a few paid soldiers. The fog of peace That notion may take a while to take hold. For something strange happens when you ask Europeans about defence matters. In surveys carried out by the European Commission, the bloc's citizens list Russia's invasion of Ukraine and matters of defence as the biggest threats facing the EU as a whole. Well over half think that fighting within the union's borders is likely in coming years. But asked what issues affect them personally and Europeans forget about Russia altogether, worrying more about inflation, taxes, pensions and climate change than they do about potential invaders. It is not that Europeans don't see the looming threat. It is that they think it is somebody else's problem. The upshot is a continent that gives the impression of being battle-weary without having fought the battle. Already Trumpians have a dim view of Europeans' fighting verve. J.D. Vance, the American vice-president, in March dismissed the possibility of 'some random [European] country that hasn't fought a war in 30 or 40 years" credibly deterring Russia by putting boots on the ground in Ukraine. It was offensive precisely because it contained elements of truth. Getting Europeans to shell out for more of their own defence has taken decades of Americans nagging. Convincing them to give war a chance might take even longer. © 2025, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under licence. The original content can be found on