Metro line at Kathipara an engineering marvel: CM Stalin

CHENNAI: Chief Minister MK Stalin on Thursday described the Chennai Metro Rail constructions under way at Kathipara junction as an 'engineering marvel' during a site inspection of the elevated corridor. The project involves laying metro tracks directly atop the Kathipara flyover, marking a first for Indian infrastructure development.
Stalin, who posted pictures of his visit on the social media, recalled the original flyover was built under the leadership of his late father and former chief minister M Karunanidhi, and has since stood as a symbol of the city's modernisation drive. 'Today, I inspected the work being carried out to lay Metro tracks, a first-of-its-kind in India, on top of the flyover,' he wrote. 'I have instructed that this engineering marvel be completed on time so that Chennai residents could soon enjoy a smoother urban commute.'
The Kathipara intersection, one of Chennai's busiest, is being retrofitted to support the additional metro corridor as part of Phase II of the city's transit expansion plan.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Indian Express

19 minutes ago

• Indian Express

Dealing with China: Lessons from Galwan clash, five years on

Just over five years ago, the Galwan clash between India and China saw 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers killed. This year is also the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The bilateral relationship has been full of surprises and turmoil. It appears that India and China, two of the largest countries, economies and militaries, who share a disputed and unresolved border, do not understand each other. The violent clash of June 2020 was the first such incident since 1975. Peace was maintained on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) for almost four decades with the help of confidence-building mechanisms (CBMs). These were achieved after long and painstaking discussions, primarily to avoid any violence on the LAC. However, in the words of Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, 'So there was a clash, and a number of troops died on either side, and that has since, in a sense, overshadowed the relationship. So until we can restore peace and tranquillity on the border and ensure the agreements signed up to are adhered to, it's obviously difficult to carry on with the rest of the relationship'. But can India trust China to adhere to any agreements now? The long freeze between the neighbours after the 1962 war was revisited in 1988 with the 'normalisation' of ties and efforts were put in place to avoid a similar challenge. During Rajiv Gandhi's visit that year to Beijing, Deng Xiaoping said, 'We have both made mistakes and we can learn from each other. Why can't we share our experiences, our successes and failures? There is much we can achieve together. We can achieve nothing by being antagonists'. There was positive momentum after the visit and both sides engaged in an increased economic relationship (bilateral trade stands at around $118 billion). There was a lot of talk about cooperation. However, what has continued to be the driving factor is mistrust. Since 1988, there have been multiple stand-offs at the border, the most intense being in Doklam in 2017 — both armies stood eye to eye for 73 intense days. What complicates the situation further is that both countries are nuclear powerhouses and have advanced militaries. And both are vying to grow their global influence. The Galwan clash underscored the fragility of the relationship. It took almost four-and-a-half years and multiple rounds of bilateral talks at various levels to achieve a breakthrough. In October 2024, it was announced that India and China have agreed on patrolling rights in the Ladakh region. Foreign Vikram Misri said: 'Agreement has been arrived at on patrolling arrangements along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the India-China border areas, leading to disengagement and a resolution of the issues that had arisen in these areas in 2020 and we will be taking the next steps on this.' However, it appears that disengagement will be a long process. China appears keen to discuss restarting the people-to-people and economic engagement. After Galwan, India banned several Chinese apps and stopped major Chinese investments and direct flights. After the thaw, China has been keen to restart direct flights. It has issued around 85,000 visas and has resumed the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra for Indians. On the other hand, India has continued to reiterate that no significant developments can be achieved if the border issue is unresolved. Galwan is a major recent reminder of what the border is capable of doing. It can push the countries as well as the region into uncertainty. India has continued to focus on building capabilities in the border region and developing infrastructure that can help in the proper management and movement of troops and equipment. The most prominent of these is the all-weather Sela Tunnel in Arunachal Pradesh. Even after years of positive statements and shows of bonhomie, the neighbours appear to be just talking at each other. The talks of people-to-people interaction by China and the fact that India continues to reiterate the centrality of the border for a genuine stable relationship to exist shows the gap in perception and understanding. This gap needs to be bridged sooner rather than later. For Beijing, when it comes to its relations with New Delhi, it is economic dynamics that matter. New Delhi, however, should not forget the lessons from Galwan and ignore the fragility of diplomatic measures, which can clearly be ignored and trampled by China. The writer is associate professor, OP Jindal Global University

Mint

22 minutes ago

• Mint

America is making a dangerous bet by trading principles for short-term expediency in its engagement with Pakistan

Srinath Sridharan Washington under Trump opting to engage with Pakistan's military chief despite Rawalpindi's record on terror undermines the values the US champions. Transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and peace. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. Gift this article 'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers. 'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers. In a country where 'I love New York" or 'I love Boston" merchandise is part of pop-cultural retail tradition, it is perhaps the first time that a sitting American president has publicly professed such open affection—not for a US city but for a foreign nation, and one long entangled with terror networks and given to military overreach. Also Read: Pakistan's economy must escape the clutches of its armed forces Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promptly corrected the record the same day, clarifying (yet another time) that it was Islamabad that had sought de-escalation unilaterally. But Trump's insistence on claiming credit for a crisis he neither resolved nor influenced reveals a deeper, far more disturbing pattern: America's habitual romanticism of tactical deals with regimes entangled in terrorism while ignoring the long-term consequences for regional stability. This is not just bad optics. It is bad policy. The US, once considered the torchbearer of democratic values, seems increasingly willing to bypass elected governments in favour of military establishments and shadow power centres. Nowhere is this more evident than in its dealings with Pakistan. A nation that has harboured extremist groups, undermined civilian authority and used terror as statecraft continues to enjoy relevance in Washington's foreign policy playbook. The White House praises the arrest of a single militant as evidence of cooperation, even as Pakistan's terror infrastructure remains intact—undisturbed, deliberate, and institutional. Also Read: Nitin Pai: How to dissuade Pakistan from deploying terrorism It is hard to ignore the irony. America claims to lead the free world, yet chooses to transact with regimes that represent the antithesis of the values it espouses. The consequence is moral abdication. This dynamic plays out repeatedly: from the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan to the safe haven for Osama bin Laden near a military cantonment in Abbottabad in Pakistan; from cross-border attacks in Mumbai, Pathankot, Pulwama and Uri to the continued radicalization in Pakistan's heartlands. The fingerprints are clear. So is the complicity. Yet, the US persists in treating Islamabad as a necessary partner—sometimes to broker influence in Kabul, other times to play the middleman in Kashmir, and often just to retain access and leverage in the region. It would be naïve to believe that the US-Pakistan relationship incentivizes reform. In truth, it legitimizes impunity. The Pakistani military, emboldened by its transactional value to Washington, continues to weaken democratic institutions at home and fund destabilizing proxies abroad. Every such engagement strengthens the perception that terrorism can be bartered for aid and extremism for arms. The contradiction becomes even sharper when viewed in the context of the Indo-Pacific. The US claims to rely on India as a democratic counterweight to China. It deepens defense ties, invests in the Quad and speaks of a free and open Indo-Pacific. Yet, it simultaneously chooses to ignore the very forces that threaten that vision by rewarding a regime that profits from regional unrest. This inconsistency is not lost on New Delhi. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. From selective partnerships to a repeated pattern of 'doing more" without consequence, Washington is an expert in the language of strategic necessity while turning a blind eye to long-term costs. But tactical flexibility cannot replace principled engagement. It does not produce allies; it breeds dependencies. Pakistan, meanwhile, has mastered the art of offering just enough cooperation to keep US interest alive while maintaining its core strategy of plausible deniability and proxy warfare. Credibility, not convenience, must now become the real currency of global order. Especially in a world grappling with great-power tensions—from Ukraine to the Taiwan Strait to West Asia—the US must ask itself a fundamental question: Can it afford to keep trading principles for short-term proximity? The answer becomes clearer when we examine Washington's recent diplomatic posturing over multiple global flashpoints—Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Iran and India-Pakistan. In each, the pattern is strikingly similar: choreographed pronouncements of peacemaking, fleeting moments of engagement and self-congratulatory claims of having 'brokered peace." For India, the implications are significant. A natural partner to the US, India must now calibrate its engagement with clarity and conviction. If the foundation of partnership is shared democratic values, then New Delhi must insist on consistency, not just in defence or economics but in principle. A rules-based international order cannot be built on selective amnesia or political expedience. It requires holding rule-breakers accountable. And it demands that peace not be sacrificed at the altar of tactical diplomacy. Affection in diplomacy is not measured by slogans, but by the values one chooses to embrace—and the silences one is willing to overlook. India, with its civilizational depth and global aspirations, must engage the world on its own terms. Our diplomacy must be grounded in self-respect, not shaped by shifting Washington moods. Because, at the end of the day, transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and real peace. The author is a corporate advisor and author of 'Family and Dhanda' Topics You May Be Interested In

Hindustan Times

28 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Canadian premiers urge Carney to appoint Brad Wall as High Commissioner to India

Toronto: The premiers of two Canadian provinces have suggested that Prime Minister Mark Carney appoint a former leader of Saskatchewan as the country's next High Commissioner to India. Brad Wall was Premier (equivalent of an Indian Chief Minister) for over a decade from 2007 to 2018. His successor in that position, Scott Moe, told reporters that Wall would make the ideal candidate for Canada's top diplomat in New Delhi. According to the outlet National Post, Moe said he would be a 'proponent' of such an appointment because 'of the effort and focus that he provided' the relations between the province and India and 'province-to-industry relations in not just India but in many countries around the world.' He made these remarks on Wednesday at the joint press conference with his Alberta counterpart Danielle Smith. And she agreed with him, saying, 'I'd be supportive of that.' She added, 'I think that Saskatchewan has done incredibly impressive work on expanding its footprint internationally through its trade offices, in particular India.' Wall played a central role in securing a contract for the Saskatchewan-based Cameco Corporation, to supply over seven million pounds of uranium concentrate to India, over a five-year timeframe in 2015. Wall was present in person as the contract was signed in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi who was on a bilateral visit that spring, and his then Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper. The decision to appoint HCs to each other's capitals came when Modi met Canadian PM Mark Carney on the margins of the G7 leaders' summit in Kananaskis on Tuesday. While Canada's last High Commissioner Cameron Mackay left last summer, his Indian counterpart Sanjay Kumar Verma was among the six officials New Delhi withdrew in October 2024 after Ottawa asked for waiving of their diplomatic immunity so they could be questioned in connection with violent criminal activity in the country. In retaliation, India expelled six Canadian diplomats including its Acting High Commissioner at the time.