Despite the police claims of arresting a young Muslim person for alleged misconduct directed to the Prime Minister, the yatra has been notablely free from unpleasantity.

Nevertheless, Gandhi’s contempt for the Prime Minister was criticized by BJP leaders, who in political discourse triggered endless debate on TV channels on the need for more decent language, accused of unwarded language. Gandhi referred to US President Donald Trump’s claim that he had called PM Modi and demanded that the ‘war with war’ be stopped within 24 hours and Trump claimed, it was actually stopped within five hours.

Describing the exchange in Hindi, Gandhi used informal ‘Tu‘Trump insisted on how to dismiss possibly to talk to our PM.

Very importantly, even the Moribond State Women’s Commission awakened from its stupas and issued notices to Gandhi and Tejashvi, seeking a quick response. Amidst other similar incidents in Bihar, the same commission was not transferred by gang rape of a Dalit woman in an ambulance after offering a lift.

The yatra took out the sporadic black flag protests and the attack on the Congress headquarters at Sadaquat Ashram in Patna, which from the days of independence, in its strid. Many political activists believed that the BJP’s passion with Gandhi was inadvertently giving very important ballast to the Congress before the election.

According to such importance for him, the BJP was making things easy for Gandhi, said Braj Nandan Pathak, a activist, Gaya. In fact, the party’s passion with Gandhi reflects the impact of the journey, the worker said. Even on 1 September, the opposition workers claimed to mark the journey to deny permission to organize a rally at the famous Gandhi Maidan in Patna on 1 September, claiming opposition activists.

Crystal Ball did not reveal what Donald Trump can do next.

what do we know?

Their relationship with the European Union is cold, that he is currently with Russian President Vladimir Putin and, while he hates America’s business deficit with China, wants a deal with President Xi Jinping.

The surprise element is his transformed attitude for India. We have all heard about 50 percent of tariffs, Trump’s Bagge about Trump’s India -Pakistan ceasefire, who has embarrassed the Indian Prime Minister, and the firmness with which the Potus repeats the claim, such as demanding a public approval from India in the role of his administration in making peace with Pakistan.

Doubling of tariff rates for India in a few days space – from 25 percent to 50 percent – was reportedly because India was “profiteering” from Russia’s war on Ukraine. India cited its “economic interests” to justify the purchase. For perspective, energy imports form two-thirds of India’s import bill.

Nevertheless, while this sovereign sovereign of India has the right to buy oil from the source of its choice, and a compelling argument in low prices, it is strange that the benefit of low prices was not passed to the Indian consumer, while private Indian refiners were capable of benefiting for a long time from re -exporting processed petroleum products. This reality makes “profiteering” logic ten.

However, it is a double bind, as India cannot stop the raw purchase from Russia – not to soften Trump – without endangering the supply of significant Russian weapons.

This retired Justice B. It is Sudarsen Reddy, who has been nominated by the opposition India Block as its joint candidate for the will-presidential election on 9 September. Reddy, who had a specific legal career, was elevated in the Supreme Court in January 2007 and retired in July 2011.

You must have heard the Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s Dietribe Regarding Reddy’s alleged Naxal sympathy. The attack by Justice Reddy and Justice SS Nijar, a landmark gathering its oligacies from the Supreme Court’s decision Nandini Sundar vs State Chhattisgarh Case, 2011, popularly remembered as Salwa Judam case.

The 2011 ruling underlined the use of tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) in Salwa Judam, a state -backed militia that was formed to counter the Maoist rebellion. The court considered the citizens unconstitutional, arguing that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and exposed the weaker tribals for violence without adequate training or accountability.

Reddy emphasized the decision that the state cannot divide citizens or assign its law enforcement duties for untrained vigilance groups, as it reduces the rule of law and state accountability. In the words of the ruling:

‘In a constitutional democracy, the state cannot allow itself to confuse itself in acts that violate the fundamental rights of their citizens, especially those who are already marginalized and weak … Tribal youth are not violated by their rights, without adequate training or accountability, without adequate training or accountability, not violation of their rights, but also a violation of state’s responsibility to maintain law and order.’