India Pakistan exchange lists of civilian prisoners and fishermen in custody
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
India and Pakistan on Tuesday simultaneously exchanged the lists of civilian prisoners and fishermen in each other's custody, according to Ministry of External Affairs India has shared list of 382 civilian prisoners and 81 fishermen in its custody, who are Pakistani or are believed-to-be-Pakistani. The government called for early release and return of civilian prisoners, fishermen along with their boats, and missing Indian defence personnel from Pakistan's custody.The Indian government has asked Pakistan to soon release and repatriate 159 Indian fishermen and civilian prisoners, who have completed their sentence.Pakistan has been requested to ensure the safety, security and welfare of all Indian and believed-to-be-Indian civilian prisoners and fishermen, pending their release and repatriation to India, said MEA in a release.India has also asked urged Pakistan to ensure safety, security and welfare of all Indian and believed-to-be-Indian civilian prisoners and fishermen under its custody.Meanwhile, Pakistan has shared names of 53 civilian prisoners and 193 fishermen in its custody, who are Indian or are believed-to-be-Indian.Since 2014, 2,661 Indian fishermen and 71 Indian civilian prisoners have been repatriated from Pakistan.Such lists are exchanged every year on 1st January and on 1st July under the provisions of the bilateral Agreement on Consular Access 2008.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
QUAD condemns Pahalgam attack, says perpetrators must be brought to justice
The QUAD countries (India, US, Japan, Australia) on Wednesday jointly condemned the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which claimed the lives of 26 people, mostly tourists, in Jammu and Kashmir's Baisaran valley. The leaders made these remarks at the QUAD Foreign Ministers' meeting in Washington. The group also urged all the member states of the United Nations "to cooperate actively with all relevant authorities in this regard." A joint statement was shared by the US Department of State, which read, "The Quad unequivocally condemns all acts of terrorism and violent extremism in all its forms and manifestations, including cross-border terrorism, and renews our commitment to counterterrorism cooperation. We condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, which claimed the lives of 25 Indian nationals and one Nepali citizen, while injuring several others. We express our deepest condolences to the families of the victims and extend our heartfelt wishes for a swift and full recovery to all those injured." "We call for the perpetrators, organisers, and financiers of this reprehensible act to be brought to justice without any delay and urge all UN Member States, in accordance with their obligations under international law and relevant UNSCRs, to cooperate actively with all relevant authorities in this regard."
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Trump says trade deal with India 'soon' as July 9 deadline approaches
Trump said he believed India was ready to lower trade barriers for US companies, a move that could pave the way for an agreement and avert the 26 per cent tariff he had announced on April 2 New Delhi US President Donald Trump on Tuesday (local time) said the US and India will soon finalise a trade deal with 'much lower tariffs,' which would enable fairer competition between the two countries. The deal, he said, would help American companies compete in the South Asian market, Reuters reported. 'I think we are going to have a deal with India, and it's going to be a different kind of deal,' Trump said. 'It will allow us to compete. Right now, India doesn't accept anybody in. But if that changes, we'll have a deal with much less tariffs.' Trump further said he believed India was ready to lower trade barriers for US companies, a move that could pave the way for an agreement and avert the 26 per cent tariff he had announced on April 2, which is currently on hold until July 9. #WATCH | On trade deals with India, US President Donald Trump says, "I think we are going to have a deal with India. And that is going to be a different kind of a deal. It is going to be a deal where we are able to go in and compete. Right now, India does not accept anybody in. I… — ANI (@ANI) July 1, 2025 Progress confirmed by US Treasury Earlier, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News that Washington and New Delhi are close to reaching a deal that would lower tariffs on American goods entering India and help the South Asian nation avoid steep tariff hikes due next week. Talks intensify ahead of July 9 deadline India and the US have been engaged in talks to finalise a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) before the crucial July 9 deadline, which marks the end of a 90-day pause on proposed tariff escalations. The Indian delegation, led by Chief Negotiator Rajesh Agrawal, has extended its stay in Washington, according to an ANI report. Talks were originally scheduled for Thursday and Friday but have been prolonged as both sides push to finalise an interim agreement. Agriculture remains a sticking point As negotiations reach a critical stage, India has taken a firmer stance on agricultural issues, reflecting the political and economic sensitivities surrounding the sector. With much of its farming community made up of small-scale subsistence farmers, India remains cautious about making concessions that could affect their livelihoods. The US is pushing for lower import duties on a range of agricultural products, including apples, tree nuts, and genetically modified crops. In return, India is seeking greater market access for its labour-intensive exports such as textiles, garments, gems and jewellery, leather goods, and agricultural items like shrimp, oilseeds, grapes, and bananas. (With agency inputs)
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
How the uncivility in India's gated communities is the result of deliberate political design
A recent piece in Scroll (Many Indians can't stand living with each other – today's uncivil politics reflects this) explored the paradox of Indian urban life, where the aspiration for peaceful, well-serviced housing enclaves often gives way to everyday violence and hostility. It astutely laid bare the contradictions of India's fraying urban fabric, where dreams of harmonious living collapse into a theatre of squabbles, a war zone of parking disputes, fistfights, and even urine-splashed vengeance. Longing for a more civil, collective ethic of neighbourliness, the author Ajay Gudavarthy concludes with a wistful reflection: Have Indian cities become 'urban battlefields' because we are constitutionally incapable of living with difference? But what if this incivility is not rooted in moral failure, or the overflow of casteism and communalism, but is a consequence of governance driven by free-market capitalism? In Indian cities, the dominant aspiration is not a shared commons but secure boundaries. From luxury towers to middle-income colonies, the urban dream has been reduced to a desire for private order with CCTV surveillance, biometric entry and exclusive schools. These spaces are more than class conveniences. They are miniature models of the larger political ethos. The disintegration of everyday life in the metropolis is not just a sign of social fragmentation; rather, it is a product of political engineering designed to erode any sense of a shared public life. Routine politics Gated communities, caste enclaves and hyper-surveilled colonies are not mere housing solutions; they are metaphors for our political time. Feeding on separation, fear and managed hostility, they normalise suspicion and embody principles that reward exclusion and punish presence. This is routine politics enacted at the level of the residential block. In this landscape, there are no collective struggles, only micro-disputes. No public grievances, only private ones. Neighbours who become enemies because of their proximity. In The Coddling of the American Mind, social psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff describe a mindset they call 'vindictive protectiveness'. It refers to a social phenomenon where people defend themselves, or their imagined values, by punishing others for perceived transgressions. It's a culture that encourages defensive aggression, transforming disagreement into offence, and discomfort into justification for revenge. Citizens no longer imagine themselves as active participants in a democracy, but as stakeholders guarding a fortress – be it their home, their gated community or their nation. As fortress politics deepens, trust erodes, and fear takes root. Consequently, the neighbour becomes a liable threat, the Muslim tenant a source of suspicion, the domestic worker a potential thief and the dog feeder a nuisance. This is what it means to be socially and politically abandoned but intimately policed. We have no tools to demand change, but every mechanism to punish deviation, whether it's a broken rule, a jarring noise or a person who doesn't belong. In the 2007 Hollywood film I Am Legend, the infected creatures (not quite zombies, not quite human) display remarkable solidarity when pursuing the living, but turn feral without a clear antagonist. Without direction, they turn on one another. This is our urban condition. Urban zombification The puzzle is not why neighbours fight, but why their anger doesn't travel upwards, toward the elites and institutions that fuel our anxieties. For historian Michael Katz, the answer lies in the strategic 'incapacitation' of a vibrant citizenry, through 'selective incorporation, mimetic reform, indirect rule, consumption, repression, and surveillance.' Under neoliberalism, where individual responsibility is glorified and structural critique discouraged, rage is deflected laterally. As bureaucracy turns opaque and the political class is insulated, our neighbours become the obstacle, not the system that makes housing unaffordable, schools inaccessible, or healthcare exploitative. When dissent is criminalised and solidarity pathologised, people increasingly channel frustration from systemic disappointment into interpersonal conflict. Not because they are irrational, but because punishing a neighbour feels more attainable than demanding systemic reforms. This is not an urban breakdown. It is urban zombification: a condition wherein public life exists without memory, meaning or direction. There was once a political language of the commons in India. Of maidan, basti, adda, sangathan, and andolan. Even when imperfect, these spaces created friction alongside fraternity, not against it. Today, we have replaced the commons with controlled access. Neighbourhoods no longer train us to live together; they teach us to avoid one another. No wonder many live in religious or caste-exclusive territories to preserve peace. But peace without encounter is not peace. It is withdrawal. When public schooling collapses, when the poor are fenced out of parks, when protestors are jailed and free speech stifled, the idea of a shared future is strangled. What rises in its place is a politics of resentment, where difference becomes injury and proximity a provocation. This prepares fertile ground for authoritarian populism. It does not need loyal citizens. It needs paranoid neighbours. The remedy to our urban predicament is not etiquette workshops or WhatsApp reminders about being respectful to our neighbours. In fact, it is not moral at all. It is political. We must recover the language of common purpose through public housing, neighbourhood councils, shared transport, and accessible education. Alternatively, we must fight for the right to cohabit meaningfully, not resentfully. Today, our neighbourhoods need more playgrounds, not surveillance; more assemblies, not FIRs; more forums, not fences. But it is one thing to call for constructing the commons and quite another to organise it. So, we must ask: who will champion the cause of the commons? And how can we build the solidarity that survives the atomisation, isolation, and mistrust of our times?
