Parliament Monsoon Session 2025 Live Updates: Monsoon session of Parliament begins today; opposition set to corner government on key issues
BJP MP Anurag Thakur on Sunday asserted that the NDA government has consistently shown a willingness to debate every issue raised in Parliament over the past 11 years. He criticised the Opposition for avoiding meaningful discussion, stating, "In the last 11 years, the BJP and NDA have discussed almost every issue that the opposition and the ruling side wanted to discuss in the House. The opposition looks for excuses to avoid discussion... I would say that we are ready to discuss all issues related to the public and the country... The opposition often shies away from debate."
Speaking in Punjab's Bathinda, Thakur responded to queries regarding PM Modi's absence from the all-party meeting held in New Delhi, emphasising that the Prime Minister always attends Parliament when necessary. "Whenever any question related to PM Modi arises in Parliament, he is present in the House... If the Prime Minister has to attend any important meeting, it is in the interest of the nation," he stated.
Thakur noted that this year's Monsoon Session, from 21 July to 21 August, was extended beyond the usual August 15 end date to allow for more debate and legislative business. PM Modi is expected to address the media before the session begins.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
25 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Don't Control Me": Jaya Bachchan Scolds Fellow MP, Sparks A 'Sindoor' Row
New Delhi: Samajwadi Party MP and veteran actor Jaya Bachchan sparked a row today after she questioned Operation Sindoor's name and asked why it was named so when the Pahalgam terror attack "destroyed the sindoor" of so many women. Speaking in Rajya Sabha during the debate on Operation Sindoor, Ms Bachchan started her speech by expressing her condolences to the families of the 26 innocents murdered in Pahalgam's Baisaran Valley on April 22. Addressing the treasury benches, she said, "I would congratulate you on the writers you have hired. You give grand names. Why did you name it 'Sindoor'? Sindoor toh ujad gaya (sindoor was destroyed), the wives of those who were killed." Ms Bachchan was also riled when MPs from the ruling party interrupted her speech. "Either you speak or I will speak. When you speak, I don't interrupt. When a woman speaks, I never interrupt. So please mind your tongue," she said. On one occasion, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi, who was seated next to Ms Bachchan, came under fire for trying to calm her down. "Priyanka, don't control me," said the veteran actor as Ms Chaturvedi responded with a laugh. The Samajwadi Party MP questioned the government on the intelligence failure that led to the Pahalgam terror attack. "You have destroyed the faith of the people. The families (of victims) will never forgive you." Ms Bachchan's remarks on Operation Sindoor's name have now drawn fire from the BJP. "Just see their mindset. Jaya Bachchan ji, the terrorists destroyed sindoor, but sindoor is not just for embellishment; it is also a symbol of strength and capability. The name Operation Sindoor was chosen to send a message: you wipe off sindoor, we will destroy you. This was achieved," BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla said, accusing opposition parties Congress and Samajwadi Party of lowering the morale of the armed forces with such remarks. Operation Sindoor, reports have said, was a name chosen by Prime Minister Narendra Modi after the killers in Pahalgam rounded up Hindu men and shot them at close range in front of their wives and children. Sindoor in Hindi means vermilion, which Hindu women put on their head as a symbol of marriage. The name of the operation captured the loss of these women, whose partners were brutally killed in front of their eyes.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
25 minutes ago
- First Post
Why has Australia added YouTube to social media ban for teens?
The Anthony Albanese government is set to add YouTube, which is owned by Google, to the list of apps banned for youths. The government had earlier decided to block teens' access to a number of platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat. But why has Australia added YouTube to the list? What do we know about the ban? read more Australia's Parliament passed the law banning social media access for those aged 16 and under in November 2024 Australia's social media ban for teens is expanding. The Anthony Albanese government is set to add YouTube, which is owned by Google, to the list of apps banned for youths. The government had earlier decided to block access to a number of platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat for teenagers. The ban is slated to start on December 10. Albanese had claimed that the idea behind the bill was to protect children from the ills of social media. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He said Australia was leading the world when it came to protecting children. 'Social media has a social responsibility and there is no doubt that Australian kids are being negatively impacted by online platforms so I'm calling time on it,' Albanese said recently. 'Social media is doing social harm to our children, and I want Australian parents to know that we have their backs.' The development comes in the backdrop of Google being set to host its annual 'Google at Parliament House' event. But what do we know about the ban? And why has Australia added YouTube to the mix? Let's take a closer look What we know about ban Australia's Parliament passed the law banning social media for those aged 16 and under in November 2024. The legislation amended Australia's Online Safety Act 2021 which defined people under 16 as 'age-restricted users'. It defined 'age-restricted social media platform' as being where The 'sole purpose, or a significant purpose' is to enable 'online social interaction' between people Users can 'link to, or interact with' others Users can 'post material' The law also mandated a fine of over $30 million if social media companies did not take measures to stop those under the age of 16 from creating accounts on their platforms. They also need to disable existing accounts and work out methods to step those aged 16 and under from bypassing the system. Social media companies have said it remains unclear what they must do to meet the government's requirements under the law. More details about the steps that need to be taken are set to be put before Parliament Wednesday (July 30). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The move was thought to be widely popular with 77 per cent of respondents in one poll backing the ban. However, the ban came in from criticism from experts who accused the government of doing a rush job. At the time, it was uncertain that YouTube would be among the social media companies. The Anthony Albanese-led Australian government earlier carved out an exemption for YouTube. AP However, the government under former communications minister Michelle Rowland later carved out an exemption for YouTube. Rowland told Australia's Parliament YouTube was among the apps 'that can be shown to function like social media in their interactivity but operate with a significant purpose to enable young people to get the education and health support they need'. The other social media companies had slammed the Australian government's move and demanded a 'level playing field'. TikTok described YouTube's exemption as a 'sweetheart deal' and said it was 'irrational and indefensible'. So, what changed? Why has Australia added YouTube to the list? The decision comes as Anika Wells has taken charge of the communications ministry. Wells has said that she received advice from the eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, that YouTube should be added to the list as it 'poses a threat to young people'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Grant last month cited a survey of 2,600 respondents saying that one in four children had viewed harmful content on YouTube. She claimed it was 'the most frequently cited platform in our research'. She also referred to YouTube's 'persuasive design' and algorithm that keep young people on the platform. Wells said online gaming, messaging, education and health apps would be excluded from the ban. This is because they 'pose fewer social media harms to under 16s', she explained. 'The Albanese government is giving kids a reprieve from the persuasive and pervasive pull of social media while giving parents peace of mind,' Wells said. . The government had earlier decided to block teens' access to a number of platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat, AFP 'There's a place for social media, but there's not a place for predatory algorithms targeting children.' 'We want kids to know who they are before platforms assume who they are,' she added. 'There is no one perfect solution when it comes to keeping young Australians safer online – but the social media minimum age will make a significantly positive difference to their wellbeing.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It must be pointed out that though teenagers will be unable to make YouTube accounts, they will be able to see videos on the website. YouTube Kids will remain exempt from the ban. What is YouTube saying? YouTube has protested the ban. 'YouTube is a video sharing platform, not a social media service, that offers benefit and value to younger Australians,' a spokesperson said. It said it will 'consider next steps' and 'continue to engage' with the Albanese government. Experts too have expressed opposition to the ban and scepticism about its efficacy. They say that though harmful content and platform design are concerns, they add that smart regulations and digital literacy is needed. They say the right's of children must be balanced against free speech. Australia isn't alone. Norway has announced plans for a similar social media law, while the UK has expressed interest in doing so too. With inputs from agencies
Hans India
25 minutes ago
- Hans India
Rahul Gandhi Questions PM Modi's Silence on Trump's Ceasefire Mediation Claims
Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi has intensified his criticism of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's reluctance to directly challenge US President Donald Trump's claims regarding American mediation in the India-Pakistan ceasefire agreement. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Gandhi suggested that Modi's silence on the matter stems from strategic constraints rather than diplomatic courtesy. The Congress leader argued that the Prime Minister cannot openly contradict Trump without risking potential revelations that could expose uncomfortable truths about the bilateral relationship. Gandhi explicitly connected Trump's persistent statements to ongoing trade negotiations between the United States and India. He characterized the American President's remarks as leveraging tactics designed to secure favorable terms in upcoming commercial discussions. The Congress leader predicted that continued pressure would ultimately result in a trade agreement that might compromise India's interests. The controversy centers on Trump's repeated assertions that Washington facilitated a "full and immediate" ceasefire between India and Pakistan through American diplomatic intervention. The US President has reiterated these claims approximately thirty times since the May 10 truce agreement, according to Congress estimates. India has consistently maintained that the ceasefire understanding emerged through direct communication between the Directors General of Military Operations from both countries, explicitly rejecting any foreign mediation role. This official position contradicts Trump's public narrative about American involvement in the peace process. During Tuesday's parliamentary session, Gandhi challenged Modi to demonstrate courage comparable to former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by openly declaring Trump's statements false. The Congress leader specifically dared Modi to state in Parliament that "Donald Trump is lying" about the mediation claims. In his subsequent parliamentary response, Modi asserted that no international leader had requested India to halt its military operations, though he notably avoided mentioning Trump by name. This omission has become a focal point for Opposition criticism. Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera employed vivid imagery to characterize the relationship dynamics, suggesting Trump maintains controlling influence over Modi's diplomatic responses. The party has accused the Prime Minister of being in a compromised position with significant information to conceal.
