In Photos: Vietnam and Its Politics Today
हिंदी తెలుగు اردو
Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion
Support independent journalism. Donate Now
Top Stories
In Photos: Vietnam and Its Politics Today
Shome Basu
41 minutes ago
Today, the modern Hanoi carries a sense of discipline. Priority is given to farmers and workers, holding firm to the bastion of Marx's economic policies.
Photo: Shome Basu.
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
Contribute now
Growing up in Calcutta, I remember the slogans: 'Amar Naam, Tomar Naam – Vietnam (your name, my name, Vietnam).' The Communist regime in Calcutta cleverly renamed the street where the US Consulate is located 'Ho Chi Minh Sarani'.
This has remained unchanged by the subsequent government. Ho Chi Minh is seen as a victim of American supremacy – something some Bengalis can relate to – and as a rebellious leader from Asia who could take on the West.
Fifty years is a long time, but not long enough to forget. Sun, a communist and an ardent party worker in Hanoi, told me, 'We call it an American war. Vietnam fought for its defence.'
The city is always bathed in red in the evenings, as communist symbolism decks the streets. With nearly 3.7 million deaths over 20 years, American exploits took a toll on both sides during the infamous war. The driving force was the US's fear of communism.
But surprisingly, one sees many American tourists, and cafés displaying American brands and music. Sun said, 'We forgave but never forgot.'
Today, as business booms and Vietnam becomes a market for the world, it still struggles with China over the South China Sea and, more recently, Trump's tariffs – since the country's economy is heavily based on US exports and forms part of the global supply chain economy.
The shadow of communism, with imagery involving Uncle Ho (Ho Chi Minh) and Lenin, is still seen and felt. Today, the modern city carries a sense of discipline, with speed limits on highways and priority given to farmers and workers, holding firm to the bastion of Marx's economic policies.
My images are a showcase of what modern Vietnam looks like today – especially the capital, Hanoi, and the rural areas that dominate its largely captive economy.
The rice fields alone are enough to understand how the US Army lost the war. It is impossible to fight in the sultry weather, through vast swaths of rice fields, with snakes and inhospitable rains, conditions only the Viet Cong could endure, trapping numerous American GIs to their deaths.
Today, the city reflects its past, but its modern look may cause one to forget that seventy years ago, a war began that only ended in 1975—creating the space to shape a modern Vietnam.
All photos by Shome Basu.
Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
Related News
The Vanquished West: 50 Years After the End of Vietnam War, a Memoir of Resistance by the Global South
Vietnam War 50 Years On: How It Changed Perception of War
The Many Meanings of Vietnam
China, Vietnam Sign Dozens of Deals Amidst Trump's Tariff Threats
By Declaring Economic World War, Trump is Pursuing an Imperial Expansion Strategy
Bangladesh Cites Violation Of International Law After Mob Vandalises Diplomatic Mission in Agartala
New Refugee Shelter in Austria Set on Fire as Support For Far Right Grows
Toxic VX Nerve Agent Used To Murder Kim Jong Nam, Says Malaysia
How the Pentagon Tried to Cure the US of Its 'Vietnam Syndrome'
About Us
Contact Us
Support Us
© Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
US-EU trade deal: A ‘lose-lose' pact for both America and European Union. Here's why
The White House is trumpeting its new trade deal with the European Union, following a similar agreement with Japan, as a great victory. Both pacts impose tariffs of 15% on most exports to the US, along with other concessions — on the face of it, lifting the threat of open-ended trade war and reaffirming US dominance. Financial markets advanced on the news. In truth, there's nothing to celebrate. Both deals are lose-lose for all involved. The best that can be hoped for is that the administration now moves on to other priorities before more damage is done. In narrow economic terms, the claim that the US has emerged the winner from both sets of negotiations is simply false. Tariffs are taxes. Before long, American consumers will pay most if not all of the increase in costs. And the problem isn't just that imports will be more expensive. US producers of rival products will face less pressure to compete and innovate, and they will raise their prices as well. In due course, these forces will depress US living standards. Always remember, the biggest loser from tariffs is invariably the country imposing them. Such costs might be manageable over the long term, as long as the agreements draw a line under recent quarrels over trade. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who struck the deal with the US over the weekend, emphasized this point in justifying the bloc's surrender to American demands — lauding the agreement for restoring stability and predictability for consumers and producers alike. If only. For a start, both pacts, like the one struck earlier with the UK, are better seen as framework agreements than finished deals. For example, what does Japan's commitment to finance a US investment fund managed by the White House actually entail? Hard to say. (It's been portrayed as a $550 billion 'signing bonus.' Japanese officials probably don't see it that way.) Under the US-EU deal, some European goods will be given tariff-free access to the US. Which ones? Nobody knows. In both cases, many important details are yet to be finalized. Meanwhile, citizens in Japan and Europe have seen their governments humbled, which makes mounting political opposition and uncertainty all too likely. If or when these particular deals are concluded, there'll be new ones to strike — and the contested issues aren't confined to trade policy. If in the future the White House aims to settle all such disputes by reviving the threat of punitive tariffs or tacitly threatening to withhold cooperation on security, von der Leyen's vision of stability and predictability will be confirmed as a mirage. Most dangerously, the administration's supposed triumphs may now affirm its belief that the US is powerful enough to demand submission, as opposed to genuine partnership, from countries it once saw as friends. If so, heightened instability — lethal to long-term planning, investment and global cooperation across the board — won't be just a passing phase. Strength through disruption is a self-defeating strategy. Sooner or later, that will become painfully obvious. The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs. More stories like this are available on
Hans India
24 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.
Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
Solving Homelessness Isnt a Partisan Experiment
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Much as he did during his first term, President Donald Trump has been insisting lately that he — and perhaps he alone — knows how to fix the homelessness crisis that has long bedeviled American cities. In an executive order issued last week, Trump called for the mass removal of street encampments, and proposed sending the nearly 300,000 people who live in them to jail or long-term institutional facilities for substance abuse or mental health treatment — whether they want to go or not. To accomplish this goal, crucial federal funding for housing and social services would be used as leverage, given only to cities and states that adopt a more permissive stance on involuntary commitments and crack down on open-air drug use and loitering. Trump described the plan as a 'public safety' approach designed to end 'endemic vagrancy' and 'disorderly behavior.' And to be sure, it will have supporters, especially in Democratic-run Western states where most people who lack housing sleep outdoors rather than in shelters. California, with its reputation for squalid encampments in middle-class neighborhoods, accounts for almost half of the nation's unsheltered homeless population. But ultimately, Trump's plan is bound to fall short of its vaguely stated goals. That's because his executive order misdiagnoses the problem of homelessness as a failure of strategy by Democrats, rather than as a failure of both political parties to consistently provide cities and states with adequate resources. Consider that much of what Trump is proposing, draconian though it may seem to some, isn't all that different from what many Democratic mayors and governors are already doing. Last year, dozens of elected officials from California, Oregon, Washington and Arizona filed amicus briefs in a case involving Grants Pass, Oregon, asking the US Supreme Court to grant them greater authority to clear encampments from public spaces and arrest homeless people. The court's conservative majority did as asked. In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom promptly issued an executive order directing state agencies to remove tents from state-owned property and urged cities and counties to do the same — even threatening to withhold housing funds from jurisdictions that failed to comply with his demands. California was also among the first of many Democratic-run states to expand its involuntary commitment laws, making it easier to force homeless people into treatment for substance abuse. Newsom has called it a way to ensure 'people get the help they need and the respect they deserve.' New York, meanwhile, now allows first responders to involuntarily commit severely mentally ill people who cannot care for themselves. And, after years of contentious debate, Oregon is moving forward with similar legislation. Newsom's spokesperson, Tara Gallegos, called Trump's executive order an 'imitation' that 'even poorly executed is the highest form of flattery.' The partisan politics of homelessness has clearly changed. But the need for resources has not. If a more aggressive approach to clearing encampments is going to succeed, it will only do so if there is sufficient money for both treatment and housing for the people who live in them. Yet the Trump administration, through its One Big Beautiful Bill Act, will gut Medicaid — the program that funds many of the services that keep homeless people, many of whom are disabled, off the streets and in care. In addition, the administration previously announced plans to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in grants used to treat addiction. Drug overdoses kill more than 84,000 Americans every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet it's no coincidence that overdoses from fentanyl and other street drugs have been on the decline in recent years, following a flood of Covid-era grants during the Biden administration. Scores of federal homelessness and affordable housing grants also are at risk — a potentially dire scenario in high-cost cities and states. As Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center put it — echoing many civil liberties groups — Trump's executive order 'does nothing to lower the cost of housing or help people make ends meet.' It's even unclear whether states, many beset with budget deficits, will have the money to fund enough beds in institutional settings — or in jails — for all of the additional homeless people that Trump wants off the streets. He apparently doesn't see resources as the issue, though. As he says in his executive order, 'the Federal Government and the States have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness.' It's a fair point. The unhoused population increased by 18% nationwide last year, according to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. But it's worth pointing out that in California — which spends more money on homelessness than any other state and, under Newsom, has been more aggressive in removing encampments — the increase was only 3%. Trump should remember that no matter the strategy, fixing the homelessness crisis requires investment in American cities, not budget cuts. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Erika D. Smith is a politics and policy columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. She is a former Los Angeles Times columnist and Sacramento Bee editorial board member. More stories like this are available on
