‘If irresponsibility has a face': Sitharaman slams Rahul over Arun Jaitley remarks; calls them ‘despicable'
NEW DELHI: Union finance minister
Nirmala Sitharaman
on Saturday criticised Congress leader
Rahul Gandhi
for his comments on late union minister and senior
BJP
leader
Arun Jaitley
, calling them 'irresponsible' and stating such remarks ultimately damage the Congress.
Sitharaman responded to Gandhi's comments made earlier in the day where he had claimed that former finance minister Jaitley 'threatened' him on behalf of the government when he was fighting against the farm laws.
In a post on X, Sitharaman said, "If irresponsibility has a face, it is Rahul Gandhi, Leader of Opposition in LS. To throw baseless allegations at people in public life, even those who are no longer with us, is becoming a personality trait for him. His remarks on the late Shri. Arun Jaitley is despicable. India needs a strong opposition party. An irresponsible leadership hurts his party @INCIndia and the country. But does he care?
— nsitharaman (@nsitharaman)
Speaking at the Congress-organised Annual Legal Conclave 2025, the leader of opposition alleged in his address that the NDA government had deployed the late minister to "threaten" him for opposing the farm laws introduced by the Modi government in 2020.
"I remember when I was fighting the farm laws, Arun Jaitley was sent to me to threaten me. He told me, 'If you carry on opposing the government, fighting the farm laws, we will have to act against you. ' I looked at him and said 'I don't think you have an idea who you are talking to,'" Rahul Gandhi said.
Earlier Gandhi's claim drew a sharp rebuke from Jatley's son Rohan Jaitely, who accused the Congress MP of misrepresenting the facts and politicising the memory of the late leader.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Syahmad: New Container Houses – Take A Look At The Prices!
Container homes | Search ads
Learn More
Undo
He called his claims factually incorrect and in bad taste.
'Rahul Gandhi now claims my late father, Arun Jaitley, threatened him over the farm laws. Let me remind him, my father passed away in 2019. The farm laws were introduced in 2020,' Rohan Jaitley said in a post on X.
The Congress leader also criticised the election commission of India, accusing it of being complicit in widespread voter fraud.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Explained: Presidential Fitness Test, why Obama scrapped it and Trump brought it back to schools
(AP Photo/John McDonnell) In the storied annals of American school life, few memories are as unifying or divisive as the Presidential Fitness Test. For decades, it was the gym class rite of passage: Mile runs timed to the second, push-ups counted with unwavering scrutiny, sit-and-reach stretches measuring flexibility like a litmus test of youth. But by 2012, the very programme that once symbolised national strength had quietly disappeared from schools across the country. Now, more than a decade later, President Donald Trump has revived it, and with it, a cultural debate over health, discipline, and the meaning of fitness in America. The rise and fall of a national ritual Introduced under President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, the Presidential Fitness Test was born out of Cold War anxieties. A government-sponsored study had revealed that American children were falling behind their European peers in basic physical competency, a revelation so startling that Sports Illustrated called it 'The Report That Shocked the President.' Eisenhower responded by launching the President's Council on Youth Fitness, positioning physical readiness as a matter of national pride and preparedness. Later, under President John F. Kennedy, the programme took on moral and even patriotic dimensions. In his now-famous Sports Illustrated essay, 'The Soft American,' Kennedy warned that the nation's declining physical standards were a threat to its very fabric. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 20 Unforgettable Cars from the Past Undo Successive presidents followed suit, and the test became a nationwide benchmark, awarding badges, patches, and certificates to students who performed in the top percentiles. By the early 2000s, however, the test had become increasingly controversial. Though it was designed to inspire excellence, many educators and child health experts began to see it as a flawed, outdated measure, one that privileged athleticism over wellness and often shamed students who struggled to meet its rigid standards. Why Obama phased it out In 2012, the Obama administration made a decisive break with the past. The Presidential Fitness Test was formally retired and replaced by the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, a reimagined, data-driven model focused on personal growth rather than competition. The shift reflected a broader evolution in public health thinking. Rather than spotlighting top performers, the new programme emphasised 'personal bests' and long-term well-being. Using the FitnessGram assessment, it evaluated students on metrics like aerobic capacity, body composition, and muscular endurance — but in a way designed to reduce peer comparison and performance pressure. 'The new program has moved away from recognizing athletic performance to providing a barometer on student's health,' the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) noted at the time. It was a deliberate move toward inclusivity, particularly for students with disabilities, varying body types, or low baseline fitness. In Obama's vision, the goal was not to cultivate elite athletes, but to instill lifelong habits of physical activity. Health experts widely supported the change, citing research that early exposure to high-pressure physical tests could contribute to anxiety, body image issues, and disengagement from exercise altogether. At a time when mental health and inclusivity were gaining currency in education policy, the Obama administration's decision appeared both timely and humane. Trump's revival : A new battle for the body But in 2025, President Trump has brought the Presidential Fitness Test back, with all its original rigour, symbolism, and competitive edge. The decision, delivered via executive order, is part of the Trump administration's broader campaign to address what it calls 'crisis levels' of obesity, inactivity, and poor nutrition among American youth. The move follows a blistering report released in May by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which warned that rates of childhood chronic diseases, from diabetes to depression, are accelerating at an alarming pace due to sedentary lifestyles. 'This was a wonderful tradition, and we're bringing it back,' Trump said at the signing ceremony. His new order revives the test's iconic components, the mile run, push-ups, sit-ups, and flexibility tests, and reinstates the Presidential Physical Fitness Award for top performers. In addition, the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, now chaired by professional golfer Bryson DeChambeau, has been tasked with designing new award criteria and school programmes to incentivize excellence in physical education. For Trump, the decision is not just about health, it's about national character. By reviving a programme steeped in Cold War ethos and competitive spirit, the administration aims to instill discipline, resilience, and what Vice President J.D. Vance called a 'culture of strength.' A divided response The move has drawn mixed reactions. Supporters see it as a long-overdue wake-up call. They argue that a standardized national test can restore accountability in physical education, motivate students, and promote a shared benchmark of health excellence. Secretary Kennedy, who called the award 'a huge item of pride' in his own youth, believes the revived programme can reawaken a culture of active living. But critics warn that the return to percentile rankings and fixed physical benchmarks could alienate students who don't, or physically can't, meet the standards. Mental health advocates caution that such public assessments can heighten performance anxiety and fuel body image issues in increasingly vulnerable age groups. Educators, too, are concerned about implementation logistics and the risk of fostering a punitive environment in the name of fitness. A question of ideology At its core, the debate over the Presidential Fitness Test is about more than push-ups. It's about what America expects from its children, and what it believes schools should teach them. The Obama-era programme privileged equity, customization, and well-being. The Trump revival favors discipline, measurable excellence, and the revival of a competitive, athletic ethos. In many ways, this tug-of-war reflects a deeper philosophical divide, one between public health as empowerment and public health as personal responsibility. And as with so many debates in modern America, the gymnasium has become yet another battlefield in a wider cultural war. Whether this revival will succeed in changing health outcomes, or simply reignite old debates remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the Presidential Fitness Test is no longer just a measure of physical ability. It's a symbol of who we were, who we are, and who we hope to be. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Don't sweep us under rug': Black man challenges Vivek Ramaswamy on violence, race
At a Cincinnati town hall on Monday, following the viral incident of a White woman's brutal beating, Vivek Ramaswamy faced questioning from an audience member who argued that Black history has been disregarded in American discourse. The Ohio Republican candidate responded by acknowledging the need to face uncomfortable truths while highlighting America's foundation on ideals that it continuously strives to achieve, despite imperfections. The questioner, identified as Robert, expressed his non-partisan stance on US public safety debates but raised concerns about the inadequate inclusion of Black American history in contemporary safety discussions. "You have to understand how our people feel, because we were brought here in slave ships over 400 years ago, and we were treated like animals, like cattle hung on trees, families separated, our heritage taken from us so that we didn't know who we were as a people. Now, I say, you act like this is a new thing. This balance that you see out here," Robert challenged Ramaswamy. "Well, look over the 400 years of all the violence that was perpetrated on our people… You want to sweep our history under the table, but you don't sweep the Ashkenazi Jews with the Hitler thing under the table. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like People Born 1940-1975 With No Life Insurance Could Be Eligible For This Reassured Undo by Taboola by Taboola All the things that you did to the other races of people, you don't sweep that under the table. But when it comes down to the black Negro, we can always sweep what happened to us under the table." Ramswamy candidly added that the question made him a bit "uncomfortable" but said leaders should be expected to answer such difficult questions. "Of course, we're not perfect. In fact, we're destined to never be perfect because we're not a nation comprised of gods, we're a nation comprised of human beings, and we're a nation founded on a set of ideals. So, that means you will always be imperfect," Ramaswamy said in response to the race-conscious question. Using China and Iran as examples, Ramaswamy noted that these nations avoid criticism for hypocrisy because they lack foundational ideals. "Nobody ever criticizes China, or Iran, or whatever for hypocrisy, because to be a hypocritical nation, you have to have ideals in the first place," Ramaswamy said. "I'm not going to say America was perfect for every chapter of our national history. Of course not. We're a nation founded on ideals. We're nation founded on human beings, so we'll always fall short of those ideals," Ramaswamy continued. "But I would rather live in a country that has ideals and falls short of them. Than to live in a country with no ideals at all." While Ramaswamy went on to say that no one's ethnic history should be swept under the rug, he also emphasized that recent events — including last week's viral video showing a brutal public beating in Cincinnati — must not be overlooked. He urged Americans to face uncomfortable truths rather than avoid them. "We have to confront what is true. Not just what makes us comfortable, but precisely when it does not," Ramaswamy said. He expressed preference for a nation with aspirational standards, even if imperfectly achieved. While acknowledging the importance of historical recognition, Ramaswamy emphasised that recent events, including the Cincinnati incident, warrant attention. He concluded by redefining 'our people' as inclusive of all Americans, asserting everyone's right to live without fear of violence. "And may I even say, if you're a hard-working American, to go into your city whether you're black or white without fear of actually being assaulted or battered, that ought to be the birthright of every American. That's what I want for 'our people'," he said.
Economic Times
38 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump unwilling to criticize China even after being largest Russian oil buyers, targets India unfairly: GTRI report
Synopsis A recent report by the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) indicates that US President Donald Trump is unfairly targeting India over Russian oil imports while overlooking China, the largest buyer. The report refutes Trump's claim that India is reselling Russian oil for profit, clarifying that India exports refined petroleum products, not crude oil. ANI Trump unwilling to criticize China even after being largest Russian oil buyers, targets India unfairly: GTRI report US President Donald Trump has been unfairly targeting India over Russian oil imports, while choosing not to criticize China, according to a recent report by the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI).The report suggested that this selective approach may be driven by geopolitical per the data from the report, China is the largest buyer of Russian oil. In 2024, China imported USD 62.6 billion worth of Russian oil, compared to India's USD 52.7 billion. Despite this, Trump has focused his criticism on India, ignoring China's bigger stated, "Trump appears unwilling to criticize China, perhaps because of geopolitical calculations, and instead targets India unfairly".The report also rejects Trump's recent claim posted on Truth Social, where he alleged that India is "buying massive amounts of Russian oil and selling it on the open market for big profits." GTRI clarified that this statement is factually incorrect and misleading. The think tank explained that India does not export crude oil, Russian or is a net importer of crude oil, and its total crude oil exports stand at zero. What India does export are refined petroleum products, including diesel and jet fuel, some of which are processed from Russian crude. This is standard practice among energy-importing countries, the report further stated that India's oil refineries, both public and private, operate independently in deciding where to source crude oil companies do not need government permission to buy oil from Russia or any other country. Their decisions are based on commercial considerations, including price, supply reliability, and rules in export report noted that if Indian refiners find that importing Russian crude involves risks, such as secondary sanctions or restricted access to global markets, they may reduce or stop such imports example, India exported diesel and aviation turbine fuel (ATF) to the European Union in FY2025, but these exports will now stop due to the EU's ban on products refined from Russian crude. In such cases, refiners will shift away from Russian oil without needing a government trend is already visible. In May 2025, India's imports from Russia declined by 9.8 per cent, amounting to USD 9.2 billion, compared to imports in May GTRI report concluded that India is being unfairly targeted, while China's larger role goes unquestioned, possibly due to broader geopolitical interests.
