Politics around the world is evolving in ways that both leaders and analysts are finding difficult to assess and respond to. Politicians are scrambling to sustain support as new entrants make inroads into constituencies that have lost faith in the established order. It is in this melee of the old and the new that the grammar of today’s politics is charting a course of its own. Globally, the political elites have never seemed so out of touch as they seem today, unable to respond to the challenge from their streets.

In just the last few days, US President Joe Biden’s credibility saw a free fall, while the UK booted out an accidental, out-of-touch Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, and ushered in the Labour Raj at a time when the rest of Europe is moving to the right. The French have given a mandate to the Far Right. Nine months after the terror attacks of October 7, Israel is facing a civil war-like situation, with people demanding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s resignation even as the nation remains in a state of war on multiple fronts. In Iran, Reformist Masoud Pezeshkian found himself elected as the nation’s new president, beating his hardline conservative rival Saeed Jalili by securing around 53.3% of votes, nine percentage points more than Jalili.

Also Read | Rishi Sunak: For Whom Everything That Could Go Wrong, Went Wrong

A Reformist In Iran, ‘Changemaker’ In UK

Different nations, different challenges, different political arcs, but all facing a moment of political reckoning. Ironically, it is Iran where the recent change of leadership holds the most promise. This is not the first time a reformist has come to power in Iran in a system that has been dominated by the “supreme leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since 1989. The conservatives have controlled all the levers of power and have managed to scuttle earlier reformists like Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani. However, there has been a growing disillusionment with the ruling elites. By criticising Iran’s morality police and promising “unity and cohesion”  as well as an end to Iran’s “isolation” from the world, Pezeshkian talked in a language that appealed to those who want normalcy in a nation that has been on the edge of a precipice for years now.

Rishi Sunak, on the other hand, was not only bogged down by the legacy of his predecessors who had made a mockery of public mandates, but he was also unable to soothe the British public struggling with rising costs of living and a crumbling public services infrastructure. The Conservative Party imploded, and Sunak’s leadership never managed to rise to match the needs of today’s Britain. And so, the Labour Party ended up getting a landslide even without increasing its vote share, thereby taking the United Kingdom in a direction opposite to the rest of Europe, where the Right is ascending.

Close Shave For Macron

In France, President Emmanuel Macron had to call a snap election fearing the resurgence of the nation’s far-right party, the National Rally (RN). Only a last-minute, left-wing tactical adjustment could prevent an outright landslide for the RN. But this should be seen as just a consolation prize, as the RN has greatly increased its representation in Parliament. 

Also Read | Disaster Averted, But Macron Still Faces Big Challenge Ahead

Separately, last month, the European Union elections saw a resurgence of the right in ways few had anticipated, and the triumph of Eurosceptic parties will have serious long-term consequences for the ability of the 27-member bloc to work cohesively.

Concerns About Biden

The world’s eyes, however, are now on the leadership contest in the US, where two old white men are busy damaging the brand of American democracy. Donald Trump, under whose presidency the foundations of the American democratic institutional fabric came close to collapsing, continues to be ahead in the presidential race, as the base of the Republican Party continues to move to the right. Trump’s supporters still view him as an anti-establishment candidate and despite facing a number of charges in the courts, he is hailed as a victim. His greatest advantage is that he has his primary opponent in President Joe Biden, who, after a disastrous debate performance, is having a difficult time convincing his own party about his candidacy. 

Also Read | “He Looks Different”: Wild Theories Over Joe Biden’s Appearance

Old templates no longer apply to the new political climate, where fast-evolving aspirations demand a change in the status quo. Back home in India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s third consecutive victory and Indian democracy’s continuing resilience underscores the Indian electorate’s ability to make nuanced choices even as the world around it undergoes a dramatic shift. Even so, this global churn has a lesson for Indian political leaders and the larger system.

(Harsh V Pant is Vice President for Studies and Foreign Policy at ORF.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

As was widely expected in the UK elections, the Labour Party has registered one of its biggest victories, inflicting a huge defeat on the Conservative Party.

No one had expected this seismic outcome just a few years ago. But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who is going to be the next British Prime Minister, is being hailed by everyone for changing the fortune of the party. He promised to get Britain out of economic stagnation and claimed he would fix the ailing National Health Services. He even reached out to ethnic communities, including the Indian diaspora.

‘Namaste’, Starmer

In the last days of the election campaign, Keir Starmer visited the Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Kingsbury, a prominent Hindu temple in London, and said “namaste” with folded hands. His charm offensive included him wearing a tilak on his forehead and a floral garland around his neck. Starmer may have looked out of place, but it was an attempt to placate angry Indian diaspora voters, the majority of whom were expected to favour the Conservative Party. The temple visit was also intended to send out a strong signal of friendship with India.

Also Read | Labour Sweeps UK Polls, Rishi Sunak’s Party Ousted For 1st Time In 14 Years

Despite his awkwardness, Starmer knew he had to perform this political act, not only because his visit underscored Labour’s commitment to embracing and celebrating diversity within the UK, but also because he needed to repair relations with the influential Indian diaspora, and, by extension, India. It had been clear for quite some time that his party was returning to power after a hiatus of 14 years and he was going to be the next UK Prime Minister; that is why he needed to undertake an India outreach before assuming office.

The Baggage Of The Past

Starmer’s gesture of visiting the temple was particularly significant given the events of September 2019, when during its annual conference in Brighton, the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership had passed a motion addressing the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. The motion declared that there was a humanitarian crisis in the region and asserted that the people of Kashmir should be granted the right to self-determination. Additionally, it had called for the deployment of international monitors to the area to ensure the protection of human rights and the assessment of the situation on the ground.

Needless to say, the Labour Party had gone too far. And despite the clarification issued by Jeremy Corbyn, the damage was done.

The motion was met with significant backlash from the Indian diaspora, who felt that it was one-sided and did not consider the complexities of the Kashmir issue. The event marked a turning point as many members of the Indian community began to shift their allegiances to the Conservative Party.

Also Read | “This Is A Massacre”: Conservative Leader As Labour Heads For Massive UK Win

The Indian government also responded sharply to the Labour’s motion. It was reported that the Indian High Commission in London took the unprecedented step of cancelling a scheduled dinner for Labour leaders, signalling its strong disapproval. The Indian government officially rejected the motion, emphasising its concerns about what it viewed as interference in its internal affairs.

In an effort to mend relations, Starmer attempted to address the situation last year, when he asserted that the Labour Party would strive to maintain strong relations with India, indicating a desire to rebuild trust and cooperation. Despite these efforts, the episode highlighted the fragile nature of Labour’s relations with India and underscored the significant political influence of the Indian diaspora in the UK.
Labour’s image makeover under Starmer

A Changed Labour

Indeed, the Labour Party has now made a triumphant comeback, securing a thumping majority. We should keep in mind that the party is a much-changed one under Starmer. It wants to inject more depth and substance into Britain’s strategic partnership with India.

India is most likely to carefully monitor Labour’s policy stance on Kashmir, immigration and the proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The Indian government may have apprehensions about Labour’s views on its internal matters, but on balance, the India-UK bilateral relations will not change much under Starmer. In fact, Labour supporters in the Indian community believe that under him, the relations are likely to improve. It is being claimed that the number of Indian-origin Labour MPs would double from the current six members in the outgoing Parliament. 

Will The Ties Improve?

Academics in the UK at times tend to romanticise the bilateral ties between the two countries, looking at it chiefly from the prism of colonial nostalgia. We are led to believe that it is in India’s interest to have a deeper strategic partnership with Britain. To be honest, however, India sees Britain as a middle power, whose influence on the global stage has been on the wane for long. One can only blame the Conservative Party for it, a beleaguered and divided house which presided over 14 years of stagnation. India under Narendra Modi, who was born after the country’s independence, is, whether rightly or wrongly, not in awe of its erstwhile colonial masters.

Also Read | UK’s Labour Party Commits To Stamping Out “Anti-India Sentiments”

Yes, the bilateral trade in goods and services is growing steadily, and stood at £39 billion last year, with the balance of trade heavily in India’s favour. Yes, we have a vocal, upwardly mobile Indian diaspora, which acts as a bridge between the two countries and it often works to India’s advantage. But the oomph factor in bilateral relations has been missing for a long time. For example, India and the US warmed up to each other and became trusted partners only after the Civil Nuclear Agreement between the two countries was brokered under President George W. Bush. It was a pivotal moment that added significant “oomph” to bilateral ties and transformed the dynamics of the relationship, fostering deeper strategic, economic, and technological cooperation. It set the stage for an enduring partnership in the 21st century. Even during the Obama and Trump administrations the bilateral ties never ran out of excitement. 

One cannot say the same about India-UK relations, which badly need to be injected with energy, excitement and a mega-deal. 

FTA: Starmer’s First Challenge In India-UK Ties

With regards to India, one of the first tasks on Starmer’s desk will be to reach a Free Trade Agreement. He has maintained his commitment to completing the FTA, but it is not going to be easy. India’s priority appears to be to finalise an agreement with the European Union (EU) first. The bilateral trade in goods and services last year stood at €113 billion. The two sides relaunched the negotiations in 2022 and the progress is said to be satisfactory.

According to a group of researchers, another stumbling block in the India-UK FTA is “the opposition in the UK to Indian demands for more visas for intra-company transfers and particularly to demands that social security contributions from Indian workers during such transfers be reimbursed”.

Immigration Policies

Brexit has led to record levels of Indian immigration. Of the 6.85 lakh immigrants in the UK today, the majority come from India. The Labour Party’s stated aim is to reduce legal immigration and curb illegal immigration. Many of the legal Indian immigrants are IT professionals on work permits, contributing to the UK’s technology sector. There is a small number of illegal immigrants from India as well.

The party’s policy seeks to balance the economic benefits of skilled migrants with the goal of controlling overall immigration numbers, reflecting broader political and economic priorities.
Human Rights and Citizenship Laws

Historically, the Labour Party has been vocal about human rights issues in India, particularly on laws like the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The Labour Party’s criticism has been viewed by the Indian government as interference and a misrepresentation of India’s internal policies aimed at addressing specific security concerns. Starmer will be under pressure from domestic human rights organisations to put forward liberal British perspectives. His diplomatic skills are bound to be tested in the coming months and years.

The relations between the UK’s Labour Party and the Indian government are complex, influenced by historical ties, diaspora politics, and divergent policy priorities. Addressing such challenges will require nuanced diplomacy, mutual respect, and an understanding of the sensitivities involved on both sides.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

SYDNEY:

Julian Assange is en route to a courtroom on the Pacific island of Saipan where he is expected to plead guilty on Wednesday to a single criminal charge in a plea deal that will see him walk free and return home to Australia after a 14-year legal odyssey.

WHERE IS SAIPAN?

Saipan is the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI), a US commonwealth in the western Pacific which begins roughly 70 kilometers (44 miles) north of Guam and stretches across 14 islands.

Like territories such as Guam or Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands are part of the U.S. without the full status of a state. Residents are U.S. citizens but cannot vote in presidential elections. Crucially, some, like Saipan, also host U.S. district courts.

Assange will appear in court at 9 a.m. local time on Wednesday (2300 GMT Tuesday)

WHY IS ASSANGE HEADING THERE?

U.S. prosecutors said Assange wanted to go to a court close to his home in Australia but not in the continental United States.

Saipan has the advantage of being relatively close to Assange’s home in Australia, roughly 3,000 km (1800 miles) south. Hawaii is more than twice as far away.

“He has to front up to charges that have been brought under U.S. law,” said Emily Crawford, a professor at the University of Sydney’s law school.

“It had to be U.S. territory but it had to be the U.S. territory closest to Australia that wasn’t a U.S. state like Hawaii.”

SAIPAN AND THE UNITED STATES

After time as a colony of Spain, Germany and then Japan, the United States took control of the island in World War Two after the Battle of Saipan in 1944.

After decades under U.S. control, residents in 1975 voted to join the United States as a territory.

The Northern Mariana Islands elected a delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 2008, but the delegate has no vote in Congress.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

U.S. prosecutors said Assange has agreed to plead guilty to a single criminal count of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified U.S. national defense documents. He will be sentenced to 62 months of time that he has already served. If the judge approves his plea, Assange is expected to return to Australia after the hearing, U.S. prosecutors said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Nigel Farage, leader of Britain’s anti-immigration Reform U.K. party, faced strong criticism on Saturday after saying that the West provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

In an interview with the BBC on Friday, Mr. Farage said “we have provoked this war”, while adding that “of course” it was Russian president Vladimir Putin’s “fault”.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told reporters that Mr. Farage’s claim was “completely wrong and only plays into Putin’s hands”.

Labour leader Keir Starmer, who looks set to take Mr. Sunak’s job after an election next month, said Mr. Farage’s comments were “disgraceful”.

“Anyone who is standing for parliament ought to be really clear that Russia is the aggressor”, he told reporters on the campaign trail.

Mr. Farage — a former European Union parliamentarian who has tried and failed to run for Westminster seven times — is seeking a seat for Clacton in east England in the country’s general election next month.

His party is polling third behind the ruling Conservatives and opposition Labour parties, but is only predicted to pick up a few seats.

Even so, a surge of popularity for Reform U.K. since Mr. Farage took over as leader this month risks drawing away votes that the Conservative party sorely needs to win a fifth term in power.

His comments met with outrage on Saturday.

Interior minister James Cleverly criticised Mr. Farage for “echoing Putin’s vile justification for the brutal invasion of Ukraine.”

Former Conservative Defence Minister Tobias Ellwood called the comments “shocking” in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, adding that “Churchill will be turning in his grave”.

Meanwhile Labour’s defence spokesman John Healey called the comments “disgraceful” and said his stance made him “unfit for any political office in our country”.

Probed further on his views on Putin in the interview, Farage said that he “disliked him as a person” but “admired him as a political operator because he’s managed to take control of running Russia”.

The former Brexit figurehead, Farage is close to former US President Donald Trump, who has said he gets along with Putin “great”.

Farage has also spoken about his intention to run for prime minister in 2029.

He stood by claims that Sunak, the first UK prime minister of colour, does not “understand our culture”, in response to Sunak leaving D-Day commemorations in France early.

He clarified in the interview that he meant Sunak was “too upper class”.

Farage’s comments on Sunak — first made in a political leaders debate — also drew criticism, with one Tory minister saying they made him “very uncomfortable”.

The story so far: Even as Israel continues to attack Southern Gaza’s Rafah, three European nations — Norway, Spain and Ireland — announced their formal recognition of Palestine as a state on May 22. The recognition is expected to take place on May 28. All three countries have urged Israel and Hamas to agree to an immediate ceasefire and allow aid to flow uninterrupted to Gaza.

Ireland’s Prime Minister Simon Harris likened Palestine’s struggle for statehood to Ireland’s fight for Independence from British rule, saying “Today, we use the same language to support the recognition of Palestine as a state” at a Dublin press conference. Ireland also recognised Israel’s right to “exist securely and at peace” with its neighbours, advising against Tel Aviv’s incursion into Rafah and rocket attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah.

Norewegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said there was only one solution for Israelis and Palestinians alike: two states, living side by side, in peace and security. Similarly, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez noted that recognising Palestine was a step in favour of “peace, justice and moral consistency” and not against Israelis.

With the addition of these three nations, 146 of 193 nations in the world now recognise Palestine as a state. In the wake of Israel’s war on Gaza this year, Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Barbados have recognised Palestine as a state. Countries which have not recognised Palestine’s statehood include the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, Italy, United Kingdom and Japan.

Here’s a look at Palestine’s quest for statehood, the countries which recognise it and India’s stance on the two-state question.

Palestine’s statehood journey

1922- 1948: British Mandate and Jewish migration to Palestine

In 1922, the British established a ‘mandate’ expressing support for a national home for Jewish people in Palestine, leading to large-scale migration of Jews from Eastern Europe towards Palestine. The numbers swelled in 1930s and 1940s during the Nazi regime and the World War; the immigrant inflow was opposed by the Arabs who demanded independence for Palestine. Amid continued violence, calls for partition and independence, the British who were ruling the area, roped in the United Nations (UN) to resolve the issue.

1948-1987: Israel-Palestine partition, wars and ceasefire

The UN scrapped the mandate, partitioning Palestine into two independent states – one Arab and one Jewish, with Jerusalem as a separate international entity. In 1948, the Jewish state proclaimed its independence, calling itself Israel and capturing almost 77% of the territory mandated as Palestine by the British, including major areas of Jerusalem after two wars (Palestine war and Arab-Israeli war) with several neighbouring Arab nations. The remaining areas were controlled by Jordan and Egypt and run as an Arab state. Shortly thereafter, large-scale expulsion of Palestinians from Israel-controlled areas occurred, heightening tensions in the area.

Two consecutive wars occurred in 1967 and 1973 between Israel and the Arab coalition (Syria, Egypt and Jordan). In the 1967 war, Israel captured East Jerusalem and West Bank from Jordan, Gaza and Sinai from Egypt and Golan Heights from Syria. It later annexed Golan and East Jerusalem, but retuned Sinai to Egypt in the Camp David Agreement, which followed the 1973 war.

In the 1974 UN General Assembly, the body reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence, sovereignty, and return. It also awarded the political coalition Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) the status of observer in the UN Assembly. However, tensions continued as militant wings of the PLO indulged in attacks against Israeli civilians and terror attacks on Israeli territories, leading to Israeli offensive against Palestinians in 1980s.

1988-2000: Palestine declares Independence

A breakthrough was achieved when PLO chairman Yasser Arafat acknowledged Israel’s right to exist and accepted a two-state solution to the decades-long conflict. On November 15, 1988, PLO adopted the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in its National Council meeting in Algiers, electing Mr. Arafat as the first President of Palestine. Under his leadership, the PLO engaged in several negotiations with the Israeli government — the 1991 Madrid Conference, 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2000 Camp David Summit. These talks led to partial withdrawal of Israeli forces, recognition of PLO as Palestine’s representative in bilateral talks, release of prisoners and establishment of a Palestine administration for self-rule in Gaza and West Bank. But the actual promise of the Oslo Accords, the creation of an independent, sovereign Palestine state, never materialised.

2001-Present: Rise of Hamas, Palestine’s UN membership bid

In 2007, the militant group Hamas snatched control of Gaza, after its elected government was dissolved by the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Israel imposed an illegal blockade on Gaza in response, and Israel and Hamas have fought several wars ever since.

Tel Aviv also began expanding settlements in the West Bank while it withdrew all settlements from the Gaza Strip. As negotiations between Israel and Palestine broke down in 2010, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas applied to the UN for Palestine’s membership to the international body in 2011. Since then, the international body is yet to grant Palestine full membership. Recently, the UN Assembly adopted a resolution qualifying Palestine’s application with 143 votes favouring it, nine against and twenty-five abstaining from voting— the closest Palestine has gotten to membership.

 Which countries recognise Palestine and when?

1988-89: Recognition on declaration of Independence

When Palestine first declared Independence, several Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Oman, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, and Qatar recognised Palestine. Similarly, Asian nations like India, Laos, Indonesia, China, Russia, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, and North Korea recognised Palestine along with African nations like Algeria, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Libya, Chad, Sudan, Madagascar, Mozambique, Botswana, and Namibia.

Several Eastern European nations like Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia too recognised Palestine once it declared its independence. However, the West was more hesitant.

Most of these nations have cited the Palestinian people’s right to a state and PLO’s legitimate representation of the Palestinian people as the reasons they have recognised Palestine as a state. Several believe that the two-state solution is the only viable option for long-term peace in the region, and hence view Palestine’s recognition as a state as imperative.

1990s-2010: Other African nations recognise Palestine

With the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, other African nations like Rwanda, Ethiopia, South Africa, and Malawi recognised Palestine as a state. Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Philippines, too recognised Palestine as a state.

The 90s and early 2000s (prior to Hamas’s election victory in the Palestinian territories) was the most stable period in Israel-Palestine negotiations, though Israel’s occupation and settlements continued. Mr. Arafat himself enjoyed cordial relations with many African leaders; several African leaders have drawn parallels to the plight of enslaved or colonised Africans to that of Palestinians living under Israeli rule, making the state’s recognition a natural step. While almost all African nations recognise Palestine, condemnation of Israel’s attack on Gaza has not been uniform in the continent, indicating Israel’s growing influence in Africa.

2011-Present: Latin America’s ‘pink tide’ pushes the Palestinian cause

With Palestine applying for membership in the United Nations, many South American nations began recognising Palestine as a state. Several reports attribute this wave of recognition to the ‘pink tide’ — the rise of Left governments in elections. In 2010-11, Latin American nations like Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Guyana, Suriname, Ecuador, Uruguay and Paraguay recognised Palestine.

In the late 2010s, when Left governments were elected in Mexico, Columbia, Honduras, and Bolivia, a second wave of recognitions for Palestine flowed — with Mexico being the latest to recognise it in 2023.

The rise of Left politics in Latin America has escalated anti-US sentiments in some of these nations. After Tel Aviv waged war on Gaza, the heads of Latin American states have been most vocal in their condemnation. Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Honduras, and Argentina censured Israel’s actions, with some even severing diplomatic relations with Israel.

According to international relations expert Mauricio Jaramillo, Latin America, which has usually maintained close relations with Israel, is sympathetic to the Palestine cause due to its own experience in the Cold War. Several military dictatorships backed by the US were propped up in Latin America during the Cold War, suppressing Leftist politics.

In Western Europe, Sweden (2014) and Iceland (2011) remain the only nations which have formally recognised Palestine as a state. Some western nations have hitherto held fast to the stance that Palestinian statehood was the prize for a final peace agreement in the region. However, UK Foreign minister David Cameron has indicated that the recognition of Palestinian statehood by European nations could come earlier, to help drive momentum towards a political settlement. Even France voted for Palestine’s membership to the UN in the general assembly on May 10.

However, the biggest hurdle towards recognition remains the US, which vetoed Palestine’s bid for full UN membership in April. It has privately discussed the issue with European allies but seeks clarity as to what the recognition of Palestine would mean in terms of policy, a report in the BBC suggested.

 What is India’s stance on Palestine?

In 1947, India opposed the partition of historical Palestine at the UN. It also remained a strong supporter of the Palestine cause. It became the first non-Arab nation to recognize the PLO as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. On its declaration of Independence, India recognised Palestine as a nation and opened its Representative office to the Palestine Authority in Gaza in 1996, later shifted to Ramallah in 2003.

India has always voted in favour of UN membership for Palestine, backing the state’s latest bid in a draft U.N. General Assembly resolution. In a first for an Indian state head, President Pranab Mukherjee visited Palestine in October 2015, while Prime Minister Narendra Modi followed in February 2018. Palestine’s President Mahmoud Abbas has visited India in 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2017.

In the Israel-Palestine dispute, India has always supported “a negotiated two-state solution towards establishing a sovereign, independent and viable state of Palestine within secure and recognised borders, living side by side in peace with Israel.” In the wake of the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel, India condemned the attack and called for de-escalation and peaceful resolution of the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy. Seeking the release of prisoners on both sides, India has called for an ‘immediate ceasefire’ between Hamas and Israel as the death toll rose to alarmingly high levels.

London:

The United Kingdom will head to the polls on July 4 in a long-anticipated general election called on Wednesday by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

Here are the main players in the nationwide vote.

Rishi Sunak

Sunak, 44, is seeking his own mandate from the British public having been installed as Conservative leader, and therefore prime minister, by his own MPs in October 2022.

He succeeded Liz Truss, who was ousted following just 49 days in power after her tax-cutting economic agenda spooked markets and lost her the support of her party.

Sunak, who is of Indian descent, became the UK’s first British Asian and Hindu prime minister when he was elected unopposed by fellow Tory MPs.

The ex-financier has been credited with steadying government following the chaos of the Truss and Boris Johnson premierships and for halving inflation.

He has failed though to meet several promises, including cutting health waiting lists, stopping irregular immigration, and sending migrants to Rwanda.

Opinion polls regularly give him some of the lowest approval ratings of any prime minister ever.

Keir Starmer

Keir Starmer, leader of the main opposition Labour Party, is a former human rights lawyer and chief public prosecutor tipped by pollsters to win the election and become prime minister.

Starmer, 61, has been credited with moving his party back to the centre ground and rooting out anti-Semitism since succeeding left-winger Jeremy Corbyn as leader in April 2020.

Supporters see him as a pragmatic, safe pair of hands, ideally suited to managing Britain back from economic decline.

Critics accuse him of being an uninspiring flip-flopper who has failed to spell out a clear vision for the country.

Starmer was born in London to a toolmaker father and a nurse mother. His unusual first name was his socialist parents’ tribute to Labour’s founding father — Keir Hardie.

The keen footballer and Arsenal fan was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II for services to criminal justice but rarely uses the prefix “Sir” before his name.

Nigel Farage

He has never been an MP and is yet to confirm if he is even running to become one, but arch-Eurosceptic Nigel Farage is set to influence the election — either as parliamentary candidate or TV news host.

The 60-year-old beer-loving, cigarette-smoking ex-member of the European Parliament is one of the most divisive personalities in UK politics.

He gained the nickname “Mr Brexit” by former US president Donald Trump after helping to persuade a majority of Britons in 2016 to vote to leave the European Union.

For months he has been teasing a run for office, likely for the right-wing populist Reform UK party that he co-founded in 2018 and for which he currently serves as honorary president.

Reform has polled around 10 percent in recent months, which if replicated at the vote could deprive the Conservatives of several key seats needed to win re-election.

Farage is a perennial loser at Westminster, however, failing to be elected in seven attempts and may feel he has more sway sticking as a high-profile presenter for right-wing channel GB News.

Swinney, Davey and Denyer

Neither Ed Davey’s Liberal Democrats nor John Swinney’s Scottish National Party (SNP) will win the election — but they could have a say in who does.

Davey, 58, hopes his party can stop a Conservative victory by winning several seats in southern England as it eyes overtaking the SNP to regain its position as the third-largest party in parliament.

Swinney, 60, does not sit in the UK parliament but is first minister in the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, having taken over the leadership of the SNP in May following Humza Yousaf’s resignation.

His SNP is struggling to fend off a resurgent Labour party in Scotland, which could kill off its independence hopes for a generation.

Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer, 38, is hoping to win the new seat of Bristol Central as the fringe outfit targets increasing its representation from one to four MPs.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

London:

China is sending “lethal aid” to Russia for use in its war against Ukraine, Britain’s defence minister Grant Shapps said on Wednesday.

“Today I can reveal that we have evidence that Russia and China are collaborating on combat equipment for use in Ukraine,” he said in a speech at a London conference.

Shapps warned that NATO needed to “wake up” and bolster defence spending across the alliance.

“US and British defence intelligence can reveal that lethal aid is now flowing from China to Russia and into Ukraine.”

He argued that democratic states should make a “full-throated case” for freedoms that are dependent on the international order, meaning “we need more allies and partners” worldwide.

“It’s time for the world to wake up. And that means translating this moment to concrete plans and capabilities. And that starts with laying the foundations for an alliance-wide increase in spending on our collective deterrent,” he said.

China and Russia’s strategic partnership has only grown closer since the invasion of Ukraine, but Beijing has rebuffed Western claims that it is aiding Moscow’s war effort.

China has also offered a critical lifeline to Russia’s isolated economy, with trade booming since the invasion and hitting $240 billion in 2023, according to Chinese customs figures.

US President Joe Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan, however, appeared to take issue with some of Shapps’s comments.

He said the possibility that China might “provide weapons directly — lethal assistance — to Russia” had been a concern earlier, but that “we have not seen that to date”.

The United States did though have a “concern about what China’s doing to fuel Russia’s war machine, not giving weapons directly, but providing inputs to Russia’s defence industrial base”, he added.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin put on a strong show of unity during a meeting in Beijing earlier this month.

Xi said in a statement following talks with Putin during his visit that the two sides agreed on the need for a “political solution” to resolve the war.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

London:

British Sikh lawyers have come together to set up a new court as a dispute resolution forum for the community caught up in family and civil disputes, a UK media report said on Thursday.

According to ‘The Times’, the Sikh court was launched last weekend at a ceremony at the Old Hall at Lincoln’s Inn in London accompanied by religious chants.

Baldip Singh, a 33-year-old London-based barrister who is one of the court’s founders, told the newspaper that it was not a religious tribunal but aimed at assisting Sikh families in their time of need when dealing with conflict and disputes “in line with Sikh principles”.

The new court will operate remotely and in person, and will comprise around “30 magistrates and 15 judges, of whom most will be women”. The magistrates will mediate between parties to negotiate a settlement, as well as directing them to a course to help them to work on specific issues, the newspaper report says.

Created following discussions with Sikh charities, the courses would cover low-level domestic violence, anger management, gambling and substance misuse, and are available in Punjabi as well as English. If mediation is unsuccessful, a case can be brought in front of a Sikh court judge, who can give a legally binding judgment under the Arbitration Act.

Baldip Singh said that under the rules of the new court both parties in a case would have to consent to participating.

“If we think that there are really significant safeguarding issues that we cannot deal with and should not deal with they will be directed to the appropriate place. We’re not here to take over and upset the English courts,” said Sharan Bhachu, a barrister reportedly sworn in as the “lead family judge” for the new Sikh court last week.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Controversial UK government plans for deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda cleared their final hurdle on Monday, after a marathon tussle between the upper and lower chambers of parliament lasting late into the night. 

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his ruling Conservatives have been seeking to push through legislation that will compel judges to regard the east African nation as a safe third country. 

They also want to give decision-makers on asylum applications the power to disregard sections of international and domestic human rights law to get around a UK Supreme Court ruling that sending migrants on a one-way ticket to Kigali was illegal. 

But the government faced a parliamentary battle to do so, with the upper chamber House of Lords, which scrutinises bills, repeatedly sending the proposed legislation back to the lower House of Commons with amendments. 

Peers, who have criticised the bill as inadequate, notably wanted a requirement that Rwanda could not be treated as safe until an independent monitoring body said so. 

They also wanted an exemption for agents, allies and employees of the UK overseas, including Afghans who fought alongside British armed forces, from being removed. 

MPs in the Commons, where the Tories have a majority, voted down every amendment and asked the Lords to think again in a back-and-forth process known as “parliamentary ping pong”.

The unelected upper chamber, where there is no overall majority for any party, dug in their heels. 

But shortly before midnight (2300 GMT) they eventually conceded to the will of elected MPs and agreed to make no further amendments, ending the deadlock and ensuring the bill will now receive royal assent to pass into law. 

Sunak’s government has been under mounting pressure to cut record numbers of asylum seekers crossing the Channel from northern France in small boats, particularly following a promise of a tougher approach to immigration after the UK left the European Union. 

Challenges 

The Rwanda scheme — criticised by UN human rights experts and groups supporting asylum seekers — has been beset by legal challenges since it was first proposed in 2022. 

That year, the first deportees were pulled off a flight at the last minute after an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights. Two years on, no migrants have been sent. 

The National Audit Office, a public spending watchdog, has estimated it will cost 540 million UK pounds ($665 million) to deport the first 300 migrants — nearly 2 million pounds per person. 

Charities have said the scheme is unworkable and, given the small numbers involved, would do little to cut the backlog of asylum claims. 

Other critics say it sets a dangerous precedent of parliament legislating on an issue already deemed illegal by the courts, and will damage the UK’s international standing and moral authority. 

Rwanda — a tiny nation of 13 million people — lays claim to being one of the most stable countries in Africa. But rights groups accuse veteran President Paul Kagame of ruling in a climate of fear, stifling dissent and free speech. 

Sunak announced earlier on Monday that the government was ready and had plans in place for the first flights to take off in 10 to 12 weeks, promising a wave of deportations “come what may” over the summer months. 

The prime minister is banking on the flagship “stop the boats” policy to act as a deterrent and give his beleaguered Tory party an electoral boost as the country prepares to go to the polls later this year.

The Conservatives have consistently trailed the main opposition Labour party in opinion polls and are on course to be dumped out of power after 14 years. 

Sunak’s plans could still be held up by legal challenges, and UN rights experts have suggested that airlines and aviation regulators could fall foul of internationally protected human rights laws if they take part in deportations. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

London:

Britain unveiled a new definition of extremism on Thursday to counter a surge in hate crimes, raising some concerns it would inhibit free speech and unfairly target Muslim groups.

Why is the government doing this?

The previous definition was in a 2011 counter-terrorism strategy programme known as Prevent. The government said this needed to be updated after a surge in antisemitic and anti-Muslim hate crimes since the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel.

Earlier this month Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that Islamist and far-right extremists were seeking to undermine Britain’s democracy.

Communities minister Michael Gove, whose department has produced the new definition, said a more precise version was needed to address the threat.

Currently, no groups have been defined as extremists.

What is the new definition?

The update defines extremism as: “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others;  

Or undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights;

Or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).”

What does being labelled extremist mean?

The government says a team of impartial officials will carry out a “rigorous” assessment in the next few weeks before announcing which groups will be labelled extremist.

Any group categorised as such will be banned from receiving government funding or any other government support. Groups can seek a judicial review in the courts.

The government hopes that labelling a group extremist will make the public and other bodies shun them. Gove said it was not about banning groups but making clear who the government should not engage with.

However, Thursday’s change creates no new powers and has no criminal impact. The groups would still, for example, be able to meet and hold demonstrations.

That is different to those which are specifically banned under terrorism laws, where being a member of a proscribed group or encouraging support for it is a criminal offence. Some 80 international groups are banned by Britain as terrorist organisations including Hamas.

What do critics say?

Some critics say the policy is an assault on free speech and could come to include those who hold gender-critical views or those who oppose abortion.

Others say it will be counter-productive, targeting those who simply express strongly held opinions, particularly Muslims, or will be used to silence those with whom the government disagrees.

Those who have voiced concern range from the Archbishop of Canterbury, former government advisers and relatives and victims of militant attacks in Britain, to those within Sunak’s Conservative party.

However, the government says there will be a high bar for defining a group as extremist, targeting those neo-Nazi or radical Islamist groups which promote an ideology based on hatred or violence but fall short of committing criminal offences.

Gove has said the change would not silence those with peaceful views or affect free speech.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)