Hey guys

Reading comprehension ki practice k liye aa jaiye

A fun session is awaiting


🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

lusive truce
Russia must give up its maximalist position and end the war
The Trump administration’s frustration over the lack of progress in diplomatic efforts to end the Ukraine war was evident in Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s remarks in Paris last week. After talks with America’s European allies, he warned that the U.S. would “move away” if there was no progress “within days”. U.S. President Donald Trump appeared to endorse the comments. Despite Mr. Trump’s campaign promise to end the war “within 24 hours”, months into his presidency, he remains far from building a consensus on even a temporary ceasefire. If he expected the Russians to jump on a proposal for a ceasefire in return for some Ukrainian concessions, he has miscalculated. The U.S. has already ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine and declared it would not be part of any post-war security guarantees for Kyiv prior to direct negotiations with Russia. It also arm-twisted Ukraine into proposing a 30-day ceasefire. However, while Mr. Trump appears focused on an immediate cessation of hostilities, the Kremlin has insisted that any ceasefire deal must be part of a comprehensive peace agreement that addresses its core security concerns. The U.S. is reportedly circulating a new proposal to end the fighting — shared with European and Ukrainian officials, it has the U.S. prepared to recognise Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014 following a contentious referendum, as Russian territory. The plan also takes NATO membership “off the table” for Ukraine and seeks to freeze the conflict along the front line, effectively leaving the territories Russia captured since the war began in 2022 in its hands. After responses from Ukraine and Europe, the U.S. plans to approach Moscow. But Russia has stuck to its maximalist positions, which include rejecting security guarantees for Ukraine and insisting on its demilitarisation.

Wars rarely end through maximalist positions. While Russia has made territorial gains, it has also paid a price. Ukraine, despite its apparent weakness on the battlefield, signals that it is ready to continue the fight, with western support. Europe has also made it clear that it will continue backing Ukraine — with or without American involvement. For any lasting peace in Ukraine, it is important to address Russia’s legitimate security concerns. However, the Russian demands that Ukraine limit its defence partnership with its allies or accept restrictions on its military capabilities are untenable for any sovereign nation. So, Mr. Trump should continue to strive for common ground between all the parties — the U.S., Ukraine, Europe and Russia — for a durable peace, instead of appeasing just one power.

Join now ✅✅

EDITORIAL PDF - 21ST APRIL 2025

EDITORIAL PDF - 22ND APRIL 2025

Let’s meet at 10:00 am

Reading comprehension ki practice k liye aa jaiye


🔥🔥🔥🔥

Matters that count
Attempts to intimidate the judiciary pose a threat to democracy
The Supreme Court of India has been subjected to unfounded criticism by sections of the ruling BJP, and Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, with regard to the separation of powers between the various branches of the government, and the principle of checks and balances. Not surprisingly, a Supreme Court bench took note of the charge that it was intruding into executive and legislative functions. In one petition, the Court was urged to direct the Centre to act under Articles 355 and 356 to deal with the situation of violence in West Bengal. In another, the Court’s intervention was sought to curtail obscene content on online platforms. The Calcutta High Court had earlier ordered the deployment of Central forces to stem violence in Murshidabad in West Bengal. Judicial review of legislative and executive decisions is an integral part of India’s constitutional democracy. Decisions of the executive and the legislature can be examined by the judiciary to determine whether they are consistent with the Constitution, and even constitutional amendments are subject to the ‘basic structure’ test. There are multiple constitutional avenues for judicial intervention in the making and enforcement of law. Article 13 gives the judiciary the power to strike down laws that are violating fundamental rights. Articles 32 and 226 give the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and beyond.

The notion that the judiciary is subservient to legislature is out of line with the constitutional scheme. In fact, the judiciary is expected to insulate the rule of law from the pressure of public opinion that members of the legislature represent. It is in this constructive friction between various institutions of the state that a society can achieve stability in governance. The argument that legislatures can pass any law on the basis of a majority is a majoritarian argument. The erasure of the distinction between the executive and legislature has already created a crisis of accountability in governance at the national and State level in India. The attempt to intimidate the judiciary in the name of legislative supremacy is a threat to democracy — not its furtherance. In the recent judgment that set timelines for the Governor and President for acting on laws passed by the Assembly, the Supreme Court restored the authority of the elected legislatures, which was being trampled upon by an unelected Governor and arbitrary actions by the President. The critics of the judiciary miss this point altogether.

Error detection ki practice k liye


Join me live at 10:00 am


Aa jana sabhi 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Talking mode
India must be firm in negotiations with the U.S. on trade and tariffs
U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance’s first visit to India was marred by the brutal terror attacks in Pahalgam, but his messages of solidarity with India, even as he chose to continue his family vacation at the Taj Mahal, have been appreciated in New Delhi. Visits by American Presidents to India have been rare, other than for ceremonial reasons, and Mr. Vance is the first American Vice-President to travel to India in 12 years, after Joseph Biden visited in 2013. The visit was a “largely private” affair, as Mr. Vance, his wife of Indian-origin Usha Chilukuri Vance, and their three children took in the sights in Delhi, Jaipur, and Agra. The visit provided for a quick review of decisions made during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trip to the U.S. in February, although the Vance-Modi talks on Monday did not produce substantial outcomes apart from an announcement that the terms of reference for the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) being negotiated in Washington had been finalised. They also provided for a chance to discuss U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to India later this year for the Quad Summit, and plans for Indo-Pacific strategy. It is unclear whether Mr. Modi raised India’s concerns over a number of issues with Mr. Vance, including U.S. tariffs and their impact on the global economy, the U.S. crackdown on immigration, as well as the recent revocations of visas issued to hundreds of foreign students, more than half of whom were Indian, according to a survey.

However, at a public address in Jaipur, Mr. Vance responded to some of the criticism of the Trump administration’s actions. Rather than seeking to “start a trade war”, Mr. Trump hopes to “rebalance global trade”, Mr. Vance said, and outlined the BTA as a “final deal” for “fairness”. He also raised the need for India to drop “non-tariff barriers” that stop U.S. access to the Indian market — understood to relate mainly to selling agricultural produce and dairy products, a sensitive issue in India. On defence, Mr. Vance said that India was a trusted partner for co-production of U.S. defence hardware, and repeated Mr. Trump’s offer of F-35 fighter jets. He criticised previous U.S. governments for cutting back on fossil fuel energy production, and said Mr. Trump’s policy of “drill, baby, drill” would be to India’s benefit if it increases the purchase of oil and natural gas from the U.S. Finally, he stressed the importance of amending India’s nuclear liability law so that U.S. companies would feel comfortable in setting up nuclear power plants in India. Broadly, Mr. Vance’s effort during his visit to India was to underline the importance of statements and demands already made by President Trump. New Delhi must consider carefully what it seeks from the U.S. in return, as thus far Mr. Modi and his ministers who have travelled to the U.S. have been in “listening mode”, studying the Trump agenda rather than reacting to it — whether it is in the area of geopolitical moves regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Israel’s war on Gaza, or those spurring global trade disruptions.