After Mother of All Deals, now comes Father of All Deals

After Mother of All Deals, now comes Father of All Deals

 By S.N. Verma

After concluding what was widely described as the “mother of all trade deals” with the European Union, India has now entered into what can legitimately be called the father of all deals—this time with the United States of America.

In a move that has surprised markets, analysts, and even critics, the United States officially announced a sharp reduction in tariffs on Indian goods—from an existing high of 50% down to 18%. This decision has come as a huge and unexpected gift to the Indian economy, carrying both immediate economic impact and long-term strategic significance.

Until this announcement, India and Brazil were jointly placed at the top of the list of nations facing the highest U.S. tariffs, both at 50%. With this trade deal, India not only sheds that disadvantage but emerges as the lowest-tariff country in Asia, just below Japan. It is worth recalling that Japan’s trade deal with the U.S. came at a heavy domestic political cost—the Japanese Prime Minister was compelled to resign for the compromises involved in reaching that agreement. India, by contrast, has managed to secure a remarkably favourable outcome without any visible political upheaval.

India now also stands as the lowest-tariff nation among the BRICS countries, a development that significantly strengthens its competitive position in global trade.

The immediate economic response to this announcement speaks volumes. The stock market, which had been witnessing a prolonged decline over the past several months, surged by 2,072 points soon after the deal was made public. The rupee, which had been under sustained pressure, registered a strong recovery, appreciating by 119 paise against the U.S. dollar. These indicators reflect renewed investor confidence and optimism about India’s economic trajectory. In the coming months, this deal is expected to aid recovery across multiple sectors of the economy.

The textile sector offers a clear illustration. With tariffs at 18%, India now enjoys a distinct advantage over key competitors such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Indonesia, all of whom face tariffs of around 20%. This marginal but crucial difference is likely to substantially boost India’s textile exports and reinforce its position in global supply chains.

One of the criticisms being raised is that the trade deal was announced by the United States and not by India. This criticism, however, misses a basic point. The higher tariffs were imposed and announced by the U.S. in the first place, and therefore only the U.S. could formally announce their reduction. There is nothing unusual or improper about this sequence.

Opposition parties have also alleged that India has bent backwards by compromising the interests of the agriculture, fishery, and dairy sectors. Factually, this allegation does not hold water. The Government of India has categorically stated that it has not diluted its stand in relation to these sensitive sectors. In the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, the criticism appears to be unfounded and politically motivated.

It is true that India may have had to show some flexibility regarding the purchase of petroleum products from Russia. The reality seems to be that India will likely reduce—though not entirely stop—its imports of Russian petroleum products. However, this decision too has been guided purely by national self-interest. India was purchasing petroleum from Russia because it was economically beneficial. Yet, without this trade deal with the U.S., India stood to lose nearly 40 billion dollars annually, as against gaining about 10 billion dollars by continuing such purchases from Russia. From that perspective, recalibrating energy imports is a rational economic choice, not a strategic surrender.

Even those who are critics of Prime Minister Narendra Modi would do well to acknowledge his role in securing this deal. Over the last seven months, he remained calm, quiet, and unprovoked despite intense pressure from both domestic and international quarters. He refused to compromise on core Indian interests—and in the end, that steadfast approach has paid dividends.

India has now been rewarded with what can rightly be described as the father of all trade deals with the United States—one that strengthens its economy, enhances its global standing, and underscores the value of patience, resolve, and strategic clarity in international negotiations.

Should Judiciary or Government Be Blamed for Bail Given to Sengar?

Should  Judiciary or Government Be Blamed for Bail Given to Sengar?

(By S.N. VERMA)

The recent public outrage and protests over the grant of bail to Kuldeep Singh Sengar once again reveal a deep and recurring misunderstanding of criminal jurisprudence in India. The narrative being pushed—largely through headlines, social media posts and political rhetoric—suggests that a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred, and that either the judiciary or the government must be held responsible. A calm examination of law, however, shows that this outrage is misdirected, legally unfounded, and driven more by emotion and perception than by principle.

Suspension of Sentence and  not Acquittal

At the outset, it must be clearly understood that Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s conviction has not been set aside or diluted. What has been granted is suspension of sentence pending appeal, a power expressly conferred on appellate courts under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Suspension of sentence merely means that the execution of punishment is kept in abeyance during pendency of the appeal. The finding of guilt remains fully intact. In law, Sengar continues to be a convicted person, and the stigma and legal consequences of conviction persist. This distinction—between suspension of sentence and suspension of conviction—is crucial, yet is often conveniently ignored in public discourse.

Bail Is a Consequence of Suspension of Sentence

Once a sentence is suspended, continued incarceration has no legal basis, and therefore release on bail is a natural and routine consequence. This is not a concession reserved for the powerful; it is a settled principle applied daily across the country—even in cases involving heinous offences such as murder, rape, and terrorism, provided judicial parameters are satisfied.

Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently held that:

Appeals take years to be finally decided,

It would be unjust to keep a person incarcerated for the entire period if the appeal has been admitted,

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be sacrificed merely to appease public sentiment.

Thus, grant of bail following suspension of sentence is not an exception—it is the rule.

Presumption of Innocence Till Finality

Another foundational principle of criminal law is that a conviction does not attain finality until all statutory appeals are exhausted. This is not a loophole; it is the very essence of due process.

Sengar, like any other convict, is entitled to:

Challenge his conviction before higher courts,

Seek suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal,

Be treated in accordance with established jurisprudence, not public anger.

This does not trivialize the crime or diminish its seriousness. It only reflects the civilised legal principle that no one should be made to suffer irreversible punishment until the judicial process reaches its lawful conclusion.

Judiciary Is Independent; Government Has No Role

Blaming the Government for Sengar’s release on bail reflects either ignorance of constitutional structure or deliberate political distortion. 

In India:

Judiciary is independent,

Decisions on suspension of sentence and bail are taken solely by courts,

The Executive has no authority to interfere, influence, or overrule judicial orders.

To expect the Government to “stop bail” is to demand an unconstitutional act. Ironically, such demands, if accepted, would amount to erosion of judicial independence—the very danger that protesters otherwise claim to resist.

Emotion, Politics, and Public Perception

The outrage surrounding this case appears to stem from three sources:

Moral revulsion against the crime, which is understandable;

Media simplification, where “bail” is equated with “freedom” or “exoneration”;

Political opportunism, where legal processes are projected as administrative failures.

However, courts do not—and cannot—function on outrage. Law must remain principled, even when the accused is unpopular or the offence is horrific.

The Final Outcome Is Yet to Come

It bears emphasis that if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds Sengar’s conviction, the suspension of sentence will automatically come to an end, and he will return to prison to serve the remainder of his life sentence. The present relief does not erase that possibility; it merely postpones incarceration until the appellate process is complete.

Conclusion:

In sum, the bail granted to Kuldeep Singh Sengar:

Is firmly rooted in statutory law and constitutional principles,

Reflects normal appellate jurisprudence, not preferential treatment,

Cannot be attributed to executive action or governmental indulgence.

The protests blaming the Government or questioning the judiciary are therefore legally misplaced. They are driven either by political motives, heightened emotion, or misunderstanding of criminal procedure. A mature democracy must distinguish between condemning a crime and undermining the rule of law.

Justice must not only be done, but it must also be done according to law—not according to the loudness of public outcry.

‘Ungrateful’ Bangladesh! Why did we create Bangladesh?

 “‘Ungrateful’ Bangladesh”! Why did we create Bangladesh?

By S.N. VERMA

More than five decades after the birth of Bangladesh, an uncomfortable question is increasingly being asked in India: has the nation we helped create forgotten the circumstances of its own liberation?

In 1971, India did not merely support Bangladesh diplomatically. It opened its borders to nearly ten million refugees, bore enormous economic and social costs, and ultimately went to war to end one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 20th century. Indian soldiers fought and died to liberate a people subjected to mass atrocities by the Pakistani Army. The surrender of over 90,000 Pakistani troops in Dhaka remains one of the most decisive moments in modern military history.

What is often forgotten—particularly by those who did not live through that era—is the extraordinary public contribution made by ordinary Indians. During the 1970s, citizens willingly paid additional amounts on daily necessities to support Bangladesh. Bus commuters paid extra fares; cinema-goers paid a surcharge on tickets; collections were organised across towns and villages under the Bangladesh Relief Fund. This was not state coercion—it was popular empathy. An entire generation contributed, modestly but consistently, to help a neighbour survive and rebuild.

Against this historical backdrop, recent developments in Bangladesh are deeply troubling.

There has been a visible rise in hostility towards India in public discourse, street protests, and symbolic acts that target India’s role in the Liberation War. Even more disturbing are reports of violence against minorities, particularly Hindus, and the apparent indifference—or worse, inadequacy—of state institutions in preventing such incidents. The killing of individuals like Dipu Chandra Das, widely reported in the media, has raised serious concerns about law enforcement, rule of law, and minority protection.

No democracy can claim moral legitimacy while failing to protect its vulnerable citizens.

Equally concerning is the attempt to rewrite or dilute the history of 1971, portraying India not as a liberator but as an adversary. This is not merely a diplomatic irritant; it is a profound betrayal of historical truth. Nations are free to chart independent foreign policies, but independence does not require amnesia.

India did not intervene in 1971 for territorial gain or political domination. It intervened because mass killings, sexual violence, and ethnic cleansing were unfolding on its doorstep—and because global powers chose silence. To now see sections of Bangladeshi society treat India as an enemy raises a legitimate question: what happened to gratitude, memory, and moral continuity?

This is not an indictment of every Bangladeshi citizen. It is a critique of prevailing political narratives, selective outrage, and a growing intolerance that threatens Bangladesh’s own founding ideals—secularism, pluralism, and respect for human dignity.

Bangladesh was once cited as a model of economic resilience and social progress in South Asia. That promise is now under strain. Political instability, suppression of dissent, attacks on minorities, and excessive external influence risk pushing the country down a path that its founders never intended.

History is unforgiving to nations that erase their own origins.

India will remain a responsible neighbour. But friendship cannot be sustained on denial and hostility. If Bangladesh continues to distance itself from the values and sacrifices that gave it birth, the question will only grow louder—not in anger, but in sorrow:

Why did we create Bangladesh, if its own conscience refuses to remember?

Epstein Files: Despite Co-ordinated Disinformation Campaign, Modi’s public Image Remains unaffected/Unscathed

Epstein Files: Despite Co-ordinated Disinformation Campaign, Modi’s public Image Remains unaffected/Unscathed

(By S. N. Verma)

In recent weeks, Indian social media platforms witnessed the rapid circulation of a claim alleging that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s name appeared in the so-called “Epstein Files.” The assertion was presented as a serious insinuation, framed to suggest impropriety by association. However, when the relevant material became publicly accessible and subject to verification, no such reference to the Prime Minister was found in any incriminating or questionable context.

The episode merits attention not because the claim was true—it was not—but because of the manner in which the narrative was constructed, amplified, and defended even after its factual foundation collapsed.

Manufacturing a Narrative

A noticeable aspect of the campaign was the striking uniformity of content across multiple platforms. Similar phrasing, identical talking points, and synchronized timing appeared in videos, posts, and commentaries circulated by a set of commentators and journalists. Some of the content went beyond reporting and ventured into speculative reasoning.

One particularly troubling argument suggested that the absence of the Prime Minister’s name itself demonstrated that it had allegedly been “removed,” thereby converting lack of evidence into supposed proof. Such logic is inherently circular and falls short of the standards of evidence-based journalism. In effect, it renders the claim immune to falsification—presence would be guilt, and absence would also be guilt.

Political Echo Chambers

Following the initial dissemination of the claim, political actors and party-affiliated digital platforms began circulating substantially similar narratives. The overlap between journalistic commentary and political amplification led to public debate over whether this convergence was organic or coordinated.

It is important to state with precision that coordination is alleged, not established as fact. Nonetheless, the speed and uniformity with which the narrative moved from commentary to political echo chambers raised legitimate questions about editorial independence and narrative alignment.

The Role of Advocacy Networks

Public discussion also turned toward international seminars and advocacy platforms that host journalists and opinion-makers for discussions on media and democracy. Such exchanges are neither unusual nor inherently improper. Journalists frequently participate in global forums, workshops, and fellowships.

However, critics have pointed out that when participants from such events subsequently advance near-identical political narratives within a domestic context, the distinction between independent journalism and ideological advocacy becomes blurred. These observations, it must be emphasized, represent opinions and public debate—not judicial findings or proven conclusions.

Disinformation Without Proof

The “Epstein Files” episode illustrates a broader phenomenon: disinformation does not require verification to achieve impact. Its effectiveness lies in repetition, emotional framing, and the strategic use of insinuation. Once the original claim failed scrutiny, the narrative subtly shifted toward vague suggestions of “professional meetings” or unnamed references—again without documentary support.

By then, however, the insinuation had already travelled far.

The End Result

Modi's public image remains unaffected.

Despite the intensity of the campaign, the outcome remains clear. Verifiable material does not support any allegation of wrongdoing or improper association involving Prime Minister Modi. His public image, built over decades of political life and scrutiny, remains unaffected by claims that could not withstand basic verification.

More importantly, the episode underscores a critical lesson for a democratic society: disagreement with political leadership is legitimate, even essential. But replacing evidence with conjecture, and journalism with insinuation, ultimately undermines public trust in institutions far beyond politics.

Conclusion

The collapse of the “Epstein Files” narrative serves as a reminder that repetition does not create truth, and speculation cannot substitute evidence. In an age of viral information and polarized discourse, the responsibility to distinguish fact from inference rests with journalists, political actors, and citizens alike.

Vigilance against disinformation—irrespective of the individual it targets—is not a partisan obligation. It is a civic necessity.

Only NDA Can Beat NDA — Not Mahagathbandhan

Only NDA Can Beat NDA — Not Mahagathbandhan

By S.N. Verma

As Bihar gears up for the 2025 Assembly elections, the political atmosphere is already charged with alliances, internal tussles, and strategic maneuvering. Yet, one fact stands out starkly amidst the chaos: only the NDA can beat the NDA, not the Mahagathbandhan.

Unlike previous election cycles marked by prolonged negotiations and last-minute compromises, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has displayed rare political maturity and organizational discipline this time. The seat-sharing arrangement among NDA partners — the BJP and JD(U) with 101 seats each, Chirag Paswan’s faction with 29, and Jitan Ram Manjhi and Upendra Kushwaha with six each — was finalized well before the commencement of the election process. This early consensus reflects the NDA’s united front and electoral readiness.

From joint rallies to synchronized messaging, NDA leaders have projected a picture of cohesion and clarity. Their campaign narrative emphasizes governance stability, development, and social balance — a strategy designed to consolidate their core vote base and reach fence-sitters simultaneously.

In sharp contrast, the Mahagathbandhan (Grand Alliance) is mired in internal conflict, confusion, and poor coordination. Even as nominations closed for the first phase of polling, the alliance could not finalize its seat-sharing arrangement. The result? Congress, RJD, and Left candidates are contesting against each other in several constituencies.

The friction between the RJD and Congress has been particularly damaging. The RJD’s decision to field a candidate against Congress State President Rajesh Ram in Kutumba has sparked open revolt, while the Congress’s hasty release of its second list only deepened factionalism. CPI and CPI(ML) nominees have been fielded against Congress candidates in multiple seats — from Rosera and Rajapakar to Bihar Sharif and Rajgir — further splitting the opposition vote.

Even smaller allies like the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and the Indian Inclusive Party (IIP) have joined the rebellion, announcing independent contests on several seats. To make matters worse, the Congress itself faces rebellion within its ranks, with senior leaders accusing the top brass of irregularities in ticket distribution.

Meanwhile, NDA’s election machinery is functioning like a well-oiled engine — candidates finalized, constituencies divided, and campaigns synchronized. The message is clear and consistent: stability, continuity, and governance delivery.

Political observers agree that, at this point, NDA’s biggest challenge is not the opposition but internal complacency. If the alliance can maintain its discipline, cohesion, and voter connect, the Mahagathbandhan’s fragmented house will find it nearly impossible to pose a credible challenge.

As polling draws near — 121 seats across 18 districts voting on November 6 and 122 seats across 20 districts on November 11 — early indicators from the ground suggest a significant lead for the NDA. Several pollsters have already projected an NDA tally of 150-plus seats, signaling a comfortable majority.

The conclusion is inescapable: in Bihar’s 2025 elections, only the NDA can beat the NDA. The Mahagathbandhan, burdened by its internal contradictions and lack of leadership coherence, appears more likely to defeat itself than its rival.

The H-1B Visa Fee Hike: Myths vs Reality

 

The H-1B Visa Fee Hike: Myths vs Reality

By: S.N. VERMA

The recent announcement by the U.S. administration regarding a sharp hike in H-1B visa fees has sparked confusion, panic, and speculation—especially in India, which accounts for the largest share of H-1B professionals. On September 19, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation mandating a US$100,000 fee for new H-1B visa petitions.

Initial reports suggested that this fee was annual and would apply even to existing visa holders and renewals, raising fears among Indian tech workers, students, and companies. Some H-1B holders even rushed to advance travel plans to avoid being caught in the new regime.

However, subsequent clarifications by the White House have helped to separate fact from rumor. Let us cut through the confusion with a clear Myths vs Reality guide.

Myth 1: The $100,000 is an annual fee

Reality: It is a one-time charge. The fee applies only once per new H-1B petition filed on or after September 21, 2025. It is not recurring every year.

Illustration: If a U.S. company hires a software engineer from Bengaluru on H-1B in October 2025, it must pay $100,000 at the time of filing. But that same employee’s extension three years later will not attract this fee.

Myth 2: Existing H-1B holders and renewals must also pay

Reality: The hike does not apply to current H-1B visa holders or to renewals of visas already issued before September 21, 2025.

Illustration: An Indian IT professional already working in Texas on H-1B can continue and even renew her visa in 2026 without her employer paying the $100,000 fee.

Myth 3: Employees must bear this cost

Reality: Under U.S. law, the employer (sponsor) bears the cost of filing. Companies cannot legally transfer the burden of the petition fee to employees.

Illustration: If a California startup wants to hire an Indian data scientist in 2026, it is the startup—not the employee—that must pay the $100,000.

Myth 4: Travel abroad triggers the fee for existing holders

Reality: H-1B professionals already holding a valid visa can travel in and out of the U.S. freely without incurring the new fee.

Illustration: An Indian H-1B worker visiting family in Delhi during Diwali can return to the U.S. on the same visa without her employer paying again.

Myth 5: The fee hike is permanent

Reality: The proclamation sets the fee hike for one year—from September 21, 2025, to September 21, 2026. However, U.S. Govt  has the discretion to extend it further.

Implications for India

Large Indian IT firms (Infosys, TCS, Wipro) will still sponsor H-1B professionals, but the huge cost may reduce overall intake.

Smaller companies and startups may scale back or avoid sponsorship due to financial strain.

Indian students in the U.S. on OPT hoping to transition to H-1B may face fewer opportunities, as employers will weigh the cost.

U.S. tech giants may continue sponsorships but will be more selective, limiting the number of petitions filed.

Conclusion

The headline figure of a $100,000 H-1B fee caused shockwaves, but much of the panic stemmed from myths and half-truths. The reality is that this is a one-time, employer-paid fee applicable only to new petitions filed after September 21, 2025. Existing H-1B visa holders and renewals remain unaffected.

For Indian aspirants, this means opportunities are unlikely to disappear, but competition may intensify as employers—especially smaller ones—rethink their hiring strategies. In the coming months, it will be critical to watch how U.S. agencies implement the proclamation, whether legal challenges arise, and if the policy is extended beyond its initial one-year term.

SC’s Waqf Act Ruling: Reform Intact, Propaganda Defeated

 SC’s Waqf Act Ruling: Reform Intact, Propaganda Defeated

By S.N. Verma

The Supreme Court’s interim order of September 15, 2025, on the Waqf (Amendment) Act has triggered contrasting reactions. Critics expected a blanket stay; instead, the Court issued only a partial interim stay on a few contentious provisions, while refusing to halt the Act in its entirety. Far from being a setback, the ruling is a calibrated judicial endorsement of the government’s reform agenda.

No Blanket Stay = Presumption of Constitutionality

At the heart of the judgment lies the Court’s refusal to suspend the entire law. This is crucial: the judiciary presumes Parliamentary enactments to be constitutional. By allowing the Act to continue, the Court has sent a clear signal that the Waqf reforms are not prima facie unconstitutional.

For the Modi Sarkar, this is an important legal and political victory. The “secular” propaganda machine that demanded scrapping of the law in totality has been effectively silenced.

Provisions Under Partial Stay

Five-Year “Practising Islam” Requirement

 The Act mandated that a waqif (the person creating a waqf) must have practised Islam continuously for at least five years. The Court has stayed this clause until States frame rules.

Reality check: NDA-ruled States can align rules with the Centre’s vision. However, opposition ruled States will face public scrutiny as people are going to ask them do they protect people’s ancestral land or gift it away?

Collector’s Powers

 The Act empowered Collectors to decide whether land is waqf or government property, and to alter records accordingly. SC has stayed these provisions, holding that executive officers cannot usurp the role of tribunals.

Net effect: This prevents misuse by politically loyal bureaucrats in opposition-ruled States. The adjudication will now rest with quasi-judicial bodies, ensuring fairness.

Non-Muslim Representation in Waqf Boards

 The Court capped non-Muslim representation to 4 in the Central Waqf Council and 3 in State Boards (for 11-member boards). It also said the CEO/chairperson should “as far as possible” be a Muslim.

But here’s the catch: The Court did not stay the provision that allows a non-Muslim to be appointed CEO of the Board. This leaves the government with a critical lever of oversight.

Provisions That Stand Intact

Abolition of “Waqf by User”: One of the most powerful tools of land encroachment has been permanently struck down by Parliament. SC has not stayed this reform.

Non-Muslim CEOs & Ex-Officio Members: Still allowed, despite limits on membership numbers.

These are game-changing reforms that remain untouched.

Judicial Principles at Play

Separation of Powers: SC rightly curbed arbitrary powers of Collectors, reinforcing the role of tribunals.

Equality & Religious Freedom: By staying the five-year requirement until rules are framed, SC prevented potential arbitrariness against converts or new adherents.

Balance of Autonomy & Inclusivity: By capping non-Muslim membership, SC maintained Waqf Boards as minority-led institutions, while still allowing broader perspectives.

Why This is a Victory for Modi Sarkar, Not a Setback

Those branding the verdict as a “blow” to Modi Sarkar miss the larger picture:

-The Act remains alive and operational.

 -Major reforms—especially the deletion of “waqf by user”—are untouched.

 - Interim stays are surgical, meant to refine, not repeal.

 -Government retains decisive influence through CEO appointments.

In plain terms, those who had indulged in Land Jihad for long  have lost their biggest weapon, and the constitutional validity of the law is intact.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has delivered a measured verdict—blocking provisions prone to misuse, but leaving the architecture of reform unshaken. For the Modi government, this is both a legal endorsement and a political boost.

The message is clear: the Waqf Amendment Act is here to stay. Fake campaigns by so-called secularists have lost steam, and the path to reforming centuries-old misuse of waqf lands has been judicially secured.