Cong reviews Bihar debacle; contestants flag Rs 10,000 transfer, delay in seat-sharing, 'vote chori'
New Delhi (PTI): Several of the Congress leaders who contested the recent Bihar assembly elections conveyed to the party's top brass on Thursday that the NDA government's Rs 10,000 transfer to women beneficiaries, delay in seat-sharing deal among the Mahagathbandhan allies, internal rift and "electoral malpractices" were among the reasons for the poll debacle.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, former party chief Rahul Gandhi and AICC general secretary in-charge organisation K C Venugopal met the candidates to hold a review meeting with them days after the Bihar election defeat.
The three top leaders met the candidates in batches of 10.
Later, they also deliberated on the reasons for the massive defeat with senior state leaders, including Bihar Congress chief Rajesh Ram, AICC leader in-charge of Bihar Krishna Allavaru, Congress MPs Akhilesh Prasad Singh and Tariq Anwar, and Independent MP from Purnia Pappu Yadav.
There were some reports of an altercation between two candidates during the review meeting. However, Pappu Yadav refuted them and said these reports were "false".
After the meeting, Venugopal said the four-hour review meeting made one thing absolutely clear -- the Bihar election was not a genuine mandate; it was a grossly managed and fabricated outcome.
"They highlighted how SIR (Special Intensive Revision) enabled targeted voter deletions and dubious additions, how blatant cash bribery under the so-called MMRY (Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana) scheme was used to influence voters even at the polling stations and how identical margins across constituencies exposed a pattern that no independent election commission would ever overlook," Venugopal said on X.
"These issues point to organised electoral malpractices and brazen violations of the Model Code of Conduct, carried out under the watch of an ECI that has increasingly behaved like an active collaborator in BJP's election rigging," he said.
What happened in Bihar is nothing short of a direct assault on democracy, Venugopal alleged.
"The Congress Party will not allow this stolen mandate to become the new normal. The fight to protect India's democracy continues -- fearlessly, relentlessly, and with the people by our side," he said.
The Congress' Araria MLA, Abidur Rahman, said, "There were several reasons for the defeat. The first reason is that 10,000 rupees were given in violation of the model code of conduct. The alliance could not be formed at the right time. There was a friendly contest in 10-11 seats, which sent the wrong message to the public."
"The alliance should have been formed on time. The spread of religious and caste frenzy had an impact," he said, and also cited AIMIM's strong performance in the Seemanchal belt of Bihar.
The situation was such that if a man voted for the Congress, his wife voted for the NDA, Rahman said, elaborating on the impact of the transfer of Rs 10,000 to women beneficiaries.
There was discord between the old and young party leaders, Rahman claimed.
Another contestant Tauqeer Alam said that the leadership met the candidates in groups of 10 and held a discussion on the reasons for the defeat.
The Congress won only six of the 61 seats it contested in the Bihar Assembly elections.
Its state unit president Rajesh Kumar lost from the Kutumba seat, legislature party leader in the outgoing Assembly, Shakeel Ahmed Khan, was defeated by JD(U) candidate Dulal Chandra Goswami from the Kadwa seat by a margin of 18,368 votes.
The six Congress candidates who won are Surendra Prasad (Valmiki Nagar), Abhisekh Ranjan (Chanpatia), Manoj Bishwas (Forbesganj), Abidur Rahman (Araria), Mohd Qamrul Hoda (Kishanganj) and Manohar Prasad Singh (Manihari).
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Sigh and Pay: What the New US Import Tax Means for India’s Export Giants
When you go to a shop and the shopkeeper says, “Price badh gaya hai, naya tax laga hai,” you usually do only one thing — you sigh and pay more. You do not argue with the government; you simply adjust your household budget. That is exactly what is happening in the United States right now. And when prices and taxes change in America, the effect does not stay there. It slowly travels across oceans and reaches India too.
On 21 February, American President Donald Trump announced a new 15% import tax on almost all goods entering the US from other countries. An import tax, also called a tariff, is simply extra money charged when a product crosses the border — like a gate fee. A T-shirt from Tiruppur, a medicine from Hyderabad, or an electronic item from China — if it wants to enter the US market, it must now pay 15% extra. Companies usually pass this extra cost to customers. So in the end, it is the ordinary American buyer in a supermarket who pays more.
This 15% tax did not come out of nowhere. Just one day earlier, on 20 February, Trump had announced a 10% global import tax. Before that, he had introduced even higher tariffs, which the US Supreme Court struck down. The court said he was misusing a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That law is meant for genuine emergencies — like dealing with hostile nations or blocking dangerous financial flows — not for imposing wide import taxes on almost the entire world. In simple terms, the court said normal trade cannot be labelled an emergency just to collect extra tax.
So Trump turned to another legal option: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This rarely used law allows a president to impose temporary import surcharges when there is a serious trade imbalance. It permits tariffs of up to 15%, but only for 150 days — roughly five months. That is why it feels like a 150-day fuse. The law was originally designed for situations when the US was buying far more from other countries than it was selling to them — what economists call a trade deficit. Trump argues that America’s large and long-standing trade deficit justifies this step.
However, legal experts are divided. Some believe today’s trade deficit may not fully match the conditions envisioned when Section 122 was written decades ago. That means the new tariff could also face legal challenges. But until any court decision changes it, the 15% tariff is active.
The numbers explain the shift clearly. Before the Supreme Court struck down the earlier tariffs, the average import tax in America had risen to about 16%. After the court ruling, it fell sharply to around 9%. Now, with the new 15% global tariff, analysts expect the overall average to settle somewhere between 13% and 14%. In simple words, tariffs are lower than last year’s peak but higher than they were just days ago. They have not returned to old normal levels.
Why does this matter for India? Because the US is one of India’s largest export markets. India sends medicines, IT services, textiles, gems and jewellery, engineering goods, and auto components to America. If a 15% tariff is applied, Indian exporters face a difficult choice. Either they absorb the extra cost and accept lower profits, or they raise prices and risk losing customers. Lower profits often mean slower hiring, reduced investment, and cautious spending. Trade policy may look distant, but it quietly influences jobs and incomes here at home.
Earlier discussions between India and the US involved a possible 18% tariff structure. On paper, 15% seems better. But the earlier framework was clearer and more stable. The new 15% tariff comes with a 150-day time limit and the possibility of court battles. In business, predictability is often more valuable than small numerical advantages. Companies can manage higher costs if they are stable; uncertainty is harder to manage.
There are some exemptions. Certain medicines, critical minerals, defence-related goods, and some products from Canada and Mexico are excluded under special agreements. So the rule is not entirely universal. But for a large share of imports — including many low-cost online products — the 15% tariff applies.
Another important change concerns the “de minimis” rule. Earlier, goods valued at 800 dollars or less could enter the US without paying import tax. This allowed online sellers and platforms to ship small packages directly to American consumers easily. That benefit is now effectively suspended. The administration has confirmed that even these small parcels will face the new tariff. In addition, a major tax bill passed recently will permanently phase out the de minimis system for commercial shipments by around mid-2027.
Trump has also mentioned other legal tools. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows tariffs on industries linked to national security, such as steel, aluminium, and automobiles. Some of these sectors already face tariffs of 25% to 50%. The new 15% global tariff will not be added on top of those existing Section 232 tariffs. Another option, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, allows long-term tariffs on countries accused of unfair trade practices. However, both Section 232 and Section 301 require detailed investigations and take months to implement. Section 122, in contrast, acts quickly.
What happens on the ground? Studies from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York suggest that most of the cost of earlier tariffs was ultimately paid by American companies and consumers. When importers pay more, they try to pass that cost along the supply chain. This leads to higher prices for goods like home appliances, furniture, and vehicles. Some companies delay hiring or postpone expansion plans.
Not everyone loses. Certain domestic industries benefit from protection. For example, US shrimp fishermen have said that higher tariffs on imported shrimp made their local products more competitive. In trade policy, one sector’s protection often means another sector’s higher cost.
The broader issue is stability. Tariffs are powerful economic tools. But when they change frequently or face repeated legal challenges, businesses struggle to plan. They hesitate to invest, hire, or sign long-term contracts. Uncertainty itself becomes a cost.
Trump believes America has been disadvantaged in global trade and wants to strengthen domestic manufacturing. Many supporters agree that protecting key industries and reducing dependence on foreign supply chains is important. The debate is less about the objective and more about the method. A major trading nation needs policies that are clear, predictable, and legally sound.
Trade policy may appear technical, but it has everyday consequences. It can influence the price of shoes in a shop, the hiring decision of a factory in Chennai, or the expansion plan of an exporter in Gujarat.
Trump’s 15% global tariff and its 150-day timeline are not just political headlines. They represent a shift in how trade costs are distributed across countries and consumers. And in global economics, the final bill almost always reaches ordinary people — whether they wrote the rules or not.
(Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and a Defence, Aerospace & Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany.)
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or position of the publication, its editors, or its management. The publication is not responsible for the accuracy of any information, statements, or opinions presented in this piece.
