Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday was conferred with ‘The Great Honour Nishan of Ethiopia’, the highest national award of the African nation, becoming the first head of government or state globally to receive the honour.

The award was presented during a special ceremony held at the Addis International Convention Centre, where Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali honoured Modi for his role in strengthening bilateral relations between India and Ethiopia and for his leadership on global issues.

Recognition of India-Ethiopia partnership

According to an official statement, the honour recognises Prime Minister Modi’s contribution to deepening the long-standing partnership between the two countries and his engagement with issues concerning the Global South. The conferment is being seen as a milestone in India-Ethiopia relations and reflects the growing diplomatic and development cooperation between the two nations.

Prime Minister Modi acknowledged the award and dedicated it to the people of India. In a post on X, he said he was honoured to receive Ethiopia’s highest recognition and attributed it to the collective strength and aspirations of 140 crore Indians.

‘Accepted with humility and gratitude’

Speaking at the ceremony, Prime Minister Modi said it was a privilege to accept the honour from one of the world’s most ancient civilisations. He expressed humility and gratitude while thanking Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the people of Ethiopia for the recognition.

He also praised the Ethiopian Prime Minister’s leadership and initiatives aimed at promoting national unity, sustainability and inclusive development. Highlighting the role of knowledge and education in nation-building, Modi noted that Indian teachers have been contributing to Ethiopia’s progress for more than a century.

The Prime Minister dedicated the award to both Indians and Ethiopians who have nurtured bilateral ties over generations and conveyed appreciation on behalf of India’s population for the honour bestowed upon him.

The Trump administration has widened its travel restrictions, adding 20 more countries to the existing list and imposing a complete ban on travel for people holding documents issued by the Palestinian Authority. The decision significantly expands the scope of the travel limits announced earlier this year and will come into force from January 1.

According to the proclamation issued on Tuesday, the latest move doubles the number of nations impacted by US travel and immigration restrictions. Five additional countries now face a full ban, while 15 others have been placed under partial restrictions. The administration said the measures apply to both visitors and those seeking to immigrate to the United States.

Countries facing full travel ban

The newly added countries under the full ban include Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, South Sudan and Syria. In addition, people travelling on Palestinian Authority-issued passports or documents have been fully barred from entering or emigrating to the US. South Sudan had already been subject to significant restrictions before this announcement.

Earlier, the administration had imposed a complete ban on travellers from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

15 countries under partial restrictions

The list of countries now facing partial travel restrictions includes Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Ivory Coast, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Tonga, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

These join the earlier partially restricted countries such as Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The administration also said restrictions on Laos and Sierra Leone have been upgraded, while some limits on Turkmenistan have been eased after an improvement in vetting standards.

Who is exempt from the restrictions

The proclamation clarifies that certain categories of travellers are exempt. These include people who already hold valid US visas, lawful permanent residents, diplomats, athletes, and individuals whose entry is considered to be in the national interest of the United States.

Reasons cited by the administration

The US administration said many of the affected countries suffer from widespread corruption, unreliable civil documents and weak criminal record systems, making proper vetting difficult. It also pointed to high visa overstay rates, refusal by some governments to accept deported nationals, and broader concerns related to immigration enforcement, foreign policy and national security.

The expansion follows the arrest of an Afghan national accused in the shooting of two National Guard troops near the White House during the Thanksgiving weekend. The accused has pleaded not guilty to murder and assault charges.

Criticism and concerns over Afghan visas

The decision has drawn criticism from rights groups and immigration advocates, who argue that national security is being used to justify broad restrictions on entire populations. Concerns have also been raised over the removal of an exception for Afghans eligible for the Special Immigrant Visa, a category meant for those who assisted US forces during the war in Afghanistan.

Advocacy groups said these individuals undergo extensive vetting and that restricting their entry could undermine commitments made by the United States.

New restrictions on Palestinians

The full ban on people holding Palestinian Authority passports marks a further tightening of restrictions imposed earlier, which had already made it extremely difficult for Palestinians to travel to the US for work, education, business or tourism. The administration justified the move by citing the presence of US-designated terrorist groups in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as challenges in vetting due to ongoing conflict.

Governments of some newly affected countries said they were reviewing the decision and seeking clarity from US officials on the implications of the restrictions.

Senior Congress leader and Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Tuesday led a protest in Parliament against the Centre’s move to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the proposed Viksit Bharat Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025, popularly referred to as the G Ram G Bill.

Holding up photographs of Mahatma Gandhi on the Parliament premises, Congress MPs objected to the introduction of the Bill, alleging that it weakens a landmark welfare law that has supported rural livelihoods for two decades.

Priyanka Gandhi opposes Bill in Lok Sabha

During proceedings in the Lok Sabha, Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan sought permission to introduce the new Bill, which aims to replace MGNREGA. Priyanka Gandhi opposed the move under Rule 72(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, registering what she described as a “strong objection”.

She said MGNREGA had been a revolutionary law since its introduction in 2005 by the UPA government and had enjoyed support across party lines. According to her, the scheme guarantees 100 days of employment annually to the poorest sections in rural India and has played a key role in strengthening the rural economy.

Concerns over funding model and role of Gram Sabhas

Priyanka Gandhi flagged concerns over changes proposed in the new Bill, particularly the shift from a demand-based funding model to a system where allocations are decided in advance by the Centre. She argued that MGNREGA works on demand from the ground, with Gram Sabhas empowered to assess local employment needs.

“The right to employment is being weakened, and this goes against the Constitution,” she said, adding that the proposed law reduces the role of Gram Sabhas and dilutes the core principle of guaranteed work.

She also pointed out that the Centre’s funding share for the scheme has come down to 60 per cent for most states, warning that this could strain state finances at a time when several states are already awaiting GST dues.

Objection to renaming and passage without discussion

The Congress leader questioned what she described as a “craze” to rename existing schemes, noting that such changes involve additional costs. She urged the government not to rush the legislation and to withdraw the Bill for wider discussion in the House.

When members from the treasury benches made a remark referring to her family, Priyanka Gandhi responded by saying that Mahatma Gandhi may not belong to her family but is regarded as family by the entire nation.

Wider opposition, government defence

Several opposition leaders echoed these concerns. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor opposed the Bill, calling it immoral to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme. Other विपक्ष members raised issues over normative funding and the reduced central contribution.

Government sources, however, defended the Bill, saying it aligns with the Viksit Bharat 2047 vision. They argued that normative funding allows predictable and rational budgeting, unlike a demand-based model that can lead to uncertainty, while still ensuring employment or unemployment allowance for eligible workers.

BJP leader and former Minority Affairs Minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi dismissed the opposition’s protest, alleging that the objection stemmed from the inclusion of Lord Ram’s name in the scheme.