#BJP leaders controversy

[townpostin]

BJP Leaders' Behavior Remains Unchanged: Dr. Ajoy Kumar

Dr. Ajoy Kumar criticizes BJP leaders, citing a recent incident involving Odisha Governor’s son. Dr. Kumar condemns Lalit Kumar’s actions, highlighting past misconduct by BJP figures. JAMSHEDPUR – Former MP and Congress Working Committee member Dr. Ajoy Kumar, addressing the media on Saturday, criticized BJP leaders and their kin, emphasizing that their behavior remains unchanged. He cited a…

[rightnewshindi]

भाजपा नेता रवनीत सिंह बिट्टू का विवादित बयान, कहा, राहुल गांधी देश के नंबर वन टेररिस्ट, पकड़ने के लिए रखें इनाम

भाजपा नेता रवनीत सिंह बिट्टू का विवादित बयान, कहा, राहुल गांधी देश के नंबर वन टेररिस्ट, पकड़ने के लिए रखें इनाम #RahulGandhi #Science #Space #Archtecture #SocialMedia #Finance #law #News #Press #Humour #Pets #Gaming #Code #Music #photograpahy #RightNewsIn

Ravneet Singh Bittu: केंद्रीय मं��्री और भाजपा नेता रवनीत सिंह बिट्टू ने कांग्रेस लीडर राहुल गांधी को आतंकवादी बताया है। नेता प्रतिपक्ष पर निशाना साधते हुए बिट्टू ने कहा, ‘राहुल गांधी ने सिखों को बांटने का प्रयास किया है। सिख किसी पार्टी से जुड़ा हुआ नहीं है, मगर चिंगारी लगाने की कोशिश हो रही है। राहुल गांधी देश के नंबर वन टेररिस्ट हैं।’ भाजपा नेता ने कहा कि वे लोग जो हर वक्त मारने की बात करते…

[world-of-wales]

Wait, what? Could you explain the M and India UK thing?

It all dials back to the Commonwealth and uk- india ties in terms of it. So, a little background - commonwealth was the second international organization/group joined by India after the UN. But the commonwealth was the first it joined as an independent sovereign state. Now at that time india was one of the first countries who put forth the demand that republics should also be able to join the CW and countries like them should not be expected to keep the monarch as the head of the state to be a condition for joining what is being called a voluntary organization. Because if they keep the monarch as the head of state, then the whole idea of independence from colonization loses its meaning. So the Indian leaders at that time put forth the demand that republics should be allowed in too, and these countries will be a part of the CW but no authority of the UK or the head of atate/monarch will extend to them. That was accepted because it was a fair demand and made sense. Hence, india joined the CW.

Even back then i.e post indepence in 1947 till the time of the london declaration in 1949, there was a lot of debate and controversy over the whole joining buisness and even then a large section of politicians and leaders were like this is stupid, why are we going back under their influence after having a 100 year long struggle to get out of it. But the then government including Jawaharlal Nehru (my fav Indian pm) who was his own foreign minister, were like India will need to have some sort of connection and some sort of ties with other nations internationally to make sure it can work in the global world. And even today, the Commonwealth forms the bedrock of india's contemporary relations with a number of African states and its dealings with canada, australia, etc.

JLN and his interim government agreed with the influence argument so they put forth the demand for the joining of republics with their own heads of states. It was agreed upon by the UK. But even after that, since india's independence a large section has been against the Commonwealth with the same arguments and people,intellectuals, politicians like shashi tharoor, the southern state CMs, some North Indian parties feel that India should leave the CW.

Now flash forward to the wedding in 2018, meghan came out wearing a veil embroidered with the national flowers of all the CW states, including guess which ones? The republics which are sovereign!!! Including - india (lotus), Pakistan (jasmine) and Bangladesh (water lily)

This thing was picked up by journalists and they ran with it on social media and in newspapers that the royals still think we are theirs. The whole of South Asian twitter was a mess, everyone was criticizing the UK, asking for the high commission to be summoned in front of parliamentary committes to see why they thought it was okay. In india politicians from both sides - the ruling bjp and the opposition parties jumped in. It basically became a f*ck CW, f*ck UK narrative. Now add to this the whole history of colonization and that makes it even worse.

The whole problem that people had with it was that, despite nearly 75 years of independence, UK still thinks we are theirs so why don't we kick them to the curb, we don't need the CW to have trade and other diplomatic ties with other states anymore. Pakistan, Bangladesh etc also had the same issues but it was the most amplified in india.

So in the official circles, for the first time, formal demands were being made that India should leave CW in 2018 because of that Givenchy wedding outfit and the attitude which it must have accompanied. It was always a thing in india, on the fringes of politics, to leave the CW as an agenda for some sections, but nobody ever took any initiative for it except making statements. The government didn't do it formally because let's be honest, 2018 was just a year off the next national elections and they had bigger fish to fry back then but I know it was pretty much a done deal as per the news coming out from 'sources' close to the cabinet, plans were being made. But it was sorted out later, a lot of it because bjp shares common ties with the Tories in the UK so they could smooth it over.

[colonelrajyavardhanrathore]

Col Rajyavardhan Rathore Calls for Congress to Clarify Its Stand on Article 370

The political landscape of India is often shaped by powerful discussions that touch upon sensitive and pivotal issues. One such issue that has remained in the national spotlight is Article 370 of the Indian Constitution — a provision that grants special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Recently, Col Rajyavardhan Rathore, the Member of Parliament and prominent leader from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), called on the Congress Party to clarify its position on Article 370. Rathore’s statement has sparked a wave of political debates and discussions across the country.

Understanding Article 370: A Historical Context

Article 370 was originally included in the Indian Constitution to provide special autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The provision, drafted in 1949, gave the state a certain degree of independence in its governance. It allowed Jammu and Kashmir to have its own Constitution and significant powers to make laws on most matters except defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications.

This provision was meant to recognize the unique circumstances under which Jammu and Kashmir had acceded to India post-independence, following the partition. While this article was intended to safeguard the cultural identity, autonomy, and distinctiveness of the region, over the years, its application has been controversial.

The Repeal of Article 370: A Turning Point in Indian Politics

On August 5, 2019, the BJP-led government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, made a historic decision to revoke Article 370. This move effectively revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The government’s action was backed by the belief that this would lead to greater integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India and promote economic development and security in the region.

This bold step, however, led to widespread protests and opposition from several political parties, including the Indian National Congress (INC). While the BJP and its supporters hailed the move as a necessary step for national unity, opposition parties, particularly the Congress, raised concerns about the constitutional propriety and the potential for escalating tensions in the region.

Rajyavardhan Rathore’s Statement: The Call for Congress to Clarify Its Stand

In the wake of this ongoing debate, Col Rajyavardhan Rathore took to social media and public forums to demand clarity from the Congress Party regarding its position on Article 370. Rathore, who is known for his vocal support for the BJP’s stance on national security and Jammu and Kashmir, questioned why the Congress Party had not taken a definitive stand on the issue after the revocation of Article 370.

The former Olympic medalist turned politician pointed out that Congress had historically maintained a position of favoring autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir, but with the revocation of Article 370, the party’s silence was no longer acceptable. According to Rathore, Congress needed to either support the government’s decision or present a well-thought-out alternative.

Political Implications of Rathore’s Statement

Rathore’s remarks highlight the divisive nature of the debate surrounding Article 370. On one side, the BJP and its allies have staunchly supported the revocation, arguing that it was a necessary step to ensure that Jammu and Kashmir is treated as an integral part of India. On the other side, opposition parties, led by Congress, have been more cautious in their response. They argue that the move violated constitutional norms and undermined the democratic process by bypassing the local legislative assembly in Jammu and Kashmir.

For Congress, this issue presents a political conundrum. The party has traditionally supported the concept of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy, but it must balance this with its broader political agenda. The demand for clarification by Rajyavardhan Rathore places pressure on Congress to decide whether it will continue to oppose the government’s decision or if it will reassess its stance.

Congress Party’s Position: Supporters and Critics

Proponents of Autonomy: Congress’ Historical Stance

The Congress Party has long been associated with advocating for a special status for Jammu and Kashmir. During its tenure in power, Congress often sought to maintain the status quo of Article 370, viewing it as a pillar of the region’s autonomy. The Congress leadership, especially under Jawaharlal Nehru and later Indira Gandhi, viewed the provision as a means to protect the unique cultural and religious identity of Jammu and Kashmir.

However, in the years following the 1990s insurgency and the rise of militancy in the state, Congress’s position on Article 370 became more nuanced. Some within the party advocated for reforms, while others continued to support the idea of maintaining the special status.

Critics of Congress’ Stance on Article 370

The critics of Congress argue that the party’s hesitation to take a firm stand on the revocation of Article 370 is a sign of political inconsistency. They point out that Congress, while in power, never took bold steps to address the issue and allowed Kashmir to remain an unresolved political challenge. According to these critics, Congress’ lack of clarity in the post-revocation period only complicates the political discourse around Jammu and Kashmir and hinders efforts at national integration.

What Does Clarity from Congress Mean for India?

The demand for clarity on Article 370 is not merely a matter of political rhetoric. The issue directly impacts the future of Jammu and Kashmir and its people. The region has been a flashpoint for political tension, and the revocation of Article 370 was viewed by many as an opportunity to bring economic development, political stability, and security to the state.

However, the situation remains highly sensitive, and any further delay in addressing the concerns of the people of Jammu and Kashmir could exacerbate tensions. Clarity from Congress could play a key role in bridging divides, and it would be important for the party to present a constructive and pragmatic approach to Jammu and Kashmir’s future.

The Role of Political Leadership in Shaping National Policy

Rajyavardhan Rathore’s call for Congress to take a clear stance highlights the role of political leadership in shaping national policy. It underscores the need for transparent, decisive leadership on critical issues that affect India’s democratic and constitutional fabric. While Congress continues to deliberate on its position, the public’s expectations from political leaders, across party lines, are clear: they want clarity, transparency, and a vision for a united and prosperous India.

Conclusion

The issue of Article 370 remains one of the most consequential matters in India’s political discourse. With the revocation of this provision in 2019, the question of Jammu and Kashmir’s future remains at the forefront of national debate. Col Rajyavardhan Rathore’s call for Congress to clarify its stance on the matter adds another layer to this ongoing discussion.

As India continues to evolve, it is essential for political parties, especially Congress, to take a stand that reflects the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir while upholding the values of national unity and constitutional integrity. Only through clarity, dialogue, and a commitment to democratic principles can India hope to navigate the challenges that lie ahead.

[mariacallous]

Much of India came to a standstill on Jan. 22, when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi consecrated a temple in the northern city of Ayodhya commemorating Rama, a warrior-king worshipped by Hindus as a god. Schools, colleges, and offices closed and central government offices gave a half-day off to all employees. Some expectant parents even cajoled obstetricians to schedule cesarean sections on the day so that their children are born at the auspicious moment coinciding with the temple’s opening.

Such a public display of religiosity by the Indian government and its leadership may seem peculiar, particularly to those who cherish secularism. But India moved away from the state’s traditional interpretation of secularism a decade ago, when Modi led the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to power. With the next national elections only a few months away, Modi has choreographed the Ram temple consecration to consolidate his Hindu vote (about 80 percent of the country’s population is Hindu). The political intent is clear: Cutouts of Modi grace lampposts on the airport road in Ayodhya, with similar images of Rama added almost as an afterthought. In an audio message on social media this month, Modi said, “God has made me an instrument to represent all the people of India.”

The ongoing construction of Ram Mandir is very controversial in India. From the early 16th century until 1992, a mosque known as Babri Masjid stood on the site—built during the time of the emperor Babur, the first Mughal to rule India. Many Hindus say that Babur destroyed a temple honoring Rama that previously stood on the land, which they believe is Rama’s birthplace. In the 1980s, Hindu activists began a movement to reclaim the site and build a temple there. In December 1992, they razed the mosque, an act that shocked the nation.

But in the past two decades, India has changed, and Hindus clamored for the land to be restored to them. In 2019, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that although the initial act of demolition was illegal, it would offer the site to a Hindu trust to build a temple and grant land elsewhere to a Muslim trust to rebuild a mosque. Although the construction of the Ram Mandir is not yet complete, Modi needs the imagery for his election campaign, and so the consecration will go ahead. Some opposition parties, including the Indian National Congress and the Communist Party of India, did not send their top leadership to the ceremony; however, some Congress leaders were divided over the boycott and at least two attended.

Rama, for many Hindus, is maryada purushottam—the ideal human being who sacrifices himself for others. His is the kind of life to which lesser mortals should aspire; his heroism is based not simply on battlecraft, but upon his ability to put others’ interests before his own. In the Sanskrit epic Ramayana, Rama is the prince of Ayodhya who is about to become king when one of his father’s wives demands that Rama go into exile, and the succession passes to her son instead. Rama leaves with his wife, Sita, and brother Lakshmana. The king of Lanka, Ravana, abducts Sita, and Rama mobilizes an army of monkeys to invade the island fortress, defeating Ravana and rescuing Sita. After 14 years, Rama finally rules Ayodhya, leading to a golden age.

The BJP sees the construction of the Ram Mandir temple as evidence of its single-minded determination, no matter how long it takes. Formed in 1980 by some members of the former Janata Party, the BJP initially struggled electorally. It briefly held power in the 1990s and led a coalition government between 1999 and 2004. In 2014, Modi projected himself as committed to development and boosted the BJP’s vote share to win a majority of seats in parliament with 31 percent of the national vote; five years later, the party increased its tally to 303 seats out of 542, winning 37 percent of the vote. The temple project follows other promises kept by Modi’s government: revoking the special autonomous status of Indian-administered Kashmir and introducing a citizenship act that created a pathway to Indian citizenship for asylum-seekers from neighboring countries but excluded Muslims. Modi has shown that he is the man who gets things done.

The BJP capitalized on three major changes that occurred in India in the 1980s to build its identity and increase its vote share. First, many Indians bristled at how India practiced secularism, perceiving the government as granting special favors to religious communities, such as subsidies for Muslims to perform the Hajj and curriculum exemptions for faith-based schools. Second, Indians were tired of living in an economy beset by sluggish growth and shoddy products due to socialist policies that restricted foreign investment and trade. (That changed in 1991, when the Congress government deregulated the economy.)

Finally, India was a leader in the Non-Aligned Movement, but the appeal of nonalignment was fading with the decline of Soviet influence and the eventual disintegration of the Soviet Union. The Congress party ruled India for most of its first 49 years post-independence, and it was instrumental in developing India’s secularism, socialism, and nonalignment. The BJP took advantage of public disenchantment and stepped into the void, promising “equality for all, appeasement to none,” to promote a market-based economy, and to reset its foreign policy, often aligning with Western interests. (Still, the BJP pursues strategic autonomy in many respects, such as its continuing trade ties with Russia despite Western sanctions.)

Most politicians have the next election on their mind; Modi and the BJP leadership have the next generation in mind. After all, more than 40 percent of Indians have no living memory of the Babri Masjid mosque. Even in the early years, the party began influencing India’s younger generations in the states where it came to power first, changing textbooks and rewriting history to downplay the roles of Mahatma Gandhi and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru (and his family members who later came to power) and project alternative heroes who were more militant and outwardly Hindu. By promoting Rama as the warrior-king who ruled over an ideal state, the BJP aims to create a constituency of voters who see their identity primarily in religious terms and equate the Hindu faith with the nation of India.

To the BJP’s core voters—the hardwired Hindu nationalists—the party has promised to restore Hindu glories, embodied by the Ram Mandir temple. The events in Ayodhya have set a precedent: Some party activists want to transform more mosques (and, in some instances, churches), claiming they were also built where Hindu temples once stood. The triumphalism around the temple construction is so vicious that not only is it the opposition leaders boycotting the event who are facing criticism, but also four seers of the Hindu faith who have raised a range of objections—including the choice of Modi to perform the ceremony, which they say should be presided over by a priest.

The Hindu nationalist movement’s elevation of Rama over other Hindu deities is also strange. Hinduism is polytheistic, and its literature does not rest on one book. Many interpretations are liberal, and some contradict each other: Skepticism and atheism are also part of certain strands of Hinduism. In the late 1980s, I interviewed Morarji Desai, who had served as India’s prime minister representing the Janata Party. I asked him what he thought of the movement to build the Ram temple on the site of Babri Masjid, and he suggested that the BJP’s ultimate goal was to undermine Hinduism’s pluralism and turn it into a faith with one book (the Ramayana), one place of worship (Ayodhya), and one god (Rama). The slogan now reverberating through Ayodhya and much of India is Jai Shri Ram, or “Victory to Lord Rama.”

Rama is an exceptionally interesting and nuanced literary figure and well-loved outside of India, especially in Southeast Asia. But many Indians do not take kindly to works that present Rama in a different light, such as the late poet A.K. Ramanujan’s celebrated essay, “Three Hundred Ramayanas,” which shows how the epic’s characters appear in different forms and offer different interpretations in India and beyond. Nina Paley’s charming 2008 animated film that draws on the Ramayana, Sita Sings the Blues, was also controversial. The latest victim of this outrage is a Tamil film released on Netflix last month, Annapoorani, about the daughter of a Hindu priest who wants to be a chef; her Muslim friend encourages her to pursue her dream, correctly citing a verse from the Ramayana that shows that Rama ate meat. Some Hindus who practice vegetarianism for religious reasons were offended; Netflix withdrew the film, and the actor who played the protagonist issued a public apology on a “Jai Shri Ram” letterhead.

India is no longer a land of nuances. A significant part of its population wants an assertive government and a black-and-white narrative where subjugated Hindus are reclaiming their identity, and the foreigners who colonized the country in the past—the British and, before them, Muslims—are cast as villains. Such an approach risks turning a multidimensional country into a cardboard caricature of itself. The Ram temple consecration marked another milestone on that path—which Modi walks in the hope of getting elected once again.

[werindialive]

BJP vs Congress War of Words Over Trump’s "$21 Million India Fund" Remark 

The political battle between the BJP and Congress has intensified after former US President Donald Trump questioned the Biden administration’s decision to allocate $21 million to India for "voter turnout." Trump’s comments have sparked controversy, with both parties accusing each other of foreign funding links. 

BJP’s Allegations Against Congress 

The BJP has alleged that the Congress sought foreign funds to prevent Prime Minister Narendra Modi from coming to power in 2014. The party pointed out that during the Congress-led UPA government, India received $204.28 million in government funding from the US, while NGOs in the country received $2114.96 million. However, after the NDA took office in 2014, government funding dropped significantly to just $1 million in 2014-15, though funding to NGOs rose to $2579.73 million. 

BJP sources also claimed that the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), funded by billionaire George Soros, received $47 million. The OCCRP has produced reports critical of the Modi government, which the BJP says were used by Congress to attack the NDA administration. 

"After the Modi Government came to power, funding to NGOs and other groups increased, showing a shift from USAID’s direct involvement in government matters to financing anti-India and anti-national activities," BJP sources claimed. 

Congress Dismisses Allegations, Demands White Paper 

Congress, however, dismissed Trump’s claims as "nonsensical" and has demanded a White Paper on the USAID funds provided to India over the years. 

Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh took to X (formerly Twitter), stating that the government should publish a detailed report on USAID’s support to Indian institutions. 

"USAID is very much in the news these days. It was set up on November 3, 1961. Claims being made by the US President are typically nonsensical, to say the least. Even so, the Government of India should bring out a White Paper at the earliest," Ramesh wrote. 

Trump’s Question on USAID Funding 

The controversy began after the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) released a list of expenses, which included "$21 million for voter turnout in India." 

Trump, questioning this funding, said:  "Why do we need to spend $21 million for voter turnout in India? I guess they were trying to get somebody else elected." 

Political Battle Ahead of Elections 

With elections approaching in India, this issue has become a major flashpoint between the BJP and Congress, with both parties using it to strengthen their political narratives. To read political news in Hindi, subscribe our newsletter. 

[live-news-daily]

Rekha Gupta slams Atishi over ‘BJP breaking promises on 1st day’ comment: ‘our government, our agenda’

Delhi CM Slams Atishi for Targeting New Government on First Day In a heated exchange, Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta has lashed out at former Delhi CM and AAP leader Atishi for criticizing her new government on its first day in office. The controversy arose after Atishi released a video alleging that the new government had broken its promise to pass a scheme benefiting women in Delhi,…

[news365timesindia]

Rekha Gupta is making history as the new Chief Minister of Delhi, and the fourth woman to hold this position. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chose Gupta, a first-time MLA, over party veterans like Parvesh Verma, who was seen as the frontrunner for the post. Rekha Gupta's selection as the chief ministerial candidate for Delhi came as a surprise to many, especially since she was chosen over party veterans like Parvesh Verma, Ramesh Bidhuri, and Vijender Gupta. So, who is Rekha Gupta and why did the BJP choose her? Rekha Gupta is a hardcore Delhite who is a commerce graduate from Daulat Ram College, Delhi University in 1995, According to her election affidavit. In 2022, she completed LLB from Chaudhary Charan Singh University in Meerut. Rekha is married to Manish Gupta who is an Insurance agent and a Spare Parts Merchandiser For Rekha hey extensive experience in student politics, as a councillor, and her work with the BJP Mahila Morcha played a significant role in her selection. Her background in student politics, particularly her win in the Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections, is seen as a launching pad for national-level politics.¹ Additionally, the BJP's emphasis on increasing women's participation in leadership roles might have also contributed to Gupta's selection. By choosing her as the chief minister of Delhi, the party aims to reinforce its image among female voters. On the other hand for the firebrand leader Parvesh Verma it’s his political lineage might have also played a role in the BJP's decision as the party is known for its professional and pragmatic approach while operating ministries in any state . Parvesh is the son of former Delhi Chief Minister Sahib Singh Verma and his selection could have led to accusations of dynastic politics, which the BJP often criticizes in opposition parties. Gupta's selection is seen as a strategic move by the BJP to emphasize women's participation in leadership roles. Her extensive experience in student politics, as a councillor, and as the national vice-president of the BJP Mahila Morcha, made her an attractive candidate. Some of the key factors that contributed to Gupta's selection include: - *Low Profile*: Gupta is known for keeping a low profile and hasn't been involved in any controversies, unlike some other party leaders. - *Women's Empowerment*: The BJP's emphasis on increasing women's participation in leadership roles made Gupta an ideal candidate. - *Clean Image*: Gupta's clean image and lack of political baggage were seen as assets by the party. Gupta will take the oath of office at the Ramlila Ground on Thursday, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah in attendance. The ceremony is expected to draw a large crowd, with at least 50,000 people anticipated to attend.

[news365times]

Rekha Gupta is making history as the new Chief Minister of Delhi, and the fourth woman to hold this position. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chose Gupta, a first-time MLA, over party veterans like Parvesh Verma, who was seen as the frontrunner for the post. Rekha Gupta's selection as the chief ministerial candidate for Delhi came as a surprise to many, especially since she was chosen over party veterans like Parvesh Verma, Ramesh Bidhuri, and Vijender Gupta. So, who is Rekha Gupta and why did the BJP choose her? Rekha Gupta is a hardcore Delhite who is a commerce graduate from Daulat Ram College, Delhi University in 1995, According to her election affidavit. In 2022, she completed LLB from Chaudhary Charan Singh University in Meerut. Rekha is married to Manish Gupta who is an Insurance agent and a Spare Parts Merchandiser For Rekha hey extensive experience in student politics, as a councillor, and her work with the BJP Mahila Morcha played a significant role in her selection. Her background in student politics, particularly her win in the Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections, is seen as a launching pad for national-level politics.¹ Additionally, the BJP's emphasis on increasing women's participation in leadership roles might have also contributed to Gupta's selection. By choosing her as the chief minister of Delhi, the party aims to reinforce its image among female voters. On the other hand for the firebrand leader Parvesh Verma it’s his political lineage might have also played a role in the BJP's decision as the party is known for its professional and pragmatic approach while operating ministries in any state . Parvesh is the son of former Delhi Chief Minister Sahib Singh Verma and his selection could have led to accusations of dynastic politics, which the BJP often criticizes in opposition parties. Gupta's selection is seen as a strategic move by the BJP to emphasize women's participation in leadership roles. Her extensive experience in student politics, as a councillor, and as the national vice-president of the BJP Mahila Morcha, made her an attractive candidate. Some of the key factors that contributed to Gupta's selection include: - *Low Profile*: Gupta is known for keeping a low profile and hasn't been involved in any controversies, unlike some other party leaders. - *Women's Empowerment*: The BJP's emphasis on increasing women's participation in leadership roles made Gupta an ideal candidate. - *Clean Image*: Gupta's clean image and lack of political baggage were seen as assets by the party. Gupta will take the oath of office at the Ramlila Ground on Thursday, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah in attendance. The ceremony is expected to draw a large crowd, with at least 50,000 people anticipated to attend.

[financemanagement]

Bjp Win Election In Delhi.

In a historic political shift, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has reclaimed power in Delhi after a 27-year hiatus, securing a decisive victory in the 2025 Delhi Legislative Assembly elections. This landmark win not only underscores the BJP's resurgence in the capital but also reflects a significant realignment in the city's political landscape.

Election Overview

The elections were conducted on February 5, 2025, with all 70 seats of the Delhi Legislative Assembly up for grabs. The voter turnout stood at 60.54%, indicating a moderately engaged electorate. The BJP emerged victorious with 48 seats, while the incumbent Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) managed to secure 22 seats. The Indian National Congress (INC), once a dominant force in Delhi politics, failed to win any seats for the third consecutive term.

Key Factors Influencing the Outcome

Anti-Incumbency Sentiment: After a decade in power, AAP faced growing public dissatisfaction. Unfulfilled promises, particularly regarding environmental issues like the cleaning of the Yamuna River and improving air quality, eroded public trust. A significant portion of the electorate expressed discontent with the AAP government's handling of pollution and access to clean drinking water.

Corruption Allegations: The AAP government was marred by corruption scandals, notably the alleged irregularities in the liquor policy and extravagant expenditures on the Chief Minister's residence, dubbed the 'Sheesh Mahal' controversy. These issues were prominently highlighted in the BJP's campaign, leading to a perception of widespread corruption within the AAP administration.

Leadership Challenges: Prominent AAP leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, lost their seats in this election. Kejriwal's defeat, in particular, signified a substantial blow to the party's morale and raised questions about its future leadership. reuters.com

BJP's Strategic Campaign: The BJP capitalized on AAP's vulnerabilities by focusing on issues of governance and development. Their promises to revamp infrastructure, enhance public services, and address environmental concerns resonated with a populace eager for change. The party's ability to project a vision of progress and stability played a crucial role in swaying voters.

Notable Victories and Defeats

Parvesh Verma: In a remarkable contest, BJP's Parvesh Verma defeated AAP's Arvind Kejriwal in the New Delhi constituency. This victory not only unseated the sitting Chief Minister but also symbolized the BJP's ascendancy in the heart of the capital. livemint.com

Karnail Singh: Representing the BJP, Singh won the Shakur Basti constituency, defeating AAP's Satyendar Jain by a margin of 20,998 votes. This win underscored the BJP's penetration into areas previously considered AAP strongholds.

Arvinder Singh Lovely: A former INC stalwart who switched to the BJP, Lovely secured the Gandhi Nagar seat, defeating AAP's Naveen Chaudhary by 12,748 votes. His victory highlighted the BJP's strategy of incorporating experienced politicians from rival parties to bolster their ranks.

Implications for AAP

The AAP's significant losses have prompted introspection within the party. Outgoing Chief Minister Atishi Marlena acknowledged the defeat, stating, "We accept the people's mandate. I have won, but it's not a time to celebrate but continue the 'war' against the BJP." This sentiment reflects the party's resolve to regroup and redefine its strategy in the face of adversity.

Congress Party's Continued Decline

The INC's failure to secure any seats for the third consecutive term underscores its diminishing influence in Delhi's political arena. Despite efforts to rejuvenate its base, the party's inability to resonate with the electorate raises questions about its future role in the capital's politics.

Formation of the New Government

As the BJP prepares to form the new government, attention turns to the selection of the Chief Minister. Several names have emerged as potential candidates, including Parvesh Verma, Rekha Gupta, and Vijender Gupta. The party has announced that the new Chief Minister will take the oath of office on February 20, 2025, at Ramlila Maidan, in a ceremony expected to be attended by a large gathering of supporters and dignitaries.

National and International Repercussions

The BJP's victory in Delhi is poised to have far-reaching implications:

National Politics: This win bolsters Prime Minister Narendra Modi's position, especially following mixed results in previous national elections. It signifies a consolidation of support in urban centers and may influence upcoming state elections.

International Perception: Regaining control of the capital enhances India's political stability in the eyes of the international community. As Delhi often serves as a barometer for national sentiment, this victory could impact foreign relations and international investments.

Conclusion

The 2025 Delhi Legislative Assembly elections have marked a pivotal moment in the city's political history. The BJP's return to power after nearly three decades reflects a combination of strategic campaigning, public desire for change, and the effective addressing of local issues. As the new government takes shape, the onus will be on.

[townpostin]

Pregnant Woman Left Unattended for 27 Hours at MGM Hospital

Fetus dies in womb; treatment begins after BJP leader’s intervention A pregnant woman was neglected for 27 hours at MGM Hospital, Kolhan’s largest government medical facility. JAMSHEDPUR – A pregnant woman from Turamdih faced severe neglect at MGM Hospital, lying on the maternity ward floor for 27 hours. The expectant mother arrived at MGM Hospital on Wednesday morning, only to be left without…

[rightnewshindi]

भाजपा नेता शोभा करंदलाजे का विवादित बयान, कहा, तमिलनाडु के लोग कर्नाटक में बम लगाते हैं; एफआईआर दर्ज

भाजपा नेता शोभा करंदलाजे का विवादित बयान, कहा, तमिलनाडु के लोग कर्नाटक में बम लगाते हैं; एफआईआर दर्ज

Tamilnadu News: डीएमके ने केंद्रीय मंत्री शोभा करंदलाजे के खिलाफ त्यागराजन की शिकायत के बाद मदुरै सिटी साइबर क्राइम पुलिस ने उनके खिलाफ मामला दर्ज किया है। वहीं, भाजपा नेता के खिलाफ डीएमके ने चुनाव आयोग में शिकायत भी दर्ज की है। दरअसल, भाजपा नेता शोभा करंदलाजे ने कुछ दिनों पहले कहा था कि रामेश्वरम कैफे विस्फोट के पीछे तमिलनाडु के लोगों का हाथ है। यह विस्फोट 1 मार्च को बेंगलुरु में हुआ था। भाजपा…

[sproutsnews]

Pune Ring Road Project Is a Scam

https://sproutsnews.com/?p=4537&wpwautoposter=1739815314 • Govt Favouring controversial MEIL Company • Allegations of Overpriced Contracts Unmesh Gujarathi Sprouts News Exclusive Senior Congress leaders have accused the BJP-led Mahayuti government in Maharashtra of approving the Pune Ring Road project at an inflated cost to benefit Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL) and Navayuga Engineering. The Ring Road project, which aims to ease traffic congestion in Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad, is managed by the Maharashtra State Road Development https://sproutsnews.com/?p=4537&wpwautoposter=1739815314

[sujeetsharma]

Delhi Elections, results and my thoughts

3:30 PM - 8 February 2025

Once a party rose to power with historic public support, but today its chief and former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal lost his constituency. People gave him not just one but two chances. While some promises were fulfilled, others turned into mere vote-bank rhetoric. A leader once celebrated is now facing defeat.

Change doesn’t happen overnight; it unfolds over time. His overconfidence and hunger for power gradually shifted him away from the vision he once promised the people. Arvind Kejriwal, who rose to power as a people's leader, began to act more like an owner than a servant, growing arrogant in his belief that no one could defeat him in Delhi. The corruption charges against his party members, along with multiple arrests, have eroded public trust and shaken people's faith. His controversial remarks, including those that hurt religious sentiments, made him appear biased. His tendency to play the blame game and make accusations of defamation against other parties has overshadowed his focus on fulfilling his own responsibilities. Allegations of scandals led to his arrest, but beyond that, his focus shifted from governance to personal ambitions. While many politicians do this, Kejriwal was framed as the "Nayak" of politics, a role he ultimately failed to live up to.

Hopefully, Arvind Kejriwal learns a lesson this time and comes back stronger instead of blaming others. Let’s see how the winning party BJP governs Delhi and fulfills its promises. He made both good and bad decisions, but there’s no denying he was a popular CM and will be strong in opposition.

Note: These are just my personal thoughts. I’m not much into politics, I prefer history. Politics often fuels division, while history teaches valuable lessons from the past. It helps people learn, observe, and apply insights to shape a better future.

Sujeet

[mariacallous]

Last week, the Indian state of Uttarakhand passed a bill to adopt a controversial Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which will bring an end to religious or personal laws governing marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance, among other issues. The change will bring all communities together under a common law to regulate those practices. The new legislation has already faced pushback from Muslim leaders and other members of India’s political class.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) hope that Uttarakhand will serve as a model for the introduction of a UCC across India, or at least across BJP-ruled states. Some of these states, including Assam and Modi’s home state of Gujarat, are already considering their own UCC bills and are keen to use the Uttarakhand code as a template, although they may tweak the legislation to address local needs. Despite its seeming impartiality, the UCC pushed by the BJP would be a threat to India’s religious pluralism.

The idea of a UCC has long caused consternation among India’s religious minorities, especially Muslims. Muslim politicians and religious leaders have suggested a UCC would amount to unwarranted interference in their community’s norms, especially when it comes to specific legal protections related to marriage, divorce, and inheritance. The Uttarakhand code even regulates live-in relationships—a clear nod to conservative Hindus, many of whom frown on such arrangements.

These critics’ misgivings are not without merit. The BJP has long pursued three contentious goals that impinge disproportionately on the interests of the Muslim community: the abolition of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted special autonomous status to the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir; the construction of a Hindu temple in the city of Ayodhya on the site of a mosque demolished by a Hindu mob in 1992; and the adoption of a nationwide UCC. It achieved the first goal in 2019, and the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya is not yet complete but was consecrated last month.

However, the idea of a UCC goes back decades to India’s foundations as an independent state. The subject was extensively debated by the constituent assembly that helped forge India’s constitution in 1949, but it was not resolved. Owing to the sensitivities of religious communities, most notably Muslims, no government was willing to tackle the politically fraught question. So why is it the unabashedly pro-Hindu BJP government—and not one controlled by the Indian National Congress party, which is committed to secularism—that has taken up the issue of the UCC? The answer requires a bit of historical exegesis.

The prevalence of separate personal laws for different religious communities in India can be traced to a colonial-era regulation. Warren Hastings, then the governor of Bengal and later the first British governor-general of India, directed in 1772 that “in all suits regarding inheritance, marriage, caste and other religious usages and institutions, the laws of the Koran with respect to the Mahomedans and those of the Shaster with respect to Gentoos [Hindus] shall be invariably adhered to.” In 1937, the British Raj enacted the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, which codified Islamic law for marriage, divorce, succession, inheritance, and other family affairs.

Those who drafted the Indian Constitution debated the necessity of a UCC, with most Muslim members against it. One of the principal architects of the constitution, B.R. Ambedkar, argued that if India could have a common criminal code, it could also have common personal laws, and suggested that a uniform civil code initially be voluntary. The framers instead settled for Article 44, a set of non-justiciable directives that range from prohibiting cow slaughter to curbing liquor consumption. It also called on the Indian state to endeavor toward a UCC for its citizens.

During Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s first term (1952-1957), the Congress party succeeded in codifying Hindu personal law through four pieces of legislation in the face of opposition. Conservative forces decried the move to meddle with Hindu personal laws, while reformists wondered why the changes were restricted to Hindus alone. But when asked about a uniform civil code, Nehru said that the time was not ripe for it.

The matter largely remained unaddressed until 1978, when Shah Bano—a recently divorced Muslim woman—sued her former husband in a lower court in central India for not providing alimony in accordance with the Indian penal code. The local court awarded Bano monthly basic maintenance, which was later increased by a high court. Bano’s husband, Mohammed Ahmad Khan, later challenged the matter before the Indian Supreme Court. Khan contended that he was not obliged to support his former wife under Muslim personal law because he had paid a dowry and three months’ maintenance.

In 1985, the Supreme Court not only rejected Khan’s appeal, but also came out in support of a nationwide UCC. At the time, Chief Justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud—the father of the current chief justice—asked why Article 44 remained a “dead letter,” noting that the Indian state lacked the “political courage” to enact a UCC. The judgment created a firestorm, especially among the Muslim community.

The Congress government led by then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi responded by passing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in 1986, which said that maintenance had to be paid only for the waiting period for a widowed or divorced woman, usually three months—effectively nullifying the Supreme Court ruling. The new law doused the controversy for the moment, but it also opened up the Congress government to charges of so-called minority appeasement. Today, the BJP tends to characterize the Congress party and others as placating Muslims and other religious minorities in the name of secularism.

Since the Shah Bano case, several court rulings have whittled away at Muslim personal law—but none more so than the 2017 Supreme Court ruling that determined the practice of instant triple talaq to be unconstitutional. The ruling came in response to women’s petitions challenging the practice, in which Muslim men can divorce their wives by uttering “talaq” (divorce) three times in quick succession. Indians across the political spectrum welcomed the judgment for advancing women’s rights, but some observers saw it as another step toward a UCC. The BJP government followed up with the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act in 2019, which made triple talaq a punishable offense.

The UCC indeed has the potential to bolster women’s rights in India by doing away with the anachronistic traditions of some religious groups. But improving the lot of Indian women does not appear to be what drives the BJP. Instead, the party’s pursuit of a UCC appears to be an attempt to stigmatize a particular faith under the guise of enhancing the status of women. (After all, if the BJP were truly concerned about women’s autonomy, it would not have sought to ban the dubious concept of love jihad, which suggests that Muslim men insidiously entice Hindu women into marrying them under questionable circumstances.)

Uttarakhand’s adoption of a UCC is a step toward fulfilling one of the BJP’s key election promises and a staple of its manifestos for the last three decades. Goa is the only other state that currently has a UCC, but its common law dates to the 19th century, when the state was under Portuguese rule. Despite efforts in other BJP-ruled states, a nationwide UCC may be some time away. Still, both Modi and Indian Home Minister Amit Shah have spoken about the idea, with Shah saying recently that the BJP “remains steadfast in bringing in UCC.”

India’s current political climate is far more amenable to the idea of a UCC than in the past. Modi and the BJP are very popular, and unlike the Congress party, they do not rely on Muslim voters to win elections. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that other religious minority groups such as Sikhs, as well as indigenous communities and the Dalit community, feel the potential of a UCC to infringe on religious and cultural rights. (The Uttarakhand code exempts the indigenous peoples of the state, who make up 3 percent of the state population but are present in greater numbers elsewhere.)

The BJP has succeeded in achieving its long-held goals in Indian-administered Kashmir and in Ayodhya. India’s national election is swiftly approaching, and the Modi government has a seemingly inexorable commitment to its Hindu nationalist agenda. If it returns to power this spring with a clear-cut parliamentary majority, the implementation of a nationwide UCC will likely figure prominently in its political priorities, pushing back against what remains of India’s commitment to religious pluralism.

[werindialive]

Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi Advises PM Modi to Be Cautious About Public Endorsements Amid Ranveer Allahbadia Controversy 

Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi on Monday urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to carefully consider the people he publicly endorses. This statement came in the wake of a controversy involving podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia, popularly known as ‘Beer Biceps,’ over his remarks on comedian Samay Raina’s show India's Got Latent. 

Gaurav Gogoi, the deputy leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, emphasized that while PM Modi has the right to support anyone in his personal life, as the Prime Minister of India, he must be more responsible. 

“I hope PM Modi will look more closely at the people he has endorsed publicly and on social media. In his personal life, he is welcome to support whoever he likes, but the Prime Minister of India must be expected to be more responsible,” Gogoi wrote on X (formerly Twitter). 

Ranveer Allahbadia’s Controversial Remark Sparks Backlash 

The controversy began after Ranveer Allahbadia, who received the 'Disruptor of the Year' award from PM Modi in March 2024 at the National Creators Award, made an inappropriate remark during an episode of India's Got Latent. His question to a contestant on the show was deemed highly offensive and sparked widespread criticism. 

The remark shocked both viewers and fellow judges on the show, including comedian Samay Raina and influencer Ashish Chanchlani. Samay Raina was visibly stunned and questioned Ranveer's conduct during the episode. 

Legal Actions and Political Reactions 

Despite Ranveer Allahbadia issuing an apology, the situation escalated when an FIR was filed against him and other participants of the show, including Samay Raina and Apoorva Makhija. The complainant cited the use of abusive language and demanded legal action against the show's organizers and judges. 

The incident has turned into a political issue, drawing criticism from both BJP and opposition leaders. Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis remarked that freedom of expression has its boundaries, while Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi expressed her intention to raise the matter in parliament. 

The controversy has sparked debates on responsible media content and public conduct, especially from influential personalities. For the latest news headline India in Hindi, subscribe to our newsletter!