#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 मंत्री 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.

[news365timesindia]

[ad_1] Paromita Das GG News Bureau New Delhi, 25th November. The debate over Bharat’s identity as a secular state or a potential “Hindu nation” has reemerged, fueled by Congress leader Phool Singh Baraiya’s strong critique of Bageshwar Dham’s Peethadheeshwar Dhirendra Krishna Shastri and his ongoing padayatra. This event, known as the “Hindu Ekta Yatra,” has drawn massive participation from Bharat and abroad, including political figures from both the ruling BJP and opposition parties. Baraiya’s comments have sparked a nationwide conversation on secularism, religion, and governance. Understanding Baraiya’s Controversial Remarks Phool Singh Baraiya, a Congress MLA from Bhander city in Madhya Pradesh, has accused Bageshwar Baba of “hooliganism” and aligning his efforts with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political agenda. Baraiya asserts that such movements aim to keep citizens “in the dark” and “fools,” facilitating Modi’s prolonged dominance in power. Baraiya’s most striking statement, however, challenges the very notion of Hindu identity in Bharat. He sarcastically questions the authenticity of Hinduism, referencing societal evils like caste-based discrimination, gender-based violence, and social exclusion, all committed in the name of Hindu tradition. This pointed criticism invites reflection on the diversity and complexity within the Hindu identity itself. The Padayatra and Its Symbolism Bageshwar Baba’s Hindu Ekta Yatra is not merely a religious procession but a powerful statement advocating for Hindu nationalism. For years, Shastri has championed the declaration of Bharat as a Hindu nation and has appealed for an end to casteism, an issue deeply ingrained in Bharatiya society. His padyatra has attracted thousands of participants from within Bharat and the Bharatiya diaspora, emphasizing unity among Hindus. Supporters argue that the movement seeks to revive Hindu pride and address social divisions. Critics, however, view it as a political maneuver veiled in religious fervor, pointing to the presence of political leaders from the BJP and even the Congress among the marchers. Bharat’s Secular Identity: A Historical Perspective Bharat’s secularism, as enshrined in the Constitution, is rooted in inclusivity and equal respect for all religions. The founders of modern Bharat envisioned a pluralistic society that would thrive on diversity. Declaring Bharat a Hindu nation would challenge this foundational principle and potentially alienate significant portions of the population, including minorities and marginalized communities. Baraiya’s remarks, although controversial, reflect fears that Hindu nationalism might erode the secular fabric of the country. His assertion that there are “no Hindus in Bharat” highlights contradictions within the community and underscores the need for introspection rather than exclusivity. Analyzing the Role of Political Leaders Baraiya’s statements also raise questions about political motives. While he critiques BJP leaders for aligning with religious movements, Congress figures like Jaivardhan Singh have also participated in the padayatra. This duality reflects the political tightrope that leaders walk in a country where religion often influences public sentiment. The presence of politicians across party lines in such events indicates that religion remains a potent force in Bharatiya politics. This dynamic complicates efforts to maintain secular governance and suggests that both major political parties recognize the electoral importance of religious identity. Global Attention on the Yatra The Hindu Ekta Yatra has garnered international attention, with participants from countries like Nepal, Mauritius, Britain, and Saudi Arabia. This global reach underscores the resonance of Hindu nationalism among the Bharatiya diaspora, who often see themselves as cultural ambassadors of their heritage. However, the international participation also brings scrutiny. Critics argue that projecting Bharat as a Hindu nation might damage its global image as a multicultural democracy.

It could strain relations with countries that value secularism or have significant Muslim populations. The Dangers of Religious Exclusivity Bharat’s strength lies in its diversity. Declaring it a Hindu nation risks alienating religious minorities and deepening existing divisions within Hinduism itself. Movements like Bageshwar Baba’s padayatra may inspire unity among some but can equally polarize others, undermining the inclusive vision of Bharat’s founders. Baraiya’s criticism, while provocative, draws attention to a critical debate: Can Bharat reconcile its religious heritage with its commitment to secularism? His remarks serve as a reminder that religion, when intertwined with politics, can become a divisive tool rather than a unifying force. Conclusion Bharat stands at a crossroads, grappling with its identity as a secular state or a nation defined by one religion. While movements like the Hindu Ekta Yatra resonate with many, they also raise questions about inclusivity and governance. Leaders like Phool Singh Baraiya may use sharp rhetoric, but their critiques highlight genuine concerns about the implications of Hindu nationalism. To safeguard its pluralistic ethos, Bharat must ensure that religion remains a matter of personal faith rather than a political agenda. Only by embracing its diversity can the nation truly thrive as a beacon of unity in a fractured world.   The post ‘No Hindus in India’: Congress MLA Baraiya’s Bold Statement Shakes the Nation appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

[news365times]

[ad_1] Paromita Das GG News Bureau New Delhi, 25th November. The debate over Bharat’s identity as a secular state or a potential “Hindu nation” has reemerged, fueled by Congress leader Phool Singh Baraiya’s strong critique of Bageshwar Dham’s Peethadheeshwar Dhirendra Krishna Shastri and his ongoing padayatra. This event, known as the “Hindu Ekta Yatra,” has drawn massive participation from Bharat and abroad, including political figures from both the ruling BJP and opposition parties. Baraiya’s comments have sparked a nationwide conversation on secularism, religion, and governance. Understanding Baraiya’s Controversial Remarks Phool Singh Baraiya, a Congress MLA from Bhander city in Madhya Pradesh, has accused Bageshwar Baba of “hooliganism” and aligning his efforts with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political agenda. Baraiya asserts that such movements aim to keep citizens “in the dark” and “fools,” facilitating Modi’s prolonged dominance in power. Baraiya’s most striking statement, however, challenges the very notion of Hindu identity in Bharat. He sarcastically questions the authenticity of Hinduism, referencing societal evils like caste-based discrimination, gender-based violence, and social exclusion, all committed in the name of Hindu tradition. This pointed criticism invites reflection on the diversity and complexity within the Hindu identity itself. The Padayatra and Its Symbolism Bageshwar Baba’s Hindu Ekta Yatra is not merely a religious procession but a powerful statement advocating for Hindu nationalism. For years, Shastri has championed the declaration of Bharat as a Hindu nation and has appealed for an end to casteism, an issue deeply ingrained in Bharatiya society. His padyatra has attracted thousands of participants from within Bharat and the Bharatiya diaspora, emphasizing unity among Hindus. Supporters argue that the movement seeks to revive Hindu pride and address social divisions. Critics, however, view it as a political maneuver veiled in religious fervor, pointing to the presence of political leaders from the BJP and even the Congress among the marchers. Bharat’s Secular Identity: A Historical Perspective Bharat’s secularism, as enshrined in the Constitution, is rooted in inclusivity and equal respect for all religions. The founders of modern Bharat envisioned a pluralistic society that would thrive on diversity. Declaring Bharat a Hindu nation would challenge this foundational principle and potentially alienate significant portions of the population, including minorities and marginalized communities. Baraiya’s remarks, although controversial, reflect fears that Hindu nationalism might erode the secular fabric of the country. His assertion that there are “no Hindus in Bharat” highlights contradictions within the community and underscores the need for introspection rather than exclusivity. Analyzing the Role of Political Leaders Baraiya’s statements also raise questions about political motives. While he critiques BJP leaders for aligning with religious movements, Congress figures like Jaivardhan Singh have also participated in the padayatra. This duality reflects the political tightrope that leaders walk in a country where religion often influences public sentiment. The presence of politicians across party lines in such events indicates that religion remains a potent force in Bharatiya politics. This dynamic complicates efforts to maintain secular governance and suggests that both major political parties recognize the electoral importance of religious identity. Global Attention on the Yatra The Hindu Ekta Yatra has garnered international attention, with participants from countries like Nepal, Mauritius, Britain, and Saudi Arabia. This global reach underscores the resonance of Hindu nationalism among the Bharatiya diaspora, who often see themselves as cultural ambassadors of their heritage. However, the international participation also brings scrutiny. Critics argue that projecting Bharat as a Hindu nation might damage its global image as a multicultural democracy.

It could strain relations with countries that value secularism or have significant Muslim populations. The Dangers of Religious Exclusivity Bharat’s strength lies in its diversity. Declaring it a Hindu nation risks alienating religious minorities and deepening existing divisions within Hinduism itself. Movements like Bageshwar Baba’s padayatra may inspire unity among some but can equally polarize others, undermining the inclusive vision of Bharat’s founders. Baraiya’s criticism, while provocative, draws attention to a critical debate: Can Bharat reconcile its religious heritage with its commitment to secularism? His remarks serve as a reminder that religion, when intertwined with politics, can become a divisive tool rather than a unifying force. Conclusion Bharat stands at a crossroads, grappling with its identity as a secular state or a nation defined by one religion. While movements like the Hindu Ekta Yatra resonate with many, they also raise questions about inclusivity and governance. Leaders like Phool Singh Baraiya may use sharp rhetoric, but their critiques highlight genuine concerns about the implications of Hindu nationalism. To safeguard its pluralistic ethos, Bharat must ensure that religion remains a matter of personal faith rather than a political agenda. Only by embracing its diversity can the nation truly thrive as a beacon of unity in a fractured world.   The post ‘No Hindus in India’: Congress MLA Baraiya’s Bold Statement Shakes the Nation appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

[cavenewstimes]

NCP factions lock horns over viral Bitcoin audio clip; fake, says Supriya Sule

NEW DELHI: A major political controversy has emerged on Maharashtra’s polling day concerning allegations of Bitcoin scam money being utilised for election funding by NCP leader Supriya Sule and Congress leader Nana Patole .The BJP released an audio recording on Tuesday, making serious allegations against Supriya Sule and Maharashtra Congress chief Nana Patole.While Maharashtra deputy chief…

[maharashtraelctions]

Maharashtra Unfiltered: Raw Politics, Daily Delivered – 15 November 2024

As Maharashtra gets ready for its assembly elections on November 20, 2024, there is a lot of competition in the political world and big changes are happening. The upcoming elections are not just another election; they are also a turning point in the state’s government, with different groups competing for power against a background of new scandals and policy changes.

Important Political Events

Sharad Pawar’s Views on Government

Sharad Pawar, who is the leader of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), is one of the most important voices in this election period. At a recent campaign event in Chinchwad, Pawar spoke out against the current government, saying that Maharashtra has “fallen into the wrong hands” and that the state’s infrastructure has gotten worse while they’ve been in charge[1, 3]. His comments support a larger story told by opposition parties that want to take advantage of people’s dissatisfaction with the performance of the ruling alliance.

- Advertisement -

The BJP’s Big Promises to Help People

In answer to criticism, the Mahayuti alliance, which is led by Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and includes the BJP, has released an ambitious budget of ₹6.12 lakh crore that includes a lot of welfare programs. Some of these are free LPG tanks for families living below the poverty line and money for women [2, 4]. It looks like the BJP’s plan is a calculated attempt to win back voters’ trust after a disappointing showing in the Lok Sabha. This will likely be a big part of their campaign narrative.

Health as a Key Issue in the Election

These days, health care is one of the most important issues in party platforms. The opposition coalition, Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), supports a “Right to Healthcare” policy that would give everyone access to health services[1, 3]. The BJP’s “Mission Swasth Maharashtra” plans to put a lot of money into public health. This shift toward health-focused initiatives shows that public health needs are becoming more apparent after the COVID-19 pandemic, making health care a major problem for voters.

Political Leaders and Groups

- Advertisement -

Factional fights within the big parties make things even more complicated in politics. The Shiv Sen is split into two groups, led by Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde. The NCP is also split into two groups, led by Sharad Pawar and Ajit Pawar[2, 5]. This division could have a big effect on the results of the election as people decide which groups best serve their needs.

Arguments and Points of View

In the middle of these events, there have been controversies about claims that businesses have an effect on political choices. Leaders of the opposition have said that Gautam Adani, a business figure, is trying to change Maharashtra’s politics to benefit the BJP. This suggests that his goals may not align with those of the people of the state[3, 4]. Opposition parties are using this story more and more to try to make the elections seem like a fight against the power of corporations in politics.

- Advertisement -

Effects on the Political Scene in Maharashtra

Maharashtra’s politics are about to change a lot because of the upcoming elections. A strong showing by either the Shiv Sena or the NCP could make their coalitions stronger and help them work together better. On the other hand, if the union led by the BJP is able to keep its power, it could keep its supporters stable but also lead to more scrutiny of its track record as a government.

What the voters think about these groups and their leaders will be shown by the polls. Voter turnout is likely to reflect wider societal concerns about the quality of government, economic stability, and issues of social justice, especially for marginalized groups like the Marathas, who have been vocal about their need for reservation policies[1, 2].

Bottom Line

As Maharashtra’s assembly elections get closer, the way that welfare promises, health programs, partisan politics, and claims of corporate influence interact will determine not only the results of the elections but also the state’s future government. This election is very important for Maharashtra’s political prospects because voters have to make tough choices that will have direct effects on their lives.

Citations:

[1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/maharashtra-political-news

[2] https://indianexpress.com/about/maharashtra-politics/

[3] https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/maharashtra-assembly-elections-2024-live-updates/article68868322.ece

[4] https://www.business-standard.com/elections/maharashtra-elections/maharashtra-secured-52-national-investment-under-bjp-says-fadnavis-124111500695_1.html

[5] https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/ajit-pawar-yogi-adityanath-maharashtra-assembly-polls-9662171/lite/

[6] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/maharashtra-politics/news

[7] https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/crowd-of-confusion-on-the-maharashtra-political-scene-polls/article68846189.ece

[8] https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/maharashtra-polls-bollywood-hopes-for-reforms-for-daily-wagers-tax-cuts-124111500699_1.html

[hindustanmorning]

Jharkhand controversy surrounds Congress leader's remarks, all to receive LPG cylinders, intruders or not

Ghulam Ahmed Mir, the Congress General Secretary and Jharkhand in-charge, has caused uproar in the state’s politics with his statement during the Jharkhand assembly elections. Ghulam Ahmed Mir stated on Thursday that if his party wins, all state residents, regardless of their status as infiltrators, will receive gas cylinders for Rs 450. Following his statement, the BJP has responded firmly and…

[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…

[insightfultake]

The Home Ministers of India: A Comparative Analysis of LK Advani and Amit Shah

In the annals of modern Indian politics, few positions hold as much significance and weight as that of the Home Minister. As the nation's chief custodian of internal security, law, and order, the Home Minister's policies and leadership can have a lasting impact on both the state of governance and the social fabric of the country. Among those who have held this powerful office in recent history, Lal Krishna Advani and Amit Shah stand out as pivotal figures, shaping India's security landscape during different times. While both are key leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), their tenure as Home Ministers—Advani from 1998 to 2004, and Shah from 2019 onward—demonstrates contrasting approaches to internal security, governance, and national development.

In comparing these two political titans, one must examine their leadership styles, contributions to national security, and the legacies they have left behind. This article delves into the achievements, controversies, and evolving political contexts that define Advani's and Shah's respective terms in office...expand to read more

[youthchronical]

FIR lodged against Mithun Chakraborty for 'provocative' speech

Kolkata, West Bengal, BJP leader Mithun Chakraborty at the Kolkata event where he made the controversial comments during his speech in the presence of Home Minister Amit Shah. | Photo Credit: Bebasish Bhaduri Bidhannagar Police on Wednesday (November 6, 2024) lodged an FIR against actor-turned-BJP leader Mithun Chakraborty for allegedly delivering a provocative speech during a party programme in…

[mariacallous]

In 2010, Indian actor Shah Rukh Khan starred in a film called My Name Is Khan that served as a critique of Islamophobia in the United States in the post-9/11 era. In the movie, Khan goes on a journey to the United States to meet the American president and tell him that having an Islamic last name doesn’t make him a terrorist. In real life, however, his name has made him a target at home.

A year after Narendra Modi became India’s prime minister in 2014, Khan said there was a climate of intolerance in the country that “will take us to the dark ages.” Two days later, a senior leader of the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and an acolyte of Modi, Yogi Adityanath, said Khan spoke the language of terrorists and equated him to the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai terrorism attacks. Adityanath threatened Khan, saying he would be out of business if a “huge mass” of Indians, implying Hindus, boycotted his films. Since then, fringe political outfits linked to the BJP—and even some BJP leaders—have repeatedly attacked Khan.

The latest attack began when the trailer of Khan’s latest film, Pathaan, was released last month. Hindu nationalists of the BJP and those linked to the party expressed three major objections. First, that actress Deepika Padukone should not have worn a saffron-hued bikini in a song titled “Besharam Rang” because saffron is a sacred color in Hinduism. Second, the bikini was a few centimeters too revealing to be approved by the far right’s cultural police. And third, and more tellingly perhaps, they slandered Khan for his fitness, questioning whether the 57-year-old’s chiseled “six-pack” abdomen could possibly be real.

The charges were ludicrous. Bollywood actresses have worn saffron in sensuous songs before, but it’s never been so controversial. Moreover, Padukone wore a green skirt and several other colors in the song. The attack didn’t make sense, but it was nonetheless vicious. One protester on air, who was later revealed to be an actor himself, dared Khan to dress his daughter in a green bikini instead of Padukone, a Hindu actress. Green is a sacred color in Islam, and Khan’s wife is also Hindu.

“Had Deepika worn a saffron bikini opposite a Hindu actor, there would have been no controversy,” Hartosh Singh Bal, political editor of the Caravan, told Foreign Policy from Delhi in a phone interview. “It is all because [Khan] is a Muslim.” Several male Indian actors have flaunted abs before, and rare have they met with such ridicule.

Many people believe that the insidious campaign to discredit Khan emerges out of Hindu nationalists’ broader effort to humiliate minorities into accepting their secondary status in a country they want to claim for themselves. There have been frequent calls by the BJP to turn India into a theocratic state—a Hindu rashtra or a country predominantly of and for Hindus. As part of that bid, they hope to control Bollywood itself, the country’s biggest cultural force and its most effective messenger.

After #BoycottPathaan trended on Twitter, #BoycottBollywood soon followed. There were several well-crafted tweets, as if coordinated with one another, calling on directors to change their scripts and fall in line—or risk a total boycott. But this was not the first time Bollywood came under attack. Scholars who studied the trend between August 1 and September 12 discovered thousands of ghost accounts created over these months that solely tweeted with the hashtag #BoycottBollywood. More than 300 accounts each tweeted over 1,000 tweets on Bollywood over that nearly month and a half, “suggesting organized behavior,” said Joyojeet Pal, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan who conducted the study. Junior politicians of the BJP and of its affiliates were also discovered to be pushing the content.

Outrage on social media was to a large extent manufactured, but it is hard to say how many Indians genuinely approved of the sentiment. An investigation by news website the Wire revealed that many of the news stories that defamed Khan and called for Pathaan’s boycott reflected the views of political partisans rather than genuine protesters. Meanwhile, Pathaan has enjoyed enormous ticket sales, a resounding rejection of the calls to boycott Khan’s movies and Bollywood more generally.

Fans thronged cinemas in cities across India and at screenings abroad to see Khan return to the screen after a four-year hiatus. The controversies instigated around him—including outright falsehoods about how he had supposedly donated millions of dollars to Pakistan and was caught spitting at the funeral of Indian singer Lata Mangeshkar—did little to dampen public enthusiasm for his movie.

As Khan hopped between buildings, dived off planes, and walked on the facade of a skyscraper, all to save India from a terrorist attack, Indians across faiths seemed proud that Bollywood could also produce its own version of Mission Impossible and were eager to applaud Khan’s reinvention from romantic heartthrob to action hero. Even Indians abroad, who are arguably among the biggest believers in Hindu nationalism, rushed to screenings in the United Arab Emirates, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. The movie has reportedly smashed box office records in India, and in the first 16 days since its release, it earned nearly $10 million.

Meera Rizvi, a professional scriptwriter whose maternal ancestors were ethnic Pashtuns like Khan’s, said she had little interest in watching the movie but attended a screening as an act of resistance to bullying from Hindu nationalists. “Bullies have been empowered by the right-wing government, and they think they can do whatever they want,” Rizvi said. “I went to see the movie to stand up against the bullying Khan has been subjected to.” Many others said they believed it was all a useless controversy. Anju Dhawan, an interior designer, said she didn’t understand why there was controversy at all. “Shah Rukh is an actor. Hindu, Muslim has nothing to do with it,” she told Foreign Policy from Karnal, India.

The crowds, however, did not indicate a rejection of political polarization. At least two highly educated professionals FP spoke to believe in Hindu nationalist propaganda, making unsubstantiated allegations against Khan. Political analysts told FP that Pathaan’s success did not indicate a change of mood in a nation still in thrall of Modi and the BJP’s broader political agenda. “It showed that Hindu nationalists still do not have the ability to wipe out the appeal of a celebrity who is a Muslim, just like Indians would cheer a Muslim cricketer,” Bal said. “It didn’t mean the mood of the country has gone a certain way.”

Last week, Indian press reported that Modi called on his ministers to refrain from making unnecessary comments that overshadow the government’s developmental work. But that message has come far too late to rein in the mob, said filmmaker Anurag Kashyap. “It was about controlling their own people. Things have gone out of hand now,” Kashyap said. “When you stay silent, you empower prejudice and you empower hatred. It has now got so much empowered that it is a power in itself. The mob is out of control now.”