#Narendra Modi Status

[varun-123s]

How to Check Palanhar Payment Status: A Complete Guide

The Palanhar Scheme is a vital initiative by the Rajasthan government designed to provide financial assistance to caregivers (palanhars) of orphaned and vulnerable children. For caregivers, it is essential to track the Palanhar Payment Status to ensure they receive timely payments. This guide explains how to check the payment status, common issues, and troubleshooting methods.

What is the Palanhar Scheme?

The Palanhar Scheme was launched to support children who have lost both parents or are living in difficult circumstances. The government provides financial assistance to a designated guardian, ensuring the child’s basic needs, including education and health, are met. This support is offered on a monthly basis, and tracking payment status helps ensure continuity of care.

How to Check Palanhar Payment Status?

To check the Palanhar Payment Status, follow these steps:

Step 1: Visit the Official Portal Go to the Rajasthan Government’s official portal for the Palanhar Scheme or the designated payment system page.

Step 2: Enter Beneficiary Details Enter your Beneficiary ID or Application Number (given when you registered for the scheme).

Step 3: View Payment Status After entering the required details, you will see the status of your payment, whether it has been approved, processed, or is pending.

Alternatively, you can check the payment status via SMS services or a mobile application provided by the Rajasthan government for real-time updates.

Common Issues in Palanhar Payment Status

While checking your payment status, you may encounter issues such as:

Pending Payments: This may be due to administrative delays or missing documents. Ensure that all required documents (e.g., guardian registration, child’s birth certificate) are submitted correctly.

Incorrect Details: Double-check that the Beneficiary ID or Application Number is entered correctly.

No Payment Yet: If no payment is showing, it could be due to a delay in the fund transfer cycle or errors in the application processing.

Eligibility Criteria for the Palanhar Scheme

To be eligible for the Palanhar Scheme, the caregiver must meet the following criteria:

The child must be an orphan or from a vulnerable background, without both parents.

The caregiver must be a registered guardian of the child.

The caregiver should be a permanent resident of Rajasthan.

FAQs

Q1. How do I check my Palanhar payment status online? Visit the official Rajasthan government website or mobile app. Enter your Beneficiary ID or Application Number to view the payment status.

Q2. What should I do if my payment is pending? Check if your documents are complete and verify if there are any errors in your application. Contact the local administration or district office for further assistance.

Q3. How often do I receive payments under the Palanhar Scheme? Payments are generally disbursed monthly, but delays can occur based on government processing timelines.

Q4. Can I get an SMS notification for Palanhar payments? Yes, the Rajasthan government provides SMS notifications to caregivers about their payment status.

Conclusion

The Palanhar Payment Status is an important tool for caregivers to track the financial assistance provided under the Palanhar Scheme. By following the correct steps to check payment status and addressing any issues promptly, caregivers can ensure they receive timely support for orphaned or vulnerable children. Always refer to official portals for the most accurate and updated information.

[pmkisanyojana]

https://www.mykisan.net/post/pm-kisan-samman-nidhi-16th-installment-announcement

[metamatar]

India spends a tiny fraction of its budget on public healthcare. Even in spending that minuscule fraction, expenditure on mental health comes last. In fact, the government encourages people to reach out to faith healers for “spiritual” treatments. The ministry of health and family welfare mentions on its website that “recent research has shown that religious practices can be helpful in curing and preventing physical and mental illnesses.” It adds, “When medical care becomes unaffordable, futile, and of no use, spiritual care is absolutely feasible, and a logical solution.”

[...] many superstitious beliefs, because long and deeply held, are also considered integral parts of religious faith and granted the protections attached to it. This is true not just within Hinduism, but also in Christian, Islamic and tribal belief systems. Superstitions begin to seem less banal particularly when they fuel prejudices prevalent within communities. Superstitious beliefs often provide legitimacy to oppression and injustice, acting as a way to maintain the status quo in a society, villainise minorities and women, or to keep people in their places. On the darker end of this spectrum are superstition-based crimes, which can involve human sacrifice and allegations of witchcraft. [...]

Where there is superstition, there is also a battle against it. But, while India has a lineage of rationalists and sceptics, the murders of its leading icons demonstrate how imperilled these figures are. Narendra Dabholkar, a rationalist who was among those demanding a stringent anti-superstition law, was assassinated in the run-up to the 2014 general elections, in which the Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi was elected prime minister. Within a year of Modi taking office, the rationalist Govind Pansare was also assassinated in Maharashtra, and another rationalist, MM Kalburgi, was assassinated in Karnataka. A police investigation found that Kalburgi’s statements made during a discussion on an anti-superstition bill were perceived as “anti-Hindu,” and had been the trigger for the attack on him.

cw: rape, graphic violence, ritual murder in the link below

[zvaigzdelasas]

11 Dec 23

[mariacallous]

India is in the middle of a 44-day exercise to elect its next government, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi tipped to return his Bharatiya Janata Party to power for a third consecutive term. Modi, who aims to win nearly three-quarters of the country’s 543 parliamentary seats, has surprised many observers by using dehumanizing anti-Muslim language on the campaign trail—rhetoric that is more direct than that of his past speeches.

So far, the BJP campaign has focused on creating an irrational fear among India’s Hindu majority that if Modi doesn’t return as prime minister, a share of their private wealth and affirmative action job quotas will be given to Indian Muslims. Modi and his party have doubled down on this narrative at a moment when reports suggest that their quest for a supermajority is unlikely to succeed. The brazen continuation of such anti-Muslim rhetoric differentiates this campaign from the two others that have put Modi in the prime minister’s office.

Hate speech is a criminal offense in India, and it is specifically barred during an election campaign. However, Modi chose the three leaders of India’s Election Commission, the agency charged with conducting free and fair polls, and it has ignored his flagrant violations of the election code. As a result, as the campaign continues through the end of May, so too will Modi’s anti-Muslim tirades. India is expected to announce its election results on June 4.

If the BJP wins and Modi is once again crowned prime minister, his Islamophobic rhetoric will not simply disappear. Many political leaders campaign in poetry and govern in prose, but hateful rhetoric has real-life consequences. Modi’s campaign speeches have put a target on Indian Muslims’ backs, redirecting the anger of poor and marginalized Hindu communities away from crony capitalists and the privileged upper castes. It underscores an attempt to make members of the Muslim minority second-class citizens in a de facto Hindu Rashtra, or state.

These social schisms need only a small spark to burst into communal violence, which would damage India’s global status and growth. Furthermore, Modi’s campaign rhetoric is matched by the BJP’s choice to not put up candidates in Muslim-majority Kashmir, reducing its stake in ensuring robust democracy in a region that New Delhi has ruled directly since 2019. His language will also have a direct bearing on India’s fraught ties with its neighbor Pakistan. Finally, the state-backed ill treatment will likely not be limited to Indian Muslims—meaning that other religious minorities, such as Christians and Sikhs, will also be affected.

Around 200 million Muslims live in India—the second-largest Muslim population in the world, after that of Indonesia. Few mainstream Indian political leaders have plummeted to such depths in castigating these citizens. Modi’s campaign rhetoric makes clear that if he is elected to a third consecutive term, the nation’s Muslims will stand politically disempowered, economically marginalized, and deprived of their constitutional rights.

Modi’s political rise came in the wake of significant violence against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, when he was the state’s chief minister. Due to his role in the violence, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States all temporarily barred his entry. Leading the party’s campaign to victory in the state assembly in the same year, his campaign speeches were full of crude language against Muslims. But the BJP’s electoral success in Gujarat—winning the next two assembly elections before the launch of Modi’s national campaign—ultimately gave Modi political credibility within an extreme fringe of the party.

By 2011, Modi had started reinventing himself as a business-friendly leader with an eye on a national role. By the time he became prime minister three years later, the narrative of a so-called Gujarat model of economic development concealed his anti-Muslim ideological moorings. Modi’s mask slipped occasionally, but he often spoke with a dog whistle. Mostly, the prime minister reiterated an imagination of India as a Hindu nation. In a post-9/11 world, Modi presented an alternative model of battling Islamic terrorism and consolidated a Hindu majoritarian voter base—delivering a stunning election victory in 2019 after an attempted airstrike against an alleged terrorist training camp inside Pakistan.

This year, Modi has not campaigned on his track record of the past decade or on the party manifesto for the next five years as often as he has attempted to further polarize Hindus and Muslims. In a speech given on April 21, Modi suggested that the opposition Indian National Congress party, if elected, would redistribute property to Muslims. The party would “calculate the gold with [Hindu] mothers and sisters” and transfer it “among those who are infiltrators and have more children,” he said—using terms by which his supporters regularly describe Muslims.

Elsewhere, Modi alleged that Congress was helping Muslims in a plot to take over India: “The opposition is asking Muslims to launch vote jihad,” he said in March. Speaking at a rally in Madhya Pradesh in early May, Modi said that voters would have to choose between “vote jihad” and “Ram Rajya,” the latter being a term referring to a mythical, idealized society that purportedly existed during the rule of Lord Rama, the hero of the famous Hindu epic Ramayana.

The prime minister’s economic advisory council soon released a paper that sought to stoke anxieties about a decline in the proportion of Hindus in India; during the period it covered—1950 to 2015—India’s population actually increased by five Hindus for every one Muslim citizen, but BJP leaders soon deployed the report to further demonize Indian Muslims.

The party’s official messaging has echoed Modi’s rhetoric. A now-deleted video posted on the Instagram account for the BJP’s Karnataka branch this month said, “If you are a non-Muslim, Congress will snatch your wealth and distribute it to Muslims. Narendra Modi knows of this evil plan. Only he has the strength to stop it.” It was followed by an animated clip depicting Congress leader Rahul Gandhi hatching a plan to benefit Muslims at the expense of Hindu groups.

Other Indian democratic institutions have done no better. Despite formal complaints from opposition parties and civil society groups, the election commission has neither punished nor restrained Modi. A petition in the Delhi High Court seeking immediate action against Modi for his “communally divisive speeches” was dismissed, with the judges arguing that it was “without merit” because the commission was already looking into the matter. “We can’t presume that they won’t do anything,” one judge said. But as the elections near the finish line, that is precisely what has happened.

Some observers are likely to dismiss Modi’s recent language as par for the course during an election campaign, when tempers run high. However, most surveys and polls have predicted an easy victory for the prime minister and the BJP; he has no need to resort to pandering to base emotions with toxic rhetoric. In an interview, Modi denied that he had uttered a word against Indian Muslims; he was proved wrong by fact-checkers and video evidence. India’s top political scientist said that through his denials in interviews, Modi is trying to influence the naive chroniclers while he continues with his anti-Muslim speeches for the masses and his supporters. Modi’s No. 2, Amit Shah, insists that the party will continue with this anti-Muslim campaign. By persisting with hateful speech, the BJP leadership is fueling a narrative that is likely to intensify discrimination against Indian Muslims during Modi’s rule.

As prime minister, Modi has spearheaded a project for the political disempowerment of Indian Muslims. For the first time in the history of independent India, the ruling party does not have a single Muslim member of parliament. In the current election, the party has put up just one Muslim candidate—on a list of 440—who is running for an unwinnable seat in Kerala. More broadly, religious polarization has made it difficult for Muslim candidates to win seats in areas without an overwhelming Muslim majority. During recent elections, there have been complaints of authorities barring voters in Muslim-majority localities in BJP-ruled states. Modi’s message to Indian Muslims is unequivocal: You do not matter politically.

India’s Muslims are economically disadvantaged, too. A 2006 committee under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Congress government found that the Muslim community faced high levels of poverty and poor outcomes on almost all socioeconomic indicators. India’s opposition parties have promised a new socioeconomic survey that could inform future policy without a focus on religion. Modi’s government, by contrast, opted to not conduct even the regular census in 2021—the first such instance in 140 years—due to COVID-19; it has not been conducted since.

Rather than relying on data, Modi and his supporters prefer an emotional response that pitches poor and marginalized Hindus against Muslims. India is a highly unequal country: About 90 percent of the population earns less than the average income of $2,800 per year. This gap has widened under Modi, with the richest 1 percent now owning 40 percent of India’s wealth. By othering Muslims, Modi puts them at risk of becoming the object of other deprived groups’ ire, which could lead to further communal violence. A Muslim man was allegedly lynched in Gujarat during the current election campaign, without making national  headlines.

Islamophobia is at the core of the project to make India a Hindu state. Modi and the BJP frequently weaponize terrorism discourse to delegitimize critics and political opposition. In Kashmir, where the BJP is not running candidates this election, this tactic has fueled anger and hostility. The high turnout in the region seems to be an expression of rage against Modi’s 2019 decision to revoke its semi-autonomous status. When the ruling party leaders conflate Islam with terrorism, there is little chance of extending any hand of peace toward Pakistan, either. Modi and his ministers have vowed to take back Pakistan-administered Kashmir by force if necessary—no matter the grave risk of conflict between two nuclear-armed countries.

Finally, Modi’s rhetoric does not bode well for other religious minorities in India. In the border state of Manipur, the largely Christian Kuki community has suffered state-backed majoritarian violence for more than a year. In Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populated state, Christian priests and worshippers are being jailed, beaten, and threatened by both Hindu majoritarian groups and state police. Meanwhile, the BJP has demonized the Sikh farmers who led protests against agricultural laws in 2020 and 2021, labeling them as separatist Khalistani terrorists. (Last year, Modi’s government was accused of involvement in the killing of a Sikh separatist leader in Canada as well as in an attempted assassination in New York.)

Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians are India’s biggest religious minorities; they make up nearly one-fifth of the country’s population. To disempower these groups would spell the end of the historical bond between India and ideas of universal justice, human rights, and democracy. A majoritarian Indian state—a Hindu Rashtra—would instead make a covenant with bigotry, discrimination, and violence. The bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has repeatedly asked Washington to blacklist Modi’s government for its suppression of religious freedom, but the Biden administration has refused to act so far.

However, the evidence is there for all to see—and Modi has further substantiated the charge of bigotry with his campaign speeches targeting Indian Muslims. No matter if the BJP achieves its supermajority, this rhetoric will have significant consequences for India. Modi is serving a warning. The world should take note before it is too late.

[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.

[critical-skeptic]

There Are No Gods or Kings, Only Man

A Scathing Critique of Trumpism and the Rise of Populist Extremism

The era of Donald Trump has left an indelible mark on the political landscape, both in the United States and globally. The ascent of Trumpism, with its cult-like fervor, has emboldened extremist rhetoric and actions reminiscent of a nascent Fourth Reich. This dangerous trend has profound implications, and it is crucial to dissect its roots, impacts, and the broader issues it reveals about contemporary society.

The Cult of Personality

Donald Trump's presidency was characterized by an unprecedented cult of personality. His followers, often referred to as the MAGA (Make America Great Again) crowd, elevated him to an almost god-like status. This idolization is antithetical to the principle that "there are no gods or kings, only man." By placing Trump on a pedestal, his supporters disregarded his numerous failings and embraced a narrative built on lies and demagoguery.

Trump's appeal lay in his ability to present himself as an anti-establishment figure, a billionaire who spoke for the "common man." However, this facade masked his true nature as a self-serving opportunist. The QAnon conspiracy theory, which flourished under his watch, further exemplifies the dangers of blind faith in a singular figure. QAnon followers believed in a shadowy "deep state" and saw Trump as their savior, leading to real-world violence and a distortion of democratic discourse.

Populist Rhetoric and Authoritarian Tendencies

Trump's rhetoric was marked by extreme populism, scapegoating minorities, immigrants, and political opponents. This us-versus-them mentality fostered division and hatred, eroding the social fabric. His infamous slogan, "Make America Great Again," harkened back to an idealized past that never truly existed, promoting a reactionary agenda that sought to roll back civil rights and social progress.

The rise of Trumpism also saw an alarming embrace of authoritarian tendencies. Trump's frequent attacks on the media, judiciary, and other democratic institutions undermined the checks and balances essential to a functioning democracy. His refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election and the subsequent insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, highlighted the dangers of a leader who refuses to relinquish power and incites violence.

Global Impact: A Fourth Reich in the Making?

The impact of Trumpism has not been confined to the United States. Around the world, populist leaders have drawn inspiration from Trump's playbook. Figures like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Narendra Modi in India have adopted similar tactics, leveraging nationalism, xenophobia, and disinformation to consolidate power. These leaders, emboldened by Trump's example, pose a significant threat to global stability and democratic norms.

The comparison to the rise of a Fourth Reich is not hyperbolic. The parallels between the current wave of populism and the conditions that led to the rise of fascism in the 20th century are stark. Economic uncertainty, social fragmentation, and a distrust of established institutions create a fertile ground for demagogues who promise simple solutions to complex problems. The dangerous combination of charismatic leadership and a disaffected populace can lead to the erosion of democratic principles and the rise of autocratic regimes.

The Broader Problems: Idolatry and Centralization of Power

The rise of Trumpism and global populism underscores a broader issue: the human propensity for idolatry and the centralization of power. In times of crisis, people often seek strong leaders to provide direction and reassurance. This tendency, however, can lead to the elevation of deeply flawed individuals to positions of immense power, exacerbating the very issues they purport to solve.

The idolization of leaders like Trump distracts from the reality that they are mere mortals, subject to the same flaws and limitations as anyone else. This deification creates a dangerous feedback loop, where leaders are emboldened by their followers' unwavering support, leading to increasingly authoritarian behavior. The principle that "there are no gods or kings, only man" serves as a reminder that power should be dispersed and accountable, not concentrated in the hands of a few.

The Way Forward: Embracing Rationalism and Egalitarianism

Addressing the rise of populist extremism requires a fundamental shift in how society approaches leadership and governance. First and foremost, it is essential to reject the notion of infallible leaders. Political discourse should be grounded in rationalism, critical thinking, and empirical evidence, not in blind faith and conspiracy theories.

Egalitarianism must also be a guiding principle. A healthy democracy thrives on diversity of thought and a robust system of checks and balances. Power should be decentralized, with strong institutions that hold leaders accountable and protect the rights of all citizens. Education plays a crucial role in this endeavor, fostering a populace that is informed, critical, and resistant to demagoguery.

In conclusion, the era of Trump and the rise of populist extremism serve as a stark reminder of the dangers of idolatry and the centralization of power. The quote "there are no gods or kings, only man" encapsulates the need for a more rational, egalitarian approach to leadership and governance. By embracing these principles, society can resist the allure of authoritarianism and build a more just and democratic world.

[humanrightsupdates]

(New York) – Indian authorities are revoking visa privileges to overseas critics of Indian origin who have spoken out against the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government’s policies, Human Rights Watch said today. Prime Minister Narendra Modi often attends mass gatherings of diaspora party supporters in the United States, Europe, Australia, and elsewhere to celebrate Indian democracy, while his government has targeted people it claims are “tarnishing the image” of the country.

The Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) status is available to foreign citizens of Indian origin or foreigners married to Indian nationals to obtain broad residency rights and bypass visa requirements, but does not amount to citizenship. Many of those whose OCI visa status was revoked are Indian-origin academics, activists, and journalists who have been vocal critics of the BJP’s Hindu majoritarian ideology. Some have challenged their exclusion in Indian courts on constitutional grounds seeking protection of their rights to speech and livelihood.

“Indian government reprisals against members of the diaspora who criticize the BJP’s abusive and discriminatory policies show the authorities’ growing hostility to criticism and dialogue,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities seem intent on expanding politically motivated repression against Indian activists and academics at home to foreign citizens of Indian origin beyond India’s borders.” (Human Rights Watch)

[beguines]

In the days leading to August 5, 2019 and in the weeks and months to come, Kashmir became a site of unfathomable cruelty. Thousands of Kashmiris were detained; pro-India politicians were placed under house arrest, pro-freedom leaders as well as minors were rounded up and thrown in jail. Young boys were shipped off to Indian prisons 1,500km away in Agra and Varanasi. Foreign journalists and international human rights groups were banned from access to Kashmir. The region was placed under a complete communication blackout. Cellular phones, Internet, landline services, and even the postal services were dismantled. News traveled by word of mouth. Journalists compressed photos and video onto memory cards and smuggled them out with passengers en route to Delhi. Schools, offices, banks, and businesses were closed for months. Life came to a standstill.

On August 5, 2019, the Modi government revoked both Articles 370 and 35A, split the region into two union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, and placed them under the direct control of Delhi. Kashmir had been effectively annexed. It was a stunning rebuke to the myth of Indian democracy as well as the veneer of Kashmiri autonomy. Observers warned that this move represented an intensification of India's settler-colonial project in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Under the new status of the state, India would now have the legal justification to allow non-Kashmiris to access residency rights in Kashmir as well as purchase land that had previously been restricted to Kashmiri permanent residents, or state subjects. The end goal was now within sight: Kashmir's Muslim-majority demography would be changed in favor of Indian Hindus. In time, elections would be held, and democracy would cover for the ethnocratic, colonial rule that had been imposed on the region.

Revoking Article 370 and Article 35A were long-held goals of Hindu nationalists and supremacists in India. They had resented the autonomy PM Nehru had "granted" Kashmir in 1947 and wished to see Kashmir fully integrated into India. For Hindu-supremacists, these two articles were an obstruction to the region's full integration into the Indian state and had contributed to the rise of "separatism" or "terrorism" in the region—which is how India refers to Kashmiris' decades long resistance to Indian rule. To the Hindu right, the problems in Kashmir were borne out of India's coddling of Kashmiri Muslims. The question of Kashmiri self-determination had never been on the agenda. The removal of the two Articles was therefore portrayed as ushering in a "New Kashmir" in which peace and prosperity would arrive through Indian investment and development. This had been a central plank of Narendra Modi's second election campaign, too.

Azad Essa, Hostile Homelands: The New Alliance Between India and Israel

[beardedmrbean]

LUCKNOW, India (AP) — An Indian state has approved an unprecedented uniform code for marriage, divorce, adoption and inheritance for Hindus, Muslims and other religious communities under new legislation that also requires couples that live together to register with the government or face punishment.

Northern Uttarakhand state lawmakers passed the legislation on Wednesday and its approval by the state governor and the Indian president is seen as a formality before it becomes law in the state. Muslim leaders and others oppose the Uniform Civil Code initiated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu Nationalist party saying it interferes with their own laws and customs on such issues.

India, the world’s most populous nation with more than 1.4 billion people, is comprised of around 80% Hindus and about 14% Muslims. Muslims accuse Modi’s right-wing nationalist party of pursuing a Hindu agenda that discriminates against them and directly imposes laws interfering with their faith.

“This is a nefarious political design to drive a wedge in the society on religious lines,” said Yashpal Arya, an opposition Congress party lawmaker.

Pushkar Singh Dhami, the top elected official in Uttarakhand state, said: “The new legislation is not against any religion or community, but will bring uniformity in the society."

Other states ruled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party are expected to introduce similar legislation. If the BJP wins national elections expected in April or May, it may bring such legislation at the federal level.

The new law bans polygamy and sets a uniform age for marriage for men and women — 21 and 18, respectively — across all religions and also includes a uniform process for divorce.

Hindus, Muslims, Christians and other minority groups in India currently follow their own laws and customs for marriage, divorce, adoption and inheritance.

Asaduddin Owaisi, president of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, said the legislation is merely a Hindu code that applies to all.

"I have a right to practice my religion and culture. This bill forces me to follow a different religion and culture. In our religion, inheritance and marriage are part of religious practice," he said on X, formerly Twitter.

S.Q.R. Ilyas, the spokesperson for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, said: “The bill is unnecessary, and goes against the principle of diversity. Its primary target appears to be Muslims, especially since even (some Indigenous tribes) have been exempted."

A significant feature of the bill is the introduction of stringent measures that require the registration of live-in relationships. Couples failing to register their live-in status with district officials could face up to six months in prison or a fine of 25,000 rupees ($305) or both, said Manoj Singh Tamta, a state government official. He said the bill explicitly states that children born out of such relationships will be considered legitimate offspring of the couple, inheriting all legal rights available to those born within a traditional marriage.

Sanjay Agnihotri, a consultant with a non-government organization that works in micro-financing, said he and his girlfriend belong to different castes and their families oppose the idea of them marrying. They relocated to another city and started living as partners without formalizing their relationship through marriage.

"However, the new legislation mandates us to register our relationship, which could potentially subject us to unwarranted police scrutiny,” said Agnihotri.

Uttarakhand became the first Indian state after it won independence from British colonialists in 1947 to adopt legislation on marriage, divorce, land, property and inheritance for all citizens, irrespective of their religion, a key part of the BJP's agenda for decades.

[almanach-international]

14 avril : l’anniversaire du Dr Ambedkar, l’un des fondateurs de l’Inde actuelle

C’est le 134e anniversaire de Babasaheb Ambedkar et son aura n’a cessé de grandir ces dernières années. Cet homme, né dans un milieu défavorisé et qui sera l’un des premiers intouchables à faire des études supérieures, à bénéficier d’une bouse pour étudier aux États-Unis et à Londres, et à se hisser au plus haut niveau de l’État indien dont il a participé à la fondation. Il fut député, ministre de la Justice, du Travail… On lui doit pour l’essentiel la constitution indienne, notamment les articles sur la laïcité, la lutte contre les discriminations. Très jeune, il a lutté contre le système des castes et, une fois au gouvernement, il a mis en place une discrimination positive.

Bhimrao Ramjo Ambedkar est né le 14 avril 1891 à Mhow (appelé aujourd'hui Ambedkar Nagar) dans le Madhya Pradesh. Son anniversaire a été fêté publiquement pour la première fois à Pune en 1928 par ses partisans. Mais il a fallu attendre 1990, à la veille de son centenaire, pour que le Dr Ambdekar reçoit à titre posthume le Bharat Ratna, la plus haute distinction civile indienne. En outre, la période 1990-91 avait été déclarée « Année de la justice sociale ». Certains État de l’Inde célèbrent le 14 avril une journée de l’équité. Babasaheb Ambedkar (son surnom) est particulièrement vénéré par les intouchables qu’il appelait les datits, et basses castes dont il était (car sa famille était de la la caste des Mahars) ; mais aussi des bouddhistes, car un an avant sa mort, en 1956, il s’était converti au Bouddhisme pour protester contre le maintien de l’esprit des castes (pourtant abolies par la constitution) et la sur-représentation des hautes castes au sommet de l’État. Il avait entraîné avec lui la conversion en masse de plusieurs centaines de milliers d’intouchables.

Ambedkar Jayanti n'est pas une fête nationale en Inde. Mais, c'est un jour férié dans 25 États et territoires de l'Union indienne (sur 36) , dont Andhra Pradesh , Bihar , Chandigarh , Chhattisgarh , Goa , Gujarat , Haryana , Himachal Pradesh , Jammu-et-Cachemire , Jharkhand , Karnataka , Kerala , Ladakh , Madhya Pradesh. , Maharashtra , Odisha , Pondichéry , Pendjab , Rajasthan , Sikkim , Tamil Nadu , Telangana , Uttarakhand , Uttar Pradesh , Bengale occidental…

Ce sont ces deux dernières décennies que le culte d’Ambdekar a pris de l’ampleur. Le jour de son anniversaire, les gens se rassemblent devant les statues et les mémoriaux du Dr Ambedkar pour lui rendre hommage. Les autorités indiennes ont fini par s’y plier et à déclarer, localement, la journée du 14 avril comme fériée. Les écoles et les universités organisent des séminaires, des conférences et des discussions pour informer les jeunes générations sur la vie, les philosophies et les contributions d'Ambedkar. Les processions et rassemblements publics sont très courants dans le cadre des célébrations. On organise chaque année un marathon, « Run for Ambdekar » , des spectacles de danse et de musique traditionnelles illustrant les thèmes de l'égalité et de la justice sociale ajoutent une dimension culturelle aux célébrations. On prononce des discours et organise des débats sur des questions liées à la justice sociale et à la discrimination de caste.

Il n’est pas vraiment dans la droite ligne de l’Inde de Narendra Modi mais son culte n’a cessé de grandir ces dernières années. On célèbre aussi l’anniversaire de sa mort, chaque 6 décembre, Mahaparinirvan Diwas.

Un article de l'Almanach international des éditions BiblioMonde, 13 avril 2024

[newspatron]

Sardar Patel: The Iron Man of India Finally Gets His Due

Do you know who Sardar Patel was and why he is called the Iron Man of India? Read this article to find out how Narendra Modi honored his legacy.

India is a vast and diverse country, with a rich and complex history. It is home to more than 1.3 billion people, who speak hundreds of languages and follow various religions and cultures. It is also a vibrant democracy, with a strong constitution and a federal system of government. How did India become what it is today? How did it achieve its independence from British colonial rule? How did it…

[techno-99]

Narendra Modi Story

Narendra Modi (born September 17, 1950, Vadnagar, India) Indian politician and government official who rose to become a senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In 2014 he led his party to victory in elections to the Lok Sabha (lower chamber of the Indian parliament), after which he was sworn in as prime minister of India. Prior to that he had served (2001–14) as chief minister (head of government) of Gujarat state in western India.

After a vigorous campaign—in which Modi portrayed himself as a pragmatic candidate who could turn around India’s underperforming economy—he and the party were victorious, with the BJP winning a clear majority of seats in the chamber. Modi was sworn in as prime minister on May 26, 2014. Soon after he took office, his government embarked on several reforms, including campaigns to improve India’s transportation infrastructure and to liberalize rules on direct foreign investment in the country. Modi scored two significant diplomatic achievements early in his term. In mid-September he hosted a visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping, the first time a Chinese leader had been to India in eight years. At the end of that month, having been granted a U.S. visa, Modi made a highly successful visit to New York City, which included a meeting with U.S. Pres. Barack Obama.

As prime minister, Modi oversaw a promotion of Hindu culture and the implementation of economic reforms. The government undertook measures that would broadly appeal to Hindus, such as its attempt to ban the sale of cows for slaughter. The economic reforms were sweeping, introducing structural changes—and temporary disruptions—that could be felt nationwide. Among the most far-reaching was the demonetization and replacement of 500- and 1,000-rupee banknotes with only a few hours’ notice. The purpose was to stop “black money”—cash used for illicit activities—by making it difficult to exchange large sums of cash. The following year the government centralized the consumption tax system by introducing the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which superseded a confusing system of local consumption taxes and eliminated the problem of cascading tax. GDP growth slowed from these changes, though growth had already been high (8.2 percent in 2015), and the reforms succeeded in expanding the government’s tax base. Still, rising costs of living and increasing unemployment disappointed many as grandiose promises of economic growth remained unfulfilled.

This disappointment registered with voters during the elections in five states in late 2018. The BJP lost in all five states, including the BJP strongholds of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh. The rival Indian National Congress (Congress Party) won more state assembly seats than the BJP in all five elections. Many observers believed that this portended bad news for Modi and the BJP in the national elections set for the spring of 2019, but others believed that Modi’s charisma would excite the voters. Moreover, a security crisis in Jammu and Kashmir in February 2019, which escalated tensions with Pakistan to the highest point in decades, boosted Modi’s image just months before the election. With the BJP dominating the airwaves during the campaign—in contrast to the lacklustre campaign of Rahul Gandhi and Congress—the BJP was returned to power, and Modi became India’s first prime minister outside of the Congress Party to be reelected after a full term.

In his second term Modi’s government revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, stripping it of autonomy in October 2019 and bringing it under the direct control of the union government. The move came under intense criticism and faced challenges in court, not only for the questionable legality of depriving Jammu and Kashmir’s residents of self-determination but also because the government severely restricted communications and movement within the region.

In March 2020, meanwhile, Modi took decisive action to combat the outbreak of COVID-19 in India, swiftly implementing strict nationwide restrictions to mitigate the spread while the country’s biotechnology firms became key players in the race to develop and deliver vaccines worldwide. As part of the effort to counter the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Modi undertook executive action in June to liberalize the agricultural sector, a move that was codified into law in September. Many feared that the reforms would make farmers vulnerable to exploitation, however, and protesters took to the streets in opposition to the new laws. Beginning in November, massive protests were organized and became a regular disruption, particularly in Delhi.

Modi’s policies backfired in 2021. Protests escalated (culminating in the storming of the Red Fort in January), and extraordinary restrictions and crackdowns by the government failed to suppress them. Meanwhile, despite the remarkably low spread of COVID-19 in January and February, by late April a rapid surge of cases caused by the new Delta variant had overwhelmed the country’s health care system. Modi, who had held massive political rallies ahead of state elections in March and April, was criticized for neglecting the surge. The BJP ultimately lost the election in a key battleground state despite heavy campaigning. In November, as protests continued and another set of state elections approached, Modi announced that the government would repeal the agricultural reforms.

[head-post]

India’s Supreme Court upheld government’s decision to revoke Kashmir’s special status

On Monday, India’s top court upheld the legality of the law passed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government in 2019 that revoked the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir from statehood and special status.

Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud headed the constitution bench of the Supreme Court.

We hold the exercise of presidential power to issue constitutional order abrogating Article 370 of Constitution as valid. All provisions of the Indian Constitution can be applied to Jammu and Kashmir.

In September, the court concluded arguments on a slew of petitions challenging the legality of the law passed by the Modi government in 2019.

In response, several individuals, groups and political parties filed about 20 petitions in the apex court, labelling the decision unconstitutional.

Read more HERE

[zvaigzdelasas]

[Nikkei is Japanese Private Media]

the civil war continues in peripheral areas between the Imphal Valley and the hills, despite recent assurances from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi that the "sun of peace" would soon rise in Manipur. From Aug. 29 through this past weekend, buffer zones separating the communities saw heavy shooting and shelling, killing at least eight and injuring more. On Wednesday, a Meitei crowd clashed with the state police, after a Meitei civil society organization called for a public march to remove barricades put up by central forces at the border of a Kuki-Zo district in Churachandpur. Thirty were reportedly injured.

The conflict first erupted in early May after a rally by the Kuki-Zo and Naga tribal groups, protesting a court order to grant the Meiteis Scheduled Tribe status. This would allow the Meiteis, who make up about half the state's population, to purchase land in the hills reserved for Scheduled Tribe communities under India's constitution and receive other affirmative action benefits.[...]

Critics accuse the state police of enabling Meitei militias. [...]

"I won't leave this place until this war ends. I don't feel safe anywhere else," Inaoton Singh said, noting that police had so far taken no action against those who killed his wife. Far from bringing armed Meitei groups under control, the Manipur state government has registered "first information reports" with the police against Kuki-Zo academics speaking out against the violence. The most recent was against the Editors Guild of India, an independent body that held the state and the regional media responsible for perpetuating the fighting in Manipur.

7 Sep 23