English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

“We want an early resolution of Ayodhya dispute”

Published

on

mudda

Panellists feel that the issue is hanging fire for too long and parties should not misuse it for electoral advantage

The Supreme Court said it will decide in January the date for hearing the Ayodhya land dispute case. In less than three minutes, the court adjourned till next year the hearing of a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 verdict that divided into three parts the disputed land in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya.

APN’s Mudda discussed the issue. Anchorperson Anant Tyagi posed questions to panellists including BJP’s Dinesh Singh, Congress’ Saif Ali, Hindu Mahasabha’s Swami Chakrapani Maharaj, Muslim scholars Ajmal Khan and Maulana Abid, RSS’s Sarvesh Chandra Dwivedi and APN consultant Govind Pant Raju.

Singh said: “For some reason, the Supreme Court has put off the decision. Let’s see what happens, we can’t keep sidelining it. We wanted an early resolution.”

Swami Chakrapani said: “It is sad that despite repeated pleas to the government and agencies, the issue has been put off again and again. BJP leaders say ‘it should be done’. Why are they failing on their agenda? What is the point of BJP getting such a huge majority? It’s a challenge to the protesters now.”

When Anant asked “don’t you trust the SC?”, Swami Chakrapani said: “We want judgment, not settlement, so that there is no dispute on the issue. BJP got a good decisive vote, but its moves are not decisive.”

Maluana Abid said: “Court judges decide as per what they deem fit. This Mudda has been raging on for decades. Earlier with Vajpayee and now with Modi, nothing decisive has emerged even with a BJP government at the centre. Are they expecting the court to be at the beck and call of political parties?”

To this, Singh said:”We have never said that we don’t trust the SC. Ram is of Hindustan, the verdict has to be favourable.”

Maulana Abid said:”It’s a title suit. Why are you bringing in Ram or Babar? When the matter is with the highest court of the country, we shall all have to abide by the verdict.”

When Singh continued to interject, he was silenced by the anchor.

Saif Khan said: “There is a lot the SC needs to know, a lot more research and comments are needed to be heard. People need to know that there is no love lost on this issue. The government has a Rs 500 crore budget for Ayodhya. How has that been used?”

Ajmal Khan said: “We can’t understand why the SC adjourned the case. We can only respect the verdict. There cannot be a debate on the SC adjournment.”

Raju said: “People expected the SC to decide once and for all. It’s unfortunate that the matter was adjourned in three minutes. The court did not deem the matter urgent enough. It could have given an earlier date. In reality, a lot more time is needed to arrive at a conclusion on this issue. The Ram Mandir mudda is a political issue, raised by political parties; faith is a different matter altogether. The SC case has nothing to do with faith. It’s a site dispute.”

Singh said: “Don’t allege that BJP is raking up this issue for political votes before the upcoming elections. Mudda is created by the people, not the parties.”

Swami Chakrapani said: “The BJP got a massive mandate to sort out this issue. But it is still hanging fire. The central government is equally vague about gau maaas (beef). They need to be clearer in their intentions and their actions.”

Said Khan said: “Whatever the SC verdict, we respect it. It is just a poll issue. BJP is not serious about devolving a solution to this at all.”

Maulana Abid said: “In 70 years, Muslims have suffered a lot. Images have been slipped in the dark of the night into the place. Let the SC decide the truth.”

Sarvesh Dwivedi said: “Whoever is raking up this issue should wait for the SC verdict now. However, the issue could have been decided amicably by all parties.”

                                                                                    —Compiled by Niti Singh Bhandari

India News

Amit Shah counters delimitation concerns, says southern states to gain Lok Sabha seats

Amit Shah assures Parliament that southern states will gain Lok Sabha seats after delimitation, countering opposition criticism during the women’s reservation debate.

Published

on

Amit Shah

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Thursday addressed concerns over the proposed delimitation exercise, asserting in the Lok Sabha that southern states will not lose representation but instead see an increase in their number of seats.

His remarks came during a heated debate linked to the implementation of women’s reservation, where opposition parties have raised fears that population-based delimitation could reduce the political weight of southern states.

Shah rejected these claims, calling them misleading, and said the proposed framework ensures fairness while expanding the overall strength of the Lok Sabha.

Seat count to rise with expansion of Lok Sabha

The government has indicated that the total number of Lok Sabha seats could increase significantly as part of the delimitation process. In this expanded House, the combined representation of southern states is expected to rise from 129 seats at present to around 195 seats.

Shah emphasised that no state will lose seats in absolute terms, and the exercise is designed to reflect population changes while maintaining balance across regions.

State-wise projections shared in Parliament

During his address, Shah also provided indicative figures for individual southern states, suggesting notable increases in representation. According to the projections:

  • Tamil Nadu could see its seats rise substantially
  • Kerala, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh are also expected to gain additional seats
  • Karnataka’s representation may increase as well

These figures were presented to counter the argument that delimitation would disproportionately favour northern states.

Political debate intensifies over linkage with women’s quota

The delimitation exercise has been closely linked to the rollout of women’s reservation, which proposes one-third seats for women in Parliament and state assemblies.

Opposition leaders have questioned this linkage, arguing that tying reservation to delimitation could delay its implementation and raise federal concerns. Some leaders have also warned that the move could impact national unity if apprehensions among states are not addressed.

The government, however, maintains that the reforms are necessary to ensure equitable representation and to align the electoral system with demographic realities.

Centre dismisses ‘false narrative’ on southern states

Shah reiterated that concerns about southern states losing influence are unfounded. He said the delimitation process will increase representation across regions and described the criticism as a “false narrative” aimed at creating confusion.

The issue is expected to remain a key flashpoint as Parliament continues discussions on the women’s reservation framework and related legislative changes.

Continue Reading

India News

PM Modi assures no discrimination in women’s quota, delimitation debate intensifies in Parliament

PM Narendra Modi has assured that women’s reservation will be implemented without discrimination, amid a heated debate over delimitation in Parliament.

Published

on

PM modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has assured that there will be no discrimination in the implementation of women’s reservation, as Parliament witnessed a sharp debate over the proposed linkage between the quota and delimitation exercise.

During the ongoing special session, the government reiterated its commitment to ensuring fair representation while addressing concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the timing and structure of the legislation.

The proposed framework aims to reserve 33 percent of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. However, its implementation is tied to a fresh delimitation exercise, which is expected after the next census.

Opposition questions timing and intent

Opposition leaders have raised concerns that linking the women’s quota to delimitation could delay its implementation. They argue that the process of redrawing constituencies may push the actual rollout further into the future.

The issue has triggered a broader political confrontation, with multiple parties questioning whether the move could alter representation across states.

Some critics have also alleged that the delimitation exercise could disproportionately benefit certain regions based on population, a charge the government has rejected.

Government reiterates commitment to fair implementation

Responding to these concerns, the Centre has maintained that the reforms are necessary to ensure accurate and updated representation based on population data.

Leaders from the ruling side have repeatedly emphasized that the process will be carried out transparently and without bias. The assurance that there will be “no discrimination” is aimed at addressing fears among states and opposition parties.

The debate marks a key moment in Parliament, with both sides engaging in intense exchanges over one of the most significant electoral reforms in recent years.

Continue Reading

India News

Give all tickets to Muslim women, Amit Shah says, attacking Akhilesh Yadav on sub-quota demand

A sharp exchange between Amit Shah and Akhilesh Yadav in Parliament over sub-quota for Muslim women highlights key divisions on women’s reservation implementation.

Published

on

A heated exchange broke out in Parliament during discussions on the women’s reservation framework, with Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav locking horns over the demand for a sub-quota for Muslim women.

The debate unfolded as the government pushed forward key legislative measures to implement 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

Akhilesh Yadav argued that the proposed reservation must ensure representation for women from marginalised communities, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Muslim women. He said that without such provisions, large sections could remain excluded from political participation.

He also questioned the timing of the bill, alleging that the Centre was avoiding a caste census. According to him, a census would lead to renewed demands for caste-based reservations, which the government is reluctant to address.

Government rejects religion-based quota

Responding to the demand, Amit Shah made it clear that reservation based on religion is not permitted under the Constitution.

He stated that any proposal to provide quota to Muslims on religious grounds would be unconstitutional, firmly rejecting the idea of a separate sub-quota for Muslim women within the broader reservation framework.

The government has maintained that the existing framework already includes provisions for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) women within the overall reservation structure.

Wider political divide over implementation

The issue of sub-categorisation within the women’s quota has emerged as a major flashpoint, even as most opposition parties broadly support the idea of women’s reservation.

Samajwadi Party leaders reiterated that their support for the bill depends on inclusion of OBC and minority women, while the government continues to defend its constitutional position.

The debate is part of a broader discussion during the special Parliament session, where multiple bills linked to delimitation and implementation of the women’s quota are being taken up.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com