English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Ayodhya case hearing put off till February 8, 2018

Published

on

Ayodhya

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The much-awaited final hearing in Supreme Court on the long-standing Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute on Tuesday, Dec 5, ended on expected lines with the next hearing put off till Feb 8, 2018.

Sunni Waqf Board counsel senior advocate Kapil Sibal had wanted it posted to July 15, 2019, after the Lok Sabha elections. Sibal told the apex court that there are serious repercussions outside the court whenever the matter is heard. He requested the court to take up the matter on July 15, 2019 once all the pleadings are complete. The plea was rejected.

The case was being heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer. The bench is hearing a total of 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits.

The high court had ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acre area at Ayodhya among the parties between the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The order was challenged before the Supreme Court on May 9, 2011, which in its verdict stayed the operation of the decree and ordered status quo of the land and other adjoining areas acquired by the Centre in 1993.

On August 11, 2017, the parties were given three months to translate all oral evidence and exhibited documents in various languages.

In the hearing on Tuesday, the court was to hear arguments and examine exhibits and documents likely to be relied upon. In pursuance to the apex court’s earlier direction, the Yogi Adityanath government had submitted English translation of exhibits and documents which were in eight different languages.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, reading out the details of exhibits filed by the contesting defendants before the Allahabad High Court, told the three-judge SC bench that all these exhibits had not been filed before the court.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, representing the state of Uttar Pradesh, rebutted Kapil Sibal’s claim and said that all the related documents and requisite translation copies were on record.

Sibal, questioning ASG Mehta’s claim, asked how could more than 19000 pages of documents be filed in such short time. Sibal also told the SC that he and other petitioners have not been provided with all relevant documents.

The SC bench asked the Advocates on Record of appeals to sit together and ensure that all the requisite documents are translated, filed and numbered before the apex court Registry. In case of any problem, the counsel were directed to consult the Registry.

Earlier, Kapil Sibal argued for deferment of the hearing on the ground that building a Ram temple at the disputed site is a part of the ruling BJP’s manifesto. “BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy had gone on record saying that Ram temple would be built before 2019 through legal means. They want to make it as an election manifesto and the court should not fall into the trap. These appeals are not ordinary property disputes as they go to the heart of secular fabric of the country,” Sibal said. He also said he needed time as there are 90,000 pages of documents to go through.

Senior lawyers Harish Salve and CS Vaidyanathan, representing Hindu organisations, objected, saying the court must treat the Ayodhya case like any other.

“We are shocked and surprised,” said Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, adding that the judges were “not bothered about what’s happening outside.” He said that in August this year “all of you wanted the hearing in January and we posted today to hear the statement of facts. Now you want it to be postponed.”

On Sunday, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy had said that the construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya will start soon and devotees will be able to celebrate the next Diwali there. Earlier, , RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat had declared that only a mandir would come up at the disputed site and nothing else. “We will construct it. It is not a populist declaration but a matter of our faith. It will not change,” he had said.

On Tuesday, Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas chief Mahant Nritya Gopal Das said that in case the Supreme court order is not in their favour, the temple would still be built via Parliament, under Modi Narendra and Yogi Adityanath government.

“If the temple isn’t built during Modi, Yogi government then when it will be built,” said Mahant Nritya Gopal Das.

“Entire land belongs to Lord Ram,” he said.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), extreme Hindu wing of RSS, has declared that the construction will start from October 18, 2018. Assembly poll campaigns would be at peak at the time in BJP ruled Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. It would also be only six months away from Lok Sabha polls.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Ajit Pawar dismisses speculation on Supriya Sule joining BJP

Ajit Pawar has dismissed speculation about Supriya Sule joining the BJP, calling such rumours exaggerated and stressing that his focus remains on elections and development.

Published

on

Ajit Pawar

Amid renewed political speculation around Nationalist Congress Party–Sharad Pawar (NCP-SP) leader Supriya Sule’s future, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar on Monday dismissed rumours of her joining the BJP, stating that he is “not an astrologer” and prefers to focus on governance and electoral outcomes rather than conjecture.

The remarks came after Sule publicly praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for sending all-party delegations abroad following Operation Sindoor, triggering fresh political chatter in Maharashtra’s volatile landscape.

Ajit Pawar rejects political speculation

Responding to questions from the media, Ajit Pawar said speculative interpretations are often exaggerated and unnecessarily amplified.

“I am not an astrologer. Such speculative questions often become breaking news without reason. My focus is on development until January 15,” he said, seeking to put an end to the rumours.

On whether there is any possibility of the two factions of the Nationalist Congress Party coming together, Pawar said the immediate priority is electoral success.

“At present, our top priority is winning the elections. We are working with full effort to ensure a positive outcome,” he said.

On NCP reunification and family ties

Addressing broader questions on a possible reunification between the NCP and NCP-SP, Pawar used a familial analogy, suggesting that unity cannot be ruled out.

“We are one family. In every family, people come together during moments of happiness and sorrow. If family members decide to stand together, there is nothing wrong in that,” he said.

However, he did not indicate any concrete move or timeline for such a reunion.

Thackeray brothers’ reunion and voter behaviour

Commenting on the coming together of the Thackeray brothers, Pawar said the development could have electoral consequences.

“Shiv Sena (UBT) and MNS traditionally had different voter bases. With them coming together, vote division could reduce, which may benefit them electorally,” he said.

Pawar clarified that he played no role in facilitating the reunion but welcomed the move, calling it a positive development within a political family.

He also cautioned against assuming uniform voter consolidation, noting that voting behaviour varies across elections.

“Voters think differently in national, state and local elections. The results of the Lok Sabha and subsequent Assembly elections clearly show that,” he added.

On free facilities, local alliances and Mumbai remark

Responding to criticism over promises of free facilities, Pawar said such decisions rest with the Chief Minister at the state level and the Prime Minister at the national level. He added that at the local body level, his experience of over two decades guides his approach.

On alliances involving parties like the NCP, Shiv Sena and AIMIM in local bodies such as the Parli Municipal Corporation, Pawar said such arrangements are common and often finalised locally without involving senior leadership.

He also strongly rejected remarks by a BJP leader claiming Mumbai is not part of Maharashtra.

“Mumbai is in India, and within India, it is in Maharashtra. It will always remain a part of Maharashtra. Such statements are made around elections to draw attention,” Pawar said.

On Bharat Ratna for Sharad Pawar

When asked whether NCP founder Sharad Pawar should be awarded the Bharat Ratna, Ajit Pawar said the decision lies with the Central government.

“Sharad Pawar has served public life for over 60 years and taken many important decisions. Anyone is free to express an opinion, but the final call rests with the Centre,” he said.

Continue Reading

India News

PSLV comeback mission hit by third-stage anomaly during launch from Sriharikota

ISRO’s PSLV-C62 mission faced a third-stage anomaly around 30 minutes after launch, raising concerns over the rocket’s comeback flight after its 2025 failure.

Published

on

PSLV LAUNCH

At 10.18 am on Tuesday, the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)-C62 lifted off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, carrying 16 satellites into space. The launch marked the first PSLV mission of the year and was being closely watched as a comeback attempt following a failure in 2025.

Roughly 30 minutes after liftoff, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) stated that the mission had “encountered an anomaly” during its third stage. The space agency has initiated a detailed analysis but has not yet officially declared the mission a failure.

Third stage issue raises concerns again

The PSLV is a four-stage launch vehicle, with the first two stages reportedly performing as expected during Tuesday’s mission. The problem surfaced during the third stage, where deviation was observed.

ISRO chairman Dr V Narayanan said that a detailed assessment is underway. Historically, issues during the third stage of a rocket have often resulted in mission failure, although ISRO has so far avoided using that term for this launch.

The setback is significant as this was intended to be a recovery mission. The PSLV’s only launch in 2025 had also failed due to a third-stage issue. An analysis committee was formed after that failure, but its findings were not made public.

Mission payload and satellite loss

The mission aimed to place a surveillance satellite into orbit. The earth observation satellite, named Anvesha, was developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation. Alongside it, the PSLV carried 15 additional satellites from multiple countries, including Brazil, Nepal and the UK.

With the anomaly occurring mid-mission, these satellites are now believed to be lost.

Track record remains strong despite setback

The PSLV has completed 64 missions so far, with four failures recorded prior to this launch. If the current mission is eventually declared unsuccessful, it would mark the fifth failure, keeping the overall success rate relatively high.

However, the timing of the anomaly is a concern, given the growing reliance on PSLV for commercial and strategic launches.

Impact on space industry and future launches

The development is particularly worrying for private players in India’s expanding space ecosystem. Several start-ups had payloads on this mission, including Hyderabad-based Dhruva Space, which had placed seven satellites onboard.

The outcome also casts uncertainty over the planned industry-led PSLV launch scheduled for the first half of 2026. That mission is being developed with participation from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Larsen and Toubro.

ISRO is expected to conduct a thorough investigation into the third-stage issue before finalising the status of the mission and outlining corrective measures.

Continue Reading

India News

Mani Shankar Aiyar’s remarks on Hindutva spark political backlash from BJP

Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar’s comments on Hindutva at a Kolkata debate have triggered sharp reactions from the BJP, escalating the Hinduism versus Hindutva debate.

Published

on

manishankar aiyer

Veteran Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar has triggered a political controversy after describing Hindutva as “Hinduism in paranoia” during a public debate in Kolkata, prompting a strong rebuttal from leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Aiyar made the remarks at a discussion titled “Hinduism needs protection from Hindutva”, organised by the Calcutta Debating Circle at the Calcutta Club on Sunday. Several political leaders, legal experts, historians and journalists participated in the debate.

Aiyar draws distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva

Speaking at the event, Aiyar argued that Hinduism and Hindutva are fundamentally different, describing Hinduism as a spiritual and civilisational faith, while calling Hindutva a political ideology that emerged in the early 20th century.

“Hindutva is Hinduism in paranoia. It asks 80 per cent Hindus to feel threatened by 14 per cent Muslims,” Aiyar said, adding that Hinduism had survived and flourished for thousands of years without the need for what he described as political protection.

He referred to incidents involving attacks by vigilante groups and criticised actions against individuals over religious practices, beef consumption and participation in Christmas celebrations. Aiyar also cited writings of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, contrasting them with the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda, whom he described as proponents of non-violence and inclusivity.

According to Aiyar, “There is no way Gandhi’s or Vivekananda’s Hinduism can be protected or promoted by Savarkar’s Hindutva.”

BJP leaders push back strongly

Aiyar’s comments drew an immediate response from BJP leaders present at the debate and later from party spokespersons.

BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi questioned the framing of the debate itself, arguing that the term “Hindutva” refers to “Hindu tattva” or the essence of Hindu philosophy. He said that associating Hinduism with the suffix “ism” was misleading and dismissive of India’s indigenous traditions.

“When you cherish Hinduism, it is called Hindutva,” Trivedi said, rejecting the distinction drawn by Aiyar.

BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla accused Aiyar of repeatedly making remarks that, according to him, insult Sanatan Dharma. He claimed that the comments echoed the Congress party’s broader stance on Hindutva.

Poonawalla also referred to past statements by Congress leaders and said that Hindutva has been defined by the Supreme Court as a “way of life.” He accused the party of attempting to portray Hindutva as violent and divisive.

Political debate intensifies

The exchange has added to the ongoing political debate over the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, a subject that has remained contentious in Indian politics. While Aiyar defended his views as ideological and historical critique, BJP leaders framed the remarks as an attack on religious identity.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com