English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

“Misunderstanding Rahul”

Published

on

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]By Dilip Bobb

There will be many who will wonder why the title of this post should not read Understanding Rahul. They mis the point, or miss, if you will. Rahul bashing has become a national sport and everybody’s really enjoying it, with varying results. A Congress leader in UP recently got thrown out of the party for referring to him as ‘Pappu’, a sobriquet as closely identified with him as ‘Namo’ is with the Prime Minister. Much of that negative image is clearly self-inflicted, and related to his periodic goof-ups in speech and action, but it has become so ingrained in the national psyche that each move he makes invites instant derision and criticism, the latest being his meeting with the Chinese ambassador over the tension on the border. Forget the right wing trolls—they only add to the white noise—but the chattering classes and people who are politically neutral and open minded tend to treat him with the same wearied antipathy as his political opponents. On social media, the jokes and memes indicate the sense of national disapproval, even disbelief. Does he really deserve such a summarily dismissal?

The Congress clearly messed up in their handling of the situation but should a meeting between an Opposition leader and the Chinese ambassador during a period of tension between the two neighbours amount to treason? That is what the BJP and its fellow travelers in the media would have us believe. The fact that he also met the ambassador of Bhutan was conveniently ignored. Rahul says it was his job as opposition leader to get a better grasp of the crisis. Indeed, the world over, meetings between local representatives of a foreign country and opposition leaders is a fairly routine affair. In America, the relationship between Donald Trump’s family along with his key campaign advisors and the Russian government prior to his becoming President is now an open secret. Closer home, much was made of the February 2014 meeting between then US ambassador Nancy Powell and Narendra Modi, the Gujarat Chief Minister who was being projected as the party’s Prime Ministerial candidate. It was, in fact, a time when Indo-US relations were in deep freeze and, more important, Modi’s visa ban post 2002 was still operational. At the time, Modi was, in effect, leader of the Opposition, a role that Rahul has inherited by virtue of being titular head of the Congress party. So why is Rahul’s meeting with Beijing’s diplomatic envoy being made out to be the equivalent of supping with the devil? Modi was photographed shaking hands and exchanging pleasantries with Xi Jinping in Hamburg and no one saw the irony. Forget ambassadors, it is customary for almost all visiting heads of state to call on Sonia Gandhi. It has to do with the name, and history of the family she married into, but also connected to her role as opposition leader.  In these meetings she will always be accompanied by someone senior in the party with a background in foreign relations—Natwar Singh and Karan Singh (ex ambassador to the US) were the two regulars, so it is not merely an exchange of pleasantries about the weather.

Pakistan is a different story. With that recalcitrant neighbor, the permanent hostility means there is never a good or bad time for a meet with Islamabad’s representative in Delhi. China is another ball game. It is, in every sense of the word, the second most powerful country in the world—certainly in economic terms, and quite possibly in the military context as well. The aphorism about the inscrutable Chinese is a fact of life; when China decides to push the security envelope vis a vis India, there is always a larger game being played out, one with long-term consequences. In that sense, Rahul meeting with the Chinese ambassador is not as dumb a move as most people are assuming. The atmospherics and the did-he-didn’t-he confusion by party spokesmen made it out to be a political faux pas. But viewed in the context of the rivalry between the two Asian giants and threatening reminders about 1961, it was actually a reasonable thing to do. It would be both stupid and naïve to assume that Rahul was there to score brownie points over the NDA government. He would have, undoubtedly, pushed the Indian viewpoint but essentially tried to gauge what Beijing’s intentions were. It would be equally logical to assume that he would have discussed with the Bhutan ambassador, what Thimpu’s options were. Is that deserving of ridicule?

Here’s the problem. Rahul has blotted his copybook on numerous occasions, made some immature moves and statements and his vacations are always seen as the act of a non-serious politician. That is largely because of history—the political inheritance which automatically suggests he has not had to work at earning his spurs. He can be immature and impulsive largely because he makes up his own mind, unlike his mother who seeks advice from relevant people before showing her hand. There are any number of politicians from both sides of the fence who can be spotted in exotic foreign locales during the peak of summer but the negative focus will always be on RG and his holidays which happen to be kept secret because he there is a serious security threat—when he travels abroad, he is without SPG protection. Certainly, he needs to time his vacations better so he is not absent when there is a major political development or decisions like the Opposition’s choice of President, but equally, who can object to him taking time off to chill. What he needs to understand is that there always will be comparisons with Modi who has not taken a day off since 1969, so he needs a savvier travel agent, or advisor.

That is where he shows how much he is like his late father. Rajiv, in his early days as Prime Minister, was wary of politicians and surrounded himself with his Doon School buddies. Rahul is doing that; his Praetorian Guard is a mix of qualified individuals but none are hardened politicians. Rajiv’s friends were ousted by those jealous of their proximity proving that in politics, idealism and ethics have no place.  Rahul has stuck by his core team but if they are the ones offering him advice and guiding his actions, rather than people closer to his age like Kamal Nath, Jyotiraditya Scindia or Sachin Pilot, Rahul Gandhi will be in the unenviable position of being damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t. The Chinese know all about that. One of the many sayings of their most famous philosopher, Confucius, goes like this: “He who learns but does not think, is lost. He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger.’’[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

on

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com