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

Nobody can browbeat judiciary, Chief Justice warns over Rahul Gandhi’s march

The Supreme Court issued notices to opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, over their march to the court on October 12 concerning irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Published

on

The Supreme Court has issued notices to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and other protesters over the opposition’s October 12 march to the apex court. The march was organised to raise concerns about alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The court’s remarks that nobody can browbeat the judiciary have brought the focus back to the dispute over the opposition’s protest and the appropriate way to raise grievances before the court.

Why the opposition marched to the Supreme Court

The march was part of the opposition’s campaign against what it described as irregularities in the voter-list revision process. The opposition has raised concerns over alleged electoral malpractice and demanded action concerning the Election Commission and the revision of electoral rolls.

Rahul Gandhi had led the march to the Supreme Court after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a request to meet opposition leaders, including Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge.

The Chief Justice had advised the leaders to approach the court through the judicial process rather than seek an administrative meeting to discuss issues already pending before the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice’s position on approaching the court

The Chief Justice had said that the Supreme Court’s doors were open to every citizen and that people could approach it through petitions. He also indicated that matters affecting citizens would be considered in accordance with the law.

The distinction between the administrative and judicial functions of the court was central to the disagreement over the opposition leaders’ request for a meeting. The Chief Justice’s position was that pending legal issues should be addressed through judicial proceedings.

Supreme Court issues notices over the march

The Supreme Court issued notices to Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav and other protesters concerning the October 12 march. The proceedings relate to the protest over irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The opposition’s allegations about the voter-list revision remain allegations and should not be treated as established findings merely because the matter has reached the court.

The developments have placed the opposition’s protest, its concerns over electoral rolls and the judiciary’s role in addressing such disputes at the centre of the ongoing debate.

Continue Reading

India News

Dhruv Rathee gets fresh summons in 2018 BJP IT cell video case

YouTuber Dhruv Rathee has received fresh summons from a Delhi court in a 2018 criminal defamation case filed by Vikas Pandey over a video concerning the BJP IT Cell. The matter will next be heard on October 17.

Published

on

Dhruv Rathi

YouTuber Dhruv Rathee has received fresh summons from a Delhi court in a criminal defamation case linked to his 2018 video titled “BJP IT Cell Part 2”. The complaint was filed by Vikas Pandey, who alleged that the video contained defamatory claims about him.

The latest court action follows renewed efforts to serve Rathee with the summons while he is in India. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on October 17.

Judicial Magistrate Rahul Jain of the Saket District Court passed the order on October 12. The fresh summons were issued after the complainant’s lawyer informed the court that Rathee, who usually resides abroad, was in India in connection with the ongoing Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests in Delhi.

What is the case against Dhruv Rathee?

The criminal defamation complaint concerns Rathee’s video, “BJP IT Cell Part 2”, which was published in 2018.

Pandey, who founded the social media page “I Support Narendra Modi”, alleged that Rathee’s video accused him of being associated with the BJP IT Cell and offering Rs 50 lakh through an intermediary to Mahavir Prasad. According to the complaint, the money was allegedly offered to persuade Prasad to withdraw allegations that the BJP IT Cell spreads fake news.

These claims form part of the complainant’s allegations. The court’s issuance of summons does not establish that the allegations against Rathee are true or amount to a finding of guilt.

Why has the court issued fresh summons?

According to the court proceedings, the complainant’s side had been attempting to serve Rathee with summons for several years. The court had initially summoned him through an order dated July 23, 2019, but the process of serving the summons had faced delays.

The complainant’s lawyer sought an earlier hearing after learning that Rathee was in India. The application argued that his presence in the country offered an opportunity to complete the service of summons without further delay.

The court subsequently directed that fresh summons be issued. The latest report states that the summons were served at Rathee’s Gurugram residence during his visit to India.

How is Arvind Kejriwal linked to the case?

The case also involved Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal, who had re-shared Rathee’s video on X, then known as Twitter, in 2018.

Pandey filed a separate complaint against Kejriwal over the re-sharing of the video. The Delhi High Court later declined to quash the summons issued to Kejriwal.

In February 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the trial court proceedings against Kejriwal in the matter. During the proceedings, his lawyer told the court that Kejriwal acknowledged making a mistake by re-tweeting the video.

The proceedings against Rathee continued, leading to the fresh summons issued by the Saket court.

What happens next?

The case is scheduled for its next hearing on October 17. The proceedings concern the pending criminal defamation complaint and the steps taken to serve Rathee with the court’s summons.

The allegations in the complaint remain allegations unless established through the legal process.

Continue Reading

India News

Supreme Court questions EC over missing records in Sringeri election dispute

The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission over missing video footage of the 2023 counting in Karnataka’s Sringeri constituency. The case involves a revised result following a recount of postal ballots.

Published

on

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its inability to locate video recordings of the original vote counting in Karnataka’s Sringeri Assembly constituency in 2023. The court said it would not accept what it described as “lame excuses” and directed the poll body to produce whatever records are available at the next hearing.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva expressed displeasure after the Election Commission’s counsel informed it that the footage of the original counting could not be traced.

The bench also warned that it could draw an adverse inference if the required documents were not produced.

Questioning how the poll body could lose records relating to an election it had conducted, the judges stressed that maintaining election documentation was central to its responsibilities.

“How can the Election Commission of India say that it has lost the records? Your whole purpose is to hold an election, and you need to have a document. Where is the question of you saying we are trying to trace it?” the bench asked.

“We will not accept these kinds of lame excuses,” it added.

What is the Sringeri election dispute?

The case stems from the 2023 Karnataka Assembly election in Sringeri, where Congress leader TD Rajegowda was initially declared the winner.

The result was challenged by BJP candidate Jeevaraj before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court later ordered a recount of postal ballots, including the reverification of 279 rejected postal votes.

Following the recount, the Returning Officer declared a revised result in which Jeevaraj was declared the winner. Rajegowda then approached the Supreme Court to challenge the revised outcome.

In May, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to Rajegowda, directing that he continue as the Member of the Legislative Assembly while his plea remained pending.

Rajegowda seeks counting records and observer’s report

Rajegowda has sought access to the election observer’s report and video recordings of both the original counting conducted in 2023 and the recount held this year.

The missing original counting footage became a point of concern during Wednesday’s hearing, with the bench questioning the Election Commission’s inability to trace the recording.

The court directed the Commission to submit whatever records it possesses at the next hearing. Its warning about a possible adverse inference underscores the importance the bench attached to the production of the requested documents.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for February 15, 2027.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com