English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Vice President Naidu takes ‘dynasty is nasty but tasty to some’ dig at Rahul Gandhi

Published

9 years ago

on

Vice President Naidu takes ‘dynasty is nasty but tasty to some’ dig at Rahul Gandhi

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Vice President clarifies that he isn’t commenting against a specific party or individual but the Congress is expectedly unhappy

In a not-so-veiled dig at Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi for claiming during his recent interaction with students at University of California, Berkeley that “most of India” runs through dynasts, India’s vice president Venkaiah Naidu has said that “dynasty is nasty but tasty to some”.

The comments by Naidu have predictably rankled the Congress party which has said that as India’s vice president, the former BJP leader isn’t expected to make political statements and that if he continues to do so then the principal Opposition party will be forced to respond without considering protocol.

Addressing an event organised on Friday evening to launch a book written by former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi, Naidu had said: “There is discussion about dynasty. Dynasty and democracy cannot go together. Very simple… it weakens our system… I used to say it earlier, but now I hesitate to say it because I am out of politics. Dynasty in democracy is nasty but it is tasty to some people”.

The comments by the ‘apolitical’ Indian vice president were seen as a direct rebuttal to equally controversial remarks by the Congress vice president.

Earlier this week during an interaction with the students at UC, Berkeley, Rahul had been asked about being a “dynast” and the role of dynasty in Indian politics. He had responded to the question saying: “Most of the country runs like this (through dynasts). Akhilesh Yadav is a dynast. Stalin is a dynast. Dhumal’s son is a dynast. Even Abhishek Bachchan is a dynast. Also Mr. Ambani. That’s how India runs. So don’t just go after me,” while conceding that dynasty was a “problem” in India.

Though Naidu qualified his “dynasty is nasty but tasty to some” comments by immediately claiming that “I am not keeping in mind any particular party — this party or that party — as someone said everybody is trying to follow each other”, his remarks were in line with the massive criticism unleashed by a posse of BJP Union ministers and spokespersons against the Congress vice president in the aftermath of his Berkeley address.

While Union information and broadcasting minister Smriti Irani had hit out at Rahul calling him a “failed dynast”, BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra had slammed the Congress vice president for allegedly maligning India’s image on foreign soil.

But while the likes of Irani and Patra are still active players in the political arena, Naidu holds a constitutional post that is supposed to be apolitical – something he underlined when he said that he was now “out of politics”.

However, this isn’t the first instance of Naidu making somewhat political comments that are in line with the BJP’s official statements on controversial issues. Earlier, when he had won the vice presidential polls but hadn’t officially taken the oath of office, Naidu had hit out at his predecessor Hamid Ansari. Ansari’s comments about Muslims in India “living under a feeling of unease and insecurity” had been slammed by the BJP and Naidu had jumped into the row by asserting that “some people are saying minorities are insecure. It is a political propaganda.”

Soon after Naidu’s dig at Rahul, the Congress sought to remind him that he now holds a constitutional office and shouldn’t be making political attacks against individuals. Congress leader Sanjay Nirupam tweeted:[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Women’s quota bill fails in Lok Sabha as it falls short of two-thirds majority

Women’s reservation proposal failed in Lok Sabha after securing 298 votes, below the required two-thirds majority

Published

7 hours ago

on

April 17, 2026

By

Parliament

Government secures 298 votes in favour, 230 against; proposal does not pass constitutional threshold

The proposed amendment related to women’s reservation failed to pass in the Lok Sabha on Friday after the government could not secure the required two-thirds majority.

The bill received 298 votes in favour and 230 against, falling short of the constitutional threshold needed for passage. As a constitutional amendment, it required the support of at least two-thirds of members present and voting.

Despite securing a simple majority, the government was unable to gather sufficient support to meet this requirement.

Debate continues over two days

The discussion on the bill extended late into Thursday and continued on Friday, with members from both sides participating in the debate on women’s representation in legislative bodies.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged members to support the proposal, calling for wider consensus on the issue.

Implications of the outcome

The failure of the bill underscores the challenges in securing broad political agreement on constitutional amendments, especially those related to representation and electoral reforms.

The proposal was aimed at advancing women’s representation in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, an issue that has remained under discussion for several years.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi faces FIR order as Allahabad High Court acts on dual citizenship plea

High Court allows plea in Rahul Gandhi citizenship case, paving the way for further legal process.

Published

11 hours ago

on

April 17, 2026

By

Rahul Gandhi

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has allowed a petition seeking legal action in connection with allegations related to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship status, marking a fresh development in the case.

The petition was filed by a political worker, who had approached the court seeking directions for registration of a case over claims that Gandhi may have held foreign citizenship. The High Court, while hearing the matter, passed directions for further proceedings in accordance with law.

The development comes after a special MP/MLA court in Lucknow had earlier declined to order registration of an FIR, reportedly observing that it lacked jurisdiction in matters concerning citizenship.

Background

The case is linked to allegations that Rahul Gandhi may have held British citizenship. Under Indian law, dual citizenship is not permitted. However, these claims remain part of the petitioner’s submissions and have not been established by any court.

During earlier hearings, the High Court had sought records and considered material presented by the parties involved.

What happens next

With the High Court allowing the plea, the matter is expected to proceed as per due legal process. This may involve examination by the appropriate authority and further judicial review at subsequent stages.

The case carries both legal and political significance given Rahul Gandhi’s role as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Continue Reading

India News

Pawan Khera faces fresh setback as Supreme Court refuses relief in passport row case

Congress leader Pawan Khera faces fresh setback as Supreme Court refuses interim relief and directs him to seek bail from Guwahati High Court.

Published

14 hours ago

on

April 17, 2026

By

Pawan Khera

Congress leader Pawan Khera suffered another legal setback on Friday after the Supreme Court of India declined to extend protection in a case linked to his remarks about Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife.

A bench of the apex court refused to interfere with an earlier order that had stayed the transit anticipatory bail granted to Khera by the Telangana High Court. This decision leaves the Congress leader open to possible arrest by Assam Police in connection with the case.

During the hearing, Khera’s counsel sought interim protection, but the court declined the request and advised him to approach the appropriate court in Assam for relief. The bench clarified that the Guwahati High Court should decide any bail plea independently and on its merits.

“Am I a terrorist?” remark during hearing

While seeking protection, Khera’s legal team expressed concern over the urgency of the situation. In court, his counsel remarked, “Am I a terrorist?” highlighting the plea for temporary relief until a fresh bail application could be filed.

The Supreme Court also raised concerns over the submission of incorrect documents during the proceedings, adding another layer to the legal complications faced by the Congress leader.

Case linked to remarks on CM’s wife

The case stems from a press conference held earlier this month, where Khera made allegations regarding the citizenship status and financial assets of the Assam Chief Minister’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.

He had claimed that she possessed multiple passports and owned undisclosed overseas properties. These allegations were strongly denied by the Chief Minister’s family, who termed them fabricated and misleading.

Legal battle intensifies

Earlier, the Telangana High Court had granted Khera temporary transit anticipatory bail, allowing him time to seek relief from a competent court in Assam. However, the Supreme Court stayed that order following a challenge by Assam authorities, escalating the legal battle.

With the latest ruling, Khera is now expected to move the Guwahati High Court for anticipatory bail as the case continues to unfold.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com