English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest Politics News

Ayodhya tense before Sangh parivar’s rally tomorrow to push for Ram temple

Published

on

Ayodhya tense before Sangh parivar’s rally tomorrow to push for Ram temple

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Tension hung heavy on Ayodhya on the eve of the Sangh parivar’s big push tomorrow, Nov 25, for construction of Ram temple at the disputed site where Babri mosque was demolished 26 years ago

According to their claims, over two lakh workers of various outfits affiliated to RSS would descend on the temple town for RSS’ militant Hindutva offshoot Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) Dharma Sabha. Many would be dressed as Lord Shiva and wielding tridents. Contingents of sadhus and seers are also expected. Senior RSS leaders, including Sahkaryawah Bhaiyyaji Joshi, have been monitoring the preparations and strategy to mobilise people.

Far-right Hindutva workers, sevaks and sainiks are being brought together for a massive and belligerent show of strength in a mobilisation months before the Lok Sabha election of 2019 to build the background for the BJP government at the Centre to move on the Ram temple issue. Even slogans have been suitably tweaked, with the Shiv Sena calling for “pehle mandir phir sarkar” and VHP going from “mandir wahin banaenge” to “mandir jaldi banaenge”.

The RSS and VHP have planned 543 rallies over the course of the next few days, from November 25 to December 25, including a march of saints on December 9 in New Delhi, just three days before the winter session begins, to put pressure on the government – or provide it a ‘reason’ to bring a law to facilitate construction of Ram temple.

The political angle to gain electoral mileage was evident. Yogi Adityanath government took care to keep it a mainly Sangh parivar event and disallowed Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray’s plans for a rally. The Shiv Sena can participate in the Nov 25 event, though.

The intention is clear and has already been voiced by many: that there is no need to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court. To pay a token respect to the Constitution, there is demand, getting louder by the day, that the Modi government bring in a law for the purpose. This started after RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat pitched for a law to pave the way for Ram temple’s construction in Ayodhya.

If the Bill for this gets held up in Rajya Sabha, the Centre should bring in an Ordinance to this effect – as BJP lawmaker Ravindra Kushwaha is reported to have said.

There are also elements that feel temple construction can be done regardless, through sheer force of mass mobilisation: a replay of Babri mosque demolition on December 6, 1992. Construction, however, takes a much, much longer time than demolition.

Controversial BJP MLA Surendra Singh has warned that 1992 could be repeated in Ayodhya, if required.

Taking part in a rally to mobilise people for the event, the BJP lawmaker told reporters Thursday that 5,000 people from his constituency, Bariya, would travel to participate in the “Dharam Sabha” where the issue of Ram temple’s construction would be taken up by saffron outfits.

He said “law and order is not an issue as far as Lord Ram is concerned…he will take care of it”. Singh said if the need arose, they would take the law into their hands for the temple’s construction, like it was done in 1992 for the demolition of Babri mosque.

It is this fear of the charged mood turning into violence that grips the Muslims of the area and they have expressed their apprehensions openly.

Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav demanded that the Supreme Court should take note of the prevailing situation in Ayodhya and consider deploying Army to maintain peace and ensure security of the people.

“The BJP doesn’t believe in either the Supreme Court or the constitution. The party can go to any extent. The kind of environment there is in UP, especially in Ayodhya, the Supreme Court should take notice of it and send the Army if necessary,” said Akhilesh Yadav, the chief of the Samajwadi Party.

Apprehending a repeat of 1992 in Ayodhya, convener of the Babri Masjid Action Committee Zafaryab Jilani on Friday reposed faith in the state’s administrative machinery to ensure compliance of court’s order on the disputed site saying the state’s political leadership could not be trusted.

Iqbal Ansari, a party to the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case in Supreme Court, said: “The district administration should ensure the safety of Muslims in view of the programmes organised by VHP and Shiv Sena.”

Amid reports that members of the minority community had started shifting to nearby towns and villages fearing violence, the district administration has deployed additional force in Muslim-dominated areas, reported The Hindustan Times (HT).

ADG (law and order) Anand Kumar said the state government had prepared a security scheme for Ayodhya and police force has been deployed accordingly, reported HT. The ADG said the Supreme Court order for the acquired area would be implemented and devotees would be allowed in batches for ‘darshan’ at makeshift temple.

A large contingent of police force, including the Border Security Force (BSF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Rapid Action Force (RAF), has been deployed in the temple town along with 70 companies of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) and 4,000 personnel of civil police to maintain law and order.

“The police force deployed in Ayodhya has been directed to remain on high alert. The entire district has been divided into eight zones and 16 sectors to strengthen security,” a senior officer told HT.

Ayodhya has turned into a virtual fortress with the state police beefing up security of the temple town, particularly at the disputed site. They have, however, allowed the devotees to have ‘darshan’ at the makeshift temple in small batches.

Faizabad district administration has imposed prohibitory orders (Section 144) in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Majid premises, a senior officer said.

The Uttar Pradesh Police has sounded a statewide alert amid apprehension of trouble during the Dharam Sabha.

Amid reports of the minority community feeling unsafe, reports quoted VHP sources as saying that rumours that minority groups were leaving town were being spread to “derail their movement for a Ram temple in Ayodhya”. Both the Shiv Sena and VHP have said they will take “responsibility” for their supporters. A senior RSS functionary said this would be the “last Dharm Sabha in Ayodhya” after which there would be “no more Dharm Sabhas, and construction of Ram temple would begin.”

In a statement, VHP regional organisational secretary Bholend said there would be no more congregations and the next stop for them would be the beginning of the temple’s construction.

“Ab mandir nirman ke liye sabhayein, pradarshan aur dharna ityadi nahin honge na hi virodhiyon ko samjhaya jayega…seedhe mandir nirman hoga (There would no longer be meetings, processions and protests for Ram temple, opponents will no longer be engaged with… There will only be temple construction),” he added.

This is the last time an effort is being made to make the people opposing the temple construction realise the facts, the VHP leader said. He also said that if all efforts fail, then “war” was the only way.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

INDIA bloc likely to meet on September 30 over Gyanesh Kumar row

INDIA bloc parties are likely to meet in New Delhi on September 30 amid growing opposition to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Published

on

Rahul-Gandhi

Opposition parties belonging to the INDIA bloc are set to meet in New Delhi on September 30 to discuss concerns surrounding the Election Commission, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and a proposed removal motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The proposed meeting comes amid growing coordination among opposition parties over the functioning of the poll panel and demands for action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The parties are also discussing a possible joint response to the developments.

Why is the INDIA bloc meeting being planned?

The INDIA bloc meeting on September 30 comes amid reports of objections within the Election Commission over certain decisions and orders related to the SIR exercise. 

According to the report, Opposition leaders have been discussing a coordinated response to their concerns over the Election Commission and the electoral-roll revision process. 

The issue is also expected to be discussed at the Congress Working Committee meeting scheduled for September 29, a day before the proposed INDIA bloc meeting.

Gyanesh Kumar removal demand in focus

The demand for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has become a major point of contention between the Opposition and the Election Commission.

The CPI(M), CPI and CPI(ML)-Liberation have demanded Kumar’s removal and an immediate halt to the SIR exercise. Congress has also intensified its criticism of the CEC.

Opposition parties are also working on a fresh removal motion against Gyanesh Kumar. The September 30 meeting is expected to finalise the strategy for the motion, including the collection of signatures. According to the report, this would be the Opposition’s third such attempt. 

What is the SIR controversy?

The political dispute is linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, or SIR.

The controversy intensified following a report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on several occasions concerning decisions and orders related to the SIR process.

The Election Commission has said that differing views and observations are part of normal deliberations in a multi-member constitutional body. The poll panel has also maintained that its orders have legal sanction and follow statutory procedures, while stating that the final decisions on the SIR were taken unanimously. 

TMC and Left parties coordinate over the issue

The developments have also brought the Trinamool Congress and the CPI(M) together on the Election Commission issue, despite their political differences in West Bengal.

CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby proposed an immediate meeting to discuss a joint strategy. According to the report, Mamata Banerjee spoke with M A Baby and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, after which the leaders settled on September 30 for the meeting. 

What could be discussed at the September 30 meeting?

The proposed meeting is expected to focus on:

  • Concerns surrounding the Election Commission
  • The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls
  • Opposition demands concerning CEC Gyanesh Kumar
  • A possible fresh removal notice against the CEC
  • A coordinated response by INDIA bloc parties

The exact agenda and participation will depend on the discussions among the opposition parties before the proposed meeting.

Continue Reading

India News

Gandhi Parivar vs Sangh Parivar, Revanth Reddy’s remark sparks BJP attack

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks contrasting the Gandhi Parivar with the Sangh Parivar triggered a BJP response accusing Congress of prioritising the Gandhi family.

Published

on

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks comparing the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar have triggered a political exchange, with the BJP hitting back at the Congress leader.

Speaking in Kerala on Friday, Mr Reddy described the contest over India’s future as a fight between the two “parivars”. He said the Gandhi family had made sacrifices for the country while accusing the Sangh Parivar of attempting to divide India on the basis of religion, caste, region and language.

What Revanth Reddy said

Mr Reddy cited Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi while speaking about what he described as sacrifices made by the Gandhi family.

He also referred to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi, saying they had given up positions, power and high office.

The Telangana Chief Minister said he had no remaining personal political ambitions and described his objective as working towards a Congress-led government at the Centre with Rahul Gandhi as Prime Minister.

Mr Reddy also appealed to people to stand with the Gandhi Parivar and oppose the Sangh Parivar. He described the latter as a threat to India’s democracy.

BJP hits back

The BJP responded to Mr Reddy’s remarks on Saturday.

BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said the Telangana Chief Minister’s comments amounted to an admission that Congress’s objective was to bring the Gandhi family back to power.

He also linked Mr Reddy’s remarks to the ongoing political debate around “vote chori”, the Election Commission, the Constitution and democracy, arguing that the Congress’s focus was instead on the Gandhi family.

The exchange adds to the political confrontation between the BJP and Congress, with Mr Reddy presenting the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar as opposing forces in India’s political future, while the BJP has interpreted his remarks as evidence of Congress’s focus on the Gandhi family.

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

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com