English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest Politics News

Politics of Ram temple: VHP, RSS to resume agitation when new government takes charge

Published

on

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]A day after Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) declared that it was putting off its campaign for construction of Ram temple at Ayodhya till the Lok Sabha elections are over, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat said the Sangh will take up building of the Ram temple after the polls.

The agitation will be resumed irrespective of the colour of the government, said Bhagwat, as per a report in The Times of India (TOI). Meaning, the new government will have to deal with it.

During closed-door interactions at the RSS office in Dehradun, Bhagwat reiterated his stand that the Ram temple will be built as per the “dharma sansad” held at Kumbh recently, reported TOI.

Initially, the ‘Dharma Sansad’ had threatened to start construction work near the disputed site in the third week of March. An address to the gathering by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat had led to commotion when he had said the agitation should be postponed until a later date. The VHP spent much effort to convince Hindu saints to agree to postpone the agitation. Eventually, the Sangh Parivar leadership was able to strike a truce.

The VHP, which had held dharma sabhas across the country demanding an ordinance to enable construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya and later held a Dharma Sansad at the Kumbh Mela on the issue last week, had announced on Tuesday its decision to postpone agitation on the Ram Janmabhoomi issue for the next four months until the Lok Sabha elections are over. This was decided at the recent Dharma Sansad in Prayagraj, the VHP said.

The announcement came barely a week after the BJP-led NDA government moved the Supreme Court seeking permission to return the 67 acres of land in Ayodhya — adjacent to the disputed site — to its original owners including the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.

VHP international working president Alok Kumar told The Indian Express (IE) that the decision was taken “because everybody has a feeling that such agitations at the time of elections, including the demand of building a Ram temple, become a petty electoral issue and get involved into politics. It was felt that this issue should be saved from politics for the next four months.”

Asked what would the VHP’s stand be if the Supreme Court, hearing the title suits case, delivers a verdict, Kumar said: “Our plan is irrespective of the court order. If there is any emergency situation, then we will take guidance from the sants.” If the court proceedings are delayed, that, too, will not affect the VHP’s decision, he said.

Bhagwat, reported TOI, endorsed the VHP position that the demand will not be pursued at present as it will mire the Ayodhya issue in politicking and become a “petty election issue”.

An RSS functionary said, “Bhagwatji said that after the elections, irrespective of which government comes to power, the Sangh, along with religious leaders, would take action.” He added that Bhagwat did not spell out a specific date for building the temple but went on to state that “Ram temple and gau raksha” are the basis of Hindu culture and are must for bringing back the glory of Hindu culture.

In its recent resolution, the dharma sansad noted that with the election bugle to be sounded soon, “pseudo-secular” political forces are gathering in full force.

The VHP resolution passed at its Dharma Sansad in Prayagraj last week states: “An election is the national festival of democracy… The sant samaj shall not give the pseudo-secular pack the opportunity to drag this holy and important movement of Sri Ram Janmabhoomi into a political vortex and swamp. Therefore, we are not announcing any new phase of the movement now.” It adds that its ongoing programmes will continue.

The VHP justified its decision on the basis of a recent petition to the Supreme Court by the BJP-led government seeking permission to return 67 acres in Ayodhya to the original owners, Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas. The VHP resolution acknowledged this: “The Dharma Sansad welcomes this effort of the central government and expresses confidence that with this undisputed land, it will also make every possible effort to hand over the alleged disputed land to the Hindus promptly.”

RSS media head Arun Kumar said sant samaj and those demanding construction of the temple are satisfied with the government decision seeking handover of land around the Ram Lalla idol.

He said campaigns for mass awareness will continue, like a programme scheduled for April 6 where “Shriram Jairam” mantra will be chanted in temples across the country.

VHP spokesperson Vinod Bansal said the resolution was passed to put the agitation plan on hold in light of the Lok Sabha polls when there will be a code of conduct and restrictions in place. “Sant community felt that that there should not be any confrontation,” Bansal said.

The VHP and RSS’s decision to put the Ram temple agitation on hold till the Lok Sabha polls are over is a respite for BJP, which has been in a bind over the slow progress of the dispute in court.

The decision will give BJP political breathing space ahead of the elections.

An agitation for a temple during the campaign could have embarrassed the BJP, especially when NDA partners such as Lok Janshakti Party have clarified that Ayodhya is not an issue for them. It also preempts criticism from opposition parties about why the temple issue was being revived just before the elections.

The essential message from the resolution appears to be that the VHP will support the BJP in the elections and will take up the Ram mandir issue only after that. As Bhagwat said at the Dharma Sansad: “Whatever programme we take in the coming days, it will impact the election atmosphere.”

Analysts see the postponement of Ram mandir agitation as a decision that segues with Narendra Modi government’s recent decisions – like 10 per cent reservation for general category persons earning up to Rs. 8 lakhs a year, income tax waiver up to Rs 5 lakh income and Rs.6,000 income support to small and marginal farmers – that would help blunt the voters’ anger. The Sangh parivar, they say, thus believes it doesn’t need to resort to raking up the temple issue in the run-up to the Lok Sabha polls.

Another reason to revive agitation after Lok Sabha

There is however, the flip side. Given the fact that the purpose of Ram temple agitation is primarily to extract political mileage, the decision may well be the result of a realisation that efforts of a joint opposition front may materialise and Modi government gets voted out.

In that scenario, the newly elected coalition government with its diverse pulls and pressures would face an unsettling problem of a virulent, aggressive Ram mandir campaign even before it begins to find its feet.

The formidable propaganda apparatus of the BJP and the RSS would hammer into people’s heads the contrast between Narendra Modi’s ‘strong 56 inch government’ and a ‘weak and indecisive’ rag-tag coalition. The BJP would spare no effort to pull it down: it had a similar approach after the 2004 and 2009 Lok Sabha elections when UPA was voted to power.

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

India News

Yogi Adityanath’s do namoone remark sparks Akhilesh Yadav’s jab on BJP infighting

Yogi Adityanath’s ‘do namoone’ comment in the UP Assembly has been countered by Akhilesh Yadav, who termed it a confession of BJP’s internal power struggle.

Published

on

Yogi Adityanath

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s recent “do namoone” comment in the state Assembly has triggered a sharp political exchange, with Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav turning the remark into an attack on the Bharatiya Janata Party’s alleged internal discord.

The comment was made during a heated Assembly discussion on allegations of codeine cough syrup smuggling in Uttar Pradesh. Opposition members had accused the state government of inaction, claiming that timely steps could have saved the lives of several children. Rejecting the allegation outright, Adityanath said that no child in the state had died due to consumption of the cough syrup.

While responding to the opposition benches, the Chief Minister made an indirect jibe, saying there were “two namoone”, one in Delhi and one in Lucknow. Without naming anyone, he added that one of them leaves the country whenever there is a national debate, and suggested that a similar pattern applied to the Samajwadi Party leadership. The remark was widely interpreted as being aimed at Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, a former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and current Lok Sabha MP

Akhilesh Yadav calls remark a ‘confession’

Akhilesh Yadav responded swiftly on social media, calling Adityanath’s statement a “confession” that exposed an alleged power struggle within the BJP. He said that those holding constitutional posts should maintain decorum and accused the ruling party of bringing its internal disputes into the public domain. Yadav posted his response shortly after the Chief Minister shared a video clip of the Assembly remarks online.

The Samajwadi Party has, on several occasions, claimed that there is a tussle between the Uttar Pradesh government and the BJP’s central leadership. Party leaders have cited the appointment of deputy chief ministers and certain bureaucratic decisions as evidence of attempts to curtail the Chief Minister’s authority.

Adityanath has consistently dismissed these claims, maintaining that he holds the post because of the party’s trust in him. The latest exchange has once again brought the narrative of BJP infighting into political focus, even as both sides continue to trade barbs ahead of key electoral contests

Continue Reading

India News

Sonia Gandhi calls weakening of MGNREGA a collective moral failure, targets Centre in op-ed

Sonia Gandhi has accused the Centre of weakening MGNREGA, calling it a collective moral failure with serious consequences for crores of working people.

Published

on

Sonia Gandhi

Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi has sharply criticised the Central government over what she described as the steady dismantling of rights-based legislation, with a particular focus on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

In a recent opinion article published in a leading English daily, Sonia Gandhi argued that MGNREGA was envisioned as more than a welfare measure. She said the rural employment scheme gave legal backing to the constitutional right to work and was rooted in Mahatma Gandhi’s idea of Sarvodaya, or welfare for all.

Calling its weakening a serious failure, she wrote that the decline of MGNREGA represents a “collective moral failure” that will have lasting financial and human consequences for crores of working people across India. She stressed that safeguarding such rights-based frameworks is crucial at a time when, according to her, multiple protections are under strain.

Concerns raised over education, environment and land laws

Sonia Gandhi also flagged concerns beyond rural employment. Referring to education policy, she claimed that the Right to Education has been undermined following the National Education Policy 2020, alleging that it has led to the closure of around one lakh primary schools across the country.

On environmental and land-related legislation, she stated that the Forest Rights Act, 2006, was weakened through the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022. According to her, these changes removed the role of the gram sabha in decisions related to the diversion of forest land.

She further alleged that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act has been significantly diluted, while adding that the National Green Tribunal has seen its authority reduced over the years.

Warning on agriculture and food security laws

Touching upon agriculture reforms, Sonia Gandhi referred to the now-repealed three farm laws, claiming they were an attempt to deny farmers the right to a minimum support price. She also cautioned that the National Food Security Act, 2013, could face similar threats in the future.

Reiterating her central argument, she urged unity to protect statutory rights, stating that the erosion of such laws has implications that extend well beyond policy, affecting livelihoods and dignity on the ground.

Continue Reading

India News

Renaming MGNREGA removes core spirit of rural employment law, says Shashi Tharoor

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com