Indira Gandhi may have passed on, but Emergency mindset remains: BS Yediyurappa
Yediyurappa was speaking at an event titled '50 Years of 1975 Emergency - Dark Days', organised by Citizens for Social Justice, Bengaluru, in the city on Tuesday. Yediyurappa said the sacred Constitution was sacrificed by former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to continue in power. 'Judiciary, executive and the legislature were all held in her tight clutches just for the purpose of continuing in power,' he said.
He said the fundamental rights of citizens were taken away, freedom of the press was muzzled, and judiciary robbed of its autonomy during the Emergency. He added that her dictatorial rule aimed solely at retaining power still evokes outrage.
Slamming Opposition Leader in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, noted columnist and economic thinker S Gurumurthy in his keynote address said, 'Rahul Gandhi was waving the Constitution of India, when PM Narendra Modi took oath in 2024, claiming to be its protector. But it was his grandmother (Indira Gandhi) who destroyed the Constitution, which was revived by the Janata Party, with support from RSS.'
He questioned the Congress if it had any moral right to talk about the Constitution, rights and freedom. Gurumurthy said Indira did not become a dictator in a day, and that it began in 1969, when she split the Congress party. A photo exhibition showcasing the role of RSS workers and from various parties was held. A prison replica with an iron gate was put up in front of Town Hall, to reflect the dark days of Emergency.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
15 minutes ago
- Hans India
Sadhvi Pragya Receives Hero's Welcome In Bhopal Following Malegaon Blast Acquittal, Alleges Congress Conspiracy
Former BJP parliamentarian Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur received an enthusiastic homecoming in Bhopal on Sunday, marking her first return to the Madhya Pradesh capital following her acquittal in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. The controversial religious leader used the occasion to launch a scathing attack on the Congress party, accusing it of orchestrating a deliberate conspiracy and demanding treason charges against the opposition party. Speaking to media personnel after her arrival, Sadhvi Pragya characterized the recent court verdict that cleared her and six other accused individuals as a decisive rebuke to those who attempted to establish what she termed the "saffron terror" narrative. She expressed satisfaction that the judicial outcome had vindicated her position after seventeen years of legal proceedings. The former Bhopal MP argued that the Congress party's approach to the case was driven by electoral considerations and appeasement politics. She alleged that the opposition party deliberately sought to frame the incident within a "saffron terror" framework to serve its political interests and cater to specific voter demographics. In her most serious allegation, Sadhvi Pragya accused the Congress of engaging in treasonous activities through its handling of the case. She claimed that the party's actions constituted a betrayal of national interests and suggested that appropriate legal action should be pursued against Congress leadership for these alleged offenses. The religious leader elaborated on what she described as systematic persecution of Hindu individuals during the investigation process. She alleged that Congress-led authorities deliberately targeted members of the Hindu community, filing fabricated cases and subjecting them to various forms of harassment as part of a broader political strategy. Reflecting on the tragic incident itself, Sadhvi Pragya referenced the September 29, 2008 explosion in Malegaon that claimed six lives and injured approximately 100 people. The blast, caused by an explosive device attached to a motorcycle, occurred in an area with a significant Muslim population, leading to heightened communal tensions at the time. The case gained national prominence when investigators arrested several individuals associated with Hindu right-wing organizations, prompting some Congress leaders to introduce the controversial "saffron terror" terminology into public discourse. This narrative suggested that Hindu extremist groups posed a significant terrorist threat, a characterization that became a major point of political contention. Last month, a special National Investigation Agency court delivered its verdict, acquitting all seven accused individuals after concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This outcome followed years of legal battles and investigations that had become deeply intertwined with national political debates. Sadhvi Pragya used her Bhopal appearance to claim vindication for her longstanding assertions of innocence. She described the acquittal as a triumph of truth and righteousness over what she characterized as false accusations and political manipulation. In particularly serious allegations, the former MP claimed that investigating authorities had subjected her to torture and coercion in attempts to implicate high-profile political figures. She specifically alleged that investigators pressured her to make false statements against current Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. According to Sadhvi Pragya's account, she resisted these alleged attempts to force her into making fabricated accusations against prominent BJP leaders. She claimed that her refusal to cooperate with what she described as efforts to falsely implicate others resulted in enhanced persecution and mistreatment during her detention. The religious leader, who began her political career through the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the student organization affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, portrayed her experience as part of a broader pattern of targeting Hindu activists and organizations. Her statements in Bhopal reflect the continuing political ramifications of the Malegaon case, which has remained a contentious issue in Indian politics for over a decade and a half. The case has been cited by various political parties to support different narratives about terrorism, communalism, and law enforcement practices in India. The enthusiastic reception accorded to Sadhvi Pragya in Bhopal demonstrates the continued support she enjoys among certain sections of the Hindu nationalist movement, despite the controversies that have surrounded her throughout her political career. Her return to public prominence following the acquittal may signal her intention to resume an active role in political discourse and organizational activities.
Economic Times
30 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
AP A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month, accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a "mountain of evidence" that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote that the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. "If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion," the judges wrote. The Department of Homeland Security said being in the country illegally is what makes someone a target of immigration officers, not their skin colour, race or ethnicity. "Unelected judges are undermining the will of the American people," department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said Saturday in an emailed statement. "President Trump and Secretary Noem are putting the American people first by removing illegal aliens who pose a threat to our communities." A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. Los Angeles a battleground over immigration policy The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the US from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many of whom have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend on June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, "I was born here in the states, East LA bro!" They want to "send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. "It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution," attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under the law. "Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion," Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. "No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all," Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a "broad profile" and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors "cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status." She also asked: "What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a "victory for the rule of law" and said the city will protect residents from the "racial profiling and other illegal tactics" used by federal agents. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Zomato delivered, but did the other listed unicorns? US tariff hike to hit Indian exports, may push RBI towards rate cuts Will TCS layoffs open the floodgates of mass firing at Indian IT firms? Indian IT firms never reveal the truth hiding behind 'strong' deal wins Is Bajaj Finance facing its HDFC Bank moment? Tata Motors' INR38k crore Iveco buy: Factors that can make investors nervous Stock Radar: Strides Pharma stock hits fresh 52-week high in July; will the rally continue in August? F&O Radar| Deploy Short Strangle in Nifty to gain from Theta decay For investors who can think beyond Trump: 5 large-cap stocks with an upside potential of up to 36%
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Amid Bihar roll revision, Chidambaram flags 6.5 lakh voter addition in Tamil Nadu
Amid a raging row over the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, senior Congress leader P Chidambaram has claimed that 6.5 lakh "migrant workers" were added as voters in Tamil Nadu, calling it "alarming" and "illegal".Accusing the Election Commission of trying to change the "electoral character" of states, the Rajya Sabha MP said the SIR exercise in Bihar was getting "curiouser" by the day. advertisementAt the centre of Chidambaram's argument is the ECI's move to drop 65 lakh voters from the draft electoral rolls, which includes 36 lakh electors who have either migrated permanently or were untraceable. The Congress leader has sought to link it with the addition of voters in Tamil Nadu, which goes to polls next year and faces the prospect of a similar Bihar-like exercise."While 65 lakh voters are in danger of being disenfranchised in Bihar, report of adding 6.5 lakh persons as voters in Tamil Nadu is alarming and patently illegal," the former Home Minister tweeted, tagging the state's Chief Minister's Office (CMO)."Calling them 'permanently migrated' is an insult to the migrant workers and a gross interference in the right of the electorate of Tamil Nadu to elect a government of its choice," he further CLAIMS ABUSE OF POWER BY POLL BODYChidambaram questioned why should a migrant worker not return to Bihar or their home state to vote in the respective state assembly elections."A person to be enrolled as a voter must have a fixed and permanent legal home. The migrant worker has such a home in Bihar (or another state). How can he/she be enrolled as a voter in Tamil Nadu?" he senior Congress leader, who has vehemently criticised the recent voter list revision exercise in poll-bound Bihar, accused the ECI of "abusing" its powers."If the migrant worker's family has a permanent home in Bihar and lives in Bihar, how can the migrant worker be considered as 'permanently migrated' to Tamil Nadu?" he further asserted that this abuse of powers by the poll body must be fought politically and addition of "guest workers" to the Tamil Nadu voter list has also been opposed by the ruling DMK as well as regional parties."This is a problem in Tamil Nadu as they came to work here as guest workers. But giving them voter IDs in Tamil Nadu will result in political change in the future," DMK general secretary Duraimurugan told OVER BIHAR SIRadvertisementThe opposition's main concern over the SIR in BIhar is that it would disenfranchise a large number of the 7.89 crore existing electors in the Election Commission has stated that large-scale additions and deletions to the electoral rolls over the last 20 years have increased the possibility of duplicate entries in the roll. Thus, an intensive revision of the electoral rolls was required.- EndsTune InMust Watch
