Why Muslims are wrong to accuse Javed Akhtar of defending housing ‘apartheid'
Why Muslims are wrong to accuse Javed Akhtar of defending housing 'apartheid'
Liberal Muslim activists have penned an open letter, accusing the Bollywood screenwriter and lyricist of legitimising discrimination against the minority community. Here's why they are wrong
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Pakistan in the grip of a ‘military-terrorist nexus': Prasad
Pakistan was in the grip of a military-terrorist nexus, with generals of the Pakistan armed forces using terrorism as a proxy to maintain their relevance, with Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir speaking the language of fascism, said BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad. Addressing a press conference after his return as the head of a multi-party delegation that visited Italy, France, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark, Mr. Prasad said that the delegation gave a historical context to India's actions concerning Operation Sindoor. 'Pakistan is not only a state in denial, but the military-terrorist nexus has become a deadly combination,' he said. 'When we talked about history, we talked about how Pakistan is in the hands of Generals... The world needs to understand that Pakistan is in the grip of a military-general nexus whose dirty job is done by the terrorists and terrorist camps,' he added. He said that the delegation also spoke about a speech by now Field Marshal Asim Munir ahead of the Pahalgam terror attack, which mentioned how Hindus and Muslims were 'different' and that the creation of Pakistan was on the basis of that difference, and that future generations of that country must be told of it. He added that these were the words of a 'jihadi general' and that 'Asim Munir was speaking the language of fascism', which should ring alarm bells in European capitals. He emphasised that India has never been the aggressor in any conflict. 'We have fought conventional wars (with Pakistan), but we were never the aggressors. We made it clear that we are not against the people of Pakistan,' he said. Mr. Prasad stated that all Indian governments have made genuine attempts to foster good relations with Pakistan. 'Prime Minister Modi called Nawaz Sharif (former Pakistan Prime Minister) for his swearing-in ceremony, went to his grandson's wedding too and then Uri (attack) happened and we gave a befitting reply; then, similarly with Pulwama, and now this (Pahalgam),' he said. The delegation led by Mr. Prasad also included BJP MPs Daggubati Purandeswari, Gulam Ali Khatana, and Samik Bhattacharya, former BJP MP M.J. Akbar, Congress MP Amar Singh, Shiv Sena (UBT)'s Priyanka Chaturvedi, AIADMK MP M. Thambidurai and former diplomat Pankaj Saran. Operation Sindoor was launched on May 7 in response to the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam by Pakistan-sponsored militants that claimed 26 lives and injured several others. Following retaliation from Pakistan, the Indian Armed Forces carried out targeted strikes against terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, resulting in the deaths of over 100 terrorists linked to groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Hizbul Mujahideen.
The Wire
3 hours ago
- The Wire
After Letter From Rajya Sabha, SC Dropped Plan to Probe Allahabad HC Judge's Remarks at VHP Event
Law The Wire Staff Earlier in February, Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had remarked that only the Parliament has the jurisdiction to address the issue of removing Justice Yadav from the Allahabad high court. Allahabad high court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav at a VHP event. Photo: Special arrangement. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute Now New Delhi: While the Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav's controversial remarks at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), it dropped the plan after a categorical letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat told the apex court that the matter is under its exclusive jurisdiction. Citing people aware of the matter, Hindustan Times reported that the move was halted after a letter from the Rajya Sabha in March underlined that the constitutional mandate for any such proceeding lies solely with the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and ultimately with Parliament and the President. As a result, the letter stalled the judiciary's plan to initiate an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav. Prior to this, following an adverse report from the chief justice of Allahabad high court, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had set the process in motion to assess whether Justice Yadav's conduct warranted scrutiny. The newspaper reached out to the Rajya secretariat for a response on the next course of action but did not get one immediately. Earlier in February, Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had remarked that only the Parliament has the jurisdiction to address the issue of removing Justice Yadav from the Allahabad high court. 'Honourable members, I am seized of an undated notice for motion received on 13 December 2024, bearing 55 purported signatures of the members of the Rajya Sabha seeking removal from office of Justice Shekhar Yadav of Allahabad High Court under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the Chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and Honourable President,' Dhankhar had said. Dhankhar's remarks had come after a motion was submitted by 55 Opposition MPs citing Justice Yadav's alleged misconduct. On December 8 last year, while speaking at the event organised by VHP, Justice Yadav, had said that India would function only as per the wishes of the 'majority,' referring to the Hindu community. He even used the controversial term 'kathmulla' to refer to a section of Muslims who engaged in practices such as having four wives and triple talaq, describing them as 'fatal' to the nation. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Law 'Matter of Serious Concern': Court on Missing Inquiry File About Security of AugustaWestland Accused View More
The Hindu
7 hours ago
- The Hindu
Sibal questions Dhankar's ‘inaction' on impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and alleged the government was trying to save the judge after he made "entirely communal" remarks last year. Speaking on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same. Mr. Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said the whole incident smacks of "discrimination" as on one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, while did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma. Mr. Sibal said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is sitting on the constitutional post, which is second in the hierarchy, does not fulfil constitutional obligations in six months. "On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken," Mr. Sibal said at a press conference here. "I want to ask those who are sitting on constitutional posts, their responsibility is to only verify whether signatures are there or not, should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," Mr. Sibal said. On the "instructions" of the VHP, Mr. Yadav had made a speech in High Court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court which took action, he said. Justice Yadav said in December: 'I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority,' he said. A video of the speech was shared on social media by some of the event's attendees. The judge said that being a Hindu, he respected his religion, but that did not mean he had any 'ill will' towards other religions or faith. 'We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married... we don't want you to take a dip in Ganga... but we expect you to not to disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country,' Justice Yadav said. Mr. Sibal added: 'Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.' The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking for no action and it was said the matter will be taken as there is an impeachment motion notice and the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Mr. Yadav, Mr. Sibal said. "I don't understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC's own, it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now impeachment motion has not even been admitted, it has been six months and only signatures are being verified," Mr.. Sibal said. So when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what relation does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it has with the inquiry, Mr. Sibal asked. 'Communal' statement "What Justice Yadav said is before everyone there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as according to us this is a totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement," Mr. Sibal said. "Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him," he said. So either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that "we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026", Mr. Sibal said. "So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal," he said. Members of several opposition parties on December 13 had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge Yadav over his controversial remarks at a VHP event. The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Mr. Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale. The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav. The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) prima facie showed that he "engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India". The notice also mentioned that the judge prima facie showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them. At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism. A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders.
