'Modi gave your dad Rs 6,000': BJP MLA under fire for saying govt gave youths everything from phones to slippers; Fadnavis responds
BJP
MLA
Babanrao Lonikar
from Partur in Jalna and a former Maharashtra minister, has stirred controversy after a video of his speech went viral. In the video, he criticised local youths for speaking against the government on social media despite benefiting from various
welfare schemes
.
What Did Lonikar Say?
Speaking at a public event, Lonikar said, "Prime Minister Modi gave your father Rs 6,000 every year for farming. Your mother, sister, and wife got money through the Ladki Bahin scheme. The clothes you wear, the shoes on your feet, and even the mobile phones in your hands, all of these are because of our government. Yet you speak against us?"
BJP Faces Backlash
His comments have put the BJP-led Mahayuti government in an uncomfortable position. Maharashtra Deputy CM
Devendra Fadnavis
criticised the MLA, saying, "Such remarks are wrong, even if aimed at a specific group. When PM Modi calls himself a pradhan sevak, all of us should follow that spirit."
Opposition Hits Out
Opposition leaders were quick to respond. Leader of the Opposition in the legislative council Ambadas Danve said, "Lonikar's words reflect a British-era mindset. In a democracy, such arrogance is unacceptable."
Maharashtra Congress
chief Harshavardhan Sapkal went further, calling the remarks "disgusting" and demanded Lonikar's expulsion from the party.
Live Events
No Response from Lonikar
Lonikar has yet to comment on the matter. This is not his first controversial remark, earlier, he threatened to deny development funds to villages that did not vote in large numbers.
Inputs from TOI
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How the US helped oust Iran's government in 1953 and reinstate the Shah
When US missiles struck Iran's key nuclear facilities on June 22, history seemed to repeat itself. Seventy-two years ago, a covert CIA operation toppled Iran's democratically elected government. Now, as American rhetoric drifts once more toward regime change, the ghosts of 1953 are stirring again. The coordinated US air and missile strike, codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer, targeted three of Iran's principal nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center. The attack immediately reignited fears of a broader war in the Middle East. In the hours that followed, US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social: 'It's not politically correct to use the term 'Regime Change. But if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Though officials in Washington, including Vice President JD Vance, rushed to clarify that regime change was not formal policy, many in Iran heard echoes from 1953, when the US and UK orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. After being appointed as the prime minister of Iran in 1951, Mossadegh moved to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, then controlled by the British, who had long funneled Iranian oil profits to London. 'He ended a long period of British hegemony in Iran… and set the stage for several decades of rapid economic growth fueled by oil revenues,' wrote Mark Gasiorowski, a historian at Tulane University, in an essay for the volume The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and Ideologies (2018). 'He also tried to democratise Iran's political system by reducing the powers of the shah and the traditional upper class.' Mossadegh argued that Iran, like any sovereign state, deserved control over its resources. Appearing before the International Court of Justice in 1952, he laid out Iran's case: 'The decision to nationalise the oil industry is the result of the political will of an independent and free nation,' he said. 'For us Iranians, the uneasiness of stopping any kind of action which is seen as interference in our national affairs is more intense than for other nations.' Britain saw the nationalisation as both a strategic and economic threat. It imposed a blockade and led a global oil boycott, while pressuring Washington to intervene. The British adopted a three-track strategy: a failed negotiation effort, a global boycott of Iranian oil and covert efforts to undermine and overthrow Mossadegh, writes Gasiorowski . British intelligence operatives had built ties with 'politicians, businessmen, military officers and clerical leaders' in anticipation of a coup. Initially, the Truman administration resisted intervention. But President Dwight D Eisenhower's election ushered in a more aggressive Cold War posture. 'Under the Truman administration, these boundaries [of acceptable Iranian politics] were drawn rather broadly,' Gasiorowski wrote. 'But when Eisenhower entered office, the more stridently anti-Communist views of his foreign policy advisers led the US to drop its support for Mossadegh and take steps to overthrow him.' Fear of communism's spread, particularly via Iran's Tudeh Party, believed to be the first organised Communist party in the Middle East. 'Although they did not regard Mossadegh as a Communist,' Gasiorowski wrote, 'they believed conditions in Iran would probably continue to deteriorate… strengthening the Tudeh Party and perhaps enabling it to seize power.' While Britain lobbied for a coup, Mossadegh appealed directly to Eisenhower. Eisenhower, in a letter in June 1953, offered sympathy but warned that aid was unlikely so long as Iran withheld oil: 'There is a strong feeling… that it would not be fair to the American taxpayers for the United States Government to extend any considerable amount of economic aid to Iran so long as Iran could have access to funds derived from the sale of its oil.' Mossadegh's response was blunt. He accused Britain of sabotaging Iran's economy through 'propaganda and diplomacy,' and warned that inaction could carry lasting consequences: 'If prompt and effective aid is not given to this country now, any steps that might be taken tomorrow… might well be too late,' he wrote. Weeks later, in August 1953, the CIA and Britain's MI6 launched a covert operation to oust Mossadegh and restore the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to power. 'A decision was made to develop and carry out a plan to overthrow Mussadiq and install Zahedi as prime minister,' Gasiorowski wrote. 'The operation was to be led by Kermit Roosevelt, who headed the CIA's Middle East operations division.' The mission, code-named Operation Ajax, used anti-Mossadegh propaganda, bribes, and orchestrated street unrest. After an initial failure and the Shah's brief exile, loyalist military units staged a successful coup on August 19. Mossadegh was arrested, tried, and placed under house arrest until his death in 1967. In 2013, the CIA officially acknowledged its role, releasing declassified documents that described the coup as 'an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.' In Iran, schoolchildren learn about the 1953 coup in classrooms. State media airs annual retrospectives on Mossadegh's downfall. His name recurs in graffiti, political speeches, and university lectures. In his book The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations, the historian Ervand Abrahamian called the operation 'a defining fault line not only for Iranian history but also in the country's relations with both Britain and the United States.' It 'carved in public memory a clear dividing line — 'before' and 'after' — that still shapes the country's political culture,' he wrote. While Cold War defenders portrayed the coup as a check on communism, Abrahamian sees oil and empire as the true motivators. 'The main concern was not so much about communism as about the dangerous repercussions that oil nationalisation could have throughout the world,' he argues. Following the coup, the Shah ruled with increasing autocracy, supported by the US and bolstered by SAVAK (Sazeman-e Ettela'at va Amniyat-e Keshvar), a secret police trained by the CIA. Decades of repression, inequality, and corruption gave way to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which toppled the monarchy and established the Islamic Republic. 'The strategic considerations that led US policymakers to undertake the 1953 coup helped set in motion a chain of events that later destroyed the Shah's regime and created severe problems for US interests,' wrote Gasiorowski. On November 4, 1979, the US Embassy in Tehran was seized. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. Revolutionaries repeatedly cited 1953 as the origin of their mistrust. Though Washington denied involvement for decades, few Iranians ever doubted the CIA's role in Mossadegh's fall. 'The coup revealed how the United States began almost instinctively to follow in the footsteps of British imperialism,' write David W Lesch and Mark L Haas editors of The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and Ideologies . 'Demonstrating a preference for the status quo rather than the forces of change.' Even President Barack Obama, in a 2009 speech in Cairo, acknowledged the long shadow of 1953, noting that the coup had created 'years of mistrust.' No US president has ever issued a formal apology. Dr Omair Anas, director of research at the Centre for Studies of Plural Societies, a non-profit, non-partisan, independent institution dedicated to democratising knowledge, sees the 1953 events as not just a turning point but a template for today's impasse. 'The 1953 coup was staged in the backdrop of the Cold War which resulted in Iran's inclusion into the CENTO alliance along with Pakistan and Turkiye,' he said. He is sharply critical of current regime change rhetoric, describing it as detached from Iran's internal political conditions. 'The most important player is Iran's domestic politics,' he said. 'At this stage, it is not willing and prepared for a regime change.' Anas points out that the government has already absorbed considerable dissent: 'Previous anti-hijab protests have already accommodated many anti-regime voices and sentiments.' But absorbing discontent, he suggests, is not the same as welcoming systemic change. 'Any regime change at this stage would immediately lead the country to chaos and possible civil war, as the new regime won't be able to de-Islamise the state in the near future.' Trump's rhetoric, therefore, landed with particular resonance. While senior officials have attempted to distance the administration from talk of regime change, many in Iran and beyond see a familiar playbook: pressure, provocation, and the threat of externally imposed political outcomes. Dr Anas contends that many of the so-called alternatives to the Islamic Republic are politically inert. 'Anti-regime forces since 1979 have lost much ground and haven't been able to stage a major threat to the revolution,' he said. 'The West is fully aware that the Pahlavi dynasty or the Mujahidin-e-Khalq (MEK) have the least popularity and organisational presence to replace the Khamenei-led regime of Islamic revolution.' As he sees it, the system's survival is not merely a matter of repression but of strategic logic. 'Khamenei can only be replaced by someone like him,' he said. 'The continuity of the Islamic revolution of Iran remains more preferable than any other disruptive replacement.' He also warns that a forced collapse of the current order could have serious regional implications. 'In the case of violent suppression of Islamist forces, the new Iranian state might seek the revival of the Cold War collaboration with Pakistan and Turkiye and a strong push against Russia.' For India, a country that has generally maintained a policy of non-intervention, such a development could be deeply destabilising. 'Any abrupt change would complicate India's West Asia and South Asia strategic calculus,' he said, 'and more fundamentally India's Pakistan strategy.' Dr Anas also sees Western credibility as severely eroded across the region. 'The West has left no credibility whatsoever about human rights, freedom, and democracy after the Israeli-Gaza war,' he said. 'The Middle Eastern public opinion, including that of Kurds, Druze and Afghans, have lost hope in Western promises. They prefer any autocratic regime to West-backed regimes.' India, he said, risks being caught flat-footed if political transitions come suddenly. 'India generally stays away from the normative politics of the Middle East,' he said. 'While this shows India's principled stand on no intervention in internal politics, it also puts India in a weak position once the regime changes, as happened in Syria.' His recommendation? 'India needs to engage more actively with West Asian civil society to have more balanced relations beyond states.' Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
India Today
15 minutes ago
- India Today
5 tigers found dead in Karnataka's MM Hills Wildlife Sanctuary
2:47 RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav has criticised the RSS call to change the Constitution's preamble and alleged that the BJP and RSS intend to alter the Constitution by removing the words 'secular' and 'socialist'.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Assault on Constitution's soul: Opposition slams RSS' view on Preamble
Several opposition parties on Friday denounced RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's call to review the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble, terming it a "deliberate assault" on the soul of the Constitution. The attack came a day after the RSS proposed reviewing the two words, saying they were included during the Emergency and were never part of the Constitution drafted by B R Ambedkar. While the Congress saw it as a "deliberate assault" on the soul of the Constitution and claimed the RSS-BJP had never accepted Ambedkar's Constitution, the CPI(M) said the demand exposes the RSS' long-standing objective of subverting it. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said the mask of the RSS has come off again as they want 'Manusmriti'. "The Constitution irks them because it speaks of equality, secularism, and justice," he said in a post in Hindi on X. "The RSS-BJP doesn't want the Constitution; they want 'Manusmriti'. They aim to strip the marginalized and the poor of their rights and enslave them again. Snatching a powerful weapon like the Constitution from them is their real agenda," he alleged. "The RSS should stop dreaming... we will never let them succeed. Every patriotic Indian will defend the Constitution until their last breath," the former Congress chief asserted. CPI(M) leader and Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan said Hosabale's call is a "brazen attempt to dismantle the core ideals of our Republic". "Invoking the Emergency to discredit these principles is a deceitful move, especially when the RSS colluded with the Indira Gandhi government during that time for its own survival. To use that period now to undermine the Constitution reflects sheer hypocrisy and political opportunism. "Secularism and socialism are not additions; they define India. Every citizen who believes in democracy must raise their voice against this communal agenda," Vijayan said on X. The Left parties and RJD alleged that Hosabale's proposal was part of a conspiracy to change the Constitution. Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said the BJP/RSS attacked Ambedkar, Nehru, and others involved in the framing of the Constitution from November 30, 1949, onwards. "In the RSS' own words, the Constitution was not inspired by Manusmriti," he said in a post on X. "The RSS and the BJP have repeatedly given the call for a new Constitution. This was Mr (Narendra) Modi's campaign cry during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The people of India decisively rejected this cry. Yet the demands for changing the basic structure of the Constitution continue to be made by the RSS ecosystem," Ramesh said. Sharing the Supreme Court's November 25, 2024, judgment on the issue, he said, "Would it be asking too much to request him to take the trouble to read it?" In a post on X from its official handle, the Congress alleged the RSS-BJP's ideology stands in direct opposition to the Indian Constitution. "RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale has openly called for the removal of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' from the Preamble. This is not just a suggestion -- it is a deliberate assault on the soul of our Constitution," it said. "It is part of a long-standing conspiracy to dismantle Babasaheb Ambedkar's vision for a just, inclusive and democratic India -- something the RSS-BJP has always been plotting. Let us not forget: when the Constitution was adopted, the RSS rejected it. They didn't just oppose it, they burnt it." The Congress said the people saw through their agenda and gave them a resounding answer. "Now, they have returned to their old playbook. But let it be known: The Congress will stand as an unbreakable wall against any attempt to undermine the Constitution. Jai Samvidhan," it asserted. The party's deputy leader in the Rajya Sabha Pramod Tiwari said, "Once again, the truth slipped out. The hidden agenda of the BJP and RSS is now out in the open. They want to remove the core values of secularism and socialism from the Constitution." RJD president Lalu Prasad, who claimed that social justice and communal harmony are his guiding principles, voiced his anguish on X by terming the RSS a "casteist" outfit. The RJD supremo also said, "They do not have the guts to cast an evil eye on the Constitution and reservations provided therein. Why are people with an unjust character so full of hatred for democracy and Babasaheb Ambedkar's Constitution?" Party MP Manoj Kumar Jha said, "Perhaps he (Hosabale) hasn't read it; I would advise him to seriously read the Constituent Assembly debates. Socialism and secularism were integral parts of our Constitution." In a statement, the CPI(M) Politburo said the inclusion of 'socialism' and 'secularism' in the Preamble is not an arbitrary addition and reflects the core values for which freedom fighters sacrificed their lives. "The Communist Party of India (Marxist) strongly denounces the proposal made by the RSS general secretary to remove the words 'socialist' and 'secular' from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. This proposal exposes the RSS's long-standing objective of subverting the Constitution and its intent to transform India into a Hindu Rashtra, in pursuit of its Hindutva project." "It is the height of hypocrisy for the RSS, which played no role in the freedom movement, to now advocate for the removal of these foundational principles. That it cannot tolerate the values cherished by our martyrs betrays its reactionary, anti-people, and divisive ideology," the Left party said. It "firmly" opposed "any attempt to alter the core values enshrined in our Constitution. We appeal to the people to remain vigilant and resolutely resist all such efforts by the RSS and its protege BJP." CPI General Secretary D Raja said everyone knows what RSS wants. "Everyone knows it is opposed to constitution/why they spoke of '400-paar' and that is why defending constitution became the central issue for opposition parties." Hosabale, while addressing an event on the Emergency, said on Thursday that "the preamble of the Constitution Baba Saheb Ambedkar made never had these words." "During the Emergency, when fundamental rights were suspended, Parliament did not work, and judiciary became lame, then these words were added." The RSS leader said discussions were held on this issue later but no effort was made to remove them from the Preamble. "So whether they should remain in the Preamble should be considered," he had added. Union Minister Jitendra Singh, however, sought to defend Hosabale's call, saying any right-thinking citizen would endorse it because everybody knows that these words were not part of the original Constitution written by Ambedkar.
