UP Government Cites ‘Law and Order', Blocks Urs Events in Ayodhya, Barabanki
हिंदी తెలుగు اردو
Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion
Support independent journalism. Donate Now
Government
UP Government Cites 'Law and Order', Blocks Urs Events in Ayodhya, Barabanki
The Wire Staff
10 minutes ago
The event in Ayodhya was refused permission after a VHP complaint that alleged that it was being organised under the name of Ghazi Baba, referring to Saiyad Salar Masud Ghazi, a semi-legendary military figure from the 11th century popularly believed to be a nephew of Ghaznavid ruler Mahmud of Ghazni.
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. Photo: PTI.
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: Two annual Urs ceremonies to be organised in Uttar Pradesh's Ayodhya and Barabanki have been refused permission with authorities citing law and order concerns.
The Urs to be organised at the shrine of Dada Miya in Khanpur Masodha area of Ayodhya was refused permission after a complaint filed by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Times of India has reported. The report said that the event in Barabanki, on the other hand, relating to the Urs of Syed Shakeel Baba to be held in the Phoolpur area, was denied permission due to concerns of potential unrest.
In Ayodhya, the VHP complainant alleged that the gathering was being organised in the name of 'Ghazi Baba' – a reference to Syed Salar Masood – a semi-legendary military figure from the 11th century popularly believed to be a nephew of Ghaznavid ruler Mahmud of Ghazni.
Ayodhya circle officer Ashutosh Tiwari said that the permission which was granted under the name of 'Urs Dada Miya' was revoked after it was found that the event was being organised under the name of Ghazi baba.
Earlier in March, police in Sambhal had outlawed an age-old fair – the Neja Mela – held by the Muslim community to commemorate Saiyad Salar Masud Ghazi. Police had then said while denying permission an event to honour an 'invader,' 'plunderer' and 'murderer' would not be allowed to be held even if it had been traditionally organised year after year.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after forming the government in Uttar Pradesh and the centre has honoured Suheldev, Ghazi's alleged slayer, with a new memorial, a superfast train running from Ghazipur to Delhi, a new university and a stamp, among other things to reach out to the backward caste Hindus.
For the Urs event in Barabanki, additional SP Vikas Tripathi said that 'some disputes have emerged that may lead to communal tension' which has led the administration to refuse permission.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
Related News
Uttar Pradesh Govt Tightens Rules for 'Out of Town' Marriage Registrations
Fifth Acting DGP in a Row: Why Uttar Pradesh Still Lacks a Permanent Police Chief
Priests Oppose UP Govt's Plan to Set up Trust For Management of Vrindavan's Banke Bihari Temple
Interview | 'National Leadership Will Decide on Alliance But UP Congress Is Focusing on All 403 Seats'
Days After Cow Vigilante Rampage in Aligarh, Forensic Report Belies Beef Allegations
Former IAS Officer Claims Andhra Unduly Favoured Varun Group in Tourism Push; Govt Denies Wrongdoing
Mau Bypoll: NDA-Ally SBSP Stakes Claim Even as BJP Signals Interest
Eroding Scientific Rationality Is Undermining Knowledge Production in India
Senior Journalist in Andhra Pradesh Arrested Over Talk Show Panelist's Remarks; Triggers Political Uproar
View in Desktop Mode
About Us
Contact Us
Support Us
© Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Political Line newsletter: Cow Economy, and Diplomacy
Culture influences market and diplomacy. But how much is too much on this count? A slice of the stalemate in trade talks between India and the U.S. is related to the U.S. demand for opening up India's farm sector. The U.S. wants to export more of its dairy and poultry products to India. India resists this demand. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said he would make personal sacrifices, if required, to ensure that farmers are protected. The proportion of population dependent on agriculture reveals one of the most striking differences between India and the United States, highlighting their vastly different economic structures and development stages. India has nearly half of its workforce engaged in agriculture, while the United States has only less than two percent directly employed in farming — representing a 32-fold difference in agricultural employment dependency. In India's case, agriculture contributes roughly 18 percent of GDP but nearly half of the population is dependent on it. Farmers are a powerful political constituency in both India and the United States. Food is also a question of national security. Post-Covid fears related to self-sufficiency in critical areas have further strengthened the case for national food markets insulated from global disruptions. India's resistance to allowing American farm produce in its market rests on three reasons. The first, as mentioned above, is that too many people are dependent on agriculture, and opening up the sector to American products could render them vulnerable. The second is national security. The third concerns apparently cultural reasons — American cows may be fed meat products such as chicken waste, and this is unacceptable to India. Milk and other products from a cow whose food chain is not clearly plant-based do not meet Indian standards. Whether such determination is consistently applied across all milk produced within India is beside the point. Cultural reasons are relevant to market decisions in all societies. For instance, some Muslim countries or shops may not sell pork; among the GCC countries, pork is available in the UAE and Bahrain, while in others it is not. In large parts of India now, beef is legally banned; in many parts, such as southern India, West Bengal, and the northeastern states, it is widely consumed by all social groups including Hindus. Cultural barriers to global trade are not new in India. Crossing the seas was once taboo — Gandhi had to do penance to be readmitted to his Modh Vaniya caste, which had ostracised him for doing so. Of the three issues at play in trade in agriculture, perhaps the easiest to change is the competency of the sector. But the cultural politics around the cow and the requirements of the agriculture sector often come into conflict. At least 20 out of 28 states have some form of laws to protect cows, which effectively translates into restrictions on the trade and transportation of cattle, including buffaloes. In the last decade or so, many states have enforced these laws aggressively, and vigilantes targeting even legal cattle trade often go scot-free. Simultaneously, a whole network of rent-seeking has emerged in the guise of cow protection, as the state spends massive amounts to shelter unproductive cows that farmers do not want to keep. It is not the case that meat production has ended; India's export of buffalo meat has been growing in the last three years at around four percent annually. What has happened is that cattle and leather trade have been pushed into a grey zone of legality, inflicting costs and losses for all involved and creating new rent-seeking opportunities. You can read about a sample of such restrictions here. Farmers are paying a huge price for this — on the one hand, the difficulty in disposing unproductive cattle, and on the other, the problem of free-roaming cattle destroying their crops. Cow protection in India was linked historically to farming practices of an earlier era. Those factors have changed due to technology and other developments. Yet, productivity in India's agriculture sector remains entangled in the religious association many people have with cows. The cow has long functioned as a symbol in Hindu-Muslim rivalry in the subcontinent. Hindu leaders such as Dayananda Saraswati made cow protection a tool for popular consolidation antagonistic to Muslims in the 19th century. Some Muslim leaders, such as Pir Abu Bakr in Bengal in the early 20th century, argued that cow sacrifice was an essential practice of Islam. Whether cow sacrifice is indeed an essential practice of Islam has been the subject of several litigations in independent India as well. While India grapples with global uncertainties created by political and technological upheavals, it might also make sense to review its priorities at home. The Fear of the Future People Prime Minister Narendra Modi has now raised the spectre of a demographic threat to India in his Independence Day speech. He said there was a conspiracy to change the demographic profile of India. You can read The Hindu editorial on this speech here. Does demographic composition determine the character of a nation? Leaving that question for a future discussion, here are some quick adjacent thoughts. Variations in population growth across communities and geographies pose challenges for governance and national identity. It is one thing to say that everyone is an individual citizen regardless of social location, faith, or ethnicity. But India's governance structure acknowledges the principle of group identities while providing special protections for religious and linguistic minorities, Dalits, backward classes, tribes, etc. Collective identities are not anathema to India's constitutional scheme; in fact, they are central to it. Political contestations have historically been framed in India around the numerical strength of communities. That history warrants discussion separately, but to cite a well known example, the 15% and 7.5% reservations for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities, respectively, were based on their proportion in the population. As the proportion of their population changes, so will their representation. This will be among the issues in the next delimitation of parliamentary constituencies in India. Currently, there are two distinct divergences in population growth in India. First, the north-central regions have higher birth rates than peninsular and western India. Second, Muslims have a higher birth rate than Hindus. Among Hindus, upper castes have lower birth rates compared to other groups. While the BJP and its supporters try to highlight the Hindu-Muslim divergence in population growth, many others, particularly parties in the South, are more worried about the regional divergence in population growth. It is this regional divergence that makes the next delimitation an unsettling prospect for many regions. Population management has to be a secular task, and all communities should participate in it. While the BJP constantly talks up an Islamic demographic threat, there are Muslim actors who acknowledge and even amplify it. Last year, a Muslim Minister in West Bengal said Muslim population was growing fast and would soon become a majority. The ruling Trinamool Congress distanced itself from the statement. Federalism Tract: Notes on Diversity This article by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. K. Stalin discusses how India is home to many nationalities and emphasizes the importance of linguistic diversity as a defining feature of India. It argues that in a true federal system, states should not have to protest, litigate, or plead for their rightful share of revenues. Governors are taking their role as chancellors of State universities too seriously, which is roiling the higher education sector. Read our editorial on the ongoing conflicts between Governors and State governments over university governance here. The drive against unauthorised immigrants from Bangladesh is creating rifts within India, as any Bengali-speaking individual can end up as a target of police action.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
PK reaches out to Muslims ahead of polls
Patna: Jan Suraaj founder Prashant Kishor addressed a "Bihar Badlao Conference" at Haj Bhawan in Patna on Saturday. It was attended by around 3,000 members of the Muslim community. Kishor said with their support, he could change the course of national politics within two years. "In West Bengal, the Muslim community listened to me, and you can see how UCC-NRC has been completely abolished there," he said. He urged the INDIA bloc to ensure fair representation for Muslims. "Wherever you have a Muslim candidate, we will not give a ticket to a Muslim. We will field a Hindu candidate there," Kishor told bloc leaders. Claiming that 50% of Hindus opposed the BJP, he said, "If even 20% of these join us, we could win the battle." Kishor recalled his role in Narendra Modi's 2014 election campaign. "After that, we started working in Bihar, and within a year, we reduced the BJP to 55 seats in the state," he claimed. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Krishna Janmashtami Wishes ,, messages , and quotes !
The Wire
4 hours ago
- The Wire
Explainer: The Trump–Putin Summit and its Immediate Consequences For New Delhi
New Delhi: For India, the Trump–Putin summit in Anchorage was more than a geopolitical spectacle in the frozen north. Rather, it carried immediate consequences for New Delhi's economic future. With the US having slapped punitive tariffs on Indian goods for Russian oil purchases, New Delhi watched the meeting closely, weighing whether Trump's diplomacy might ease the pressure or deepen its bind. Here is The Wire's explainer on what unfolded in Alaska on Saturday (August 16), and what it could mean for India. What exactly happened at the Trump–Putin summit in Anchorage? The day began with a carefully staged welcome at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage. US President Donald Trump's plane landed shortly after 10:20 a.m., and Russian President Vladimir Putin followed about half an hour later. Just after 11 a.m., the two leaders walked out onto a red-carpeted platform marked 'Alaska 2025,' framed by four F-22 fighter jets and a flyover that included a B-2 stealth bomber. After the handshake and photo op, Trump invited Putin into his presidential limousine. The pair spoke privately for a few minutes on the short ride to the venue, a break from protocol that underscored Trump's preference for unscripted encounters. Formal talks began around 11:30 a.m. in a 'three-on-three' format. Trump sat with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoy Steve Witkoff, while Putin was flanked by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and adviser Yuri Ushakov. The discussions ran for nearly three hours before concluding in the mid-afternoon. At about 3 p.m., the two leaders appeared before the press to deliver short statements, but they took no questions and announced no breakthrough. Putin departed soon afterwards, while Trump left Anchorage in the early evening for his return flight to Washington. In total, Putin's first visit to US in ten years, lasted less than six hours. Did Trump manage to secure a ceasefire, or did the talks end without progress? While flying to Anchorage, Trump told a Fox News anchor on Air Force One that he 'won't be happy' if he did not get a ceasefire deal at the summit. That set expectations for the meeting, which ran for nearly three hours behind closed doors. Yet when the two leaders appeared before the press, it was clear no such agreement had been reached. Trump nonetheless struck an upbeat note. 'We really made some great progress today,' he said, stressing that negotiations were ongoing and that more meetings would follow. He did not provide details of what that progress involved. 'There were many, many points that we agreed on, most of them, I would say, a couple of big ones that we haven't quite gotten there, but we've made some headway. So there's no deal until there is a deal,' he said. Later in an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, he said that the onus was now on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to get a cease-fire deal. Putin also kept up the optimistic narrative. 'We held our talks in a constructive and mutually respectful atmosphere, and they have proved substantive and productive.' The Russian President flattered Trump by stating that the Ukraine war would not have started if Trump had been president. He also restated Moscow's demands for a 'long-term and lasting' settlement on Ukraine war – addressing the 'root causes' of the conflict, ensuring 'all of Russia's legitimate concerns' are met, and restoring a 'fair security balance in Europe and the rest of the world.' He signalled, standing next to the US President, that the roadblock lay across the Atlantic. 'We hope that Kiev and the European capitals will take the current developments constructively and will neither try to put up obstacles nor attempt to disrupt the emerging progress with provocative acts or behind-the-scenes plots.' Does the outcome make Putin the real winner of the meeting? For Vladimir Putin, the Alaska summit represented a clear diplomatic victory, one achieved without compromise. Back in Moscow, the tone was jubilant. 'The very fact of the meeting in Alaska, its tone, and its outcome represent a significant and joint success for both presidents, each of whom made a tremendous personal contribution to achieving the best possible result at this time," Konstantin Kosachyov, a chair of the foreign affairs committee of Russia's upper house of parliament, wrote on Telegram, according to Reuters. Others were more blunt. As one senior Russian policymaker told The Guardian, 'Putin gave Trump nothing, but still got everything he wanted.' The absence of new sanctions, Trump's tacit recognition of Moscow's red lines, and the symbolism of being treated as an equal to the US president all fed into the narrative of triumph. Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev also singled out Trump's refusal to escalate pressure on Moscow over Ukraine as one of the most important outcomes. He described the summit as a restoration of top-level dialogue that was 'peaceful, free of ultimatums or threats,' and noted that Putin had 'presented our conditions for ending the conflict in Ukraine … in person and in detail.' In the United States, however, the verdict was also clear that Putin had scored a PR goal. The Washington Post called the summit ' not a disaster, but it was a US defeat.' The New York Times argued that Putin had effectively achieved a major war goal. ' He has gotten out of the box of sanctioned autocrat, and was greeted by the president of the United States as a peacemaker. He has bought time. He has defused all that talk of sanctions on his oil sector. And he gave up nothing'. How did Europe and Ukraine react to the summit? European leaders, led by Germany, France, the UK, Italy and the EU, issued a joint statement reaffirming their unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and insisting that Russia could not dictate Kyiv's future ties with NATO or the EU. They pledged to tighten sanctions and maintain economic pressure on Moscow until what they described as a just and lasting peace is achieved. While leaders such as UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron praised Donald Trump's initiative in meeting Vladimir Putin, they stressed that any talks must be coupled with strong security guarantees for Ukraine. Kyiv's response was more guardedly optimistic. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy welcomed Trump's proposal for a trilateral format with Ukraine included, but said European participation was essential to ensure binding guarantees. He confirmed he would travel to Washington on Monday after a 'long and substantive' phone call with Trump, noting 'positive signals' about the United States taking part in future security arrangements. Trump's post-summit remarks on Fox News, however, fuelled unease in Kyiv and in several European capitals. In an interview with Sean Hannity, he contrasted Russia's status with Ukraine's, saying: 'Russia is a very big power, and they're not' and added that Zelenskiy 'gotta make a deal.' For many European officials, this reinforced fears that Trump might pressure Kyiv into concessions without securing reciprocal guarantees from Moscow. How did New Delhi react, and what drives that stance? India welcomed the Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, framing it as a positive step toward dialogue. 'India welcomes the Summit meeting in Alaska between President Trump and President Putin,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, adding that New Delhi 'consistently advocates dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict.' He noted that India 'appreciates the progress made in the Summit'. 'India welcomes the Summit meeting in Alaska between President Trump and President Putin,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, adding that New Delhi 'consistently advocates dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict.' He also noted that India 'appreciates the progress made in the Summit.' New Delhi's response can be read as relief that the focus on dialogue creates a potential opening for India, which has been squeezed between its strategic partnership with Washington and its heavy reliance on Russian energy. That pressure intensified earlier this month when the US raised tariffs on Indian goods to 50 percent, following secondary sanctions of 25 percent on Russian oil purchases. India, the second-largest buyer of Russian crude after China, was singled out by the measures. While Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity that he would hold off on penalising China for now, the uncertainty over whether India will face continued tariffs remains. Could India gain some relief on US tariffs as a side-effect of Trump's diplomacy? Donald Trump's latest push to nudge Moscow towards a Ukraine deal has raised questions in New Delhi over whether India might see relief from the steep US tariffs imposed on Russian oil imports. The additional 25 percent duty, announced in late August, coincided with signs of Trump's growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Indian officials viewed the sanctions partly as an extension of that irritation. En route to Alaska, Trump told Fox News that India had been forced to stop buying Russian oil because of the tariffs. Former Indian ambassador to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria described the Alaska meeting as 'reassuring' for India. 'The first good news is that the meeting took place,' he told The Wire, noting there were 'no shock outcomes of trouble' and no sign of 'a complete breakdown in that relationship.' He said Trump appeared to hint at flexibility. 'There was an indication he will either give more time to India for the 25 percent sanctions… or he will reverse them, or he will give that a bigger timeline,' Bisaria said. While there was brewing backlash in Washington that Putin may have gained an upper hand, Trump may still continue to believe that he is on the right path. 'He may be hearing other voices in his ear,' he said, pointing out that while some in Trump's circle are Russia hawks, 'the MAGA base supports him ending the wars. So, there won't be an issue with them.' Bisaria, however, added that conditions in Ukraine could yet derail any opening. 'If there's a major escalation in battlefield violence, that is a danger to the process, because right now it's the most fragile,' he said. In his view, both Trump and Putin are interested in a deal, with Ukraine and Europe seeking at least the optics of being consulted.
