Congress won't allow rewriting of Constitution: CM Siddaramaiah
BENGALURU: Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Friday hit out at RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale for pitching for the removal of the terms 'socialist' and 'secular' from the Preamble of the Constitution.
'This is not a casual remark. It is part of a long-standing agenda to reshape India's democracy in their ideological image,' Siddaramaiah said, adding that the statement has come from a leader of the RSS, which is like the high command for the BJP. 'I urge Prime Minister Narendra Modi to express his views in this regard to the nation,' Siddaramaiah added.
The CM said that when the Constitution was formed, the words 'socialist' and 'secular' were not there in the Preamble. But then, RSS started targeting on secularism and socialism, and the then PM Indira Gandhi had to amend and included these two words, which has been accepted by people,' he said.
The CM alleged that RSS refused to accept the Constitution when it was adopted. 'Then RSS chief MS Golwalkar praised the Manusmriti as a more authentic guide for India's culture and rejected democracy and equality as Western imports. This is the organisation now claiming to protect Indian values,' Siddaramaiah added. He said before asking others to apologise for history, RSS must first explain why it rejected the very Constitution that protects the rights of all Indians today.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
16 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Efforts underway to form popular government in Manipur: Biren Singh
Former Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh on Saturday (June 28, 2025) said efforts are underway for setting up of a popular government in the State which is now under President's rule. Speaking at the sidelines of a programme at BJP State headquarters, Mr. Singh expressed hope that a new government will be formed in Manipur soon. "We are working to form a government at the earliest. We are a national party. After looking into the ground situation, I have faith that a government will be formed soon. BJP and its allies want a popular government as well. We are working for restoration of popular government," he said. "We, BJP, haven't criticised anybody. We are concentrating only on the present crisis. We are approaching the Central government and concerned persons to bring an amicable solution and peace in the State. In the meantime, we are also working to restore a popular government with frequent gatherings of MLAs. Everybody wants the restoration of peace. Peace is compulsory. In the last seven or eight months, there have been no reports of fighting between communities," the former CM said. Mr. Singh said the Central government is working day and night to restore peace in the State. To a media query, Mr. Singh said, "I have said earlier that illegal immigrants and drug cartels have affected the entire Northeast as well as the whole nation. Slowly, everyone has come to understand this issue. This change is a positive sign, and together we can fight these elements." The Centre had on February 13 imposed President's rule in Manipur after Chief Minister N Biren Singh resigned. The State assembly, which has a tenure till 2027, has been put under suspended animation. More than 260 people have been killed and thousands rendered homeless in ethnic violence between Meiteis and Kuki-Zo groups since May 2023.
Mint
17 minutes ago
- Mint
On US ‘vague' social media visa rule, Indian students anxious: ‘Even memes feel risky now'
A 24-year-old from Delhi, recently admitted to Harvard University, now starts his day by checking his Instagram account. 'Every few hours, I think of how an old post may be problematic, and then delete it,' he says. 'Even memes feel risky now.' He is among several Indian students who shared their growing concerns with The Indian Express over a new US rule that asks all F, M, and J visa applicants to make their social media profiles public. The advisory, issued in the name of 'national security and public safety,' asks applicants to adjust their privacy settings so that US consular officers can review their accounts. In previous years, only publicly visible content was checked. The US now treats every visa application as a 'national security decision.' Applicants must provide usernames or handles for all social media platforms used in the last five years. The US Embassy in India warned on Thursday that failure to share this information 'could lead to visa denial and ineligibility for future visas.' 'I gave my interview earlier in June, and I'm still waiting for my visa,' a Delhi-based student was quoted as saying by Indian Express. 'The guideline is very vague. It says 'anything that violates American values.' We don't even know what that is supposed to mean.' The lack of clarity has left many students stressed, as they are unsure what kind of posts may raise red flags. A 23-year-old from Mumbai, also admitted to Harvard, said he made all his accounts public on 22 May — the day he submitted his DS-160 visa application form. 'Since then, I've archived everything even remotely political. I've stopped liking posts too, just in case even that is visible,' he says. Career counselling firms say they've had to adjust quickly to guide students in managing their digital presence. 'The recent US government directive is a significant development — but one that serious academically-oriented applicants can certainly navigate successfully,' Aman Singh, co-founder of GradRight, Gurgaon told Indian Express. 'Our core guidance now focuses on helping students understand and actively manage their digital footprint. It's about being mindful and authentic.' According to Singh, while the number of Indian students going to the US has dropped by 20–25% in the past 6–8 months, loan approvals for students admitted to top universities through GradRight have increased by 60%. 'The appeal of US universities remains strong. For strong, high-intent students, the process is still working,' he adds. Still, students say the uncertainty is stressful. Many are second-guessing posts that once seemed completely harmless.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
29 minutes ago
- First Post
How US Supreme Court's ruling that curbs judges' power benefits Trump
The US Supreme Court has limited the ability of federal judges to grant nationwide injunctions. President Donald Trump has hailed the verdict as a 'tremendous win'. The Friday decision will expand the powers of the Republican president and have wider ramifications on his controversial policies, like the bid to end birthright citizenship read more US President Donald Trump speaks to the media in the Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington DC, June 27, 2025. Reuters The United States Supreme Court has handed a 'giant win' to President Donald Trump by curbing the authority of individual judges. In a ruling that will have a major impact on the Trump administration's move to end birthright citizenship, the top court on Friday (June 27) made it easier for the Republican leader to implement his contentious policies. The ruling curbs the ability of lone judges to block Trump's powers nationwide. We take a look at how the US Supreme Court's verdict has broadened the powers of the president. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What did US Supreme Court rule? The US Supreme Court, in a 6-3 majority, ruled that federal judges do not have the authority to grant nationwide injunctions. This effectively curbs the lower courts' ability to block executive orders. The case stems from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship , a constitutional right in the US. At the White House briefing on Friday, Trump called the verdict a 'tremendous win'. He said the US administration is 'very happy about' the 'big, amazing decision'. It was a 'monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law', the US president added. American Attorney General Pam Bondi, who flanked Trump at the podium, said the ruling will put an end to 'rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation.' Democrats rebuked the Supreme Court's decision, with Senate Leader Chuck Schumer calling it a 'terrifying step toward authoritarianism.' Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,' she said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who authored the dissent opinion for the three liberal justices, called the ruling 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.' Trump said he will move ahead with 'so many policies' that had been 'wrongly' blocked, putting into focus his administration's bid to end birthright citizenship. He also rejected concerns that the high court's ruling would lead to the concentration of power in the White House. 'This is really the opposite of that. This really brings back the Constitution,' Trump said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What is birthright citizenship? Birthright citizenship makes any person born on US soil an American citizen, including children born to parents who illegally entered the country. 'All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' according to the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The right has been an integral part of the US law for over a century. Trump has long taken exception to birthright citizenship, describing it as a 'hoax'. After Friday's ruling, he said the decision would prevent 'scamming of our immigration process'. Mairelise Robinson, a pregnant US citizen, attends a protest in support of birthright citizenship, outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, May 15, 2025. File Photo/AP In January, soon after returning to the White House, Trump signed an executive order to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors. The executive order read, 'the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.' Immigrant rights groups, representing American newborns and their migrant parents, sued the Trump administration. As many as 22 states also urged federal judges to block Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Three federal district court judges separately blocked Trump's order and issued universal injunctions that prevented the enforcement of the order across the nation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The US administration then approached the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether. How Supreme Court's ruling expands Trump's power The top court has expanded the authority of the US president with its ruling, which is set to limit the power of lower court federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This will have wider ramifications for not just the birthright citizenship case but also other controversial policies that the Trump administration wants to push. Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, told AFP that the court's ruling 'sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein in lawless actions by the government.' Lower courts have blocked Trump's cuts to foreign assistance, diversity programmes, stopped funding for transgender people, limited the president's ability to terminate government employees, and paused his other immigration reforms. Now, the new ruling has put the US administration at an advantage, allowing it to ask courts to go ahead with many of these orders. The court's decision has 'systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion,' Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration, told Reuters. The apex court's verdict means it is effectively the only check on presidential authority. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As per the Friday ruling, judges can typically grant relief only to the individuals or groups that brought a particular lawsuit. Now, the birthright citizenship case will return to lower courts, where judges will have to issue orders in compliance with the high court ruling, as per Associated Press (AP). The courts have 30 days to review their nationwide injunctions. Notably, Friday's ruling did not directly address the constitutionality of Trump's birthright citizenship order. So, the case is likely to come before the top court at a later date, noted BBC. Not just Trump, but the Supreme Court's ruling will have ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in even future US presidents. With inputs from agencies
