SC verdict is a resounding slap on face of Centre's vendetta politics, says CM
In a release, the Chief Minister said: 'This verdict has not only exposed the malice behind the case but has also unequivocally cleared our names of all the baseless allegations.'
'I humbly welcome the verdict delivered by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court. Throughout my long political career, I have always bowed before the Constitution and the rule of law. This verdict upholds and protects that very belief,' he said.
He said: 'Unable to defeat me politically, the BJP and its allies stooped to misusing constitutional agencies like the CBI and ED to fabricate baseless cases against my wife and harass my family. This is not just an abuse of power but also a disgraceful and cowardly act. The mental agony we have been subjected to will forever remain a painful chapter in our lives.'
Referring to Chief Justice Gavai's remarks that 'electoral battles must be fought through the people, not through the misuse of institutions like the ED', Mr. Siddaramaiah said these words reflect the voice of his own conscience and of every Constitution-believing Indian. 'This is the voice of justice rising against tyranny,' he maintained.
'This verdict restores faith in the judiciary, especially among all who have fallen victim to the BJP's political witch hunt over the past 10 to 11 years,' the Chief Minister said.
'Even now, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah must wake up and stop weaponising constitutional agencies for political gain. It is time they restore the autonomy of these institutions and cleanse themselves of the sins of political misuse,' he demanded.
He also demanded that 'the BJP and JD (S) leaders in Karnataka should publicly apologise if they have even an ounce of dignity or shame left.'
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Minister Priyank Kharge too launched a counter-attack at the Opposition by demanding that Leader of Opposition in the Assembly R. Ashok and BJP State president B.Y. Vijayendra should resign if they have any dignity left in them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
10 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Sultana Siddiqui: The Pakistani TV veteran making shows with cross-border appeal
For years, political hostilities between India and Pakistan have disrupted entertainment exchange, but rarely have restrictions been as sweeping as those triggered by the Pahalgam fallout. The latest wave of bans targeted Pakistani shows on YouTube, blocked streaming access to cross-border dramas on Netflix and Amazon Prime, and even temporarily disabled Instagram accounts of Pakistani actors and peace activists. The clampdown came at a time when Pakistani dramas have been enjoying immense popularity across the border, on digital and social media. They have not just built massive fan bases there, but are also engaging with radical themes that, as Indian journalist Raksha Kumar points out, are missing from Indian television dramas, due to 'superfluous' research, lack of courage or financial constraints. One standout example is a three-part mini series that aired last August on the privately owned Hum TV, produced by veteran television pioneer Sultana Siddiqui. Each installment tells a stand-alone story. Each is bound by the shared theme of how far-right radicals terrorise individuals and the communities they inhabit at large and the limitations of the state to give justice or security to the victims. The final episode of Tan Man Neelo Neel (Body and Soul Covered in Bruises), the last in the trilogy, elicited emotion for audiences in both countries. The lead characters attacked by an angry mob were their parents' only children. They were young people whose dreams were cut short. The story ends with a chilling mosaic honouring real-life victims of 'blasphemy' mob violence like Mashal Khan, a university student in Mardan in 2017 and brothers Mughees and Muneeb Butt, in Sialkot in 2010. Mob violence Many others could have been included. The list is long and includes those who were victimised on the pretext of religion even if mob violence wasn't involved. The theme resonates wherever this phenomenon has occurred. Since she launched Hum TV in 2005, Sultana Siddiqui, now in her late 70s, has used the television channel as a platform for storytelling from a progressive bent of mind, offering a nuanced portrayal of Pakistani society through deeply grounded characters. This isn't the first time her storytelling has crossed borders. Zindagi Gulzar Hai (Life is Beautiful) in 2012 was a hit in India. The series shows a picture of Pakistan different from the narrative seen in the Indian context. Its popularity, fueled by social media, created a demand for Pakistani content in the Indian market. Its lead actor Fawad Khan, went on to become a Bollywood heartthrob, but was then banned in India along with other Pakistani artists following the 2016 Uri attack. The Pakistani film Maula Jatt that he stars in was due to be released in India, but that has been stalled too. The release of a Bollywood romance he stars in, Abir Gulaal, is now also in limbo due to renewed hostilities. Countering 'foreign' serials What catalysed Sultana Siddiqui to start Hum TV channel was a desire to create relevant content rooted in Pakistan. 'My son asked, 'Are you sure this will work? Indian channels are dominating ratings.' I told him, 'Give it two days – those ratings won't last',' she recalls. 'I was scared too. But when it happened, the entire atmosphere shifted. Not just in Pakistan, but anywhere Urdu is spoken.' She wanted to counter the dominance of 'foreign' serials, particularly Indian dramas known for their sensationalist aesthetics. 'Those vibrant colored walls, the dramatic music, and women cooking without a single stain on their clothes – it all used to bother me,' she says. The series are part of a long line of Hum TV productions that have challenged social norms, like Udaari (Soaring, on child sexual abuse) and Dar Si Jaati Hai Silah (Silah Gets a Bit Scared, on domestic violence). Speaking to Sapan News at her office in Karachi, Sultana Siddiqui recalled the backlash against Udaari (2016), which state-run regulators branded 'immoral ' and threatened to shut down. 'I asked them, 'What exactly do you gain by doing this?'' she recalled. Their reply? 'You get a lot of publicity'.' Public support But Siddiqui believes it wasn't just the regulators. 'When one of my dramas performs exceptionally well, there are always two kinds of competitors – those who respond positively, and those who don't. I choose to rise above. But some out of sheer spite think, 'It's doing well, so let's bring it down,' and they write complaints.' Udaari received a record number of notices from the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, an indication of how much pushback such socially conscious shows can get. The subject matter, she was told, was too 'bold' to ignore. Her response: 'Look at the end – the rapist was caught and punished. The purpose of Udaari was to show that if you see your child disturbed, talk to them. Because often, it's the nearest person who abuses the child, someone they trust.' What sustained her was support from the public. 'That's where we drew our strength from, to fight the case legally,' Sultana Siddiqui says. 'Sorry, but we are not followers; we create and make others follow.' She admits having to self-censor many aspects of her productions. 'Of course, you can play it safe, but if you're intelligent, you should know what your purpose is.' While Pakistani television channels today enjoy far more freedom than under military regimes, it was Pakistan's last military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, who in fact allowed private channels to start. 'Back then we mostly adapted novels into dramas, where the mother was the epitome of goodness,' she says. 'They were slow-paced and good in their own right, but their reach and impact were limited. The subjects were limited too – you couldn't tackle issues like child abuse… You couldn't even show a couple holding hands. That's not the case now.' In contrast, films get caught in layers of bureaucracy with those in different regulatory departments 'sending mixed signals – one says yes, the other says no'. The horrific cases of mob violence in Pakistan affected Siddiqui on a personal level, she said, leading her to create the Tan Man series as a response. 'I don't have the energy anymore to keep running around, directing projects,' she admits. 'But I saw something that shattered me. I just hope some change comes from it – something that makes me feel like I've done my part. If nothing else, at least it brings some awareness.' 'When I see things like this, I know it's already time for me to bow out,' she says. 'But before I do, I want to leave behind something meaningful." Alongside Tan Man Neelo Neel, which runs for 11 episodes, the trilogy features Mann Jogi with nine episodes and Nadaan with eight. The latter tackles the controversial practice of ' Halala Nikah ' and exposes how religious doctrine is exploited for personal political gain. The second installment, Nadaan, directed by filmmaker Mehreen Jabbar (Ramchand Pakistani, 2008), examines the scourge of drug addiction. The story shows how drug addicts pose threats to people around them; they resist the opening of rehabilitation centres that might weaken their grip, hiding behind performative piety to deflect scrutiny, and ultimately incite mob violence to protect their influence and preserve the toxic ecosystems they benefit from. Cross-border drama Sultana Siddiqui has always strongly favoured the inclusion of cross-border talent in Pakistani and Indian cultural productions. She has participated in various bilateral conferences and meetings, including those organised by Aman Ki Asha (Hope for Peace), a joint platform initiated in 2010 by the two biggest media groups of India and Pakistan. At the 2018 inaugural Pakistan International Film Festival, which Sultana Siddiqui hosted in Karachi, she invited prominent Indian industry figures as guests, including the team behind the blockbuster film Baahubali. But when she informally asked one of them, a veteran writer, to create content for Pakistani audiences, he politely declined, citing 'grave risks'. Sultana Siddiqui advocates for a more equitable exchange of cultural assets between India and Pakistan. She doesn't mind Indian productions hiring Pakistani writers but 'it should be a two-way street. For every writer they take, we should get one in return – maybe even agree on a percentage.' There are other kinds of risks involved in collaboration that may derail such efforts. There have been cases of storylines from Pakistan being picked up by Indian productions but then, 'things were added according to their own wishes.' State policy has also played its part. In 2016, Pakistan banned Indian dramas on its television channels, after India's unofficial curbs on Pakistani artists. The blackout, she notes, did give a short-term boom to homegrown content, but the real game-changer has been the rise of digital streaming platforms. Not all of Hum TV's projects have been free from critique. The 2019 television series Ehd-e-Wafa, a collaboration with the military's media wing, the Inter-Services Public Relations, drew criticism for glorifying the army and depicting other professions and state institutions unfairly. Earlier ISPR-sponsored shows like Alpha Bravo Charlie (1998) and Sunehre Din (1991) focused on military life without overt political messaging. Asked whether private channels should be subject to such influence, Sultana Siddiqui stresses that collaboration should involve professionals who understand the craft. The conversation with Sultana Siddiqui took place in Urdu and the quotes provided are approximate English translations.
Scroll.in
10 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
India's bulldozer demolitions are being fuelled by political silence
In June, the Assam government demolished just over 600 Muslim homes in Goalpara district in what it described as a crackdown on ' illegal encroachments '. In Jahangirpuri in Delhi, homes and shops were razed despite a Supreme Court stay in April. The next month, the Ahmedabad municipality demolished 8,500 houses in Danilimda in a drive aimed at 'illegal Bangladeshis'. The same month, in Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh, a mosque under construction was demolished without warning. Bulldozers have emerged as the state's favourite weapon in Narendra Modi's India, flattening Muslim neighbourhoods with clinical choreography. Each such demolition redraws the geography of citizenship and belonging. Like Israel's bulldozers in Gaza and the West Bank, India's bulldozers flatten buildings while erasing memory, rewriting history and reinforcing majoritarian rule. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben warns of the 'state of exception': legal limbo where democratic rights are suspended in the name of national interest. Agamben's 'state of exception' is evident when citizenship is overridden by suspicion, when due process is abandoned and when the law is fashioned into a tool of punishment. The state that is meant to protect rights becomes an agent of violation. 'We lost everything in a day,' Fatima Begum, a mother of four in Goalpara told The Observer Post. 'My children now suffer in the heat and rain. We only ask for dignity and safety.' Dignity is precisely what is being denied, deliberately. In Goalpara, the administration cited a 2021 land notification, claiming that the homes were located in a wetland. If that is true, why were only Muslim homes demolished? Were notices issued? What compensation was paid? Was there the basic recognition that these are landowners, labourers, teachers, children – citizens? 'This is not just an attack on property but on our identity,' schoolteacher Imran Hussain told The Observer Post. The bulldozer, as the mascot of a majoritarian state, arrives after riots, militant attacks or just before elections. It performs collective punishment, collapses the law into spectacle and leaves behind silence. It is demographic engineering bearing a saffron flag. The bulldozer is theology in motion. It enforces a belief that Muslims are intruders on Indian soil and their citizenship conditional. As damning as the state's actions is the near-silence or symbolic deflection of the so-called secular parties. In Assam, the Congress opposition leader wrote to Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of the Bharatiya Janata Party to halt the evictions and the police reportedly stopped an eight-member delegation from reaching the site. But beyond this procedural tokenism, there has been no serious political reckoning, no sustained outrage. Not one senior national leader of the Congress, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Samajwadi Party or Trinamool Congress showed up. Apart from a few headlines, there was no press conference or protest. There is now a quiet consensus across much of the political spectrum that Muslim suffering no longer warrants attention. The logic is cynical and dangerous: Muslims will not vote for the BJP anyway, so why speak? Why risk Hindu votes by opposing bulldozers? A few lone voices, like Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Subhashini Ali, have spoken out. But most parties are mute, cautious or calculating, treating Muslim pain as a liability rather than a constitutional crisis. This is the new arithmetic of Indian politics. Parties flaunt their Hinduness, visiting temples, reciting mantras, donning sacred threads, believing that if they just appear Hindu enough, political victory is certain. However, Hindutva is not just a vote bank but a project of erasure. The more political parties pander to this script, the more they become like the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi – hollow, spineless, and complicit. The BJP may have started the bulldozer down this dangerous path, but it is the silence of the rest that propels it forward. Much like the Zionist strategies in Palestine, where demolitions serve to fragment, displace and erase Palestinian presence, India's Hindutva regime is scripting its own slow-motion Nakba. Even the Supreme Court, which has declared such demolitions 'totally unconstitutional', is routinely ignored. When bulldozers move faster than law, what remains of constitutionalism? More than a 'Muslim issue', this is a warning to every Indian. When citizenship becomes negotiable for one community, all are rendered vulnerable. We are witnessing the emergence of a parallel era where excavators dictate justice and headlines normalise apartheid. Where displaced women are forced to give birth in plastic tents. Where children study in the shadows of debris. Where heatstroke deaths are accepted collateral in the war against an unwanted identity. The bulldozer is an emblem of Hindu supremacy that leaves behind broken lives and the broken promise of equal citizenship. Listen to the sound of a republic disappearing: crumbling homes and the steady hum of machinery.
The Print
10 minutes ago
- The Print
Modi's Bharat vs Indira's India: 11-yr report card of politics, diplomacy, economy, nationalism
Mrs Gandhi and Modi took over in completely different circumstances. There was also the differential in political capital they began with. Mrs Gandhi had not won an election in 1966. She was a convenient compromise after Lal Bahadur Shastri's death. She didn't help her cause by looking overawed in Parliament early on, and socialist Ram Manohar Lohia dismissed her as a 'goongi gudiya' (a doll who didn't speak). She had also inherited a broken economy. The growth rate in 1965 was negative, -2.6 percent in fact. The triple blow of a war, droughts, food shortages and instability, and the deaths of two Prime Ministers in harness within 19 months had weakened India. First of all, we need to look at the larger political realities in which each took over power and the challenges to their authority. Then we will assess their record across four dimensions: politics, strategic and foreign affairs, the economy, and nationalism. On the day Narendra Modi won his third term in June, 2024, it was inevitable that this year, he would become India's second longest serving Prime Minister in consecutive terms, surpassing Indira Gandhi (24 January, 1966 to 24 March, 1977). It also became inevitable, therefore, that around this time in 2025, the season of Modi vs Indira comparisons will begin. Let me be the first, or among the first, off the block. The picture for Modi in 2014 was the exact opposite. He won a majority, the first in India after 30 years, and was his party's chosen candidate; the economy was averaging a robust 6.5 percent growth across the preceding 15 years. His was a peaceful, planned, predictable electoral transition. The degree of difficulty on his first day in power was way lower than Mrs Gandhi's, just as his political capital was enormously higher. It is also important to underline that Mrs Gandhi's 11th year wasn't electorally earned, but self-gifted by mauling the Constitution in a Parliament where she had a brute majority (Congress was 352 out of 518) and the Opposition in jail. In contrast, Modi's third term was earned through general elections, though he fell short of a majority this time. His 11 years have seen no challenge, either within his party or from the Opposition. The global situation has also mostly remained stable and favourable, until the arrival of Trump 2.0. Also Read: RSS chief Bhagwat draws the line at 75. India's politics stares at the Modi Exception Now, the comparisons across the four dimensions we listed. On domestic politics, the first question is: who's been the strongest Prime Minister of India, Modi or Indira? The rest don't count. While Mrs Gandhi redefined her politics in an ideology (deep-pink socialist) first out of compulsion and then preference, Modi was born, dyed and seasoned in his (saffron). Mrs Gandhi's power ebbed and peaked with the times. Modi's has almost been constant, barring the few months of hard dip after the 240 seats of 2024. Even at 240 now, one challenge he need not bother about is from within his party. He's marginalised all, replacing the state satraps with unknown lightweights. That isn't so different from Mrs Gandhi. On ruthlessness, therefore, they are equally matched. On dealing with the Opposition and free speech, the Emergency will be a hard act to match even if somebody—God forbid—wished to do so. On the respect for institutions, the competition is tough, like a dead heat. For convenience, let's limit ourselves to just one institution: the Rashtrapati. With V.V. Giri, Mrs Gandhi reduced the job to that of a porcelain president: a fragile, ornamental object expected to do nothing except sign on the dotted line. The Modi era presidents have been of a piece with those. Modi rose with the power of a '56-inch chest', Mrs Gandhi was often described in times innocent of political correctness as the only man in her Cabinet. Both lived up to these propositions. With Mrs Gandhi, we saw another manifestation of political skill, out of power and back again in 1977-84. But that period is out of the syllabus in this 11-year comparison. Also Read: One prime minister's 19-month legacy is bigger than another's Emergency An important question is who kept India's cohesion better. Mrs Gandhi ruthlessly fought insurgencies in Mizoram and Nagaland. Her troubles on this score came post-1980. Modi has made a dramatic improvement in the Kashmir Valley, and continued with normalisation in the Northeast. But Manipur is an unending failure. A big positive is the near destruction of the Maoists in east-central tribal India. This dovetails neatly into strategic and foreign affairs. Mrs Gandhi's 11 years were across the peak of the Cold War. She signed a treaty with the Soviet Union with a cleverly drafted mutual security clause, endured the Nixon-Kissinger tilt to China, and deftly navigated the narrow spaces still available to India. Modi started out with a 'friends with all' approach but Pakistan-China realities soon caught up with personalised diplomacy. Mrs Gandhi announced India's nuclear status in 1974 (Pokhran-1) but it took Modi in 2019 (Balakot) and in 2025 (Operation Sindoor) to call Pakistan's nuclear bluff. That's a big plus in his corner. As things soured in the neighbourhood, India warmed up to the US/West and then the complexity of Ukraine arose. This gave rise to multi-alignment. The Trump bull has trampled all over this China shop. Pakistan is playing the US and China as it did in 1971. And like Mrs Gandhi then, Modi has to look for alternatives, but then, the Soviet Union is long gone. His predicament is tougher than Mrs Gandhi's in 1971, but India is enormously stronger. The economy is where we might have expected to see many contrasts, but surprisingly, there are many similarities, too. Modi came to power promising to be the exact opposite of Mrs Gandhi, asserting that it's no business of the government to be in business. But on many basic instincts, he's emulated her. The larger, if enormously more efficient distributive politics, for example. An abiding commitment to the public sector instead of privatisation. Even this year, the budget allocated Rs 5 trillion for fresh investments in PSUs. Compare that with our defence budget, Rs 6.81 trillion. Modi has brought in some significant reform—digital payments, GST and the bankruptcy code. Many others, from mining to manufacturing and electricity economics, are meandering. In his first and second terms, Modi attempted some audacious reform—land acquisition, farm and labour reform laws, lateral entry into civil services. All have been given up now. Until Trump came to power, Modi seemed settled into the 6-6.5 percent figure, which we'd risk calling the Hindutva rate of growth. The logic: a politics driven by Hindu identity and polarisation would win elections with 6-6.5 percent risk-free. The Trump arm-twisting and the resultant free trade agreements have rocked that leisurely cruise. Let's see if this can force fresh reform at gunpoint. And finally, how do we compare the two greatest proponents of employing nationalism in their politics? For Mrs Gandhi the backdrop was multiple wars between 1962 and 1971. India was already a jai jawan, jai kisan country. The liberation of Bangladesh, Green Revolution and non-aligned world's adulation fuelled her nationalism. Modi's nationalism is more muscular, in military livery. We can't prejudge the consequences of a commitment trap in promising to respond militarily to a terror act and leave it to historians to reflect on the consequences of such strategic predictability. Under Modi, a new Hinduised nationalism has emerged. While this has united a critical mass of Hindus to keep him secure, it has also created divisions. India's adversaries would be tempted to run a dagger through these. We've seen the Pakistanis try that not just with our Muslims but also the Sikhs, especially during Operation Sindoor. Also Read: You can put words in Mrs Gandhi's mouth & get away. But too much fiction, and you mess with Bhindranwale
