Row over remark on Pahalgam widows: Congress seeks action against BJP MP; Will discuss remarks with him, says Haryana women's body chief
The Haryana Women's Commission should take cognizance of the comments made by BJP MP Ram Chander Jangra about women who lost their husbands in the Pahalgam terrorist attack in April, senior Haryana Congress leader, Pearl Chaudhary said Sunday.
Jangra, during a public event in Bhiwani on Saturday, said, 'Women, who lost their husbands, did not have the spirit and vigour. Therefore, they became victims of the attack … Terrorists do not leave one with requests. Our people died with folded hands… Had they fought, the casualties would have been fewer,' Jangra had said at an event organised to mark the 300th birth anniversary of Ahilyabai Holkar.
Chaudhary said his statements were a case fit for the Commission to take cognisance.
'If you look at the what the law (the Haryana State Commission for Women Act) says, the body's function is to 'investigate and examine all matters relating to the safeguards provided for women under the Constitution and other laws', and 'take suo motu notice of matters relating to deprivation of women's rights… Comparing the widows, who were just tourists, to warriors of the past out of context, is not right,' she said.
'Those queens were mentally prepared for war at the time. What the MP has said… Just imagine he is implying that Himashi Narwal was not willing to fight for her husband. His remarks will leave a permanent scar on her; the Commission ought to have stepped in and asked for his resignation.'
Haryana Women's Commission chairperson Renu Bhatia on Sunday told The Indian Express that she will speak to Jangra before taking a call on action against him.
'I am not in town… I have yet to go through the contents of the (MP's) speech in question. From whatever little I heard from others and through the media, it is very unclear what his intent was. Whether it was said in a positive or negative context has to be seen. I will speak with him first, get his explanation and then decide (on what to do). The commission has not planned anything yet,' Bhatia said.
The chairperson had earlier this month sought action against Ashoka University Assistant Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his social media post on Operation Sindoor and filed a police complaint against him.
Chaudhary, meanwhile, said there was a 'pervasive anti-women mindset in the saffron party'.
'There should be an open debate on the remarks. In the professor's case, the way she (Bhatia) conducted herself was totally wrong and indefensible.'
Jangra, meanwhile, told The Indian Express that nobody at the event had objected, and women there took selfies with him after and praised his speech.
'There is no question of me being against the martyrs or their wives. In fact, I am such an emotional man that I could not sleep for days after the terror attack, so how does the question of insulting the victims and widows even arise.'
He added that the remarks had been made specifically in the context of Ahilyabai's life, of her bravery and her not surrendering to enemies.
'I spoke at around 10 am. Only in the evening the news channels took distorted clippings of my speech and kept playing it on loop. Before that I was not aware. The party asked me for an explanation, and I told them about the context of my words, and my respect for the victims… In no way did I show disrespect to what the terror attack victims had to go through.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
31 minutes ago
- Mint
PM Modi to meet all-party global outreach delegations on Operation Sindoor today
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will meet with the members of the all-party delegation today at 7 PM at his residence, 7 Lok Kalyan Marg, under Operation Sindoor outreach. The all-party delegations that toured the world to explain Operation Sindoor are back home. Parliamentary Affairs Kiren Rijiju's office has informed the delegation members about the meeting, according to sources quoted by news agency ANI. Seven delegations visited several countries to address audiences, policymakers, and elected representatives on India's position on Pakistan's decades-long promotion of terrorism and New Delhi's new normal in tackling cross-border terror after Operation Sindoor. The multi-party delegations—comprising 59 lawmakers and former diplomats—travelled to 33 countries, including the European Union. The delegation included MPs from multiple parties, divided into seven groups consisting of 8-9 members. A leader was assigned for each group, who led the delegation on a global level. The delegations were headed by senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, Bharatiya Janata Party leaders Ravi Shankar Prasad and Panda, Janata Dal (United) leader Sanjay Jha, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) leader Supriya Sule, and Shiv Sena leader Shrikant Shinde. As many as 26 people were killed and several others injured in the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam on 22 April. Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor on 7 May, targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The delegations, apart from putting forward India's position against terror also highlighted how Pakistan has been sponsoring terror and using it against India, while also calling Pakistan to be put in the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF) grey list. Operation Sindoor was launched on May 7 in response to the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam. 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. Key Takeaways Operation Sindoor was launched in response to a terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir, targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan. The all-party delegations included representatives from multiple political parties and aimed to present India's position on terrorism to a global audience. The delegations visited 33 countries, emphasizing Pakistan's role in sponsoring terrorism and advocating for its inclusion in the FATF's grey list.
Indian Express
41 minutes ago
- Indian Express
A T20 for the Global South: The case for an India-led bloc against terrorism
The terror attack in Pahalgam and the subsequent Indian military response, Operation Sindoor, have once again brought into sharp focus a reality that many in the Global South live with daily: Terrorism is not just an isolated security threat, it is an ongoing war by other means. While India showcased military precision and diplomatic discipline during the crisis, the global response to its actions also exposed gaps in the current international system's ability to credibly and swiftly respond to terror. From these developments emerges a compelling case for a new platform, an India-led initiative: The T20 — Twenty Against Terrorism. The Pahalgam terror attack, audacious in its planning and brutal in its execution, sparked public outrage and political consensus within India. Operation Sindoor, a swift, targeted military campaign in response, reaffirmed India's doctrine of proactive defence. Yet, while the operation achieved its tactical goals, the international diplomatic terrain proved more complex. While allies like the United States, France, and Israel tacitly or overtly supported India, other global institutions such as the United Nations and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) defaulted to calls for 'restraint' and 'dialogue' without assigning responsibility. China, predictably, shielded Pakistan diplomatically. Russia, once a reliable strategic partner, chose calibrated silence. This pattern is familiar and frustrating. The international architecture for counter-terrorism — including the UN, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and the Global Counterterrorism Forum — either lacks teeth, is entangled in geopolitical rivalries, or remains anchored in a Western security paradigm that does not fully reflect the lived realities of terrorism in South Asia, Africa, or the Middle East. The idea of T20 — Twenty Against Terrorism — stems from this chronic mismatch between global terror frameworks and the regional intensity of the threat. It proposes a dedicated alliance of 20 countries, led by India, comprising nations from the Global South who face frequent, asymmetrical, and politically complex terror threats. These include Indonesia, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, Mali, Fiji, the Philippines, and others — countries that, like India, often find themselves battling both state-sponsored and ideologically driven terrorist violence without adequate global support. The mandate of T20 would not be to duplicate existing institutions but to supplement them with agility, real-time coordination, and a Global South-first perspective. It would focus on intelligence sharing through a joint task force; capacity building and counter-radicalisation programmes; joint diplomatic statements to name and shame state sponsors of terrorism; a permanent platform to address emerging threats like cyber-terrorism, drone-based warfare, and crypto-financing of extremism. Having dealt with decades of cross-border terror, India has both the experience and the credibility to lead such an initiative. Unlike the West, which often views terrorism through the lens of episodic attacks or homeland security, countries in the Global South confront it as a continuous, multi-generational battle. Moreover, unlike Western coalitions that are often seen as politically selective or militarily interventionist, a T20 rooted in the Global South would command moral legitimacy and operational relevance. The timing also matters. As multilateralism falters under the weight of big-power rivalries, smaller groupings are proving more nimble and effective — be it the Quad, I2U2, or ASEAN-led security platforms. T20 fits this trend and fills a glaring institutional gap: the absence of a platform focused specifically on terror from the perspective of its most frequent victims. Importantly, the T20 would not seek to replace the UN or the FATF but to operate as a conscience-keeper and action-accelerator. It would bring in countries often left on the sidelines of global security debates. It would lend weight to bilateral diplomacy by providing collective legitimacy. And it would foster collaboration beyond the militaristic models of the past, emphasising data, digital tools, community resilience, and development-linked de-radicalisation. The moral case for T20 lies in its inclusivity. Countries like Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam may not dominate global headlines, but they, too, have faced acts of terror that scarred their national psyche. A platform where their voices matter — where their intelligence inputs are valued, their pain recognised — would be a radical departure from the hierarchical nature of most global institutions. Strategically, India also benefits. T20 would provide it with leadership stature without the baggage of military entanglement. It affirms its image as a responsible, proactive power and strengthens its positioning as the voice of the Global South. With its experience, digital capacity, and diplomatic network, India is well-placed to host the T20 secretariat, offer training hubs, and shape the global counter-terror narrative from New Delhi. Operation Sindoor was India's immediate answer to a proximate threat. But the deeper lesson is that reactive strikes, however precise, are not enough. What is needed is a shift from episodic response to permanent institutional architecture. T20 answers that call. It is an idea whose time has come, and whose urgency is underscored by every fresh act of terror that rocks cities from Srinagar to Surabaya. India must now take the next step — not just to defend itself, but to offer leadership to all those who, like it, stand on the frontline of an undeclared global war. The writer is a former foreign secretary
News18
an hour ago
- News18
'Scoot And Shoot' Politics? Rahul Gandhi's Nicknames For PM Modi, Jaishankar Spark Political Row
Last Updated: This raises the question if Rahul Gandhi is turning into another Arvind Kejriwal, as the former Delhi CM was often accused of making allegations without substantiating them JJ or 'Jaichand" Jaishankar, a moniker coined by senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi came about after a video surfaced of the external affairs minister speaking to a Pakistani before 'Operation Sindoor'. Despite a clarification from the central government, the nickname stuck but not for too long. Rahul Gandhi soon coined another name, this time for the Prime Minister — 'Narender Surrender" — which he first mentioned at a rally in Madhya Pradesh's Bhopal. The term gained traction as the Congress used memes and social media to accuse Modi of allowing US President Donald Trump to mediate between India and Pakistan. As the Congress and BJP locked horns, Gandhi shifted focus. Within 24 hours of visiting Bihar, he wrote a newspaper article about 'match fixing" in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections, accusing the BJP and the Election Commission of India (ECI) of manipulating voter data. Now, this has raised questions if he is turning into another Arvind Kejriwal? The former Delhi chief minister was often accused of 'scoot and shoot" politics — making allegations without following them up with proof or substantiating them. It looks like Gandhi and the BJP are engaged in a cat-and-mouse game, where neither can ignore each other nor peacefully coexist. The BJP's strategy involves responding to every comment by the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha. They aim to keep him in the news, believing that frequent rebuttals will discredit him. The Congress, however, is no longer willing to accept the 'Pappu' tag. They assert that Gandhi's allegations have often proven true. Let's consider three recent instances. Next, the 'Narender Surrender" comment: the BJP refuted it, and the Congress faced embarrassment when its own leaders, part of the delegation, denied the claim. Even senior leader Salman Khurshid, who has a good relationship with top leaders, dismissed the tag. Finally, the Maharashtra issue: the EC has countered Gandhi's accusation multiple times. Moreover, the Congress ally in Bihar was upset that the issue was raised ahead of state polls. The BJP now awaits the next issue Gandhi will tackle. A senior BJP leader told News18 that attacking him earns them brownie points. His inconsistency, they said, reinforces the perception of him as a non-serious leader who retreats when the going gets tough. First Published: June 10, 2025, 07:00 IST
