Congress leaders lash out at Shashi Tharoor for praising Operation Sindoor
This edition of Super 6 delves into the internal conflict within the Congress party sparked by Shashi Tharoor's comments praising the 2016 surgical strike. Several senior Congress leaders have publicly criticised Tharoor, accusing him of acting as a BJP mouthpiece. Tharoor has defended his remarks, stating he was referring to the 2016 strike as setting a precedent. The controversy has led Congress leader Udit Raj to demand an apology from Tharoor. The party leadership appears miffed with Tharoor, with speculation about potential disciplinary action.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
BJP, Sena (UBT) MLAs face-off at DPC meeting over Dalit fund allocation
1 2 3 4 Akola: High political drama was witnessed at the Akola District Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday after a heated exchange between BJP MLA Randhir Savarkar and Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA Nitin Deshmukh. Sparks flew during discussions over the allocation of Rs36 crore meant for Dalit development, leading to verbal abuse, shouting match, and an attempt to charge at each other inside the meeting hall. The situation escalated to such a degree that guardian minister Aakash Fundkar and other MLAs had to intervene to prevent further disorder. However, the tension continued beyond the meeting room. Supporters from both political sides gathered outside the planning building near the collector's office, where another round of verbal altercations and minor scuffles broke out. Speaking to the media, Fundkar claimed "nothing major" had occurred, but indirectly acknowledged the tension by questioning, "Should we remain silent against false accusations?" NCP MLA Amol Mitkari confirmed there was disruption inside the meeting hall. Congress MLA Sajid Khan Pathan also condemned the incident, accusing the BJP of suppressing opposition voices in the district and across the state. Political observers and local citizens have expressed concern that such public displays of political hostility could spill onto the streets and negatively impact developmental work in the district. The incident, they say, reflects a troubling trend in Maharashtra's political climate.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
We were there to explain India's 'new normal': Jay Panda on global outreach campaign
BJP MP Jay Panda, who headed the global outreach delegations on Operation Sindoor which visited Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Algeria, talked about the message they sent across and how it was received by the countries. When asked about what was your message to strategic partners like Saudi Arabia and how was your message received by other Islamic countries through this visit since Pakistan continues to play the Muslim card? Jay Panda said, "Our message was very clear. Our message is that we've gone through this same cycle of terrorism for 78 years. Pakistan sending cross-border terrorists and the whole cycle, the whole rigmarole, provoking attacks and nuclear blackmail. And so we were there to explain the new normal, new India's new normal, which is that we will retaliate and we will specifically target terrorist bases."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Expands Reverse Discrimination Claims for Majority Groups, ET LegalWorld
A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' - without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's "largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups."Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans."Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing "background circumstances" that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such Jackson wrote that "this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute."
