Row over ‘disrespect to Ambedkar portrait' on Lalu Prasad birthday: SC panel asks Bihar officials for action taken report
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) Thursday wrote to Bihar's Chief Secretary and Director General of Police (DGP) amid the controversy over RJD chief Lalu Prasad allegedly disrespecting Dr B R Ambedkar's portrait.
The letter dated June 19, signed by NCSC Joint Secretary H Kam Suanthang, said that it came to the commission's notice from reports that Lalu Prasad had insulted Dr Ambedkar's photo on June 11, during his 78th birthday celebrations.
The Commission has directed the state's top officials 'to submit a report on action taken within 15 days', warning that failure to respond could result in 'summons under constitutional powers granted by Article 338'.
The controversy erupted after a video from Lalu's birthday celebration went viral, showing a party supporter allegedly placing Dr Ambedkar's portrait near Lalu's feet.
On June 13, the Bihar State Commission for Scheduled Castes had already issued a notice referenced to the video, asking Lalu to 'explain his side within 15 days'. The state commission said that 'failure to respond would be interpreted as intentional disrespect' and will lead to 'registration of a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act'.
The ruling BJP and NDA allies criticised the incident, and accused Lalu of 'insulting the architect of the Constitution' and 'hurting Dalit sentiments'.
Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary had called it an 'unpardonable insult'.
Union Minister Jitan Ram Manjhi, LJP (Ram Vilas) MP from Samastipur Sambhavi Choudhary, and other NDA leaders also said that the act was 'disrespecting'and 'insulting' to Dalits.
BJP leaders have amplified the issue on social media and demanded a public apology from the RJD founder.
Meanwhile, the RJD had dismissed the allegations as politically motivated, with party spokesperson Mrityunjay Tiwari claiming the video is being 'misrepresented to polarise voters and malign Lalu's image before the polls'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
43 minutes ago
- India.com
Can Trump Go To War With Iran? The 50-Year-Old Law That Few Presidents Fear
Washington/New Delhi: When President Donald Trump was asked on the White House lawn whether the United States might join Israel in its war with Iran, he gave a vague, provocative and open-ended reply in his signature style. 'I may do it. I may not,' he shrugged. The words were casual and almost dismissive. But they carried the weight of a nation. With every passing hour, the possibility of American boots stepping into a new Middle Eastern firestorm seems less hypothetical. His administration, too, has made its stance clear. 'He (Trump) is the one making the decisions. What comes next is his call,' said State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce. But not everyone agrees that war should hinge on one man's instinct. Some lawmakers and peace advocates are once again invoking a nearly forgotten piece of legislation that was supposed to stop presidents from doing exactly this. It is called the War Powers Act, which was passed in 1973. It was meant to rein in the president's power to send soldiers into foreign battles without Congress's approval. Whether it still has any real teeth, though, is up for debate. A Promise Made After a Bloody Past The War Powers Resolution was born from the trauma of Vietnam – a war launched with no formal declaration, prolonged through executive decisions and paid for with tens of thousands of American lives. When it finally passed, over President Nixon's veto, the Congress was trying to reclaim some control over the blood and money being spent without their consent. The law says the president must inform the Congress within 48 hours of any military action. It also sets a 60-to-90-day limit unless lawmakers approve an extension. The idea was to stop secret wars and endless deployments without public scrutiny. But that is not how things unfolded. The last time the Congress formally declared war was 1942. Since then, U.S. presidents have sent troops to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and dozens of other countries – sometimes for full-scale invasions, other times for airstrikes or covert missions. Instead of declarations of war, the Congress started using something called an Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). After 9/11, one such authorisation gave President George W. Bush sweeping powers to pursue terrorists across the globe. Another, in 2002, authorised military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Those authorisations are still being used today. Trump cited the 2002 AUMF to justify the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020. That strike nearly brought the United States and Iran to the brink of war without the Congress ever voting on it. The Constitution says the Congress has the power. So what happened? Technically, the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to declare war. But over the decades, that power has been slowly swallowed by the executive branch. The president is the commander-in-chief. That title, often interpreted loosely, has become a tool to bypass Capitol Hill. Even when lawmakers try to reassert themselves, they run into brick walls. In 2019, the Congress voted to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Trump vetoed it. In 2020, after the Soleimani strike, both the House and Senate passed a resolution to limit the president's ability to strike Iran. Trump vetoed that too. The Congress did not have the votes to override him. What Happens Now? As tensions rise again, with Israel bombing Iranian sites and Iran responding in kind, some lawmakers are trying to stop a wider war before it starts. Senator Tim Kaine has introduced legislation requiring Trump to seek congressional approval before launching strikes on Iran. Congressman Ro Khanna and Senator Bernie Sanders are backing similar bills. But with both chambers now under the Republican control, the chances of these bills surviving a veto are slim. The real test is not legal. It is political. Do lawmakers have the courage and the numbers to pull the brakes on a president ready to act unilaterally? The War Powers Act matters; but in practice, it rarely stops anything. More than 100 times since 1973, presidents have reported military action to the Congress under the law. But very few of those actions were ever challenged or reversed. Critics say the law is toothless and more of a formality than a firewall. Even former President Joe Biden, who once criticised its limits as a senator, has sidestepped the War Powers Act in recent years. Regardless of who is in charge, the White House tends to argue that 'emergency' powers and AUMFs are enough. As war brews once more in the Middle East, the stakes are no longer hypothetical. Americans could again be drawn into a conflict that starts with one missile but escalates quickly beyond control. The War Powers Act was written to stop exactly that. Whether it can still do the job or whether Trump will ignore it like so many presidents before him remains an open question. But if history offers any warning, it is this – once the war begins, the Congress may be the last to find out, and the people the last to understand why.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Speaker expunges oppn remarks, says ‘hear replies before walkouts'
Kolkata: "When you ask questions, hear out the replies," speaker Biman Banerjee on Thursday told BJP legislators staging a walkout before allowing state finance minister Chandrima Bhattacharya to respond to discussions on the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Amendment Bill, 2025. Warning of stern action, Banerjee expunged statements made by BJP MLAs during the day from the assembly proceedings. The issue started during the debate on the bill. BJP MLAs, including economist Ashok Lahiri and Ambika Roy, participated in the discussion. Lahiri even remarked that BJP was ready to listen to govt's response. However, soon after his speech, BJP MLAs led by its chief whip Shankar Ghosh began exiting the House. Although Lahiri initially remained seated, he too eventually left after being prodded by Ghosh. As Bhattacharya began her formal reply, the opposition benches were nearly empty. Outraged, she said, "They leave before hearing us. This cannot go on." Banerjee invoked assembly rules and said the opposition's remarks would be deleted from the day's proceedings. He added that according to rules, members cannot leave the House immediately after delivering their speeches. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo The speaker said: "I have never seen such behaviour from the opposition before. They are continuously showing disrespect to the sanctity of the House. I do not want to exclude anyone, but if this continues, we will be forced to take sterner action." Terming it "highly unfortunate", Banerjee said "from now on, if such incidents are repeated, the opposition's entire statement will be expunged." The minister then asked the speaker if she should respond to the opposition's now-expunged points. "You don't need to reply. Just deliver your speech," Banerjee said. Bhattacharya said the amendments aimed to benefit both the tax assessee and state govt. "It will be a win-win situation for both if the principal tax can be recovered through a settlement without entering into legal disputes," she said. In the absence of opposition members, the bill was passed by a voice vote. BJP MLAs defended their action, saying they were given insufficient time to review the bill. Ghosh said they decided to leave the House before the minister's reply to register their protest.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
BJP govt's refusal to release Keeladi report an attack on Tamil culture: CM
Chennai: Chief minister M K Stalin said the Union govt's refusal to publish Keeladi report even after two years of its submission was an attack on Tamil culture. "The Union BJP government, which seeks to suppress the cultural pride of Tamils by delaying the release of Keeladi excavation findings, has returned the final report submitted two years ago citing the need for additional evidence. This is a blatant attack by the BJP regime on Tamil culture," he said in a letter to cadres. Stalin said the Union govt's decision to turn down the report despite scientific backing, even as it continues to promote the 'imaginary' Saraswati civilisation which lacks scientific evidence, speaks about 'BJP's hatred for TN'. "Till now, the BJP has not been able to prove the existence of Saraswati civilization through any scientific methods. On the other hand, every artifact unearthed from the Keeladi, has undergone rigorous internationally accepted scientific analysis," he said. Stalin also hit out at the AIADMK, alleging the party was silent despite Tamil cultural identity being suppressed. "Keeladi excavations took place when the AIADMK was in power in Tamil Nadu. However, the AIADMK has remained silent on the racial and linguistic hegemony shown by BJP by rejecting the Keeladi findings," he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Stalin said AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami was silent because he had mortgaged his party to BJP. He charged that a former AIADMK minister had gone to the extent of describing Keeladi, a Tamil civilization as 'Bharat civilization,' in a bid to please the BJP. Stalin said that TN govt has proven, through international studies on the antiquity of iron, that Tamil culture dates back more than 5,300 years. "It was the Dravidian model govt that released those findings. Yet, not a single tweet has been made by the Prime Minister or any BJP leader regarding the findings that establish the ancientness of Tamil culture," he said.
