Gurjar mahapanchayat: Some members stall train; Bainsla downplays protest, says happy with govt response
However, after the Mahapanchayat concluded, a section of community members expressed discontent with the government's response.
The meeting at the Karwari Shaheed Memorial in the Pilupura area of Bayana was convened by the Gurjar Aarakshan Sangharsh Samiti and a draft of the state government's response to their demands was read by Samiti president Vijay Bainsla.
Jaipur, Jun 8 (PTI) Some members of the Gurjar community held a protest on rail tracks and stalled a passenger train in Rajasthan's Bharatpur district on Sunday after taking part in a Mahapanchayat to press their various demands including on reservation, officials said.
The protesters gathered on the railway tracks and stopped the 54794 Mathura-Sawaimadhopur passenger train at Fatehsinghpura near Bayana town, West Central Railway Chief Public Relations Officer (CPRO) said.
'The train is halted for one and a half hours. Railway Protection Force (RPF), local police and railway and administrative authorities are holding talks with the protesters,' the CPRO said this evening.
Asked about the protest, Vijay Bainsla, son of the late Kirodi Singh Bainsla who had led several Gurjar agitations on the quota issue, said that the entire community and leaders are happy with the government's response on their main demands.
He said some people might have come on track. 'I don't want to comment much on it,' he said, downplaying the protest.
'To get the 5 per cent reservation to Most Backward Classes (MBC) included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, a proposal would be recommended by the state cabinet and it would urge the Centre (to ensure its passage). The entire community wanted this. It is a legislative issue. We all are happy,' Bainsla told PTI, adding it was their key demand.
The Ninth Schedule contains a list of central and state laws that cannot be challenged in court.
Bainsla said another demand was that a nodal officer should be appointed in every district to dispose of the police cases against community members during the Gurjar agitation. 'The government has agreed to it,' he claimed.
Earlier in the day, the Samiti had issued an ultimatum to the BJP government to respond by Sunday afternoon to its demands.
Rajasthan's Minister of State for Home Jawahar Singh Bedham had appealed to the Gurjar leadership to avoid agitation.
'In a democracy, everyone has the right to express their views. But when the government is willing to hold talks without any Mahapanchayat or protest, what is the need for one?' he said He also appealed personally to Vijay Bainsla, noting that he maintains close ties with party leaders.
'He contested the Deoli-Uniyara seat and attends party meetings. I urge him to resolve the issues through dialogue,' the minister said.
Due to the Mahapanchayat, traffic movement between Bayana (Bharatpur) and Hindaun City (Karauli) was diverted.
Vehicles were rerouted via Karauli and Mahwa (Dausa) through Kalsada, avoiding the Pilupura area. Similarly, traffic from Karauli to Bharatpur was redirected via Hindaun-Kalsada-Bhusawar instead of the Bayana-Hindaun state highway.
Additional police force was deployed in the area to maintain law and order.
Kirori Singh Bainsla led several agitations by the community on the reservation issue since 2006, stalling rail traffic for days on certain routes. PTI AG RT
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
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
Demand for quota in jobs, exams to test govt
Jaipur: The OBC Adhikar Manch, Rajasthan, formally extended its support to the Gurjar Arakshan Manch in their ongoing demand for the full constitutional implementation of the 5% reservation granted to Gurjars, Rebaris, Banjaras, Labanas, and Gairis under the Most Backward Classes (MBC) category in Rajasthan. Lokendra Gurjar, state spokesperson of the OBC Adhikar Manch, released a statement Sunday affirming the Manch's support and expressing deep concern over the continued denial of legal recognition to the quota. "Despite the sacrifices of over 80 community members in the police firing in 2007 and 2008 and repeated promises by successive govts, this reservation still lacks constitutional protection. It is not just a policy failure—it is an injustice," he said. He also highlighted the exclusion of eight southern districts—Banswara, Dungarpur, Pratapgarh, Udaipur, Sirohi, Chittorgarh, Rajsamand, and Pali—from the benefits of the MBC quota, further disadvantaging aspirants in TSP (Tribal Sub-Plan) areas. "Youth from these regions are being systematically excluded from police, REET, patwari, and other key govt recruitments due to lack of age and cut-off relaxations. This must end," he added. Calling on the state govt to act decisively, Gurjar said, "Before the 2023 Assembly elections, Union minister Bhupender Yadav and BJP in-charge Arun Singh promised action on this issue. Now, the govt must fulfil its word. Enough of delays and diversions." The Manch also confirmed that it submitted a memorandum to the chief minister and requested a formal meeting on the issue. "If the govt continues to ignore the genuine and constitutional demand of the Gurjar community, a joint movement cannot be ruled out," said Gurjar.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is a sign of regression
Indian courts today are not defending free speech. They are managing it. And in this curious inversion of constitutional values, we are witnessing a quiet retreat from the principle that animated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: that speech, even provocative, offensive, or unsettling, is the citizen's shield against tyranny — not its tool. Once envisioned as the counter-majoritarian bulwark of our democracy, the judiciary now increasingly resembles an arbiter of decorum, demanding apologies and deference in the name of civility, sensitivity, or national pride. But when courts focus on what was said rather than why the right to say it must be protected, the Republic is left vulnerable to a new tyranny: that of sentiment, outrage, and the lowest tolerance denominator. Let us begin with a chillingly ordinary example: a social media post by a 24-year-old man criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi. after the ceasefire with Pakistan following Operation Sindoor in May 2025. Was this tasteless? Perhaps. But taste is not a constitutional metric. The Allahabad High Court thought otherwise. In rejecting the plea to quash the first information report (FIR), the Bench declared that 'emotions cannot be permitted to overflow to an extent that constitutional authorities of the country are dragged into disrepute'. That is a remarkable formulation. It subtly inverts the constitutional design: the citizen is no longer the source of power holding the state to account, but a child to be reprimanded for speaking too freely. A validation of outrage Instead of interpreting Article 19(1)(a) as a liberty that limits state power, courts have begun treating it as a licence that comes with behavioural conditions — conditions defined not by law but by the perceived dignity of public figures and institutions. Take the Kamal Haasan controversy in connection with his film, Thug Life. The actor made a remark about Kannada being a daughter of Tamil. The Karnataka High Court responded not by evaluating whether the actor's statement met the threshold of incitement, defamation, or hate, but by advising him to apologise to the 'sentiments of the masses'. This advice is corrosive. When courts suggest apologies for lawful speech, they set a precedent that expression must pass a popularity test. They validate the very outrage that threatens free speech, rather than shielding expression from it. An apology does not close the loop but only widens it, inviting further claims of offence. In Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia vs Union Of India, the 'digital content creator and podcaster' was confronted with judicial comments bordering on cultural supervision for his use of explicit language in a podcast. The court directed the Union to clarify whether such 'vulgar' language fell outside constitutional protection. Here again, the concern was not whether the speech incited harm, but on whether it offended prevailing norms of taste and modesty — a dangerously subjective threshold. Similarly, historian and a professor, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, was dragged into proceedings after sharing critical views on the optics of India using a woman soldier to explain its war situation with Pakistan. The argument was that his comments hurt sentiments. That it even reached court underscores the problem: invoking hurt feelings is now sufficient to invite judicial scrutiny of constitutionally protected speech. The professor's scholarly critique became a matter for judicial assessment and a special investigation to assess whether there was any dog whistle intent that played on the fragility of the audience. A misreading Two disturbing patterns emerge from these cases. First, the judiciary is increasingly equating speech that provokes emotional reactions with legally actionable harm. This misreads the Constitution and the rationale of a democracy. The test for restricting speech under Article 19(2) is not whether it angers, irritates, or offends but whether it incites violence, hatred or disrupts public order. Second, by encouraging apologies and moral policing of language, courts create a perverse incentive. The more outrage a comment generates, the more likely it is to be litigated. This does not protect society. It emboldens mobs and serial litigants. It creates a market for offence. This shift is starkly evident in cases that involve the armed forces. In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court denied the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, relief in a defamation case on his alleged derogatory remarks about the Indian Army . The High Court said that the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to 'defame' the military. But defamation, as a legal standard, must be carefully assessed particularly when invoked by or on behalf of state institutions by busy-bodies. Likewise, in a previous first information report against a man using the word 'coward' to describe the Prime Minister after the recent military stand-down, the court saw no issue with Sections 152 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita being invoked — laws meant for threats to sovereignty and public mischief . These laws, meant for sedition-like scenarios, are being contorted to punish sarcasm and satire. It is telling that courts will routinely deny the quashing of FIRs in such cases, claiming that it is too early to interfere and that police investigations must run their course. But this abdication is neither neutral nor passive. For the citizen facing criminal prosecution, the process itself is the punishment. The system does not need a conviction to chill speech. A summons and a charge sheet do the job. The Madras High Court has occasionally resisted this drift. But this was more about narrative correction than structural protection of speech. Courts in India must return to a principle-centric model of speech protection. Instead of obsessing over what was said, they must ask whether the speaker's right was violated, and not someone else's sentiment. Apologies should not be judicial recommendations. They should be individual choices. Otherwise, courts become confessional booths where speech is absolved not by legal reasoning but by remorse. And remorse demanded is remorse devalued — it empowers the outraged, not the rational. The signal to the citizen Moreover, as long as laws such as sedition or the ever-morphing public order clauses remain vague, courts must lean toward liberty. The doctrine of 'chilling effect' that is robust in American and European jurisprudence, has been acknowledged in India's courts but seldom enforced with spine. This is not just about high-profile speech or celebrities. It is about the slow attrition of constitutional confidence. When a YouTuber is told to bleep a joke, or a professor is dragged to court for a tweet, or a film-maker is told to grovel for linguistic pride the signal to the ordinary citizen is clear: express only what is safe, bland and agreeable. But democracies are not built on agreeable speech. They thrive on disagreement — noisy, rude, even reckless at times. The test of a society's strength is not how well it tolerates politeness, but how it handles provocation. Free speech is not just about giving offence, but about withstanding it. If India is to preserve its democratic soul, it must restore the dignity of dissent. It must not demand the dignity of institutions at the cost of liberty. Judges are the guardians of the Constitution, and not the curators of culture. They must protect the right to speak and not the comfort of the listener. Because when speech is chilled in courtrooms, freedom dies not with a bang, but with a sigh of deference. The new age of judicial sensitivity to sentiments is not a sign of progress. It is a sign of regression. It confuses harmony with homogeneity, and respect with restraint. Apologies should never be a legal strategy. And speech should not need blessings to be legitimate. Let our courts not forget that the Republic was not born from politeness but from protest. The Constitution came from the pen of a Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who also wrote, '…the world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not infallible'. Sanjay Hegde is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
All-party Parliamentary delegation wraps up US trip, highlights India's anti-terror resolve
The delegation, which was led by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, was on the final stage of a multi-nation journey to inform key interlocutors on Operation Sindoor read more A multi-party delegation of India, led by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, during an interaction with members of the Indian community, in USA. PTI The all-party Parliamentary delegation concluded its tour to the United States by meeting with US Vice President JD Vance and Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, among other political and diplomatic figures, to emphasise India's strong determination to tackle terrorism coming from Pakistan. The delegation, which was led by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, was on the final stage of a multi-nation journey to inform key interlocutors on Operation Sindoor, which India launched in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist assault that killed 26 people. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The delegation was one of seven multi-party delegations entrusted by India with visiting 33 worldwide capitals to raise awareness of Pakistan's links to terrorism. The delegation arrived in the US capital on June 3 and over the course of three days held a wide array of meetings on Capitol Hill as well as in Washington, briefing the American government officials as well as lawmakers about India's stance on cross-border terrorism. The Indian team met Vice President Vance, Landau, House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) leadership, India Caucus leadership and Senate Foreign Relations Committee leaders and also held meetings and interactions with a host of US Congressmen, think tanks, policy experts, media as well as members of the Indian-American community. Tharoor described the meeting with Vance at the White House for about 25 minutes on Thursday as 'an excellent meeting,' and said the vice president was 'warm and welcoming and receptive.' 'Vance expressed complete understanding, first of all, outrage of what happened in Pahalgam and support and respect for India's restrained response in Operation Sindoor,' Tharoor told PTI after that meeting. After the delegation met Landau on Friday, a statement by State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said that the Deputy Secretary of State 'reaffirmed the United States' strong support of India in the fight against terrorism and the strategic partnership between the two countries.' 'We discussed the US-India strategic relationship, including expanding trade and commercial ties to foster growth and prosperity for both countries,' Landau said. The Indian Embassy said in a statement that during the meeting with Landau, the delegation briefed him on the heinous terrorist attack in Pahalgam, discussed India's subsequent Operation Sindoor, and put forth India's firm resolve to counter cross-border terrorism in all its forms. On the last day of the delegation's scheduled meetings, the delegation oaid homage to Mahatma Gandhi at his statue opposite the Indian Embassy here. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'It is striking how many world capitals are adorned with statues or busts of the Mahatma, the 20th century's greatest apostle of peace, nonviolence, and human freedom,' Tharoor posted on X afterwards. The team, which had arrived from India in New York on May 24, had travelled to Guyana, Panama, Colombia and Brazil before arriving in Washington for the last leg of the tour. The other members of the delegation were Sarfaraz Ahmad (JMM), Ganti Harish Madhur Balayogi (TDP), Shashank Mani Tripathi (BJP), Bhubaneswar Kalita (BJP), Milind Deora (Shiv Sena), Tejasvi Surya (BJP) and India's former Ambassador to the US Taranjit Sandhu. Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated after the Pahalgam terror attack, with India carrying out precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7. The on-ground hostilities from Indian and Pakistan sides that lasted for four days ended with an understanding of stopping the military actions following talks between the directors general of military operations of both sides on May 10. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD diplomatic figures, to emphasise India's strong determination to tackle terrorism coming from Pakistan. The delegation, which was led by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, was on the final stage of a multi-nation journey to inform key interlocutors on Operation Sindoor, which India launched in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist assault that killed 26 people. The delegation was one of seven multi-party delegations entrusted by India with visiting 33 worldwide capitals to raise awareness of Pakistan's links to terrorism. The delegation arrived in the US capital on June 3 and over the course of three days held a wide array of meetings on Capitol Hill as well as in Washington, briefing the American government officials as well as lawmakers about India's stance on cross-border terrorism. The Indian team met Vice President Vance, Landau, House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) leadership, India Caucus leadership and Senate Foreign Relations Committee leaders and also held meetings and interactions with a host of US Congressmen, think tanks, policy experts, media as well as members of the Indian-American community. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Tharoor described the meeting with Vance at the White House for about 25 minutes on Thursday as 'an excellent meeting,' and said the vice president was 'warm and welcoming and receptive.' 'Vance expressed complete understanding, first of all, outrage of what happened in Pahalgam and support and respect for India's restrained response in Operation Sindoor,' Tharoor told PTI after that meeting. After the delegation met Landau on Friday, a statement by State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said that the Deputy Secretary of State 'reaffirmed the United States' strong support of India in the fight against terrorism and the strategic partnership between the two countries.' 'We discussed the US-India strategic relationship, including expanding trade and commercial ties to foster growth and prosperity for both countries,' Landau said. The Indian Embassy said in a statement that during the meeting with Landau, the delegation briefed him on the heinous terrorist attack in Pahalgam, discussed India's subsequent Operation Sindoor, and put forth India's firm resolve to counter cross-border terrorism in all its forms. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD On the last day of the delegation's scheduled meetings, the delegation oaid homage to Mahatma Gandhi at his statue opposite the Indian Embassy here. 'It is striking how many world capitals are adorned with statues or busts of the Mahatma, the 20th century's greatest apostle of peace, nonviolence, and human freedom,' Tharoor posted on X afterwards. The team, which had arrived from India in New York on May 24, had travelled to Guyana, Panama, Colombia and Brazil before arriving in Washington for the last leg of the tour. The other members of the delegation were Sarfaraz Ahmad (JMM), Ganti Harish Madhur Balayogi (TDP), Shashank Mani Tripathi (BJP), Bhubaneswar Kalita (BJP), Milind Deora (Shiv Sena), Tejasvi Surya (BJP) and India's former Ambassador to the US Taranjit Sandhu. Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated after the Pahalgam terror attack, with India carrying out precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7. The on-ground hostilities from Indian and Pakistan sides that lasted for four days ended with an understanding of stopping the military actions following talks between the directors general of military operations of both sides on May 10. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
