From Pahalgam Terror Attack To Bihars Voter Roll Revision: What's On INDIA Bloc's Monsoon Session Agenda?
The meeting was attended by leaders and representatives of the bloc parties.
INDIA Bloc Virtual Meeting
The attendees of the INDIA bloc virtual meet included Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, Congress Senior Leader Sonia Gandhi, Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, NCP (SP) leader Sharad Pawar, Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Uddhav Thackeray.
Other leaders who attended the meeting were: Abhishek Banerjee (TMC), Ramgopal Yadav (Samajwadi Party), D Raja (CPI), and Tiruchi Siva (DMK).
Briefing reporters on the meeting, Congress leader and Deputy LoP in Rajya Sabha, Pramod Tiwari said, 'The meeting discussed issues related to the people of the country that we will raise during the monsoon session.'
Here are the key points the INDIA bloc intends to raise in Parliament's Monsoon Session:
1- Pahalgam And Operation Sindoor
He said Prime Minister Narendra Modi should respond to the concerns of members about the Pahalgam terror attack and their queries concerning Operation Sindoor.
The Indian Armed Forces had launched precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) during the wee hours of May 7 to avenge the Pahalgam terror attack. India subsequently repelled subsequent Pakistani aggression and pounded its airbases.
New Delhi and Islamabad had agreed to a ceasefire after Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) called his Indian counterpart.
2- Trump's Ceasefire Mediation Claims
Tiwari also referred to repeated remarks of US President Donald Trump about brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. He emphasised that the members expressed concern over the repeated claims made by US President Donald Trump that he mediated the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. He said Trump has so far made the claims 24 times.
3- Bihar Voter Roll Revision
The Congress leader also said that the INDIA parties expressed their concern over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar. He said it was felt that there was an undeclared Emergency during which voters' names were being removed from the list.
4- Centre's Foreign Policy
He said that the government's foreign policy stances require a lot of answers, and there was concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
'Where is the Prime Minister's leadership on Pakistan, China, and Gaza? If we treat these as key national issues, the PM must answer in Parliament,' he said, as per IANS.
5- Air India Ahmedabad Plane Crash
"We will also seek answers on many other important issues, including the Ahmedabad plane accident," Tiwari added.
6- According to the Congress Leader, other issues that the INDIA bloc plans to raise in the Monsoon session include delimitation, atrocities on Dalits, STs, and women.
He added that a physical meeting of the INDIA group will also be held shortly. Tiwari said opposition parties want the Parliament to work smoothly, and the government should answer their concerns.
Bills On Mosoon Session's Agenda
As per ANI, the bills on the agenda of the government include: Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill of 2025, Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2025, Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill 2025, the Indian Institutes of Management (Amendment) Bill 2025, the Geoheritage Sites and Geo-relics (Preservation and Maintenance) Bill 2025, the Mines and Mines (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill 2025, the National Sports Governance Bill 2025 and the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill 2025.
The agenda of the government also includes the Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Tribes in Assembly Constituencies of the State of Goa Bill, 2024, the Merchant Shipping Bill, 2024, the Indian Ports Bill, 2025, and the Income Tax Bill, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
11 minutes ago
- The Wire
July 13 in Kashmir: On Federalised Historiography and the Silent Challenge to Federalism
In a bizarre turn of events, the Lieutenant Governor of Jammu & Kashmir effectively placed the elected government officials, including the chief minister, under house arrest on July 13, as aptly described by one local daily as an instance of 'government locking up government'. The supposed trigger for this action by the LG was the fear that the elected government and the public might commemorate July 13 as Martyrs' Day, an official holiday until 2019, which was discontinued following the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the BJP's Leader of Opposition has endorsed the LG's actions and branded the 22 people killed by the Dogra ruler in 1931 (in whose memory Martyrs' Day is observed) as traitors. Beyond the political wrangling over what was undoubtedly a watershed moment in the modern history of J&K, and the constitutionally suspect nature of the actions taken by the Lieutenant Governor, the events unfolding in J&K have implications not only for federalised historiography but also for federalism itself, and should therefore concern other states as well. A monolithic past? The first issue with the BJP's actions in J&K is related to its conception of nationalist history and identity. In the BJP's attempts to advance a monolithic version of anti-colonial nationalism, it fails to appreciate that anti-colonial resistance was not a simplistic binary of the coloniser and the colonised, with the latter automatically becoming part of the Indian national movement. In the princely states, for instance, these movements were not necessarily aimed directly at the British, for British rule was not direct in these regions. Consequently, the princely rulers became the primary targets of such movements seeking self-governance, which could not, therefore, be neatly subsumed within the broader Indian national movement. This is what the moment of July 13, 1931, represents in the official histories of J&K, as one of the first major expressions of protest against the Dogra rule. Over time, this moment came to be imbued with broader political meaning, symbolising the demand for self-governance, and ultimately becoming embedded in the region's collective memory as a marker of its autonomous political identity and constitutional status. Simply because it does not align with the BJP's conception of the anti-colonial movement and nationalism, the day has been removed from the list of official holidays, and those who were killed have been branded as traitors. The issue is not merely that the 22 individuals killed on July 13, 1931, were Muslims. The issue at stake here is what the 22 people have come to represent in the official histories - a distinct political trajectory in J&K, one closely tied to the region's demand for autonomy. That is why they cannot be neatly subsumed into the nationalist narrative of the past that the BJP aims to construct. Rather, their memory poses a challenge to this brand of nationalist history, which is why it must either be banished or, worse, recast as treacherous. This explains why, in a context where Article 370 is increasingly projected as anti-India, the BJP can simultaneously appropriate someone like Maqbool Sherwani as pro-Indian while erasing the history of Martyrs' Day in Kashmir. This, of course, is riddled with absurdities. The BJP's attempt to excise from J&K's past what it retrospectively deems anti-national and treacherous, in order to produce a monolithic account of nationalist history, is historically untenable. But there is another problem here. This monolithic account of the past allows the BJP to fashion a monistic legal order i.e, fashioning the post-colonial in unitary terms and producing an account of anti-colonial history in the service of this legal order, which brings me to the question of constitutional federalism. The federal argument Nationalist history is not solely a concern of historiography; it is deeply imbricated with constitutionalism, particularly how federal units draw on history in fashioning their sense of self and political identity. July 13 was designated an official state holiday by the government led by Sheikh Abdullah, and in J&K's federated constitutional framework, came to symbolise the region's distinct constitutional identity. Following the reading down of Article 370, the BJP swiftly moved to integrate J&K by applying previously inapplicable laws to the region. However, this project of unification extends beyond the legal domain into the realm of history itself. Any historical moment (Martyrs' Day as well as Sheikh Abdullah's birthday) that has come to represent J&K's Article 370-inflected trajectory is being systematically erased, as part of a broader effort to impose homogeneity not only in the constitutional framework but also in the historical narrative now being constructed by the BJP government. That is, even in its abrogation, it is the spectre of Article 370 that haunts the BJP – hence the erasure of history. But these events or historical moments constitute more than temporal landmarks; they are central to how individual federal units understand, construct, and express their identities. It is appropriate in a federal polity for units to have a distinct imagination of history and a sense of self that is not derivative of the central government. The policies of the BJP are such that the self-conception of federal units will have to conform to the central government's imposing vision of the Indian nation and the state. Consequently, the federal units will be relegated to the status of appendages of the central government, with their existence deemed meaningful only insofar as it aligns with the centre's vision. This undermines, to the extent of even negating the possibility of the federal units cultivating sub-national identities that might diverge from the narrative set by the central government. All this is done, it must be noted, without formally altering the powers of the governments of the federal units. Constitutional debates on federalism in India have for long treated it as a matter of power-sharing between the states and the centre when in fact it also bears on questions such as self-conception of federal units, constitutional identity, and history. The actions of the BJP reflect a broader tendency on the part of the central government to impose a particular historical-cultural narrative upon federal units and consequently, shape their political identity and sense of self. This goes beyond the traditional debates on Indian federalism, raising constitutional concerns that involve a deeper contestation over the very imagination of India as a nation-state. For such practices of the central government fundamentally erode the principles of federalism and present a new challenge compared to those faced under previous central governments. Zaid Deva is a DPhil candidate with the Faculty of Law at the University of Oxford. click here.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US court finds Trump's push to end birthright citizenship unconstitutional
The 9th Circuit decision keeps a block on the Trump administration enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily AP Washington A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump's order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, affirming a lower-court decision that blocked its enforcement nationwide. The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals comes after Trump's plan was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire. It brings the issue one step closer to coming back quickly before the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit decision keeps a block on the Trump administration enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily. 'The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,' the majority wrote. The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from US District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration's attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain. The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The Supreme Court has since restricted the power of lower court judges to issue orders that affect the whole country, known as nationwide injunctions. But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under one of the exceptions left open by the justices. The case was filed by a group of states who argued that they need a nationwide order to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship only being the law in half of the country. 'We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief," Judge Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote. Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. He found that the states don't have the legal right, or standing, to sue. 'We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions,' he wrote. Bumatay did not weigh in on whether ending birthright citizenship would be constitutional. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to US jurisdiction, are citizens. Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase 'subject to United States jurisdiction' in the amendment means that citizenship isn't automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone. The states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — argue that ignores the plain language of the Citizenship Clause as well as a landmark birthright citizenship case in 1898 where the Supreme Court found a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil. Trump's order asserts that a child born in the US is not a citizen if the mother does not have legal immigration status or is in the country legally but temporarily, and the father is not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. At least nine lawsuits challenging the order have been filed around the US.
Hans India
11 minutes ago
- Hans India
Centre not responsible for GST notices to small traders, says Joshi
Bengaluru: Union Minister for Consumer Affairs Pralhad Joshi on Tuesday squarely blamed the Karnataka state government for issuing GST-related tax notices to small traders, refuting Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar's claim that the Centre was responsible. 'It is laughable that the state government, after taking all the decisions, now tries to wash its hands of the consequences,' Joshi said. Responding to widespread backlash against GST dues notices served to fruit vendors, milk sellers, vegetable traders and other petty merchants in Karnataka, Joshi stated that such notices were issued solely by the state's commercial tax department, not by any Central authority. He emphasised that if it had been a directive from the Centre, similar actions would have been observed across other states — which has not been the case. 'The Karnataka government is misleading the public by denying its role and shirking responsibility,' Joshi alleged. 'Instead of protecting small traders, they are being harassed with tax recovery notices in the name of GST.' Clarifying the structure of GST, Joshi noted that while the Centre controls CGST, the SGST component and its implementation fall under the state's jurisdiction. 'States hold two-thirds of the decision-making power in the GST Council. The Centre only has a one-third vote,' he said. He also criticised the Congress-led Karnataka government for undermining public trust in UPI-based digital payments. 'Such harassment discourages transparent digital transactions, which India proudly showcases to the world,' Joshi said, terming it a 'reckless political misadventure.'
