Hindu seer Rambhadracharya seeks PoK as Guru Dakshina from Army Chief Dwivedi
'I am feeling proud of honouring our victorious Army Chief. He took from me the diksha (initiation) of that very mantra which Sitaji gave to Hanumanji for Lanka's conquest. After initiating him with the all-conquering mantra, I sought from him as Guru Dakshina (teacher's offering) Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). He has promised me the Dakshina with certainty,' said the seer, who is reportedly one of the four Jagadguru Ramanandacharyas and also the founder and head of the Tulsi Peeth.
'Kutte ki poonch kabhi seedhi hoti hai kya (once a cheater, always a cheater), this best describes Pakistan. I'm sure that the next time Pakistan does any misadventure with us, it would be wiped out from the map,' said the 75-year-old seer and spiritual preacher, who has reportedly been blind since the age of two months.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
13 minutes ago
- NDTV
Face-Off In Lok Sabha As Priyanka Gandhi Reads Out Pahalgam Victim Names
New Delhi: The Treasury and Opposition benches faced off in parliament this afternoon as Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra read out the names of the 25 Indians murdered in cold blood by terrorists in Pahalgam. The April 22 Pahalgam massacre had seen the killing of 26 civilians -- including 25 Indians and one Nepali tourist -- at the scenic Baisaran Valley. "I want to read out the names of 25 Indians so that every MP sitting here realises that even they were humans like us and not pawns of political powers. Even they were sons of this country. We are all answerable to their families. They deserve to know the truth," said Ms Gandhi, trying to corner the government during the special debate on Operation Sindoor. As she read out the first name, the treasury benches shouted: "Hindu", seeking to highlight that the killings were carried out based on their religion. "Bharatiya," replied Ms Gandhi, asserting they were Indians first. This soon set off a face-off between the treasury and opposition benches as loud shouts of "Hindu" and "Indian" filled the Lok Sabha after every name that Ms Gandhi read out.
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Dynasty and division: The crisis in Dalit politics in Maharashtra
Written by Upendra Sonpimple Dalit politics in Maharashtra is undergoing a crisis of identity and leadership, marked by internal divisions and dynastic claims. At the centre of this conflict are two grandsons of B R Ambedkar — Prakash Ambedkar, leader of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA), and Anandraj Ambedkar, head of the Republican Sena. Both claim to be the true torchbearers of Ambedkar's ideology, yet their rivalry and political strategies raise critical questions about the future of Dalit leadership. The situation intensified when Rajratan Ambedkar's faction of the Republican Party of India (RPI) allied with Eknath Shinde's Shiv Sena for the upcoming local elections. This alliance, framed as a union of 'Shiv Shakti and Bhim Shakti', was seen by many as a betrayal of Ambedkarite principles. Ambedkar had openly opposed Hindu right-wing organisations like the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha, making such partnerships ideologically contradictory. This political manoeuvring reveals a deeper issue: The increasing reliance on hereditary legitimacy in Dalit politics. Both Prakash and Rajratan Ambedkar have used their surname to claim moral and political authority, particularly among Neo-Buddhists and Mahar communities. This approach contradicts Ambedkar's own rejection of dynastic rule. As he once stated, 'What is more important, the right of the prince or the welfare of the people?… Even the best friends of the States will not say that the welfare of the people should be sacrificed for the sake of maintaining the rights of the prince.' Ambedkar's vision was rooted in democratic and rational leadership, not bloodline. He did not appoint his own son, Yashwant, as his political successor. Instead, he left the leadership of the Scheduled Castes Federation open to capable followers, regardless of lineage. Yet today, Dalit politics in Maharashtra often promotes the idea that only Ambedkar's descendants can lead, sidelining emerging voices from non-Ambedkar descendants. The VBA, for instance, has campaigned on the notion of 'pure Dalit leadership', implying that non-Ambedkar descendants are self-serving or corrupt. This rhetoric not only undermines democratic values but also mirrors the logic of caste, where hereditary superiority justifies power and raises urgent questions: Does dynastic politics threaten the emergence of new Dalit leadership? Is the movement shifting from ideological mobilisation to emotional loyalty? Can hereditary politics effectively challenge Brahminical dominance, or does it replicate its structure? Historically, the Dalit movement in Maharashtra drew strength from anti-caste rationalism, beginning with Mahatma Phule's Satyashodhak Movement and culminating in Ambedkar's fight against untouchability and caste oppression. Today, however, dynastic politics risks undermining this legacy. Even among Mangs, there is a search for descendants of Annabhau Sathe to lead, reinforcing hereditary rather than ideological commitment. Moreover, Ambedkar descendants/ leaders have increasingly adopted soft-Hindutva and loose secularism, visiting Hindu and Muslim religious sites to gain broader support. The VBA's past alliance with Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena exemplifies this trend, raising concerns about ideological dilution. If alliances are formed without ideological clarity, can claims of bloodline purity hold any moral ground? This shift mirrors the caste system's logic, where hereditary superiority justifies power. In politics, such logic suppresses democratic participation and stifles dissent. The master-slave dynamic — where followers are emotionally bound to dynastic leaders — creates psychological dependency, limiting the scope for revolt or alternative leadership. The Dalit movement in Maharashtra is already experiencing political demobilisation. If dynastic politics continues to dominate, it may extinguish the space for critical thinking, grassroots mobilisation, and ideological unity. Dalit leadership must become more radical and inclusive, breaking free from caste-based patronage and fostering a community that is politically active and ideologically grounded. At the national level, Mayawati's succession planning within BSP — passing leadership to her nephew — also reflects dynastic tendencies. However, in Maharashtra, the narrative of 'pure blood' creates a false consciousness, distancing Dalits from their ideological roots and weakening the movement's transformative potential. The emotional outrage surrounding hereditary leadership is anti-Dalit, anti-Ambedkarite, and anti-democratic. It suppresses the rise of new voices and creates a culture of obedience rather than critical engagement. If this trend continues, it could lead to the ideological erosion and eventual stagnation of the Dalit movement. To revive the movement, Dalit politics must return to its rational, anti-caste, and democratic foundations. Leadership should be based on commitment, capability, and ideological clarity — not lineage. Only then can the movement reclaim its transformative potential and truly honor the legacy of Ambedkar and Phule. The writer, a social justice and caste discourse scholar, is a New India Foundation fellow (2018-19) and Adam Smith fellow (2024-25)
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
'They were Bharatiyas': Priyanka Gandhi counters MP's 'Hindus killed' remark in Pahalgam debate
NEW DELHI: Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Tuesday locked horns with several MPs in Lok Sabha over the identity of the Pahalgam terror attack victims, countering repeated interruptions during day two of the discussion on the April 22 attack. During her speech, the Wayanad MP said she would read out the names of the 25 victims of the attack. However, as she began reading them aloud, she was repeatedly interrupted by MPs shouting 'Hindu'. She countered each interjection with the word 'Bhartiya'. 'I wish to read out the names of those 25 Indians in this House, so that every member sitting here realises that they too were human beings like us, not mere pawns in some political game. They too were sons of this nation. They too are martyrs of this country. We all have a responsibility towards their families; they have the right to know the truth,' she said. Priyanka also criticised the government's response to the Pahalgam attack. 'Most of the people who are sitting in this House today have a security cover. But on that day in Pahalgam, 26 people were killed in front of their families. All those people present in Baisaran Valley had no security. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Brain tumor has left my son feeling miserable; please help! Donate For Health Donate Now Undo No matter how many operations you conduct, you cannot hide behind the truth.' Attacking the Union home minister, she said, 'The home minister stated that Pakistan had no choice but to seek refuge. The question is—why did you grant them refuge? Terrorists come to our country, kill people, and you are providing them shelter. Why have you not addressed this in any of your speeches?' She went on to accuse the government of using diversionary tactics: 'As soon as the issue of refuge was raised, the Home Minister delved into history—from Nehru ji, Indira ji, to even my mother's tears. But he did not answer the question of why there was a ceasefire, why the war was halted.' Gandhi also targeted the government for its lack of accountability: 'This government always tries to escape questions. They have no sense of responsibility towards the citizens of the nation. The truth is that they have no place for the public in their heart. For them, everything is politics, publicity…' The Congress leader's remarks came amid a heated debate where Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav also criticised the government for allegedly stepping back after Operation Sindoor and questioned why US President Donald Trump announced the ceasefire, not the Indian government. The debate surrounding Operation Sindoor has drawn strong reactions from the Opposition, demanding clarity from the Centre on the reasons for halting military operations after the Pahalgam attack, which killed 26.
