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
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Hindu temple in Australia defaced with racist graffiti
Canberra: In a recent disturbing act of racial violence, a prominent Hindu temple in Melbourne was vandalised with racist graffiti in Victoria, Australia. This incident has raised concerns within the community about the increasing hate attacks on Hindus in the country. The incident occurred at Shree Swaminarayan Temple as it was smeared with a hateful slur that read "Go Home" and used words like "brown" along with abusive slang, according to media reports. Additionally, the same racist message was also found on the walls of two nearby Asian‑run restaurants, which further outraged the people who raised serious concerns over the hate attacks. Confirming the incident, Victoria Police mentioned they are investigating "four linked incidents in Boronia," including the temple and two restaurants. "Police are investigating following reports of graffiti in Bayswater and Boronia on July 21... It is understood graffiti was spray-painted on the front of a healing centre on the Mountain Highway overnight," Australian media outlet The Australia Today quoted the police as saying. "Shortly after, graffiti was discovered on a temple on Wadhurst Drive in Boronia about 9.30 a.m. Two further restaurants were located with graffiti on Boronia Road," it added. Makrand Bhagwat, President of the Hindu Council of Australia's Victoria chapter, expressed shock over the incident at the site, which unfolded on Monday morning. "Seeing it (temple) vandalised with hateful words was heartbreaking for volunteers and worshippers alike. Our temple is meant to be a sanctuary of peace, devotion and unity. It's where we come together to celebrate our faith and heritage," he stated. Victoria's Premier, Jacinta Allan, also condemned the incident, describing it as "hateful, racist and deeply disturbing." "It wasn't just vandalism -- it was a deliberate act of hate, designed to intimidate, isolate, and spread fear. It was an attack on your right to feel safe and to belong, and on the values that bind us together. There's no place for it anywhere in Victoria. And it must be called out for what it is," she said in a statement. "No community should ever have to endure something like this, but in speaking out, you've shown an enormous amount of strength and dignity. As Premier, I want you to know how much your contribution, your culture, and your faith mean to me, and to the future we're building together in this state," she added. Additionally, an Indian student was violently beaten in a racially motivated attack in Adelaide, sparking widespread outrage. On July 23, Charanpreet Singh, 23, when he was out with his wife, was brutally attacked by a group of men, who were armed with sharp objects. As per the video circulated online, the group of five men were seen coming out of their vehicle and began thrashing Singh without any provocation. They were also heard shouting racial slurs. These incidents mirror a series of stencil racist attacks across Australia, including other temples, museums and Indian-origin people. Community advocates have raised alarm over a surge in hate-driven racist incidents.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Cabinet to discuss Virat Kohli's role in stampede case if named in report: Karnataka Minister
Bengaluru: Karnataka Home Minister G. Parameshwara on Thursday said the state cabinet will discuss the role of cricketer Virat Kohli in connection with the June 4 stampede tragedy, which claimed 11 lives, if his name is mentioned in the judicial commission report. Speaking to reporters in Bengaluru, Parameshwara said, 'The report on the stampede case, submitted by retired Justice John Michael D'Cunha, will be discussed in the cabinet meeting. I don't know how the discussion will proceed. The matter is on the agenda, but I can't say what decision the cabinet will take.' When asked whether the state government is planning to lodge criminal cases in connection with the incident, he responded, 'The recommendations of the report will be discussed, and ultimately, the cabinet will take a decision.' In response to a question on whether the report mentions the role of cricketer Virat Kohli, Parameshwara said, 'If the report refers to him, the matter will be discussed in the cabinet. If it doesn't, there will be no discussion.' He clarified that the judicial commission was assigned specific terms of reference related to the stampede and not with regard to any individual. 'The government did not direct the commission to investigate any particular person. The commission was instructed to probe what happened and make recommendations accordingly,' he said. Commenting on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's allegations about irregularities in the conduct of elections, Parameshwara said, 'Rahul Gandhi has been raising concerns about electoral malpractice. The Election Commission keeps denying it. He has also said that such irregularities occurred in Karnataka. The Election Commission should take these concerns seriously. In every election, we raise issues regarding voter lists and other matters. The Commission must address them seriously.' On the necessity of conducting a caste census in Karnataka even as the Centre is also undertaking one, Parameshwara explained, 'We are conducting the census for our own state. There is no conflict between the Centre and the state. The Centre has announced its census, and we are proceeding with ours based on the parameters relevant to Karnataka.' He added that the Centre's exercise is limited to population and statistical data, while the state's survey would assess broader parameters including education. 'Censuses were conducted over many years in the past. Now, with modern methods, surveys can be completed more quickly,' he said. When asked about reports of an officer requesting to be relieved from the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the alleged mass graves at a Hindu pilgrimage centre, Parameshwara said, 'I am not aware of any official communication. I have only seen media reports. Unofficially, I heard that the officer submitted a letter requesting to be dropped from the SIT for personal reasons. If needed, he can be replaced.' Regarding the recent murder of a father and son, who were BJP leaders from Bengaluru, in Andhra Pradesh, Parameshwara said the police in the respective state are investigating the case. 'Since the victims are from Karnataka, the Andhra Police will come here and we will fully cooperate. Ultimately, the accused must be tracked down,' he added.
The Wire
2 hours ago
- The Wire
A Momentous Judgment: When the SC Ruled in Favour of Tribal Women's Rights in Ancestral Property
On July 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in a case concerning Chhattisgarh's Gond community, ruled in favour of tribal women's rights in ancestral property. This judgement can have momentous ramifications, much beyond its specific context. Applying the principle of 'justice, equity and good conscience' where neither codified law nor clear evidence of custom existed, and especially invoking article 14 of the Indian Constitution (which guarantees equality for all before the law), the two-bench judgement upheld the rights of a tribal woman in ancestral property in the state of Chhattisgarh (Ramcharan & others vs Sukhram & others). How did this judgement by Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi come about and what are its implications? The case concerned the property claims of a deceased Gond tribal woman, Dhaiya, whose rights had been denied while those of her five brothers were recognised. Dhaiya's children filed a case for her share in the ancestral property of Bhajju Bhajan Gond, their maternal grandfather, mainly on the grounds that they followed Hindu traditions, and under current Hindu law their mother had equal claims as her brothers to the joint property. Some supplementary grounds were also given. The background The case came to the Supreme Court (SC) on appeal in 2023, after passing through the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court, all of which had rejected the claim. According to the background information provided in the SC judgment document, the case was filed in a trial court in 1992 by Dhayia's heirs (Ram Charan & Others) but was rejected on the grounds that no evidence was presented either of a Gond custom that the daughter could get ancestral property, nor of the family following recognised Hindu practices. The first appellate court (where the case then went on appeal), in its judgement in 2008, upheld the trial court's ruling. The appellant/plaintiffs then appealed to the Chhattisgarh high court in 2009, which too in its judgement of 2022 upheld the Trial Court's ruling – noting that no evidence was presented of a female heir being entitled to inherit ancestral property by custom, nor of the adoption of Hindu traditions by the family. Most importantly, the high court also rejected the counsel's plea that in the absence of evidence of custom, the principle of 'justice, equity and good conscience' must prevail. The case then went on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's arguments The Supreme Court concurred with the lower courts on one count but diverged radically on other counts. It first argued that Hindu law could not come into play, since Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 had unequivocally excluded its application to Scheduled Tribes. This was in keeping with prior SC judgements, including one in 2022 (Kamla Neti vs Special Land Acquisition Officer & others). The SC further argued that where Gond customs were silent on women's inheritance rights over parental property, the presumption could not be in favour of denying women a share. Rather, the judges noted – giving the argument an interesting twist – instead of the plaintiff having to prove that a custom in favour of women existed, the defendants needed to prove that women were not entitled to inherit property by custom. The most radical shift in the SC judgement lay in its argument that since 'neither any particular law of a community nor custom could be brought into application by either side, we now proceed to examine the argument advanced before the high court, that is, the principle of justice, equity and good conscience' (para 15). Citing several past cases where this principle had been applied, including a case dealt with by the high court of Chhattisgarh where the property rights of female heirs had been upheld, the SC ruled in favour of Dhaiya and her heirs. Two of its arguments are worth noting: First, that 'unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out' (para 27). Second, that, 'denying Dhaiya her share in her father's property, when the custom is silent, would violate her right to equality vis-a-vis her brothers or those of her legal heirs vis-à-vis their cousin' (para 28). Hence the SC ruled: '… we are of the firm view that in keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the Constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs, being Dhaiya's legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property' (para 29). Wider implications for legal reform The implications of this judgment, in my assessment, go much beyond Dhaiya's case. Based on the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, and Article 14 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court judgement sets a precedent for giving Scheduled Tribe women rights in family property as daughters (and their heirs) equal to the rights of sons (and their heirs). The judgement can thus become the benchmark for extending gender equal inheritance rights to all tribal women in India. In 2005, I had spearheaded a successful civil society campaign to amend the Hindu Succession Act to make it gender equal. The HSAA 2005 gave daughters equal rights with sons in coparcenary joint family property. Two decades later, this July 2025 judgement of the SC has effectively extended a similar right to tribal women. This is momentous. At the same time, to strengthen and expand those rights, we need to move beyond case law and precedent to codify tribal women's rights via statutory enactment. This could initially be done by individual states but would be most effective if undertaken at the federal level. The SC's July judgement provides two strong justifications for such codification: (a) on constitutional grounds, based on Article 14; and (b) on the principles of gender justice and inclusion. To this, a third can be added, namely that of non-discrimination between women of different communities in India. Today, Hindu, Christian and Parsi women are governed by different – but gender-equal – laws of succession. A failure to extend equal rights to tribal women by codified law would be discriminatory in intra-gender terms. Muslim women's rights also need reform, as I wrote in the Indian Express, but that requires a separate discussion. A discussion is also needed on potential reference models for codifying tribal women's rights. Hindu succession law appears unsuitable, given its complexity, especially its distinction between separate and coparcenary property. The secular Indian Succession Act of 1925 may provide a simpler alternative as a prototype to build on. Special provisions may well be required for matrilineal tribal communities, such as the Garos and Khasis in Meghalaya, which customarily grant women special rights. These issues need careful reflection but also expedited attention. The idea of codifying gender-equal inheritance laws for tribal communities has had a contentious history. An opposing argument is that replacing tribal customs with codified laws would undermine tribal identity. This is not unlike an even older argument made in peasant movements that calling for gender inequality would be divisive and undermine the movement. I believe these are misleading arguments. Progressive movements need to be built on equal rights for all community members, especially women. You cannot credibly seek justice for a community by turning a blind eye to embedded gender injustice within that community. It is also sometimes argued that customary laws in India's tribal communities don't need reform as they are already gender equal. In my own detailed research, however, I found little evidence of tribal customs that uphold gender-equal inheritance, except rare examples of some (not all) matrilineal communities. Even among these – such as the Garos in Meghalaya – customs favouring women have been seriously eroded over time. I believe the way forward is to codify the inheritance laws for tribal communities to make them gender equal, while strengthening other institutions to ensure that the broader aspects of tribal identity and culture, that the communities value, remain protected. Beyond legal reform Even with statutory law, tribal women will need protection (like Hindu women do) to deal with pressure from brothers to sign away their shares. Here it will be important to have both civil society oversight when inheritance shares are registered by the village patwari (or tribal equivalent), as well as judicial oversight, such as having women sign an affidavit if they want to forfeit their shares (to provide a layer of protection against family pressure), as Hindu women have to do. Equally, as with women of other communities, tribal women will need civil society and media efforts to enhance their awareness of their legal rights, and their knowledge of out-of-court mediating bodies, such as Nari Adalats, as well as of government provisions for legal aid, should they wish to contest their claims. While legal reform alone cannot guarantee women's ownership and control over property in practice, since social norms often trump progressive reform, it is still an essential step towards that goal. Here the 17 July 2025 Supreme Court Judgement – passed 20 years after the HSAA was reformed for Hindu women – is a very welcome first step. Bina Agarwal is Professor of Development Economics and Environment, GDI, The University of Manchester & Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
