BJP sought caste census during UPA rule: OBC Morcha chief
Bhopal: The BJP on Friday mounted its attack on the Congress for taking credit for the Centre's decision to carry out a caste census, saying the main opposition party intends to "mislead people for vote politics".
"The decision taken for the caste census is a historic step. The Congress is today spreading the propaganda that the Modi govt took the decision of caste census under the pressure of Rahul Gandhi," BJP OBC Morcha national president K Laxman said here on Friday.
"I want to ask Rahul Gandhi and Congress leaders that for decades they were in power in the country and three members of the Nehru-Gandhi family were prime ministers.
Why did Rahul Gandhi not demand a caste census at that time? Today, when he is in the opposition, he is talking about caste census to mislead people for vote bank politics," he said at a massive workshop of the party's OBC Morcha.
Laxman said during the Manmohan Singh govt, BJP demanded a caste census.
The workshop was also addressed by BJP state president VD Sharma, state BJP organisational general secretary Hitanand Sharma, state BJP backward classes front chief Narayan Singh Kushwaha, and cabinet minister Krishna Gaur.
Laxman said caste census has been taking place in the country since the British era, but after the independence of the country, the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru stopped the practice of caste census through the Central Census Act. "Pt Nehru shelved the report of the Kaka Kalelkar Committee. OBC Commission was not formed. Later, the govt of Morarji Desai constituted the Mandal Commission. The govt of Indira Gandhi also maintained silence on it, and the govt of VP Singh implemented it," Laxman recalled.
He said in 1961, Pt Nehru wrote a letter to the chief ministers of the states and said that reservation should be done on an economic basis.
Laxman claimed that the BJP never backed down from the matter of caste census. "When the Modi govt was formed in 2014, the then Union home minister Rajnath Singh said that we will do the census by adding castes, but due to the Covid crisis, it could not be possible," he said.
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Eid wishes
,
messages
, and
quotes
!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- Indian Express
When judges face impeachment: V Ramaswami to Soumitra Sen, what happened in each of the 5 cases
The Centre is likely to bring in an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in the Monsoon Session of Parliament next month. An impeachment motion against a judge is a rare occurrence. There have been attempts to move the motion against judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts only five times since Independence, with Parliament debating only two of those motions, while the rest either failed to get the support of the required number of MPs or were rejected. Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which deals with this issue, says, 'A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.' Here is a look at the five instances when motions were brought to impeach judges. In 1993, Justice V Ramaswami was the first sitting judge of the Supreme Court to face impeachment for alleged financial misconduct during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Lok Sabha debate on impeaching him took place on May 10 and 11 that year. CPI(M)'s Bolpur MP Somnath Chatterjee moved the motion in the Lok Sabha. 'This is a constitutional obligation, not a political witch-hunt. We are seeking to maintain the dignity of the highest judiciary. Let it be known to the nation and to the world that this House, this Parliament, can rise to its responsibilities under the Constitution,' he said. Acknowledging that MPs 'were not judges', Chatterjee said the House was called upon to act 'with objectivity and seriousness of judges'. 'If we fail today, we will be failing not only the Constitution but also the hopes of the people of this country who place trust in our institutions. My appeal once again to all my fellow Members is that the time has come when we must stand up for certain values and norms,' he said. Lauding Ramaswami's counsel Kapil Sibal, who defended the Supreme Court judge in Parliament, Chatterjee said he hoped Ramaswami would resign. 'Yesterday, his counsel advocated very strongly that this House should not vote on this particular motion. His plea was: 'Please do not vote on this motion.' After the debate was over, I walked over to him and said: 'You made an excellent suggestion. Why do you not take it one step further and persuade your client to resign?'' Chatterjee concluded, saying, 'If we fail today, we will be failing not only the Constitution but also the hopes of the people of this country who place trust in our institutions.' Supporting the motion, BJP's Chittorgarh MP Jaswant Singh said it was the first exercise where 'legislators were called upon to don a judicial role'. 'What we do or fail to do today will become archival material, to be referred to by successive generations of legislators. The fate of this motion is directly linked with the moral health of the nation … The motion of impeachment is a safeguard of the State. It restrains judicial tyranny without overawing the authority of the courts. I asked myself: Is this, on the findings of the Committee, sufficient to conclude misbehaviour? My answer is yes. Is it proven? Yes. Does it warrant removal? Yes. To reject this motion would be to condone misbehaviour in the judiciary; it would taint and enfeeble the nation,' he said. The Janata Dal MP from Muzaffarpur, George Fernandes, said he hoped that the debate would be the' beginning of a cleansing process, in which we must uphold the rule of law, uphold the basic norms and values — especially if we want to combat the growing violence and corruption in this country'. The Congress opposed the motion, with its MP Mani Shankar Aiyar saying the 108 members who moved the motion 'were not a cross-section of the House'. 'They were drawn from parties that numerically did not constitute a majority … That is perfectly legal, maybe even moral, but this must be borne in mind … At a time when even my eleven-year-old daughter knew that the Ninth Lok Sabha was going to end, they decided to bring this issue forward as their electoral platform,' he said. Claiming that the House was not even being given 16 hours to consider the matter, Aiyar said, 'Whether we pass this motion or reject it, we are doing great damage to our nation. We are paying for the sins of the dying days of the Ninth Lok Sabha.' Another Congress MP, Debi Prasad Pal, questioned the legitimacy and transparency of the committee process. The motion fell through after most Congress MPs abstained and it failed to get a two-thirds majority. Of the 401 MPs in the House, 205 abstained while 196 voted in favour of the motion. The impeachment proceedings against Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court took place in the Rajya Sabha. Sen was accused of misappropriating funds in his role as a court-appointed receiver and of misleading the court even after his elevation to the Bench. The Rajya Sabha took up the motion on August 17–18, 2011, following the findings of an inquiry committee headed by Justice B Sudershan Reddy, Justice Mukul Mudgal, and jurist Fali Nariman. Sitaram Yechury of the CPI(M) moved the motion, saying it was 'not one questioning the integrity of the judiciary but against one judge who has been found to have indulged in conduct that constitutes the definition of misbehaviour'. 'It is a call of duty to correct any aberration that may lead to the undermining of this faith (in the judiciary). Let us convey not only to the people of India but to the people of the world that the Indian Parliament is a sacred temple — the perpetual residence of inviolable justice,' he said. Then Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, spoke in support of the motion. 'The cheques can't lie; individuals can. This is a fit case for removal, and we must so make a recommendation to the President,' he said. Saying he had come to seek justice on 'not only questions of law but also on questions of facts', Justice Sen defended himself in the House. 'The concept of presumption of innocence has now been reversed into a presumption of guilt … Even if you hold me guilty and remove me, I will still shout from the rooftops that I did not misappropriate the money … This entire matter is being driven by assumptions and political will, not law or facts,' he said. In reply, Jaitley said, 'This misappropriation will hang like an albatross around your neck even when you shout from rooftops that you're innocent … Can we afford to have a judge whose conduct smacks of this kind of proven misconduct?' The Upper House passed the motion and Justice Sen became the first sitting judge to have an impeachment motion against him passed by a House of Parliament. He subsequently resigned and then Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid told the Lok Sabha on September 5, 2011, that further discussion on the matter was not required and the Lower House did not get to discuss or vote on the matter. More than 50 Rajya Sabha MPs signed a motion seeking the removal of Justice S K Gangele of the Madhya Pradesh High Court over charges of sexual harassment by a former district and sessions judge in Gwalior. The motion was dropped after an inquiry committee did not find enough material against the judge. Over 50 Rajya Sabha MPs signed a motion to impeach Justice Reddy of the High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana over charges of physically assaulting a judge of a lower court. However, the motion was dropped after nine MPs withdrew, and it fell short of the minimum 50 MPs required to introduce the motion. Opposition parties in the Rajya Sabha, including the Congress, (then undivided) NCP, SP, BSP, and CPI(M), submitted the motion to impeach Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in April 2018, alleging 'misbehaviour' and 'incapacity'. On April 23 that year, the then Rajya Sabha chairman, M Venkaiah Naidu, rejected the motion saying that the charges pertained to internal court administration and did not amount to constitutional 'misbehaviour'.
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Congress leader Rajesh Soni arrested for Facebook posts on Operation Sindoor, booked under new BNS law
What the police say sparked the arrest Live Events What the charges actually mean (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Rajesh Soni, a senior Congress leader in Gujarat, was arrested early Friday by the state's Cyber Crime Cell over a pair of Facebook posts that police allege endangered national morale and spread misinformation about a major military posts were related to Operation Sindoor, an ongoing mission by the Indian armed forces targeting terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). Soni now faces charges under two sections of the recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—sections 152 and 353(1)(a).The FIR, filed by the CID Cyber Crime team on Thursday, cited two Facebook posts made by of them depicted Prime Minister Narendra Modi wearing a fighter pilot uniform in a poster-like image. In another, Soni allegedly claimed that 'the Indian government surrendered during the operation,' an accusation the police say could undermine both the mission and the morale of troops deployed on the of Police (CID-Cyber Crime), Bharatsinh Tank, said, 'Soni was accused of breaking defence personnel's morale and putting India's sovereignty in danger through misleading posts on Facebook.'Tank went on to say, 'We arrested Soni for his posts which could break the armed forces' morale and send a wrong message to soldiers that their contribution and sacrifice on the battlefield will go in vain.'Soni has been charged under Section 152 of the BNS, which deals with acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. This section carries serious consequences, including up to life imprisonment or a minimum of seven years' jail, plus a second charge—Section 353(1)(a)—relates to statements that could incite public mischief. This legal provision, too, has teeth and signals the government's intent to regulate what it views as provocative or destabilising online behaviour, especially during military arrest did not go unnoticed by Soni's party after news broke, several Congress leaders gathered at the CID's office in Gandhinagar in protest. Leading the charge was Gujarat Congress president Shaktisinh Gohil, who described the police action as disproportionate and politically said, 'He only tried to highlight that soldiers need to get their due credit instead of the govt spending taxpayers' money on publicity.'He also accused the authorities of cracking down on free expression at a time when the nation should be focusing on supporting its armed forces, not silencing Sindoor has become a national talking point in recent weeks. The Indian military launched the mission with the stated goal of eliminating terror infrastructure in Pakistani territory and PoK. It has been projected by the government as a demonstration of India's zero-tolerance policy towards cross-border the operation has also sparked debates over public narrative management. As the conflict plays out on the ground, its portrayal in digital spaces has become sensitive—especially with a politically charged environment and general elections in government's actions suggest it sees misinformation as a direct threat to the morale of soldiers and the success of such operations. At the same time, critics argue that there is a thin line between national interest and political convenience when it comes to controlling arrest under the new BNS framework could mark a pivotal moment in how India enforces online accountability. It raises difficult questions: Where does one draw the line between political critique and disinformation? Who decides whether a post is morale-breaking or simply provocative?For now, Rajesh Soni remains in custody, his party defiant, and the legal system gearing up for what may become a high-profile case on digital speech and national security.(With inputs from TOI)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
38 minutes ago
- First Post
Bangladesh: Hasina's Awami League, BNP condemn Yunus's Eid address as he picks April 2026 to hold polls
Former PMs of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia's parties Awami League and BNP, respectively, slammed the country's Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus's Eid address in which he announced that the country will hold polls in April 2026. read more Two of the most prominent parties of Bangladesh have rejected the country's Interim Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus's decision to hold elections in April 2026 , demanding that the polls be conducted by the end of 2025. After completing 10 months in power, Yunus used his Eid address to announce that the country would go to the polls in April next year. It is pertinent to note that this will be the first national election in Bangladesh after a violent protest in the country toppled former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's government. Shortly after Yunus's address to the nation, both ex-PM Khaleda Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Hasina's Awami League issued respective statements condemning Yunus's 10-month-long leadership. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Following a meeting of BNP's national standing committee, chaired by acting chairman Tarique Rahman, the party said that Yunus is trying to delay elections. 'The chief adviser's Eid address went beyond the traditional festive message and ventured into political issues unrelated to the Interim Government's stated three-point mandate," the party said in a statement following the meeting. BNP slams the timing of it all Zia's party criticised Yunus's discussion of topics like ports and economic corridors, calling it inappropriate and politically biased. BNP insisted that the tone and language of the chief adviser's speech felt like Yunus was crossing the boundaries of political decorum. BNP outrightly rejected the April election proposal, citing concerns over the timing, particularly the overlap with the holy month of Ramadan, school examinations, and adverse summer weather conditions. The party went on to question why the elections could not be held in December 2025 , a date also supported by the country's Army, insisting that Yunus had provided no specific justification for the delay. Referring to the sacrifices of citizens during the July–August 2024 uprising, the BNP warned that any further delay in polls would only deepen public frustration and anger. Awami League calls Yunus 'fascist' Meanwhile, ousted Bangladeshi premier Sheikh Hasina's Awami League also criticised Yunus's address to the nation, where he announced that Bangladesh's general elections will be held in April 2026. 'We want an election that honours the sacrifices of the martyrs. One with the highest number of voters, candidates, and parties participating. Let this be remembered as the freest and fairest election the nation has seen," Yunus said in his address. The Awami League slammed Yunus, saying the chief adviser was trying to cover up his failures by blaming the previous Awami League government and 'creating a false narrative of crisis.' It is pertinent to note that Hasina's party is already banned from contesting in polls , a move condemned by the party. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Awami League said that Yunus's government lacks democratic legitimacy and serves foreign interests rather than the people of Bangladesh. The party warned that many in the interim government hold foreign passports and will leave the country, but their actions could cause irreversible damage to the nation. Overall, the statements from both the Awami League and the BNP reflected that two of the biggest parties in the country are displeased with Yunus. With inputs from agencies.
