BJP keeps winning because opposition is a failure: Owaisi
The BJP is winning elections consistently because the opposition is a failure (nakaam) and because it has consolidated the Hindu votes, Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi has said, rejecting suggestions that he cuts into anti-Modi votes.
"How can you put the blame on me, tell me?" Mr. Owaisi said in an interview to PTI Videos on Saturday.
"If I contest in Hyderabad, Aurangabad, Kishanganj and a few other seats in the 2024 Parliamentary elections and BJP gets 240 seats then am I responsible?" Mr. Owaisi said.
"BJP is coming to power because the opposition is a failure (nakaam). BJP is winning elections because it has consolidated almost 50% of the Hindu vote," he said, adding that attempts to blame him, and call him BJP's B-Team are nothing but the opposition's "hatred" for his party because it largely represents Muslims.
"When every segment of the society has a semblance of political leadership, and that's acceptable to you but you don't want that Muslims should have a semblance of political voice, political leadership," he said.
Asked if he was referring to Congress, he said he is referring to all opposition parties, including BSP, SP and BJP.
"Yadav will be a leader, Musalmaan will be a beggar. Upper caste will be a leader, Musalmaan will be a beggar. How is that fair tell me," Mr. Owaisi said.
He lamented that the founding fathers of India had envisaged the country as a participatory democracy, "so where is the participation of Muslims?" "When it is a question of India's integrity and security we will come forward and stand by the Indian military. But we do have to talk about the problems inside our homes, no?" He pointed out that despite being the largest minority group in the country with nearly 15% population, Muslims have only 4% participation in legislatures and Parliament.
Asked why that is so, he said it's because political parties don't give tickets to Muslims to contest elections, and then people don't vote for Muslims.
He cautioned that India cannot achieve the "Viksit Bharat" goal by 2047 by keeping such a large community marginalised and weak. Political parties should stop looking at Muslims as vote banks, and instead work to uplift them, educate them, treat them fairly and give them jobs, he added.
"Our fight is that we don't want to remain voters. We want to be citizens." Mr. Owaisi's attempts to emerge as a leader with an electoral appeal outside his citadel have met with some success as his party has won a few seats, especially those with a large Muslim population, in States like Bihar and Maharashtra in past elections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
8 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly "pushed back" into Bangladesh. "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
'BJP will win 10 out of 12 zones in MCD standing committee polls', says BJP MP Ramvir Singh Bidhuri
BJP MP Ramvir Singh Bidhuri (Image credit: ANI) NEW DELHI: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Ramvir Singh Bidhuri said on Monday that the party is confident it can secure a majority in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) Standing Committee elections. Speaking to ANI, Bidhuri said, "We will win the election of the standing committee. The BJP will win 10 out of 12 zones." He further said that the party's presence in the central government, the Delhi administration, and the MCD would ensure that development work continues without hindrance. "The BJP is in the centre, state (Delhi), and MCD, and all the work will go smoothly. The triple-engine government works according to the wishes of the people of Delhi," he added. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi's (MCD) chairmen, deputy chairmen of 12 ward committees, and two standing committee members--each from the South Zone and City-SP Zone--will be elected today. The election of the two standing committee members was necessitated after Prem Chauhan and Punardeep Singh Sawhney, who had been elected to the Delhi Legislative Assembly, tendered their resignations. Prem Chauhan and Punardeep Singh Sawhney were the standing committee members from the Wards Committee South Zone and the Wards Committee City-SP Zone, respectively. "In pursuance of Sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Act, these vacancies are to be filled up by the concerned wards committees in a meeting from amongst the Councillors of the Wards Committee", a notice from MCD said. The BJP and AAP are making every effort to ensure their candidates win. Out of the 12 ward committees, elections in three zones will be uncontested, as only one candidate is in each zone. The results will shape the standing committee's formation and reveal which party gains majority control to appoint its Chairman. Meanwhile, AAP's Saurabh Bharadwaj said on Sunday that the election will reveal the relationship between Congress and the BJP. "Tomorrow, there are elections for the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the MCD Rohini zone. On one side is the panel of BJP-supported IVP, and on the other is the Aam Aadmi Party . The Congress president should tell whom the two Congress councillors will vote for tomorrow. Tomorrow, the relationship between Congress and the BJP will be revealed," he said on X. On May 24, with over two years still to go, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) shifted into mission mode for the 2027 Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) elections, setting its sights on forming a huge majority in the civic body, a press release from the Aam Aadmi Party said. In a high-level strategy meeting held on Friday, senior AAP leader and former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, Delhi state president Saurabh Bharadwaj, and Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the MCD House, Ankush Narang, met with all party councillors to start the preparations. Former Delhi deputy CM Manish Sisodia reviewed ward-level issues in detail and directed councillors to ensure immediate redressing. "Arvind Kejriwal has pioneered alternative work politics across India. Our goal now is to take this model to every household and make it even stronger," said Manish Sisodia.
Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
