Thrissur Pooram returns with grandeur after last year's political disruption
The morning downpour gave way to clear skies by midday, lifting the spirits of those assembled. The ceremonial procession, locally referred to as the 'Ezhunnallippu', began at around 8 am from Neythalakkavu and reached the grounds of the Vadakkumnathan temple by 1 pm, passing through the archways and culminating at Thekke Nada. The route was lined with elephant enthusiasts and festival-goers, while traditional percussion ensembles (melam) set the rhythm for the jubilant march.advertisementThis year's Thrissur Pooram carries added significance, following the political controversy that marred last year's edition. Held just a week before Kerala went to the polls for the Lok Sabha elections, the 2024 Pooram was disrupted in a series of incidents that triggered widespread public debate.On 19 April 2024, the day of Thrissur Pooram, police were accused of using excessive force to control crowds and of imposing unusually strict restrictions, including barricading entry points. For the first time in the festival's history, the traditional fireworks display was held during the daytime, widely seen as a form of protest against police actions.Subsequent to these events, action was taken against the Thrissur city police commissioner and assistant commissioner. An inquiry led by senior officer Ajith Kumar was submitted to the Chief Minister on September 24. However, the Opposition dismissed the report as a farce, accusing Kumar of shifting blame onto the temple board while ignoring the failures of the police.Trending Reel
IN THIS STORY#Kerala
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Centre to bring three bills for removal of PM, CMs, ministers held on serious criminal charges
The Union government is planning to introduce three bills in Parliament on Wednesday for the removal of a prime minister, a Union minister, a chief minister or a minister of a state or Union Territory when arrested or detained on serious criminal charges. These bills are the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill 2025; the Constitution (One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill 2025; and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill 2025. Union Home Minister Amit Shah will also move a motion in the Lok Sabha to refer these three bills to a joint committee of Parliament. According to the statement of objects and reasons of the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill 2025, there is no provision under the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963) for the removal of the chief minister or a minister arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges. Hence, there is a need to amend section 45 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, to provide a legal framework for the removal of a chief minister or a minister in such cases. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives. The objectives of the Constitution (One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, say there is no provision under the Constitution for the removal of a minister who is arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges. Hence, there is a need to amend Articles 75, 164 and 239AA of the Constitution, for providing a legal framework for the removal of the prime minister or a minister in the Union Council of Ministers and the chief minister or a minister in the Council of Ministers of States and the National Capital Territory of Delhi in such cases. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives. The objectives of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, say there is no provision under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019) for the removal of the chief minister or a minister arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges. Hence, there is a need to amend section 54 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, to provide a legal framework for the removal of the Chief Minister or a Minister in such cases. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
8 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Centre to send bills on removal of PM, CMs with serious charges to panel
The government is set to refer its three big-ticket anti-corruption draft laws that also have provisions for the removal of a prime minister and chief ministers arrested on serious criminal charges, to the joint committee of both Houses of Parliament. Home Minister Amit Shah is set to introduce the three draft laws -- The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill; The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill; and The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. He will also move a motion to refer the three bills to a joint committee of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha with a provision for submission of its report on the first day of the last week of the next session of Parliament. Minister of Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw is also scheduled to introduce the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. The bill seeks to prohibit online money gaming or its advertisements, and prescribes imprisonment or fine, or both, for those offering or advertising them. It also seeks to differentiate such games from eSports or online social games. The Lok Sabha is also scheduled to resume the discussion on astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla's space mission on Wednesday. (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.)
Hans India
15 minutes ago
- Hans India
Political Storm Erupts Over Chidambaram's Comments On Pahalgam Attack Origins
A fierce political controversy has engulfed Parliament following senior Congress leader P Chidambaram's remarks questioning the government's assertions about Pakistan's involvement in the deadly Pahalgam terror attack, with the ruling BJP launching sharp counterattacks and accusing the Opposition of undermining national security interests. Chidambaram defended his position on social media platform X, claiming his statements were being deliberately misrepresented through selective editing and manipulation of his recorded interview. The former Finance Minister accused critics of engaging in a systematic misinformation campaign designed to distort his actual comments and damage his reputation. In his social media response, Chidambaram characterized the attacks against him as the work of malicious actors who deliberately suppress complete interview footage while extracting isolated sentences and muting specific words to create misleading impressions. He described this practice as the most damaging form of online harassment, designed to paint speakers in a negative light through manipulated content. The controversy originated from Chidambaram's interview with The Quint, where he challenged the government's evidence linking Pakistan to the April 22 terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam region that claimed 26 lives, predominantly civilians. During the interview, he questioned whether authorities had properly identified the attackers and their origins, suggesting the possibility that they might be domestically radicalized individuals rather than foreign operatives. Chidambaram's comments sparked immediate and intense criticism from BJP leaders, who accused the Congress party of providing diplomatic cover for Pakistan while undermining India's national security narrative. The ruling party characterized the remarks as evidence of the Opposition's tendency to side with enemy nations during critical security discussions. BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya responded forcefully on social media, accusing Congress of consistently defending Pakistan whenever Indian security forces confront Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Malviya suggested that Congress leaders increasingly resembled legal advocates for Islamabad rather than responsible members of India's political opposition. The political temperature escalated further when BJP MP Nishikant Dubey branded the entire Congress organization as treasonous, linking the controversy to broader allegations about the party's international relationships. Dubey specifically referenced Rahul Gandhi's agreements with China's Communist Party and suggested that Congress had attempted to compromise national interests before Prime Minister Modi's intervention prevented such actions. Additional BJP parliamentarian Deepak Prakash joined the criticism, accusing Congress of aligning with anti-national elements and warning that Indian citizens would not forgive such positions. The coordinated BJP response demonstrated the party's strategy of framing the controversy as part of a larger pattern of Congress's alleged anti-national stance. Congress MPs rallied to support Chidambaram, arguing that the BJP was deliberately creating diversions to avoid addressing its own security failures and operational shortcomings. Congress MP Manickam Tagore characterized the controversy as a tactical diversion from substantive questions about the Pahalgam attack and the government's follow-up military operations. Senior Congress leader Pramod Tiwari raised pointed questions about the investigation's progress, emphasizing that three months after the attack, the perpetrators remained unidentified while their victims' families continued to suffer. Tiwari criticized what he described as dangerous political games being played in Kashmir that ultimately harm national interests. Interestingly, even some opposition allies distanced themselves from Chidambaram's remarks, with Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi asserting that Pakistan's involvement in such attacks was historically established and required no additional proof. Chaturvedi pointed to decades of Pakistani-sponsored terrorism and noted that organizations like The Resistance Front, which initially claimed responsibility before retracting, operate with Pakistani backing and support at international forums like the United Nations. The controversy highlights the delicate balance political parties must maintain when discussing sensitive security matters, particularly when challenging government narratives about terrorist attacks and military responses. The incident demonstrates how quickly national security discussions can become partisan battlegrounds, potentially overshadowing substantive policy debates about counter-terrorism strategies and regional security challenges.
