'Demanding cuts, commissions from poor': PM Modi launches all out attack on TMC, Mamata Banerjee
NEW DELHI: Prime Minister
Narendra Modi
on Thursday launched a scathing attack on the
Trinamool Congress
(TMC) government in West Bengal, accusing it of showing "hostility" towards the poor and backward classes.
He alleged that leaders of the Mamata Banerjee-led government were demanding "cuts and commissions" from the poor in exchange for the implementation of central government schemes.
"The ruthless government didn't let the people of West Bengal get Ayushman cards... Many poor people are not able to get permanent houses because of the TMC government, because their leaders are demanding cut and commission from the poor," the PM said while addressing a gather in West Bengal's Alipurduar.
Further upping the ante against the
Mamata Banerjee
government, the PM accused the TMC of having "enmity" towards the tribal and said that the TMC was "first party" to oppose the candidature of President Draupadi Murmu.
"The TMC government's enmity towards the tribals is no less... The TMC government is stalling the development of the poor tribal communities... TMC doesn't care about the tribal community's respect. When the NDA government made a tribal woman a Presidential candidate for the first time, TMC was the first party to oppose that," he said.
PM Modi lashed out at the TMC government, describing it as 'plagued by violence, corruption and lawlessness.' Citing communal violence in Murshidabad and Malda, he said, 'West Bengal is grappling with a series of crises… people don't want 'Nirmam Sarkar' anymore.'
'
Operation Sindoor
is not over yet'
Speaking about India's 'Operation Sindoor' the Prime Minister said that the operation "is far from over", and warned that India would continue to exact a heavy price on those sponsoring terrorism.
He stated Pakistan had already been hit "three times inside its home".
"Ever since it came into existence, it has only nurtured terrorism... Terror and genocide are the biggest expertise of the Pakistan army. When a direct war is waged, their defeat is certain. This is the reason why the Pakistan army takes the help of terrorists... Pakistan should understand that 'teen baar ghar mein ghuskar maara hai tumhe'. This is the declaration of 140 crore Indian from the land of the Bengal Tiger- Operation Sindoor is not over yet," he said.
PM Modi also invoked the cultural symbolism of 'sindoor', linking it to the traditional 'Sindoor Khela' ritual during Durga Puja. 'Now that I am standing on the sacred land of 'Sindoor Khela', it is only right that we speak about a new resolve against terrorism 'Operation Sindoor',' he said.
Referring to the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Modi said, 'The terrorists dared to wipe off 'sindoor' from the foreheads of our sisters.
But our brave soldiers made them realise the power of that sindoor.'
He asserted India's firm stance against terrorism: 'Pakistan should understand that we have entered your house and killed you three times.'
Accusing Pakistan of institutionalising terrorism, Modi said, 'Terrorism and mass murder are the biggest expertise of the Pakistani army.' He also recalled atrocities committed during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Three-year legal practice rule for judicial services could deter the brightest minds
Written by Shailesh Kumar and Raju Kumar There is no doubt that judges ought to be trained in legal procedures, judgment-writing, evaluating evidence and assessing societal situations. This is particularly so in subordinate courts that are the final arbiters in a majority of cases, and which deal with factual questions, raw emotions, and engage mostly members of marginalised communities. The right question, therefore, is not whether aspiring judicial magistrates in India should have such training, but rather whether such knowledge and experience can only come from three years of practice as an advocate. Let's begin by acknowledging two public secrets of the Indian legal profession. First, a law graduate can obtain a certificate of practice without entering a courtroom. Second, it is still, primarily — and regrettably so — an institution run by caste-, class-, and gender-based networks, and not by merit per se. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) said that subordinate judicial officers would benefit from three to five years' practice at the Bar, but made an exception for the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) for the higher judiciary, where fresh law graduates could be recruited directly by subjecting them to post-selection training. In the All India Judges' Association I case (1992), the Supreme Court directed the central government to set up the AIJS and allowed fresh law graduates to apply for it with post-selection training. And in the All India Judges' Association II case (1993), the Court emphasised that three years of practice as a lawyer was essential for the subordinate judiciary. Soon after, the Justice Shetty Commission (1999) found that the rule had not drawn the 'best candidates': The most successful ones were nearing 30, while top law graduates chose corporate roles or academia instead. Acting on these findings, the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association III (2002) struck down the rule to make subordinate judicial careers accessible to fresh law graduates. We must mention here that the first five National Law Universities (NLUs) had already been established, with several batches of NLSIU having graduated by then. After more than two decades, the matter resurfaced on May 20, when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gavai, reinstated the three-year legal practice requirement — this time citing High Courts' opinions and without the support of any empirical evidence. The assertion that appointing law graduates without Bar experience has failed in the past is largely anecdotal. The Court mainly relies on the opinion of the High Courts, but there are no research findings to back this broad generalisation. Without empirical evidence, such sweeping policy decisions may do more harm than good. Back in 1999, the Shetty Commission had advised against this very requirement. Its reasoning was straightforward: The new five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) programme already includes practical training components, such as internships, moot courts, and simulations. So, the Supreme Court should have enquired about the demography and institutional background of graduates who entered the subordinate judiciary since 2002, and whether these were the 'best talent' sought, by outlining certain criteria, to assess if the Shetty Commission's objective remained unfulfilled. Reinstituting the three-year Bar requirement not only disregards that recommendation but also ignores how legal education has evolved to bridge the very gaps this rule claims to address. Many top-performing students from NLUs regularly secure roles at leading law firms or express strong interest in public service. Yet they are now told to wait for three years, regardless of their readiness or aptitude. This delay wastes potential and may discourage some of the best minds from pursuing judicial careers altogether. What about the financial reality? A (discretionary) monthly stipend of Rs 2,000 to Rs 20,000 — where a senior advocate might earn Rs 20 lakh for a single hearing in a higher court — is a severe pay gap and is barely enough to get by, especially in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. For many students — particularly those from SC/ST/OBC communities, economically weaker sections, rural areas, women, or those with caregiving responsibilities — this rule effectively shuts the door on a judicial career before it can begin. After five to six years of education, it unintentionally pushes them into other fields where they can earn a living straight after graduation. The rule favours those who can afford to wait — in other words, the elite class. India already faces a chronic shortage of judges, especially at the district level. By restricting who can apply, this rule reduces the eligible talent pool even further. Fewer recruits mean higher caseloads for sitting judges, longer delays for litigants, and declining public trust in the system's ability to deliver timely justice. Under this new rule, aspiring judges must wait three years, possibly juggling low-paying work or uncertain prospects in the meantime. The alternative should be to invest in what happens after selection, or during the course degree itself. Legal education should incorporate daily courtroom exposure in the final year — similar to the clinical internships followed in medical colleges — as an integral part of the curriculum. In the past, there was a two-part training structure: One part involved real-world learning under experienced judges, while the other focused on classroom-based judicial instruction. This method was not perfect, but it worked — and with some updates, it could serve the purpose well again. Rather than holding people back, the system should focus on preparing them thoroughly once they are in. Let us not assume that the 'best' law students come only from (expensive) NLUs; perhaps the most trained ones do, because of the structural benefits NLU students have in India's several-tier legal education system. Moreover, the learning process for a judge should not end once they take an oath. Like other professionals, judges need to stay updated. One way to do this is by requiring newly appointed judges to undergo structured training — perhaps approximately 200 hours — within their first year and a half on the bench. The goal is to make continuing education a normal part of the job, not a one-time event. The Supreme Court must also examine the quality of training the High Courts provide for probationary magistrates. Research findings from one of the authors, albeit in a specific context, suggest that judicial training has mostly been poor, and there has been resistance — particularly from district judges — to undergo training. This is a serious policy issue with severe implications for the future. Considering that the problems outlined exist, is this the right medicine? The Supreme Court ought to have relied on solid evidence rather than opinions, even if they came from the High Courts. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Commonwealth Scholar. Raju Kumar is a legal consultant at Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of Bihar, and a graduate from Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Hans India
26 minutes ago
- Hans India
Very special moment, say J&K students after meeting PM Modi on inaugural Vande Bharat journey
New Delhi: It was a moment of immense pride and excitement for a group of students who had an opportunity to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi onboard the inaugural run of the Vande Bharat Express connecting Katra to Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir. These students, selected through various competitions, were among the first passengers of the high-speed train flagged off by the PM, and shared their overwhelming experiences. One student remarked, 'He interacted with us and asked what we did to get the chance to come here. There were many competitions, like poem recitation and drawing, from which we were selected. I felt very proud after meeting our Prime Minister. He is such a famous personality, and it is very rare to meet someone like him.' 'It felt very special and made me feel extremely proud because he is the Prime Minister of the was in front of everyone gets the opportunity to meet him,' she added. Another student from Delhi Public School (DPS) Katra said, 'I never thought of meeting PM Modi in my lifetime. He is my idol, and I felt very nice and fortunate to meet him. He asked us what competitions we participated in, and we told him how we got selected. After winning these competitions, we got the opportunity to enter the train and meet the PM.' The occasion was part of a historic day for Jammu and Kashmir, as Prime Minister Modi inaugurated a series of transformative infrastructure projects, including the world's highest railway bridge, the Chenab Bridge, and the country's first cable-supported rail bridge, the Anji Bridge. These projects mark a major leap in connectivity and development in the region. Following the inauguration, PM Modi flagged off the Vande Bharat Express, a symbol of modern transportation, bridging key destinations in Jammu and Kashmir. The train's maiden journey was marked not only by engineering marvels but also by unforgettable moments for the students who got to witness and be part of history, up close with the Prime Minister himself.
Scroll.in
27 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Scroll Adda: How fact checkers fight IT cell disinformation
Play India is drowning in fake news. And much of it is produced by its own political parties. Dedicated so-called IT cells supported by highly paid consultants push disinformation on social media with the aim of converting voters to their point of view. This isn't limited to elections. Disinformation is warping Indian society itself. The past decade has seen an explosion of hate, a significant part of which has been powered by fake news. The first line of defence against this tsunami? Fact checkers. To understand how they battle this scourge, Scroll's political editor, Shoaib Daniyal, speaks to Alt News co-founder Pratik Sinha on the first episode of Scroll Adda. In a wide-ranging conversation, Sinha explains the toll disinformation has taken on India — and on his own mental health.
