Vice President emphasises indigenous strength, says
New Delhi [India], May 27 (ANI): Emphasising that India needs indigenous strength for national security, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar said on Tuesday that war is best avoided from a position of strength.
Speaking at the inaugural session of Rajya Sabha Internship Program-phase 7, the Vice President said that Operation Sindoor has changed the mindset of people massively with regard to national security, national economy and national welfare. 'We are now nationalistic as never before,' he said.
'The recent episode, Operation Sindoor, has changed our mindset massively. We are now nationalistic as never before. And this is reflected in participation of all political landscape in delegations that have gone abroad to project our message of peace and our complete intolerance to terrorism. And therefore, having seen recent events, well, we have no choice. We have no other option but to remain united and grow stronger,' he said.
'Like institutions, even political tribes have a moral duty to the national cause, because ultimately all Institutions, the Legislature, the Judiciary, the Executive, the focal point is national growth, national welfare, public welfare, to generate transparency, accountability, honesty. On issues of national security, economic progress, all factions need to put national interest over partisan priorities. I will appeal to everyone in the political spectrum to seriously reflect, come to a conclusion that on issues of national security, on issues of growth, on issues of our internal security, there must be consensus. Sometimes politics get too hot for nationalism and security, something we need to overcome,' he added.
The Vice President said that technological progress and arms strength also contribute to national strength.
'For national security, we need indigenous strength. War is best avoided from position of strength. Peace is secured when you are ever ready for war....strength comes apart from technological prowess, conventional arms strength, from people also.'
He highlighted the need for the citizens to carry out their duties.
'The balance has to be maintained. Let us not cherry-pick. We'll go for fundamental rights, claiming them 24x7, and be totally oblivious of fundamental duties!...if we focus only on our rights and not on duties, we don't measure up to the requirement of a citizen in the largest democracy, the oldest, the most functional. There are 11 fundamental duties. These duties were not initially there in the Constitution. And I'll tell you for a reason. Our founding fathers obviously expected that we will be aligned to these duties. We will respect those duties,' he said.
'But when it was noticed that it is required to spell them out in the Constitution so that people in particular become aware of these. And these were introduced by 42nd Amendment and 86th Amendment. If I have to give a sense of fundamental duties, it is to prioritise national well-being. To contribute optimally for public discourse, public order, public discipline, environment, everything which is known as goodness in life for one and all,' he added.
The Vice President said Swadeshi is closely connected with economic nationalism.
'Economic nationalism means we must consume Swadeshi. We must always take into consideration being vocal for local. This will inspire our people also to cater to our needs. But if we start importing from other countries, items that are generated in this country, that can be made in this country, we are immediately inviting three troubles,' he said.
'One trouble, there is an avoidable hole in our foreign exchange reserve, and this is in billions of dollars. Second, when we import items that can be made in this country, we are snatching work from our own people. We are depriving them of work. And thirdly, more importantly, we are blunting entrepreneurship. So every individual can contribute. What clothes he wears, what he eats, what he wears, his shoes also. Everything. These are consumables. We fancy what is abroad. Unmindful of the situation that we are injuring our national economy. I therefore assert economic nationalism is business of the people,' he added.
Dhnakhar, who is Rajya Sabha Chairman, said the Indian parliament is much beyond a legislative body.
'It is reflection presently of 1.4 billion people's will. It is the only legitimized constitutional platform that reflects authentically the will of the people, and therefore, Parliament has primacy. Parliament has primacy not in everything because there are areas where executive has primacy, how to govern. Judiciary has primacy, how to deal with justice system but parliament has primacy on two counts- it is ultimate authority to make law,' he said.
'Secondly, it holds executive accountable. Because governance is defined by some fundamentals and one fundamental is transparency. Second is accountability, and in modern times, we have added a third facet to it. Optimal performance by institutions to gallop our progress trajectory. Parliament is a place, ultimate place, for debate, dialogue, discussion, and discourse,' he added.
He underlined the significance of cooperation and consensus.
'Our constitution, boys and girls, is a most sacred document. You will come to know how it was formalised, little less than three years, by our founding fathers who dealt with divisive issues, contentious issues, issues that were highly inflammatory, but they dealt with an approach of coordination, cooperation, consensus, something you have to learn in life,' he said.
'And for that, what is important is that you must always respect the other point of view. Because if you think you alone are right, the other person is wrong, you are depriving yourself of a great benefit of input. And secondly, my own experience is, more often than not, the other point of view is the correct view,' he added.
The Vice President said the Constitution grants fundamental rights, but it also ordains every citizen to perform duties. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Modi govt gives Armed Forces freedom to..., now India will have much more powerful weapons than Pakistan's...
New Delhi: The success of one month of Operation Sindoor was celebrated on Saturday, June 7 evening. The Defense Ministry has given permission to the armed forces to buy long-range missiles, artillery shells, kamikaze drones and air-to-air missiles. These missiles will be better than the Chinese missiles which Pakistan has. According to experts, the forces have assessed the damage. This shows that the Indian Air Force (IAF) shot down four Pakistani Chinese fighter planes. Along with this, two large aircraft were also shot down during Operation Sindoor. Possibly among them was a C-130 J and a SAAB 2000 Airborne Early Warning System. According to the Hindustan Times report, it has also been learned that two F-16 fighter planes were partially damaged in the IAF missile attack. The Indian Air Force attacked 11 airbases including Sargodha, Rafiq, Jacobabad and Noor Khan (Chaklala, Rawalpindi). The report said that India's Rafale fighter jets, S-400 missile systems and M777 guns performed well. The Russian air defense system shot down three enemy aircraft. Reports also revealed that India destroyed a Chinese LY-80 fire radar. Also, two AN TPQ-43 US radars and a Chinese HQ-9 radar unit were destroyed. The attack was carried out on May 10 at Chaklala. Intelligence has revealed that Pakistan has four HQ-9 radars. Earlier it was believed that they had only two. HQ-9 is similar to Russia's S-300 air defense radar. The Pakistan Army used PL-15 missile. It is made in China and has a range of 180 kilometers. Pakistan merged a 250-kilometer range HQ 9 air defense system with a 150-kilometer range system. This was done at Chaklala and Malir Cantonment near Karachi. They wanted to surprise the Indian Air Force. The action report revealed that the IAF fired 19 BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles on Pakistan's air base. Along with this, almost the same number of French SCALP subsonic cruise missiles were also fired. Pakistan fired CM-400 AKG air-launched supersonic missiles. They used JF-17 fighter jets. But these missiles could not do any damage. Pakistan also used YIHA loitering ammunition made in Turkey. Indian electronic warfare systems jammed them. Some missiles missed their target. The rest were shot down by India's air defense system. Pakistan also fired FATAH-1 rockets. They too either missed the target or were intercepted by Indian air defence systems.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Business of politics after busyness of war
After the immensely successful and strategically path-breaking 'Operation Sindoor,' it is back to business as usual in India that is Bharat. By business, I mean politics. Because politics isn't just about gaining and retaining power, whether at the Centre or the states, it is also India's biggest business. Of course, going back to its original meaning, by 'business', I also mean whatever keeps us busy. Nothing preoccupies the nation, as we know only too well, as much as politics. It is so ubiquitous and pervasive that it obsessively involves us in almost all aspects of our lives—from the family to the nation. That is why I rate it higher than Bollywood, cricket or, for that matter, even religion, as both our national passion and pastime. Not to speak of our topmost source of information and entertainment. And given the wartime—or now post-war but still hostile—environment, the distinction between information and entertainment could not be more blurred. 'Operation Sindoor' was a series of strikes so precise, so restrained, yet so audacious that the world paused to take notice, albeit grudgingly. The whole country, on the other hand, was agog as the Indian armed forces, with their deadly resolve and impeccable aim, delivered a resounding slap to the face of 'rogue nation' Pakistan. The result? Mission accomplished. A masterclass in military might. However, throughout the conflict, we were also embroiled in a deafening, at times sickening, misinformation battle. Not only with our enemy but with ourselves. With political parties jockeying to position themselves as adversarial beneficiaries. Did we forget that we were at war with Pakistan, not with each other? The result? A masterclass in political theatrics, starring none other than Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the main, if not sole and singular, protagonist of this blockbuster. And why not? The nation is no longer at war. Therefore, we must revert to our favourite melodrama, national politics.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is a sign of regression
Indian courts today are not defending free speech. They are managing it. And in this curious inversion of constitutional values, we are witnessing a quiet retreat from the principle that animated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: that speech, even provocative, offensive, or unsettling, is the citizen's shield against tyranny — not its tool. Once envisioned as the counter-majoritarian bulwark of our democracy, the judiciary now increasingly resembles an arbiter of decorum, demanding apologies and deference in the name of civility, sensitivity, or national pride. But when courts focus on what was said rather than why the right to say it must be protected, the Republic is left vulnerable to a new tyranny: that of sentiment, outrage, and the lowest tolerance denominator. Let us begin with a chillingly ordinary example: a social media post by a 24-year-old man criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi. after the ceasefire with Pakistan following Operation Sindoor in May 2025. Was this tasteless? Perhaps. But taste is not a constitutional metric. The Allahabad High Court thought otherwise. In rejecting the plea to quash the first information report (FIR), the Bench declared that 'emotions cannot be permitted to overflow to an extent that constitutional authorities of the country are dragged into disrepute'. That is a remarkable formulation. It subtly inverts the constitutional design: the citizen is no longer the source of power holding the state to account, but a child to be reprimanded for speaking too freely. A validation of outrage Instead of interpreting Article 19(1)(a) as a liberty that limits state power, courts have begun treating it as a licence that comes with behavioural conditions — conditions defined not by law but by the perceived dignity of public figures and institutions. Take the Kamal Haasan controversy in connection with his film, Thug Life. The actor made a remark about Kannada being a daughter of Tamil. The Karnataka High Court responded not by evaluating whether the actor's statement met the threshold of incitement, defamation, or hate, but by advising him to apologise to the 'sentiments of the masses'. This advice is corrosive. When courts suggest apologies for lawful speech, they set a precedent that expression must pass a popularity test. They validate the very outrage that threatens free speech, rather than shielding expression from it. An apology does not close the loop but only widens it, inviting further claims of offence. In Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia vs Union Of India, the 'digital content creator and podcaster' was confronted with judicial comments bordering on cultural supervision for his use of explicit language in a podcast. The court directed the Union to clarify whether such 'vulgar' language fell outside constitutional protection. Here again, the concern was not whether the speech incited harm, but on whether it offended prevailing norms of taste and modesty — a dangerously subjective threshold. Similarly, historian and a professor, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, was dragged into proceedings after sharing critical views on the optics of India using a woman soldier to explain its war situation with Pakistan. The argument was that his comments hurt sentiments. That it even reached court underscores the problem: invoking hurt feelings is now sufficient to invite judicial scrutiny of constitutionally protected speech. The professor's scholarly critique became a matter for judicial assessment and a special investigation to assess whether there was any dog whistle intent that played on the fragility of the audience. A misreading Two disturbing patterns emerge from these cases. First, the judiciary is increasingly equating speech that provokes emotional reactions with legally actionable harm. This misreads the Constitution and the rationale of a democracy. The test for restricting speech under Article 19(2) is not whether it angers, irritates, or offends but whether it incites violence, hatred or disrupts public order. Second, by encouraging apologies and moral policing of language, courts create a perverse incentive. The more outrage a comment generates, the more likely it is to be litigated. This does not protect society. It emboldens mobs and serial litigants. It creates a market for offence. This shift is starkly evident in cases that involve the armed forces. In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court denied the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, relief in a defamation case on his alleged derogatory remarks about the Indian Army . The High Court said that the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to 'defame' the military. But defamation, as a legal standard, must be carefully assessed particularly when invoked by or on behalf of state institutions by busy-bodies. Likewise, in a previous first information report against a man using the word 'coward' to describe the Prime Minister after the recent military stand-down, the court saw no issue with Sections 152 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita being invoked — laws meant for threats to sovereignty and public mischief . These laws, meant for sedition-like scenarios, are being contorted to punish sarcasm and satire. It is telling that courts will routinely deny the quashing of FIRs in such cases, claiming that it is too early to interfere and that police investigations must run their course. But this abdication is neither neutral nor passive. For the citizen facing criminal prosecution, the process itself is the punishment. The system does not need a conviction to chill speech. A summons and a charge sheet do the job. The Madras High Court has occasionally resisted this drift. But this was more about narrative correction than structural protection of speech. Courts in India must return to a principle-centric model of speech protection. Instead of obsessing over what was said, they must ask whether the speaker's right was violated, and not someone else's sentiment. Apologies should not be judicial recommendations. They should be individual choices. Otherwise, courts become confessional booths where speech is absolved not by legal reasoning but by remorse. And remorse demanded is remorse devalued — it empowers the outraged, not the rational. The signal to the citizen Moreover, as long as laws such as sedition or the ever-morphing public order clauses remain vague, courts must lean toward liberty. The doctrine of 'chilling effect' that is robust in American and European jurisprudence, has been acknowledged in India's courts but seldom enforced with spine. This is not just about high-profile speech or celebrities. It is about the slow attrition of constitutional confidence. When a YouTuber is told to bleep a joke, or a professor is dragged to court for a tweet, or a film-maker is told to grovel for linguistic pride the signal to the ordinary citizen is clear: express only what is safe, bland and agreeable. But democracies are not built on agreeable speech. They thrive on disagreement — noisy, rude, even reckless at times. The test of a society's strength is not how well it tolerates politeness, but how it handles provocation. Free speech is not just about giving offence, but about withstanding it. If India is to preserve its democratic soul, it must restore the dignity of dissent. It must not demand the dignity of institutions at the cost of liberty. Judges are the guardians of the Constitution, and not the curators of culture. They must protect the right to speak and not the comfort of the listener. Because when speech is chilled in courtrooms, freedom dies not with a bang, but with a sigh of deference. The new age of judicial sensitivity to sentiments is not a sign of progress. It is a sign of regression. It confuses harmony with homogeneity, and respect with restraint. Apologies should never be a legal strategy. And speech should not need blessings to be legitimate. Let our courts not forget that the Republic was not born from politeness but from protest. The Constitution came from the pen of a Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who also wrote, '…the world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not infallible'. Sanjay Hegde is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India
