Rebels' task force in Nagaland to deal with illegal immigrants
Taking serious note of the 'imminent threat posed to the demographic, socio-economic and political future' of the Nagas, the Working Committee of Naga National Political Groups (WC-NNPGs) resolved to set up an 'Immigration Control Task Force' to control and regulate issues relating to illegal immigrants.
The committee cited the secular nature of the co-existence of diverse communities in the Naga-inhabited areas, where people respect and promote religious tolerance, but categorically stated that this liberal approach would never be allowed to be misused to promote religious fundamentalism.
'Therefore, the Working Committee shall not allow any madrasas to be established and shall also disband any madrasas in existence, if any, in the Naga-inhabited territories,' the committee said in a statement.
'Masjids also should not be misused to foment Jihadist ideology in any manner for which the concerned Muslim Councils in Naga areas are asked to coordinate with the Task Force on related issues,' the statement said.
Advocating for long-term strategic measures to tackle the issue, the committee called for the intensive identification and registration of migrants to avoid unnecessary harassment to legally settled citizens.
It asked community leaders, including village authorities at the grass-root level, to extend their cooperation to the Task Force. It added that the steps being taken must not be construed as anti-Muslim agenda or against any particular religious or social groups.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Malegaon blast case acquittals expose a deep-rooted bias in Congress
The recent verdict in the Malegaon blast case has not just acquitted individuals like Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya — it has exposed something far more sinister: The Congress party's consistent and deep-rooted prejudice against the Hindu community. As someone who believes in justice, constitutional morality, and the inclusive spirit of India, I find it essential to call out this ideological poison for what it is. The judgment in the 2008 Malegaon blast case is damning, not for the accused but for the political ecosystem that manipulated agencies, planted narratives, and criminalised identities. The court noted how the prosecution failed to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt, how witnesses turned hostile, and how the fabric of the case was stitched together with political intent. As someone who has followed the case closely, including the detailed biography of Lt Col Purohit by journalist Smita Mishra, I was appalled. Here was a decorated Army officer who had been entrusted with infiltrating terror networks, but who ended up being framed as a terrorist himself. His nine years behind bars were not just a personal tragedy — they were the outcome of a Congress-led UPA regime that needed to invent 'Hindu terror' to balance Islamist terror in the public discourse. This perverse narrative was systematically constructed by three key Congress leaders. In August 2010, then-Union Home Minister P Chidambaram publicly warned of a new phenomenon of 'saffron terrorism', alleging that radical Hindu outfits were implicated in bomb blasts. His colleague Digvijay Singh then popularised the term within the Congress ranks, describing 'terrorism among Hindus' while paradoxically objecting to religious descriptors for terrorism. The campaign reached its peak when then-Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde defended 'saffron terror' at a party conclave in January 2013, claiming his ministry's confidential papers substantiated the allegations. Years later, Shinde would admit that coining the term was a mistake — but by then, irreparable damage had been done to innocent lives and India's social fabric. This perverse narrative found its way into diplomatic cables too. In the WikiLeaks cable from 2009, Rahul Gandhi reportedly told then-US Ambassador Timothy Roemer that Hindu radicalism was a bigger threat to India than Lashkar-e-Taiba. This was not a stray remark. It was a window into the Congress's ideological framework, where the Hindu is always the problem and the minority vote bank must always be coddled, even at the cost of truth. Go back to 1951. When the Somnath temple was reconstructed after centuries of devastation, India's first President Rajendra Prasad, agreed to attend the inauguration. But Jawaharlal Nehru disapproved, fearing it would look like 'Hindu revivalism'. Fast forward to 1985. The Supreme Court delivers a progressive judgment in favor of Shah Bano, a Muslim woman seeking alimony. But Rajiv Gandhi caved under pressure from conservative clerics and overturned the ruling through legislation. In 1988, the Congress government banned Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses — even before protests erupted in India. It wasn't about public order; it was about pre-emptively appeasing a vote bank. And perhaps the most shocking of all: In 2006, then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared, 'We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably in the fruits of development. They must have the first claim on resources.' I am a Dalit, and I cannot stay silent at the suggestion that national development should be filtered by religion. What about the poor Hindu, the Dalit student, the tribal child? Does their struggle not count? Today, when Rahul Gandhi speaks of 'social justice' and champions Dalit rights, one must ask: How does denying reservation to marginalised communities in prestigious institutions like AMU and Jamia serve social justice? This is the height of hypocrisy — using Dalit symbolism for votes while systematically undermining Dalit interests in policy. This isn't just about Congress. It's about the future of India's democracy. A nation cannot move forward if it continues to be shackled by ideological hatred and historical bias. Hindu identity is not extremist. It is civilisational. And those who equate it with terror not only insult India's history —they endanger its future. The Congress party owes an apology. To the falsely accused. To the institutions it compromised. And to the silent Hindu majority who have endured humiliation in the name of 'secularism'. The writer is national spokesperson of the BJP
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Witness Asked To Name Yogi Adityanath In Malegaon Blast Case, Court Told
A witness in the 2008 Malegaon blast case who turned hostile claimed he was illegally detained and forced to implicate Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, besides four others linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In its over 1,000-page judgment, special judge A K Lakhoti of a National Investigation Agency (NIA) court mentioned Milind Joshi Rao's testification that he was pressured by the Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad (ATS) officials to falsely name Mr Adityanath, RSS member Indresh Kumar, former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Hindu seer and former RSS member Swami Aseemanand, and Professor Deodhar in the case. Besides, Mr Rao also said the ATS illegally kept him in custody for a week and told him he would be freed only if he named the above five people. Six people were killed when a bomb planted in a motorcycle exploded in a busy market in Malegaon, around 300 km from Mumbai, on September 29, 2008. The blast was initially probed by the state ATS before the case was handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the country's top anti-terror body. All seven accused, including Ms Thakur, were acquitted by the court on Thursday on the grounds that there was "no reliable and cogent" evidence against them. On Friday, a former probe officer alleged that the ATS was ordered to arrest RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat during the course of investigation. Mehboob Mujawar, who was a part of the ATS team that investigated the blast, also claimed there was an attempt to take the probe in the "wrong direction" and that false cases were registered against him for objecting to the plan. "Mohan Bhagwat was going to be included in the case to make it appear like a saffron terror case," Mr Mujawar said. The BJP has in the past alleged that the investigation into the case was carried out with an intention to defame and frame right wing leaders and target the Hindu community. "There was an attempt to conduct a fake probe into the Malegaon bomb blast but I was not ready for it. False cases were registered against me in this case but my name was cleared later," he said. The NIA court, however, dismissed the claims. The blast in Malegaon took place during the holy month of Ramzan, just before the Navratri festival, the NIA pointed out, claiming the intention of the accused was to strike terror in a section of the Muslim community. The trial, which started in 2018, got over on April 19 this year. The prosecution presented 323 witnesses, of whom 37 turned hostile. The special court, on Thursday, observed that while the prosecution had proven a bomb blast did occur, it failed to establish that the explosive was planted on the motorbike.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law
The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Friday that it will assess the legality of a key component of a landmark federal voting rights law, potentially giving its conservative majority a chance to gut a provision enacted 60 years ago that was intended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The brief order issued by the court raises the stakes in a case already pending before the justices involving a legal challenge to an electoral map passed by Louisiana's Republican-led legislature that raised the number of Black-majority U.S. congressional districts in the state from one to two. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Operations Management Project Management Technology Management Data Science Finance Data Analytics Design Thinking Public Policy healthcare others MBA Cybersecurity Leadership MCA Degree Digital Marketing PGDM Healthcare CXO Product Management Others Artificial Intelligence Data Science Skills you'll gain: Quality Management & Lean Six Sigma Analytical Tools Supply Chain Management & Strategies Service Operations Management Duration: 10 Months IIM Lucknow IIML Executive Programme in Strategic Operations Management & Supply Chain Analytics Starts on Jan 27, 2024 Get Details The justices said they will consider whether it violates the U.S. Constitution for states to create additional voting districts with populations that are majority Black, Hispanic or another minority as a way to remedy a judicial finding that a state's voting map likely violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case, due to be heard by the justices in their next term that begins in October, sets the stage for a major ruling expected by the end of June 2026 that could affect the composition of electoral districts around the United States. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute strikes at tensions between the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress during the U.S. civil rights era to bar racial discrimination in voting, and adhering to the constitutional principle of equal protection, which limits the application of race when the borders of electoral districts are redrawn. Live Events Boundaries of legislative districts across the country are reconfigured to reflect population changes every decade in a process called redistricting. The court previously heard arguments in the case in March. But in June, the justices declined to issue a ruling and indicated they would invite the parties to address additional questions. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, called the stakes enormous, writing in a blog post that the court seems to be asking whether the section of the Voting Rights Act at issue "violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution." The action follows a major ruling by the court in 2013 in a case involving Alabama's Shelby County that invalidated another core section of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval for voting rule changes affecting Black people and other minorities. "This Court is more conservative than the Court that in 2013 struck down the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case," Hasen wrote. "This is a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down the second pillar." The matter is being litigated at the Supreme Court at a time when Republican President Donald Trump is taking steps to eliminate programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion that aim to promote opportunities for minorities, women, LGBT people and others. In the Louisiana case, state officials and civil rights groups appealed a lower court's ruling that found the map laying out the state's six U.S. House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts , up from one previously - violated the constitutional promise of equal protection. A group of 12 Louisiana voters identifying themselves in court papers as "non-African American" sued to block the redrawn map. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests to provide the racial breakdown of the plaintiffs. The state and the rights groups are seeking to preserve the map. Black people comprise nearly a third of Louisiana's population. During the first round of arguments in the case in March, lawyers for Louisiana argued that the map was not drawn impermissibly by the legislature with race as the primary motivation, as the lower court found last year. The map's design, the Republican-governed state argued, also sought to protect Republican incumbents including House Speaker Mike Johnson and No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who both represent districts in the state. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates. Arguments in the case centered on Louisiana's response to U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick's June 2022 finding that an earlier map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and whether the state relied too heavily on race in devising the remedial map. Dick ruled that a map adopted earlier that year by the legislature that had contained only one Black-majority district unlawfully harmed Black voters. Dick ordered the addition of a second Black-majority district. The Supreme Court in 2023 left Dick's ruling in place, and it previously allowed the map at issue in the current case to be used in the 2024 election. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 ruling in April 2024 found that the map relied too heavily on race in the map's design in violation of the equal protection provision. The Constitution's 14th Amendment contains the equal protection language. Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the amendment addressed issues relating to the rights of formerly enslaved Black people.
