At mahapanchayat in Rajasthan, call for Gujjar reservation, but disagreement over BJP govt response
Some members of the Gujjar community held a protest on railway tracks and stalled a train in Rajasthan's Bharatpur district Sunday after taking part in Mahapanchayat, which was called by BJP leader Vijay Bainsla, pressing for various demands including on reservation.
The Mahapanchayat of Gujjar community began at 8 am Sunday in Pilupura and thousands of people from different areas attended it. During the meeting, a draft was sent to the Mahapanchayat from the government which was read out by Vijay Bainsla, who is also the president of Gujjar Aarakshan Sangharsh Samiti. After this, the meeting concluded.
However, a section of the community expressed discontent with the government's response, gathered on the railway tracks and stopped the Sawai Madhopur–Mathura passenger express at Fatehsinghpura near Bayana town, Harshit Srivastav, PRO, Western Central Railways told The Indian Express.
Srivastav said that though the train was stopped, the presence of security forces in nearby areas ensured that the law and order situation was under control, adding that all passengers were safe.
Soon, the Collector and Superintendent of Police reached the spot, spoke to the protesters and the track, which is only 150 m from the Mahapanchayat venue, was cleared around 6:30 pm.
Asked about the protest, Bainsla, son of the late Kirodi Singh Bainsla who had led several Gujjar agitations on the quota issue, said that the entire community and leaders are happy with the government's response to their main demands. 'To get the 5% reservation to Most Backward Classes (MBC) included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, a proposal would be recommended by the state Cabinet and it would urge the Centre (to ensure its passage). The entire community wanted this. It is a legislative issue. We all are happy,' Bainsla told PTI, adding it was their key demand.
According to the draft read out by Bainsla, ministers will hold a meeting with the Gujjar Aarakshan Sangharsh Samiti in the next 60 days regarding the method of operation of MBC reservation and, if necessary, a decision will be taken as per law after obtaining legal opinion. The government also assured, as per the draft, that a meeting of the Committee of Ministers will be held every 3 months in which the representatives of Samiti will also be invited. The first meeting will be held in June last week.
Bainsla said that another demand was that a nodal officer should be appointed in every district to dispose of police cases against community members during the Gujjar agitation. 'The government has agreed to it,' he claimed.
Earlier in the day, during the meeting, Bainsla had accused his own government of not fulfilling the promises made to the Gujjars.
On June 7, state MoS for Home, Jawahar Singh Bedam held a meeting with members of the Gujjar community in a hotel to convince them to call off the panchayat.
Bedam told mediapersons, 'I got the information regarding the Mahapanchayat and its demands. I spoke to CM Bhajanlal Sharma about this, who said that the government is ready to hear anyone. Community leaders should come forward and put forth their demands. Government will listen and make an appropriate decision.'
In 2008, when the Gujjar reservation movement erupted, Pilupura was at its centre. Under the leadership of Kirori Singh Bainsla, the Gujjar community took part in the movement and during clashes, 72 people died in police firing. —With PTI
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
35 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Dear Editor, I disagree: Not all speech is free
The constitutional right to free speech — a fundamental democratic principle — is often misinterpreted. The editorial ('Whose free speech?', IE, June 3) circumvents the context, intent and impact of free speech by defending Sharmistha Panoli's inflammatory social media post, targeting Islam and the Prophet, as a legitimate exercise of free expression. An important disclaimer: My disagreement with the editorial is not a defence or endorsement of the carceral state. Rather, beyond the over-simplistic binaries, the focus here is on recognising hate speech as a form of violence. While the editorial rightly criticises the overzealous police action in arresting the 22-year-old law student — she was later released on bail — it ignores the context that enabled Panoli's remarks and fails to acknowledge the target of her outburst. Panoli's words are far from being an act of reckless indiscretion; they feed into the volatile environment, increasingly marginalising, vilifying, and disproportionately targeting Muslims. The editorial, too, acknowledges that Panoli's post echoed 'some of the most hurtful anti-minority tropes in circulation'. However, more than the troubling content of Panoli's post, one should be wary of the political sentiments that consider Muslims to be demographic threats. Condemning arrests for online posts is crucial, but one must differentiate between freedom of expression and provocative speech that perpetuates targeted hatred against marginalised communities. The editorial failed to realise the essence of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015). The judgment upholds freedom of speech but doesn't legitimise hate speech. On the contrary, the SC has clearly defined the boundaries between protected free expression and punishable hate speech. In Shreya Singhal, the court established a crucial framework by distinguishing three categories of speech: Discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It held that 'mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution', and is therefore protected. However, as the court noted, once such speech crosses the line into incitement — particularly incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder — Article 19(2) applies, and restrictions become constitutionally valid. By drawing this line, Shreya Singhal underscores a crucial principle: The right to free speech does not encompass a right to incite harm or hatred against others. Many judicial precedents affirm this critical distinction. Notably, in three rulings in 2018 — Tehseen Poonawalla vs Union of India, Kodungallur Film Society vs Union of India, and Shakti Vahini vs Union of India, the SC went a step further, laying down guidelines to prevent and address hate speech and vigilante violence. However, these directives have largely remained on paper, with little to no meaningful implementation. The antidote to overzealous state action cannot be universal impunity. The editorial rightly points out that young Muslims have often been arrested for social media posts and labelled 'anti-national' or 'pro-Pakistan', often with little evidence of real harm. But to use that injustice to suggest that no one should be held accountable for incendiary speech is a fallacy. The discourse on free speech must be shaped by consistent legal principles, not by selective outrage and the use of legal machinery by those in power. The solution to the wicked problem of protecting free speech lies in equal and principled application of the law, not in abandoning accountability altogether. In a system that disproportionately targets minority voices while mostly excusing and sometimes even celebrating those who vilify them, the overwhelming defence from all political cadres for free expression is amusing. The double standard is made evident through the ruling party's sudden invocation of the principle of freedom of speech and expression, championing Panoli's right to free speech while silencing dissenting voices from marginalised communities — the latest, the arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, is a case in point. Defending insidious speech on the grounds of constitutional liberty risks defending the right to hate, a right not promised by the Constitution. The writer teaches law at Jamia Hamdard
India Gazette
38 minutes ago
- India Gazette
BJP opposed earlier caste census report citing data inconsistency, why is it opposing a re-survey now: K'taka Dy CM
New Delhi [India], June 12 (ANI): Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar on Wednesday questioned the BJP's intention in questioning the state government's decision to re-conduct the caste census. 'The BJP was opposed to the earlier caste census, citing data sanctity issues. We have announced a redo of the census, but the BJP is still opposing this too,' he said, while speaking to reporters here. Asked about BJP criticising the decision to reconduct the caste census, he said, 'The BJP did not accept the earlier caste census report, why the opposition now when we are trying to address the concerns? We are not rejecting the earlier census, we are only trying to correct the shortcomings of the earlier survey in order to allay concerns of several communities.' Asked if the survey would be conducted in a scientific manner this time, he said, 'The modalities would be discussed in the Cabinet meeting. Several communities, including Lambanis, Jains, Bestha communities had met me and raised concerns on the earlier survey. The previous survey was also done scientifically through door-to-door visits, but some of the people were hesitant to share their caste details. Our national leaders have given us certain guidelines. The AICC President too has given us many suggestions. The CM will discuss this in the Cabinet meeting and make a decision.' To a question of whether the government gave in to the pressure from powerful communities, he said, 'We have yielded to the pressures from all communities. We have yielded to the pressure from the media too.' When pointed out that the Veerashaiva community has welcomed the government's decision to redo the caste census, he said, 'Seers from Veerashaiva and Vokkaliga communities called me up and welcomed the decision. I appeal to all the seers to nudge their community members to participate in the survey and provide correct details.' Asked if it was D K Shivakumar's victory in convincing the High Command for a resurvey, he said there was no winner or loser in this matter. When questioned if there was a need for the state to reconduct the caste census when the Centre has announced a caste census along with the general census, he said, 'This is our Party's agenda, the BJP has copied it. Rahul Gandhi has always been advocating proportionate representation for the backwards classes.' Replying to a question on ED raids on Congress MLAs and MPs in the alleged Valmiki Corporation corruption case, he said, 'There is no link between our MLAs and Valmiki Corporation scam. Our leaders have not used the money in any election. As much as 90% of the money misused by the officials has been recovered.' (ANI)
India Gazette
38 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Enemies of Telangana: Revanth Reddy hits out at KCR family amid chaos over Kaleshwaram project
Hyderabad (Telangana) [India], June 12 (ANI): Amid ruckus over the alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy launched a scathing attack against the family of former CM K Chandrasekhar Rao, accusing them of being the 'true enemies' of the state. The CM said that he would present detailed facts and documents related to the Kaleshwaram Project within two days. He also ruled out the possibility of anyone from the KCR family being inducted into the Congress. 'As long as I am in power, there will be no entry for KCR's family into Congress,' Reddy said. He further accused Union Minister G Kishan Reddy of obstructing Telangana's development, calling him 'the biggest hurdle to the state's progress.' 'Kishan Reddy is the biggest hurdle to Telangana's progress,' Reddy said. Speaking about BRS MLC Kalvakuntla Kavitha's letter to her father, KCR, the Telangana CM labelled it a 'film-style drama' for attention. Earlier, Kavitha took potshots at the leaders of her party. Without naming anyone, she said that when her father, KCR, received notices in relation to the Kaleshwaram probe, no plan of action was set up. 'When KCR is given notices, there is no action plan. Instead of teaching me, tell me what is your action plan. Twitter tweets are not enough. Shouldn't we be on the ground?' Kavitha said, adding, 'During the Delhi liquor policy, when I went to KCR and wanted to resign, he said that they can't face me, and that's why the case has been filed against you.' The BRS MLC further criticised people in her party, labelling them 'converts.' 'Is it okay to say there are converts? Coverts should be controlled, and KCR should be protected,' Kavitha said, adding, 'If BRS is weak, BJP and Congress will become strong.' Meanwhile, KCR on Wednesday appeared before the PC Ghosh Commission in connection with alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram project. Heavy police deployment was witnessed at Hyderabad's BRK Bhavan ahead of his appearance. Previously, BRS MLA and former Irrigation Minister Harish Rao and BJP MP Etela Rajender, who previously served as Finance Minister in the BRS government, appeared before the commission. Justice PC Ghose Commission on Tuesday issued summons to former Telangana CM K Chandrashekar Rao (KCR), former Minister Harish Rao, and BJP MP Etela Rajender, who also served as a minister during the BRS regime, in the ongoing investigation into alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project (KLIP). The Commission, which has been probing financial and procedural lapses in the multi-crore irrigation project, directed the three political leaders to appear for questioning in the first week of June. (ANI)
