Nothing unusual in Rath continuing for 2nd day: Min
Bhubaneswar: Rath Yatra in Puri turned into a political battleground with the govt and opposition locking horns over the annual event after pulling of chariots was stopped on Friday following massive surge in crowd.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The journey to Gundicha Temple resumed on Saturday.
While BJD president and former chief minister
called for "deep introspection" by the govt, former Odisha Congress president Prasad Harichandan sought judicial inquiry into the alleged "mismanagement".
Law minister Prithiviraj Harichandan in turn accused the opposition of politicising the sacred event. "I don't want to speak about people resorting to dirty politics on Mahaprabhu.
They have insulted the Lord with so many deviations in the past," Harichandran said, indirectly referring to inadequacies when BJD and Congress governed the state.
Defending the delay in the chariots reaching the Gundicha Temple, Prithiviraj said it was nothing unusual. "Most years, the chariots are pulled on the second day as well. There are very few examples of Lord Jagannath's rath reaching the Gundicha Temple on the first day," he said.
In contrast, Naveen expressed concern over the event's management. Highlighting past incidents, the former CM pointed to last year's mishap when Lord Balabhadra's idol slipped during the Adapa Bije Pahandi. This year, he noted, "Nandighosh rath (chariot of Lord Jagannath) was still standing at the Singhadwar till 7:45pm, only to move a few metres before the day ended", leaving devotees "disenchanted and disillusioned.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
"
Calling for introspection, Naveen wrote on X, "May Mahaprabhu Jagannath forgive all those responsible for the terrible mess that has overshadowed this divine festival this year."
Pressing for a judicial probe after Niladri Bije, Prasad said the chariots seem to have been halted to accommodate corporate honchos. He also questioned the alleged issue of cordon pass to a woman friend of a blogger, who has come under scanner for suspected ISI links.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
28 minutes ago
- India Today
Go back to Third World: US politician on Zohran Mamdani's eating with hands video
US Congressman Brandon Gill mocked Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani for eating rice and lentils with his hands in a now-viral video of Zohran Mamdani, Democratic primary winner for New York City mayor, eating with his hands during an interview has sparked debate online. While some users accused him of using cultural cues as part of a 'costume performance', others argued that criticising someone for their cultural habits is a post on X, Gill - the youngest Republican in the US Congress - criticised Mamdani for eating with his hands, referencing the viral clip originally shared by the account 'End Wokeness'. The video showed Mamdani eating a traditional meal of rice and lentils, accompanied by the caption: "Zohran says his worldview is inspired by the 3rd world while eating rice with his hands."Gill responded to the post, writing: 'Civilised people in America don't eat like this. If you refuse to adopt Western customs, go back to the Third World.'Take a look at the post here:Watch the video here:Zohran says his worldview is inspired by the 3rd world while eating rice with his hands End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 29, 2025The video has sparked debate online. Several users called out the comment as culturally ignorant and uncalled for, while a few others argued that eating with bare hands is isn't reserved only for the so-called 'civilised'. Show me where the Constitution says that. And since when is eating with your hands uncivilised?' a user asked. Another user added, 'You can't debate his politics, so you go after his culture. That says more about you than it does about him.'Several users pointed out the irony: 'How do you eat tacos, French fries, burgers, etc? Do you eat crisps with a fork too?''There are plenty of valid critiques of Mamdani if you're serious about politics. But no, you chose to pick on the way he eats. You must be great fun at pizza parties, with your knife, fork, and corn holders,' one of the users asked. While many came to Mamdani's defence, others accused him of performing cultural identity for clout. Sharing an old photo of Mamdani using a knife and fork, one user said, 'It's so funny that Zohran clearly uses cutlery to eat all the time (even a burrito on the subway), but he eats with his hands on camera as if it's a costume performance for white people to find him exotic.'Another user said, 'This performance is for those who romanticise every unpleasant custom in a foreign culture while mocking their own. Mamdani knows exactly how to pander. Well played.'advertisementSee the comments here: Mamdani, 33, is an Indian-American politician and the son of acclaimed filmmaker Mira Nair. He made history this week by becoming the first Muslim nominee for the Democrats in the New York City mayoral race, after former Governor Andrew Cuomo for blending politics with pop culture, Mamdani has built significant online traction through his Bollywood-themed campaign Mamdani hasn't publicly reacted to the backlash yet. - EndsMust Watch
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Why framers of India's Constitution didn't include secular in it
Speaking on the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the Emergency, RSS general secretary, Dattatreya Hosabale, questioned the inclusion of the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution. While the Congress attacked the RSS and BJP after Hosabale's remarks, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Union Ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Jitendra Singh backed the idea that the inclusion of the two words needs to be said the inclusion of the terms in the Preamble during the Indira Gandhi-imposed Emergency was a "travesty of justice" and "sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatana".Interestingly, the argument that Hosabale made of the term not being in the original draft of the Indian Constitution is not lone use of the term 'secular' in the original Constitution was in Article 25-2A. Here it was used to refer to "political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice", and not to describe the nature of the said, "Yes, the ideas of socialism and secularism existed through the rules and policies of the government, but that is different. However, it must be questioned whether 'secular' and 'socialist' should remain in the Constitution or not because the makers of the Constitution did not originally include this.""This was not added by Babasaheb but during the Emergency when democratic rights and the legislature were dysfunctional. Hence, such questions must be addressed today," the RSS functionary a political ideology, secularism is the absolute separation of the state from religion, but in the Indian context, it has meant equal respect to all religions. The Indian state is neither anti-religion nor strictly as the Constitution is secular in its spirit, both BR Ambedkar and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru did not believe that it adhered to the dictionary understanding of the term Constituent Assembly agreed that while it was required in spirit, the official inclusion of the term 'secular' would have impeded the necessitated interventions towards ending discrimination and affirmative THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATESKT Shah, an eminent economist, advocate and socialist, proposed to add to clause (1) of Article 1 that read, "India shall be a", the words – secular, federal and regard to the secular character of the Indian State, he said, "We have been told time and again from every platform, that ours is a secular state. If that is true, if that holds well, I do not see why the term could not be added or inserted in the constitution itself, once again, to guard against any possibility of misunderstanding or misapprehension."However, he added, "The term secular, I agree, does not find place necessarily in constitutions on which ours seems to have been modelled."To this, the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee, Dr BR Ambedkar, expressed his inability to accept such a justified it by stating, "The Constitution is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State."For him, the Constitution was not a mechanism for deciding the policy of the state. Rather, the people themselves should actively shape the Constitution in accordance to their social and economic did not see the need to, as he said, "tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves".He also called the proposed amendment "superfluous" as there are other provisions in the Constitution, rather than fundamental rights that obligate the State to be secular, social, and federal in members, such as HV Kamath, argued that, if at all, the term can be added to the Preamble but not to the Constitution, especially within the first article, which talks about 'Union and its Territories and Jurisdictions'.Ambedkar strongly argued, "It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether," and the motion was negated by the Vice Jawaharlal Nehru asked the members of the constituent assembly demanding the inclusion of the term 'secular' to consult the by how this debate had been brought up numerous times, he said, 'It has a great deal of importance, no doubt. But it is brought in all contexts, as if by saying that we are a secular state we have done something amazingly generous, given something out of our pocket to the rest of the world, something which we ought not to have done."For him, the inclusion of the word would be a superficial assertion of having done something 'mighty'.ANCIENT CULTURE OF INDIA WAS NOT SECULARIndia has practised the "principled equidistance" model of secularism, which is engaging with all religions without favouring one over the assembly member, HV Kamath, distinguished the Indian model of secularism by saying, 'When I say that a State should not identify itself with any particular religion, I do not mean to say that a State should be anti-religious or irreligious."Propagating 'dharma' or duty to be the religion of the State, he said, 'A secular state is neither a God-less State nor an irreligious nor an anti-religious State."Another member, Loknath Misra, mentioned India's history to argue that religion cannot be divorced from life and the term 'Secular State' cannot be "a device to bypass the ancient culture of the land". For him, the inclusion of the term 'secular' would require all the rights related to religion in the Constitution to be strongest argument against the inclusion of 'secular' in the Constitution was that it would negate the various religious Ian Copland justified the exclusion of the term on two grounds in his book, 'A History of State and Religion in India'. One, the Protestant concept of 'enlightened secularism' did not suit a country where the rulers and religious public have since times immemorial interacted with each other. Two, adding the term might make the public think that the government 'had religion in its sight'.So, while the future of India was rooted in the idea of secularism, it was not the European model but a contextualised Indian model taking into account by the framers of the DEMOCRACY IS AN IDEAL TO BE AIMED FORThe Articles such as 15(4), 16(5), 17, 25, and 45 already laid down rules as to how, even with the right to religion enshrined as a fundamental right, certain practices within religions are unconstitutional and even the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, enacted the 42nd Amendment Act in1976 while the country was in a state of national emergency and added the term 'secular' to the Preamble to the Indian Constitution.A member argued, 'What is the use of calling India a secular State if you allow religious instruction to be imparted to young boys and girls?', while another questioned the validity of legislating through private laws.A long debate was then held over the need for a uniform civil code, the meaning of religious instruction, apprehension over the freedom to propagate religion and the future of minority rights in a secular this, Nehru evoked the idea of a "secular democracy" and stated, "It is an ideal to be aimed at and every one of us whether we are Hindus or Muslims, Sikhs or Christians, whatever we are, none of us can say in his heart of hearts that he has no prejudice and no taint of communalism in his mind or heart."'SECULAR' AN ATTACK ON SPIRIT OF CONSTITUTIONSpeaking at the book release of 'Ambekar's Messages', the Vice President of India, Jagdeep Dhankar called the addition of the words to the Preamble a 'betrayal' and 'sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatana'.He said, "The Preamble of the Indian Constitution is unique. Except Bharat (no other) Constitution's Preamble has undergone change, and why? Preamble is not changeable'.Hence, what Hosabale said is not untrue, and he has been joined by others in his criticism of the 42nd Amendment, which added 'secular' to the Congress leaders and the larger opposition have called this an attack on the Constitution, Union Ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Jitendra Singh backed a review of the inclusion of the terms 'socialist' and 'secular'.Chouhan said that the core of Indian Culture is 'Sarva Dharma Sambhav' (equal respect to all) and not 'dharma nirpeksh' (secular). With this he demanded the removal of the supported Hosabale by saying that Ambedkar crafted 'one of the best Constitutions in the world and if it was not his thinking, then with what thought did someone add these terms'.Chief Minister of Kerala Pinarayi Vijayan called this uproar by the RSS 'sheer hypocrisy and political opportunism'.He said, 'Invoking the Emergency to discredit these principles (secularism and socialism) is a deceitful move, especially when the RSS itself colluded with the Indira Gandhi government during the time for its own survival'.There was consensus among the framers of the Indian Constitution that India should not be a theocratic state and there was also debate about 'secular' was the right term to define otherwise. Though a decision was made, the debate continues, 75 years on, because Indira Gandhi included the term during the Emergency when most opposition leaders were hounded underground or packed into jails.- Ends advertisement
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Did Shashi Tharoor misspell ‘concern' while thanking Suhel Seth? Netizens react – ‘Oxford dictionary 2025 version'
Congress leader Shashi Tharoor misspelt 'concern' as 'condern' in a social media post on June 30. Tharoor, otherwise known for his extensive vocabulary, rarely makes such spelling errors. How did the mistake occur by someone who uses long and less commonly heard English words? Well, Tharoor was responding to a post by businessman Suhel Seth, who had met the Congress leader and shared a picture on X. 'Just met Shashi Tharoor and am conderned about his throat: he's nursing a cold…,' Seth wrote. Tharoor was in London on Sunday for a media event. Tharoor, the Thiruvananthapuram MP, responded: 'Thank you for your 'condern' Suhel Seth! Grateful that you condign to be conderned! Watch out — some may condemn you for that!" Netizens reacted to mispelling by Tharoor. 'Condern will enter in Oxford's dictionary 2025 version,' one X user said. Shashi Tharoor's command of the English language is acknowledged even within his own party, so much so that Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge recently remarked that Tharoor was included in the Congress Working Committee for his linguistic prowess. "Shashi Tharoor's English is very good, that's why he has been taken in the CWC (Congress Working Committee). I supported this," Kharge said at a press conference last week when asked about Tharoor's praise for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Tharoor's remarks praising PM Modi have seemingly irked Tharoor's party and widened the growing cracks in his ties with its leadership. In an article published in The Hindu earlier this month, Congress MP Tharoor said Prime Minister Narendra Modi's energy, dynamism and willingness to engage remain a 'prime asset' for India on the global stage but deserve greater backing. Tharoor said the diplomatic outreach following "Operation Sindoor" was a moment of national resolve and effective communication. 'Prime Minister Narendra Modi's energy, dynamism and willingness to engage remain a prime asset for India on the global stage but deserve greater backing,' Tharoor wrote. Tharoor's praise for the prime minister comes at a time when the Congress has been consistently attacking the Modi government over its foreign policy. The Congress party even said that diplomacy was being "shattered" and the country stands "isolated" globally, more so after Pakistan's army chief General Asim Munir had a lunch meeting in Washington DC with US President Donald Trump a few days ago. Thank you for your 'condern' Suhel Seth! Grateful that you condign to be conderned! Tharoor, who took the India case post Operation Sindoor in foreign countries while heading an all-party delegation earlier this month, has, with his remarks, seemingly riled his party for showing support for the Narendra Modi government over recent military actions across the border in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
