BJP Parliamentary board meeting begins at party headquarters
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, BJP President J.P. Nadda, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh arrived at the BJP headquarters in the national capital.
VIDEO | BJP Parliamentary board meeting underway at party headquarters in Delhi.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, BJP President JP Nadda, Home Minister Amit Shah, and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh are in attendance.
(Full video available on PTI Videos - https://t.co/n147TvqRQz) pic.twitter.com/Dv31HfXc9O — Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) August 17, 2025
As per sources, discussions can likely include the NDA's candidate for the Vice-Presidential elections.
Earlier on August 6, leaders of the ruling NDA had unanimously passed a resolution authorising Prime Minister Modi and BJP chief and Union Minister J.P. Nadda to finalise the NDA's candidate for the Vice-Presidential election, scheduled for September 9.
Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar (74) had resigned from his post on 21 July 2025, citing health reasons. In his resignation letter to President Droupadi Murmu posted on the Vice-President's official X account, he wrote, 'To prioritise health care and abide by medical advice, I hereby resign as the Vice-President of India, effective immediately, in accordance with Article 67(a) of the Constitution.'
The Election Commission has announced the schedule for the election of the Vice-President of India. If contested, the poll will be held on September 9 from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. at the First Floor of the Parliament House.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
5 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘About half of forest rights claims distributed': MoEFCC in Lok Sabha
Around 2.389 million individual forest rights claims and 1.21 lakh community titles have been distributed so far under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, the Union environment ministry (MoEFCC ) informed the Lok Sabha on Monday. The Aarey forest is one of the few remaining green spaces in Mumbai. (Raju Shinde/HT Photo) While around 5.123 million claims were filed in total, over 1.86 million individual and 7.49 lakh community claims were rejected since the Act came into effect. 'As per the provisions of 'The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006' and Rules there under, the state governments are responsible for implementation of various provisions of the Act. The ministry of tribal affairs is the nodal ministry for monitoring the implementation of the Act,' Kirti Vardhan Singh, minister of state for environment, said in the Lok Sabha Congress MP Adv. Gowaal Kagada Padavi had raised questions on: 1. whether the Government maintains updated records of individual and community forest rights claims under Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006; 2. the number of pending claims along with the reasons for delay in approval, State-wise; 3. whether tribal Gram Sabhas are empowered to make final decisions on claims; 4. the steps taken to prevent eviction of traditional forest dwellers without due process; 5. whether any States have been found violating FRA provisions among others. In response, the MoEFCC said, 'As stipulated in Section 6(6) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, the final decision on claims lies with the District Level Committee.' Further, the MoEFCC also informed that no forest dweller can be evicted before recognition of forest rights. 'As per provisions of Section 4(5) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers shall be evicted or removed from the forest land under occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete,' the minister said. Since state/UTs are responsible for the implementation of the Act, the grievances and representations received in the tribal affairs ministry are forwarded to the concerned state/UTs. Further, the ministry has been urging all state governments to abide by the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and ensure timely disposal of the claims, Singh informed. 'The tribal affairs ministry has been advising states, district administrations and state forest departments to conduct awareness campaigns among all stakeholders on the implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006,' he added. A United Nations Development Programme report on 'Securing Rights, Enabling Futures: Policy Lessons & Pathways from FRA for Accelerating Tribal Development' released earlier this month recommended a National Tribal Policy/National Acceleration Plan for tribal development for next five years may be framed, integrating tribal governance and sustainable development as interconnected outcomes. Forest rights holders may be recognised as a category across all social protection and livelihood programmes. Policies and schemes related to forests, land, and natural resource governance must be designed to facilitate the actualization of these rights, the report stated. HT reported on July 6 that the tribal affairs ministry had asked for scientific evidence from the environment ministry to substantiate claims that granting forest rights to tribal communities causes forest degradation, escalating a tussle over a landmark 2006 legislation that recognises traditional forest rights of tribal communities in protected areas.
Hans India
6 minutes ago
- Hans India
Political Firestorm Erupts As Former Minister Challenges Pakistan Terror Link Claims
A major political controversy has engulfed the national discourse following senior Congress figure P Chidambaram's public questioning of the government's assertions linking Pakistan to the devastating Pahalgam terror incident. The former Union Minister's comments have triggered fierce exchanges between ruling and opposition parties, with accusations of undermining national security flying from multiple quarters. The contentious remarks emerged during Chidambaram's interview with The Quint, where he challenged the evidence presented by authorities connecting the April 22 attack to Pakistani elements. The assault, which claimed 26 lives including numerous civilians in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam region, has become a focal point of political debate regarding India's counter-terrorism approach and intelligence capabilities. In his controversial statements, Chidambaram questioned whether investigators had successfully identified the perpetrators or established their origins, suggesting the possibility that the attackers could have been domestically radicalized individuals rather than foreign operatives. His remarks specifically challenged the automatic assumption of Pakistani involvement, citing what he described as insufficient evidence to support such conclusions. The veteran politician has since responded vigorously to what he characterizes as a coordinated misinformation campaign designed to distort his actual position. Writing on social media platform X, Chidambaram accused critics of deliberately manipulating his interview by selectively editing portions and removing crucial context that would clarify his intended meaning. Chidambaram's defense focused on the methodology used by his critics, describing them as employing deceptive tactics by suppressing the complete recorded interview while extracting isolated sentences and muting specific words to create misleading impressions. He characterized such behavior as representing the most harmful form of information manipulation in contemporary political discourse. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party launched an immediate and aggressive response to Chidambaram's statements, with senior leaders accusing the Congress party of providing unwarranted support to Pakistan's position while undermining India's national security interests. BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya questioned why Congress leaders consistently appeared to defend Pakistan following terrorist incidents, comparing their responses to those of legal advocates for Islamabad rather than responsible opposition politicians. The criticism intensified with BJP parliamentarian Nishikant Dubey adopting particularly harsh language, characterizing the Congress organization as fundamentally treasonous in its approach to national security matters. Dubey connected Chidambaram's remarks to broader allegations against Congress leadership, including claims about Rahul Gandhi's international engagements and corruption allegations, suggesting a pattern of anti-national behavior. Additional BJP voices joined the chorus of condemnation, with MP Deepak Prakash asserting that Congress leaders were aligning themselves with traitorous elements and predicting that Indian voters would never forgive such positions. The coordinated nature of the BJP response suggested a strategic decision to maximize political damage from Chidambaram's controversial statements. Congress leadership rallied behind their senior colleague, with multiple party representatives defending his right to question government evidence while redirecting criticism toward the ruling party's perceived failures in addressing terrorism effectively. MP Manickam Tagore characterized the BJP's response as a diversionary tactic designed to deflect attention from what he described as the Modi government's inadequate follow-through on Operation Sindoor. Senior Congress figure Pramod Tiwari amplified the party's counter-narrative by highlighting the extended timeframe since the attack without successful identification of the perpetrators. His emotional appeal referenced the families of victims while questioning the government's effectiveness in delivering justice and accountability for the tragic incident. Interestingly, the controversy also revealed divisions within opposition ranks, as Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi publicly disagreed with Chidambaram's position. Drawing on her experience and historical precedent, Chaturvedi argued that Pakistan's involvement in such attacks represented an established pattern spanning decades, pointing to The Resistance Front's initial claim of responsibility and Pakistan's advocacy for such groups in international forums. The political battle over Chidambaram's statements reflects deeper tensions regarding opposition responsibilities in matters of national security, the appropriate level of scrutiny for government claims, and the boundaries of legitimate political criticism during ongoing security investigations. The controversy has effectively overshadowed substantive discussions about the actual investigation's progress and the broader implications for India's counter-terrorism strategy. The timing of this political confrontation, occurring as Parliament prepared to discuss the Pahalgam attack and related security operations, has added another layer of complexity to an already charged political environment. The incident demonstrates how quickly national security matters can become partisan battlegrounds, potentially complicating efforts to achieve bipartisan cooperation on critical security challenges facing the nation.
Hans India
6 minutes ago
- Hans India
Parliamentary Chaos Derails Critical Security Debate As Opposition Protests Force Triple Adjournment
India's legislative proceedings descended into complete disarray as persistent opposition protests successfully blocked the commencement of crucial national security discussions that were scheduled to address the Pahalgam terror incident and Operation Sindoor. The highly anticipated debate, originally planned to begin during Monday's Monsoon Session, faced insurmountable obstacles as demonstrating lawmakers created an atmosphere of sustained chaos within both parliamentary chambers. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla found himself compelled to suspend proceedings until 2 PM following relentless disruptions from opposition benches, marking the third consecutive adjournment within a single day. The unprecedented level of parliamentary paralysis effectively prevented any meaningful discourse on matters of critical national importance, despite prior agreements between ruling and opposition parties to conduct comprehensive discussions. The scheduled parliamentary agenda featured an impressive roster of prominent political figures prepared to contribute to the debate. Defense Minister Rajnath Singh, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, BJP leaders Bajyant Panda, Tejaswi Surya, Sanjay Jaiswal, and Anurag Thakur were among the notable speakers listed for the discussions. Regional party representatives including TDP members Lavu Srikrishna and Harish Balyogi, Samajwadi Party's Ramashankar Rajbhar and Chhotelal, AITC's Kalyan Banerjee and Sayoni Ghosh, and DMK's A. Raja and K. Kanimozhi were also positioned to participate in the proceedings. Congress party leadership had strategically arranged their speaking order with Gaurav Gogoi designated to initiate the opposition's perspective, followed by significant contributions from Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Deependra Hooda, Praneeti Shinde, Saptagiri Ulaka, and Bijendra Ola. The party had reserved a prominent slot for Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi to deliver his remarks during Tuesday's continuation of the debate. However, internal party dynamics within Congress revealed interesting tensions regarding the party's approach to Operation Sindoor. Veteran parliamentarian Shashi Tharoor made an unprecedented decision to decline participation in the debate despite direct requests from both the Leader of Opposition's office and the party's deputy leadership in the Lok Sabha. Sources within the Congress revealed that Tharoor's withdrawal stemmed from fundamental disagreements with the party's current critical assessment of the military operation. Tharoor's position represents a significant departure from his party's official stance, as he maintains his longstanding evaluation that Operation Sindoor constituted a successful military endeavor. According to party insiders, when informed that adherence to the party's more critical narrative would be necessary for his participation, Tharoor chose to abstain entirely rather than compromise his personal convictions regarding the operation's effectiveness. The foundation for these discussions was established on July 25 when opposition parties formally agreed to participate in extensive 16-hour debates across both parliamentary chambers. The discussions were designed to comprehensively examine the government's response to the April 22 Pahalgam attack, which resulted in the tragic loss of 26 civilian lives and raised serious questions about security preparedness and intelligence coordination. Opposition leadership, spearheaded by Rahul Gandhi and other prominent figures, has consistently challenged the government's handling of the crisis, pointing to apparent intelligence lapses and questioning India's international diplomatic positioning. Particular scrutiny has focused on claims made by US President Donald Trump regarding potential mediation between India and Pakistan, assertions that the Indian government has categorically denied. The parliamentary impasse reflects deeper political tensions surrounding national security discourse, with opposition parties seeking accountability for security failures while the ruling dispensation attempts to defend its counter-terrorism strategies and diplomatic approaches. The inability to commence these discussions despite prior agreements highlights the deteriorating state of parliamentary cooperation and the increasing polarization affecting even matters of national security. The disrupted proceedings underscore the challenges facing India's democratic institutions when partisan politics override substantive policy discussions on critical security matters. The repeated adjournments not only delay important national conversations but also demonstrate the extent to which political rivalries can paralyze constitutional processes designed to ensure governmental accountability and public discourse on vital issues affecting national interests.
