Omar Abdullah's cryptic Harry Potter meme amid J&K statehood bill buzz
advertisementEarlier, reports suggested that the central government was likely to introduce the bill in the Lok Sabha, aimed at restoring Jammu and Kashmir's statehood six years after it was annulled following the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution.
However, government sources later clarified that no specific proposal regarding J&K would be brought before Parliament tomorrow.On Independence Day, Abdullah said he was paying a political price for pinning his hopes on the country's democracy and the Central government for restoration of statehood. The Chief Minister remarked that though he did not have much expectations, he was led to believe that it might happen after all."I had no expectations but I was being constantly told that the documents are ready and now just the announcement is to be made. But the announcement never came. The ray of hope is fading, but we will not give up," Abdullah said.However, in the first week of August, Abdullah posted another cryptic message on social media platform X, expressing optimism about 'something positive' for the union territory during Parliament's monsoon session."I've heard every possible permutation & combination about what to expect in J&K tomorrow so let me stick my neck out and say nothing will happen tomorrow - fortunately nothing bad will happen but unfortunately nothing positive will happen either. I'm still optimistic about something positive for J&K in this monsoon session of Parliament but not tomorrow," he wrote.The Monsoon Session of Parliament is set to conclude on August 21.- EndsTune InMust Watch
IN THIS STORY#Jammu and Kashmir
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
5 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bhavnagar school play depicting burqa-clad ‘terrorists' triggers controversy; probe ordered
The Gujarat Education Department has sought a report after a primary school in Bhavnagar staged an Independence Day play in which burqa-clad girls were shown as 'terrorists', sparking protests from local Muslim groups. The District Education Officer issued a notice to the Bhavnagar Municipal School Board, which runs the institution, asking for an explanation within seven days, officials said on Wednesday (August 20, 2025). The move came after members of the Muslim community, under the banner of Bandharan Bachao Samiti, demanded stern action against the teachers for depicting their community 'in a bad light'. A video of the August 15 performance, widely circulated on social media, shows girls dressed in white dancing to a song praising Kashmir's beauty before three students in burqas, carrying toy guns, storm the stage and 'shoot' them. A background audio referred to terrorists killing civilians during the Pahalgam attack. Munjal Badmaliya, Administrative Officer of the Bhavnagar Municipal School Board, said the all-girls primary school in Kumbharwada had presented the play based on Operation Sindoor as part of Independence Day celebrations. 'The District Education Officer received a representation alleging that the play hurt Muslim sentiments. We have been asked to submit a factual report within seven days,' he said. The Municipal School Board has appointed a coordinator to probe the incident. A preliminary inquiry had indicated that the teachers and the Principal had no intention of offending any community, Mr. Badmaliya added. 'Students playing the role of terrorists were told to cover their faces with black cloth, but they used burqas as those were easily available,' he said. The Administrative Officer maintained that the purpose of the play was to honour the armed forces for their role in Operation Sindoor, and not to target any religion. 'We are examining the issue from all angles and will submit a detailed report to the District Education Officer,' he said. (With inputs from PTI)
The Hindu
5 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Centre has decided to defile the Constitution by turning India into a dictatorship under PM, alleges Stalin
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin on Wednesday strongly objected to The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, introduced by Home Minister Amit Shah in Parliament, which seeks to provide a legal framework for the removal of the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Chief Ministers, and Ministers of States and Union Territories who are arrested and detained in custody for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges. He said the BJP government at the Centre has decided to defile the Constitution and its democratic foundations by turning India into a dictatorship under the Prime Minister. 'The 130th Constitutional Amendment is not reform. This is a black day and this is a black Bill. This is how dictatorships begin: steal votes, silence rivals and crush States. I strongly condemn this Bill, which strikes at the very root of democracy, and I call upon all the democratic forces to unite against this attempt to turn India into a dictatorship,' Mr. Stalin said in a post on X. 'After the exposé of vote theft, the very mandate on which the Union BJP government was formed is in serious question. Its legitimacy is doubtful. Having stolen the mandate of the people through fraud, the BJP is now desperate to distract public attention from this exposé. To do that, they have brought in the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill,' Mr. Stalin alleged. 'The plan of this Bill is clear. It allows the BJP to foist false cases against political opponents in power across States and remove them by misusing provisions that treat even a 30-day arrest as a ground for removal of an elected leader, without any conviction or trial. This unconstitutional amendment will certainly be struck down by the courts because guilt is decided only after trial, not by the mere registration of a case,' the Chief Minister said. 'This is a sinister attempt to intimidate regional parties in the NDA, whose leaders are CMs or Ministers in various States — 'stick with us or else…' The first move of any emerging dictator is to give himself the power to arrest and remove rivals from office. That is exactly what this Bill seeks to do,' Mr. Stalin added.
The Hindu
5 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court hearing on Presidential Reference: Elected State governments at the mercy of Governors' whims
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) asked the Centre if elected State governments were at the mercy of the whims and fancies of Governors, who could fail Bills by merely withholding assent for them. A Presidential Reference Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai was testing a submission made by the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and Kanu Agarwal, that State Bills would lapse if Governors withheld assent to proposed laws presented to them for approval under Article 200 of the Constitution. Presidential Reference hearing updates | August 20, 2025 'So, are Governors being given total powers to sit in appeal over the elected representatives? This way, if Bills are failed by Governors, governments formed by majority will be at the mercy of their whims and fancies,' Chief Justice Gavai quizzed Mr. Mehta's interpretation of Article 200. Mr. Mehta responded that the power of a Governor to withhold assent was meant to be used sparingly and only in extraordinary situations, especially when a State Bill frustrated the very democratic will of the nation, or violated fundamental rights, or was repugnant to an existing Central law. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal interjected to point out that if a Governor had the power to lapse a Bill by withholding assent, the same logic would apply to the President of India under Article 111. 'The President can also withhold and fail Bills passed in the Parliament,' Mr. Sibal submitted. The Solicitor General argued that a Governor had 'four' options under Article 200 — grant assent to the Bill; withhold assent to the Bill due to which the proposed law lapses; reserve the Bill for consideration to the President. But in case the Governor exercises the 'fourth' option to return the Bill to the State Assembly, which re-passes the Bill, the Governor is bound to grant assent. He could not withhold the Bill though he could refer it to the President on the ground of repugnancy. High Constitutional authorities, including the President and Governors, were presumed to act within the law and uphold the dignity of their offices, Mr. Mehta said. Governors were not 'nobodies', he submitted. They were representatives of the President, who was bound by the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet, which represented the interests of the nation. 'Governorship is not a sanctum for retired politicians,' Mr. Mehta said. The Chief Justice asked the Solicitor General whether, over the years, the expectations of the Founding Fathers and Mothers regarding these Constitutional functionaries had actually been fulfilled. 'Governors and the elected Ministers of the States are expected to function in harmony, are they?' the Chief Justice queried. Justice Narasimha reasoned that Constitutional interpretation by courts could not be idealistic. Judicial review had to take into account the present day realities. Governors and Speakers were idealistically considered high offices, presumed to function within the law, but the flood of litigation said otherwise. The judge referred to the cases filed in the apex court under the anti-defection law (the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution). The Tenth Schedule was introduced with the best intentions and with ideal expectations about the high office of the Speaker, Justice Narasimha said. But views had changed over the years. 'Constitutional interpretation cannot be static,' Justice Narasimha observed. The Chief Justice said the outcome of the litigation in many Tenth Schedule cases had been 'operation success, patient dead'. Mr. Mehta enumerated instances when Governors were not bound by the aid and advice of the State Cabinet. One of these instances was the Governor's application of discretion to decide which party or political front had a majority to form a government in a State. 'We have seen how, in some cases, the Governors have exercised their discretion and end up in litigation in the apex court,' the CJI responded. The Solicitor General dismissed them as 'aberrations'. It was 'hazardous to interpret the Constitution based on aberrations', Mr. Mehta said.
