Air India plane crash: Man who lost mother moves US Federal Court against Boeing
Talking to news agency ANI, Hir Prajapati, Kalpana's son, said that the family has hired Mike Andrews, a US lawyer who is currently representing over 65 families affected by the tragic crash.
He recently slammed Air India for compensation delays for the victims' families, claiming that it would not have happened if Ratan Tata, former Chairperson of the Tata Group, had been alive.
'We expect the raw details of information from the black-box to come before us at the earliest so that we can make further decisions regarding next course of steps, along with our lawyer,' he said.
'In India, trials get dragged for years. We are fighting the case in the US so that a decision is pronounced early. We believe we will get justice,' he added.
Mir told ANI that the Indian government and police helped the Prajapati family 'a lot' at the time of the incident. 'We are thankful to the doctors, too, who handed over the bodies to us after a swift DNA test.'
Sharing the tragic detail of the accident, Mir said his mother, Kalpana Prajapati, had rescheduled the flight twice only to end up on the fateful crash.
'I had initially booked a 9th June flight for her but she had fast and she told me that she cannot travel that day. So, I then rescheduled it to 11th June. But she told me that she doesn't want to travel on an odd date. So, I finally booked a ticket for 12th June,' he said.
Former Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani was among the 241 people who died in the June 12 crash of Air India flight AI 171 in Ahmedabad.
The London-bound Boeing 787, carrying 242 people--including 230 passengers, 10 crew members, and two pilots--crashed shortly after takeoff.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
TMC slams BJP over ‘citizenship' status of its 2 Bongaon MLAs
1 2 3 4 Kolkata: A fresh controversy has erupted over the citizenship status of two BJP MLAs in Bongaon, ratcheting up the political temperature between Trinamool and BJP over the special intensive revision (SIR) of poll rolls. The names of the MLAs' parents are missing from the recently published Bengal 2002 SIR data. The issue surfaced after the TMC-backed faction of All India Matua Mahasangha submitted a deputation to the Bongaon sub-divisional officer (SDO) on Tuesday, demanding the disqualification of Bongaon North MLA Ashok Kirtaniya. The organisation alleged that while the 2002 electoral roll contains the MLA's name — then a resident of Ghatbaur panchayat — it does not include the names of his father or other family members. The Mahasangha claimed Kirtaniya's father entered India illegally after 2010. Prosenjit Biswas, representing the Mahasangha, said: "We will approach the Union home minister and assembly speaker seeking Ashok Kirtaniya's disqualification as an MLA." Bongaon district TMC president Biswajit Das said, "Usually, the father's name appears in the voter list before the son's. Here, the son was registered first, the father later. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Egypt Solar Panels: See How Much It Will Cost To Install Them (See Prices) Solar Panel | Search Ads Learn More Undo Let Kirtaniya prove this. BJP should act." You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata | Gold Rates Today in Kolkata | Silver Rates Today in Kolkata In response, Kirtaniya presented documents, including his father's 1950 border slip and a 1993 voter list entry, as proof of citizenship. "Let TMC say what they want. I have all documents. They are making these allegations only to harass me," he said. Before this row could settle, similar allegations emerged against Bongaon South BJP MLA Swapan Majumdar. Trinamool accused him of being a Bangladeshi national, claiming that neither he nor his parents were listed in the 2002 rolls. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, youth president of Bongaon's TMC's organisational district, lodged a written complaint with the SDO and also shared documents with the media. These included two Bangladeshi records — one from April 2022 in which the chairman of Nizamuddin Union Parishad claimed that Majumdar's family members were residents of Nishchintapur village in Gopalganj, and another from 1996 showing his father, Santosh Kumar Majumdar, as the seller in a land deed. TMC alleged that Majumdar moved to India after 2002 and illegally enrolled in the voter list in Palla under Gopalnagar PS. Denying the allegations, Majumdar said: "My father passed away before 2002. I moved to Mumbai for work, so I couldn't be physically present during voter list hearings, which is why my name was added later. I possess all necessary documents proving my Indian citizenship. TMC is trying to shield infiltrator Rohingya and grant citizenship to refugees." Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Can a Secular State Build Temples? Bihar Poses the Test
Published : Aug 12, 2025 17:59 IST - 8 MINS READ Can the Indian state build a temple or a mosque? Perhaps the question needs to be reframed. In the present context, imagining the state building a mosque appears absurd. On and after December 6, 1992, it was made amply clear that the Indian state can indeed assist in the destruction of a mosque. It was once declared in an act of bravado that the state would rebuild the mosque, which was demolished in a criminal act, as clarified by the Supreme Court nearly 25 years after the crime was committed. That obviously was never to happen. What was done instead was to usurp the land of the mosque legally for the construction of a temple. By 2025, we have come to realise that the state has consistently taken many leaps. It uses different excuses to make mosques controversial, as we see it doing in the cases of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Eidgah of Mathura. It is even agreeable to participate in their removal directly or indirectly. The Uttarakhand government has not taken any steps to prevent the demolition of hundreds of mazars in the State. It has instead come out with justification of the crime by claiming that the mazars are part of the land grab conspiracy (land jihad, as they love to call it), and it is fair to free the pious land. Therefore, we must instead ask: 'Can the Indian state build a temple? Does it have the constitutional authority or sanction to do so?' The powers and rights of the state and the government are derived from the Constitution. To the question, 'Can the state construct a religious site?', the constitutional answer is unambiguous: 'NO'. India is a secular republic. It cannot promote or patronise any one religion. It cannot engage directly in religious activity. However, the state does have a role in maintaining public order when religion enters the public sphere. Its involvement in facilitating the Amarnath Yatra or ensuring the peaceful conduct of Ram Navami processions stems from this duty. Providing logistical support such as transportation, temporary shelter, or repairing roads to pilgrimage sites falls within this ambit. But the state is not to go beyond this. Also Read | Kanwar Yatra's transformation into political weapon And yet, we know that Prime Ministers shoot arrows at Ravana during Ramlilas, and Chief Ministers participate in the Jagannath Rath Yatra. Now governments shower flowers on Kanwariyas! Or police officers are seen massaging the feet of the Kanwariyas. That is obviously going too far. But if we leave aside these egregious acts, we know that Indian secularism is not puritanical; it acknowledges and respects religiosity. Therefore, a Chief Minister participating in a Rath Yatra or attending Eid prayers ought not to raise eyebrows. It is often believed that such gestures nurture communal harmony. After all, when Diwali is celebrated at the White House or 10 Downing Street, Hindus in India too feel a sense of joy and inclusion. But this does not answer the core question: 'Can the state go further and build a religious site?' The Ayodhya verdict This question first emerged when the Supreme Court, in its Ayodhya verdict, awarded the site of the demolished Babri Masjid for the construction of a Ram temple. Even then, a certain fig leaf of propriety was maintained: the construction was handed over to a trust, not undertaken directly by the government. The state was asked to form the trust. But it was not directly made responsible for the construction of the temple. Also, apparently, state funds were not used. Still, the credit for the temple was claimed by the BJP. The Prime Minister was thanked for the court's verdict. At the inauguration, he played the role of the principal yajman. The temple's consecration was converted into a state event, rightly criticised as not only the inauguration of a temple, but the symbolic inauguration of a Hindu Rashtra. Since we did not pause long enough to reckon with that moment, we are now forced to confront the same question again. Just days ago, in Sitamarhi, Bihar, the State government initiated the construction of a grand Sita temple. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and Union Home Minister Amit Shah participated in the bhoomi pujan at 'Punaura Dham', believed to be Sita's birthplace. Both acted as chief yajmans in this religious ceremony. Before the event, the Bihar government ran full-page advertisements in nearly every newspaper for at least three days, announcing its plans for the comprehensive development of the temple and its precincts. It has acquired 50 acres of land for Rs.165.57 crore, and has earmarked Rs.882.87 crore for the project. This number will undoubtedly increase. Periodic advertisements—each costing lakhs, if not crores—will accompany the progress of this project. Can the Bihar government do this? Can a secular state extend such unambiguous patronage to one particular religion? This is a question that the media ought to have asked, and political parties in Bihar, too, should have done that. But the media, silenced by advertisement revenue and its growing alignment with the BJP and the State government, has abdicated its responsibility. Otherwise, it could have posed a simple question: 'Why are taxpayers' funds being used to build a site belonging to a particular religion?' Hindutva and public indifference No one objected to Amit Shah or Nitish Kumar attending the event in a personal capacity. But how can they act as chief yajmans while holding public office? How can the state itself build a temple? India's political landscape is now so deeply suffused with Hindutva that even self-professed secular parties lack the courage to ask these questions. More troubling still is the public indifference. As a society, we no longer find these questions necessary. No one now reminds us that, in the early years of Independence, Mahatma Gandhi had opposed the use of public funds for the renovation of the Somnath temple. Prime Minister Nehru had even objected to President Rajendra Prasad attending the temple inauguration. At the temple's groundbreaking in Sitamarhi, hundreds of sadhus were in attendance. Was their travel and accommodation arranged by the state too? The media ought to have shown interest in such questions. But to do so, it must reacquaint itself with the basic principle that India is a secular republic. That Nitish Kumar has occasionally donned a Muslim skullcap offers no defence of his current actions. Nor is this the only instance. The Bihar Transport Department has announced that it will subsidise fares for people travelling to and from the State during the 'festive season lasting three months'—specifically for Durga Puja, Diwali, Chhath, and Holi. Its calculation is wrong. From Durga Puja to Holi is not three months, but nearly six months of the calendar year. 'If the fate of Bihar's people was truly tied to a temple, why have they been made to endure Nitish Kumar's government for nearly two decades and the BJP's at the Centre for 11 years?' Why is public money being used exclusively to support Hindu festivals? Again, this policy was advertised in full-page newspaper ads, the cost of which must also be counted. Governments often justify such expenditures under the guise of 'religious tourism'. They argue that these initiatives generate revenue for the state and also provide employment to local people residing in those religiously significant places. Thus, the state's participation in religious activity is repackaged as secular—a convenient fabrication. The devotee earns spiritual merit, and the state earns money: a win-win, apparently. But would the state demonstrate the same generosity during Eid or Bakrid? Does it do so? Shortly after Nitish Kumar returned to power, one saw advertisements inviting people to perform pind-daan in Gaya. The Bihar government was essentially claiming that performing these Hindu rituals in Gaya would liberate the souls of ancestors. Clearly, it was peddling spiritual inducements, positioning Gaya as a rival to Kashi—as though salvation were a matter of competitive marketing. That it can do this is a reflection of how deeply eroded public consciousness has become around the idea of a secular state. In the past eleven years, governments have participated so often and so directly in Hindu religious events that it now appears normal. Sita temple: Spiritual or political endeavour? The announcement of the Ram temple in Ayodhya had triggered protests from opposition parties in Bihar, who claimed that Sita was being ignored—that she was not being given an equal place alongside Ram. Thus began the groundwork for a Sita temple in Sitamarhi. Now, that project is under way. At its inauguration, the Union Home Minister declared that this was not merely the beginning of a temple but the beginning of Bihar and Mithila's fortune. But if the fate of Bihar's people was truly tied to a temple, why have they been made to endure Nitish Kumar's government for nearly two decades and the BJP's at the Centre for 11 years? Also Read | Mohan Bhagwat's call for religious harmony reflects the duplicity of RSS Is the Sita temple a spiritual endeavour, or a political one? The Home Minister made it clear. Its purpose or objective is entirely worldly. Instead of speaking about why Sita is significant to the Hindu mind, he used the occasion to attack the opposition and criticise their objections to the Special Intensive Revision, the recent drive by the Election Commission to update the election lists. He vowed to keep out 'infiltrators'. This was not a religious speech; it was a political campaign speech. It confirmed what many had suspected—this temple is a part of a Hindutva political project, akin to the Ram temple in Ayodhya. It has nothing to do with devotion to Ram or Sita. The only discernible development is this: Nitish Kumar has now enthusiastically joined the BJP's Hindutva project. Apoorvanand teaches Hindi at Delhi University and writes literary and cultural criticism.
Indian Express
32 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Modi likely to be in US next month for UNGA meet, bilateral talks with Trump
Preparations are underway to schedule a visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the US in the last week of September, The Indian Express has learnt. The ostensible reason is to attend the United Nations General Assembly in New York, but a key objective will be to meet US President Donald Trump, iron out the issues on trade and arrive at a common ground on tariffs. This will also give an opportunity for the two leaders to announce a trade deal. However, for this to fructify, a lot of moving parts have to fall in place. There has to be movement on two fronts — the Russia-Ukraine war and the Indo-US trade deal. Negotiations are underway on both fronts, and the stakes for Delhi are high since it has been slapped with 50 per cent tariffs by the US — 25 per cent for its high tariffs and 25 per cent penalty for buying Russian oil. On the Russia-Ukraine war front, Delhi is closely following the meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15 to discuss a resolution to the war in Ukraine. Modi has already spoken to Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the last few days. A resolution to the conflict is in India's interest, sources said, and this has been conveyed to both leaders. On the trade deal front, Indian and American negotiators had been close to sealing a deal, but the US President was not happy about the deal that was agreed between the interlocutors. So, the negotiators have to discuss the terms of the deal further, and they have to offer new terms, as red lines have been drawn. But the two sides are focused on the new goal for bilateral trade — 'Mission 500' — aiming to more than double total bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030. This was decided during Modi's visit to the White House where he met Trump in February this year. They had also agreed that to realise this ambition, they would require new, fair-trade terms, and they had announced plans to negotiate the first tranche of a mutually beneficial, multi-sector Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) by fall this year. And to conclude a wide-ranging BTA, the US and India had agreed to take an integrated approach to strengthen and deepen bilateral trade across the goods and services sector, and work towards increasing market access, reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers, and deepening supply chain integration. But that has run into rough weather. And the officials and negotiators have to unlock the issues and negotiate a deal by September last week – the Prime Minister's visit to the US is expected to 'dot the i's and cross the t's', sources said. Now, to schedule the visit, as a first step, the Indian side has reached out to the UN headquarters for a speaking slot for the Prime Minister at the UN General Assembly. As of now, that has been scheduled for September 26 morning. Trump is slated to speak on September 23. At the UNGA, permanent missions to the UN have to indicate the level of representation from each country, and the speaking slot of 15-minutes is granted accordingly. If the PM's visit takes place, it will give an opportunity to speak at the UNGA and hold bilateral meetings with Trump and other world leaders. Zelenskyy also indicated Monday, after his phone call with Modi, that they 'agreed to plan a personal meeting in September during the UN General Assembly'. Sources said plans are underway since the entire process of accreditation and travel arrangements to the UN needs to be completed in August. Ties between India and the US have been impacted in recent months after Trump claimed to have brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan — a claim denied by Delhi. He followed it with diatribes against India on tariffs, and imposed 50 per cent tariffs. Sources said that since the two countries are strategic partners, they have to sort out the issues, and the PM's visit will be to smoothen the issues, so that a visit by the US President to India can take place in October for the summit of Quad leaders.
