Our duty to remind the new generations of the Emergency: BJP MP
Addressing a press conference in Srinagar, Khatana recalled the imposition of the Emergency in 1975 by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, which lasted for 21 months and saw a 'blatant suspension of civil liberties, press freedom, and democratic rights.'
He termed it as the 'blackest period in independent India' and paid tribute to all those who resisted authoritarian rule and sacrificed their freedom to uphold the Constitution and democratic values.
"The Emergency was a direct attack on the soul of our democracy. It is our duty to remind the new generations of this betrayal of constitutional governance," he said.
"Today, we rededicate ourselves to safeguarding the rights and freedoms of our citizens, as envisioned by our Constitution makers."
MP Khatana emphasised the role of BJP as the true guardian of democracy, tracing its ideological lineage to the Jana Sangh, which was at the forefront of the resistance movement during the Emergency.
He also lauded the sacrifices made by thousands of party workers, social activists, and opposition leaders who were jailed, tortured, and silenced during this period.
He further added that the observance of Emergency Day is not just an act of remembrance but also a warning against any future attempts to undermine democracy.
Earlier BJP J&K organised a solemn programme in Srinagar on the 50 years after the Emergency.
The event, organised by the BJP Senior Leader, DDC Srinagar Er. Aijaz Hussain, along with the BJP Lal Chowk Constituency, witnessed the enthusiastic participation of party members, karyakartas, and local leaders. Khatana was the Chief Guest on the occasion.
Ashok Koul, BJP General Secretary (Organisation) J&K along with several leaders were also present on the occasion.
Koul in his address said, BJP's commitment to protect the rights of citizens and to continue the mission of strengthening democracy across all corners of the nation, including Jammu & Kashmir.
'Today we remember those who stood up against injustice during the Emergency. We must ensure that such an undemocratic move is never repeated in the history of our nation, Koul added. UNI MJR SSP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Congress picks Khurshid to lead party's foreign affairs wing, BJP ex-MP as vice-chair
Brijendra Singh, a former BJP MP and the son of Birender Singh who served as a minister in the first two Modi governments, had joined the Congress in 2024 ahead of the 2024 general elections. He contested the Haryana assembly election but lost by a margin of 32 votes. Khurshid, who served as the minister of external affairs in the UPA-II government, will be assisted by Brijendra Singh and Arathi Krishna as vice-chairpersons of the department which had previously Manish Tewari, Deepender Singh Hooda as members among others. New Delhi: The Congress Wednesday appointed senior leader Salman Khurshid, 72, as the chairperson of the party's Foreign Affairs Department, days after Anand Sharma stepped down from the post citing the need to entrust 'younger leaders' with the charge. Arathi Krishna is considered close to Karnataka's Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar. Incidentally, Khurshid was among the Congress leaders to be made members of multi-party delegations on Operation Sindoor by the Centre. His name did not figure in the list of four names that the Congress had proposed. What makes his appointment interesting is that Khurshid had irked the Congress leadership by defending the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir during his visit to Indonesia as part of one of the delegations. He had told a gathering of academia and think tanks in Indonesia that Article 370 of the Constitution had given rise to an impression that J&K was 'separate' from the rest of India. 'But Article 370 was abrogated. It was abrogated, and it was finally put to an end, because so much time has passed. Subsequently, there was an election with 65 percent participation in the election. There's an elected government in Jammu and Kashmir today. And therefore, for people who want to undo everything that has happened, the prosperity that has come to Kashmir is something which is very, very unfortunate, and it will give a setback to anybody,' he had said. While the Congress has never demanded the restoration of Article 370, the party also never hailed the move as one that benefited Jammu and Kashmir. That is why the BJP was quick to seize on Khurshid's remarks in an attempt to corner the Congress. Later, Khurshid, in a post on X, had hit out at his critics, including within the party. 'When on a mission against terrorism, to carry India's message to the world, it is distressing that people at home are calculating political allegiances… is it so difficult to be patriotic?' he had posted. Sharma, on the other hand, was the Congress leadership's only choice that had made the cut for being part of the delegations formed in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor to argue India's case in various world capitals. While in his resignation letter, Sharma wrote that the department needs to be reconstituted to bring in younger leaders of potential and promise, sources told ThePrint that he was upset over being sidelined and not consulted on foreign policy matters by the Congress leadership. Over the last few years, he has found himself at odds with the party leadership, including Rahul Gandhi, over many issues. Earlier this month, after Rahul, currently the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, remarked that he agreed with US President Donald Trump's assessment that the Indian economy was 'dead', Sharma took a divergent view. 'President Trump has triggered an upheaval and caused unprecedented disruption in the world order by his utterances and actions. His comments on India and its Economy are belittling and unacceptable. India has withstood pressures & threats in the past, & emerged stronger. President Trump is mistaken that India does not have options. As the fourth largest economy India has resilience & inherent strength to engage with the world on principles of equality & mutual respect…' Sharma wrote on X on 4 August. Also Read: Control, fear, and division—Congress hasn't changed even 50 years after Emergency
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Can elected govt be at whims and fancies of Governor, asks CJI
The Supreme Court bench hearing the Presidential reference asked the government Wednesday whether an elected government can be placed at 'the whims and fancies of the Governor' by vesting him/her with the power to withhold a Bill forever. 'But then would we not be giving total powers to the Governor to sit in appeals?… The government elected by majority will be at the whims and fancies of the Governor,' Chief Justice of India B R Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for the Centre. The bench said that to interpret that the Bill 'dies' the first time the Governor withholds it 'would be counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process'. The five-judge Constitution bench is hearing President Droupadi Murmu's reference on timelines fixed by a two-judge bench for the President and Governors to act on Bills sent by state legislatures. Delving into the contours of the Governor's discretionary powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, Mehta told the bench: 'It is not an asylum for retired politicians but has its own sanctity which was debated in the Constituent Assembly.' He said the Governor, though unelected, represents the President and is not just a 'postman' to mechanically approve Bills. 'A person who is not directly elected is not a lesser person,' he said. Addressing the bench which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, Mehta said the Governor has the option to grant assent to a Bill referred by the state legislature, withhold assent, refer it to the President in case of repugnancy with any Central law or return it to the state legislature for reconsideration. He said withholding is not a temporary act, and that 5-judge and 7-judge benches of the Supreme Court have interpreted it to mean that the Bill 'falls through'. Illustrating this, he said, 'Suppose a border state passes a Bill dealing with our external affairs, that we will permit a particular country's people to enter or not, then he cannot assent, he cannot refer it to President because it's not a repugnancy issue, and he cannot resend it to the House because if it is again passed, he cannot say no to it. So he will have to withhold.' He said the power 'has to be used rarely, sparingly, but that is the way the situation is'. The CJI then asked, 'If he doesn't exercise the option of resending the Bill for reconsideration, he can withhold it for time immemorial?' 'It dies,' Mehta said, reiterating that 'it (the power) is to be used rarely but power is conferred.' He said, 'The very language in which Article 200 is couched, it gives him options.' He said 'neither textually nor contextually, it is possible to conclude that the term withhold will have to be read as a temporary suspension of powers of granting assent till first proviso works out. There is no concept of temporary withholding of any Bill. If the framers of the Constitution wanted to link the term withhold in the main part of Article 200 to read only in the context of first proviso, two things would have been provided: (a) term withhold in the main part would have been qualified with the term subject to first proviso mentioned therein, (b) the first proviso would have mentioned that the Bill so withheld shall be reconsidered by the House, which is not there.' Justice Narasimha said the options must remain open-ended so that the political process has the chance to resolve the deadlock over a Bill. 'The way the political process occurs is not adjudicatory. Even assuming the Governor says I withhold, the political process can knock his doors and he can still open it and say, I will send it back to you, you consider and send it back. But to say… the first time he says, I withhold, the matter comes to an end… It can't be like that. It is counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process also. It has to be in a situation where it is open-ended,' he said. He was quick to add that the court understood that the Solicitor General was referring to Bills on subjects in the Union List. On the debate over the discretionary powers of the Governor, Justice Narasimha said, 'At that time we did not have impact assessment of a statute … Now, you see the amount of litigation it has thrown up by having provisions of this nature. Perhaps that could tell us whether the vision was right or not. Because the validity or correctness of a thought will come from its performance.' Mehta said he was 'not arguing that the Governor has unlimited discretion'. CJI Gavai said, 'We have some experience as to how some honourable Governors have exercised their discretion leading to so many litigations, but we are not going by that.' Mehta said, 'Indian democracy is a matured democracy. There may be aberrations on an individual level. But by and large, the democracy under this very Constitution has worked very effectively. And I personally experienced it during Covid times, how the Centre-state federal balance envisaged was on display. So it would be really hazardous to assess on the basis of some aberrations.'
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
NDA allies back govt on Bills to sack arrested ministers
BJP-LED NDA's key allies on Wednesday came out strongly in support of the three Bills which seek to remove a Union or State minister facing allegations of corruption or serious offences if they have been in custody for at least 30 days. The Bills triggered protests from the Opposition, which warned of its potential misuse against rivals. However, the BJP's allies — including the JD(U), LJP (Ram Vilas), and TDP — rallied behind the government, framing the legislation as a step towards cleaning up politics and enhancing transparency. JD(U) spokesperson Rajiv Ranjan Prasad said: 'Running the government from Tihar Jail — this is the Opposition's new definition of democracy! Stay in jail for 30 days, remain a minister on the 31st — this is the Opposition's idea of morality! The people want answers, but the Opposition wants power — this is the real clash! Calling every Bill that demands accountability 'dictatorial' — this is morality's grand farce!' LJP (Ram Vilas) national vice president A K Bajpai dismissed the Opposition's concerns over misuse of the law. He said: 'It will apply to all. Potential misuse of law is no argument. All laws can be misused. TADA and POTA were misused. Does it mean we stop making laws? And then this Bill also includes the PM. This situation has arisen due to the episodes of Arvind Kejriwal, Satyender Jain and Hemant Soren.' Bajpai's remarks referred to the arrests of prominent political leaders, including former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal while he was in office, Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren, who resigned a day before his arrest, and former Delhi minister Satyender Jain. The TDP also endorsed the Bills. Spokesperson JyotsnaTirunagari told The Indian Express: 'From 2004 to 2014 we had seen several misdeeds in terms of corruption. From 2014 to 2024 there has been a push towards accountability and transparency. The legislation is towards this end. We think it will bring accountability and transparency into the system.' The TDP's backing comes despite its own uneasy history with law enforcement agencies. Party chief and Andhra Pradesh CM N Chandrababu Naidu was arrested last year in a multi-crore skill development scam case.
