INDIA Bloc Leaders Likely To Discuss Joint Veep Candidate Today
The opposition INDIA bloc leaders are likely to discuss their joint candidate for the post of vice-president at a meeting of floor leaders on Monday morning.
Sources said the INDIA bloc leaders would meet at the office of Mallikarjun Kharge, the leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha, at 10.15 am on Monday.
The meeting will be held a day after the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) announced Maharashtra Governor C P Radhakrishnan as its nominee for the post of vice-president, the second-highest constitution position in the country.
Radhakrishnan hails from Tamil Nadu, which will go to polls in 2026.
While the ruling BJP feels that the nomination of Radhakrishnan, a seasoned BJP leader with an RSS background, will elicit support from the wider opposition, especially the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu, it remains to be seen what stand the opposition parties take on Monday.
BJP president J P Nadda, while announcing the nomination of Radhakrishnan after a meeting of the party's parliamentary board on Sunday, said the NDA will speak to the opposition parties to reach a consensus for the vice-presidential election.
The Congress-led INDIA bloc partners earlier announced their decision to field a joint 'non-political' candidate for the election.
The vice-presidential election, necessitated by the sudden resignation of incumbent Jagdeep Dhankhar last month, is scheduled for September 9. The last date for filing nomination is August 21.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
6 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Will INDIA bloc boycott polls? Here's what RJD leader said as Opposition gathers against EC
As the INDIA bloc got together on Monday to press again its charges of irregularities by the Election Commission, the question of whether the Opposition would boycott upcoming polls, such as in Bihar, came up. RJD MP Manoj Jha with other parliamentarians from the INDIA bloc parties at a protest against the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, outside Parliament in New Delhi on Monday.(PTI) To this, Manoja Kumar Jha of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) responded: 'You have to see the context in which (RJD leader) Tejashwi Yadav mentioned that. We have already gone to the EC, and it has been stubborn so far.' He added that the EC 'heard us out, but did not listen to us'. Moving to the specific question of a boycott of elections, he said, 'We do as the public wants. We so far have hope from the Supreme Court. There is always the next day, and we hope the EC also wants to maintain its image of unbiasedness intact for the future as well. The EC should not have to assert that all parties are equal for it; that should reflect in its conduct.' If there would indeed be a boycott, 'that would be decided by the parties here after consulting with the public'.
Hans India
7 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
7 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.
