Latest news with #Babri
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Modi at 11: PM increases vitality gap with opposition as new challenges loom
One year ago, when Narendra Modi began his record-equalling third term, the mood in BJP and the larger saffron fraternity was far from that of unalloyed celebration. Contrary to the near-total consensus that BJP would surpass its 2019 score of 303, the party's tally had dropped to a modest 240, forcing it to depend on the support of TDP and JD(U) to form the govt. Instantly, commentary was rife that the law of diminishing returns had finally caught up with the man who had defied the capriciousness of public sentiment as well as the headwinds and vicissitudes which had, quite predictably, marked his 10 years, not just to maintain but to improve his standing with the voter. True to himself, Modi struck a sunny note, focusing on the positive takeaways from the less-than-satisfactory outcome. But that was not enough to quell the doubts gnawing at supporters. Rivals, of course, were jubilant, not letting their third consecutive defeat come in the way of celebrations. But it did not take long for the pall of uncertainty to lift. BJP's victories in Maharashtra, Haryana and Delhi proved wrong those who had rushed to write the obituaries. It failed to form a govt in Jammu and Kashmir, but its performance in Jammu was yet another indication of its superiority over Congress in straight contests: something that the defeat in Jharkhand could not erase. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Windows Users Don't Forget To Do This Before Wednesday Read More Undo Several factors contributed to the outcomes. But Modi's continuing popularity was, unarguably, the common thread. Together, they also showed that the opposition, particularly, had drawn disproportionate conclusions from the setback in the Lok Sabha polls. Also, the gambits, for instance, the unsubstantiated charge about a conspiracy to abolish quotas or the consolidation of Muslims in favour of the opposition, may not necessarily be all-weather winners. Modi, keeping any disappointment over the dip in numbers to himself, had started his third innings on a brisk note, in any case. The electoral wins came as an impetus, countering the hope of opponents and the fear of supporters that his dependence on allies, both of whom were tough bargainers, would force him to govern with one hand tied behind his back. The enactment of the Waqf Bill is a prime example. Both TDP and JD(U) supported the legislation, dubbed communal by the opposition, which tried to bait them into breaking ranks with BJP by saying that the stands of N Chandrababu Naidu and Nitish Kumar would be a litmus test of their secular credentials. Changes in the waqf law affect powerful interests among Muslims far more directly than the abrogation of J&K's special status. Understandably, the lobbying against the move was more intense, often threatening to match the feverish heights last seen over the Shah Bano case and the Babri demolition. If Naidu and Nitish stayed firm, it was because of the simple calculation that Modi's enduring appeal would more than compensate for any loss of Muslim support they still had. There is no sign yet of the opposition closing the vitality gap that Modi has opened up. It is 11 years since he took over, but he has not stopped taking either initiatives or plotting counter-manoeuvres to disrupt opposition's plans. The decision on caste census is a classic example of Modi coming up with a move which the rival had not anticipated. With this single move, he undercut Rahul Gandhi's effort over the years to cast himself as a social justice warrior. That it came in the wake of Pahalgam only added to the audacity. Operation Sindoor only served to strengthen Brand Modi. India won this round decisively, with satellite images of the losses inflicted by the Indian Air Force deep inside Pakistan and the destruction of the hostile neighbour's strategic bases providing tell-tale evidence. No amount of scorekeeping of losses, both real and imaginary, and the embrace of US President Donald Trump's claim to have brokered the 'ceasefire' can take away from this. Looked at purely through the prism of politics, it has recharged the PM's 'jo kaha so kiya' persona and, given the performance of indigenous weapons systems, should put an end to the mocking of his 'Make-in-India' ambition. The military confrontation and its aftermath have seen justified criticism of the outlandish claims made by ultra-zealous individuals on social media and in a few newsrooms. But what has gone unnoticed is the readiness of society to back him to the hilt, regardless of what turn a conflict between two nuclear-armed adversaries might take. Starting with Uri in 2016 and through Balakot, Modi had single-handedly created a new national resolve, which speaks to the people's trust in him. The 'surrender' charge does not seem to bother the Prime Minister. Otherwise, he would not have accepted the invitation to attend the G-7 meeting in Canada, where Trump will loom large. The coming days will not be easy. In Bihar, he will have to strain hard to offset Nitish's incumbency. Global volatility, Trump's tariff war, the general uncertainty that he has generated, and the possibility that Pakistan's military-jihadi complex may try to avenge their humiliation: all these add up to a challenging task. The BJP organisation has not been in good shape for quite some time. A reorganisation has been delayed, putting him and his trusted associate Amit Shah under strain. But don't be surprised if he negotiates them well. He has a proven track record, dating back to 2002 when he took over as chief minister of Gujarat, as well as the crucial wherewithal in the form of a reservoir of goodwill.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
01-05-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Who is Pakistani senator Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan, who made controversial ‘Babri' remark?
As New Delhi-Islamabad tensions heighten following the Pahalgam terror attack, Pakistan Senator Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan's provocative remarks on India have gone viral, sparking widespread outrage. The Pakistan Peoples Party legislator declared that the first brick of the new Babri mosque in Ayodhya would be laid by her country's armed forces, and army chief Asim Munir will recite the first Azaan read more Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan is a Pakistani politician currently associated with the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), led by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. Image courtesy: X As tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad continue to mount in the wake of the deadly Pahalgam terror attack, some Pakistani lawmakers appear determined to further stoke the fire. A video of Senator Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan is now circulating widely on social media, capturing her delivering a fiery and provocative speech in Pakistan's Upper House. In the clip, she boldly declares that the first brick of the new Babri mosque in Ayodhya would be laid by her country's armed forces. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The comment, which references the Babri mosque demolition in 1992, wasn't a one-off. It came as part of a broader tirade filled with religious overtones and a strong dose of military bravado. Unsurprisingly, her words have triggered outrage, with many saying that such rhetoric only makes a bad situation worse, especially when it comes to two nuclear-armed neighbours already on edge. So, who exactly is Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan? And what did she say? Here's a closer look. The provocative speech Senator Khan addressed Pakistan's Senate with a fiery tone on April 29. She said, 'The first brick of the new Babri mosque in Ayodhya will be laid by Pakistan Army soldiers, and the first azaan will be given by Army Chief Asim Munir himself.' She further escalated the tensions by saying, 'We are not wearing bangles." The senator then took things a step further, claiming that the region was heading toward the rise of a Muslim-led government in India, one she suggested would be led by Pakistan. 'Judging from current circumstances, it appears that Allah is creating the means for the establishment of a Muslim government—specifically a Pakistani Muslim government—in the Indian subcontinent,' she said in Urdu. The senator's speech intensified when she warned India of dire consequences, 'If any hand reaches toward us, then the symbol of their power, the Red Fort of Delhi, will witness a bloodshed that its walls have never seen, and its ramparts will testify to it for centuries to come,' she was quoted as saying in a Times of India report. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Quoting late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, she added, 'We have guns, we have arms, we have trees—and if the enemy tries anything, we will hang their corpses from our trees.' Despite her strong language, Khan clarified that she did not have any quarrel with Indian citizens, stating, 'We have no enmity with the people of India.' Later, she claimed that Sikh soldiers would refuse to fight against Pakistan because of the religious significance the country holds for them. 'The Sikh army will not attack Pakistan because it's the land of Guru Nanak for them,' she said. "Pakistan is all about terrorism, hate, and Islamist extremism. This is Pakistani Senator Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan. 'Pak Army soldiers will put the first brick at the new Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, and the first Azaan by Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir. We are not wearing… — Imtiaz Mahmood (@ImtiazMadmood) April 30, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Adding to the controversy, she expressed admiration for Khalistani separatist leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannu, who is a designated terrorist under Indian law. 'I want to salute Sikh leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannu, who courageously declared that no Indian soldier will be allowed to cross into Pakistan from Indian Punjab.' Khan wrapped up her speech with a call to arms saying, 'Our army is not just six or seven lakh soldiers, we have 25 crore people who, when the time comes, will stand shoulder to shoulder with our armed forces and become soldiers themselves, God willing." Who is Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan? Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan is a Pakistani politician currently associated with the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), led by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. She holds the position of deputy information secretary within the party and has been a vocal political figure. She has been serving as a Senator in Pakistan's Upper House since March 2021, representing Sindh on a women's reserved seat. Before that, she was a member of the National Assembly from 2008 to 2013. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD sPalwasha Mohammad Zai Khan holds the position of deputy information secretary within the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party. Image courtesy: Pakistan Senate Palwasha is the niece of Fozia Behram, a seasoned politician and businesswoman. Fozia made history by being the only female member elected to the Punjab Assembly during the 1988–90 term. This isn't the first time Pakistani leaders have made provocative remarks about India. Not long ago, PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari made headlines after India decided to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty. Speaking at a public rally, the former Foreign Minister hit out at New Delhi, saying, 'The Indus is ours and will remain ours. Either our water will flow through it, or their (Indians) blood will.' He accused India of unilaterally abandoning the treaty and declared Pakistan as the rightful custodian of the Indus civilisation. Former Prime Minister Imran Khan also took to X recently, stating that while Pakistan prefers peace, its desire for stability shouldn't be mistaken for weakness. 'Pakistan has every capability to give a befitting reply to any Indian aggression, as the PTI government, fully supported by a united nation, did in 2019,' he said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With input from agencies
India Today
30-04-2025
- Politics
- India Today
First brick of Babri mosque in Ayodhya will be laid by Pak soldiers: Senator
In another provocative statement by a Pakistani senator, Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan declared that the "first brick of the new Babri mosque" in Ayodhya would be laid by Pakistani soldiers. A video of Palwasha's inflammatory speech in Pakistan's Upper House has gone viral amid tensions between the two countries over the Pahalgam terror attack."The first brick of the new Babri mosque in Ayodhya will be laid by Pakistan Army soldiers, and the first azaan will be given by Army Chief Asim Munir himself," Palwasha said on Tuesday. She further added, "We are not wearing bangles."advertisementPalwasha also emphasised that Sikh soldiers won't attack Pakistan in case of a conflict with India. "If they are threatening Pakistan, then let them know that the Sikh army will not attack Pakistan because it's the land of Guru Nanak for them," she said, referring to the religious significance of the country for Sikhs. WATCH: This is not the first time that Pakistani leaders have made provocative remarks against India. Recently, Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari made a provocative statement after India suspended the Indus Waters at a public rally, the former Pakistani Foreign Minister warned India against diverting Indus waters, claiming that Pakistan was the true guardian of the Indus accused India of unilaterally scrapping the agreement and issued a stark threat, "The Indus is ours and will remain ours. Either our water will flow through it, or their (Indians) blood will."advertisementAlso, former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on Wednesday took to X and said that Pakistan prefers peace, but their pacifism should not be mistaken for weakness."Pakistan has every capability to give a befitting reply to any Indian aggression, as the PTI government, fully supported by a united nation, did in 2019," he added.
The Hindu
24-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Is India witnessing judicial despotism?
The term 'judicial review' has not been used in our constitution but it can easily be inferred from Article 13, which says any law in contravention of the constitution shall be void. In fact, even this provision was inserted out of abundant caution, as even in its absence, such a power could have been exercised by the constitutional courts. High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 look at the violation of rights. Judicial review being an essential component of rule of law is part of our constitution's basic structure. Though 'judicial activism' and 'judicial review' are considered distinct, basically both are two sides of the same coin. Indeed, the judicial whistle should ideally be blown in extreme situations for a limited purpose, as the judiciary has no business taking over the governance of the country in its hands. To overcome the crises of legitimacy for its pro-government decisions during the Emergency, the Supreme Court revolutionised the doctrine of locus standi and initiated the Public Interest Litigation. However, has the Supreme Court really become a nuclear missile, with its judges having no accountability? Are we in the midst of civil or religious war and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, in his short tenure as Chief Justice of India (CJI), is to be blamed for this? Is judicial review anti-democratic? Has the court misused its powers under Article 142 (which provides for 'complete justice')? It no more asks petitioners what right of theirs has been violated but rather whose right has been violated. In the process, it has helped the prisoners who were blinded by needles being pierced in their eyes; paying compensation for the custodial deaths and upholding rights of workers etc. The case for complete justice In the constitutional law debates, there have always been lovers and haters of judicial review. At times, they do change their stand depending upon whether they are in government or Opposition. Thus, Congress leaders when in power were against the judicial review but are its strongest votary today. However, to term Article 142 as nuclear missile is too strong a statement and is basically criticism of the constitution and should have been avoided by the Vice-President of India, who himself being a senior advocate is familiar with the seminal contribution of the Supreme Court in saving our democracy. This provision was used in the Babri judgment, in issuing guidelines on mob lynching and in granting divorces in failed marriages on the ground of 'irretrievable breakdown'. True, the court should not use this power too often. The Supreme Court has neither used judicial activism nor its constitutional power under Article 142 as an unguided missile. As a repository of people's trust in it, it has, barring few exceptions, lived up to their expectations and not betrayed their trust. Had the court ordered restoration of the Babri mosque, probably there would have been a situation of religious war but looking at the sentiments of the millions of people, the court preferred peace over justice. Similarly, a judgment against the abrogation of Article 370 may have created a law and order situation in Kashmir. CJI Sanjiv Khanna's interpretation of the proviso of Article 370 has been severely criticised and the court's refusal to determine the constitutionality of a State being downgraded to a Union Territory was not liked by the constitutional law experts. The democracy debate True, Opposition is well within its right to criticise the Vice-President but it must remember its tallest leader, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, too had spoken in almost identical language in the Constituent Assembly on September 10, 1949: 'Within limits no judge and no Supreme Court can make itself a third chamber. No Supreme Court and no judiciary can stand in judgment over the sovereign will of Parliament. If we go wrong here and there, it can point it out, but in the ultimate analysis where, the future of the community is concerned, no judiciary can come in the way. And if it comes in the way, ultimately, the whole constitution is a creature of Parliament.' He went on to observe on the possibility of picking up pro-government judges: 'If courts proved obstructive, one method of overcoming hurdle is… the executive which is the appointing authority of judges begin to appoint judges of its own liking for getting decisions in its own favor.' His daughter, as a strong Prime Minister, gave full effect to this policy by twice indulging in the supersession of judges. It is a different story that even the collegium routinely indulges in supersession in the name of diversity and merit. The greatest criticism against the judicial review is in the name of democracy, as unelected judges ideally should not have power to quash laws passed by democratically elected governments. Of course, the government would be formed based on the majority in popular House, yet the constitution does not permit it to become majoritarian. Similarly, the Governor or the President cannot exercise their discretionary powers arbitrarily in assenting Bills because they too should respect the will of the democratically elected State Assemblies. In fact, most scholars reject this democratic objection in cases of judicial review on questions pertaining to federal provisions, legislative procedure or fundamental rights, as democracy can be the best means of resolving political disputes except in issues of fundamental rights and preservation of constitutional supremacy. Unlike the United Kingdom, we do not have the supremacy of the Parliament but the supremacy of the constitution. Our parliamentarians must keep it in mind. The Vice-President too should not assert supremacy of the Parliament. Judiciary vs the government Generally, the Supreme Court upholds the decisions of the government and the laws enacted by the Legislature. The quashing of laws or striking down of governmental decisions happens once in a blue moon. The Supreme Court has a duty to speak against the misgovernment; if it fails to do so, it would be failing in its constitutional duty of protecting the constitution and upholding people's rights. To say that Parliament be shut down as the court itself is making laws too is an unfair criticism. As a matter of fact, lately, the liberals have been saying that our judiciary has become more executive-minded than the executive itself. In most cases during the Modi government, the Supreme Court has gone with the government. It upheld demonetisation; it refused to recognise same sex marriages; it approved the Rafale deal; saved the BJP-Shiv Sena(S) government in Maharashtra; insisted on the National Register of Citizens for Assam; did almost nothing in the Pegasus surveillance matter; declared 'triple talak' as void; freely used sealed covers; did not agree even for a CBI probe in Judge Loya's death; made bail conditions more stringent under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and for over five years, did not grant bail even to student leaders; did not hear petitions against Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The only big setbacks for the government were in cases against the electoral bond scheme, National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), and President's rule in Arunachal Pradesh. In the recent verdict on Tamil Nadu Government's petition against its Governor, the court has merely interpreted the expression 'as soon as possible' in Article 200. The only problematic part that may qualify as judicial activism is the suggestion to President to seek the court's advisory opinion if a State law looks patently unconstitutional; the court has said 'it would be prudent' (Paragraph 434). This too was to save the President from the allegations of bias, arbitrariness and mala fide. Need for fair criticism Let us be fair to our judges. Fair criticism is welcome but attributing motives to judges or blaming them either for the violation of separation of powers or civil war is not acceptable. Our judges do deserve respect as they have too much of work due to poor judge-population ratio. The current CJI has not given any significant judgment. Aware of religious sensitivities, he merely tried to maintain peace through his observations on the Places of Worship Act. There is no stay as of now even on the The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Cannot he even ask questions anymore? All three organs of the government must remain within their allotted spheres. Holders of these organs do take an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution. A Governor who refuses to sign Bills validly passed by the Assembly for years together basically was in violation of his own oath. In Supreme Court Bar Association (1998), the Supreme Court had observed that the powers under Article 142 being curative do not authorise the court to supplant substantive law. It cannot build a new edifice where none existed earlier. It cannot make any order which is inconsistent with the constitution or statutory law. The judgment in the Tamil Nadu Government's suit has strengthened, not weakened, democracy and federalism. Justice J.B. Pardiwala has not gone against any provision of the constitution. He has indeed saved the constitution from the despotism of unelected Governors and prevented Governors from becoming 'super constitutional figure' (Paragraph 317). Justice Krishna Iyer in Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) has held that 'no legal power can run unruly like John Gilpin on the horse but must keep sensibly to a steady course'. He also observed that no constitutional power can be vulgarised by the personal vanity of the men in authority. The constitutional fiction of political questions beyond judicial remit cannot tie the hands of judges in exceptional situations like the one in Tamil Nadu. Its Governor's action being found mala fide warranted such timelines. The timelines suggested by the court do not amount to amendment of the constitution at all. No court in future is going to initiate contempt proceedings against the President or even the Governors for not strictly complying with these timelines. If there is undue delay without any reason, timelines can be used to evaluate arbitrary or non-arbitrary nature of the Governor's action/inaction. In Qaiser e Hind (2001), Justice Dorairajan had observed that 'the assent of the President envisaged under Article 254(2) is neither an idle or empty formality not an automatic event' (Paragraph 73). It is an exercise of constitutional power. The Indian President too is under the constitution and not above it. Her actions too are amenable to judicial review. Even the Supreme Court is not supreme despite its nomenclature; it too must work under and within the constitutional limits. The author is the Vice-Chancellor Chanakya National Law University, Patna. The views are personal.
