Latest news with #Janata
News18
5 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Book reveals Israeli ministers covert 1977 talks with Desai, Vajpayee
New Delhi, Jul 18 (PTI) Then Israeli foreign minister Moshe Dayan came to India in 1977 on a clandestine visit, in disguise and under a false name, to meet prime minister Morarji Desai and his counterpart Atal Bihari Vajpayee in a failed attempt to establish diplomatic ties between the two countries, says a new book. The Israeli minister failed in his mission and left empty-handed. Visibly annoyed by the outcome, Dayan declined the parting gift of antique Indian silverware offered by his hosts, Abhishek Choudhary writes in 'Believer's Dilemma: Vajpayee and the Hindu Right's Path to Power". He flew out 'mocking India's poverty, cursing its rulers' moral cowardice", says the book that uncovers a little-known episode in India-Israel ties. The 'awkward meeting", the author notes, was a sign that for all its ambitions, the Janata government did not have the mandate or confidence to revamp India's foreign policy. Dayan's covert visit to India was 'top secret" as Desai feared it would lead to the collapse of the Janata government if made public. The meeting, held at a 'poorly furnished government house" in New Delhi, was so discreet that Vajpayee got to know of it only after Dayan landed. Even foreign secretary Jagat Mehta wasn't told anything. 'On the afternoon of 14 August, Israeli foreign minister, Moshe Dayan, alighted in New Delhi. He was travelling under a fake name and had disguised himself with dark glasses and a large straw hat. He was put up at a private residence in south Delhi's Safdarjung Enclave," reads the book, a sequel to Chaudhary's award-winning bestseller 'Vajpayee: The Ascent of the Hindu Right". The purpose of his visit: 'to advance talks on establishing diplomatic relations between India and Israel". India recognised Israel in 1950 but established full diplomatic relations with the country on January 29, 1992. 'As a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, India had some clout among the non-aligned nations. At the very least, Dayan was hoping to receive India's backing for the Israel-Egypt peace plans in the NAM, neutralizing India's longstanding support to the Arabs," the book adds. 'At India's request, the meeting was kept top secret. No other cabinet minister, not even Foreign Secretary Mehta, got a whiff of it. Morarji Desai thought that if the news of Dayan's visit became public, the Janata government would collapse," it claims. Janata Party, a political alliance formed in 1977 by various opposition groups, came into power in 1977 defeating Indira Gandhi's Congress after the Emergency period. Desai, who became the first non-Congress prime minister of India, remained in the office for 856 days — serving till 1979. Vajpayee, despite his long standing support for formal ties with Israel, appeared visibly uneasy during the meeting with Dayan. According to Desai — who shared the episode months later with Indian diplomat I.K. Gujral, then India's ambassador to the USSR — Vajpayee was 'terrified" about the implications of the encounter and was told 'not to worry". Desai, however, remained steadfast in rejecting Dayan's overtures. While acknowledging that India had recognised Israel in 1950, Desai made it clear that full diplomatic relations could only be considered 'only after peace came to the region". He reiterated India's longstanding support for a Palestinian state and resisted even minimal gestures, such as opening an Israeli consulate in Delhi. 'Both Vajpayee and Desai argued that such a step would be misinterpreted, leading to 'unnecessary complications in diplomatic relations with West Asia'… He (Desai) suggested Dayan meet Vajpayee during the conferences in the US and Europe but refused to risk sending his foreign minister, formally or secretly, to his country," the book recounts. Following the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1992, an embassy opened in New Delhi, and the consulate in Mumbai — operational since 1953 — became a consulate-general. 'Believer's Dilemma", priced at Rs 999, is described by publishing house PanMacmillan India as a political history of contemporary India covering the crucial period between 1978–2018 — 'a transformative 40-year span that saw the Hindu Right move from the fringes into the corridors of power". PTI MG MIN MIN (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: July 18, 2025, 17:00 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
An excerpt from Believer's Dilemma:Vajpayee and the Hindu Right's Path to Power (1977-2018)
The second volume of a two-part biography, Believer's Dilemma begins with a watershed moment when India voted in its first non-Congress government at the Centre in 1977. The Sangh Parivar was in the coalition, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee got the post of External Affairs Minister. Two years later, when the coalition collapsed, Vajpayee 'publicly apportioned some of the blame to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh,' whose ideology he believed in. After a stint in government, 'the believer now had dilemmas,' and Vajpayee's relationship with the Sangh Parivar would 'remain a convoluted affair till the very end.' An edited excerpt: Janata went to its funeral not only unsung but also unbathed. In mid-July 1979, the RSS's labour wing Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh instigated a strike in Delhi's water supply department, demanding a pay hike and better working conditions. It led to 'choking lavatories, bursting sewers, threat of epidemics in the slums and not a drop to drink anywhere in the city'. Confined to his hospital bed, Vajpayee felt exasperated with old colleagues such as Dattopant Thengadi, who was spearheading the water strike, for worsening the chaos in the capital. Seeds of discord Away from the mayhem, undergoing physiotherapy at his private retreat, Vajpayee introspected on the previous twenty-eight months. He used the time to churn out a longish op-ed for theIndian Express, where he argued that the responsibility for the collapse of the first non-Congress government lay with leaders across all factions. Partly because he was under pressure from both sides, and divided in his loyalties, he adopted the tone of a detached referee. The highlight of this essay was Vajpayee's takedown of his own fraternity for their failure to demonstrate that they did not seek a political role: 'Patronising a press that takes sides in the sordid politics of power, involvement in youth bodies that interact with political parties, participating in trade union rivalries such as the one which recently brought enormous misery to the people of Delhi by callously cutting off the water supply – these do not help an organisation to establish its apolitical credentials. It is possible that some people genuinely feel apprehensively about the RSS. A certain onus accordingly devolved on the RSS, an onus that has not been discharged effectively by the RSS. Its repudiation of the theocratic form of the state was welcome, yet the question could legitimately be asked – why does it not open its doors to non-Hindus?' Vajpayee's unexpected outburst had an urgent purpose: it was a careful PR exercise in showcasing the Jan Sangh's independence from Nagpur, so Janata could lure back some of the MPs who had crossed over. In truth, he continued to be emotionally tied to and dependent on the RSS to bolster his political muscle. His mild criticism also evaded the more serious charges of the Sangh Parivar's involvement in anti-Muslim violence. Later, the enquiry commissions implicated the RSS. As in the past, the essay declared the riots to be a law-and-order failure (in Aligarh) or a response to provocation from the Muslims, such as an attack on a Ram Navami procession (in Jamshedpur). Power games Charan Singh had found his moment of supreme glory, but with enough hint that he could not hold on to it for long. He had agreed to withdraw Emergency cases against Indira and Sanjay Gandhi. But this demand was rebuffed by Congress-U, a breakaway faction of Mrs. Gandhi's party that formed the backbone of his ragtag coalition. It served Indira Gandhi well to pull the plug after twenty-three days of outside support. The way was finally clear for Jagjivan Ram, who had more than 200 Janata MPs supporting him. Vajpayee's essay helped the Janata president, Chandra Shekhar, who praised 'Atal jee on his courageous clear vision' and beseeched the defectors to return and help usher Jagjivan Ram as the first Dalit prime minister of the republic. If the plan succeeded, it would make for a profound moment of democratic deepening. On 22 August, Vajpayee had flown to Madras to induce M. G. Ramachandran of the AIADMK – All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam – whose flock had eighteen MPs, to support the Dalit leader. Just when MGR had nearly agreed that afternoon, the bid turned infructuous. Vajpayee received news from the capital: the president of India had, rather dubiously, dissolved the Lok Sabha. Claims, counter claims It was now a three-ring circus. Touring for elections, Vajpayee's twin targets were Charan Singh and Indira Gandhi. The strategy left many voters confused, unable to distinguish between Janata and Charan Singh's new party. Vajpayee tried convincing the voters that Janata had accomplished 'a lot in its short tenure'. Everywhere he flew – now in a private plane – he made hour-long speeches reminding the crowd of Janata having restored democracy, freedom of press, and judiciary. He cited improved economic indicators: falling prices, rising food stocks, doubled foreign exchange reserves. He pointed out that Janata had boosted relations with all major countries without damaging with any. Mrs. Gandhi mocked Janata as a mishmash – a 'khichdi sarkaar' – and beseeched people to 'vote for a government that works'. The Congress-I even managed to pierce the armour of the former foreign minister: they convinced his eldest brother, Awadh Behari, who had recently retired from his government job in Bhopal, to join Mrs. Gandhi's party. Atal was obviously embarrassed, but salvaged the situation saying there was 'nothing wrong' with his elder brother joining his rivals: 'It is his personal decision. I will not mind if my other brothers joined the Lok Dal or the Congress-U.' Excerpted with permission from Pan Macmillan India
India Today
7 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Socialist-secular debate: ‘Dattatreya Hosabale seeks regression, not reform'
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated July 14, 2025)On June 26, RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale said the quiet part out loud. He wanted a discussion on whether the words 'secular' and 'socialist' 'should remain' in the Constitution's Preamble. He said Ambedkar never used these words and argued that they were smuggled in during the Emergency. The 50th anniversary of the Emergency was seemingly a good occasion to discuss deleting them does not seek reform; what he wants is a regression. The Constitution is not an la carte menu. You cannot pick what you like and discard the rest. The Preamble reflects our national purpose. To alter its core is not debate. It is the 42nd Amendment added those words in 1976. But the idea behind them was always there. Secularism and Socialism flow through the Constitution like groundwater. You won't find secularism on every page. But dig, and it's there. Article 14 promises equality before law. Articles 15 and 16 prohibit discrimination. Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion. Articles 27 and 28 keep religion out of state institutions. Articles 29 and 30 protect cultural and educational rights of minorities. None of these need the word 'secular' to work. But the word ties them together conceptually. Secularism in India is not about hostility to religion. It means the state keeps an equal distance from all religions. It does not bow before temple, mosque or church. It protects belief. And the right not to believe. That's not alien. That's constitutional. Socialism, too, is not an alien transplant. It means social justice. It means the state must look after the weak. It means wealth cannot be the only source of power. Ambedkar didn't oppose the idea. He only warned against locking in an economic model. But the Directive Principles say enough: reduce inequality, ensure fair wages, protect the dignity of labour. These are socialist values, Indian in says the amendment came during dark times. True. But a bad moment doesn't make every act bad. Courts didn't strike down that part of the amendment. Even the Janata government, which reversed much of the Emergency's excesses, retained those words, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani, as important ministers in that government, raised no objection to the continuation of those Supreme Court has settled this. In Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973), secularism was enumerated among the Constitution's basic features. In S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994), the court said secularism is part of the Constitution's basic features. These are not footnotes. These are judgments of large constitution cannot amend the basic structure. You cannot touch the foundation without breaking the house. Parliament is powerful, but not absolute. Hosabale's demand is not about semantics. It is about reshaping the state. It is about shifting India from a secular republic to a majoritarian democracy. That's not just a constitutional problem. It's a national is not one colour, one language, one faith. It is a complex, layered society. Secularism is how we manage that diversity. Not by denial. But by respect and neutrality. You don't need the word 'secular' to act secular. But once you drop the word, you make space for its opposite. That is the risk. Words matter. That's why the RSS wants to drop them. To clear the path for something else. They want a Hindu Rashtra, not a secular republic. Let us not pretend otherwise. This is not about constitutional clarity. It's about political ambition. The Preamble is not a draft. It is a declaration. It says who we are. It says what we aspire to be. We may not always live up to it. But we do not give up on it or allow our national covenant to be rewritten by those who never believed in its words to begin with.—The author is a senior advocate at the Supreme CourtadvertisementSubscribe to India Today Magazine- EndsMust Watch
Indian Express
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
India's secular Constitution, even without the word
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar on Saturday called the Emergency-era addition of expressions 'socialist' and 'secular' to the Constitution's Preamble a 'sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatan'. Leaders such as Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, and RSS general secretary Dattareya Hosabale have echoed the VP's critique in recent days. The words 'socialist' and 'secular' were added to the Preamble through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act of 1976, which made wholesale changes to India's founding document. While the Janata government reversed most of these changes through the 44th Amendment in 1978, the Preamble was left untouched. Preamble & 42nd Amendment The Preamble is a vision statement to the Constitution, or as the Supreme Court described in its 1961 ruling in In Re: The Berubari Union, 'a key to open the mind of the makers' of the Constitution. In 1950, when the Constitution was adopted, the Preamble read: 'We, the People Of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic' that would secure to all its citizens 'Justice… Equality… Liberty… and Fraternity'. The 42nd Amendment in 1976 changed this to '…Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic…' and added the expression 'integrity' to the description of fraternity as a right, which now reads 'assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation…'. These were just a few of a whole host of changes made by the 42nd Amendment, which introduced the chapter on Fundamental Duties, added new Directive Principles on State Policy, diluted powers of judicial review, and froze delimitation. Behind these changes These changes reflected Indira Gandhi's political objectives during the Emergency, a 21-month period during which the Prime Minister ruled by decree. * Since the 1950s, the tussle between Parliament and the judiciary had revolved around land reform: the political class saw the Court's upholding of fundamental rights, especially the right to property, as placing individual rights over collective rights of people. With Indira Gandhi taking an explicit leftward turn — she nationalised banks in 1969, abolished privy purses in 1971, and romped to victory in Lok Sabha polls later that year with 'Garibi Hatao' ('End Poverty') as her campaign slogan — the inclusion of 'socialist' was to indicate the Constitution's alignment with the Prime Minister's economic roadmap. As the 42nd Amendment's Statement of Objects and Reasons read, the addition was meant to 'make the directive principles more comprehensive and give them precedence over those fundamental rights which have been allowed to be relied upon to frustrate socioeconomic reforms…'. * The reason for adding 'secular' to the Preamble was not as explicitly spelt out. But it came at a time when the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, predecessor of the BJP, was emerging as a potent political force. In the 1967 general elections, the Jana Sangh had won 35 seats, its best performance till then, and the Congress' tally dropped to 283. While the Congress bounced back in 1971, the Jana Sangh nonetheless remained among Indira Gandhi's foremost political opponents through the Emergency, when a number of its leaders, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani were jailed. 'The founding fathers of our Constitution and of our country had intended Indian society to be secular and socialist… All we are doing now is to incorporate them in the Constitution itself for they rightly deserve to be mentioned there,' Indira had told Lok Sabha. * The word 'integrity' was brought into the Preamble at a time when Indira's political rhetoric — and justification for imposing the Emergency — centred around 'forces dividing the nation'. 'When we talk of integrity, it is really the quality or the state of being undivided… Whereas a nation is composed of the people and the country, when we talk of the integrity of the country, we talk of… maintaining the indivisibility of the country along with the unity of the nation,' then law Minister H R Gokhale had said in the Parliament while speaking on the Bill. The difference they made While symbolic, the additions to the Preamble made no substantive changes to the Constitution. As the SC had noted in Berubari Union, '[the] Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, and it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power…' Secularism is a theme that permeates through the Constitution in several other provisions. For instance, secularism is a key facet of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 15 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. These rights against the state make the Constitution inherently secular. This view has repeatedly been emphasised by the Supreme Court. Even before the 42nd amendment altered the Preamble, a 13-judge bench in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati ruling held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution that cannot be done away with. 'The secular character of the state, according to which the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion only, cannot likewise be done away with,' the ruling states. In the 1994 Bommai ruling, that dealt with Centre-State relations, the SC again upheld secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution. In another landmark ruling in 1980, Minerva Mills v Union of India, which also debated more constitutional amendments made during the Emergency, the Court recognised 'socialism' was a constitutional ideal for the framers. It cited Part IV of the Constitution, which deals with Directive Principles of State Policy, a non-enforceable policy outline for the state that has several socialist ideas. 'We resolved to constitute ourselves into a Socialist State which carried with it the obligation to secure to our people justice — social, economic and political. We, therefore, put part IV into our Constitution containing directive principles of State policy which specify the socialistic goal to be achieved,' the ruling said. In November 2024, a two-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna dismissed writ petitions challenging the addition of 'secularism' and 'socialism' in the Constitution. 'The additions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded legislation or policies pursued by elected governments, provided [they] did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, we do not find any legitimate cause … for challenging this constitutional amendment…,' the Bench said. Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More
Hindustan Times
29-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Chasing the ghosts of the Emergency
Jun 29, 2025 10:11 PM IST A debate is brewing over the insertion of two terms — secular and socialist — into the Preamble of the Constitution during the Emergency. First, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath called it 'a brutal assault on the soul of India'. A day later, RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale said these terms were inserted when 'the country had no functioning Parliament, no rights, no judiciary ' and asked for a review. Vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar and several BJP leaders have joined the debate — some have described secularism as anti-Sanatana Dharma and a Western concept. The Opposition has criticised these remarks as evidence of the present regime's intent to subvert the Constitution. The Janata government introduced the 43rd and 44th Amendments to undo the damages done by the 42nd Amendment. But secular and socialist were allowed to stay on in the Preamble by the governments that followed the Emergency regime (REUTERS) Secular and socialist were added to the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1976. It was done, probably, to emphasise the Emergency regime's political stance: the then PM Indira Gandhi wanted to be seen as the guardian of secular values, which she claimed, was under threat from RSS (and Jamaat-e-Islami and Ananda Marga). Under her, India aligned with the Soviet Union, and she wanted the government to be perceived as committed to socialism. A close reading of the 42nd Amendment will reveal that these additions were more for optics and masked the serious damages made to the basic structure of the Constitution. For instance, the amendment toyed with the legal architecture of the country by reducing the powers of the courts and making the judiciary subservient to the political executive. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which delineates the powers between the Centre and the states, was tampered with to shift the federal balance in favour of the Centre. Fundamental Duties were introduced and the Directive Principles were given precedence over Fundamental Rights, which, in effect, subverted the pact between the citizens and the States, with rights relegated to the background. The Janata government introduced the 43rd and 44th Amendments to undo the damages done by the 42nd Amendment. But secular and socialist were allowed to stay on in the Preamble by the governments that followed the Emergency regime. No party, perhaps, wanted to be seen as anti-secular or anti-poor (in the Indian context, socialism means being pro-poor). Nor were the changes in the Seventh Schedule, delineating powers between the Union and the states, undone. Some of the challenges to federalism (especially evident now) can be traced back to these changes. If any aspect of the 42nd Amendment needs review, it is this. Unlock a world of Benefits with HT! From insightful newsletters to real-time news alerts and a personalized news feed – it's all here, just a click away! -Login Now!
