Latest news with #SanghParivar
Indian Express
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Kerala man who claimed judges working under Sangh influence gets 3 days in jail for contempt of court
A division bench of the Kerala High Court recently sentenced a person to undergo three days of imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 2,000 in a suo motu contempt of court case registered on charges of publishing contemptuous and intemperate remarks against the judges on social media. The convicted person, P K Suresh Kumar, a resident of Alangad in Ernakulam district, had made a series of social media posts about high court judges. While the court convicted Kumar on July 16, the bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan and Jobin Sebastain noted that he had faced a similar contempt of court case for making scandalous statements against a judge, but was discharged after he tendered an unconditional apology. In the suo motu proceedings initiated against Kumar, the court noted that the accused had stated that the judges comprising the devaswom (temple affairs) bench of the high court were functioning under the influence of the Sangh Parivar and other external agencies, and that judgments were being rendered to appease such factions. In another Facebook post, he had alleged that a judge of the high court had publicly endorsed the Sangh Parivar and participated in events organised by such groups, purportedly to secure favour from them. Finding that the accused person committed criminal contempt by scandalising the court with mala fide intent, the judge said, 'The shoulders of the court are broad enough to shrug off certain comments, and there cannot be any dispute on the same. While fair and temperate criticism is protected, criticism based on distortion, falsehood, and aimed at vilifying the institution cannot be countenanced. The comments made by the respondent cannot be categorised as an isolated or inadvertent remark,'' said the court in its order.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why the RSS Wants ‘Secular' and ‘Socialist' Removed From Preamble
Published : Jul 22, 2025 22:27 IST - 10 MINS READ Of course, he will not respond to this article, despite his call for a national debate. Of course, his statement was just an ideological floater intended to tease and not a reasoned argument. But since he is the sarkaryavah (general secretary) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which rules the country both directly and indirectly, we must take his statement seriously. High officials of the Sangh Parivar do not make statements casually. That, however, is not the main reason for this response. The more important reason is that since 2004 he has been the sah baudhik pramukh (second in command) of the intellectual wing of the Sangh Parivar. That makes him one of the foremost intellectuals of the RSS. In my experience, intellectuals choose their words very carefully. They think before they speak. Their language is measured, suggesting a universe of thought that exists behind what is spoken. This is a universe waiting to be discovered. Terry Eagleton, the Marxist theorist, described intellectuals as people who 'seek to bring ideas to an entire culture'. That is what Dattatreya Hosabale was doing when he asked for 'secular' and 'socialist' to be removed from the Preamble of the Constitution. There are two aspects to what he said that require our consideration. One is acceptable, the other debatable. Unfortunately, the public response has been mostly to the latter. In the best traditions of purva paksha, I shall, therefore, respond to both aspects. (Purva paksha is a traditional approach involving deep familiarity with the opponent's point of view before criticising it.) Hosabale's objections Hosabale's statement contains four objections. He is critical of (i) the context in which the words were introduced into the Preamble, (ii) the procedure that was followed, (iii) the constraints that they, especially 'socialist', would impose on future policymaking by government, and (iv) the impact the two words would have of diminishing the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. All four are important points and must be considered. To do so, I have adopted the following method. I first re-read the Preamble. Then I revisited the Constituent Assembly debates on the Preamble that took place on October 17, 1949. And finally, going further back, I studied the discussion in the Constituent Assembly that took place on December 13, 1946, when the Objectives Resolution was introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru. (The Objectives Resolution was the ethical basis for the Preamble.) Also Read | Preamble politics All three steps were necessary to respond meaningfully to Hosabale's discontent. Doing so added hugely to my understanding of the vision of India that was being shaped. In fact, I felt compelled to rededicate myself to the India being imagined. This is my rededication. Debates on Preamble The debates in the Constituent Assembly on the Preamble involved a diversity of members across gender, religion, caste, place, and perspective. Those who spoke were H.V. Kamath, K.M. Munshi, Hasrat Mohani, Deshbandhu Gupta, B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Jai Narain Vyas, K. Santhanam, A. Thanu Pillai, Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, V.I. Muniswamy Pillai, Shibban Lal Saxena, M. Thirumala Rao, Mahavir Tyagi, Hriday Nath Kunzru, Satyanarayan Sinha, Govind Malaviya, B.R. Ambedkar, J.B. Kripalani, P.S. Deshmukh, Satish Chandra, Brajeshwar Prasad, Naziruddin Ahmad, and Purnima Banerji. Rajendra Prasad conducted the proceedings. I have listed them here to acknowledge them and give them our gratitude. Although the discussions were intense—and some members were obstinate about their amendments—they were very cordial with each other and even showed a touch of humour. Munshi, for example, responded to a point of order raised by Hasrat Mohani, by saying: 'Once in my life I support the Maulana Saheb!' That, sadly, was of a time long ago and far away. Because Hosabale has an aversion to the word 'secularism', it is interesting to note the discussions on 'god' in the Assembly. Saxena proposed the following amendment: 'In the name of god the Almighty, under whose inspiration and guidance, the Father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi, led the Nation…' Mahatma Gandhi's name was immediately opposed since this was not a Gandhian Constitution. But, more interestingly, having 'god' was also opposed. Banerji said: 'I appeal to Mr Kamath [who had originally proposed adding god] not to put us to the embarrassment of having to vote upon god.' In other words, do not bring god into this. Chaudhuri wanted 'In the name of god' to be changed to 'In the name of goddess' because, as he said, he 'belongs to Kamrup where Goddess Kamakhya is worshipped'. Both proposals were rejected, and nobody got offended. Spirit of secularism Further, Thanu Pillai argued against the compulsion implicit in the amendment by saying that 'a man has a right to believe in god or not'. Note the phrase 'or not'. He went on to say that even though he is a believer, the words make belief in god a compulsion. Thanu Pillai seemed to be equating the rights of atheists with those of believers. Amazing broad-mindedness. From these interventions, it is obvious that secularism was an idea that infused the spirit of the Preamble. Another gem that emerged from these debates, and which supports Hosabale's description of the Preamble as 'eternal', is the statement of Kripalani: 'Sir, I want, at this solemn hour to remind the House that what we have stated in this Preamble are not legal and political principles only. They are also great moral and spiritual principles and if I may say so, they are mystic principles.' While describing the Preamble as 'eternal', Hosabale is making an important point. Something that is 'eternal' stands beyond time, place, context, and regime. It cannot be amended or ignored. If it has to be amended, then it should only be done in the rarest of rare circumstances. Eternal principles Is Hosabale, by his reference to 'eternal', asking his governments at the Union and State levels to commit themselves to 'secure to all its citizens, justice (social, economic and political), liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship), equality (of status and opportunity) and fraternity (assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation)'? These are eternal principles. Will Hosabale tell his governments in Assam, where citizenship is being undermined, and in Uttar Pradesh, where liberty is being eroded, and in the nation where fraternity is being degraded, that they are violating the Preamble, tarnishing its 'eternal' glow? If Hosabale deliberately chose to use the word 'eternal', such deliberateness being the hallmark of an intellectual, then do we share a common understanding of the special status of the Preamble? There are many things that one can also glean from a reading of the Objectives Resolution, but I shall mention just two. Nehru, on noticing that many members were absent from the session, advised those present to keep in the mind the interests of those absent and to 'do nothing which may cause uneasiness in others or goes against any principle'. Their absence, for him, 'increases our responsibility'. Noble sentiments that I often feel are missing in our Parliament and State Assemblies. Another aspect I found inspiring was Nehru's suggestion that the Resolution be endorsed not by a 'raising of hands' but 'by all of us standing up and thus taking this pledge anew'. Would Hosabale agree that it is time, in the 75th year of the Indian republic, for us to renew this pledge? With this as background, let me now attend to the four discontents. On the first, the context: I agree with his general argument that constitutional changes introduced during a period of authoritarian rule have little legitimacy. During authoritarian periods, both during a declared or an undeclared emergency, fundamental changes that have been introduced have little normative value (although they may be legally correct), and therefore, if they are made, they should be reversed. Changes in 42nd Amendment The many changes of the 42nd Amendment, introduced during the Emergency period in 1976, were reversed by the 44th Amendment during the Janata Party rule in 1978. It is a mystery why the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were retained. Perhaps Hosabale can enlighten us since the Jana Sangh (the precursor of the BJP) was an important constituent of the Janata Party. I also agree with Hosabale's second objection: of the use of improper procedure in introducing the amendments to the Preamble. The words 'secular' and 'socialist' were part of the omnibus 42nd Amendment. If they were to be introduced, they merited a distinct and separate Amendment. Of course, I mean one introduced in non-Emergency times. Let me state unequivocally here that it is my belief that no constitution is fixed in stone for all time. All sections can be amended using the procedures prescribed. But I have a caveat. Amendments to core ideas must be carefully done, with lots of hesitation, introspection, and also done very rarely, the rarest of the rare, because they are the core guiding aspects of our founding document. They should be like Ashoka pillars. They constitute the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, an idea I like, since it accepts that core aspects are capacious, allowing for a different inhabiting as social mores of a society change. Also Read | Secularism and the state That is why the right to life now includes the right to a clean environment. Core aspects must endure, must have long lives, and should only be changed in extreme circumstances. Legitimate changes to core aspects can be likened to apad dharma (moral principles during calamities) being applied to sadharana dharma (everyday moral principles). Perhaps that is why the Janata Party did not remove 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble when it passed the 44th Amendment. I have a question for Hosabale here: How does abrogating Article 370 stand up to this rule? 'Socialist' constraint His third anxiety, that the word 'socialist' would constrain policymaking, is weak on at least three grounds. All founding principles—such as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity—are supposed to constrain governments since such constraint is the measure of a constitutional order. Constraining policymaking is, therefore, not an anxiety worth worrying about. Further, both Nehru and Ambedkar saw the Constitution as being socialist in spirit. That is why Nehru did not insist on introducing the word in the Constitution and Ambedkar saw many of the other provisions as being expressions of socialism. And, finally, which socialism is Hosabale uneasy about since we have, in India, many varieties, such as Gandhian, Lohiaite, and Nehruvian, and the socialistic ideas of Deen Dayal Upadhyay and S.A. Dange, among others? Is not the BJP's Antyodaya concept a socialist idea by another name? And finally, the fourth objection: of diminishing the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. Linguistically, 'socialist' and 'secular' are a bit cumbersome there. They do not have the same status as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. The former are ideologies. The latter are principles. But Hosabale is not making a linguistic point about the loss in the aesthetics of the Preamble. His is a fluffy point, undefended by serious argument. It is a bias. He does not like secularism or socialism because that is the party line, not an intellectual formulation. It would be interesting to see why he thinks these words sully the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. I hope this is the kind of discussion that he wanted. If not, he should let us know and we will begin anew. Peter Ronald deSouza is an independent scholar. He was formerly Director of the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla.
The Wire
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
When Vajpayee Chose to Fall in Line After Godhra
The following is an excerpt from Abhishek Choudhary's The Believer's Dilemma: A.B. Vajpayee and the Ascent of the Hindu Right. Even in late March 2002, after a month of riots, half a dozen people were getting killed in Gujarat every day. Vajpayee frequently called up Modi, often late in the night, for updates, advice, and rebukes. But his ire was not personal. He knew the failure was a mix of Modi's deliberate administrative inefficiency and the Sangh Parivar's planned vendetta. He hated Modi for strengthening himself by polarizing the atmosphere in Gujarat, though he was perfectly aware of the Sangh affiliates' intricate tapestry on the ground. Had Modi not allowed the local BJP–VHP– Bajrang Dal cadres to vent their anger, he risked becoming unpopular among his peers. But soon everyone – eight of the NDA's twenty-three allies, opposition, media, civil society – publicly demanded Modi's head.* Vajpayee thought it prudent to rehabilitate him in Delhi. He flirted with the idea of swapping Modi and his fellow Gujarati, Kashiram Rana, the textiles minister. (Talking to Delhi journalists in public, Modi had, in the recent past, mocked Rana as a 'maans khaane waala' – a meat-eater – not sufficiently self-aware that most Delhi journalists ate meat too, and what worked as a great joke in Gujarat didn't land nearly as well in the national capital.) Abhishek Choudhary's The Believer's Dilemma: A.B. Vajpayee and the Ascent of the Hindu Right. Picador (May 2025) Simultaneously, however, a four-member team was meeting every week at 7 RCR – Vajpayee, Advani, Kushabhau Thakre, Madan Das Devi – to discuss the matter. The other three disagreed. The party had lost all major assembly polls. Gujarat was the last bastion, awaiting polls in less than a year. Firing Modi would be a top-down decision, which would pit the centre against the local cadres, worsening the confusion on the ground. Instead, a mid-way solution might be to call for early elections. There seemed to be a Hindu resurgence at work, and they calculated that the party would massively benefit. Winning the POTO vote on 26 March proved that he could easily survive the exodus of an ally or two. Vajpayee still wanted to play safe and replace Modi. The prime minister was to make a week-long foreign trip in early April 2002. Partly out of the anxiety that he might be grilled abroad about evading his executive responsibilities, he decided to visit the riottorn state. In preparation, Vajpayee summoned Modi to explain why the rehabilitation had been sluggish. On 27 March, while Modi made a PowerPoint presentation at 7 RCR, Vajpayee sat with a pout. He snubbed the unflappable chief minister when the latter defended himself, claiming he had no funds to build houses for the victims whose homes had been burnt and were now living in the relief camps. Well, raise money from private agencies, the boss rebutted, like Patel had for the earthquake victims. Modi complained of exaggerated media reports. Vajpayee countered that he was not bothered so much about media or opposition, but what should he tell the NDA allies who enquired why the killings had not stopped. Advani sat by awkwardly. The prime minister landed in Ahmedabad on the morning of 4 April. Three helicopters flew his delegation to Godhra, where the remains of the S6 coach lay near an abandoned building in the railway yard. Vajpayee climbed into the coach using a special wooden chair. He walked through the coach with a stiff face. Only Modi followed his boss into the coach, his calm face concealing the awkwardness of the occasion. On return, the helicopters landed at a football ground near the Kankaria relief camp in Ahmedabad, the majority of whose inhabitants were Hindus. This quickly done, Vajpayee left for the Shah-e-Alam camp. Modi had never visited Shah-e-Alam, the largest of all relief camps, sheltering Muslims. The PMO had rejigged Vajpayee's itinerary the previous evening to include it. Vajpayee entered to find a 4,000-strong crowd – miserable, grieving, and agitated – waiting for him. Among the first things he heard was a slogan directed at the chief minister: 'Modi – haaye, haaye!' As Vajpayee caressed a five-year-old orphan's head, a young man pointed at Modi and screamed: 'He is the killer.'27 Another victim who had lost six members of his family broke down, saying the attacking mob had said they had been ordered by the government: 'Upar se hukum hai.' Yet another one stooped to touch Vajpayee's feet, begging him to stop the violence. They were whisked away. His voice choked and eyes welled up, Vajpayee addressed the crowd, asking half to himself: 'Have satanic forces overtaken humanity?' He promised, amid applause, that the refugee camps would continue as long as necessary, and the government would rehabilitate them all; and that widows, orphans, and the destitute would receive money as part of relief packages. The visit was to be wrapped up with a press conference at Ahmedabad airport. Asked whether he was considering a change of guard in the state, Vajpayee responded: 'I don't think so.' To another question, Vajpayee answered that Hindus were capable of safeguarding themselves: 'It is the minorities who need protection.' The PMO had planted the 'one last question' on a friendly scribe. She asked if Vajpayee had a message for Modi sitting on his left. Vajpayee paused for a few seconds before replying that he 'would want the chief minister to adhere to rajdharma'. He took another long pause, then added: 'Rajdharma – this word is imbued with meanings. I adhere to this principle too, have been trying to.' Modi feigned a smile but was beginning to look embarrassed. The prime minister went on: 'A king cannot treat his subjects unequally – not on the basis of birth, or caste or religion.' Unable to fight his urge to stay quiet, Modi retorted that he was doing his job rather fine: 'Hum bhi wahi kar rahe hain, saheb.' The crowd chuckled at his audacious response. Vajpayee closed the press interaction with an oblique, half-sarcastic remark, which could be interpreted in whichever way: 'I am certain Narendrabhai is doing exactly that.' This exchange is often invoked as a mark of Vajpayee's liberalism. It was at best an executive head's pusillanimous appeal. It proved that Vajpayee was admitting Modi's culpability but he just could not find the courage to sack him. Here was a crafty patriarch balancing his contradictory loyalties, hoping to prolong his survival in office. If the prime minister felt embarrassed by his subordinate's audacity, he had only his ego to swallow. As he sat aboard his flight to Singapore, Vajpayee feared being humiliated abroad. That the cursed place was not the Hindi heartland, rather India's fastest-growing state, could scare away potential investors. By the time he landed, he had found an answer. In a post-9/11 world, it was easier to fix the causality: India's communal problems were a consequence of a global jihadi network. He felt further encouraged after his hosts informed him that the Al-Qaeda tentacles had touched Singapore, and that they had recently arrested a dozen-odd suspects. The second leg of his trip, Singapore to Cambodia, was time-travel from the future into the past. His most significant engagement was signing an agreement to restore the Ta Prohm Temple in the Angkor Wat complex. Walking with the help of a stick, he took in the remnants of the old Hindu state of Kamboj, some of whose sky-high temples constructed a millennia ago still survived. While the prime minister was away, the Sangh Parivar carried out a fierce whisper campaign: Modi had to be defended at all costs; Vajpayee 2002: The Survivalist 337 was too out of sync with the party's dominant mood, too old in any case, and had led the party into one electoral mishap after the other. He had entered a fifth year of office: maybe he should demit in favour of Advani. The morning after he returned, he left for the national executive meet in Goa, where he had to formally deliver the verdict on Modi. Brajesh Mishra had arranged for the senior ministers to travel in Vajpayee's plane. Just before landing in Panaji, Advani agreed to ask Modi to offer – though only as roleplay – his resignation. At the national executive that afternoon, everyone played by the script. Though visibly tense, Modi rose to make a passionate defence of his conduct in the aftermath of Godhra. At the end, he offered his head. Suddenly, most of the 175-odd members gathered there began a chorus in his support. It was a stage-managed decision to be sure, so much so that even the Gujarat chief minister's sworn foes – Keshubhai Patel, Pramod Mahajan – trimmed their sail and vigorously backed him. Even so, Vajpayee was surprised by the force of Modi's backing. The BJP president Jana Krishnamurthi announced that the final decision would be discussed at 8 p.m., after the prime minister returned from a rally he was to speak at in Panaji. His authority fading, Vajpayee chose to fall in line.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Sivankutty condemns recommendation to exclude rapper Vedan and Gowry Lekshmi's songs from University syllabus
Condemning an expert committee's recommendation to remove the songs by rapper Hirandas Murali (Vedan) and independent musician Gowry Lekshmy from the undergraduate curriculum of Calicut University, General Education Minister V. Sivankutty said that the move is part of the Sangh Parivar's agenda to saffronise the higher education sector. The decision to remove the songs was reportedly made following a complaint filed by members of the university's governing body appointed by the Chancellor. Appointing another illegal committee to solicit opinions on a syllabus already prepared by academic committees will not be beneficial to academic interests. Those who are opposing the inclusion of the songs are unaware of the global significance of rap music, said Mr. Sivankutty. Bhoomi Njan Vaazhunna Idam, a Malayalam rap song by rapper Vedan, was included in the syllabus of the fourth-semester undergraduate Malayalam Language and Literature course under the module Puthu Pravanathakal (new trends). The song touches upon ongoing global crises including the Palestinian 'genocide' and the war in Syria as well as the rape and murder of 8-year Asifa at Kathua in Jammu and Kashmir. The module also includes comparative study of Kathakali Padam (Kathakali song) Ajita Hare... Madhava by Muringur Shankaran Potti and its modern rendition Ajita Hare by Gowry Lekshmi, analysing how classical art forms have evolved in the current era. A.K. Anuraj, a Syndicate member aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the University Syndicate, had sought the removal of Vedan's song, arguing that the language he used in his songs and public speeches was often unparliamentary and of poor quality. The Board of Studies (BoS) for undergraduate courses and the academic council of the University are expected to take a final call on the proposed exclusion of the songs.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Kerala University syndicate member moves high court against contempt proceedings
Kochi: R Rajesh, former MLA and syndicate member of Kerala University, has filed an appeal challenging a high court single bench order that initiated criminal contempt proceedings against him over an alleged Facebook post targeting HC judges. The post was made against the backdrop of the legal battel over the university registrar's suspension. A bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and S Muralee Krishna has listed the appeal for July 21 for a detailed hearing on its maintainability. Earlier, the single bench had directed the high court registry to issue notice to Rajesh, requiring him to appear on July 23 in the contempt proceedings. The bench also ordered that the matter be placed before the appropriate bench, as per the directions of the Chief Justice. The alleged Facebook post, dated July 6, stated that "it is the goddess of justice who sits in the high court, not a woman holding a saffron flag." In its order, the single bench held that the remarks prima facie amount to interference with the administration of justice and scandalising the court. The bench observed that Rajesh had not merely criticised a judgment but had levelled serious accusations against the judges themselves, alleging that the bench hearing university-related matters was headed by staunch Sangh Parivar supporters. The single bench further stated that such language amounts to scandalising the court and maligning the reputation of the judges and accordingly initiated criminal contempt proceedings.
