Latest news with #Vishwaguru
The Hindu
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
The university versus constitutionally protected speech
'Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties,' said John Milton in his famous pamphlet, Areopagitica (1644), opposing the licensing system (called imprimatur). Originally introduced in response to the introduction of the printing press in England in 1538 and reinstituted by the British Parliament in 1643, authors had to obtain permission or licence from the government prior to their publications. In India, several High Courts and even the Supreme Court of India are hearing petitions on the limits of freedom of expression. Should we really go back to that dated system where prior permission of the government or university is required to express one's views? Are university teachers mere robots who should write only research papers and not express their opinions on contemporary issues? Do we no longer consider free speech to be an integral part of human dignity and an individual's self-fulfilment? Is truth no more autonomous and the highest public good? Are not excessive restrictions on free speech based on the assumption of infallibility of the state or its stated positions? These are some of the pertinent issues that India must resolve because its position on these fundamental issues is bound to strengthen or weaken its ethical claim of being a true Vishwaguru. India's low rank of 151 out of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index does not enhance its stature in the comity of nations. No doubt, 'nation first' should be the rule of thumb for all of us because no debate can survive if the nation itself perishes. We must be united in our fight against an enemy that has time and again been sponsoring and exporting terror to our country. A prompt and befitting response during Operation Sindoor has been given to the enemy nation. The labelling of opinion as activism We must now return to the realm of constitutional vision as we need to win the battle of ideas as well. Of course, every writer has the duty to make a disclaimer that his views are personal and do not represent the views of the institution he serves. But then a mere expression of views cannot be termed by the corporate owners of the universities or vice-chancellors as 'activism'. An expression of opinion may be dissent but not necessarily activism. Public academic institutions do not mind even activism and active politics. A professor became the national president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (1991-93). Certainly, no writer should expect any institutional support for his personal views. No court should ideally shy away from its duty of safeguarding constitutionally 'protected speech'. It must remain consistent with its own past pro-freedom of speech judgments. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Texas vs Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), had even considered burning of the national flag as a protected expression. India need not go that far. John Stuart Mill, in his celebrated essay on liberty, said that ''If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind'. British jurist William Blackstone in 1769 considered a free press was essential for a free state. Though the 1787 U.S. Constitution did not include freedom of the press as a right (because Roger Sherman had said in the Constitution Convention that adopted the U.S. Constitution, that there was no need to mention freedom of press as the powers of the Congress would not extend to press yet within four years), the First Amendment in 1791 on freedom of press made a categorical and explicit declaration that the 'Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....' Democracy is government by choice and people cannot exercise their choices if they are not told about all the available alternatives. Let alternative views be expressed and protected. Moreover, freedom of speech assures individual self-fulfilment. If a citizen is not allowed to express his emotions, his opinions, his frustration, and his happiness he will not feel self-fulfilled. University owners must understand that such suffocated individuals cannot produce scholarly research as knowledge cannot be created in a controlled environment. We produced greats such as Aryabhata, Chanakya, Gargi Vachaknavi and Charaka because the education in our ancient gurukuls was not controlled by the state. Within the portals of universities, all kinds of ideas, which include repulsive ones, must be expressed. Today, our universities are over regulated and grossly underfunded. Expression and the truth Freedom of expression helps us in attaining the truth. It was Milton who said, 'Though all winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple, who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter'. In an age of fake news, let everyone speak so that people can decide for themselves who is speaking the truth. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of the United States rightly observed that in a capitalist market place, the 'best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of market'. Thus, an expression of all views would basically serve the government's cause in fencing off people from what is false. This is nobody's case that freedom of speech is an absolute right. Indeed, no one should indulge in unnecessary talk. The exercise of right must be aimed to serve the constitutional objects of free speech, i.e., the search for truth and helping people in forming opinions about governmental actions and thereby ensuring sovereign people's participation in the governance. The extent of restrictions The Constitution permits only 'reasonable restrictions' on the freedom of speech and expression. The all-important word 'reasonable' was inserted by the first constitutional Amendment in 1951. These restrictions can be in the interests of sovereignty and the integrity of India, security of state, public order, decency, morality, friendly relations with foreign countries, and defamation or incitement of an offence. 'Public order and friendly relations with foreign states' too were inserted in 1951. Interestingly, restrictions in the interests of 'sovereignty and integrity' were inserted by the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. No restriction on freedom of speech can be imposed even by the government through an executive order. Restriction on free speech requires legislation. To satisfy the test of 'reasonableness', courts invoke the 'doctrine of proportionality'. In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union Of India (2020), the Supreme Court not only held the right to Internet as a part of free speech but also reiterated that the restrictions on free speech can be imposed after considering alternative measures. It added that such restrictions must be legitimate, necessary and least intrusive. It is the state which has the burden of proof in establishing that the restriction is proportionate, and thus reasonable. No institution has any right to restrict anybody's freedom of speech on any ground other than the ones mentioned in Article 19(2). Thus, restrictions cannot be imposed by any institution just because it is a private educational institution or because it is bound by the regulatory control of regulatory bodies. These are lame excuses that do not have a leg to stand on. The Supreme Court, in Dr. Janet Jeyapaul vs S.R.M. University and Anr. (2015), had held private universities as 'state' because they too discharge 'public functions' and thus, any arbitrary dictate by them would be hit by Article 14, i.e., the right to equality which includes the right against arbitrariness. Returning to the issue of an author/writer facing the consequences, the law is crystal clear — if his speech is not protected by the Constitution, no one can or should defend him. But when the speech is well within constitutional limits, ideally, the institution should not disown him as it would not only demotivate the faculty but also result in a situation where such an institution would not be able to attract outstanding scholars. A student is the real conscience keeper of a university. Private educational entrepreneurs must know that the Supreme Court has had the consistent view that education is an occupation and not a business. Let us celebrate a diversity of opinions as in a vibrant democracy, every opinion counts and the university truly signifies a universe of knowledge. Faizan Mustafa is a constitutional law expert and Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna, Bihar. The views expressed are personal
The Print
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Print
What if Congress loses Tharoor? Rahul Gandhi is preparing for a re-do of Punjab in Kerala
The minister could have requested the Congress leadership to specifically nominate those four delegates if the government was so eager to have them onboard. Instead, Rijiju waited for Kharge and Gandhi to send their nominees. The government then announced its own choice of Congress nominees. The Bharatiya Janata Party leadership obviously expected Congress to not nominate Tharoor, Tewari and the other two. The Congress fell into the trap. The principal Opposition has now been left red-faced. The internal rift in the party is out in the open. But before we discuss further about how the Congress high command messed it up, let's be clear about the government playing the Opposition for political ends. Yes, for sure. What's the point of parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju calling up Leaders of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi, if the government had already decided on Congress delegates and the minister had even spoken to four of them – Shashi Tharoor, Manish Tewari, Salman Khurshid, and Amar Singh? It's a travesty of the 'all-party' nomenclature if the parties have no say in nominating their MPs. One can't argue with the government's spin masters on the fact that Tharoor, as the chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on external affairs, and as someone who worked at the United Nations for nearly three decades, was eminently suited to lead a delegation to the United States and other countries. In 2019, he had refused to be a mere member of this parliamentary panel because he had headed it in the previous Lok Sabha. The Modi government didn't want him to head that committee again. The nature of the 2024 Lok Sabha election results, however, forced the government to accept him as the external affairs committee chairman again. So, what do you think suddenly endeared Shashi Tharoor to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who had once referred to the former's wife as '50 crore-rupee girlfriend'? Let's accept it. It's all politics. It's coming at a time when the principal Opposition party is seeking to puncture PM Modi's Vishwaguru slogan. On 18 May, Karnataka Congress posted on X: 'Over 11 years, 72 countries, and 129 visits, crores of taxpayers' money have been spent. The net outcome is zero. None of the countries supported #OperationSindoor #BJPFailsIndia.' Although it didn't name PM Modi, its list of all these visits left little for imagination. PM Modi has visited the US 9 times since 2014, UAE, France, Japan, and Russia five times each, as per the Karnataka Congress' list. Other Congress handles and leaders have been posting Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'Abki baar, Trump sarkar' slogan of 2020, when the latter was seeking a re-election. With Trump making daily claims that embarrass India, the five-year-old slogan has come back to haunt the Modi government. The Congress is seeking to damage the Vishwaguru claims, asking why India abstained instead of voting against the bailout package for Pakistan at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) executive board meeting. That India couldn't convince any other country to vote against this package for Pakistan has given the Opposition another handle to beat the BJP government with. The Opposition obviously senses an opportunity to bring down Modi's Vishwaguru image, a big electoral pull for the BJP. The government has played it well. The optics of all-party delegations comprising 45 MPs and six senior leaders who will visit 33 world capitals are expected to dent the Opposition's onslaught on that count. There are 19 Opposition leaders in these delegations – most of them known to be very vocal and articulate. Come to think of it. Tharoor, Tewari and three other Congress leaders would be defending India's war against terror and the government's stance abroad while their party is attacking the government at home for its alleged failure to get international support. So, if and when there is a debate in Parliament, the Opposition parties would feel compelled to not field any of their MPs on these delegations. BJP's political game Modi government played Congress in selecting the all-party delegations. Alright, but isn't it par for the course in politics? Why did the Congress get played? People like Shashi Tharoor and Manish Tewari are known to speak their minds, especially when it comes to national security. They don't get safe seats to contest from—the way the Gandhis got minority-dominated Wayanad. Manish Tewari contested three Lok Sabha elections from three different constituencies and won each time. Tharoor contested in 2009 for the first time from Thiruvananthapuram, where the Communist Party of India (CPI) had won twice previously. He has retained the seat since then. These leaders, who have to sweat it out in the constituency every day, have to be mindful of the public sentiments and respond accordingly. So, while the BJP played politics in its selections for the all-party delegations, the principal Opposition was naive enough to get played. Tharoor and Tewari are respected, articulate voices on international geo-strategic fora. Salman Khurshid is the former minister of external affairs. They should have been the natural choices as Congress nominees for the all-party delegations. Why did the Congress snub them by excluding them from its list of nominees? A simple answer—pettiness and vested interests. The clique of sycophants surrounding Rahul Gandhi and his family make him insecure and won't let him see the reality that they are using him for their own vested interests. Also read: 'Should've sought concurrence'—Congress miffed by Tharoor accepting govt invite for all-party delegations Congress insults Tharoor I will confine myself to Shashi Tharoor and Kerala politics here. Here is a situation where the Congress is virtually humiliating him. Think of the party's national general secretary (communications), Jairam Ramesh, publicly undermining Tharoor with a series of loaded comments. Ramesh said that whatever Tharoor spoke was his personal opinion, not the party's. Read the other remarks by Ramesh: There is a huge difference between being in the Congress and of the Congress; the Congress is like the mighty Ganga, which has many tributaries…some of them dry up and some get polluted. So, what's there for a 'polluted' Shashi Tharoor to keep being a Ganga tributary? He says he is not easily humiliated, but his party is testing his limits. Everybody knows who's behind this humiliation. It's KC Venugopal, the powerful general secretary (organisation) who has total control over Rahul Gandhi. Venugopal's chief ministerial ambition is hardly a secret. So he has to get every competitor—the biggest being Tharoor—out of the way. Knowing Venugopal's complete hold over Rahul, everyone else close to the Gandhis—say, Jairam Ramesh—must smear Shashi Tharoor. Well, Modi government saw an opportunity and jumped in. Why blame the BJP then? Let's go back to how the Gandhis humiliated Punjab's then-chief minister, Captain Amarinder Singh, in the run up to the 2022 assembly election – just because the blue-blooded ex-royal who was a friend of Rajiv Gandhi from Doon School days didn't bring himself to flatter the latter's children. The Gandhi siblings also developed a liking for Singh's detractor, Navjot Sidhu, the cricketer-turned-politician who had quit the BJP to join the Congress. The Congress lost the 2022 Punjab assembly election, but the Gandhis won as they became instrumental in Capt. Amarinder Singh's political retirement. A similar plot is unfolding in Kerala, because Rahul Gandhi is so enamoured with KC Venugopal. Congress leaders don't know why, but Tharoor must go. The high command humiliated Amarinder Singh enough for him to resign and part ways. And KC-Jairam & Co is doing enough for Tharoor to do the same sooner or later. Who cares if the Congress wins or loses in Kerala? Also read: Excluded by Congress, Shashi Tharoor says 'honoured' by govt's invitation to join all-party delegation Tharoor's options What are Tharoor's options? He has chief ministerial ambitions, for sure. Why not? A four-term MP with so much following across Kerala and the rest of the country can't be faulted for this ambition. After all, he is someone that the youth across caste lines adore. The two dominant minorities in Kerala, the Christians and the Muslims who constitute 45 per cent of the population, love his liberal views and outlook. The Nair Service Society, an organisation claiming to represent the second most dominant community in Kerala, is willing to embrace him. Meanwhile, the Ezhavas, the most dominant Hindu community in Kerala who have been traditionally aligned with the Left, are showing signs of change in loyalty. According to a CSDS-Lokniti post-poll survey conducted during the 2021 assembly elections, 23 per cent of Ezhavas voted for the National Democratic Alliance (NDA)—up from 18 per cent in 2016. According to the post-poll survey in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, 32 per cent Ezhavas voted for the NDA. So, the Left voters are already splitting. As for the Nairs, their votes for the BJP went up from 27 per cent in the 2021 assembly elections to 45 per cent in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. So, those who think that Tharoor doesn't have the option of switching to the BJP are wrong. This data should come as a reality check. Look at the difference in the vote shares of Tharoor and his closest rival, BJP's Rajiv Chandrashekhar, in Thiruvananthapuram in the 2024 Lok Sabha constituency. There is a difference of 16,000 votes or so. And a significant number of Congress voters were actually Tharoor voters. So, when we start talking about how Tharoor can't go with the BJP in Kerala, here is a clear answer, in a question: why not? His parliamentary constituency will be safe. The Congress is not making him the CM face anyway. So, if he becomes the BJP's CM candidate, what does he have to lose? Look at the possible scenarios. First, a large section of the Hindu voters – with a significant section among Nairs and Ezhavas already veering toward the BJP – go with Tharoor. Second, Tharoor may still enjoy popularity among minorities—something that happened in the case of BJP's successful Thrissur candidate, Suresh Gopi. This opens up the game. I am certainly not suggesting that Tharoor is going to the BJP. I am talking hypothetically. If he decides to quit the Congress — given how determined KC Venugopal and Jairam Ramesh are to push him out — he has many options. The Left will also embrace him, for sure. I remember the day he had come to visit the AKG Bhawan, headquarters of the Communist Party of India – Marxist (CPI-M) in New Delhi, in 2006. Back then, he wanted India to back his candidature for the UN secretary-general's post, and the Left wielded a lot of power in that government. I still remember how the comrades were so excited about that visit. Recently appointed CPI(M) general secretary, MA Baby, has said that CM Pinarayi Vijayan, 79, will lead the poll campaign in the 2026 elections, but that the CM will be elected after the elections if the Left wins. Basically, Vijayan is not necessarily the next CM if the Left wins again. So, does Tharoor have an option to realise his dreams in the Left? They would love to welcome him for sure. But a non-Comrade has no chance at claiming the coveted seat. KC Venugopal's Congress won't give it to him anyway. So, if Tharoor has to realise his ambitions and implement his vision for the state, the BJP remains a choice— given that Rahul Gandhi & Co are doing their best to push him out. Tharoor would, of course, remember how the Gandhis finished Captain Amarinder Singh through a thousand cuts, humiliating him on a daily basis. As it is, the Gandhis seem to be preparing for a re-do of Punjab in the Kerala assembly elections early next year. DK Singh is Political Editor at ThePrint. He tweets @dksingh73. Views are personal. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
Express Tribune
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Modi confronts war at home amid painful soul-searching
As the Modi-led regime's war bravado crumbles under the weight of inconvenient truths emerging from the fog of war with Pakistan, a different kind of battle is now underway – one for the narrative, and perhaps, the so-called strongman's political survival. The ghosts of the 2017 Rafale deal have come knocking, with critics dredging up the old controversy to shame the government for what many are calling a historic failure. Journalists and analysts alike argue that India has forfeited decades of carefully cultivated international standing, squandered at the altar of jingoism and over-the-top theatrics. While the government has tried to muzzle dissent, social media platform X has become a pressure valve for public outrage. A once-unified commentariat now splinters into infighting, wounded pride, and even turning on its own, including the foreign secretary and Colonel Sophia Qureshi of India's Army Signal Corps. The veneer of control is cracking. India's image as a regional hegemon and self-styled Vishwaguru is in free fall. The fallout has spiralled to such an extent that India has been forced to beef up security for both the foreign minister and the foreign secretary, after a vicious online pile-on targeted the latter and his daughter. 'The police are also reviewing their security cover for Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, and at least 25 leaders from the BJP, including Union Ministers, MPs and Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta,' The Indian Express reported on Wednesday. Tacit admission by the Indian Air Force (IAF) It all began as international media and independent reports trickled in, steadily chipping away at the frenzied Indian media narrative, bursting one propaganda balloon after another. The government's response swung between deafening silence and evasive half-answers, doing little to stem the tide. The final blow came when even the military couldn't feed the war drumbeat or satisfy the Zionist-style fervour at home to wipe Pakistan off the map, leaving nationalist hawks with sabres rattled, but no battle to show for it. 'The Modi government is welcome to spin this any way it likes – i.e. that it is the Pakistanis who went running to the US saying 'save us', that India accomplished all that it set out to – but the reality is that Modi did something that has produced an unsavoury but quite predictable end result. Pakistan now believes J&K is back in play as an international issue and the US is also saying this,' said Siddharth Varadarajan, founding editor of The Wire. 'The Indian side has suffered military losses that it is reluctant to quantify because doing so will be to the 'advantage of the adversary' – an admission that these losses are non-trivial,' he added. Varadarajan also observed that Modi's right-wing zealots are disillusioned, accusing him of lacking the backbone to carry out his own rhetoric. 'The truth is that Modi knew all along that there is no military solution. Driven by his own political calculations, he recklessly embarked on a dangerous, 'Balakot x 9' course of action hoping that the consequences could be easily managed. But events proved him wrong.' Even as an IAF officer tried to downplay the damage — 'losses are a part of combat' — the remark was seen as a tacit nod to the widely reported downing of a Rafale jet. For many Indians, a burning question remains: what, exactly, did Operation Sindoor achieve? If deterrence was the aim, this looks more like a strategic misfire. In his commentary, Varadarajan continued to cut deep. On the IAF's vague accounting of its losses, he noted: 'This is a significant admission, and the sad fact is that the IAF's refusal to provide specifics will continue to lend credence to Pakistan's claims of having shot down multiple Indian aircraft.' 'Everybody knows 'all our pilots are back home' is not the same as 'all our planes are back home'. The refusal to acknowledge losses stems from the Modi government's political compulsions because the resulting cost-benefit analysis may alter public perceptions about the utility of Op. Sindoor.' Myth of Indian superiority shattered The fog of war has cleared to reveal another unsettling truth: a handful of militants just pushed a nuclear power of billions to the brink of crisis. Military analyst and journalist Pravin Sawhney argued that Operation Sindoor has dismantled the longstanding myth of Indian military superiority over Pakistan, a myth deeply tied to national self-worth. As Washington pushes for de-escalation and hyphenates India with Pakistan once more, the symbolism is not lost. 'India worry of hyphenation with Pakistan is evidence that India does not believe in Global South nations thinking which it wants to lead,' Sawhney said. 'Their [Global South] thinking is about win-win, equality of nations big & small & development for all. This explains why Modi govt does not want to be close to BRICS & SCO. India's security & foreign policy need course change after this operation!' 'India weak link in BRICS' Echoing this, in a separate post on why international media is 'turning hostile' to India, Arnaud Bertrand, a commentator on economics and geopolitics, opined that much of it stemmed from India's recent geopolitical positioning. Its strategy of multi-alignment – engaging both the Global South and the West – is intended to appeal to both sides, but the outcome, as seen in global reactions to its altercation with Pakistan, has been quite the opposite: India is increasingly perceived as hedging its bets rather than standing on principle, ultimately breeding distrust from all quarters instead of the support it seeks to cultivate. 'Let's be real: in the Global South people almost universally see India as the weak link in the BRICS, the country trying to undermine collective South-South cooperation whenever it conflicts with its parallel ambitions of being embraced by Western powers.' He added that India's Islamophobia alienates much of the Muslim-majority Global South, while in the West, Modi's domestic record and ties with Russia make India seem like a misaligned, hard-to-identify-with player. He pointed out that India's economic stage, culture and historical context differ sharply from the West, fuelling a persistent undercurrent of othering, marked by colonial condescension mixed with strategic interest. Add to that India's toxic media climate and the combative nationalism seen online, and it becomes clear there's a stark disconnect between how India views itself and how others perceive it. He stopped short of being prescriptive, but noted: when people say "the international media is viciously against Bharat," they might consider whether this is the natural consequence of a multi-alignment strategy that serves no one's interests but India's, and whether the reflexive victimhood narrative is blocking honest self-reflection. 'Hugely disappointing' In his scathing review of the Indian DGMOs' press briefing, Sawhney said it was 'hugely disappointing'. 'Worse, it betrayed a sense of own war appreciation gone wrong.' 'NO mention of air war on night 6/7. And making the incredible remark that IAF hits inside Pakistan sovereign space were meant to kill terrorists & not fight Pakistan military - showed little thought had gone even in organising this media interaction whose proceeding the world would have watched with utter disbelief!' He questioned the disproportionate focus on Indian air defences: 'For sure, it was clear that Pakistan military employed unexpectedly large numbers of drones, loitering munitions & so on along the whole border with India.' Meanwhile, columnist Brahma Chellaney — seen as aligned with the mainstream — raised sharp concerns: 'Why did India, under US pressure, abruptly halt a military campaign against Pakistan just as its armed forces had seized the upper hand?' He noted how New Delhi terminated the operation within three days, just after a phone call from JD Vance to Modi. 'The root cause of the conflict was left unaddressed, even as Washington shielded Pakistan from the consequences of its actions. The result? Donald Trump — the real estate mogul who has fancied acquiring Greenland, the Panama Canal and even Gaza — has now turned his gaze to Kashmir, while remaining conspicuously silent on the cross-border terrorism that India continues to face.' The remarks were particularly striking coming from Chellaney, a known hawk who usually toes the establishment line. Calls for resignation Journalist Raju Parulekar minced no words, blaming Modi's 'irresponsible, jingoistic pseudo-nationalism' for squandering India's diplomatic gains. 'Modi hasn't learned from his past mistakes. Like Demonetisation, Pulwama, the current military response ('free-hand') seems to be a MONUMENTAL MISMANAGEMENT, a BLUNDER.' He suggested Modi walked straight into a trap set by those seeking to provoke a nationalist overreaction — one that brought no diplomatic advantage. 'Modi has always evaded responsibility in 11 years of his being the PM on any matter of governance. How can a PM repeatedly fail to submit himself to account in Lok Sabha and continue in Office of the 1.4 billion strong Democratic Republic like India.' Before 2014, India pursued a clear Pakistan strategy — quiet diplomacy, strategic retaliation, and isolation of Islamabad on the global stage. But Modi's politicisation of Pakistan and Kashmir, Parulekar argued, has upended that playbook. He warned that the Pulwama airstrikes may have helped the BJP electorally, but they damaged India's international credibility. 'Modi should be removed from his Office and made to face the detailed scrutiny of Law for denting India's image and posing a serious threat to its sovereignty.' 'More lessons to come' Regarding the vicious trolling of Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, Faran Jeffery, deputy director and head of the South Asia desk on terrorism at ITCT, wrote a detailed post on X. 'If they do that to their own Foreign Secretary, you can imagine the rest,' he noted. He observed that while the focus so far had been on the military dynamics of this Indo-Pak round, the real fallout for India would emerge in other domains. The world had been watching—and what it saw, he said, was a complete horror show. Perceptions have shifted dramatically: the media's credibility is in the gutter, the supposedly independent journalists turned out to be little more than government propagandists and a diplomatic mess unfolded with Iran, driven by a media narrative run amok. There was mass censorship, websites were blocked and social media accounts were restricted. Government messages bombarded the public, urging them to trust only official propaganda, while both TV and social media teemed with fake news and wild claims. In a twist, it became easier to get more accurate information from the Pakistani side. Pakistan even lifted the ban on X during the conflict, which surprised many. 'Forget others,' he wrote, 'many foreigners who praise India publicly have been joking about it privately'. He concluded that this was a major reality check for India, one that should, in theory, help bring its arrogance down a notch or two. But, he added, that seems unlikely. More lessons, it appears, are yet to come.
Hindustan Times
27-04-2025
- Health
- Hindustan Times
1.75 lakh Ayushman Arogya Mandir to get NQAS accreditation: JP Nadda
Around 1.75 lakh Ayushman Arogya Mandirs will soon get the National Quality Assurance Standards (NQAS) as per the Indian public health standards, Jagat Prakash Nadda, Minister for Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, said. Of these 30,000 facilities have already achieved NQAS, he added. Nadda was in the city on Saturday and inaugurated the Centre for Nephrology and Urology at Symbiosis University Hospital and Research Centre at Lavale. Prof Dr SB Mujumdar, founder and president, Symbiosis and Chancellor, Symbiosis International University (SIU) presided over the function. Dr Rajiv Yeravdekar, provost, faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, SIU and Dr Vidya Yeravdekar, Pro-Chancellor, SIU, were the other distinguished dignitaries present for the function. 'We now provide a comprehensive range of healthcare services from preventive, promotive, curative, rehabilitative and palliative care,' Nadda said. Everything at no cost is not possible, but at Symbiosis Arogyadham, they have made it possible, which is a highly creditable thing. Institutions like Symbiosis and the government should go hand in hand to create policies in the health sector which are inclusive, Nadda added. Dr SB Mujumdar, in his presidential address, said, 'If India wants to become a Vishwaguru, then it should be backed by spirituality and the ideology of 'vasudhaiva kutumbakam'. Nowadays, technology has made a significant contribution in connecting people across the world.'
Time of India
26-04-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Target to create 1.8L Ayushman Arogya Mandirs: Nadda
1 2 3 Pune: Union minister of health and family welfare JP Nadda on Saturday said there were plans to increase the number of Ayushman Arogya Mandirs to 1.75 lakh from the current 30,000. These health centres, under the National Quality Assurance Standards, aim to provide comprehensive and free primary healthcare services focused on wellness and community care. You Can Also Check: Pune AQI | Weather in Pune | Bank Holidays in Pune | Public Holidays in Pune Nadda was speaking at the inauguration of the Centre for Nephrology and Urology at Symbiosis University Hospital and Research Centre in Lavale. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo He said before 2017, the healthcare policies in India were curative, but under Ayushman Arogya Mandir, there was a shift from a selective approach to health care to delivering a comprehensive range of services spanning preventive, promotive, curative, rehabilitative and palliative care. He said the Symbiosis Arogyadham was a prime example of Ayushman Arogya Mandir, where state-of-the-art facilities were available to patients at no cost. Dr SB Mujumdar, founder and president of Symbiosis and chancellor of Symbiosis International University (SIU), presided over the function. Mujumdar said if India wanted to become a Vishwaguru, it should be backed by spirituality and the ideology of Vasudaiva Kutumbakam. Dr Rajiv Yeravdekar, provost of the faculty of medical and health sciences, SIU, and Dr Vidya Yeravdekar, pro-chancellor, SIU, were also present.
