Ajoy Kumar's
In a post on social media X, the BJP Sikkim unit wrote, 'The BJP Sikkim unit vehemently denounces the outrageous and ignorant statement made by INC leader Ajoy Kumar, who shockingly referred to Sikkim as a 'neighbouring country' during his press conference at AICC headquarters today.'
The party further in their post wrote that it was 'utterly deplorable' for a former IPS officer and Member of Parliament to display such an 'appalling disregard' for India's history and geography.
The BJP condemned the remarks and, in its post, further wrote that Congress should 'educate' its leaders to prevent such disgraceful blunders.
'It is utterly deplorable that a former IPS officer and Member of Parliament displays such appalling disregard for India's history and geography. The Congress party must immediately educate its leaders to prevent such disgraceful blunders. This shameful remark deserves the strongest possible condemnation,' the post further read.
Meanwhile, BJP leader Shehzad Poonawalla also criticised Congress on the remarks made by Ajoy Kumar and stated that the party was following the 'footsteps of Jinnah.'
Poonawalla further stated that the Congress party wanted 'tukde tukde' of Bharat, stating that the remarks made by Kumar were an insult to the entire Northeast India.
'Congress is following the footsteps of Jinnah. It is a 'Jinnahwadi' party. Just like Jinnah wanted that there should be an Islamic state and division of India, the Congress party advocates for a Sharia Islamic state in some parts, and it wants the 'tukde tukde' of Bharat... Today, the statement made by Ajoy Kumar that Sikkim is not an integral part of India and is, in fact, a neighbouring nation, shows how he has insulted not just Sikkim but the entire northeast. Congress has always been against the Northeast,' Poonawalla told ANI. (ANI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
36 minutes ago
- India Today
Bihar voter rolls revision unreasonable, say Opposition parties in Delhi meet
Eleven opposition parties led by the Congress, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Samajwadi Party and the Communist Party of India (CPI) on Tuesday strongly objected to the Election Commission of India's decision to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, citing inadequate time before the upcoming state assembly 18-member delegation of INDIA bloc parties met ECI officials in New Delhi and raised concerns over both the timing and the manner of the revision process. Senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, accompanied by leaders including RJD's Manoj Jha, CPI(ML)'s Dipankar Bhattacharya and Bihar Congress president Rajesh Kumar, warned that the move could severely impact the level playing field just months ahead of the questioned the rationale behind announcing the revision as late as June, pointing out that previous SIR exercises had been conducted well ahead of elections. 'When SIR was carried out in 2003, the next general election was a year away and the assembly polls two years later. Now we are just a few months away from elections, and the task of verifying nearly 7.75 crore voters in such a short span is unreasonable,' he said. The leaders also criticised the EC's recent restriction limiting the number of representatives who can attend meetings with the Commission. Singhvi said several senior leaders, including Congress's Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera, were made to wait outside as only two members per party were allowed inside, including the party president. He said such restrictions undermine the democratic consultation a post on X, Jairam Ramesh said, 'The Election Commission was literally compelled to meet the delegation after having refused to do so. A few of us could not meet the ECI, which unilaterally imposed a limit of two representatives per party. I myself had to hang around in the waiting room for almost two hours.'Jairam Ramesh further wrote that over the last six months, the ECI had 'conducted itself in a manner which undermines the very basis of our democratic system,' and called the restrictions on party delegations 'arbitrary and confused.' He said the Commission introduced these changes under the pretext of being a 'New Commission', and questioned its motives. 'We shudder to think what this 'New' Commission's gameplan is,' he compared the Commission's decision to the 2016 demonetisation, stating, 'After the PM's notebandi destroyed our economy, ECI's 'VOTE-bandi' in Bihar will destroy our democracy.'- EndsMust Watch
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
How will the big beautiful bill become a law: number of votes, approval in both chambers and the complete process
How many votes are needed in the Senate? How many votes are needed in the House? Live Events What is supermajority? How does a bill become a law in the U.S.? Introduction: A member of Congress (either House or Senate) introduces the bill. It's assigned a number and referred to the relevant committee for review. Committee Action: The committee studies the bill, holds hearings, and may revise it. If approved, the bill moves to the full chamber. Floor Debate and Vote: The bill is debated on the chamber floor. Amendments may be proposed. A vote is taken—if it passes by a simple majority, it moves to the other chamber. The Other Chamber: The process repeats in the second chamber (House or Senate). If the second chamber amends the bill, it returns to the first chamber for agreement. Conference Committee (if needed): If the two chambers pass different versions, a conference committee of members from both chambers negotiates a compromise. Both chambers must then approve the final version. Presidential Action: The bill is sent to the President, who can sign it into law or veto it. If vetoed, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers. What's next for the bid beautiful bill? (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel President Trump's much-anticipated 'Big Beautiful Bill,' aimed at extending his signature 2017 tax cuts and reshaping federal spending, has just passed the U.S. Senate after a marathon session. But how many votes did it actually require- and what's the journey from bill to law in the United States?For most major bills, the U.S. Senate needs a simple majority- at least 51 out of 100 votes- to pass. But, if senators try to block a bill with a filibuster, it takes 60 votes (three-fifths of the Senate) to end the debate and move the 'Big Beautiful Bill' used special budget reconciliation rules, which let the Senate skip the filibuster and pass the bill with just a simple majority In this case, the final tally was 50-50 after three Republicans (Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, and Rand Paul) joined all Democrats in opposition. Vice President JD Vance, presiding over the Senate, cast the tie-breaking 51st vote to pass the billAfter nearly 48 hours of debate and a ' vote-a-rama ' on amendments, the bill squeaked through- showing just how tight the margins can be for major a bill moves to the House of Representatives , it faces a tight vote. The House is made up of 435 voting members, and passing legislation requires a simple majority- at least 218 votes if all members are present and previous House version of the ' big beautiful bill ' passed by just 215-214, showing how razor-thin the margins are. The Republican's House majority currently stands at just 220-212, leaving little room for defections.A supermajority is when a higher threshold is required than a simple majority for the bill to pass either of the chamber. It is required for certain actions in Congress . For example, overriding a presidential veto needs a two-thirds majority- 290 out of 435 votes in the House and 67 out of 100 in the Senate. Additionally, constitutional amendments and some impeachment proceedings also demand a two-thirds the Senate's approval, the bill now heads to the House Rules Committee, which will set the terms for debate. The House will then vote on the bill. If the House passes the Senate's version, it goes straight to President Trump for his signature. If the House amends the bill, it returns to the Senate for further negotiation or a conference both chambers agree on the final text, President Trump can sign it into law—cementing another major legislative victory for his administration.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Divided by parties: When political rivals face trials on same day
Once allies, now rivals — and today, co-accused in courtrooms. In a rare political coincidence, leaders from opposing parties, divided by ideologies and allegiances but united by pending criminal cases, found themselves listed for hearings in three separate trials — all on the same day. In a separate courtroom across town, AAP MLA Daljit Singh Bhola and former MLA Simarjeet Singh Bains, once mentor and protégé in the Lok Insaaf Party (LIP), were also summoned. (iStock) Union minister of state for Railways Ravneet Singh Bittu, former Congress cabinet minister Bharat Bhushan Ashu, Ludhiana district Congress president Sanjay Talwar, and former deputy mayor Sham Sundar Malhotra had a hearing in the court of chief judicial magistrate Pavleen Singh on Wednesday. The case: an agitation held on February 27, 2024, when the group locked the gates of the municipal corporation office near Clock Tower, protesting the Punjab government's alleged failure to implement key welfare schemes. Though Bittu was then a Congress MP, he has since crossed over to the BJP and contested (unsuccessfully) from Ludhiana in the recent Lok Sabha elections. His co-accused remain within the Congress, but internal rifts are evident — notably, Talwar did not campaign for Ashu during the Ludhiana West bypoll. The police filed the charge-sheet in March this year, one year after the protest. In a separate courtroom across town, AAP MLA Daljit Singh Bhola and former MLA Simarjeet Singh Bains, once mentor and protégé in the Lok Insaaf Party (LIP), were also summoned. The duo, now in rival camps, have a hearing in the court of CJM Pavleen Singh for defence evidence in a 2016 case registered under IPC sections related to assault on public servants and disobedience of public orders. Bhola, now an AAP legislator from Ludhiana East, had contested and won in 2022 after severing ties with Bains. Meanwhile, Bains faces another hearing in a third case — lodged during the pandemic under the Disaster Management Act, the Environment Protection Act, and section 505 of the IPC — in the court of Judicial Magistrate Parminder Kaur.
