Udaipur MP accuses BAP of dishonesty, harming communities and regional development
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Referring to the incident of a Bagidora MLA caught taking bribe, he stated that they have created history of dishonesty.
The MP alleged that BAP is harming Hindu society, tribal communities, regional development, education, and the dignity of women. He said that they are spreading the narrative that "tribals are not Hindus," which he believes is an extension of British ideology.
He accused these groups of turning the region's youth into stone-pelters.
According to him BAP and BTP are described as conspiratorial parties inspired by external elements, hindering the region's development, education, women's dignity, and youth's empowerment.
Rawat also criticised Banswara-Dungarpur MP Rajkumar Roat, alleging that Roat is extorting money from legislators, chiefs, and village heads. On the issue of
, the MP emphasised that it should not be reduced to mere vote politics, asserting that national security is paramount.
Rawat also attacked the Congress party, claiming that some Congress members promote narratives similar to Pakistan for vote bank politics. He accused Congress of abandoning Gandhi and Gandhian ideology, reducing itself to a family-run party.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Trump Calls London Mayor "Nasty Person", Says "He's Done Terrible Job"
US President Donald Trump attacked London's Mayor Sadiq Khan once again at a news conference in Scotland alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who interjected that Khan was his "friend". Asked by a reporter if he intended to come to London in September during a state visit, Trump responded affirmatively but then clarified: "I'm not a fan of your mayor. I think he's done a terrible job." "The Mayor of London... a nasty person," he added. The comments prompted Starmer to state: "He's a friend of mine, actually." But doubling down on his view of Khan, Trump went on: "I think he's done a terrible job. But I would certainly visit London." There is no love lost between Trump and Khan, like Starmer a member of the Labour Party. In January, on the eve of Trump's return to the White House, Khan penned an article warning of western "reactionary populists" posing a "century-defining challenge" for progressives. During his first term in power, Khan also became embroiled in a war of words after speaking out against a US travel ban on people from certain Muslim countries. Trump then accused Khan, the first Muslim mayor of a Western capital when he was first elected in 2016, of doing a "very bad job on terrorism", calling him a "stone cold loser" and "very dumb". In a podcast recorded before Trump's re-election on November 5, 2024, Khan accused the incoming president of targeting him because of the colour of his skin. "He's come for me because of, let's be frank, my ethnicity and my religion," he said. But in a interview with AFP in December, Khan said the American people had "spoken loudly and clearly" and "we have got to respect the outcome of the presidential elections". In a statement later Monday, a spokesperson for Khan said the mayor was "delighted that President Trump wants to come to the greatest city in the world". "He'd see how our diversity makes us stronger not weaker; richer, not poorer," he added. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Deccan Herald
an hour ago
- Deccan Herald
Student unions as laboratories of citizenship
The Karnataka government's proposal to reintroduce student elections in colleges and universities has reignited a long-dormant debate about campus politics and the kind of citizens our educational institutions are shaping. After over three decades of a ban, the move is being considered following a proposal from the National Students' Union of India (NSUI) and a nudge from Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who reportedly urged the government to cultivate leadership among students. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar have signalled intent. However, university administrators remain wary, warning that the return of campus polls could bring back violence, groupism, and political interference. These concerns are not unfounded, but they also raise a deeper, more urgent question: What is lost when we silence student voices in the name of stability?.Student elections in Karnataka were banned in 1989, following a few violent incidents. But since then, the state has undergone massive political, social, and educational transformations. Today, the push for reintroducing student unions is not just nostalgic; it speaks to a growing recognition that student leadership is not a threat to academic life but potentially its most vital force. Many Indian states and cities, such as Kerala, Maharashtra, West Bengal, and particularly Delhi, have continued to hold student elections. Their experiences offer Karnataka both a cautionary tale and a case for reintroducing student elections rests on a foundational democratic principle: participation. A university is not merely a site for acquiring knowledge but also a space where students learn to negotiate power, voice dissent, and imagine a better society. Elections help institutionalise this spirit. In places like Jawaharlal Nehru University and Delhi University, student unions have historically played pivotal roles in defending academic freedom, improving student welfare, and demanding administrative accountability. For example, the JNU Students' Union has successfully intervened in policies around fee hikes, hostel allocations, and anti-discrimination measures. These student bodies often act as intermediaries between the administration and the student community, amplifying concerns, channelling grievances, and organising collective Student elections likely to return to campuses .Critics, however, highlight the risks and serious concerns: violence, politicisation, and academic disruption. In states like Rajasthan and Punjab, the return of student elections has sometimes led to aggressive factionalism, clashes, and even criminal allegations against candidates. In Delhi, the DU Students' Union elections have occasionally been marred by large-scale spending, mob clashes, and interference from major national parties. The 2015 DUSU elections saw such intense political rivalry that the university cancelled its presidential debates amid security does this mean we abandon campus democracy altogether? The challenge is not student politics per se, but its distortion. When student bodies become mere proxies for political parties, the educational purpose of their existence collapses. However, Karnataka can, and must, learn from these experiences to build a better, more accountable Lyngdoh Committee, set up by the Supreme Court in 2006, has already provided a robust framework to regulate student elections. It prescribes age limits, caps on campaign spending, and bans on candidates with criminal records, and insists on fair and peaceful campaigning. If effectively implemented and monitored, these guidelines can act as strong guardrails against the degeneration of student democracy into a power like West Bengal have gone further, experimenting with 'apolitical' student councils that ban political party names, symbols, and slogans. While such models have been critiqued for being over-sanitised or undemocratic, they offer one way to prevent external interference without silencing student representation. The key is not to depoliticise students but to allow them to develop their political consciousness organically, within ethical and civic bounds. After all, the purpose of education is not just to produce employable graduates but thinking citizens capable of engaging with democracy in all its complexities. .Today, campuses often feel colder. Many students express hesitation in raising their voices for fear of administrative reprisals. Activism is viewed with suspicion; leadership is seen as a disruption. The result is a generation of students who may be bright and qualified but less practiced in disagreement, negotiation, or civic this context, Karnataka's proposal can be seen not just as a political move but as an educational reform. With adequate safeguards, transparent monitoring, and a commitment to student welfare, campus elections could become training grounds for the next generation of India's democratic leaders. The goal is not to manufacture politicians but to cultivate informed, engaged citizens. To get there, universities must not act from fear but from vision. Vice chancellors and faculty have a critical role in regulating the process, mentoring student leaders, ensuring equity, and promoting a culture of dialogue over division. Faculty-guided debates, issue-based campaigns, and promoting civic values over party loyalty can help build a new grammar for student politics—one that is democratic, not the question is not whether student elections are risky; it is whether we believe our students can use voice over violence, ideas over ideology, and responsibility over rhetoric. The Karnataka government's rethink is a chance to trust students again—to let them participate, lead, and learn. In a democracy as young, noisy, and urgent as ours, that trust may be the best education we can offer..(The writer is a former professor and dean of a Bengaluru-based university)
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
New normal in fight against terror, world support: Jaishankar lists wins
Operation Sindoor against Pakistan in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 civilians, marked a 'new normal' in how India responds to terror and showed 'we will never bow down to nuclear blackmail,' External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said in the Lok Sabha Monday. Calling for a united approach within the country in dealing with terror, Jaishankar said, 'The challenge of cross-border terrorism continues, but Operation Sindoor marks a new phase. There is now a new normal.' The new normal has five points, he said. 'One: terrorists will not be treated as proxies, two: cross-border terrorism will get an appropriate response, three: terror and talks are not possible together and there will only be talks on terror, four: not yielding to nuclear blackmail and finally, terror and good neighbourliness cannot coexist, blood and water cannot flow together. This is our position.' On the foreign policy dimension of Operation Sindoor, Jaishankar said that thanks to India's diplomacy, The Resistance Front (TRF) — a proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba that claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack — was designated as a global terrorist organisation by the US on July 18. He said the focus of India's diplomacy (in the wake of Pahalgam attack) was directed at creating a global understanding of Pakistan's involvement, especially at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), of which Pakistan is presently a (non-permanent) member and India is not. 'Our goals in the Security Council were two: to get an endorsement from the Security Council on the need for accountability, and to bring to justice those who perpetrated this attack,' he said. Jaishankar also said that a result of India's diplomacy post-Pahalgam attack was that only three of the countries that are part of the UN opposed Operation Sindoor. Underlining that India's response to Pahalgam was 'focused, measured and non-escalatory', he said it was important to send a 'clear, strong and resolute' message that 'our red lines had been crossed'. In response to the Opposition's question on why India chose to stop the military action (on May 10), he accused the then Congress-led government of 'inaction' after the 2008 Mumbai attacks. 'People who did nothing have the temerity to ask a government which did so much, which brought down Bahawalpur and Muridke, to say why didn't you do more – it's extraordinary,' he said. He also took on the Opposition for warning the government on a two-front challenge coming from Pakistan and China, saying it was their doing over the last six decades. 'We are getting warnings about Pakistan-China collaboration, when this has been going on for 60 years,' he said. Jaishankar also slammed the Opposition leaders' visits to China 'when the Chinese were issuing stapled visas to people from Arunachal Pradesh and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi's meeting the Chinese Ambassador in the days of the Doklam standoff eight years ago. 'I did not go to China for Olympics, secret agreements; I went to make India's stand clear on terrorism, trade restrictions and de-escalation,' he said. 'The very people who are cautioning us on China are the people who allowed 3G and 4G to come from China. It was this government which ensured Made in India 5G.'
