Bharat must remain Bharat, shouldn't be altered: RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat
He cautioned that losing one's identity, regardless of achievements, could result in a loss of respect and security on the global stage. 'The identity of Bharat is respected because it is Bharat. If you lose your identity, whatever other meritorious qualities you may have, you will never be respected or secure in this world. That is the rule of thumb,' he remarked.Bhagwat highlighted India's historical commitment to peace and non-violence, saying the country has never followed expansionist or exploitative policies.'Viksit Bharat, Vishwa Guru Bharat, will not be the cause of war ... and will never exploit. We have gone from Mexico to Siberia; we walked on foot, and we went in small boats. We did not invade anyone's territory or ruin it. We did not usurp anyone's kingdom. We taught everyone civilisation,' he said.Pointing to India's civilisational philosophy, he added, 'You see the tradition of Indian knowledge. The root of the tradition is in that truth... the truth of the unity of the whole world.'On education, Bhagwat called for a values-based system rooted in India's cultural ethos. He stressed the need for education to foster self-reliance and social responsibility. 'One small intention behind getting education is to be able to stand on your own in your life and to be able to keep your family intact...' he said.Referring to nationalist thinker Maharishi Arvind, the RSS Chief linked the revival of Sanatana Dharma to the idea of a Hindu nation. 'Yogi Arvind said that it is God's will for the Sanatana Dharma to rise and for the rise of Sanatana Dharma, the rise of the Hindu nation is inevitable. These are his words, and we see that today's world needs this vision. Therefore, we will have to first understand what Bharat is...' he said.Bhagwat concluded by reiterating the importance of anchoring India's education system in its civilisational values and national identity.- EndsWith inputs from ANI.Tune InMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
21 minutes ago
- Hans India
AP fast emerging as best investment destination: CM
Singapore: Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, who chose to go to Singapore professedly to rebuild ties that he believes had strained under the previous administration, has positioned the state as a burgeoning investment destination, citing abundant opportunities in key sectors like ports and green energy. During his ongoing official visit to Singapore, he affirmed that the state was actively implementing progressive policies designed to attract Singaporean enterprises. On Sunday, Chief Minister Naidu met with Shilpak Ambule, the Indian High Commissioner to Singapore, with whom the discussions centered on strengthening economic ties and exploring investment avenues. High Commissioner Ambule underscored the significant recognition and respect the 'CBN Brand' commanded within Singapore's government and industrial sectors. Chief Minister Naidu, recalling the earlier collaboration on the Amaravati capital city project, acknowledged Singapore's withdrawal between 2019 and 2024 due to unforeseen developments. He stated that a key objective of his current visit was to address past misunderstandings and rebuild the narrative through renewed engagement. The Chief Minister detailed Andhra Pradesh's newly introduced investment policies, reiterating the state's ambitious goal of achieving 160 gigawatt of green energy generation. He informed the High Commissioner that green hydrogen projects are already underway in Visakhapatnam (in partnership with NTPC) and Kakinada. Solidifying the state's technological aspirations, CM Naidu announced that Andhra Pradesh was set to establish India's first-ever Quantum Valley in Amaravati under the India Quantum Mission. He also confirmed that global tech giant Google was setting up a data center in Visakhapatnam. Highlighting the state's industrial potential, CM Naidu pointed out that regions like Rayalaseema offered highly conducive conditions for the establishment of defence, aerospace, electronics, and automobile manufacturing units. He expressed his view that Andhra Pradesh could serve as a strategic gateway for Singaporean investments into India and sought support to facilitate this. High Commissioner Ambule also noted that 83% of Singapore's population benefited from public housing projects. In response, Minister P. Narayana provided an overview of Andhra Pradesh's housing initiatives. The meeting also focused on collaboration in fields such as Artificial Intelligence, startups, medical device research, and academic partnerships between universities in Andhra Pradesh and Singapore. Ministers Nara Lokesh and TG Bharat, along with senior government officials from Andhra Pradesh, were present during the discussions.
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The language debate in Maharashtra and a soft sedition
A few weeks ago, a shopkeeper was allegedly attacked in Mumbai by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena workers for not speaking Marathi. Similar attacks have been reported across Maharashtra and other parts of India. In Bengaluru, destruction of Hindi-written signage is quite frequent, and in Tamil Nadu, anti-Hindi campaigns have a long history — they often resurface in response to perceived threats to Tamil. Even in Delhi, there is, at times, a subtle exclusion of those who speak with a southern accent or hail from the Northeast. Instances of regional prejudice feed into the trend of linguistic vigilantism that is increasingly spreading across the nation. These tendencies are not secessionist, but they undermine national integration and constitute a new type of 'soft sedition'. They represent a kind of regional hegemony that lives by cultural bullying, verbal violence and everyday discrimination. The underlying causes of this crisis resurfaced with the implementation of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020, especially its three-language equation. NEP aims to develop multilingualism and enhance national integration, but its implementation requires students to be taught three languages, including at least two Indian languages. On paper, it allows states to choose these languages. However, in many parts of non-Hindi India, it was seen as a surreptitious advancement of Hindi and perceived as a threat to local languages. Politicians from all parties and regions play on people's fears. They have started muddying the waters again — overt threats against Hindi speakers and migrants from Northern regions are being justified as a counter to Hindi imposition. Even the national parties are hesitant to address this problem, for fear of alienating their state units. The crisis requires us to look again at the philosophical and constitutional basis of the republic. Article 1 of the Constitution says, 'India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.' This choice of words reflects a conscious rejection of the idea that states are sovereign, cultural or political entities. Unlike a federation that unites countries through treaties, India is a civilisational polity where states derive their legitimacy from the Union. The 1956 linguistic reorganisation was intended to accommodate diversity through better administration. Language does create a strong sense of identity and belonging in India, but it needs to be framed as a common resource — not the right of any state. It is the means through which we connect, share ideas, and forge relationships. Our linguistic diversity should not be a reason for division, but a means by which we understand and are understood. The Constitution gives every Indian citizen freedom through Articles 14, 19 and 21. Every Indian has the right not only to speak their language but also to work and reside throughout the country. A Bihari living in Bengaluru or a Manipuri living in Mumbai is not an outsider; they are equal citizens of the nation. This is not just a cultural sensitivity issue, but a matter of constitutional morality, which Ambedkar invoked while warning against majoritarian tyranny. Any attempt by political or local actors to create linguistic conformity is a violation of the Constitution. Linguistic violence impacts internal migration, which is essential for India's economy, by making workers fear discrimination in unfamiliar states. Such chauvinism exacerbates mistrust between linguistic groups. This anxiety proliferates into educational contexts, job interviews and housing preferences, shrinking the ambit of what it means to be Indian. Cultural majoritarianism does not simply become political, as Ashis Nandy warned, but alters how people see themselves and their social location. This leads us to refer to the phrase, 'soft sedition'. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, has updated how we interpret threats to the nation. BNS's Section 152 acknowledges that threats to the nation-state do not always take the form of rebellion, insurrection, or armed revolt. Language-based exclusion, violence and campaigning carve out zones of exclusion. Such ideological subversion must, therefore, be addressed as a potential national security threat and seen as an assault on 'the unity and integrity of India'. Supporters of regional identities argue that linguistic pride is crucial to India's federal character. They are not wrong. India's strength has always been its ability to bind together many languages, cultures and traditions. But diversity should not be confused with division. Love for one's mother tongue does not condone hostility towards another. The executive must act quickly and decisively. Law enforcement agencies should be directed to identify, monitor, report and prosecute language-based hate crimes under the new BNS provisions. Political parties disseminating linguistic hatred must be held accountable under the law. As the final protector and guardian of the Constitution, the Supreme Court must also act. The Centre should consider launching a National Linguistic Harmony Mission, preferably in coordination with the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Ministry of Culture, to monitor interstate animosity, promote mutual respect and create outlets where citizens who speak different languages can interact. The Home Ministry should issue public advisories clarifying that verbal abuse and online troll attacks based on language will be considered a crime under the BNS. In the Republic of India, no one is a second-class citizen. India's strength has never come from forcing sameness, but from embracing difference. From Kalidasa and Rabindranath Tagore to Dharamvir Bharati and Premchand, our greatest voices came from different corners, yet spoke to the same soul. India does not need a lingua franca; it needs a lingua familia, where each language is celebrated without any hierarchy. This is not just a call to protect words or languages. It is a call to protect who we are as a people. If we fail to act now, we risk the very idea of India. Sharma is assistant professor, Aryabhatta College, University of Delhi, and Kumar is advocate, Delhi High Court
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Express View on trade pacts and agriculture: Carry forward the momentum
Now that the India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) has been sealed, the focus shifts to the more challenging deal with the US. A major stumbling block to inking even an interim free trade agreement before US President Donald Trump's August 1 deadline — to either sign or face so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 26 per cent — is agriculture. India does not want to open up its market for American soyabean, corn (maize), ethanol and dairy products. What this defensive stance misses is the potential loss from the fact that India's agricultural exports to the US, at $6.2 billion in 2024, exceeded its imports of $2.4 billion. A 26 per cent tariff will definitely hurt Indian seafood exports to the US that alone was valued at $2.5 billion. That loss would be a gain for the likes of Ecuador and Chile, slapped with only the 10 per cent baseline tariff. On the other hand, the fear of US farm imports is more about perception than reality. Take dairy, where the US isn't as big an exporter of milk powder, butter and cheese as New Zealand and the European Union. Or soyabean, where India imported over $5 billion worth of its oil during 2024-25. The bulk of that was from Argentina and Brazil, with the US share at just $126.3 million. The US is, no doubt, cost competitive in corn and the world's biggest producer as well as exporter. But corn is basically a feed grain, also increasingly being used as a biofuel feedstock. Allowing imports would benefit India's dairy and poultry farmers grappling with rising feed costs, aggravated by the diversion of corn for fuel ethanol production. The sheer demand growth makes corn imports by India inevitable, whether from the US or elsewhere. India needs a farm trade policy based not on import protection, but expanding and diversifying its exports. That happened during 2003-04 to 2013-14, when the country's agriculture exports soared from $7.5 billion to $43.3 billion and new markets were created in products from basmati rice and buffalo meat to frozen shrimps, guar gum meal, chilly and seed spices. Since then, exports have hardly grown to about $52 billion in 2024-25. Even worse have been shipment curbs — on rice, wheat, sugar or onion — clamped at the slightest indication of domestic supply shortfalls. CETA has been a refreshing departure, with India successfully negotiating duty-free access for its exports of seafood, processed foods, spices, fruit and vegetables to the UK, while simultaneously offering to cut tariffs on imports of whisky, chocolates, soft drinks and salmon from the latter. A similar confident approach of export proactiveness rather than import defensiveness is required in deals with other countries — the US included.
