‘Even Congress don't remember…,' DMK MP Kanimozhi's quirky take on BJP MPs' Nehru bashing
Later, Kanimozhi also criticised Amit Shah accusing him of shifting the blame on somebody else and trying to talk about what happened many years ago.
Speaking to ANI, Kanimozhi alleged that there was no constructive discussion about their replies in the Lok Sabha, which was the most important aspect, in which the government has completely failed.
"He was only trying to shift the blame on somebody else and trying to talk about history and what happened many years ago. There was no constructive discussion or replies on what needs to be done and who will take responsibility for what happened," Kanimozhi said.
During his Operation Sindoor address on Tuesday, Shah said a blunder by the Congress led to the creation of Pakistan and claimed that Pakistan-occupied Kashmir was the legacy of first prime minister Nehru.
"In 1948, our armed forces were at a decisive stage in Kashmir. Sardar Patel kept saying no, but (Jawaharlal) Nehru announced a unilateral ceasefire. If Pak-occupied Kashmir exists today, it is due to this unilateral ceasefire announced by Nehru. Jawaharlal Nehru is responsible for this," the home minister had said.
The next day, PM Modi also pointed the Congress government under Jawaharlal Nehru lost over 38,000 km of territory of Aksai Chin.
He slammed the Indus Waters Treaty agreement that the first prime minister signed with Pakistan as a "big blunder".
"Before asking why PoK has not been taken back yet, Congress must respond -- who let it go. India is still suffering the pain of mistakes committed by previous Congress governments, starting from Jawaharlal Nehru," Modi had said.
(With inputs from agencies)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
13 minutes ago
- Hans India
Karnataka Deputy CM DK Shivakumar Highlights Unwavering Congress Commitment, Takes Veiled Swipe At Siddaramaiah
Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar has emphasized his unwavering commitment to the Congress party, marking 37 years of dedicated service while subtly drawing attention to the contrasting political journey of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who transitioned from the Janata Dal (Secular) to Congress. At 63 years old, Shivakumar highlighted his deep-rooted connection with the party, stating that he has matured alongside the Congress organization. His comments appear strategically timed amid ongoing speculation about potential power-sharing arrangements within the Karnataka government, subtly positioning himself as the more loyal party member compared to Siddaramaiah, who joined Congress in 2006 after his tenure with the Janata Parivar. The Deputy Chief Minister reflected on his political career, which spans eight consecutive terms in the state assembly, emphasizing that his allegiance has remained constant from his early political days. He stressed the importance of maintaining organizational roots, suggesting that abandoning one's foundational connections leads to fruitless outcomes. This philosophy appears to underscore his criticism of leaders who have switched political affiliations during their careers. Shivakumar credited his appointment as Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee chief to the trust placed in him by former Congress president Sonia Gandhi. He described his three-year tenure in this role as a period of complete dedication toward dismantling the BJP's governance in Karnataka, which he referred to as the "double engine" government. His efforts, he claimed, were instrumental in restoring Congress power in the state. The Deputy Chief Minister portrayed his contribution to the party's electoral victory as wholehearted, suggesting that his personal investment was crucial to bringing the current government to power. This assertion reinforces his claim to a significant role in Karnataka's political landscape and potentially strengthens any argument for greater responsibility or recognition within the state leadership structure. In addressing ongoing discussions about potential leadership changes, Shivakumar praised Sonia Gandhi's 2004 decision to decline the Prime Minister's position, describing it as an extraordinary political sacrifice that remains unparalleled in Indian politics. Without directly naming individuals, he observed that while some leaders are willing to share power, many others refuse to do so, even at the grassroots panchayat level. These remarks come at a crucial time when questions about a possible rotation of the chief ministerial position in Karnataka continue to generate political speculation. The comments suggest underlying tensions about power distribution within the state government and highlight the complex dynamics between the two senior Congress leaders in Karnataka. Shivakumar's emphasis on organizational loyalty and his implicit contrast with Siddaramaiah's political history appears to be a strategic positioning move. By highlighting his continuous association with Congress since his political inception, he distinguishes himself from colleagues who have changed party affiliations, potentially strengthening his claim to leadership positions within the state hierarchy. The Deputy Chief Minister's statements reflect broader themes of political loyalty, organizational commitment, and the significance of maintaining consistent party allegiance throughout one's career. His comments also underscore the ongoing internal dynamics within the Karnataka Congress unit, where questions of leadership succession and power-sharing arrangements continue to influence political discourse. As speculation about potential changes in Karnataka's leadership structure persists, Shivakumar's public assertions of loyalty and dedication serve to reinforce his position as a committed party member who has consistently supported Congress interests throughout his extensive political career. His subtle critique of party-switching behavior appears designed to highlight the value of unwavering organizational commitment in contemporary Indian politics.
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Pivotal figure in Jharkhand movement, Shibu Soren had a storied career with fleeting stints in power
He had only brief stints in office as Union minister and Chief Minister because of recurrent legal troubles and coalition frictions, but Shibu Soren the politician left an indelible mark on the politics of Jharkhand as a key figure of the decades-long statehood movement that ultimately led to the carving out of the state from Bihar in 2000. Soren, popularly known as 'Guruji', passed away at 81 in Delhi Monday, but the legacy of his politics continues with his son Hemant Soren, entrenched as Jharkhand CM after a convincing victory in the Assembly elections last year. It was the only instance after the 2024 Lok Sabha polls where a party trounced the BJP in a direct fight despite the latter having a steady presence in the state. Soren, who belonged to the Santal tribe, was born on January 11, 1944, in the Nemra village of Ramgarh in the then Bihar province. He took to public life at a young age, forming the Santal Navyuvak Sangh at just 18, and fought moneylenders who lent to tribals at exorbitant rates. It was a fight fuelled by the anger at the death of his father Shobaran who was killed by moneylenders when Soren was a boy. His politics soon became one of opposition to non-tribal 'outsiders', aligning with a sentiment that had been there even before Independence, when the tribal areas of the mineral-rich Chota Nagpur plateau were part of Bihar, and regarded non-tribals as exploitative outsiders called 'Dikus'. In 1972, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) was founded on February 2 on the birthday of Birsa Munda. In 1973, Binod Bihari Mahto became president of the party, with Shibu Soren as the general secretary. It was Jaipal Singh Munda, a member of the Constituent Assembly and an Olympian hockey player, who had become the voice of a separate Jharkhand and championed tribal land rights and their 'autonomous' culture — neither Christian nor Hindu — in the Constituent Assembly. Munda was the leader of the Adivasi Mahasabha that resisted what it saw as Bihari imperialism and trounced the Congress in the tribal belt of then South Bihar in 1952, winning three Lok Sabha and 33 Assembly constituencies. The States Reorganisation Commission of the 1950s was also met throughout the region with slogans of 'Jharkhand Alag Prant (Jharkhand is a distinct state)'. When mobilisations for a Jharkhand state emerged again in the 1980s, recalls Ram Guha in India After Gandhi, 'the protests … were led by Shibu Soren, a young man with long black locks who quickly became a folk hero'. 'He organised the forest harvest of paddy in lands 'stolen' from the Adivasis by Dikus (outsiders), as well as the invasion of forest lands that they claimed as their own,' Guha writes. In September 1980, 15 Adivasis were killed in police firing in Gua, which is now in Paschimi Singhbhum district, further strengthening the movement for Jharkhand. Soren was elected to the Lok Sabha in 1980 and became president of his party in 1986. He represented JMM from Dumka in 1989, 1991, 1996 and 2004. In 1998 and 1999, however, he lost the parliamentary election. Jharkhand's formation and coalition politics In 2000, when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was Prime Minister, Bihar was bifurcated to create Jharkhand from South Bihar, bowing to the long-standing demand in the region. The states of Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand were also created simultaneously. However, given the fact that Jharkhand was not a tribal-majority state, the JMM had to rely on alliances to come to power in the state and Soren never had a long stint in power. Allegations of crime and corruption also made him appear like a run-of-the-mill politician. The JMM was part of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in 2004, and Soren joined the Manmohan Singh government as the minister of coal and mines. He had to resign within two months, as an arrest warrant was issued against him in the Chirudih case of 1975, in which 10 people, including nine Muslims, were killed in a clash between tribals and Muslims. He had to spend a month in jail. After his release on bail, he was reinducted into the Cabinet as Union Coal Minister late in 2004, as the Congress and the JMM had to contest the 2005 Jharkhand Assembly polls in alliance. On March 2, 2005, Soren became the third CM of Jharkhand after Babulal Marandi and Arjun Munda of the BJP, but his government lasted just nine days as he could not prove his majority. In January 2006, Soren returned to the UPA Cabinet, but had to resign again in November as he was held guilty in the 1994 murder of his former private secretary Shashinath Jha, a first for any Cabinet minister. The CBI alleged that Jha was abducted from Dhaula Kuan in Delhi and taken to Ranchi on May 23, 1994, where he was killed and his body buried nearby in Piska Nagri. Charging the accused, the CBI alleged that this was done because Jha knew of the reported deal between the Congress and the JMM to save the then Narasimha Rao government during the July 1993 no-confidence motion. It was a reference to the JMM bribery case that rocked the minority government of Narasimha Rao, whose administration survived the charges. Soren was, however, acquitted by the Delhi High Court on August 23, 2007, which ruled the CBI's claims unsustainable. In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, saying there was no evidence that the dead body exhumed was that of his private secretary as the DNA samples did not match. In 2008, Soren again became CM. But his tenure was cut short yet again, as he failed to win a January 2009 Assembly by-election. In December 2009, he took charge as Jharkhand CM for a third time, heading a JMM-BJP coalition government this time, but had to step down again after six months when the BJP withdrew support. Even as his health became indifferent and Soren gradually began to withdraw from active politics — he became JMM president for the sixth time in 2010, was elected to the Lok Sabha in 2014 and to the Rajya Sabha in 2020 — he established his son Hemant as his successor, with the JMM remaining an entrenched party in state politics. Despite the BJP trying its level best to breach Jharkhand last year — Hemant spent time in jail on corruption charges and the BJP accused the JMM of allowing Bangladeshi immigrants to acquire documents, marrying tribal girls and claiming tribal lands in the state — the JMM convincingly won the elections.
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What India can learn from the maritime prowess of the Cholas
By N Manoharan and Diya Parthasarathy In his recent public address at Gangaikonda Cholapuram, Tamil Nadu, Prime Minister Modi pointed out the legacy of the Cholas in various arenas, especially in the maritime domain. But one wonders what the larger context of the Cholas' maritime ventures was, and how relevant it is today. Understanding the Cholas' maritime ventures is necessary to realise India's maritime tradition. Acknowledging this, a decade back, the Centre released a stamp to commemorate the contribution of Cholas in laying 'a strong foundation for promotion of trade, commerce and cultural exchanges which brought fabulous economic prosperity and expansion of Indian culture and heritage across the Indian Ocean to the land of South East Asia.' The Indian Navy undertook the 'Chola Expedition' in 2008 to replicate the 'invasion' of Srivijaya kingdom (Sumatra, Southeast Asia) by Rajendra Chola I in 1017 CE. By comprehending maritime ventures during the Chola period, it is possible to understand the present Chinese ventures in the Indian Ocean under the garb of the Belt and Road Initiative. The Chinese indeed had trade connections, but not in the present form of economically tethering countries along the Maritime Silk Route. There were two main interlinked drivers for the Cholas' maritime projection: Mercantilism and military expansion. At the turn of the first millennium, the trade patterns witnessed a transformation from pre-emporia to emporia. Pre-emporia trade denoted shipping of goods directly from the source of production to the place of consumption. Whereas, the emporia trade pattern meant that several intermediate ports catered to the breaking up of bulk goods for retail sales and purchases. Coinciding with such a change in trade pattern was the rise of 'corporate empires' like the Cholas, the Srivijaya Empire, the Khmer Kingdom of Cambodia, Champa in Vietnam, and the Song Dynasty in China. Varieties of goods were traded among the ports of these regions that included metals, spices, perfumes, cosmetics, precious stones, textiles, and even animals like elephants and horses. Significantly, customs levied on these goods that transited through seas constituted a chunk of the coffers of corporate empires. Though such a financial network gave a kind of order in these 'corporate' empires, it also led to disputes among those empires that tried to arm-twist the transiting trading crafts to serve their economic and political interests. The dispute started when the Srivijayans became avaricious and imposed a high levy for the passage of goods carriers through Southeast Asia. The Cholas did not take it kindly and wanted to get away from the 'Malacca dilemma' posed by the Southeast Asian kingdom. The Srivijaya rulers were also trying to control the land crossing across Kra Isthmus. Rajendra Chola went on to occupy Malaysia to control the Malacca Straits and also acquired Java and Sumatra by defeating Sailendra rulers during his Digvijaya. As China emerged as a leading trading point and market, securing sea lanes of communication became imperative. The Chinese considered the Cholas ('Chulian' by the Chinese) as a 'first-class' trade partner. Chola kings wanted to send a clear message to the Chinese that they would not hesitate to use military options against the obstructing elements (both state and non-state) to ensure the free flow of goods. This 'choke point syndrome' pervades even today, although the Chinese are more worried now than the Indians were then. To achieve the above two objectives, the Cholas depended on a strong and well-organised navy that was built over a period of time. Kings used to get a good deal of their income from trade and could thus afford to maintain a large and powerful navy without exhausting their land revenue base. The Chola Navy consisted of an armada of ships that were constructed and used for trade purposes. According to historical records, the Chola armada comprised destroyers, frigates and battleships. Apart, they used colandia, large expeditionary vessels, and sangara, large oceangoing single log vessels, to transport troops and logistics. These ships had the capability and experience to travel long distances. Kattumarams were small boats of wood tied together to float in shallow waters and to move goods from large ships to shore, and also to make amphibious attacks. The Chola Navy also included a strong intelligence wing to track intrusion of foreign naval forces. The Chola seafarers mostly used winds, heavenly bodies and currents to sail across seas. The kings were said to have encouraged the study of astronomy, geography and cartography as part of their maritime expeditions. A specialised study on the science of shipping and ship-building was patronised and pursued. Apart from commercial and trade interests, there were larger politico-strategic and cultural drivers behind the maritime ventures of the Cholas. They had to prove their might both in peninsular India and in the maritime neighbourhood. They had to protect trade routes and traders of Tamilagam. It was, in fact, a matter of survival and pride. Also, as Saivites, they considered it their religious duty to carry Saivism beyond Indian shores. Such drivers are true in the present context as well. It is intriguing to note why the Cholas did not pay attention to West Asia and Africa as much as they focused on South and Southeast Asia. One wonders whether it was because of the quantum of direction of trade that was flowing mostly from the west to the east, or did the Cholas consider Africa and West Asia beyond their reach? This aspect needs a fresh enquiry. Manoharan is Director, and Diya is a Researcher at the Centre for East Asian Studies, Christ University, Bangalore
