T trying to break 50% quota cap, BJP a hindrance: Rahul
He said the Telangana govt was attempting to break free of the 50% cap on reservation, both in local bodies and in govt jobs and educational institutions.
"Telangana chief minister Revanth Reddy's job is to use the data to transform the lives of the people of Telangana, and our job is to raise the issue in Parliament and help him push the idea of breaking the 50% reservation cap barrier," Rahul said while speaking during Revanth's presentation on the socio-economic survey at Indira Bhawan in New Delhi on Thursday.
The PowerPoint presentation was attended by AICC president Mallikarjun Kharge, MP Priyanka Gandhi, and many other top leaders of the Congress. Rahul said the Congress govt in Telangana had sent a note on the amendment to Parliament, both to the Govt of India and to the President of India. But, he alleged, the Centre was reluctant to take up the issue as if it would destroy BJP's brand of politics.
You Can Also Check:
Hyderabad AQI
|
Weather in Hyderabad
|
Bank Holidays in Hyderabad
|
Public Holidays in Hyderabad
He also remarked that the national census and caste census being taken up by the Centre would not be a fair exercise as it would reveal the real situation of OBCs and Adivasis.
The Congress leader also said his party had been correctly raising Dalit and Adivasi issues nationally for more than a decade. He felt many of his own leaders may not agree with him, but more needed to be done on voicing concerns of the OBCs.
Rahul also praised Revanth for completing the caste survey in Telangana. "When I started to push the idea of a caste census, I thought it would be difficult for Revanth as CM, as his community (Reddy) might not appreciate it.
I was observing carefully. Today, I told the expert committee that Revanth Reddy ji and other leaders exceeded my expectations. They not only did the caste census, but did it exceptionally well," Rahul Gandhi said.
He said they not only completed the survey, but also executed it in the right spirit, marking a milestone in social justice in the country. "The Telangana govt showed the country how the national caste census should be done. The census should not be conducted within closed rooms. Every section of society was taken into consideration, and every household was covered," the Congress leader said.
The Telangana govt has 21st century data which is powerful enough to target the needy in executing education and health policies. No other state in the country has that data, and for obvious reasons, the BJP may not like it, he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
Parliament Session LIVE LoP Rahul Gandhi launches scathing attack on BJP in Lok Sabha
Parliament began a debate on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor from Monday, following a week of disruption. Both the ruling BJP-led National Democratic Alliance and the Opposition will field senior leaders for the discussions in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Show more Show less
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Amit Shah claims Nehru bid ‘bye bye to Assam' during 1962 war: What former PM said, in what context
Home Minister Amit Shah on Tuesday (July 29) accused former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of bidding goodbye to Assam during the 1962 war. Speaking in the Lok Sabha during the Operation Sindoor debate, Shah addressed Assam Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi, saying, 'Gogoiji has been saying a lot of things…do you know what he [Nehru] did to Assam? He waved bye bye to Assam on Akashvani…There is a recording of this.' This is not the first time the BJP has used Nehru's 1962 radio address to claim that Nehru had virtually surrendered Assam to China during the war. Last year, at an election rally in Lakhimpur, Shah had said, 'During the Chinese aggression of 1962, Nehru had said 'bye-bye' to Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. People of these states can never forget that.' In March 2024, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had written in The Indian Express, 'When Jawaharlal Nehru, as a Prime Minister abandoned Assam amidst the 1962 Indo-China war while claiming his heart went out to the people of Assam, Prime Minister Modi repeatedly called the region Ashtalakshmi and Bharat's growth engine.' What exactly did Nehru say in the radio address, and did he bid 'bye bye' to Assam? What did he say about the 1962 war in Parliament? What was his remark about not a blade of grass growing in Aksai Chin? We explain. The 1962 war lasted for barely a month, from October 20 to November 21. China invaded India from two sides, in the west around the Ladakh region and in the east in the Northeast Frontier Agency (today's Arunachal Pradesh and parts of Assam). On both fronts, its victories were swift and decisive. It managed to capture the strategically crucial Tawang (in the present Arunachal Pradesh), and advanced further. It was in this context that Nehru addressed the nation on November 19, 1962, in Hindi. The 'heart goes out to Assam' line goes thus, 'Is waqt kuch Assam ke upar, Assam ke darwaaze par, dushman hai, aur Assam khatre mein hai. Isliye khas taur se hamara dil jata hai hamare bhai air bahinon par, jo Assam mein rehtein hain, unki hamdardi mein, kyunki unkon taqleef uthani pad rahi hai…Hum unki poori madad karne ki koshish karenge aur karenge, lekin kitni bhi hum madad karein, hum unko taqleef se nahin bacha lenge is waqt. Haan, ek baat ka hum pakka irdada rakhtein hain…hum is baat ko aakhiri dum tak chaleyenge jab tak Assam aur sara Hindustan bilkul dushman se khaali na ho jaaye,' [Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Volume 79]. The translation from the Selected Works, of a larger section of the speech, is, 'Huge Chinese armies have been marching in the northern part of the North East Frontier Agency and we have suffered reverses at Walong, on the Sela Ridge and today Bomdila — a small town in NEFA has also fallen. In the North also in Ladakh, in the Chushul area, the Chinese have been attacking fiercely, though they have been held. Now what has happened is very serious and very saddening to us and I can well understand what our friends in Assam must be feeling because all this is happening on their doorstep, one might say. I want to tell them that we feel very much for them and that we shall help them to the utmost of our ability. We may not be able always to succeed in what we are trying now because of various factors and of the overwhelming numbers of the Chinese forces, but I want to take a pledge to them, here and now, that we shall see this matter to the end and the end will have to be victory for India.' Thus, the speech asserts that the government would drive the enemy out of Assam, and when the PM spoke of his heart going out, he was acknowledging the troubles the people of Assam would have to suffer. Aditya Mukherjee, retired Professor of Contemporary History and Director, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Advanced Study, JNU, told The Indian Express, 'To read Nehru's 1962 AIR speech as 'bidding goodbye to Assam' does not stand scrutiny. While it is a stretch to read 'my heart goes out' as abandoning Assam, the rest of the speech makes it clear that Nehru was determined to fight for every inch of Indian land. The speech does not show any intention of surrendering, instead, it shows a resolve to keep fighting a difficult fight.' Nehru's comments on the war on other occasions Nehru spoke about the 1962 war multiple times in Parliament, giving information and answering the Opposition's questions even when the fighting was on. The speeches have the common theme of not surrendering to the enemy. For example, in Parliament on November 19, 1962, after giving details of the defeats suffered by the Indian Army, Nehru said, 'I should like to add that in spite of the reverses suffered by us, we are determined not to give in in any way and we shall fight the enemy, however long it may take to repel him and drive him out of our country.' Amit Shah Tuesday also said that Nehru gave 'non-serious' replies in Parliament, citing as example his comment about not a blade of grass growing in Aksai Chin. Nehru's Aksai Chin remark was made in August 1959, before the India China war, and he had clarified it in Parliament. Here's that exchange [(Jawaharlal Nehru: Selected Speeches, Volume 4]. Speaking about Chinese incursions into Ladakh, Nehru said in Lok Sabha, 'When we discovered in 1958, more than a year ago, that a road had been built across Yehcheng in the north-east corner of Ladakh, we were worried. We did not know where it was. Hon. Members asked why we did not know before. It is a relevant question, but the fact is that it is an uninhabitable area, 17.000 feet high. It had not been under any kind of administration. Nobody has been present there. It is a territory where not even a blade of grass grows. It adjoins Sinkiang.' Jaswant Singh later said, 'The Prime Minister stated a little while ago that this portion of Ladakh is absolutely desolate and unfertile and that not even a blade of grass grows there. Even then, China is attaching importance to the area and is building a road there. I would like to know, when China is attaching so much of importance to this desolate bit of land, why, when the territory is ours or is under dispute even, do we not attach any importance to it?' Nehru then replied, 'I talked only about the Yehcheng area, not about the whole of Ladakh… Presumably the Chinese attach importance to this area because of the fact that the route connects part of Chinese Turkestan with Gartok-Yehcheng.'
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Nitish Kumar has a succession problem. Is his son the answer?
Written by Mrityunjay Sharma A puzzle has engaged everyone in Bihar over the last few months: Whether Nishant, Nitish Kumar's son, will join politics. Ever since his first public appearance in January, appealing to the people to vote for his father, political circles have been abuzz. Media speculation has only intensified, with significant political figures from both within and outside the JD(U) pitching for Nishant to take up the reins of the party. The latest to join this chorus is Upendra Kushwaha, Nitish's old ally and currently the leader of an NDA constituent, Rashtriya Lok Samta Party. In a recent comment, Kushwaha urged Nitish to hand over the party's leadership to Nishant, warning that any delay may cause irreparable damage. While Kushwaha's statement may carry political undertones, what he said appears to reflect the JD(U)'s only viable option. In the ever-evolving landscape of Indian politics, dynastic succession is no longer a surprise; it is a pattern. Nishant, an engineering graduate from BIT Mesra, has consistently maintained his disinterest in politics and expressed a personal inclination toward spirituality. What also makes Nishant's case particularly intriguing is that for years, Nitish has positioned himself as a leader different from Bihar's family-driven political model. Unlike his contemporaries — Lalu Prasad and Mulayam Singh Yadav — who openly groomed their sons as successors, Nitish Kumar never gave any such indication. Yet, as age catches up, the absence of a clear successor has begun to haunt the JD (U), making a once-unthinkable family transition appear increasingly inevitable. In Indian politics, where legacy often triumphs over merit, dynastic succession is more of a norm than an anomaly. From the Nehru-Gandhi family in the Congress to the Yadavs of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the Thackerays of Maharashtra, the Badals of Punjab, and the DMK's dominance in Tamil Nadu, leadership succession through family ties is more of a survival strategy than a coincidence. The case of Nishant Kumar is merely another instance of this larger trend where smaller political parties, rather than fostering new leadership, pass on the reins within the family to ensure continuity. While some may argue that dynastic politics is more common in larger parties like the Congress, it is far more pronounced — and often necessary —for regional and smaller parties. Unlike national parties, which have the backing of a larger ideological structure and grassroots cadre, regional parties are often built around one strong leader. When such a leader ages or retires, the most obvious successor is someone from the family, seen as a natural inheritor of the party's legacy and vote base. While Nitish Kumar tried to groom several potential successors, all eventually fell out of favour. R C P Singh, once his closest aide, was sidelined due to his proximity to the BJP. Upendra Kushwaha, seen as an OBC leader from his kindred Koeri caste, clashed with Nitish and was ousted. Prashant Kishor, despite Nitish's fondness, was never fully embraced due to his independent streak. Some speculate Manish Verma, a new entrant from the bureaucracy, as a future leader, but the JD(U)'s history suggests that no one outside the Kumar surname will be able to match themselves up to Nitish. What the JD(U) is moving towards is a lesson learned from Indian politics: Parties without a clear family succession have struggled to survive. While Mulayam Singh Yadav's SP and Lalu Prasad's RJD continue to thrive after handing over power to their sons, Mayawati's Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) has struggled to pass on the baton to her nephew, Akash Anand in a bid to salvage her legacy. The late Ram Vilas Paswan's LJP offers another example. The original party split, and most of the party leaders went with Late Ram Vilas's brother, Pashupati Nath Paras, following a feud. However, the electorate still associates the LJP with Chirag Paswan, who has now reclaimed the party's legacy under a new political entity. Similarly, the BJD in Odisha faces uncertainty post-Naveen Patnaik era, with no clear family succession line. The trend is visible beyond the Hindi heartland as well. While DMK has been holding power in Tamil Nadu following a clear dynastic succession, the AIADMK has suffered in the absence of clear leadership post-Jayalalithaa. Unlike the BJP and Left parties, which have largely distanced themselves from dynastic politics and promoted second-rung leadership, regional and smaller parties often do not have the luxury of a strong ideological foundation. Their entire political existence is tied to the charisma of one leader. When that leader fades, keeping power within the family is often seen as the easiest way to ensure continuity. But this also raises critical concerns. Does dynastic succession hinder democratic party structures? Does it prevent the rise of talented grassroots leaders who are not part of the family? In many cases, the answer is yes. Regional parties rarely develop a robust second line of leadership, making it almost inevitable that leadership is passed within the family. Unlike the RJD or the SP, which have strong caste-based vote banks, the JD(U)'s voter base is fragmented, spread across voting blocs such as those of the EBCs and women voters. Nitish Kumar himself has relied on his good governance image and coalition politics rather than caste-based mobilisation. If Nishant Kumar does step into politics, he will have his task cut out. His success will hinge on whether he can craft an independent political identity or merely serve as a symbolic extension of his father's legacy. Complicating matters further, Nishant will face stiff competition from other political scions like Tejashwi Yadav and Chirag Paswan — both of whom have not only inherited political capital but also years of head-start in navigating Bihar's complex political terrain. While no confirmation has come yet, the speculation around Nishant Kumar suggests that even a party like the JD(U), which prided itself on governance and ideology, is finding it difficult to break free from dynastic patterns. This reflects a broader crisis in Indian politics, where family remains the strongest political capital, and where survival, more than ideology or governance, dictates leadership transitions. As long as political parties continue to be personal enterprises rather than institutional entities, the cycle of family-driven leadership will continue, no matter how much the electorate criticises it. The writer is a BJP Leader and author of Broken Promises: Caste, Crime and Politics in Bihar
