‘Will blacken his face, pelt stones': Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Bala Darade threatens Rahul Gandhi over Savarkar remark
Speaking at a Savarkar Jayanti event in the city, Darade, the Shiv Sena (UBT) deputy city chief in Nashik, said that the Sainiks would not tolerate any insult to Savarkar and if Rahul dared to come to Nashik, they would blacken his face or pelt stones at him.
'We live in Savarkar's land (Nashik). If Rahul Gandhi dares to come to Nashik, we will blacken his face. If not that, we will pelt stones. Even if we are part of the MVA, we will not think about it and show what Sainiks are,' Darade said.
The remark drew criticism from Congress leaders, with Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee president Harshwardhan Sapkal terming the comments 'deeply unfortunate,' stressing that Gandhi's views on Savarkar were grounded in 'publicly available historical records'.
'There is a difference between historical critique and incitement. Such statements would not be tolerated…grassroots Congress workers are capable of giving befitting replies to such statements,' Sapkal said.
Former state minister Yashomati Thakur termed Darade's statement 'irresponsible and inflammatory,' and issued a warning. 'Let them try touching Rahul Gandhi. We will give a befitting reply,' she said.
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sushama Andhare, however, distanced the party from the statement and said that when any leader makes such a statement in a personal capacity, it does not make it the party's official stand. 'It may be his personal statement. This does not become the party's stand,' Andhare said.
Earlier, particularly during the Bharat Jodo Yatra, Gandhi had accused Savarkar of betraying the freedom movement by submitting mercy petitions to the British — remarks that have long riled both the BJP and sections of the Shiv Sena (UBT).
Political observers say that with municipal elections imminent in Nashik, Pune, and Thane — cities where Savarkar retains considerable symbolic heft — the timing of the outburst could affect campaign narratives. The BJP, which has long positioned itself as the sole custodian of Savarkar's legacy, is also expected to weaponise the row to underscore what it sees as the MVA's 'opportunistic contradiction'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
13 minutes ago
- The Print
The Preamble won't be changed back to the original. Here's why
The very first sentence of the Constitution has been studded with a lie for the last fifty years. We don't mind misattributing even grave things to the deceased Constitution makers. The Preamble, a one-sentence credo, carries the date 26 November 1949 in present tense, despite being altered 26 years afterwards. All this while leaders have been propagating with gusto that it is given by a demigod-like leader, BR Ambedkar. The irony of Indian politics can be understood by the condition of the Preamble of the Constitution. Our habit of playing with words and phrases is in full play here. Just review the issue. The Preamble of the original Constitution (1950) described India as a democratic republic. Twenty-six years later, two heavy political terms were added to it: 'secular' and 'socialist'. India was re-christened as 'democratic socialist secular republic' only on 26 November 1949. Now, fifty years after that deceit—intended or not—there is again a clamour to revert it to the original. No surprise if this turns out to be just another game of our leaders. The change was made during the Emergency. And the amendment was passed in the Parliament without genuine deliberation, as the Opposition was put in jail. It was perhaps a plot of an intellectual coterie that convinced Indira Gandhi to do it—she was not an ideologue like her father to flaunt such heavy terms. Also read: JP wasn't a saviour of Constitution. He called Mao his guru Tampering with basic structure The amendment proved to be a great distortion of the Constitution. Look at the facts: First, all political theorists considered the original Preamble remarkable. The famed British political scientist Ernest Barker began his 1952 book Principles of Social and Political Theory with the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. He said that it stated 'in a brief and pithy form the argument of much of the book'. This was a unique commendation for the original Preamble. Second, in political science or law teaching in India, the Preamble was called the soul and foundation of the Constitution. Therefore, to tamper with it was interfering with its soul. Third, the Supreme Court of India in the Berubari Union case (1960) described the Preamble as not part of the Constitution but an overall guiding principle of it, through which other provisions of the Constitution may be understood. So, the Preamble was itself a standard, a scale. And whoever heard of tampering with a scale? Fourth, the Supreme Court again, in 1973, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, declared that while the Preamble of the Constitution is not exempt from amendment, its basic structure cannot be changed. It grates against what was done three years later with it. Their Lordships, too, turned a Nelson's eye to this great contradiction. On all those four counts, it is undeniable that the alteration made to the Preamble was grave. The consequences have been graver still. The change made in 1976 hit the basics of the Constitution. It was especially damaging as it was an ideological amendment. It must also be noted that 'socialist' and 'secular' were known concepts to the Constitution makers. In fact, they discussed the issue of adding 'socialist' and 'secular' and rejected it. It is, therefore, a sin on the part of the leaders of the country to cheat the people by falsely propagandising this distorted Preamble for the last fifty years. Current propaganda, that it all is a 'legacy of Dr Ambedkar', is still more sinful. It is more so because it was Ambedkar himself who categorically rejected the proposal to include the words 'secular' and 'socialist' into the Constitution. It happened in the Constituent Assembly on 15 November 1948. A member of the Constituent Assembly, Professor KT Shah, had proposed to include the words 'secular, federal, socialist' into the Constitution. Rejecting it in toto, Ambedkar said: 'Mr. Vice‑President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly, are two. In the first place, the Constitution…is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State…What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether…It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better…I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form…This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed…The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous…If these directive principles…are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be. Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.' Though he did not separately comment on the word 'secular', he dismissed the entire proposal. The Constituent Assembly concurred with him. Despite such rejection, the very terms were inserted into the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. It is noteworthy, too, that the Janata Party government comprising the Jana Sangh, socialists, and other non-Congress parties continued with the distorted Preamble. They repealed many sections of the 42nd Amendment through the 44th Amendment in 1978, but they chose to keep the distortion of the Preamble. Thus, all political parties have injured the 'soul' of the Constitution. Also read: Hosabale, Dhankhar, Shivraj & Himanta give Modi yet another reason to amend BJP constitution Vote-bank politics After that, the character of the Constitution itself began to change. It gradually bore bitter fruit. It led to the establishment of an unstated anti-Hindu mindset in Indian politics, which slowly infiltrated the entire political and educational sphere. It is a dark irony that until the word 'secular' was added, the Constitution was indeed secular, treating all communities equally. But after inserting the word 'secular', most Indian leaders—knowingly or unknowingly—interpreted and applied it in ways that effectively rendered Hindus as second-class citizens. Now Hindus have become 'eighth-class citizens', to use the term from Anand Ranganathan's book Hindus in Hindu Rashtra. With time, Indian leaders competitively turned the terms 'minority' and 'secular' into mere tools of vote-bank politics. In the process, the original intent of the Constitution and the universal principles of common justice and morality have been undermined. Since all this unfolded gradually, it constituted a double betrayal of the Indian people. All political parties used the excuse of the 'Constitutional' mandate of secularism and a distorted reading of 'protection of minorities' as per Article 29 to provide facilities and privileges exclusively to non-Hindus. This, too, was against the intent of the Constitution makers, who had taken care to ensure every benefit to minorities without excluding the non-minorities from any benefits. But this exclusion is perpetrated by all rulers, especially after the distortion of the Preamble. In the absence of any political party to sincerely oppose it, Hindus were left with no means to even detect the wrong being done, let alone counter it. Most political leaders intended to woo bulk votes from a particular non-Hindu community. They quietly but openly cheated the unaware, helpless Hindu citizens. Therefore, any hope of correcting the distortion in the Preamble seems futile. Our political parties are deeply immersed in the quagmire of 'minority-ism'. It is unlikely that any of them will find the courage to come out of it. The issue will most probably be used to create a public uproar, each party using it to consolidate its constituencies. There will be talks of discrimination, accusations, and counter-accusations. Nothing more should be expected. Shankar Sharan is a columnist and professor of political science. He tweets @hesivh. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
NDTV
14 minutes ago
- NDTV
US Plans 500% Tariffs On Top Russian Oil Buyers. How It Will Affect India
Washington: The United States is planning to tax countries that continue to trade with Russia even after Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago. According to US Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, President Donald Trump has extended support to a proposed bill calling for 500 per cent tariffs on goods from countries continuing to trade with Russia, including India and China. Graham, who is sponsoring a tough new sanctions bill on Russia, told ABC News on Sunday that Trump told him that legislation should be brought forward for a vote after the "July break". What's The Bill About The sanctions bill, which, according to Graham, currently has 84 co-sponsors, aims to pressure countries like India and China into buying Russian oil and other goods to weaken Moscow's war economy and push Russian President Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table on Ukraine and give Trump "a tool" to bring that about. "Big breakthrough here. So what does this bill do? If you're buying products from Russia and you're not helping Ukraine, then there's a 500 per cent tariff on your products coming into the United States. India and China buy 70 per cent of Putin's oil. They keep his war machine going. My bill has 84 co-sponsors. It would allow the president to put tariffs on China and India and other countries to get them -- stop them from supporting Putin's war machine, to get him to the table," the US senator told ABC. He stressed, however, that Trump had a waiver and could decide whether or not to sign it into law if and when it passes Congress. "I was playing with him (Trump). He says, "It's time to move -- move your bill. There's a waiver in the bill, Mr. President. You're in charge whether or not it's to be implemented." But we're going to give President Trump a tool in the toolbox he doesn't have today. After the July break, we're going to pass a bill that with allow the president," Graham added. When Will The Bill Be Tabled The legislation, initially proposed in March, is expected to be moved in August. It is part of America's growing efforts to tighten the economic noose around Russia as Trump struggles to drag Putin to the negotiation table while the war in Ukraine drags on. The tabling of the bill in the Senate was delayed after the White House signalled opposition to expanding sanctions, while Trump was trying to reset ties with the Russian President. However, the administration seems ready to support the sanctions. How The Bill Can Affect India Amid Western sanctions, countries like India and China have continued buying discounted Russian oil, making them targets of the proposed legislation. India, the world's third-largest oil-importing and consuming nation, bought from abroad around 5.1 million barrels of crude oil, which is converted into fuels like petrol and diesel in refineries. India, which has traditionally sourced its oil from the Middle East, began importing a large volume of oil from Russia soon after the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This was primarily because Russian oil was available at a significant discount to other international benchmarks due to Western sanctions and some European countries shunning purchases. This led to India's imports of Russian oil seeing a dramatic rise, growing from less than 1 per cent of its total crude oil imports to a staggering 40-44 per cent in a short period. In June, India ramped up purchases of Russian oil, importing more than the combined volumes from Middle Eastern suppliers such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq, amid market volatility triggered by Israel's dramatic attack on Iran. Indian refiners were proposed to import 2-2.2 million barrels per day of Russian crude oil in June, the highest in the last two years. India's oil imports from Russia were 1.96 million barrels per day (bpd) in May. If the US implements the proposed bill, it could lead to staggering 500 per cent tariffs on Indian products imported to America. However, India is in the process of signing a trade deal with the US, which would likely bring down US tariffs on India considerably. Trump's Inhibition Reports suggest the White House has previously asked Graham to soften the bill. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the Trump Administration was "quietly pressuring" the Senate to water down the legislation by turning "the word 'shall' into 'may'" wherever it appears in the text, in a move to remove the mandatory nature of the prescribed reprimands. Following the report, Graham proposed a carve-out in the bill for countries that support Ukraine-- a move seen as an attempt to prevent a potential US-EU trade war if the legislation is enacted. What Russia Said About The Bill Asked about Graham's comments, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday that Russia was aware of the US senator's stance and had taken note of his statement. "The senator's views are well known to us, they are well known to the whole world. He belongs to a group of inveterate Russophobes. If it were up to him, these sanctions would have been imposed long ago," said Peskov. "Would that have helped the (Ukraine) settlement (process)? That is a question that those who initiate such events should ask themselves."
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC dismisses pleas against Bal Thackeray memorial
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed several petitions challenging the decision of the Maharashtra government to set up a memorial to Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray on the site of the old Mayor's bungalow at Shivaji Park, Dadar. The government had decided to erect a memorial – the Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak Memorial – in honour of Thackeray in view of his contributions to the political landscape of the state, particularly in Mumbai. (Kunal Patil/HT Photo) The government had decided to erect a memorial – the Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak Memorial – in honour of Thackeray in view of his contributions to the political landscape of the state, particularly in Mumbai. Accordingly, a committee was set up in December 2014 to scout for land for the memorial, generate funds and make recommendations for the memorial. In May 2015, the committee submitted it had considered eight different sites and decided that the Mayor's bungalow was the most suitable place for the memorial. Although the land would continue to be owned by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, it would be leased to a public trust set up to build and oversee the memorial for a period of 30 years, on payment of a nominal rent of ₹ 1 per year. The government issued a resolution on September 27, 2016, approving the recommendations. Subsequently, the resolution was challenged and amendments were carried out. The plot, reserved for the Mayor's bungalow, fell under the Green Zone in the Development Control Regulations of 1991. It was re-zoned as 'residential use' under the Development Plan 2034. Challenging these decisions were several petitions filed in the Bombay High Court in 2017, highlighting the allocation of a ₹ 100-crore budget for the memorial. They contended that the money could have been used for other, important, purposes. On re-zoning the land from 'Green Zone' to 'Residential Zone' without prior public notification or consultation, senior advocate Sunip Sen, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that the change of use of the Mayor's bungalow had been effected in gross violation of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). He further stated that there had been an illegal conversion of the municipal gymkhana (municipal house), a public amenity and historically accessible to public use, which could not be reserved for the residence of the Mayor. Senior advocate Dr Uday Warunjikar, representing another petitioner, submitted that the entire decision-making process for the memorial at the Mayor's bungalow 'suffered from gross arbitrariness and irrationality'. 'The site chosen for the memorial as well as the manner in which the trust had been formed was 'clearly illegal'. 'Therefore, the actions taken by the authorities for setting up the memorial at the site should be set aside,' he added. Opposing the court's intervention, additional government pleader Jyoti Chavan contended that the establishment of the memorial was in the realm of policy decision. She told the court that the provisions of the MRTP Act had been observed while making amendments to the Development Plan. 'The decision to set up the memorial has been taken in the interest of a larger section of the society considering the contribution of late Balasaheb Thackeray during his lifetime,' she stated. Upholding the state's decision, the division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne said that the re-zoning of the land failed to reflect any procedural impropriety. 'Any piece of land in the city of Mumbai is bound to be valuable and therefore it is not for this court to decide which land needs to be chosen for setting up of the memorial,' the court stated. It observed that the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) had cleared the project to proceed with the usage of the land, which fell under the CRZ-II zone. Therefore, there is no violation of environmental norms in setting up the memorial, the court ruled. The bench highlighted that work on the memorial was virtually complete, and there had been no disturbance to the heritage significance of the bungalow. 'This could be yet another reason for this court not to interfere in the decisions and actions,' the bench added. Since it found no grounds to challenge the state's decision and actions with regard to the memorial, the court dismissed the petitions.
