Bharat Mata row: It was Kerala govenor who violated protocol, says minister V Sivankutty
Thiruvananthapuram: The war of words over the 'Bharat Mata' picture being used at functions in the Raj Bhavan is continuing with education minister V Sivankutty saying that it was the governor who violated the protocol and not him.
He was responding to the letter written by governor Rajendra Arlekar to the chief minister in which the governor had alleged that the minister violated the protocol by boycotting the function at Raj Bhavan.
On Saturday, the chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan replied to the governor through a letter in which he said that the minister did not violate any protocol. However, on Sunday, the minister said, "It was the governor who violated the protocol."
He also alleged that two RSS workers were controlling the affairs at the Raj Bhavan.
Arlekar said in his letter to the CM that as a head of state he was insulted by the minister by boycotting the function at the Raj Bhavan. However, Vijayan responded that the minister acted as per the Constitution and as per the oath of secrecy while assuming power as a minister.
The minister also echoed the sentiments of the CM and said the governor's lapse was in keeping 'Bharat Mata's image holding the saffron flag at the official event.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
My 2-year-old baby needs your urgent help, please save her!
Donate For Health
Donate Now
Undo
This is not recommended as per the Constitution for any official function of the govt, he said.
It has become clear that the govt remains firm in its stance that the governor's explanations lack constitutional protection beyond faith in 'Bharat Mata'. The governor is also firm on his stand. The other day, while speaking at the 50th anniversary of the Emergency, Arlekar said he was not ready to compromise on his ideologies. "When I came to Kerala, I said that I am not there for any confrontation with the govt. But that doesn't mean that I will compromise on my ideologies," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
10 minutes ago
- Hans India
Congress gears up for show of strength on July 4
Hyderabad: The Congress party has geared up for a public meeting to be held in the city on July 4, in which AICC president Mallikarjun Kharge will attend as the chief guest. The party leadership will be highlighting this as a show of strength and unity. It also aims to mobilise public support for the upcoming local body polls and the Jubilee Hills bypoll, besides GHMC polls. The public meeting, which is part of the ongoing Congress campaign 'Jai Bapu, Jai Bheem, Jai Samvidhaan', will be attended by about 15,000, mostly party men. The PCC president B Mahesh Kumar Goud has asked all the leaders, including village level presidents to make this a success. 'Jai Samvidhan program will emphasise the protection of the Constitution. Key leaders of all constituencies across the state should participate in the meeting and make it a success,' said Mahesh Goud during the preparatory meeting held at Gandhi Bhavan on Sunday. The meeting which was presided over by city in-charge Minister Ponnam Prabhakar, also reviewed the party's strength in the city and preparedness for the GHMC polls. It was attended by Rajya Sabha MP M Anil Kumar Yadav, MLA Danam Nagender, MLCs Amir Ali Khan, Balmoor Venkat, PCC working presidents Anjan Kumar Yadav, Mohammad Azharuddin, Corporation chairmen and contested MLA candidates, corporators and other key functionaries. While the public meeting will be held during the evening hours, a meeting of the Political Affairs Committee (PAC) has also been scheduled on the same day at Gandhi Bhavan prior to the public meeting at L B Stadium.
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
IAF lost jets over ‘political call', says def attache; quoted out of context: Govt
NEW DELHI: IAF lost some fighter jets when it conducted strikes on nine terror hubs in Pakistan and PoK on May 7 because India's political leadership had directed that no military establishments or air defences across the border were to be attacked on that day, India's defence attache to Indonesia, Captain Shiv Kumar, said at a seminar earlier this month. The remarks by Captain Kumar, who is a colonel-rank officer from the Navy, followed an acknowledgment of IAF's initial losses by Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan on May 31 in Singapore but he did not specify the exact number of fighters shot down. Modi govt is yet to officially quantify IAF's losses during Operation Sindoor . Pakistan has claimed to have shot down six Indian fighters, including three French-origin Rafales, on May 7 itself - an assertion that CDS Chauhan dubbed as "absolutely incorrect". Captain Kumar's comments led Congress to renew its attack on govt over its handling of Operation Sindoor. Speaking at a seminar on 'Analysis of the Pakistan-India Air Battle and Indonesia's Anticipatory Strategies from the Perspective of Air Power' on June 10, Capt Kumar said he "may not agree (with an earlier Indonesian speaker's claim) that we lost so many aircraft, but I do agree we did lose some aircraft and that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack their military establishments and air defences". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Преносим лазерен заваръчен пистолет, 50% отстъпка днес HL Купете сега Undo "After the loss, we changed our tactics and we went for the military installations (and radar sites). So, we first achieved suppression of enemy air defences and then that's why all our attacks could easily go through using Brahmos missiles (on May 10)," he further said, his comments being in line with CDS Chauhan's statement in May that after initial losses, Indian armed forces took remedial measures and were able to carry out precision strikes at Pakistan's airbases. After Capt Kumar's 20-day-old remarks came to light and were cited by Congress to criticise govt, Indian embassy in Indonesia said Capt Kumar's remarks "have been quoted out of context and the media reports are a mis-representation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker". "The presentation conveyed that the Indian armed forces serve under civilian political leadership, unlike some other countries in our neighbourhood. It was also explained that the objective of Operation Sindoor was to target terrorist infrastructure and the Indian response was non-escalatory," it posted on X. Earlier, the CDS had said in Singapore, "What I can say is that on May 7, in the initial stages, there were losses. Numbers are not important. What was important is why did these losses occur, and what we will do after that."
Hans India
25 minutes ago
- Hans India
Mandating Hindi and secularism debate may boomerang on BJP
The recent moves by the saffron dispensation, making Hindi mandatory as the third language from Classes 1 to 5 in Maharashtra and questioning the words 'socialism' and 'secularism' in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution, are unfortunate. Driven by ideological zeal, the moves are unlikely to benefit either the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or the nation as a whole. Instead, they risk further polarising of an already fractured political landscape and diverting national attention from pressing developmental challenges. The decision to enforce Hindi as a mandatory third language in a state with a rich linguistic heritage and a strong Marathi identity has raised eyebrows. India is a diverse, multilingual country where language has always been a sensitive issue. The attempt to impose Hindi on non-Hindi-speaking states has historically been met with fierce resistance, as witnessed during the anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu in the 1960s and also Karnataka. Such moves are often perceived as efforts to impose cultural hegemony rather than promote national unity. Language in India is deeply intertwined with identity, and the compulsion to learn Hindi, especially in regions with their dominant languages, is viewed as an encroachment on local cultures and traditions. While promoting Hindi as a link language is understandable in a country with numerous regional tongues, making it mandatory at the primary education level risks alienating large sections of the population. Simultaneously, the move to question the inclusion of 'socialism' and 'secularism' in the Preamble to the Constitution opens another front of ideological conflict. These words were added to the Preamble during the 42nd Amendment in 1976. While it is valid to debate constitutional provisions in a healthy democracy, the timing and tone of this scrutiny suggest a larger effort to recalibrate the foundational ethos of the Republic in line with a narrow ideological vision. Secularism is ingrained in Indian ethos, serving as a guiding principle for policy-making and governance. Questioning these principles risks unsettling the delicate balance that holds together India's immensely diverse social fabric. The inclusion of socialism in the Preamble is problematic, indeed against the spirit of the Constitution, because technically it prohibits anti-socialist parties. But then, the Preamble has never posed a problem to the formulation and execution of post-liberalisation policies, which were often anti-socialist. So, the Sangh Parivar's aversion to the two words is pointless. Such ideological pursuits risk shifting focus away from the real, tangible issues facing the nation—unemployment, inflation, agrarian distress, public healthcare, education quality, environmental degradation, and growing economic inequalities. Instead of addressing these pressing concerns, the political discourse is increasingly consumed by symbolic and divisive debates that offer little substantive improvement to citizens' everyday lives. Worse, these aggressive ideological moves don't even serve the BJP's political interests. In fact, they can do the opposite; for instance, estranged cousins Uddhav Thackeray and Raj Thackeray have reportedly agreed to join hands to oppose this decision. A doctrinaire approach may please the party's cadre and ideological purists, but it will alienate moderate voters and regional allies, potentially undermining its broader electoral appeal. India's electorate, particularly the youth, is increasingly aspirational and impatient with distractions that do not improve their economic prospects or social mobility. While ideological debates are an intrinsic part of a vibrant democracy, the saffron dispensation's current trajectory risks deepening divisions and sidelining essential developmental issues.
