'Will Beat You...': Nishikant Dubey Dares Raj Thackeray To Visit UP, Bihar Amid Marathi Row
Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi hit out at Dubey and asked who made him the decision maker of what other party leaders should be doing
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey on Monday dared Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray to visit Bihar and Uttar Pradesh amid a row over the Marathi language and said he will be beaten up if he travels to the two states of the Hindi belt.
Dubey's remarks came days after MNS workers assaulted a food stall owner in Thane district's Bhayandar for not speaking Marathi.
Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) workers assaulted a food stall owner in Thane district's Bhayandar for not speaking Marathi, and a businessman in Mumbai issuing a statement declaring he would not speak Marathi despite having lived in the city for many years.
'You people are surviving on our money. What kind of industries do you have?… If you are courageous enough and beat those who speak Hindi, then you should beat all those who speak Urdu, Tamil, and Telugu. If you are such a big 'boss', come out of Maharashtra, come to Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu – 'tumko patak patak ke maarenge'… We all respect Marathi and the people of Maharashtra, who fought for India's independence," Dubey said.
#WATCH | Guwahati, Assam | On Raj Thackeray's remark 'beat but don't make a video', BJP MP Nishikant Dubey says, '…You people are surviving on our money. What kind of industries do you have?… If you are courageous enough and beat those who speak Hindi, then you should beat… pic.twitter.com/gRvAjtD0iW — ANI (@ANI) July 7, 2025
The BJP member accused Raj Thackeray and Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackery of doing 'cheap politics" over Marathi ahead of the BMC election. 'If they have courage – they should go to Mahim and beat any Hindi or Urdu speaking people in front of Mahim dargah," he said.
Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi hit out at Dubey and asked who made him the decision maker of what other party leaders should be doing.
She also asked if Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis agreed with their party MP's language with regard to the people of Maharashtra and his disparaging comments about hard-working people of the state.
'Who made him the gatekeeper of Hindi? Who made him the tax keeper of India? Who made him the spokesperson of industrialists? Who made him the decision maker of what other party leaders should be doing?" she asked in a post on X.
Who made him the gatekeeper of Hindi?Who made him the tax keeper of India?Who made him the spokesperson of industrialists?Who made him the decision maker of what other party leaders should be doing?Does @Dev_Fadnavis ji agree with their party MP's language with regards to… https://t.co/CWubjlO174
— Priyanka Chaturvedi🇮🇳 (@priyankac19) July 7, 2025
Taking cognisance of incidents of violence over Marathi, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Friday said while there was nothing wrong in expecting people to speak Marathi in the state, it was unacceptable to resort to violence for its insistence and that one cannot be 'obstinate" about it. He also warned of legal action against those taking the law into their hands over the issue.
For the first time in two decades, Uddhav and Raj Thackeray held a joint rally on June 5 to mark their 'success" in getting the Devendra Fadnavis dispensation to withdraw two government resolutions (GRs) on the three-language policy under NEP 2020 and teaching of Hindi from Class 1 in English and Marathi medium schools.
At the event, Uddhav and Raj Thackeray, leaders of the Shiv Sena (UBT) and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, respectively, had vowed to oppose all attempts by the government to 'impose" Hindi and 'sideline" Marathi in the state.
(with inputs from ANI, PTI)
First Published:
July 07, 2025, 17:06 IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
34 minutes ago
- Hans India
Communal strife being fuelled under Cong rule, says BJP chief
Bengaluru: The BJP has alleged that a systematic conspiracy is underway to incite communal strife between two communities in the state. According to the party, anti-national elements are growing bolder with the Congress government's backing. Addressing reporters in Shivamogga on Monday, BJP state President and MLA B.Y. Vijayendra said, 'Anti-national elements are becoming stronger in Karnataka, particularly in the coastal region. Forces that do not want peace and aim to create communal discord are ensuring that untoward incidents continue to occur.' 'The tragedy is that the state government is not taking this seriously. Whether it's the murder of Hindu activist Suhas Shetty, the Mysuru police station attack, or incidents of violence during Tipu Jayanti in our Shivamogga district -- trouble is recurring during festivals like Ganesh Chaturthi. These disruptive forces feel emboldened because they know they are protected by the state government,' he alleged. 'Due to the inaction of the government, these anti-national elements are becoming more daring. They believe that no one will hold them accountable because the government is on their side,' he added. 'There is a situation where the fence is eating the crop. In this background, such disturbing incidents are taking place. The BJP strongly condemns this. The Chief Minister and the Home Minister -- who is one only in name -- must pay attention to this situation,' Vijayendra said. Commenting on the recent spate of heart attack cases in Hassan district, he said, 'A series of heart attacks are being reported, especially among young people, and lives are being lost. Shockingly, the district's in-charge minister has not visited the area in the past three months. This is the height of irresponsibility. One does not need further evidence to see how callously the Congress-led government is running the state.' Turning to the state's financial condition, he said, 'The state's economy has collapsed. The Financial Advisor to the Chief Minister, Bavaraj Rayareddy, has stated that if people want roads and other development works, the government will have to stop the guarantee schemes.' 'When the BJP points out that the Congress-led government is struggling to pay salaries, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah claims that everything is fine,' Vijayendra said. 'But through Rayareddy, the Chief Minister has made it clear to the public that funds for development cannot be allocated unless the guarantee schemes are first delivered. This government has pushed the state into a financial crisis.' 'The people are tired of this government and are regretting bringing it to power. That is the reality. The damage caused is so deep that no Chief Minister will be able to easily fix Karnataka's economy,' he concluded.
Hans India
34 minutes ago
- Hans India
Even the first citizen is answerable under the RTI Act!
A Telugu phrase says: 'Darina poye daanayya' (anybody who walks in the street). According to Cambridge Dictionary, 'Tom, Dick, and Harry' is an idiom that refers to ordinary people, anyone, or everybody. It's often used to indicate that something is not exclusive and is available to or intended for the general public. The question is: whether a citizen can ask for information from the President of India under the Right to Information Act? Who is a citizen? Should one prove his or her citizenship and if so how? Even a passport is not proof of citizenship, according to the Union Home Minister. This writer also does not have proof of citizenship. Under the Right to Information, a PIO (Public Information Officer), who is supposed to provide information, cannot demand proof of citizenship. Can the PIO prove whether he has citizenship? If a PIO asks for citizenship proof, it means he has denied an individual of RTI. Under the RTI Act, he is liable to pay a Rs 25000 penalty. In this case the question was sent to the President; it is the story of the RTI question. How the RTI gave the 'details' of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, former President, is very interesting, as explained by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi. One Subhash Chandra Agrawal had on August 9, 2010, filed a petition under RTI. Shailesh explained: The institutions of democracy had not become robust enough to withstand an assault, and it is imperative for citizens to know the reasons why and how democracy in India was nearly lost. He allowed an appeal, directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) and under-secretary at the President's Secretariat to provide the complete information on the declaration of internal emergency by the then president, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. Gandhi said, 'The Commission cannot pass any direction in this regard, as it does not come within the Commission's powers as mandated under the RTI Act. Now that various functionaries like ministers, judges, and Information Commissioners have voluntarily put up details of their assets on websites, it is for the President to take a decision on this matter. The PIO's reply was therefore correct.' The PIO also stated that the issue of whether exchanges between the President of India and the Prime Minister can be revealed under the RTI Act was the subject matter of a petition before the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court, in a nine-judge bench decision in the SR Bommai & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors (AIR 1994 SC 1918), discussed the meaning and scope of Article 74 of the Constitution of India. Specifically, as regards Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court of India observed as follows: '… Then comes Clause (2) of Article 74 which says that the question 'whether any, and if so, what advice was tendered by the Ministers to the President shall not be enquired into in any Court.' The idea behind Clause (2) is this: the Court is not to enquire—it is not concerned with—whether any advice was tendered by any Minister or Council of Ministers to the President, and if so, what was that advice. That is a matter between the President and his Council of Ministers. What advice was tendered, whether it was required to be reconsidered, what advice was tendered after reconsideration, if any, what was the opinion of the President, whether the advice was changed pursuant to further discussion, if any, and how the ultimate decision was arrived at, are all matters between the President and his Council of Ministers. They are beyond the ken of the Court. The Court is not to go into it. It is enough that there is an order/act of the President in appropriate form. It will take it as the order/act of the President. It is concerned only with the validity of the order and legality of the proceeding or action taken by the President in exercise of his functions and not with what happened in the inner Councils of the President and his Ministers. No one can challenge such decision or action on the ground that it is not in accordance with the advice tendered by the Ministers or that it is based on no advice. If, in a given case, the President acts without, or contrary to, the advice tendered to him, it may be a case warranting his impeachment, but so far as the Court is concerned, it is the act of the President…' (Emphasis added) The Supreme Court ruled that this obligation could not be evaded by seeking refuge under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, while interpreting the scope of Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, clearly laid down in SR Bommai that Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India merely barred an enquiry into the question whether any, and if so, what advice was tendered by the council of ministers to the president. It did not bar the court from calling upon the council of ministers to disclose to the court the material upon which the President had formed the requisite satisfaction. The material on the basis of which advice was tendered did not become a part of the advice. Even if the material was looked into by, or shown, to the president, it did not take the character of advice. 'Given that the advice tendered by the council of ministers to the president enjoys the Constitutional protection of Article 74(2) and cannot be disclosed to the courts, a citizen under the RTI Act cannot seek information pertaining to such advice. However, the Supreme Court has held that the materials on the basis of which such advice is tendered by the council of ministers or on the basis of which the president forms the requisite satisfaction is not covered by Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. Since Article 74(2) does not cover such material, it can be accessed under the RTI Act, subject only to the exemptions under the RTI Act.' He wrote in the Second Appeal 'complete and detailed information on all documents/ records/ deliberations/ correspondence/ file notings on declaration of internal emergency in the country by Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, the then president is not barred from disclosure under Article 74 of the Constitution of India; only the advice received by the then president from the then prime minister is protected from disclosure under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India (in line with the ruling in SR Bommai) and therefore cannot be provided to the appellant under the RTI Act.' It was based on and the report of Moneylife on the website. 18 June 2013. Being a former President, he committed a serious blunder. How can such a Constitutional wrong be repaired by a Right to Information petition? The people of India need to answer! (The writer is Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Ludhiana: Eyeing harmony with anti-sacrilege law: Arora
Punjab cabinet minister and Aam Aadmi Party's (AAP) state president Aman Arora on Monday said the aim behind the government's plan to introduce a robust law to prevent acts of sacrilege was to ensure religious harmony. Addressing the media during a visit to the Sudhar Trust in Khanna, accompanied by fellow cabinet ministers Tarunpreet Singh Sond and Harbhajan Singh ETO, Arora emphasised the urgent need for a strong legal framework to preserve Punjab's communal harmony. People's welfare is in focus, says Aman Arora. (HT Photo) Citing past incidents such as the Bargari-Behbal Kalan sacrilege of Guru Granth Sahib, which disturbed peace in the state, Arora said, 'With this new law, we will ensure that such acts are deterred through strict legal consequences.' He reiterated the Mann-led government's commitment to restoring Punjab's prosperity and vibrancy. He emphasised that every decision made by the Mann-led government is driven by a commitment to the progress, welfare and betterment of Punjab's people. Arora also issued a stern warning to those exploiting Punjab through violence, corruption or drug trafficking. 'Those who amass wealth through unlawful means will face the consequences of their actions,' he stated, reinforcing the government's zero-tolerance stance on crime and corruption. Grewal demands inclusion of Hindu temples and idols in sacrilege Bill Senior BJP leader and prominent Sikh figure Sukhminderpal Singh Grewal accused the AAP government of adopting a 'selective and vote-bank-driven' approach in drafting the sacrilege Bill, which is expected to be tabled during a special session of the Punjab Assembly on July 10 and 11. Grewal urged the government to broaden the scope of the bill to protect all religious communities. 'If this government is sincere, it must include Pran Pratishthit Hindu temples and idols in the Bill. Anything less would be a betrayal to millions of Hindus whose sacred spaces have also faced repeated attacks,' he said. 'For years, Hindu temples have been vandalised and desecrated under this government's nose. The AAP dispensation has conveniently turned a blind eye. Are Hindu sentiments expendable in Punjab politics? Are they just not vote-worthy enough for the Mann government?' he questioned. While welcoming the inclusion of Sri Guru Granth Sahib in the proposed Bill, he said, 'The BJP holds the Guru Granth Sahib in the highest spiritual and national esteem.'
