Ashura Observed Peacefully In Srinagar; LG Manoj Sinha Joins Procession
Amid tight security, the 10th of Muharram, also known as Ashura, was observed in Srinagar with deep religious reverence, particularly by the Shia Muslim community. This day commemorates the martyrdom of Imam Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad, who was killed in the Battle of Karbala in 680 AD.
The Jammu and Kashmir administration permitted the traditional Ashura procession along the historic route from Bota Kadal to Imambara Zadibal, under strict guidelines to maintain communal harmony and public order. Thousands of mourners participated in the procession, with Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha joining at Bota Kadal. He distributed water and refreshments and offered a ceremonial 'Chaddar' to the Zuljanah, symbolising solidarity and goodwill.
Security arrangements were stringent, with police and civil administration ensuring safety and traffic management. The District Magistrate imposed specific conditions banning anti-national slogans, provocative symbols, or actions that could disrupt communal harmony. This marked the third consecutive year that the 10th Muharram procession was allowed in Srinagar after a 35-year ban was lifted in 2023, reflecting a broader move towards peace and normalcy in the region. The entire route of the procession was declared traffic-free and was guarded by armed personnel from the police and the CRPF.
Despite a reported violation during the earlier 8th Muharram procession where legal action was taken against individuals for provocative acts. The 10th Muharram procession remained peaceful. Apart from a picture of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei, no flags of any other country or organisation were seen in the procession. The large procession began from Bota Kadal in downtown Srinagar and concluded at the Imambara in Zadibal.
The highlight of the procession was Zuljanah, the symbolic horse of Imam Hussain.
Zuljanah holds profound significance in the Shia Muslim community as the loyal horse of Imam Hussain, who is believed to have remained faithful until the Imam's martyrdom. It is a central focus of the 10th Muharram observance in Shia Islam, representing resistance against tyranny and oppression. During Muharram—particularly on the 10th day—Shia communities worldwide honor Zuljanah through processions featuring a decorated, riderless horse or its replica, symbolizing Imam Hussain's martyrdom and the horse's role in the battle. Zuljanah is revered as the Imam's final companion when human allies had forsaken him.
Shia mourners express deep affection by touching, kissing, or feeding the horse or its replica. Many also pass their children under the horse, viewing it as a means of connecting with Imam Hussain's sacrifice.
According to historical narratives, during the Battle of Karbala, Zuljanah shielded Imam Hussain from enemy attacks, taking arrows meant for him. After the Imam's martyrdom, the bloodied and wounded horse returned to the camp to alert his family, an act symbolising unwavering devotion and sacrifice. This underscores the Shia emphasis on loyalty to the Prophet's family and the importance of standing firm against injustice.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
4 hours ago
- Hans India
Three Maoists surrender
Phulbani: Three Maoists, including two women, hailing from Chhattisgarh, on Monday surrendered before security forces in Kandhamal district, police said. The surrendered Maoists were identified as Made Beti alias Champa, a divisional committee member of BGN (Basadhara-Ghumsur-Nagabali) division of the CPI (Maoist) outfit, Raju Dodi alias Ajay (area committee member) and Admo Madvi alias Manju (area committee member) of KKBN (Kalahandi-Kandhamal-Boudh-Nayagarh) division of the outlawed organisation. They surrendered here before senior Odisha Police and CRPF officers, including IGP, Southern Range, Niti Shekhar, Kandhamal SP and CRPF's 127 battalion commandant. 'They surrendered as they were disillusioned because of the intensified and sustained combing operations, and also due to the attractive surrender policy of the government,' Kandhamal SP Harish B C said. 'We have intensified combing operations in Maoist-affected areas to curb LWE activities in Kandhamal,' Harish added. The surrendered cadres were involved in several violent incidents in both Odisha and Chhattisgarh. 'We once again appeal to all the Maoists to shun violence and join the mainstream,' IGP Niti Shekhar told reporters.
United News of India
17 hours ago
- United News of India
Iranian supreme leader makes first public appearance post war with Israel
Tehran, July 7 (UNI) Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei made his first public appearance in the country yesterday, post Tehran's 12-day war with Israel. The appearance got a mixed reception, with the state media and political leaders backing it, though it was reportedly dismissed or slammed by several, both within the country and outside it. According to Iran International, Former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif heaped praise on the leader who had not been seen in public since June 10 before his reappearance at a religious ceremony on the night of July 5. 'The fearless presence of Ali Khamenei in a traditional public gathering permanently shattered the delusional lies that paid pundits have been pushing. Time to wake up and admit that Iranians never surrender,' he said. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, called the reappearance 'the most beautiful image I saw upon arriving in Brazil' as he arrived for the BRICS summit, and added: 'With you, one can brave the seas.' Mehdi Fazaeli, a member of Khamenei's office, wrote on X that "the mourning hall exploded", referring to the crowds' excitement for the reappearance of the elusive leader at the mourning ceremony held on the occasion of Ashura. Public sentiment however, has been extremely negative with some even calling him out for his 'shameless' reappearance 'after sowing death and destruction in the country', vehemently criticising him for coming back. Iranian Nobel laureate and lawyer Shirin Ebadi criticised Khamenei on her Telegram page, saying that while he emerged from his bolthole, the Iranian public who had no shelter from the Israeli barrage were left mourning. "History will record him as a dictator of the same era as Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Mubarak — but one who lacked even a shred of dignity," Ebadi said. "Unlike other dictators who at least believed in themselves, he begged for power, and in complete contradiction to the ideals he once shouted from the rooftops, appeared on the eve of Ashura with a smile among a group of hand-picked loyalists saying they were ready to sacrifice their lives for him — while political prisoners and ordinary people had already been sacrificed as his human shields.' Many Iranians viewed his appearance as little more than a sign of a desperate way to save face and be on the public's good side, with netizens derisively mocking him as 'Supreme Mouse', 'Spineless Great Satan', and accused him of cowardly hiding while making grand speeches, all the while using the public as 'meat shields.'
India Today
18 hours ago
- India Today
Why judiciary stares at potential first impeachment of a high court judge
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated July 14, 2025)In the complex world of Indian politics, where decisions are often made behind closed doors, parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju is on a sensitive mission. He is working to gather support from leaders across party lines for what could be a landmark moment in India's judicial history—the first impeachment of a high court judge, Justice Yashwant story that began with a fire in the judge's outhouse now transcends a simple corruption scandal. It lays bare the fault lines between India's judiciary and executive, exposing tensions that have simmered since the nation's founding. Dark clouds are gathering over the capital in more ways than one, and as the monsoon session of Parliament approaches, the case raises profound questions about evidence, process and power. Who watches the watchers when the watchers themselves stand accused? And what happens when the machinery of accountability becomes a weapon in institutional warfare? THE FIRE THAT LIT A THOUSAND QUESTIONS March 14, 2025, began as an ordinary Friday for the residents of Tughlaq Crescent, Delhi's tree-lined avenue housing judges and diplomats. Justice Varma, then serving on the Delhi High Court, was away in Bhopal with his wife. His daughter Diya remained at the No. 30 official residence, a sprawling bungalow. The household staff went about their routines, the CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) guards maintained their posts, and nothing suggested that this night would alter the trajectory of Indian approximately 11:35 pm, Diya heard what she later described as an explosion. Racing toward the sound with household staff, she discovered flames erupting from a locked storeroom situated near the servants' quarters, separated from the main residence by a boundary wall. Neither the CRPF personnel nor the guards stationed at the main gate initially responded, a detail that would later fuel conspiracy the Delhi Fire Services arrived, breaking open the padlocked door with the help of security personnel, they encountered a scene that defied explanation. Station officer Manoj Mehlawat's spontaneous exclamation, captured on a firefighter's phone video, gave the case its most memorable soundbite: 'Mahatma Gandhi mein aag lag rahi hai (Mahatma Gandhi is on fire)'. The reference was unmistakable: stacks of 500-rupee notes bearing Gandhi's image lay burning on the floor, some charred, others half-consumed by fire brigade's divisional officer, Suman Kumar, would later testify that he had 'never seen anything like it' in his career. Multiple witnesses, including firefighters and police personnel, described currency notes piled up to one and a half feet high. Yet what happened next, or rather, what didn't happen, would prove equally significant. The Delhi Police took no action to secure evidence. No seizure memo was prepared, no panchnama drawn up. Not a single currency note was preserved for forensic examination. By dawn, the burnt cash had vanished, reportedly removed by persons unknown while the crime scene lay unguarded. News of the midnight fire might have remained buried in routine police logs had not someone—the identity remains unknown—leaked the information to the media days later. The story exploded across news channels as the image of currency burning at a judge's residence struck at something fundamental in public Supreme Court's institutional machinery responded with uncharacteristic speed. Within days, then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, requested a preliminary report from Delhi High Court chief justice D.K. Upadhyaya, who said that 'the entire matter warrants a deeper probe'. The SC collegium, in an extraordinary meeting, proposed Varma's immediate transfer to his parent high court in Allahabad, a clear signal the judiciary was distancing itself from potential Varma's actions, or lack thereof, on his return to Delhi on March 15 would later become central to the case against him. He did not visit the burnt storeroom immediately. He filed no police complaint about what he would later claim was a conspiracy to frame him. He accepted his transfer to the Allahabad HC without protest. To his critics, this behaviour suggested guilt. To his defenders, it reflected the shock and confusion of a man blindsided by events beyond his March 22, CJI Khanna constituted a three-member committee including Justices Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana HC), G.S. Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh HC) and Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka HC to conduct an 'inhouse inquiry'. Their 64-page report, submitted on May 3, reads like a judicial indictment. The committee found that 'cash/money was found in the storeroom' based on 'direct and electronic evidence'. More damningly, they concluded that access to this room was under the 'covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family members'. Through what they termed 'strong inferential evidence', they determined that Varma's most trusted staff, private secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and domestic helpers, had removed the burnt cash in the early hours of March allegedly instructed firefighters not to mention currency in their reports. The storeroom was cleaned the next day, destroying potential evidence. When questioned, household staff claimed ignorance but the committee found these denials unconvincing when weighed against the independent testimony of fire and police significantly, the committee addressed Justice Varma's defence, or lack thereof. His claim that the storeroom was accessible to outsiders was contradicted by security personnel who testified that the area was always locked and monitored. His failure to report a conspiracy, if he truly believed one existed, struck the committee as the other side, Justice Varma's objections went beyond mere procedure. The committee, he noted, had already framed its inquiry around three presumptive questions: How does he account for the money in the room? What was its source? Who removed it? These questions, Varma argued, assumed that the money he claimed never belonged to him was his. Also, the committee's fact-finding mandate meant it operated without the safeguards of a proper judicial inquiry, no examination of witnesses on oath, no rules of evidence, no formal procedures to check the testimony's veracity. 1. Panel took stock of 55 witness testimonies, forensic examination of videos/ photos, as well as triangulation of electronic and call records to come to its findingsadvertisement2. Multiple visuals of charred currency retrieved. In one video, a fire officer is heard saying, 'Mahatma Gandhi mein aag lag rahi hai bhai,' referring to the image on the Rs 500 notes3. Varma's private secretary Rajinder Karki led clean-up after the blaze, raising concerns about deliberate tampering. Karki talked to Justice Varma at 1:23 am on March 15, the window when evidence may have been removed4. Varma's daughter Diya initially admitted knowing about the burnt cash on March 15, later attempted to retract statement5. Hard disk of CCTV camera monitoring storeroom is missing. Panel concluded that if footage supported his claims, Varma had ample time to produce it to prove his innocence6. When questioned by the CJI, Justice Varma could not account for the origin/ownership of the cash allegedly found at his premises QUESTIONS OVER THE INVESTIGATIONWhen CJI Khanna, acting on the committee's report, advised Varma to resign within 48 hours, the judge's response was unequivocal. His letter of June 6 rejecting this advice struck notes of both defiance and despair. 'To accept such advice would imply my acquiescence to a process and outcome that I respectfully consider to be fundamentally unjust,' he nothing illustrates the case's irregularities more starkly than what investigators chose not to investigate. Former law minister Kapil Sibal, reviewing the case, identifies gaps that seem less like oversights and more deliberate omissions. No forensic examination determined the fire's cause. Justice Varma's claim of an explosion was dismissed without investigation. The CCTV cameras monitoring the storeroom, potentially the most crucial evidence, had mysteriously stopped working, their data irretrievably lost by the time investigators sought it. The committee noted this failure but drew no adverse inference, instead blaming Justice Varma for not preserving footage even though he had 10 days to do so and prove his Delhi Police's conduct raised even more questions. Here were law enforcement officers witnessing evidence of a serious crime, yet they took no action. When questioned later, the officers claimed that they were told by superiors that 'higher-ups are involved' and they should take no further action. This investigative paralysis extended to the committee itself. While acknowledging police conduct as 'slipshod', they declined to probe deeper, stating it was 'not part of their remit'. They made no attempt to trace where the cash originated, whether it was genuine or counterfeit, or how it came to be in the storeroom. The amount itself remained a matter of speculation; media reports suggested Rs 15 crore, but no official count was ever IMPEACHMENT PUZZLEAs Parliament prepares for Justice Varma's impeachment, the process itself has become contentious. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, impeachment follows a prescribed route: MPs submit a motion, the speaker or chairman admits it, a three-judge panel investigates, and only if found guilty does Parliament debate and vote. This statutory process includes crucial safeguards, including right to legal representation and evidence taken on minister Rijiju has suggested the government views this case as 'slightly different', hinting they might bypass the statutory inquiry since an inhouse committee has already submitted a report. This approach has alarmed constitutional experts. As Indira Jaising, who participated in India's first (unsuccessful) impeachment proceedings against an SC judge in 1991, warned, conflating the inhouse procedure with statutory requirements 'undermines Justice Varma's right to a fair procedure' and violates the law government's selective urgency becomes more apparent when contrasted with another pending impeachment. Since December 2024, 55 Rajya Sabha MPs have sought action against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad HC for alleged inflammatory communal remarks at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event. Six months later, Vice-President and RS chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar claims he's still verifying signatures. Meanwhile, Dhankhar wrote to the CJI asking him not to proceed with an inhouse inquiry against Justice Yadav, yet he now champions swift action against Justice Varma based solely on such an inquiry. THE DEEPER GAMEThe impeachment drama is also set to become a test case in the ongoing struggle between India's judiciary and the Modi government. Since the SC struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015, declaring it unconstitutional for giving the executive too much power over judicial appointments, tensions have escalated. The government has chafed at the collegium system, where judges appoint judges, viewing it as unaccountable. Various ministers and even V-P Dhankhar have publicly criticised judicial overreach and called for greater executive oversight. The Varma case provides potent ammunition. Here's a judge with unexplained cash, and the judiciary's own investigation found him guilty. What better argument for external oversight?Yet the implications run deeper. Some experts say that by accepting an inhouse report as grounds for impeachment, by bypassing statutory safeguards, the government could set precedents that fundamentally alter judicial independence. Today's weapon against allegedly corrupt judges could become tomorrow's tool for removing inconvenient Varma himself represents a puzzling target. Colleagues describe him as brilliant, particularly in tax law. No whispers of impropriety marked his career. His judgments have reflected careful reasoning rather than ideological bias. Meanwhile, the fundamental mysteries remain unresolved. Whose money was burning that night? How did it arrive in a locked storeroom? The fire's cause stays unexplained. The judge mentioned an explosion while fire officers doubted the short-circuit theory. Yet no forensic examination occurred. The missing CCTV footage that might have shown who accessed the storeroom has also gaps matter because they transform what should be a search for truth into an exercise in presumption. The committee's logic that Varma must be guilty because he couldn't prove his innocence, inverts fundamental principles of justice. As Sibal observed, 'Under which principle of criminal law can you find somebody guilty on a presumption?'Justice Yashwant Varma will likely enter history as India's first successfully impeached judge. But his removal may prove a pyrrhic victory for those seeking judicial accountability. Also, more fundamental questions of systemic judicial corruption remain unanswered. The case underscores the urgent need for structural judicial reforms that eliminate the possibility of unaccounted cash lying hidden in a judge's A JUDGE IS IMPEACHED (Photo: Arun Kumar) In India, a judge of the Supreme Court or a high court can be removed through impeachment, which involves a specific process outlined in the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Here's a breakdown of the process:1) Initiation: A motion for impeachment can be initiated in either the Lok Sabha (at least 100 members must sign) or the Rajya Sabha (at least 50 members must sign). In case of Justice Varma, the motion has already been admitted in Parliament2) Investigation: The presiding officer (speaker of the Lok Sabha or chairman of Rajya Sabha) can refer the motion to a three-member committee for investigation. This committee typically includes the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist. In case of Justice Varma, the Supreme Court's three-member inquiry committee has already recommended his impeachment. There is no clarity if Parliament will go by this recommendation or form a committee of its own to probe the allegations against Justice Varma3) Parliamentary Approval: If the committee finds the judge guilty, the report is presented to the respective House. For the motion to be successful, it must be passed by a special majority (two-thirds of those present and voting, and a majority of the total membership) in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The monsoon session of Parliament is likely to see debate and voting on Justice Varma's impeachment.4) Presidential Order: If both Houses pass the motion with the required majority, it is sent to the President, who then issues an order for the judge's removalSubscribe to India Today Magazine- EndsMust Watch
