Demanding creation of ‘National Commission for Men', bikers on 16,000-km journey
The bikers, led by internationally recognised riders Dr Amjadkhan Nadim Shaikh and Sandeep Pawaria, addressed the media at the Chandigarh Press Club. Their second edition of the awareness ride began on May 31 from Faridabad. Riding over 500 km daily, the team is halting in major cities to hold press conferences and public interactions.
'Rain, heat or storm — nothing can stop this mission,' said Dr Shaikh, underscoring the group's resolve despite monsoon disruptions. Pawaria added, 'A Men's Commission must be formed. All are equal, whether man or woman. Yet, men are being disrespected even within their families. This isn't confined to one state; it's a nationwide issue.'
The movement is backed by over 40 NGOs across India. Rohit Dogra, a founding member of the Save India Family (Chandigarh chapter), stressed the urgency of institutional action. 'Cruelty against men is three times more than against women. There's a growing gender war in the country, and if the government doesn't act, it will only escalate,' he said. 'We're not against women. We are against gender-biased laws.'
Quoting Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, Dogra asked why men are excluded from its promise in practice. 'The government speaks of equality under Article 15, which prohibits gender-based discrimination, but there is none for men. Article 21 promises life and personal liberty, yet no one cares about men's life or liberty.'
The campaign gained national attention following the Atul Subhash case, in which a man from Maharashtra died by suicide in April this year, allegedly after being falsely accused in a domestic violence case. Men's rights groups claim his case reflects the broader misuse of gender-specific laws and the lack of institutional mechanisms to support male victims. On April 19, members of the campaign held a protest at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, calling for urgent policy intervention and recognition of male abuse survivors.
Among those supporting the ride is Shalini Ranyal, a biker and podcaster. 'Through my podcast and this ride, I stand equally for both men and women. Women have laws and NGOs; men have almost nothing. That needs to change,' she said. According to Ranyal, 80 to 90 men and women riders have joined the cause so far.
The bikers have already travelled through Lucknow, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Patna, Kolkata, Jaipur, and Goa. Their next stretch includes Jammu, Kargil, Leh, Manali, Shimla, and will conclude with their return to Delhi.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
32 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)
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
It's anti-people: Mayawati on rail fare hike
Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati on Tuesday slammed the Centre for the hike in railway passenger fare from July 1. Terming the decision of the railway ministry to increase the fares 'against the general public interest and more of a business-minded decision rather than the welfare objective of the Constitution', she demanded that the government should immediately withdraw the hike. BSP chief Mayawati. (HT file) Addressing a press conference in Lucknow, the BSP chief said, 'As it is known that when most of the people of the country are suffering and unhappy due to hunger, inflation, poverty, unemployment and decrease in income, the increase in the train fare in the country by the Centre in such a situation seems to be a decision taken against the general public interest.' Mayawati alleged that the practice of increasing the exploitation of the common man by increasing the burden on their daily life through railways just like GST in the name of 'Nation First' was extremely unfair. 'It would be better if the government reconsiders it immediately,' she said. 'For crores of people here, the train journey is not a fashion, pleasure or tourism, rather it is a very painful journey and compulsion due to the increasing poverty, inflation, acute shortage of respectable permanent employment in the country, compulsion to leave their homes and migrate to feed the family,' she claimed. The government should not adopt a commercial approach towards them but treat them with sympathy and welfare, she said and added this has been everyone's expectation. 'Therefore, instead of worrying only for its own benefit and for a handful of rich and prosperous people, the government should take proper care of the crores of people of the country who are yearning to live a life of self-respect,' Mayawati said. 'Around 95 crore people in the country have been forced to become beneficiaries of at least one social welfare scheme of the government. Due to this, the number of such helpless people has increased to about 64.3 per cent in the current year 2025, whereas in 2016 this number was only about 22 per cent,' the BSP chief alleged. Attacking the BJP government in Delhi, she alleged that it was adopting an anti-people attitude of ruthlessly displacing the poor and those who migrate from other states, especially from UP, Bihar and Bengal for livelihood, without making any other arrangements. 'Their slums are being demolished so ruthlessly that it is very sad and shameful,' she alleged, stressing that the Delhi government says it is following the court's order. But, the honourable court did not say that you should displace them without making any other arrangements. The court has definitely said you should remove them but the court did not say that you should not make any other arrangements for them, she said. 'It is the responsibility of the government to first make alternative arrangements to settle them before removing their slums,' Mayawati added.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Trump it all
A former associate editor with the Times of India, Jug Suraiya writes two regular columns for the print edition, Jugular Vein, which appears every Friday, and Second Opinion, which appears on Wednesdays. His blog takes a contrarian view of topical and timeless issues, political, social, economic and speculative. LESS ... MORE From sea to shining sea, America sees the Don of a new era Second Opinion was granted an exclusive interview with the White House. Second Opinion: Mr President, thank you so much for… White House (interrupting): Drop this Mr President crap. Call me by my new title, Mr Permanent Resident. SO: But doesn't making yourself the Permanent Resident go against the Constitution? PR: Heck, no, There's nothing wrong with my constitution. Cholesterol, BP, all great. SO: I meant the Constitution of US, the Bill of Rights, and all that. PR: The heck with the Bill of Rights. Don't you know that two rights make a wrong. SO: I think it's two wrongs that don't make a right… PR: Rights, wrongs, what's the diff? Anyways, I'm having a ball with my new sidekick Bibi in Tel Aviv as side by side we kick ass in Iran. SO: What happened to your sidekick, Elon? PR: He turned out to be a softie, a real Musk melon. So I took him aside and kicked his ass. SO: But mightn't all this sidekicking in Iran lead to World War III? PR: World War III? I didn't know that there'd been I and II. But a good sequel will sure make me a bomb. SO: I think World War III will involve bombs of a different sort…But tell us how your plans to make America great again are coming along. PR: They're coming along real swell. Time is making me the Man of the Era. SO: Wow! That's wonderful. When did that happen? PR: It happened right after I made Time the MAGAzine of the Era. But now you're gonna have to excuse me. I gotta go and ICE some illegal immigrants, like this bimbo who was smuggled in from France or someplace, and is carryin' on about huddled masses yearnin' to breathe free. SO: You're deporting Liberty? PR: Yeah, the Statute of Liberty… Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
