Will Manmohan Singh outweigh Congress? Behind SGPC decision to put on hold former PM's portrait
The SGPC's rethink followed objections by Balwant Singh Rajoana, a convict on death row for the assassination of then Congress Chief Minister Beant Singh. In a letter, Rajoana termed the SGPC's move 'inappropriate and unacceptable', while harking to the Congress government's role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
A wary SGPC showed little delay in heeding Rajona's appeal given Sikh sentiments around the Congress's role both in the riots and in the Operation Blue Star that preceded it, when the Army had entered Golden Temple to flush out militants holed in the shrine, under the Indira Gandhi-led Central government. In 1992, in the aftermath of Operation Blue Star, the SAD had stayed away from the elections in response to a boycott call by Sikh militants. He was killed in 1995.
While the anger against the Congress meant that in 2002, the Golden Temple management had denied Amarinder Singh due honour when he visited the shrine for the first time as CM following the Congress's victory in the Assembly polls, the SGPC had been kinder towards Manmohan Singh.
When Manmohan Singh became PM for the first time in 2004, Parkash Badal, the patriarch of the Shiromani Akali Dal – which controls the SGPC – had accompanied him to the Golden Temple, and ensured he was accorded a proper welcome.
On August 11, 2005, addressing the Rajya Sabha, Manmohan Singh apologised for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Before that, no Congress leader of import had done so, with the fact that Manmohan Singh was a Sikh adding more import to his apology.
'I have no hesitation in apologising to the Sikh community. I apologise not only to the Sikh community, but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution,' Manmohan Singh said.
After Manmohan Singh passed away in December last year, SAD president Sukhbir Singh Badal had slammed the BJP-led NDA government over confusion regarding his funeral.
SAD ideologue Harcharan Singh Bains had spoken about how Badal Senior had always enjoyed good relations with Manmohan Singh, despite being critical of the Congress.
The Congress has slammed the SGPC for going back on its decision to put up Manmohan Singh's portrait. Terming the move 'shameful', former Punjab Deputy CM and Gurdaspur MP Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa said: 'It was due to Manmohan Singh that the turban was recognised all over the world. Despite comprising just 2% of the country's population, he remained PM for 10 years. Is it not an achievement we should celebrate? We are not doing any justice to Manmohan Singh by holding this decision (of installing the portrait)… Manmohan Singh gave many projects and funds to Punjab. It is up to Sukhbir to tell us why the former PM's portraits must not be installed at the museum.'
While other Sikh militants often slam the SAD over a host of issues, Rajoana has always stood firmly behind the party. In 2012, Rajoana hit the headlines after he decided against seeking mercy from the President, in turn garnering sympathy for himself and the SAD, which was helming Punjab at the time.
The SAD-BJP government in Punjab then successfully deployed many political and administrative measures to defer Rajoana's hanging. A week before the scheduled hanging, then Jathedar of the Akal Takht Giani Gurbachan Singh, who had conferred the 'Fakhr-e-Quam' title on Badal Senior in 2011, declared Rajoana 'Zinda Shaheed (living martyr)'. The move was seen to have brought Rajoana closer to the SAD and SGPC.
Since 2014, Rajoana has openly appealed to the people to vote for the SAD, whose support base has been dwindling since the 2015 sacrilege incidents under its government in Punjab.
Reduced to just one seat each in the Punjab Assembly as well as the Lok Sabha, the SAD is looking for a boost from any quarter it can find, and hence it is hard for it to ignore Rajoana's demands which appeal to a section of its Panthic base.
Following Rajoana's letter, SGPC secretary Partap Singh said, 'The SGPC respects the sentiments of the Sikh community and believes that a general consensus among Sikhs is essential on this matter. A decision regarding the portrait will be reconsidered in a future meeting of the Executive Committee.'
Bains said the SGPC was the only competent body to take a call on the proposal. 'In my personal opinion, there is nothing personal in the matter as Rajoana's sentiment concerns the anti-Sikh role played by the party which Manmohan Singh represented,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
7 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump sees emergencies everywhere. Judges are considering whether to rein him in
WASHINGTON : Across the U.S. landscape, Donald Trump sees one emergency after another, and that is posing a host of challenges for the federal courts. Since beginning his second term, Trump has declared in dozens of presidential documents that the U.S. faces emergencies requiring him to take extraordinary actions that circumvent normal government processes. That gambit offers him a path of unilateral action instead of the uncertain route of enacting legislation through Congress. On Inauguration Day, Trump declared national emergencies involving energy production, border crossings from Mexico and transnational cartels. In the months since, he has proclaimed that the actions of the International Criminal Court, California water regulations and protests against his immigration policies all constitute emergencies of one form or another. The moves have spurred many lawsuits. While the details vary, the cases share common core questions: When does the law allow Trump to claim power this way? And are the emergencies he is claiming real ones? The president's strategy faces perhaps its biggest test yet on Thursday, when his use of tariffs to address a range of commercial, political and diplomatic issues he has labeled emergencies goes before a federal appeals court in Washington. The case is expected eventually to reach the Supreme Court; if Trump wins, legal experts say he could claim broad unilateral power to regulate the economy. Almost all presidents are aggressive in their use of executive power, but Trump 'has gone further with declaring emergencies than other presidents have," says Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Chicago. Trump early in his second term has built a mixed record in court. Several courts have rejected his proclamation under a 1798 statute, the Alien Enemies Act, that Venezuela is attempting a 'predatory incursion" of U.S. territory through the unauthorized immigration of members of a criminal gang. The president has argued that the law gives him the authority to apprehend Venezuelans and remove them without the typical due process given to immigrants who are residing in the U.S. without permission. In June, a federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed that Trump could use emergency powers to take control of the California National Guard over the objection of its regular commander in chief, Gov. Gavin Newsom, to protect federal personnel and facilities during immigration raids in Los Angeles. Trump enjoyed some success asserting emergency powers during his first term. In 2019, after Congress declined his request to fund a wall along the Mexican border, Trump declared a national emergency and diverted to the project $2.5 billion that lawmakers had appropriated for other purposes. Congress voted to cancel the border emergency, but Trump vetoed the resolution. Lower courts found that Trump exceeded his authority, but a 5-4 Supreme Court issued a temporary order in 2020 allowing him to continue with construction. The justices never got a chance to hear argument over the issue, as President Joe Biden terminated Trump's emergency declaration in January 2021. Biden didn't fare as well when he sought to cancel student-loan debt to mitigate the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2023, the Supreme Court said Biden's plan to forgive $430 billion in debt exceeded the powers Congress granted the president to waive or modify student-loan programs in response to national emergencies. In the tariff litigation, two federal courts found in May that Trump exceeded the authority granted by a 1977 statute, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, when he imposed tariffs to pressure foreign governments to meet U.S. demands. He said one set of tariffs was necessary to prod Canada, China and Mexico to step up their fight against fentanyl smuggling into the U.S., while another aimed to goad countries throughout the world to lower barriers against American exports. The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but it can delegate authority to the president. The 1977 law allows the president to take economic steps to deal with 'unusual and extraordinary" threats to America's 'national security, foreign policy, or economy." Whether the statute provides for tariffs at all is hotly debated, as is the difficult question of whether courts can and should second-guess a president's decision to proclaim that an emergency exists. In court briefs, the New York wine importer VOS Selections and other companies challenging the tariffs say Trump himself acknowledged that there is no emergency. 'At least nine times, Executive Order 14,257 describes the trade deficit as 'large and persistent,'" the plaintiffs say. A persistent problem 'that has been a consistent feature of the U.S. economy for 50 years" can't be deemed an emergency, they say. In reply, the Justice Department says that trade imbalances have grown into an emergency over recent years. But, as it has in other cases, the administration argues that judges are powerless to second-guess Trump's determinations. 'Courts cannot substitute their exercise of discretion for the president's," the government says. Historically, that has been the practice, says Peter Shane, a constitutional scholar at New York University. 'Federal courts are usually pretty deferential to presidential fact-finding when it comes to an emergency," he says. The Constitution provides the executive branch no explicit authority to set aside normal laws, suggesting the framers 'suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies," as Justice Robert Jackson put it in a 1952 opinion. Nonetheless, presidents have over time asserted extraordinary authority to deal with contingencies that Congress didn't anticipate—and take actions that Congress didn't authorize. President Richard Nixon, faced with a Democratic Congress critical of his Vietnam War policies and conservative agenda at home, took unilateral action on several initiatives. Congress tried in the 1970s to reclaim some of the power that Nixon had consolidated in his so-called imperial presidency. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 established procedures for the president to declare emergencies, set a renewable one-year time limit on emergency declarations and gave Congress authority to cancel an emergency declaration. Trump has invoked that act at least eight times this year. Write to Jess Bravin at
Time of India
7 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Don't Control Me': Jaya Bachchan Snaps At Priyanka Chaturvedi During Op Sindoor Speech
During a debate on 'Operation Sindoor' in the Rajya Sabha, MP Jaya Bachchan took jibes at the NDA government. Questioning the symbolic use of the operation's name, she said, 'The real sindoor was wiped off the women's foreheads,' referring to victims' widows. She accused the government of destroying the faith and trust of the people of Kashmir and urged leaders to be humble and responsible. She said that she would not make remarks to provoke a BJP-Congress fight. Meanwhile, Shiv Sena MP Priyanka Chaturvedi was seen giggling and trying to control her laughter during Bachchan's speech in Parliament.#jayabachchan #operationsindoor #rajyasabha #parliamentdebate #ndagovt #kashmir #indianpolitics #priyankachaturvedi #congress #bjp #toi #toibharat Read More
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Saikat Chakrabarti vs Nancy Pelosi: Meet Indian-American challenging Godmother of Dem Party — in her own backyard
TL;DR Saikat Chakrabarti , ex-AOC aide and Justice Democrats co-founder, is running against Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi in California's 11th Congressional District. The Harvard-educated techie turned political organiser accuses Pelosi of refusing to adapt after Trump's re-election. His campaign, 'Mission for America,' is a policy-heavy successor to the Green New Deal — with big plans for jobs, climate, and public investment. He's betting on grassroots support in a district long dominated by Democratic royalty. In a city where even startups go to die, Saikat Chakrabarti is trying to revive something far more difficult: the soul of the Democratic Party. The 39-year-old Indian-American political organiser, best known as the architect behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's stunning 2018 win, has now trained his sights on a political Goliath — Nancy Pelosi, the longest-serving member of Congress from California. And yes, she's running again. 'I've decided to run against Nancy Pelosi,' Chakrabarti posted earlier this year, somewhat matter-of-factly, on X. 'I know some of you might be surprised... but she is — for her 21st term.' Pelosi, who has represented California's 11th District (essentially, San Francisco) since Ronald Reagan was president, remains a towering figure in Democratic politics. But for Chakrabarti, her endurance is exactly the problem. 'She basically made the case for how the Democrats don't really need to change,' he told local reporters, referencing Pelosi's post-2024 remarks after Donald Trump reclaimed the White House. That statement, for Chakrabarti, was a red line. If the Democrats weren't willing to course-correct after a second Trump term, then maybe it was time someone else forced the issue. The long arc from Fort Worth to Capitol Hill Saikat Chakrabarti Born to Bengali immigrant parents in Fort Worth, Texas, Chakrabarti went from Harvard computer science grad to co-founding a tech startup, to an early engineering role at Stripe, the financial giant. Then came 2016. Disturbed by the political chaos of the Trump-Clinton showdown, he joined the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, building grassroots digital tools and witnessing the gap between Democratic messaging and working-class concerns. What followed was the co-founding of Justice Democrats, a left-wing insurgent group aimed at replacing centrist Democrats with progressive ones. Their biggest success? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old bartender from the Bronx who took down 10-term Congressman Joe Crowley in 2018 — with Chakrabarti as campaign manager and later, her chief of staff. But the Capitol didn't suit him for long. He exited in 2019 amid friction with Democratic leadership, after a series of now-deleted tweets criticising moderates. One compared them to segregationists, prompting then-Speaker Pelosi to issue a rare internal warning to members: stop fighting on Twitter. The establishment didn't forget. A campaign without big donors — or safety nets Now back in San Francisco, Chakrabarti has set up shop with a policy think tank focused on climate and economic transformation, and is trying to do what many progressives dream of — take on the system from within. His campaign is anchored by the Mission for America plan — a sweeping public investment programme that blends climate action, job creation, and universal social protections. If the Green New Deal was the first draft, this is Chakrabarti's second chapter: technocratic, detailed, and unapologetically radical. 'I've talked to so many people in San Francisco who respect Pelosi,' he said. 'But they can't believe she's running again.' Critically, he's not taking money from corporate PACs, fossil fuel lobbyists, or AIPAC, relying instead on small donors and direct engagement. As of March 2025, he'd raised just under $300,000 — a David's purse next to Pelosi's $1.7 million Goliath. But Chakrabarti seems unfazed. His campaign style mirrors his politics — more Zoom calls than glad-handing, more policy briefings than Instagram reels. Why this race matters (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg, File) To be clear, defeating Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco is a long shot. She's a household name. Her district is deeply blue and deeply loyal. Even progressives who complain about the Democratic establishment tend to do so while sipping espresso in Pacific Heights cafés that fundraise for her. But Chakrabarti's bid is less about unseating Pelosi and more about challenging the Democratic status quo. He sees the party as dangerously out of touch — too slow on climate, too reliant on billionaire donors, and too comfortable with losing. His candidacy is a shot across the bow, signalling that progressive energy won't sit quietly on the sidelines — even in the party's bluest bastions. And let's not forget: Pelosi isn't just any incumbent. She's the embodiment of a Democratic era that, depending on who you ask, either held the line against Trump or failed to stop him — twice. The Subhas Chandra Bose shirt and other landmines Like many progressive stars, Chakrabarti has courted controversy. In 2019, he was criticised for wearing a T-shirt with Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian freedom fighter. Right-wing media pounced. Chakrabarti defended it as a nod to anti-colonial resistance, but the optics stuck — and were later compounded by his social media critiques of centrist Democrats. It didn't help that some of those tweets came while he was officially employed by a sitting Congresswoman. Still, his supporters argue that the Democratic Party needs more uncomfortable truth-tellers, not fewer. What happens next? If Pelosi retires before March 2026 — a possibility some local insiders whisper about — Chakrabarti could face a very different race, likely against local heavyweights like State Sen. Scott Wiener or Pelosi's daughter Christine. If she stays in? He'll be up against a political machine three decades deep, with the donor list to match. But Chakrabarti's bet is long-term. Win or lose, he's placing a wager that San Francisco — and by extension, the Democratic Party — is ready for generational, ideological, and tactical change. Whether the voters agree is something even Silicon Valley's best algorithms can't predict. FAQ Q: Is Chakrabarti a serious threat to Pelosi? Not at the moment. Pelosi remains dominant in fundraising, name recognition, and local loyalty. But Chakrabarti's campaign could influence the political discourse. Q: What's 'Mission for America'? A comprehensive policy plan focused on clean energy, job creation, public healthcare, and economic transformation — meant as a modern successor to the Green New Deal. Q: Has he held elected office before? No. Chakrabarti has been a campaign strategist, activist, and policy thinker — not an elected politician. Q: Why is Pelosi still running? Officially, to continue serving her district. Unofficially, many believe she's trying to control her succession, possibly paving the way for her daughter or an establishment ally. Q: Could Chakrabarti become the next AOC ? Unlikely, unless lightning strikes twice. But he doesn't need to be. He just needs enough spark to remind the Democratic Party that some progressives aren't waiting for permission.
