Vaiko condemns RSS general secretary's call for removal ‘secular', ‘socialist' from Preamble
Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) general secretary Vaiko on Friday condemned Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale for suggesting to remove the words 'secular' and 'socialist' that were inserted in the Preamble of the Constitution through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, during the Emergency.
Referring to the recent speech of Mr. Hosabale who had questioned the inclusion of these two terms, claiming that they were not part of the original Preamble and should be deleted, Mr. Vaiko said: 'The RSS and other Hindutva forces have been consistently calling to rewrite the Constitution to impose their idea of a Hindu Rashtra, aimed at dismantling India's pluralistic character and imposing a homogenous national identity based on one religion, one language, one culture, and one nation.'
Referring to a Supreme Court verdict that upheld the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 includes amending the Preamble as well, Mr. Vaiko, in a statement, alleged that the BJP government's actions over the last ten years have undermined the core values of the Constitution such as sovereignty, socialism, secularism, democracy, republic, equality, fraternity, dignity, and national unity.
He said 'Democratic and progressive forces across the country should come together and oppose the Hindutva forces' attempts to subvert the Constitution.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Emergency, 50 years on: The Sanjay gang, and what Shah Commission said about them
To investigate the widespread abuse of power during the Emergency from 1975 to 1977, the then newly elected Janata Party government headed by Prime Minister Morarji Desai appointed a commission of inquiry under former Supreme Court Chief Justice J C Shah in May 1977. The Shah Commission submitted its findings in 1978 in a report that detailed the alleged misuse of power by politicians and bureaucrats, particularly those considered close to former PM Indira Gandhi's son Sanjay, during the Emergency. Since the panel had been solely tasked with fact-finding as per the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, it meant it was not authorised to take any action of its own accord. Only the government could decide how to proceed with its findings, and after the Indira Gandhi government came to power, the report was quietly buried. Days after the Narendra Modi government returned for a third term in power last year, a demand was made in the Rajya Sabha to table the Shah Commission report. A look at the key figures who came under the Commission's scanner. Sanjay Gandhi was one of the six people against whom the Shah Commission ordered the filing of complaints, for refusing to take oath or give evidence under oath in different cases. The Commission ordered cases against Sanjay in five matters – alleged harassment of a firm; demolitions in Kapashera, Andheria Morh, and Karol Bagh in New Delhi; and for reportedly pressuring magistrates to sign a backdated order in case of the police firing at Turkman Gate in April 1976. As per the Commission, Sanjay initiated the demolitions in Kapashera and other villages located along the Delhi-Gurgaon road, as he reportedly saw these structures as 'eyesores' that he encountered en route to the Maruti factory he had helped establish in Haryana. The firm that the Commission said had faced Sanjay's ire was 'Pandit Brothers', with its manager and the two partners arrested. The Shah Commission report quoted Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Krishan Chand as saying that sales tax and price tag raids were initiated on the firm under Sanjay's orders. Nikhil Chakravarty, the then editor of the weekly Mainstream, told the Commission that the Union Information and Broadcasting Minister during the Emergency, V C Shukla, told him that articles critical of Sanjay were not permitted. When Chakravarty refused to give assurances that his outlet would comply, 'pre-censorship' orders were imposed on Mainstream. Shukla, however, told the Commission that he 'merely advised' Chakravarty and any action taken against the editor or the publication 'had nothing to do with the acceptance or otherwise of my advice'. S C Bhatt, the then Director of All India Radio's (AIR) News Services Division, told the Commission that throughout the Emergency, the government 'policy' was to play up the speeches of Mrs Gandhi and Sanjay. Bhatt said 'written and unwritten instructions' were frequently received by AIR from Shukla himself, who justified the publicity to Sanjay on the grounds that even private media was paying close attention to the Congress leader at the time. The Commission also summoned Shukla in a case linked to 22 employees of the AIR and Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP) being engaged in February 1977, after the elections had been called, to translate the Congress manifesto into 10 languages, allegedly on Shukla's instructions. He denied he was behind the orders. The Commission concluded that Shukla had 'violated the basic norms of administration'. Shukla was also named in the Commission's inquiry into the 'harassment' of famed playback singer Kishore Kumar, for refusing to cooperate with the government. The Commission said Shukla was 'responsible for the various disabilities inflicted on Kishore Kumar'. The Commission ordered filing of complaints against then Haryana Chief Minister Bansi Lal for refusing to take oath or give evidence under oath in the detention cases of Murlidhar Dalmia, M L Kak, Pritam Dutta, Ishwar Lal Chowdhary and Pitambar Lal Goyal. Dalmia was the chief adviser at the Technological Institute of Textiles in Bhiwani, Haryana. On November 30, 1975, the district magistrate of Bhiwani issued detention orders under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) against Dalmia on the grounds that he was a staunch follower of the RSS, and that after the organisation was banned, he often criticised Mrs Gandhi and her government. The Commission said the evidence before it showed Dalmia was detained because of Bansi Lal's 'spite against him'. Charges on 'non-existent grounds were fabricated' to detain Dalmia, the report said, adding that Bansi Lal 'abused his authority' and continued to abuse his position after he became the Union defence minister during the Emergency. M L Kak, a correspondent of The Tribune, was detained the same day as the Emergency was invoked under MISA, also on the grounds that he was an active member of the RSS, that he had spread violent and false propaganda against the government, and that he incited the public to overthrow Central and state governments by force. Kak told the Commission that he incurred the 'dislike' of Bansi Lal because of his critical reporting on the Haryana government. Pritam Dutta, a retired Navy Commander from Rohtak, had obtained wholesale distributorship rights in Haryana for products of Khodays, a Bengaluru-based liquor company. In 1974, he declined to allot a sub-agency of Khodays's products to one Ram Chander, 'who was close to CM Bansi Lal'. The Commission found that Bansi Lal 'grossly misused' his authority in the case of Dutta. In the case of Ishwar Lal Choudhary, a district employment officer in Bhiwani, the report said he had 'incurred the displeasure' of Bansi Lal's son Surinder Singh and political secretary Mahabir Parshad for refusing to comply with their 'irregular requests' to include their nominees in lists of candidates forwarded by the Employment Exchange to employers. The Commission said the illegal detention of Choudhary illustrated Bansi Lal's 'capricious and highly arbitrary style of administration'. Pitamber Lal Goyal, an advocate in Bhiwani district, told the Commission that his father, grandfather and uncle were victims of Bansi Lal's 'relentless vendetta' during the Emergency owing to a political rivalry between their families. The Commission found Bansi Lal's conduct in this case 'reprehensible'. Swami Dhirendra Brahamchari, a yoga guru who in 1973 founded the Aparna Ashram in J&K and was known as Mrs Gandhi's yoga teacher, held considerable influence in the Congress government. In 1973, Brahamchari floated Aparna Agro Private Limited with the intention of dealing in aircraft. In March 1976, he wrote to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) requesting permission to keep at his J&K ashram an 'agricultural spraying aircraft' that, he said, had been 'donated' by an American company to him. The DGCA was sent two requests by him in this regard, until then Union Defence Minister Bansi Lal allegedly intervened. 'The evidence before the Commission leads to the conclusion that the initial decision to reject the proposal twice… on valid grounds of security and sensitivity of the area was subsequently changed in favour of granting the permission, though with some conditions attached, at the instance of Bansi Lal,' the Commission said. The logbook of the aircraft showed that Sanjay and Rajiv Gandhi had used it, for personal trips as well as 'practice flights' by Sanjay. In July 1976, Brahamchari requested the Central Board of Excise and Customs for an exemption on paying Customs duty on aircraft on the grounds that Aparna Ashram was a 'charitable' institution. Though Brahmachari appeared before the Commission, he refused to take oath and provide evidence in his case. 'From the evidence it is quite clear Brahamchari obtained the Customs clearance permit by misrepresenting that the aircraft was a donation, when it was in fact purchased by him… Brahamchari fully exploited his association with the then Prime Minister's house in getting the aircraft imported by misrepresenting it as a gift. He has actively abetted the subversion of established administrative procedures,' the Commission said. The Commission also made adverse remarks on the functioning of various officers, including prominent figures like Delhi Development Authority (DDA) vice-chairman Jagmohan, CID Superintendent of Police K S Bajwa, Deputy Inspector General of Police-Range in Delhi P S Bhinder, and Navin Chawla, the Secretary to Delhi the L-G. As DDA vice-chairman, Jagmohan was at the heart of demolitions in Delhi as part of Sanjay's five-point programme, including slum clearance and tree planting. The Commission noted that while 1,800 structures had been demolished in a two-and-a-half year period before the Emergency, between 1975 and 1977, 1.5 lakh structures were demolished, more than 90% by the DDA. K Raghuramiah, the then minister for works and housing, suggested to the Commission that Jagmohan was taking orders from the Prime Minister's house. 'Jagmohan grossly misused his position and abused his authority. He, during the Emergency, became a law unto himself and went about doing the biddings of Sanjay Gandhi without care or concern for the miseries of people,' the Commission said. The Commission also spoke about the 'misuse' of preventive sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure for detentions in Delhi, and noted that some MISA warrants were deliberately kept unexecuted, allegedly on the directions of Bajwa and Bhinder to SPs. Though Chawla, the L-G's secretary, had no position in the jail hierarchy, the Commission said he exercised 'extra-statutory control' in jail matters and sent instructions, including on the treatment of particular detainees. '(L-G) Krishan Chand by his various actions and inactions… appears to have abdicated his legitimate functions in favour of an overambitious group of officers like Bhinder, Bajwa and Chawla… He betrayed his trust and committed a serious breach of faith with the citizens of Delhi,' the Commission said.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Sudhir Mishra on rebellion being at the heart of his films: ‘Ours is the last generation to believe life's not only about loving your parents'
Your film 'Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi' (2005) had the Emergency as a backdrop as does your upcoming eight-part series 'Summer of '76'. How do you look back at the events of those days? Fifty years on, it's complicated when you look at it. You have to see that those who fought against it, what happened to them, were they very different from those they opposed? Of course, the imposition of the Emergency was, for want of a better word, a not-so-great chapter in Indian history. It gave permission to a lot of petty tyrants. There was a government and from the village-level up, there were tin-pot tyrants who ruled the roost. Anybody could arrest anyone, say he is a Naxal and shoot him. This is what caused the actual problem. What Mrs Gandhi and her people did not understand was that it was a 'conference of the upset' movement against the Emergency, against them. There was a whole disappointed generation. My series is about this moment. There was a generation that did not agree with the idea of India that was handed to them by their parents who had fought for freedom. They felt a sense of betrayal. Problem is those who rebelled didn't realise that those who took power after that were actually worse than those they were opposing. What is the 'Summer of '76' about? It draws from the autobiography of my maternal grandfather, DP Mishra, who had been in the Congress and had two stints as the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh. He was one of the few people who fought or manipulated — call it what you want — for Mrs Gandhi to be the prime minister. But he was a follower of Sardar Patel and was opposed to Nehru. He was the only one to resign from the Congress over Nehru but was brought back as chief minister, and then campaigned for Indira Gandhi. He was sort of a Centrist. However, a Left-wing fantasy had started that thought that through Mrs Gandhi, they could bring in a revolution. They became very disappointed during her imposition of the Emergency because of Sanjay Gandhi. He had started a coterie, which was non-democratic, entitled and had a 'Babalog view' of the world, which alienated the youth in non-metro India from the English-speaking upper class. My grandfather saw that there was a kind of undeclared emergency within the Congress and so before they could kick him out, he walked away. He had joined the Congress as a 20-year-old and was an understudy to Motilal Nehru, so he said he couldn't work under the great-grandson. As with your film Hazaaron…, will youth be at the centre of Summer of 76 too? Yes, but it's much wider. I follow people all over the country. 'Hazaaron…' is about these college students, 'Summer of '76' is about those who got involved in the JP movement. It's also about Ramesh Dixit, one of the students arrested in JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University), and on Pushpesh Pant's book, 'Portrait of a Student Activist'. So, factual parts of it come from there, then there are a lot of stories, fiction and imagination. The series is about what happens to the passionate, who think they are not living in the best of all possible worlds and want to change it. It's an exciting journey of seven young people and the problems they will face. The Emergency is a metaphor. This is a story of any time. It's a tribute to youth, to curiosity, to rebellion, to holding each other's hands, to taking risks. Rebellion is often at the heart of your films. At the time of the Emergency, I was very young but I know how my grandfather felt about it. He died in 1988 and I was a filmmaker by then. I'm not a faithful family boy, I have a point of view and everything's filtered through my eyes. I'm a scientist's son, a mathematician's son. So when I see a hypothesis, I need to evaluate if it's true or not. And if it's not, then I look at it straight in the face. We are, perhaps, the last generation that believes life is not only about loving your parents or obeying your parents. There were many rebellions happening at that time. Women were breaking free, landless peasants were attempting to break free, many lower castes were coming to the fore, claiming their place in India, the Dalit movement was gaining strength. This is what the Congress didn't see. Unfortunately, sometimes it ended up being led by the wrong people but that desire to break free was genuine. Your films have captured the angst and idealism of a generation. Do you think people are less idealistic now? I don't blame the youth because this is the world we gave them. The poor are bereft of one kind of nutrition; the upper class or the so-called middle class are bereft of another. The whole education system is geared to mugging up information and vomiting it out. It is not geared to create a mind which can analyse, understand and take things forward. Curiosity is not encouraged. So you have a nation of educated illiterates. You have prepared a world where anything can be said and the majority will believe it, which is why most of them will be replaced so easily by AI. There is extreme self-centeredness and a disrespect of any kind of idealism. It's not only that they do not want to be idealists but they disrespect them. And then there is a pseudo-Left, a cultural Left, which I think is the fig leaf of the Right. So there is actually no real opposition and everybody is the same. The censorship that started then, do you see its shadow in current times? Yes, a nation starts getting used to self-censoring. Anyway, it's not so difficult in our country because we always say, 'badon ke saamne aise nahi bolna chahiye' (you shouldn't speak like that before elders). We have a culture of censorship. Be polite, don't say this in front of your grandfather. If you have censorship in your head, then you cannot be scientific, right? Do you think there are still ways of saying what you want to say? Well, in Iran, filmmakers say what they want to say and make films. So, you can. If you have a negative mindset and say I cannot express myself, then what is the message you send to other people? You become a bore. You should keep expressing yourself in a rational, non-sensationalist way but you should be prepared for repercussions that may happen.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
50 years of 'Emergency': Journalist recalls fear-induced discipline and efficiency; says forced sterilisation fueled dissent
While the Emergency (1975-77) is often described as a dark phase in Indian democracy, veteran journalist Hisam Siddiqui, who was a law student at that time, says there was another side to it. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He acknowledges the excesses — especially the controversial male sterilisation drive under the govt's family planning programme — but also recalls a period marked by discipline and administrative efficiency. 'For common people, there wasn't much trouble. The real hardships were mostly faced by political workers and certain communities, particularly Muslims, during the sterilisation campaign,' he said, recalling incidents of violence at places like Saharanpur and Sultanpur, where police firing occurred and lives were lost. However, Siddiqui pointed out that public services were efficient during the Emergency. 'Offices, schools, and govt departments worked with clockwork precision. People would even go to railway stations to set their watches,' he recalled. 'There was less corruption and officials were held accountable. Works completed on time,' he said. 'However, dissent began when govt employees, including teachers and doctors, were forced to meet sterilisation targets, often in unreasonable ways. Even childless individuals were not spared. Basic shiksha adhikaris put pressure on teachers while doctors also faced harassment,' he said. According to Siddiqui, the Emergency did suppress political dissent and implement harsh measures, but it also introduced a degree of order that some sections of society appreciated. 'There was fear of the system — but that fear brought results. Rationing improved, trains were punctual, and the bureaucracy became more responsive,' he said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He also mentioned that some public figures supported the Emergency. 'Vinoba Bhave called it a 'Festival of Discipline', and Bal Thackeray praised Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's leadership. Even some Communist parties lent their support,' he noted. 'If that one issue didn't exist, the Emergency might not have faced so much criticism,' he remarked.
