Latest news with #RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Jitendra Singh backs RSS call
New Delhi: Union Minister Jitendra Singh on Friday defended Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's suggestion to reconsider the inclusion of the term "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble of the Indian constitution, saying that any "right-thinking person" would support such a demand as these terms were not part of the original Constitution. "Any right-thinking citizen will endorse it because everyone knows they are not part of the original constitution, which Dr Ambedkar and the rest of the committee wrote. This is not the question of BJP vs is a matter of preserving democratic and constitutional values, and those violating the constitution are actually the biggest violators," Singh told reporters. He pointed out that the words "Secular" and "Socialist" were added later, through the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution during the emergency, and not by the original drafters.
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
RSS pitches for removal of terms socialist, secular from Preamble
New Delhi: A fresh controversy erupted on Friday after Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale called for a review of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. The remarks, made at an event in Delhi late Thursday night, drew support from Shiv Sena while Congress and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) criticised it on Friday. Hosabale, speaking at the Ambedkar International Centre, made a strong pitch to consider whether the words socialist and secular, which were added to the Preamble by the Congress government during the Emergency, should remain. He further said: "The words 'socialist' and 'secular' were added to the Preamble during the Emergency. No attempt was made to remove them later. There should be a discussion on whether they should remain. I say this in a building named after Babasaheb Ambedkar, whose original Constitution did not include these terms in the Preamble." "The days of the Emergency also witnessed large-scale forced sterilisation," Hosabale added. Hosabale's remarks came after the BJP-led Central government on Wednesday observed June 25 as the 'Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas', marking the 50th anniversary of the imposition of the Emergency. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the imposition of the Emergency as one of the darkest chapters in India's democratic history, saying the Congress not only violated the spirit of the Constitution but placed "democracy under arrest".
Scroll.in
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Why Asaduddin Owaisi is losing the trust of young Indian Muslims
Fiercely articulate, legally astute and unapologetically Muslim, Asaduddin Owaisi has carved out a space where Indian Muslims can feel represented, not merely as a vote bank but as citizens with constitutional dignity But he has unleashed a torrent of disappointment with his recent participation in an all-party delegation to the Gulf to explain the government's position after Operation Sindoor. In news clips, Owaisi can be seen fiercely denouncing Pakistan while insisting that Muslims in India are in a way better shape, has unleashed a torrent of disappointment. What happens when a voice of dissent begins to echo the narratives of the establishment it once challenged? Critic echoes the state It was not Owaisi's criticism of Pakistan that sparked outrage. Indian Muslims have no illusions about the Pakistani state. Far from offering it support, they do not even have any expectations of it. Rather, it was Owaisi's tone and timing, his eagerness to present a sanitised picture of India abroad, at a moment when Muslims at home are being subjected to bulldozer justice, arbitrary arrests and public lynchings by the same establishment he was representing overseas. This made many of those who looked up to him feel abandoned. Amid this deeply violent landscape, what does it mean for Owaisi to offer the narrative of internal harmony to the world? Participation in such delegations could have been used as an opportunity to highlight the paradox of Indian democracy, its capacity to showcase token diversity while eroding real dissent. Asaduddin Owaisi drops a truth bomb "A terrorist wanted by America is being sheltered by the Pakistan Army in Muridke and Bahawalpur" @asadowaisi says it like it is! Pakistan is shielding terrorists, and the world needs to see it #IndiaPakistanWar — Nabila Jamal (@nabilajamal_) May 10, 2025 Instead, Owaisi chose to align with the state's script, insisting that India's internal tensions are merely political differences. That erasure of Muslim suffering is a wound far deeper than any ideological disagreement. Thus far, Owaisi's strength has been his refusal to bend to the Hindutva machinery. He was that rare voice who dared to challenge the ruling Bharatiya Janata party and its mother organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, while also holding secular parties accountable for their token gestures towards ensuring minority rights. His insistence on constitutionalism, on asserting rights not through communal appeals but legal frameworks, was refreshing. Today, that insistence is becoming performance. By chanting 'Pakistan Murdabad' or death to Pakistan, not as a critique of that nation's policies but as a means of proving loyalty, Owaisi has crossed a symbolic threshold. It is not just that he's critical of Pakistan – it's that he appears eager to use anti-Pakistan sentiment as a way to buy legitimacy in the eyes of an establishment and a section of India's people who already view Muslims with suspicion.. For many Indian Muslims, this feels disorienting. This is not because they sympathise with Pakistan – far from it – but because their everyday lives are shaped by being equated with it. At a time when India's Muslim neighbourhoods are branded as 'mini-Pakistans' and community youth are jailed merely on the allegation of supporting Pakistan in cricket, what does Owaisi's vilification of Pakistan globally really accomplish? His actions of presenting a united front on an international level play into the BJP's narratives that project India through a Hindutva lens and marginalise Muslims. AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi- 'Bharat Zindabad Pakistan Murdabad' — Haryana Mail (@HaryanaMail) May 8, 2025 The irony is bitter. Indian Muslims are denounced as being 'anti-national' for everything from their dietary habits to their choice of clothing, yet the man they looked to for defense now seems to be parroting the very lines that reinforce their marginalisation. Owaisi's nationalist credentials may earn him mainstream support, media space and diplomatic access, but at what cost? When the bodies of Muslims lie broken in the streets and their homes reduced to rubble, silence is complicity. Owaisi's silence, dressed in this hyper-nationalist rhetoric, speaks volumes. Internal discontent For the BJP, Owaisi is becoming a prized possession. His striking presence in the Parliament, his traditional attire and his eloquence in Urdu, make him the perfect 'other'. With his recent international posturing, he becomes even more valuable. Owaisi has become both figurehead and foil. The more he speaks about foreign enemies, the less he cares about the enmity manifesting itself back home. Young Muslims, once inspired by Owaisi's defiance, now feel betrayed. They watch their brothers lynched and their sisters harassed while the man they saw as their advocate poses for photos with those complicit in their suffering. They see bulldozers where schools once stood. They see headlines criminalising their grief. It is not enough to say that Owaisi is 'doing what he must' to survive politically. Representation without resistance is vacuous. If he cannot call out the violence and the state machinery that facilitates it, his voice is no longer that of the community. This growing sense of alienation could have tangible electoral consequences too, particularly in states like Bihar and West Bengal, where his All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen party has sought to expand its influence. The question now is no longer just about his strategic brilliance, but about trust. Can Indian Muslims still see Owaisi as a bulwark against systemic injustice or is he becoming just another player in a rigged game? Owaisi once inspired a new variety of Indian Muslim politics, one rooted in legal consciousness, political engagement and unapologetic identity. Today, however, that feels hollow. It speaks at global press conferences, not about the streets. It performs nationalism, not justice, and in doing so, it loses the very people it was meant to protect. Yes, politics demands compromise. Yes, Muslim leaders walk a tightrope in today's India. However, there is a difference between walking carefully and walking away. Owaisi's recent actions suggest he may be doing the latter. In a nation where Muslim existence is increasingly criminalised, where bulldozers replace courts and where silence is state policy, what Indian Muslims need is not a strategist but a witness: someone who will name the violence – even if it costs him the mic. Until that happens, Owaisi may not be seen as a political alternative but merely a bearded accessory to an increasingly Hindutva state. Ismail Salahuddin is a writer and researcher based in Delhi, focusing on Muslim identity, communal politics, caste, and the politics of knowledge, social exclusion and inclusive policy at Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi. Mohammad Aaquib is a Kolkata-based writer and researcher. He works on communalism, political violence and Muslim identity in contemporary South Asia.
The Diplomat
8 hours ago
- Politics
- The Diplomat
India's Monarchy Fantasy in Nepal Is a Strategic Mirage
The vision of a pro-India monarch is a dangerous misreading of Nepal's history, its political complexities, and the implications for India's regional interests. In recent months, pro-monarchy demonstrations have flared across Nepal, with some protesters carrying posters of Indian Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. These symbolic gestures are not incidental. They signal a growing ideological intersection between Nepal's royalist nostalgia and India's rising Hindu nationalism. For some in India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – and its ideological mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – the return of a Hindu monarchy in Nepal is being framed as both a civilizational triumph and a strategic necessity. But this vision is a dangerous misreading of Nepal's history, its political complexities, and the implications for India's regional interests. For India, the idea of a culturally aligned, Hindu-majority monarchy in Nepal appears attractive amid the growing Chinese presence in the region. Proponents argue that a Hindu king could serve as a bulwark against Beijing, foster cultural affinity, and stabilize a politically turbulent neighbor. This narrative has gained traction among Indian right-wing commentators and politicians alike, echoing similar ideological currents across the subcontinent. But this fantasy is historically flawed and strategically shortsighted. Nepal's monarchy was never the steadfast Indian ally it is now nostalgically remembered as. After King Tribhuvan's exile and return with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's support in 1950, hopes for a constitutional monarchy in Nepal were high. Yet these hopes were quickly dashed. King Mahendra's 1960 royal coup dismantled the nascent democracy, suppressed pro-India politicians, and aligned Nepal closer to China – a pattern that recurred with his son, King Gyanendra, during his 2005-08 power grab. Rather than strengthening ties with India, these monarchs often positioned themselves in opposition to Indian influence, using Hindu nationalism to consolidate internal power and assert sovereignty. Gyanendra's regime, in particular, alienated New Delhi and created fertile ground for Chinese strategic inroads. Far from a stabilizing force, Nepal's monarchy repeatedly proved to be a source of autocracy and diplomatic estrangement. The renewed royalist fervor in Nepal is often conflated with calls to re-establish a Hindu state. But not all supporters of a Hindu identity in Nepal support restoring the monarchy. The Nepali Congress, one of the country's largest democratic parties, has formally endorsed the idea of a Hindu state, while opposing monarchical rule. This distinction is crucial. While monarchy implies authoritarian rule, calls for a Hindu state are more about cultural assertion – especially amid growing anxieties over federalism, secularism, and demographic change. Still, both narratives stem from widespread public frustration with Nepal's current political system. Since the monarchy's abolition in 2008, no elected government has completed a full term. Federalism, while progressive in theory, is seen by many Nepalis as creating more inefficiency and corruption, summed up in the popular quip: 'Earlier we had one king, now we have 761.' This disillusionment is the fertile ground on which royalist and theocratic fantasies grow. The BJP-RSS establishment's embrace of Nepal's monarchists reflects more than strategic calculation; it is rooted in a shared ideological affinity for majoritarian nationalism and centralized religious authority. Figures like Yogi Adityanath – who symbolize the fusion of Hindu religiosity and political power – are seen by Nepal's royalist right as aspirational models. The imagery of Adityanath at Nepal's protests is a visual manifestation of this ideological export. Yet India's historical actions have not always helped its image in Nepal. Two unofficial blockades – one in 1989 and another in 2015 – inflicted economic hardship and deepened resentment. Meanwhile, perceptions of Indian interference in Nepal's domestic politics remain strong, further complicated by conspiracy theories (such as India's alleged role in the 2001 royal massacre) that, while baseless, are emotionally potent. These legacies have allowed China to position itself as a 'non-interfering partner' and expand its footprint through infrastructure investments, soft power, and engagement with Nepal's security apparatus. In contrast, India's growing ideological alignment with monarchy risks alienating democratic forces within Nepal and undermining its long-term influence. Restoring a monarchy in Nepal won't fix the structural issues that fuel instability: youth unemployment, rural poverty, and elite-driven governance. Over 4 million Nepalis now work abroad, and remittances equate to nearly 30 percent of GDP. Nepal's economy remains heavily dependent on India, especially for trade, electricity, and transit infrastructure. India has made quiet but substantial investments in this sector – from the 900 MW Arun-III hydropower project to completed railway links like Jaynagar–Bardibas. Cross-border electricity transmission lines and the BBIN (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal) initiative could position Nepal as a clean energy exporter in the region. These are the kinds of practical integrations that truly stabilize bilateral relations – not ideological posturing. Meanwhile, Nepal's elected communist leaders – despite occasional anti-India rhetoric – have maintained functional ties with New Delhi. Leaders like Pushpa Kamal Dahal and current Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli may wave nationalist flags, but their electoral legitimacy requires ongoing engagement with India. Even critics of federalism are not necessarily calling for a return to monarchy, but rather for reforms that make democracy deliver. Ultimately, betting on monarchy is not a foreign policy strategy – it's an ideological fantasy. If India wants to compete with China and maintain long-term influence in Nepal, it must invest in pluralism, economic cooperation, and democratic consolidation. The imagery of Yogi Adityanath in Kathmandu may excite some in Nagpur, but it alarms many in Nepal – and even more in India's diplomatic community. India's strength in South Asia has always come from its democratic model, not its imperial ambitions. Replacing that model with nostalgia for crowns and gods will only open the door further to adversaries who offer infrastructure without interference, and partnership without prescriptions.
The Print
8 hours ago
- Politics
- The Print
Shivraj seconds Hosabale's call for review of insertion of secularism, socialism in Preamble
'Secularism is not the core of our culture. That is why there should indeed be a discussion about it. The word 'secularism' was added during the Emergency—there should be deliberation on removing it,' Chouhan said to a question on whether these terms should be removed from the Preamble. These words, according to the senior BJP leader, were not part of India's civilisational ethos and had been inserted during the 1975 Emergency. New Delhi: After Dattatreya Hosabale of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan joined the bandwagon demanding a rethink on the relevance of the words secularism and socialism in the Constitution. In Varanasi, the Union Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare also described India as 'an ancient and great nation' founded on the principle of Sarva Dharma Sambhav—equal respect for all faiths. He emphasised that India, as a civilisation, has long upheld religious harmony and mutual respect across traditions. 'This is the India that, not today but thousands of years ago, said 'Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti'—Truth is one, the wise call it by many names,' he said, quoting ancient scripture to underline India's pluralistic tradition. 'This is the India that says 'Munde munde matir bhinna'—every mind is different. It respects differing thoughts and forms of worship.' Citing Swami Vivekananda's historic speech in Chicago, Chouhan added, 'No matter which path you follow, ultimately all lead to the same supreme truth.' A day earlier, Hosabale had forcefully argued for reviewing the inclusion of secularism and socialism in the Constitution. The RSS general secretary said the two terms were inserted into the Preamble during the Emergency—bypassing public debate—and were not part of the Constitution originally drafted by Chouhan also questioned the relevance of socialism in contemporary India, asserting that Indian philosophy already embodies egalitarian values through its ancient teachings. 'Atmavat sarvabhuteshu—to see oneself in all beings—is India's fundamental thought. The entire world is one family—this is India's spirit. Live and let live, let there be goodwill among living beings, let the world be well,' he said. 'Sarve bhavantu sukhinah, sarve santu niramayah—may all be happy, may all be free of illness—this is India's true sentiment. That's why we don't need socialism,' Chouhan said. 'We've been saying it for years—Sia Ram may sab jag jani—see everyone as one and the same. There is no need for imposed socialism.' The nation, the Union Minister said, must seriously reflect on this (removal of secularism and socialism from the Constitution. (Edited by Tony Rai) Also Read: 'Mask comes off' as RSS wants 'Manusmriti', says Rahul on call to drop 'secular' from Constitution
