Home Blog Page 1801

I.N.D.I. alliance members suffer a meltdown amidst speculations of the Centre renaming India to ‘Bharat’

OpIndia Staff
-
0
I.N.D.I. alliance members suffer a meltdown amidst speculations of the Centre renaming India to ‘Bharat’

The announcement of a special session of Parliament has led to field days among the opposition leaders. Every substantive or rumoured report that the Union government could bring one law or the other has caused panic and confusion among the newly formed opposition alliance. In an incoherent cacophony, the ambitiously divided group is united only on one issue, that is, their supposed unity has rattled the incumbent government. 

According to the leaders of the I.N.D.I.A. bloc, all the bills that could be tabled in the special session have been drafted solely after taking their alliance into consideration. Evidently, the same is unfolding in regard to the rumoured reports that the Union government could start referring to India as Bharat in the special session of the Parliament. 

Responding to these speculative reports, several leaders of the I.N.D.I.A. bloc have linked this yet-to-be-confirmed move with their alliance name. 

Opposition leaders suffer a meltdown over speculative reports of the Centre replacing India with Bharat

Addressing media personnel, AAP National Convenor and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal claimed that changing the name of the country from India to Bharat would be a betrayal of the country. However, it is pertinent to note that in Article 1, the country’s name is clearly stated as India, that is, Bharat. 

Delhi CM further claimed that the supposed move was being taken because the opposition parties decided to name their alliance I.N.D.I.A. 

Following the media reports, the Congress party came out in opposition to the supposed move and claimed that the government is feeling unease because of the opposition alliance and that is why it is moving in the direction of renaming the country as Bharat which they claimed is an impossible task to do.

Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin said, “Seems like the BJP is rattled by a single term called India because they recognise the strength of unity within the opposition. During the elections, ‘India’ will chase BJP out of power!”

Congress leader Supriya Shrinate also claimed that this ‘move’ exposes how rattled and spooked the Modi government is by the opposition alliance. 

Speaking to ANI, Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi shared a similar view. He claimed that after the formation of the I.N.D.I.A. alliance, a new hatred has arisen in their hearts. They can’t digest the fact that the I.N.D.I.A. alliance has been accepted by the people. 

He also argued that if the country’s name is changed to Bharat, the government would have to change the ‘I’s of ISRO, IITs, and other premier organisations. 

Speaking on the issue, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor noted that as per the constitution, the country has two names – India and Bharat and there is no problem in using the name Bharat. However, he added that it would be ‘foolish’ to do away with the name ‘India’ as it has incalculable brand value built up over centuries.

Responding to the reports, expelled Congress leader Sanjay Jha lamented and argued that in the next move, the government should make Nagpur the capital of India.

Speculative reports of GoI reclaiming India’s civilisational identity cause consternation among Pakistanis

Apparently, the reports garnered attention from across the border as well, and a Pakistani journalist responded with the usual anti-RSS ranting. 

He said, “In pursuit of their cultural revivalist agenda, RSS and BJP are striving to re-write history, changing nomenclatures, names of cities and streets as they present it a part of their de-colonisation to cover up for Hindu Rashtra— in conflict with the Republican, Inclusive and Secular India.”  

However, netizens were quick to respond to the Pakistani journalist about their lineage.

While the leaders of the I.N.D.I.A. bloc could not hide their distress over reports of the government giving preeminence to Bharat over India, there is no official confirmation yet on what would be on the agenda for the 5-day sitting in the special session of Parliament.

Ghaziabad: 14-year-old boy dies of rabies 1.5 months after dog bite, India accounts for 36% of global rabies deaths

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Ghaziabad: 14-year-old boy dies of rabies 1.5 months after dog bite, India accounts for 36% of global rabies deaths

On Monday, September 4, a 1४-year-old boy identified as Shahvej lost his life one and a half months after he was bitten by a dog. The boy didn’t inform about the dog bite at home and failed to take anti-rabies vaccine, as a result, the family was unaware of his deteriorating health. The incident has been reported from the Ghaziabad district of Uttar Pradesh.

According to the initial report, the incident came to the fore only after the boy complained of ill health some four days ago. However, the infection happened to spread so fast that he could not breathe properly and suffered a painful death on Monday.

The father of the boy, Yakub is said to have consulted 4-5 doctors while struggling to save his son’s life. He also took his son to several hospitals in Delhi and Bulandshahr but to no avail. The boy died while the father and the child were on their way back to Gaziabad from Bulandshahr.

The video of the boy wailing in pain is making rounds on social media. The father of the child is also seen helplessly crying, seeing his son suffering in pain in his arms.

The victim and his family belong to the Tajpur region of Bulandshahr district but had been staying in Ghaziabad. The Ghaziabad Health Authorities revealed that they had obtained no information about the boy and his unfortunate death. Further investigations are underway.

As per a report in Live Hindustan, the child’s grandfather has informed that though the boy had not informed his family about the dog bite, he later started showing stage symptoms. He was afraid of water and sometimes used to make animal like sounds. When the family consulted doctors, they were informed that the disease has spread and there would be no cure.

Rabies is a preventable viral disease that is most commonly spread via a rabid animal’s bite. The rabies virus attacks the central nervous system of the victim, resulting in brain illness and death.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), every year, more than 55,000 individuals die as a result of a dog bite due to a lack of awareness about the importance of seeking medical attention after a dog bite. The majority of these deaths occur in Asia and Africa. India is a rabies-endemic country, accounting for 36% of global rabies deaths.

As per WHO’s data, rabies kills around 18,000 to 20,000 people each year in India. Further, minors under the age of 15 account for 30-60% of reported rabies cases and deaths in India, as bites in minors frequently go unrecognized and unreported.

Notably, a report by Times of India from July 2023 stated that around 307 persons died of rabies in India in the year 2022.

Dog bites generate around 96% of rabies cases and deaths in India. According to the Association for the Prevention and Control of Rabies in India (APCRI), India records several lakh dogbites each year.

In India, dogs are responsible for about 97% of human rabies, followed by cats (2%) and jackals and mongoose (1%).

In June this year, a ‘dog lover’ named Stephin V Pareira died of rabies in Kerala’s Thiruvananthapuram. She used to feed stray dogs and had neglected scratches made by one of the dogs in her hand while feeding the animal. Her rabies symptoms were diagnosed while she was taking care of her sick brother in the hospital. Despite treatment, she had succumbed on June 17.

Several incidents of violent attacks by dogs have occurred recently. In one such case, a 70-year-old retired doctor was bitten to death by a pack of dogs while out on a morning walk on the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) campus in April of this year. Last year, strays murdered a five-year-old girl in Agra, while dogs killed a 12-year-old boy in Bareilly in May.

Virender Sehwag bats for Bharat: The swashbuckling Indian opener comes out in support of renaming India to Bharat

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Virender Sehwag bats for Bharat: The swashbuckling Indian opener comes out in support of renaming India to Bharat

Amid the speculative media reports that India could be renamed as Bharat, cricketing legend Virender Sehwag has extended his support to this move. Supporting the bid to rename India as Bharat, Sehwag argued that a name should be such that it instills pride in us. Stating that we are Bhartiyas, he added that the move to bring back our original name ‘Bharat’ has been a long overdue move. 

Going ahead, he urged BCCI and its secretary Jay Shah to ensure that our cricket team dons the jersey with Bharat inscribed on it in the upcoming Cricket World Cup.  

In the post, he said, “I have always believed a name should be one which instills pride in us. We are Bhartiyas, India is a name given by the British and it has been long overdue to get our original name ‘Bharat’ back officially. I urge the BCCI and Jay Shah to ensure that this World Cup our players have Bharat on our chest.” 

In another tweet, he cited the example of Holland and Myanmar and added that many nations have gone back to their original name. 

Sehwag added, “In the 1996 World Cup, Netherlands came to play in the World Cup in Bharat as Holland. In 2003 when we met them, they were the Netherlands and continue to be so. Burma have changed the name given by the British back to Myanmar. And many others have gone back to their original name.” 

Earlier in the day, the reports that India could be renamed as Bharat gained strength when Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, in a tweet, referred to the nation as ‘Republic of Bharat’. 

Taking to X, Sarma wrote, ‘Republic of Bharat’, adding that he is happy and proud that our civilisation is marching ahead boldly towards Amrit Kaal.

A strong political debate has already started on this speculative move and that this could be done as earlier as in the special session of Parliament called from 18th to 22nd September. However, there is no official confirmation yet on what could be the agenda for the 5-day sitting in the special session of Parliament.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh insinuates using Bharat for India violates the Indian Constitution and its Preamble: Here is how he is wrong

Jinit Jain
-
0
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh insinuates using Bharat for India violates the Indian Constitution and its Preamble: Here is how he is wrong

Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh had a meltdown on Tuesday amid speculations that the Indian government might soon bring a resolution to rename India as Bharat.

Taking to Twitter, Ramesh fumed over the Rashtrapati Bhawan’s invitation for a G20 dinner on 9 September under the title ‘President of Bharat’ instead of the customary ‘President of India’.

Resorting to fear-mongering, Ramesh insinuated that the government altered the character of the Constitution and Preamble, adding that Article 1 can now read: “Bharat, that was India, shall be a Union of States.”

The shared culture and history, common traditions, and civilisational continuum define Bharat

Long before the Constitution came into existence, India was commonly known as Bharat by its people. The framers of the Constitution acknowledged this historical and cultural continuity by referring to the country as ‘India, that is Bharat’ in Article 1 of the document. This recognition emphasised the enduring importance of the name ‘Bharat’ in the nation’s identity and history.

The current Indian Constitution continues to state, “India, that is Bharat,” allowing for the interchangeable use of both “India” and “Bharat” when referring to the country.

Jairam Ramesh appears to suggest that the President of India’s choice to include ‘Bharat’ in the G20 dinner invitations has significantly transformed the essence and structure of the Constitution. This insinuation hints at the idea that the Constitution of the country has undergone an irreversible transformation for referring to the country as Bharat, potentially disseminating misinformation to instil fear among Congress supporters and mobilise opposition against the Central government. His usage of ‘Bharat, that was India’ underscores his erroneous belief that India and Bharat cannot be used interchangeably.

Congress claimed that the Union Government had changed the name to ‘Bharat’ because they were afraid of the I.N.D.I.A. bloc. But this notion that the Centre has changed the country’s name from India to Bharat is grossly erroneous, given that the Constitution itself identifies India as Bharat. India had always been identified as Bharat, including in the Constitution, so to claim that the name has been changed is profoundly misleading and inaccurate assumption.

Even the national anthem of the nation, ‘Jana Gana Mana,’ includes ‘Bharat’ in its lyrics rather than ‘India.’ Does this imply that the national anthem has contravened the principles of the country’s Constitution? Does the exclusion of ‘India’ from the national anthem amount to an assault on the Constitution?

In addition, the passport of India clearly mentions ‘Bharat Ganrajya’ in Hindi and ‘Republic of India’ in English. The use of Bharat and India is complementary rather than contradictory as the Congress leader wants us to believe. The country has always been named as Bharat, and there is no 

Furthermore, the occasion has afforded yet another opportunity for the Congress party to fuel their misconception that India is not a nation but a ‘Union of States’, which has come under assault because of the presumed preeminence granted to Bharat over India.

In fact, this objection to the use of Bharat is laughable, given that the Congress had named their boondoggle project ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ or container yatra as it was popularly known, after Bharat and not India.

Over the past few months, the Congress party has focused on fostering sub-nationalism and regionalism by emphasising that India is not a nation but a ‘Union of States’ as mentioned in the Constitution without fully grasping its purpose. While India or Bharat stands for the large body of people with shared culture, common history, descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular territory, the State stands for a constitutional framework that runs the country. The Congress party is deliberately conflating the two to sow doubts among its residents and create an opportunity for its political resurgence.

‘The federation of India is indestructible, not a result of agreement by the States’: Dr BR Ambedkar on the use of ‘Union of States’ in the Constitution

None better than the chief architect of the Constitution, Dr BR Ambedkar, eloquently explained the rationale for the inclusion of the phrase ‘Union of States’ in the document. 

Clearing apprehensions over the inclusion of the ‘Union of States’ in the Constitution, Dr BR Ambedkar said, “The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, the Federation was not the result of an agreement by the States to join in a Federation and that the Federation not being the result of an agreement no State has the right to secede from it. The Federation is a Union because it is indestructible.”

“Though the country and the people may be divided into different States for convenience of administration the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source,” he further added. 

According to Dr Ambedkar, the federal structure of India was indestructible, meaning the states were an integral part of the country, with no provision whatsoever to secede from the federation. 

Nevertheless, Congress continues to stoke fear psychosis among people by resorting to lies, misinformation, and falsehoods as it seeks to instigate outrage and revive its political fortunes. The latest outcry on the use of Bharat is yet another instance when Congress has been blowing the smoke to deliberately confuse and mislead the nation.

By choosing to identify as Bharat, the Modi government is not changing the country’s name but reclaiming its civilisational identity, long smothered by multiple waves of Islamic invasions followed by two centuries of British colonialism and subsequently over seven decades of suppression by successive Congress governments. 

CBI arrests GAIL Executive Director KB Singh and 4 others in Rs 50 lakh bribery case

ANI
-
0
CBI arrests GAIL Executive Director KB Singh and 4 others in Rs 50 lakh bribery case

The Central Bureau of Investigation on Tuesday arrested five persons, including the executive director of Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL), in a bribery case.

A senior CBI official informed that the arrested persons were involved in bribery of Rs 50 lakh. A complaint was received into the matter, and the trap was laid. The accused promised a GAIL project to a person, and a bribe was demanded in return for the project.

The arrested executive director of GAIL KB Singh will be questioned along with other arrested persons.

“CBI conducted searches in Delhi, Noida and Vishakhapatnam at several locations,” the official said.

Earlier, the CBI registered a case against Amitabha Banerjee, former CMD of Indian Railway Finance Corporation (IRFC) in connection with irregularities in the purchase and distribution of exorbitant gold and non-gold items from funds of IRFC.

The FIR into the matter reads that CBI has received a complaint that alleges financial embezzlement on the part of officials of IRFC including Amitabha Banerjee, the then CMD of IRFC (Indian Railway Finance Corporation) in connection with procurement/purchase and distribution of exorbitant gold and non-gold items from funds of IRFC. 

(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)

Viral video: Former DGP shouts at IPS officer Sweety Sehrawat, asking why she refused to meet him at her residence, social media divided on ‘personal space’

Anurag
-
0
Viral video: Former DGP shouts at IPS officer Sweety Sehrawat, asking why she refused to meet him at her residence, social media divided on ‘personal space’

On 5th September, a video from Aurangabad, Bihar, went viral on social media in which former Deputy General of Police (DGP), former MLA and former governor Nikhil Kumar was seen shouting at young IPS officer ASP Sweety Sehrawat asking why she refused to meet him at her residence.

The viral video has divided social media into two sections. While one supports Sweety Sehrawat, saying she has the right to have a personal space at her residence and not see visitors, the other section claims the police officers or public servants are supposed to be on duty 24×7 and Sweety Sehrawat was wrong and disrespectful to a former senior officer and governor.

What happened at ASP’s residence?

According to reports, Kumar attempted to contact ASP Sehrawat on her office phone but was unsuccessful. He wanted to discuss the increase in reports of thefts in the area with her. Instead of going to her office, Kumar went to her residence early in the morning with the victims and other individuals. Reports indicate that when he sent someone to call ASP outside, the security personnel at her residence informed them that she was getting ready.

After approximately 45 minutes, at around 10 AM, ASP exited her residence and proceeded straight to her vehicle to go to the office. A person who accompanied Kumar rushed to stop her and informed her that Kumar wished to speak with her. ASP informed him that her residence was her personal space and that Kumar could meet her at her office. This irked Kumar, who then decided to lecture her on the matter.

In a video shared by X (formerly Twitter) user Utkarsh Singh, Seherawat asked Kumar to calm down as he appeared agitated. When she told him that there was no need to use the tone he was using, Kumar responded, “I will talk like this only.”

The ASP is seen calmly saying that she had informed everyone that she would meet them all at her office. Kumar angrily asked, “Why don’t you meet here?” She responded, “I have my personal space,” Kumar retorted, “That’s wrong.” Kumar claimed that as an IPS officer, it was her duty to meet people day and night. Seherawat said that if he had informed her, she would have gone to the office 30 minutes earlier, which further angered Kumar.

Kumar asked her what preventive measures she had taken to stop thefts in the region and what steps had been taken on the cases that had already been reported. She responded, “Let’s go to the office.” However, Kumar continued to insist on speaking to her outside her residence. Kumar was also seen using a strong, loud tone and pointing fingers at the young officer.

Interestingly, the victim who came with Kumar agreed that ASP had not only met with him every time in the office but also changed the investigation officer on the victim’s request. Throughout the interaction, ASP Sweety Sehrawat calmly tried to convince Kumar that the case the victim referred to occurred before she took charge. There were some issues with collecting evidence during the previous IO’s tenure, which the new IO attempted to rectify, and the investigation was ongoing.

When she mentioned that patrolling had been increased, another individual claimed no patrolling was in his area at night. Interestingly, he had never informed ASP, and when she questioned why she was not informed, he responded, “What would change if I had informed you? I came with bhaiya ji” (points at Kumar). Kumar signalled him to be quiet. Kumar claimed he was “horribly provoked” to come to her residence and talk to her.

The ASP suggested that if she had not acted on the victim’s complaint she was ready to face the consequences. Another victim who was robbed during her tenure claimed that action had not been taken. ASP stated that a special team had been formed to investigate the matter, and the investigation was ongoing. Towards the end, Kumar claimed that she had to be on duty round the clock.

The debate around personal space

The incident divided social media into two sections. While one is in favor of personal space, the second group claimed public servants are not entitled to one.

Senior IPS officer Arun Bothra said, “Police officers are supposed to be on 24×7 duty. They are expected to meet people at their residences. But this applies to emergency situations. In cases of sudden law & order or heinous crimes. Not political delegations followed by cameramen and aiming at elections.”

X user Manish Gawde said there was nothing wrong with what ASP said. He further questioned what the emergency was that they formed a group and went to her residence.

X user Ananmika said ASP deserves immense respect for staying calm during the conversation. “They are individuals who also require personal space, not just robots in uniform,” she added.

X user Bewaakbaatein pointed out she was polite and answered in a good way. “She is correct that she has a personal life as well,” he said.

X user Sam said, “The demonstration of maturity, calmness, and especially GRACE by the young IPS officer is simply commendable!”

X user Satiish Kumar said, “Nikhil Kumar’s decision to visit the officer’s house seems questionable. Given that there was no emergency or life-threatening situation, it may have been unnecessary. It’s important to respect everyone’s personal boundaries.”

While there were some sensible voices, many X users made comments that raised questions about the sense of entitlement of the public itself.

X user Pragath Shukla claimed as her residence was built with public money, the public could enter her residence and even the washroom.

X user Divya Kanwar said, “No, she’s wrong. Bringing procedures in place is meaningless when the output result is zero. They mention that five burglaries occurred within the same area at the same time, and they’ve been forced to come to her residence because they fear for their safety. She’s instead merely telling that she has followed the procedure, met you, so and so but with no end result. That’s ineffectiveness. That’s like I logged in and filed your complaint but system wasn’t working, so what more I can do.”

X user Stallion questioned if the personal space rule applies to soldiers at LOC. Maybe he does not know duties change at LOC after every few hours to ensure the soldiers are well rested.

X user Ayush Singh claimed IAS IPS officers do not have personal space. If they need it, people will come to their house. He then claimed that the residence she got was not to have fun and called her an “officer with ‘two kaudi’ attitude.”

Every person in any field has the right to have personal space. No person can work 24×7 without rest. Otherwise, they will burn out and make mistakes while performing duty. Going by the video, the matter was not urgent, and there was no need to visit her residence. The concerned individuals could have met the officer in her office to discuss their problems.

262 eminent citizens write to CJI asking him to take cognisance of Udhayanidhi Stalin’s hate speech against Sanatan Dharma

OpIndia Staff
-
0
262 eminent citizens write to CJI asking him to take cognisance of Udhayanidhi Stalin’s hate speech against Sanatan Dharma

On Tuesday (September 5), 262 eminent citizens, including retired Justices, armed force veterans, former ambassadors, and bureaucrats wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY ChandraChud regarding Udhayanidhi Stalin’s recent remark where he compared Sanatan Dharma with diseases and called for its eradication.  

In the letter, these eminent citizens have requested the CJI to take the suo moto cognisance of hate speech by the son of Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin. The letter states that his speech could incite communal disharmony and sectarian violence in the country. 

Notably, the list includes 14 retired judges including Former Chief Justice of Telangana High Court K Sreedhar Rao; 130 bureaucrats out of which 20 had served as ambassadors and 118 armed forces officers. 

Drawing attention to the incident, the 262 eminent citizens have emphasised that the remarks and subsequent developments have caused “anguish in the hearts and minds of common citizens of India” and it has hurt the sentiments of those who believe in Sanatan Dharma.

Highlighting the incident, they noted that a few days ago, Udhayanidhi Stalin, a serving Minister in the Tamil Nadu State Government, while addressing a press conference in Chennai stated, “Few things cannot be opposed, they should be abolished. We can’t oppose dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or corona, we have to eradicate them. In the same way, we have to eradicate the Sanatana (Sanatan Dharma), rather than opposing it”. 

The letter to the CJI added that the Tamil Nadu Minister further deliberately remarked that Sanatana Dharma enslaved women and did not allow them to step out of their homes.

The letter cites the Supreme Court’s order to register the Suo Moto case in matters of hate speech

It noted that the Supreme Court in a writ petition(s) observed – “There cannot be fraternity unless different religious communities are amenable to live in harmony. Supreme Court expressed concern over the growing incidents of hate speeches in the Country and directed the governments and police authorities to take suo motu action in such cases without waiting for the lodging of formal complaints.”  

The letter pointed out that the Supreme Court stressed that such action is needed in order to preserve the secular character of the country. Further, any delay on the part of the administration in taking action on “very serious issues” will invite the court’s contempt.

Briefly touching on the importance of ‘Sanatan Dharma, the letter states, “It (Sanatan Dharma) is a set of duties incumbent upon all Hindus and has often been defined as an “eternal” that will always be relevant and gives the people of the Hindu faith, the freedom to choose the mode of worship of the Almighty of their choice.” 

The letter added that rather than apologising for hate speech, Udhayanidhi Stalin justified his remark and the clarifications he gave did not assuage the affected people. 

The letter added, “Not only did he make a hate speech but Udhayanidhi Stalin refused to apologise for his remarks. Rather he justified himself by stating: “I will say this continuously” with reference to his remark that Santana Dharma should be eradicated. He reiterated that he stands by his remarks and offered ambiguities and nuances that did little to address the concerns raised by people.” 

Stating that they were deeply concerned by Stalin’s remarks, the eminent citizens asserted that these remarks undeniably amounted to hate speech against a large population of India. They also argued that these remarks strike at the very core of the Constitution of India which envisages Bharat as a secular nation. 

The letter also pointed out that the rule of law was further undermined when the Tamil Nadu government refused to take any action against Udhayanidhi Stalin and rather chose to justify his remarks. 

Citing the Supreme Court’s order regarding hate speech, the eminent citizens requested that the apex court should register suo moto cases and the offenders should be punished in accordance with the law. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court, the letter noted.

Requesting to take suo moto cognizance of the alleged hate speech, the letter added, “Since the State Government has refused to take action and acted in contempt of the Court’s orders and gravely undermined or rather made a mockery of the rule of law, we urge the Hon’ble Supreme Court to take the suo moto notice of contempt, ensuring accountability for the inaction of the State Government of Tamil Nadu, and take decisive steps to prevent the inducement of hate speech, preserving public order and peace and we request you to take immediate appropriate actions.” 

Former Delhi High Court judge Justice SN Dhingra and IAS officer Gopal Krishna are the coordinators of the letter sent to CJI DY Chandrachud. It has also attached the list of 262 eminent citizens who have signed this letter to CJI. 

India announces 15-member squad for Cricket World Cup 2023; KL Rahul in, Samson out

ANI
-
0
India announces 15-member squad for Cricket World Cup 2023; KL Rahul in, Samson out

Indian captain Rohit Sharma and BCCI chief selector Ajit Agarkar announced the 15-member squad for the ICC men’s Cricket World Cup on Tuesday here in Kandy.

The squad is almost the same as the Asia Cup squad, Tilak Varma and Prasidh Krishna are excluded from the side.

India is going with four seamers Shardul Thakur, Jasprit Bumrah, Mohammad Shami, and Mohammed Siraj while three spinners Ravindra Jadeja, Axar Patel and Kuldeep Yadav.

Rahul injured his thigh earlier in the year at the IPL, though has been training at the National Cricket Academy in Bengaluru, and will likely join his India teammates during the latter stages of the Asia Cup in Sri Lanka. With Rahul in the squad, Sanju Samson has missed out, as well as Tilak Varma and Prasidh Krishna as other omissions.

Captain Rohit Sharma leads the batting group, with Shubman Gill, Virat Kohli, Shreyas Iyer and Suryakumar Yadav all named, as well as Ishan Kishan who provides another keeping option. All-rounders Hardik Pandya, Ravindra Jadeja, Axar Patel and Shardul Thakur have also been named in an emphasis on batting options.

After showing no signs of injury upon his return, Jasprit Bumrah spearheads the bowling group, with Mohammed Shami and Mohammed Siraj likely the first-choice pace group. Kuldeep Yadav is the side’s leading spin option.

The World Cup commences on Thursday, October 5 when 2019 finalists England and New Zealand clash at Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad, with the event culminating in the final at the same venue on Sunday, 19 November. India will start its campaign with a match against Australia in Chennai on October 8.

Ten teams will feature in this biggest Cricket World Cup ever, to be played across 10 venues from October 5 to November 19, with the Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad hosting the tournament opener and the final. The event will feature 48 matches to be played across 46 days.

The venues other than Ahmedabad and Chennai are Bengaluru, Delhi, Dharamsala, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mumbai and Pune. While Guwahati and Thiruvananthapuram will join Hyderabad in hosting the practice games.

Eight teams have qualified for the 46-day event through the Cricket World Cup Super League while the final two spots were decided by the ICC Cricket World Cup Qualifier taking place in Zimbabwe. Sri Lanka and the Netherlands grabbed the two final spots in the tournament.

The top four teams will qualify for the semifinals, to be played in Mumbai on November 15 and in Kolkata on November 16. The final will be on November 19 in Ahmedabad. The semi-finals and the final will have reserve days.

Indian squad for World Cup: Rohit Sharma (Captain), Shubman Gill, Virat Kohli, Shreyas Iyer, KL Rahul, Ishan Kishan, Suryakumar Yadav, Hardik Pandya (vice-captain), Ravindra Jadeja, Axar Patel, Shardul Thakur, Jasprit Bumrah, Kuldeep Yadav, Mohammed Shami, Mohammed Siraj.

(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)

Brahmins run, Hindu terrorism, Indian army communal: Hateful tweets of Assam Sessions Judge Rahman go viral, was earlier not promoted for ‘doubtful integrity’

Dibakar Dutta
-
0
Brahmins run, Hindu terrorism, Indian army communal: Hateful tweets of Assam Sessions Judge Rahman go viral, was earlier not promoted for ‘doubtful integrity’

On Monday (September 4), an Assistant Sessions Judge named Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman, posted in the Udalguri district of Assam, came under fire after his tweets targeting the Hindu community and the Indian army went viral on social media.

A judicial officer of the Assam Judicial Service since 2002, Rahman had earlier served as Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) in the Sivasagar district of Assam.

“Indian army posted in Kashmir are communal #Kashmir Lives matter,” he had claimed in a tweet in November 2021. The Assistant Sessions Judge (Udalguri) had also expressed his support for Kashmiri ‘fighters.’

Tweets by Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman

Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman was also seen casting aspersions on the integrity of the Indian armed personnel, posted in the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. “Sometimes the army is not neutral. I faced it in Kashmir, visiting for the 1st time as a university student,” he had alleged.

Tweet by Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman

Attacks on Hinduism

Besides spreading canards against the Indian army, he was also seen targeting the Hindu community. “Brahmins run,” the Assistant Sessions Judge had tweeted on the day the anti-Hindu riots broke out in the National Capital.

Tweet by Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman

Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman was also seen downplaying the insecurities of the Hindu community, following the onslaught of Islamists. “Hindu khatre mein hai, alarm abhi jurorot ho gaya (Hindus are in danger, an alarm is the required now),” he mocked.

Tweet by Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman

He was also seen peddling the false claim that India is exporting beef (referring to cow meat) to Gulf countries and that Hindus are at the helm of such businesses. In reality, only carabeef (buffalo meat) is exported from India, a fact that was reiterated by BJP Minister Nirmala Sitharaman way back in 2017.

“And nowadays Hindus are in danger! Will be shot dead in close encounter by Muslims,” Rahman claimed in a tweet in July this year.

Tweet by Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman

The prejudiced Assistant Sessions Judge also claimed that the Hindu community is responsible for defaults in loan repayments and rapes. “See the National Statistics of Crime in caste basis,” he gave a glimpse into his disturbing mindset.

Tweet by Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman

While responding to a Hindu handle on Twitter, he made a derogatory assertion, “Before you criticise, first clean your mind with positive vibes, why have you kept sex slaves in Brindaban.”

Tweet by Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman

Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman was also seen labelling the assassination of notorious criminal and gangster, Atiq Ahmed, as an act of ‘Hindu terrorism.’

Tweet by Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman

The Assistant Sessions Judge was also seen spewing hatred against Hindu spiritual leaders. He claimed that Islamic clerics have never been involved in hate speeches or gave rape threats to Hindu women.

“Just a reminder to respected Hindu babas,” Rahman suggested that it was such remarks were common among the spiritual leaders of the Hindu community.

Tweet by Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman

“Now spiritual gurus are potential rapists”, he had also said in another tweet.

Political commentary by a sitting Judge

Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman, who serves as the incumbent Assistant Sessions Judge of Udalguri, was seen making political statements on social media, hounding former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma and even casting aspersions on the character of Justice Abdul Nazeer for the Ayodhya verdict.

“Saudi King rang up Modi and expressed his displeasure about RSS terrorists. Modi changed his mood”, he claimed in a tweet. Just like his co-religionists, Rahman was seen hounding ex-BJP leader Nupur Sharma on social media. “Arrest Nupur Sharma”, he tweeted.

“Delhi police what prompted you not arresting Nupur,” he said in another tweet.

Tweet by Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman

In February this year, Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman was seen engaging in the character assassination of a retired Supreme Court judge over the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict.

“He (Justice Abdul Nazeer) knew it before, judiciary was not like this before, this gentleman destroyed the backbone of judiciary by giving verdict in favour of Ram temple, where there was no evidence,” he tweeted.

Interestingly, on Monday (September 4), Rahman took to the social media platform to inform that he is being considered for the position of additional district judge/ district judge.

Screengrab of the tweet

‘Doubtful integrity’ of Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman

OpIndia found that he had moved a petition before the Gauhati High Court in March 2015 after he was not considered for promotion from Grade III officer to Grade II in the Assam Judicial Service in 2011.

His name did not feature in the list for promotion in 2012 due to ‘doubtful integrity.’ The authorities were also asked to keep Rahman under watch.

“ACRs (Annual Confidential Rolls) of 2009, 2010 and 2011 were communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner was graded “good” in the years 2009 and 2010. In the year 2011, he was graded as “average” with the remark “integrity: doubtful”. There was a further remark of the accepting authority to keep the petitioner under watch,” it said.

Later, the remark ‘integrity: doubtful’ was somehow expunged but the direction to authorities to keep him under watch was upheld in the Annual Confidential Roll.

After being questioned over his anti-Hindu antecedents on Monday (September 4), Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman cried foul and claimed that he has many friends from the Hindu community. “My maximum friends are from Hindu community,” he said.

Screengrab of the followers’ list of Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman

As expected, Rahman is followed by the likes of Trinamool Congress leader and Rajya Sabha member, Saket Gokhale. He was earlier arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in the crowdfunding fraud case.

‘Republic of Bharat’: Assam CM tweets amid media buzz over govt planning to ‘rename’ India as Bharat

OpIndia Staff
-
0
‘Republic of Bharat’: Assam CM tweets amid media buzz over govt planning to ‘rename’ India as Bharat

The announcement of a special session of Parliament from 18 to 22 September has created a lot of buzz in media and political circles. Speculations are rife that the government can bring a set of bills which according to many could be the Women reservation bill, ‘One Nation, One Election’ bill, Uniform Civil Code (UCC), or repealing laws like the Places of Worship Act, Waqf Act, or others. 

Amid all of this, Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma’s post on Twitter (X), has added to the already spreading media speculations. Taking to X, Sarma wrote, ‘Republic of Bharat’, adding that he is happy and proud that our civilization is marching ahead boldly towards Amrit Kaal.

It is pertinent to note that Assam CM Sarma had earlier changed his Twitter bio from Assam CM, India to Assam CM, Bharat. Highlighting this change, he shared a post explaining the reasoning for the same. 

Furthermore, Times Now, citing sources, too has claimed it is likely that India could be ‘renamed’ as Bharat. 

Additionally, Congress media in-charge Jairam Ramesh shared a purported invite in which the President has been referred to as ‘President of Bharat’. The letter shared by some social media handles, states that the ‘President of Bharat’ requests the pleasure of the company, followed by the name of the invitee, at dinner on September 9. It is said to be on the occasion of the G20 Summit in New Delhi. 

Regarding this, Congress leader Ramesh said, “So the news is indeed true. Rashtrapati Bhawan has sent out an invite for a G20 dinner on Sept 9th in the name of ‘President of Bharat’ instead of the usual ‘President of India’.”

Additionally, two days back, RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat had urged the citizens to use the name ‘Bharat’ instead of India.

There have been voices that have been demanding that India should be ‘renamed’ Bharat to revive the civilizational connection and for this, many MPs have raised this issue in the Parliament. Evidently, during the Monsoon session of Parliament, BJP MP Naresh Bansal claimed that the name of the country, as mentioned in the Constitution, should be changed from ‘India, that is, Bharat’ to Bharat.

However, there is no official confirmation yet on what could be the agenda for the 5-day sitting in the special session of Parliament. Though it is not the first time that a special session of Parliament has been called, it has created a strong buzz regarding the introduction of some major legislative changes this time. 

1...1,8001,8011,802...7,597Page 1,801 of 7,597