<img src="https://api-discussion.policharcha.com/1711533789512" alt="Omar Abdullah questions AFSPA promise by Amit Shah amidst Lok Sabha polls" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

National Conference (NC) leader Omar Abdullah expressed scepticism on Wednesday regarding promises to revoke the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) from Jammu and Kashmir, suggesting it might be a pre-election tactic akin to promises made and broken about including Ladakh in the 6th schedule of the Indian Constitution.
Abdullah's remarks came after reports in local media quoted Union Home Minister Amit Shah stating that the BJP-led Centre would consider revoking AFSPA from Jammu and Kashmir in due course.
“I am waiting for this day since 2011. We made a lot of efforts to remove the AFSPA (when he was the chief minister) as well, but I fear that the people of Jammu and Kashmir will be misled and cheated like the people of Ladakh were misled and cheated on the promise of the Sixth Schedule as elections are here,” Abdullah told reporters in Budgam district.
The former Union minister urged for immediate action on revoking AFSPA, citing statements by central leaders about the improved situation and the restoration of normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir.
“As far as revoking the AFSPA is concerned, start from today. When they say the situation is normal and militancy has ended and there is no separatist thought left, then what are they waiting for?” he asked.
Reports surfaced quoting Amit Shah saying that the Centre is considering the revocation of AFSPA from Jammu and Kashmir as the situation is improving, and change is underway.
During an interview with the JK Media Group, Shah also mentioned plans to reduce troop presence in the Union Territory, entrusting law and order responsibilities primarily to the Jammu and Kashmir Police.
"We have plans to pull back troops and leave law and order to the Jammu and Kashmir Police alone. Earlier, the Jammu and Kashmir police was not trusted, but today they are leading the operations," Home Minister said.
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act grants extensive powers to armed forces in disturbed areas, including search, arrest, and use of force if deemed necessary for public order maintenance. While the act has been partially lifted in northeastern states, it remains in force in Jammu and Kashmir, eliciting calls for its revocation from various quarters.

Omar Abdullah questions AFSPA promise by Amit Shah amidst Lok Sabha polls

<img src="https://api-discussion.policharcha.com/1713277996182" alt="Controversy at Azim Premji University: The debate over 'Annihilate Hinduism' sparks national discussion" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

The recent discussions at Azim Premji University have sparked controversy and raised serious questions about the boundaries of academic discourse and the ethical responsibilities of educational institutions.
The focus of this debate revolves around the notion of "Annihilate Hinduism," a topic that has ignited a fiery debate and stirred concerns about the role of universities in fostering divisive ideologies.
Azim Premji University, situated in Karnataka, is no stranger to controversy, being situated in a region known for its blend of Islamist and Left Liberal ideologies. However, the recent discourse on "Annihilate Hinduism" has taken the spotlight, shedding light on the delicate balance between academic freedom and responsible dialogue.
The emergence of discussions advocating the annihilation of Hinduism within academic spaces has prompted a broader conversation about the role of universities as platforms for constructive dialogue and intellectual diversity. While academic freedom is crucial for the exploration of controversial ideas, it must be exercised with sensitivity and respect for diverse beliefs and identities.
The concern over the potential indoctrination of youth through such discourse is particularly troubling, as educational institutions play a significant role in shaping the worldview and values of future generations. The propagation of extremist ideologies, disguised as academic inquiry, not only undermines the credibility of academic institutions but also threatens social cohesion and harmony.
A notable incident at Azim Premji University involving Rishi Tiwari highlights the dangers of ideological intolerance and Hinduphobia within academic circles. Tiwari's ordeal, which began with a minor altercation, escalated into targeted harassment and discrimination based on his Hindu identity and affiliation with Benares Hindu University.
The social media campaign against Tiwari, coupled with the lack of fair process and swift punitive actions by the university administration, underscores the toxic environment prevailing within certain academic institutions. The rush to judgment and the absence of nuanced discussions further exacerbate polarisation and hinder meaningful dialogue.
Moreover, the issue raises questions about double standards in addressing hate speech and incitement targeting different communities. It is imperative that all forms of hate speech and discrimination, regardless of the targeted group, be unequivocally condemned and addressed with appropriate measures to uphold principles of equality and justice.
As the debate continues, it remains essential for universities to uphold academic integrity, promote inclusive discourse, and ensure that academic freedom is exercised responsibly in line with ethical standards and societal harmony.

Controversy at Azim Premji University: The debate over 'Annihilate Hinduism' sparks national discussion

<img src="https://api-discussion.policharcha.com/1712749510607" alt="BJP candidate Khagen Murmu's campaign kiss stirs debate; TMC attacks, woman clarifies" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

BJP MP Khagen Murmu, who is also the party's Lok Sabha nominee for Bengal's North Malda constituency, sparked controversy following a photograph depicting him kissing a woman on the cheek during a campaign event.
The incident unfolded on Monday as the BJP contender canvassed in Srihipur village of Chanchal within his parliamentary jurisdiction. Images capturing Khagen Murmu's gesture circulated widely across social media platforms.
Trinamool Congress swiftly seized upon the opportunity to criticise the BJP, denouncing the act as evidence of the party's lack of respect for women.
The ruling party of Bengal also took to X to voice their disapproval, stating, "If you cannot believe what you just saw, let us clarify. Yes, this is BJP MP &amp; Maldaha Uttar candidate Khagen Murmu, kissing a woman on his own accord on his campaign trail. From MPs that sexually harass women wrestlers to leaders who make obscene songs about Bengali women, the BJP camp has no dearth of anti-women politicians. This is how Modi Ka Parivar engages in Nari Ka Samman! Imagine what they would do if they came to power.”
Dulal Sarkar, vice president of Trinamool Congress in Malda district, echoed these sentiments, condemning the incident as contrary to "Bengali culture." He pondered on the BJP's mindset post-election victory, questioning the propriety of such actions while "begging for votes."
" People will decide this," Dulal Sarkar added.
Khagen Murmu, on the other hand, defended his action, asserting that the woman is akin to "his own child."
"There is nothing wrong with kissing a child. This is a complete grassroots conspiracy. They have such bad values," the BJP candidate said.
He further announced intentions to file a complaint against Trinamool Congress concerning their remarks on the kissing episode. "Parties and individuals are being defamed by distorting such pictures," Khagen Murmu remarked.
Moreover, the woman involved in the incident also came forward to defend the BJP candidate's actions, chastising those who deemed the viral pictures inappropriate. She argued that there's no harm in a man kissing a woman as he would his daughter.
"If a man kisses a woman like his own daughter, what is the problem with that? People who are making such incidents viral on social media have a dirty mentality. Khagen Murmu loves me like a daughter. My father and mother were also present when the picture was taken," the woman said.

BJP candidate Khagen Murmu's campaign kiss stirs debate; TMC attacks, woman clarifies

<img src="https://api-discussion.policharcha.com/1709727252397" alt="Madras HC dismisses 'quo warranto' petitions against DMK leaders over remarks on Sanatan Dharma" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

The Madras High Court declined to issue a writ of ‘quo warranto’ in response to petitions filed by members of a Hindu nationalist group against DMK Ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin and PK Sekar Babu, along with Member of Parliament A Raja.
The ‘quo warranto’ petitions questioned the legitimacy of their official positions following comments allegedly disparaging Sanatana Dharma.
Justice Anita Sumanth disposed of the petitions brought forth by two Hindu Munnani functionaries and another individual, which raised concerns over the authority of the three DMK leaders to hold office after participating in what was described as an "anti-Sanatana Dharma meeting" and delivering speeches critical of religious practices.
While acknowledging Minister Udayanidhi Stalin's remarks equating Sanatana Dharma to diseases like HIV, AIDS, and Malaria as concerning and contrary to constitutional principles, the court ultimately dismissed the petitions.
The judge stated that individuals in positions of authority must exercise greater responsibility and verify historical facts before making public statements.
According to reports, Udhayanidhi Stalin clarified that his intention was not to belittle or disrespect any religion, but to oppose discriminatory religious practices. He underscored that Article 25 safeguards the right to practice and profess religion, including the freedom to profess atheism and hold non-belief in God.
Minister Sekar Babu refuted the plea, arguing that it was a response to his efforts to reclaim temple properties allegedly encroached upon by individuals associated with the Hindu Munnani. He asserted that the petition was driven by malicious intent. Additionally, he highlighted his involvement in a meeting advocating for the abolition of the caste system, elimination of untouchability, and promotion of social equality.
MP A Raja asserted that freedom of speech and expression supersedes freedom of religion. He contended that Article 19(1)(a) encompasses the dissemination of information and positive ideals, fostering constructive dialogue among citizens for societal progress.
On Monday, 4 March, the Supreme Court admonished Udhayanidhi Stalin for his "eradicate Sanatana Dharma" statement and questioned why he had approached the apex court with his plea after purportedly misusing his right to freedom of speech and expression.
“You abuse your right under Article 19(1)(a) (of the Constitution). You abuse your right under Article 25. Now, you are exercising your right under Article 32 (to file a plea in the Supreme Court)? Do you not know the consequences of what you said? You are not a layman, you are a minister. You should know the consequences,” the bench said, adjourning the matter to 15 March.
<ins>Background</ins>
On September 2, 2023, Tamil Nadu’s Sports Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Minister PK Sekar Babu participated in a conference organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers’ Association in Chennai, focused on the "annihilation of Sanatana Dharma."
During the event, Udhayanidhi likened Sanatana Dharma to diseases like coronavirus, malaria, dengue, and mosquitoes, advocating for its eradication. This statement sparked controversy, particularly with the BJP expressing strong opposition.
DMK MP A Raja also entered the fray, describing Sanatana Dharma as a "social disgrace."
At a protest gathering against the Vishwakarma Yojana organised by the Dravidar Kazhagam in Chennai on September 6, Raja further compared Sanatana Dharma to HIV and leprosy.

Madras HC dismisses 'quo warranto' petitions against DMK leaders over remarks on Sanatan Dharma

<img src="https://api-discussion.policharcha.com/1709044028232" alt="Supreme Court criticises Patanjali Ayurved for deceptive advertisements, issues contempt notice" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

The Supreme Court of India has heavily criticised Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publicise deceptive advertisements promoting medicinal cures. Patanjali had committed to the Court in November the last year that such claims would stop.
Expressing initial concerns over the company's breach of its commitment, the Court issued a notice to Patanjali Ayurved and its Managing Director, Acharya Balakrishna, demanding justification for potential contempt of court.
In response to the ongoing issue, the Court prohibited Patanjali Ayurved from advertising or branding products purported to treat diseases specified under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.
Moreover, the company was cautioned against making derogatory remarks about any system of medicine. The Court scheduled a follow-up hearing in two weeks to address the matter further.
The Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association which sought to curb what the latter had described as a "smear campaign" and negative advertisements targeting the vaccination drive and modern medicines.
During the proceedings, the Court also sought information from the Union Government regarding any actions taken under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 in response to Patanjali's advertisements.
"The entire country is taken for a ride! You wait for two years when the Acts says this (misleading advertisements) is prohibited," Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj.
In response to the SC judges remarks, ASG KM Nataraj stated that it is for the concerned States to take action under the Act.
When the case was taken in the morning session, Justice Amanullah strongly rebuked Patanjali for yet another advertisement that contained misleading claims. Justice Amanullah, without mincing any words, said: “Today, I am going to pass really strict order. You flout this order!”
“You had the courage and guts to come up with this advertisement after the order of this Court! And then you come up with this advertisement. Permanent relief, what do you mean by permanent relief? Is it a cure?...we are going to pass a very, very strict order. You are tempting the Court.” Judge added.
During the 2 PM session, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, representing the Indian Medical Association, reported that the day following the Supreme Court's November 21, 2023 order, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna of Patanjali held a press conference and reiterated misleading claims.
Patwalia also highlighted that advertisements promoting permanent cures for ailments such as diabetes, blood pressure, asthma, arthritis, and glaucoma were circulated, referencing a publication in 'The Hindu' on December 4, 2023, and YouTube links to the press conference. He further said argued that many of these conditions are explicitly listed in the Schedule to the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.
The bench then grilled Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, representing Patanjali Ayurved, questioning the company's claim of providing permanent relief. Additionally, the bench raised concerns about Patanjali Ayurved's statements regarding other medicinal systems like Allopathy, reminding Sanghi of the previous order restraining comments against alternative systems.
Justice Amanullah said that there was a prima facie flouting of the Supreme Court's order and notices should be issued to Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna whose pictures were shown in the advertisements.
Responding to queries about Baba Ramdev being a sanyasi, Sanghi's remark was dismissed by Justice Amanullah, stating the importance to follow court's directives over personal identities. Patwalia criticised Sanghi's statement as "outrageous," while Justice Kohli echoed concerns over the apparent disregard for the court's order.
Initially considering a complete ban on advertisements, the bench reconsidered upon Sanghi's argument highlighting the company's diverse product portfolio. Consequently, the Court specified that the ban would apply solely to products associated with diseases listed under the Act.

Omar Abdullah questions AFSPA promise by Amit Shah amidst Lok Sabha polls

Related Articles