Rahul says will continue to fight for quota in pvt edu institutions
PATNA: Congress MP and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, on Thursday claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had ordered a nationwide caste census 'out of fear' of the country's deprived sections.
Interacting with students from SC, ST, OBC and EBC categories at Ambedkar Hostel in Bihar's Darbhanga district as part of the party's 'Shiksha Nyay Samvad' programme, Gandhi said that the Prime Minister conceded the demand to avoid backlash from the deprived sections.
He exhorted youngsters to remain focused on three demands: an effective caste census, like in Congress-ruled Telangana, reservations in private educational institutions, and the release of funds under the SC/ST sub-plan.
Rahul said that youngsters can't expect these things from the ruling NDA. 'But rest assured that your interest will be taken care of when we come to power, be in Bihar or at the Centre,' it emphasised.
He said he would continue fighting for reservations in private educational institutions. 'I will make sure that you are not distracted from your focus and you get your rights. You all have to understand your strength,' he told the gathering.
He alleged that the Prime Minister was against the caste census. 'I told PM Modi in parliament that he has to conduct a caste census. Due to pressure and fear of backlash from the public, PM Modi ordered a caste census. But the fact is that he is against caste census and the Constitution,' he asserted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
29 minutes ago
- Hans India
We shouldn't expect smooth sailing all time: Jaishankar on India's ties with neighbours
NEW DELHI: External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has said that India "should not expect smooth sailing" all the time when it comes to its ties with the neighbouring countries. However, he asserted that New Delhi has tried to create a "collective interest" to build an inherent stability in relationships, irrespective of the regime. At the end of the day, "the logic every one of our neighbours must realise" is that working with India will "give you benefits", and not working with India "has a cost", he said, without elaborating. "Some take longer to realise, some understand it better. One exception of course is Pakistan, because it has defined its identity under the army, in a way it has an in-built hostility in it. So if you put Pakistan aside, the logic will apply everywhere else," the EAM said during an interactive session hosted on DD India. Jaishankar shared a link to the nearly hour-long interaction on his X handle on Saturday night. In conversation with @sreeramchaulia on 11 years of Foreign Policy in the Modi era. @DDNewslive — Dr. S. Jaishankar (@DrSJaishankar) June 21, 2025 In conversation with a strategic expert, he was also asked about the changes in stance of the US and China in the last 11 years, and how New Delhi looked at this change. "Where the US is concerned, yes, there is unpredictability, therefore at a systemic level, you stabilise it with as many linkages and relationships as possible," Jaishankar said. "With China, if you have to stand up to that country and we have had some very difficult period, so it's important to prepare the capabilities," he said. The ties between the two countries nosedived significantly following the fierce clash in the Galwan Valley in June 2020 that marked the most serious military conflict between the two sides in decades. The minister said one of the "really perplexing" aspects of India's China policy was the "complete neglect of our border infrastructure in the previous decades". "To have a China policy and neglect your border infrastructure was absurd," he argued. "And, that is one of the things which has changed. We have today that standing up, in defence of our national interests, along the LAC. It is because we have built the border infrastructure to make that possible," Jaishankar said. During the conversation, he spoke at length about deepening of ties with countries in India's neighbourhood, and increase in reach out to the Gulf nations, in the last 11 years under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as also deepening of ties with the ASEAN and Indo-Pacific regions. He (Modi) has "given us a goal" but also in many ways charted a path to get there, the EAM said. Jaishankar also mentioned the ongoing Operation Sindhu launched by India to evacuate its nationals from conflict-hit areas as military confrontation between Israel and Iran intensified. Recalling Operation Ganga, he said it was the "most complex one" because evacuation was taking place during war-time in Ukraine. On volatility in India's neighbourhood and regime changes that have been ostensibly not favourable to India's interests, he said, "there will be changes". "We have tried to create a culture, a system and a collective interest, so that even if there is instability, the collective interest is stronger than those who are advocating distancing," Jaishankar said. He cited instances of Sri Lanka and how despite a change in regime, bilateral ties are good. Jaishankar also said that even after the initial period of difficulties, ties with Maldives are better. "Nepal... We are often in their internal politics, very often we get dragged in. We should not expect smooth sailing all the time, that never happens for any country with its neighbours," he said. "But, you should also not throw up your hands when things get difficult. That's poor planning," he said. Jaishankar also emphasised that New Delhi is doing the "sensible thing", which is to create systems, "create common interests, and create an inherent stability in that relationship, whichever is the regime". On counter-terrorism, and India's outlook towards Pakistan, he said the Mumbai attack was in many ways a "turning point", and the sentiment in this country was, now "enough is enough, things have to change". The 26/11 Mumbai attack, probably one of the worst terrorist assaults on any city, was let "unpunished", the EAM said, adding that "we had decades of a policy and outlook towards Pakistan". But, the Modi government changed that approach, the EAM said, and cited the 2016 Uri surgical strike, 2019 Balakot air strike and the recent Operation Sindoor. "What we have done is to really create a new normal, that the initiative will not always be with you, and that you can do horrible things and think there is impunity because you are on that side," he said. Jaishankar also said that counter-terrorism actions and abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir should not be seen as single ideas, but part of a "holistic thinking". During the conversation, the Union minister described Modi as a "leader of his times". There has been an evolution of public sentiments, the country has changed, and the "PM reflects that change in mood, self-confidence", he said. On changing stances of the US and China over the past decade, he said that "what you are talking about are trendlines, which didn't happen one fine day, they developed over many years". He said what India has systematically tried to do is to "deepen our posture, our strategic posture, to have good relations with all major countries, but also other regions, so that we get into the optimal position". "We have been planning for a multi-polar world, one of course we desire, because that gives us higher profile and more influence," Jaishankar said. In the last 11 years of foreign policy, the consistent theme underpinning it is "multipolarity", he asserted. "You need to have that clarity, you need to envision the world today... Multiple poles are competing but cooperating with each other. But, here, we tried to have in a way the least problems and most benefits," he added.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Boundaries between intrusive state, inviolable right to privacy
In the times that we live in, a seminal issue before us is to define the boundaries between an intrusive state and the inviolable rights to privacy of individuals. In many cases the lines between these two polarities are being blurred or even demolished. The state now believes that it has the right to determine individual behaviour in all kinds of personal matters, including what people eat and drink, wear or don't wear, and the kind of relationships they choose to have. The recent Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Bill, which mandates that live-in couples must register their relationship with the state, is a significant case in point (Pixabay/Representative photo) In some areas, the state does have the powers to play a regulatory role even if it impinges on personal freedom of choice. The minimum age at which people can marry, or the declaration of some days of national importance as dry days, or imposing punitive action under the law on adulterous relationships, are examples where people have largely accepted that their absolute rights to privacy can be curbed. The problem arises when the state believes it has the power to intrude indiscriminately, and believes that it has the prerogative to dictate individual choices in matters where it is clearly and illegally trespassing. The recent Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Bill, which mandates that live-in couples must register their relationship with the state, is a significant case in point. While ostensibly presented as a move towards legal transparency and social stability, the provision raises fundamental questions about the extent to which the government can —or should—extend its reach into the legitimate privacy of consenting adults. India, for all its ancient civilizational wisdom, often reveals a schizophrenic approach to modernity. On one hand, we celebrate our ascent into the digital age, global commerce, and cosmopolitan values. On the other, we are discomfited by changes in personal norms that challenge inherited notions of morality. The live-in relationship, while still taboo in many quarters, is a legal and voluntary association between adults. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly affirmed that such relationships fall within the realm of individual liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Yet, by compelling registration under the UCC bill, the state appears to be imposing a moralistic imprimatur on a private arrangement — an act that is not just paternalistic but also legally suspect. Proponents argue that registration is necessary to prevent exploitation, particularly of women, and to bring such relationships within a legal framework. While the protection of vulnerable partners is indeed a legitimate state concern, the method chosen betrays a deeper impulse — that of surveillance. The requirement to report such a relationship to a district officer, with possible legal consequences for non-compliance, transforms a personal choice into a potentially intimidatory proposition. Is the state to be a protector, or is it to become a social arbiter that polices who lives with whom and under what terms? There is an ominous echo here of an earlier era, one where conformity to socially sanctioned norms was the price of civic respectability. India's founding principles, of liberty, equality, and fraternity, were not just rhetorical flourishes in the Constituent Assembly. They reflected a solemn compact between the citizen and the state: that autonomy over one's body, belief, and personal choices shall be inviolate, except in circumstances of demonstrable harm to others. The registration of live-in relationships does not prevent crime or ensure social justice; rather, it opens the door to harassment, stigma, and selective enforcement. In a society already stratified by caste, religion, and gender, such laws risk becoming tools of moral policing rather than instruments of justice. The legitimacy of the state does not lie in its ability to penetrate the lives of its citizens, but in its wisdom to know where to draw the line. Government interference in personal matters must pass the test of necessity, proportionality, and constitutionality. The Uttarakhand provision, by that standard, sets a dangerous precedent. So does the total Prohibition imposed in Bihar. The state, in the name of 'social reform', to reduce the consumption of alcohol—a laudable goal—has decided that nobody can consume any alcohol at all. The reaction to this unimplementable and impractical diktat on individual choices has been the rise of a vast illegal alcohol mafia. Liquor is available everywhere, lakhs of the poor are languishing in jail with not enough money to even apply for bail, there is rampant corruption in the police and enforcement authorities, and the ominous growth of consumption of drugs. As we navigate the complexities of a rapidly evolving society, we must remember that the true strength of a nation lies not in its ability to control its citizens, but in its willingness to trust them. In matters of love, choice, and companionship, the state must learn the art of restraint, for in that restraint lies the true essence of democracy.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Trump ignites debate on Presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
U.S. President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Mr. Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. Also Read | Donald Trump says Iran nuclear sites 'obliterated,' threatens more strikes 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Mr. Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' Follow the Israel-Iran conflict LIVE updates The quick GOP endorsements of stepped-up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Mr. Trump publicly considered the strikes for days, and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Mr. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Mr. Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes." Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional." Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Mr. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment." 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Mr. Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Mr. Casar said. "Enough.'
