21.12.24...Untouchablity News.....अछूत समाचार.தீண்டாமை செய்திகள்.by Team சிவாஜி. शिवाजी .Shivaji.asivaji1962@gmail.com.9444917060.
‘You neglected Dalits’: JDU slams Arvind Kejriwal, supports Amit Shah
NEW DELHI: Amid the ongoing political tussle between BJP-led NDA and the opposition bloc over Ambedkar’s legacy, Janata Dal (United) on Friday hit back at Aam Aadmi Party after its convener Arvind Kejriwal advised Bihar CM Nitish Kumar to reflect on home minister Amit Shah’s comments on the Dalit icon.
JD(U) working president Sanjay Jha reminded Kejriwal in a letter that while Kumar placed Jitan Ram Manjhi, a member of the Mahadalit community, as the CM, Kejriwal didn’t do the same when he resigned nor kept his Punjab poll promise of making a Dalit the deputy CM. In his letter to Kumar, Kejriwal had said, “BJP has insulted Baba Saheb in Parliament. People feel those who love Baba Saheb cannot support BJP. You should also think about this.”
In response, Jha posted on social media, “I read your letter to CM Nitish Kumar. I can understand the real reason for your pain. You are hurting because on that day in the House, home minister Amit Shah exposed the leader of your alliance, his party and his family,” Jha said in reference to Shah’s scathing attack on Congress and the Nehru- Gandhi family for not recognising Ambedkar’s contribution.
“Congress party’s ill-treatment of Baba Saheb is unforgivable,” he added.
Jha said the NDA was working towards a “developed India” and ensuring the inclusion of all sections of society. “Every member of the NDA family, including our party, is rapidly moving towards ‘developed India’ by taking along every section of society. But the progress of the country and the happiness of the people are going to the detriment of ‘one class’,” he wrote. “You and your alliance leader Rahul Gandhi cannot even imagine doing what Nitish Kumar did for Dalits and backward classes in Bihar by following in the footsteps of Baba Saheb,” he added.
Courtesy : TOI
NEW DELHI: Amid the ongoing political tussle between BJP-led NDA and the opposition bloc over Ambedkar’s legacy, Janata Dal (United) on Friday hit back at Aam Aadmi Party after its convener Arvind Kejriwal advised Bihar CM Nitish Kumar to reflect […]
..
Ambedkar row: RLD UP spokesperson says ‘Dalit community hurt’, urges Shah to tender apology; party distances itself from comments
Agra: Reacting to Union home minister Amit Shah’s comments on BR Ambedkar in Rajya Sabha, RLD’s UP spokesperson Kamal Gautam, who hails from the Dalit community, during a media interaction in Muzaffarnagar on Friday, said that Shah’s remarks were “inappropriate” […]
Ll
The boy was allegedly punched in the stomach, which caused swelling in the intestines. The minor’s parents allege that they lodged a police complaint, but no action was taken, after which the family approached the local court, which ordered an […]
‘Bruises, Fractures, Sexual Assault Marks’: Why Families of 3 Hmar Men Killed in Assam Police ‘Encounter’ Say Cops’ Account Doesn’t Hold Up
A magisterial enquiry has given police the clean chit. Yet its own video recordings say there is more to the story, allege families.
At 4.30 pm, on July 16, 2024, the Assam Police caught three men from Ganganagar in Assam’s Cachar district, while they were travelling in an autorickshaw. They were 35-year-old Joshua Lalringsan, 33-year-old Lalbiekkung Hmar and 21-year-old Lallungawi Hmar. The police said that they were militants. Their families say they were farmers.
The next day they were dead.
At 12.12 pm on July 17, Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma posted on X that three militants had been killed in a police encounter.
‘In an early morning operation, @cacharpolice killed 3 Hmar militants from Assam and neighbouring Manipur. Police also recovered 2 AK rifles, 1 other rifle and 1 pistol. @gpsinghips’
At 12.39 pm on July 18, the director general of Assam police, G.P. Singh, posted this message on X:
‘We would continue to scour every inch of Assam to keep it safe. It’s after more than three decades that there has been no death of civilians or security personnel during 2023 and 2024 till date in militant violence.’
Police’s claim
On the same day, on X, G.P. Singh also shared a press note prepared by the Cachar superintendent of police, detailing the sequence of events that led to the three men being killed. It identified them by their names.
The note also claimed that the three were held based on “credible input regarding movement of suspected militants at Krishanapur…”. The three were on their way towards Bhuban Hills in an autorickshaw, it said.
The police press note repeated what Sarma said – that during a search one AK-47 gun, one single-barrel rifle and one pistol along with live ammunition was seized from them.
During interrogation, the note said, the three allegedly revealed that their counterparts were hiding around Bhuban Hills with a huge cache of arms to carry out subversive activities near the Assam-Manipur border.
The press release further stated that based on the information the three gave police, “a special operation was launched led by ASP HQ along with Police Station staff and AG commandos in the general area of Bhuban Hills side for apprehension of suspected militants being led by the apprehended culprits (emphasis added).”
The police claims that the team entered into “a sudden firing attack by the suspected militants” and even though the three “apprehended militants” were wearing bullet proof vests and helmets, they received grievous injuries and were killed. The other “6/7” suspected militants managed to escape, police claimed.
Extra-judicial killing, say families
The families of the three victims have approached the Gauhati high court accusing the Assam police of staging what was an extra-judicial killing. The petition claimed that the three men were arrested at 4:30 pm on July 16, after having been stopped by policemen while they were travelling in an autorickshaw. They also presented a video of the arrest showing the policemen searching the three men, and contrary to the police’s claim, they purportedly seem unarmed.
The three men were taken to the local police station and detained there, their families say. It is not known how long the men stayed at the police station. At 7 pm on the same day, a reporter from Barack Live 24, a local news portal, reported from outside the police station that the arrested men were being detained inside. This report was presented as part of the families’ writ petition. The families have claimed that sometime in the night or early next morning, Joshua Lalringsan, Lalbiekkung Hmar and Lallungawi Hmar were killed. A video of the men being taken to a forested area, with their hands tied behind their backs, has been circulated multiple times on social media. This video too has been submitted as evidence before the court.
By the afternoon of July 17, chief minister Sarma had posted on X that the three had been killed in a police encounter. Then came the DGP’s statement on July 18, along with the press note which has been quoted from, above.
In their petition before the Gauhati high court the families of the three deceased have said that “the story of the DGP is entirely false and that the DGP along with the police entered into a conspiracy to murder, in cold blood, the three men.
The families are calling for DGP Singh to be charged under Section 302 (murder) read with 120B (punishment for criminal conspiracy) and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The petitioners also claimed that camouflage uniforms with bullet proof vests were put on the dead bodies after the three men had been killed to create an impression that they were killed in an encounter.
Hmar tribe leaders speak of gross rights violation
The Hmar tribe is a sub-sect of the Lushai-Kuki-Chin ethnic group which inhabits the northeastern states of Assam, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Tripura. The armed conflict between the majority Meitei community and Kuki Zo tribes, that erupted in Manipur in May 2023, has led to unrest in the entire region. Activists have accused the government of Manipur of providing political patronage to violent vigilante groups that support the Meitei community.
Cachar, the district from which the three men were arrested, borders Manipur to the east and Mizoram to the south. The district had been on edge since violence first erupted in Manipur and was placed on high alert in November 2024 following an escalation of violence in Jiribam in Manipur.
Against the backdrop of ethnic violence and mistrust against BJP led state governments in the region, the deaths of three Hmar men in police custody led to a massive uproar in Assam, with Hmar community leaders have accusing the state police of orchestrating extra judicial killings.
Hmar Inpui, the apex body of the Hmar tribe issued a statement saying:
“Hmar Inpui is shocked and appalled to learn about the Assam Police whimsical-orchestrated extra judicial killings of three Hmars; Lallungawi Hmar, Lalbiekkung Hmar and Joshua Lalringsan on July 16, 2024…This is a gross human rights violation and a reflection of the apathetic criminal justice system in Assam.
The Hmar Inpui also demanded an independent magisterial inquiry, along with disciplinary action against the involved officers and compensation for the next of kin of the deceased.
The Indigenous Tribes Advocacy Committees (ITAC) at Pherzawl and Jiribam issued a statement claiming that the three men were village volunteers who were trying to protect Kuki-Zomi-Hmar tribes against Meiteis, who are the majority in Manipur.
“In response to the Meitei’s attempt to annihilate the Kuki-Zomi-Hmar tribes in Manipur since May 3, 2023, village volunteers in the Jiribam area have taken a stand to fight for their survival in their own land. While defending the right to existence and ancestral land of the Kuki-Zomi-Hmar tribes, three village volunteers namely Joshua Lalringsan, Lalbiekkung Hmar and Lallungawi Hmar were unfortunately apprehended at Kabuganj-Amjur Road under Kachudharam Police Station, Cachar, Assam, by the Assam police. Without any resistance from the volunteers, the Assam Police personnel took them into custody at the Kachudharam Police Station…The Indigenous Tribal Advocacy Committee expresses its profound outrage over the custodial deaths of three village volunteers in Assam.”
ITAC also demanded an independent inquiry into the custodial deaths.
The Hmar Students Association too issued a statement saying:
“The Assam Police’s claim of an encounter is riddled with inconsistencies and contradicted by compelling video evidence, which exposes the fabricated nature of their account.”
While calling for an urgent and impartial investigation, the Hmar Student’s Association also urged the National Human Rights Commission, the NIA and the CBI to ensure that those responsible be brought to justice.
The Indigenous Tribe Leader’s Forum (ITLF) lashed out at chief minister Sarma while condemning the killing.
“The Indigenous Tribal Leader’s Forum (ITLF) condemns, in the strongest terms, the cold blooded murder of three Hmar youths from the Kuki-Zo Community in a fake encounter by the Assam Police…It is also very unfortunate that Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sharma lauded the killings on social media. We demand that the state government institute an impartial investigation into the deaths and ensure that justice is delivered.”
Assam’s response
In its response, the Assam government has filed an affidavit before the Gauhati high court and denied allegations of extra judicial execution. The government’s account corresponded to what was shared by DIG Singh on social media. It claimed that the three apprehended men were made part of a special operation to capture other alleged militants hiding in Bhuban Hills.
The Assam government admitted that the three apprehended men were made to lead the team of policemen and AG commandos but insisted that they were wearing safety equipment along with police personnel. The Assam government further submitted reports of the postmortem of the three bodies, that was carried out at the Silchar Medical College and Hospital. The analysis of the reports claimed that Lallungwai Hmar died instantly due to a bullet injury in the thorax, Joshua died instantly because of a bullet injury in the head, and Lalbikung Hmar died due to hemorrhagic shock following bullet injuries.
The government’s affidavit also stated that an independent investigating officer had been appointed to look into the case and a magisterial enquiry had been ordered on July 19.
Families of deceased file a rejoinder
The rejoinder filed by the families of the three deceased men, to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Assam government, has significant revelations.
The petitioners have got the postmortem reports submitted by the prosecution re-examined by independent forensic experts. The findings point to evidence of brutal torture before death.
Details from the postmortem report’s analysis are below:
Lallungawi Hmar
The entry and exit wounds of the bullet on Lallungawi’s body shows that he was shot at from the front at a close range. The black margin around the wound has been caused by carbon deposits from the gun at close range.
Diffused contusion on the right side of the scalp, bluish in colour, shows that it was caused by a blunt force injury while he was alive.
Report on the cranial membrane indicates the presence of subdural haemorrhage over the right cerebral hemisphere and gliosis over both medial aspects of cerebral hemisphere. This phenomenon occurs as an immune repose of the body’s attempt to protect tissues from further damage following a brain injury.
The brain is congested which is likely caused due to repeated blows.
Multiple pressure abrasions in the arms are likely caused as a result of the victim being tied down.
Joshua Lalringsan
Extensive bruising noted on the entire skull suggesting significant impact or multiple impacts. The severity indicates substantial force was applied to the head region.
The brain shows signs of congestion and laceration indicating trauma to the head, consistent with the diffuse contusion observed on the skull.
Fractures on the second rib (right side) and fifth rib (left side) are indicative of considerable blunt force trauma to the chest area.
Lacerations in the pleurae (lining of the lungs) with clotted blood present suggests trauma to the chest causing internal bleeding and subsequent clot formation.
Lacerated muscle deep injury on posterior lateral aspect of both legs. This indicates that a knife was used to scrape away, not only the skin, but also the muscles of the leg.
Additionally, Joshua sustained multiple gunshot wounds with various trajectories suggesting shots were fired from different angles or positions. All gunshot wounds are blackened and abraded indicating close range firing.
The nature and extent of the injuries strongly suggest a homicidal manner of death.
Lalbiekkung Hmar
Extensive bruising on the chest wall suggesting blunt force trauma.
The pleurae (lining of the lungs) contain liquid and clotted blood suggesting internal bleeding into the chest cavity.
Two pressure abrasions measuring 5.5 cm x 0.7 cm and the other measuring 4 cm x 2 cm on the left shoulder area. The abrasions are reddish-brown in colour indicating antemortem injuries.
A patterned bruise measuring 9 cm x 2 cm on the left leg.
Lalbiekkung suffered multiple antemortem injuries due to close blunt force and pressure abrasions, indicative of a struggle or assault prior to gunshot wounds.
The gunshot trajectories and close-range nature of the wounds suggest that the victim and shooter were in close proximity.
The manner of death is consistent with a violent encounter involving close range gunfire, resulting in fatal injuries.
The rejoinder further suggests that the three men may have been sexually assaulted before being killed.
It refers to the postmortem report of Lallungawi Hmar where the remark for private parts says, ‘bruise/wound mark can be seen at right bum area’.
For Joshua Lalringsan, the remark for examination of private parts says, ‘near left bum region a wound mark (hole like) can be seen’.
For Lalbeikkung Hmar, the postmortem report says, ‘cut mark can be seen at right side of bum area’.
Along with these specific wounds, the postmortem report also says that ‘wounds and bruises can be seen at majority area’ of their private parts.
The note shared by the police had stated that three police personnel had gotten severely injured in the exchange of fire in Bhuban Hills. The rejoinder however claims that no police officers were injured in the alleged encounter and no medical records of any injuries had been provided by the State in its initial affidavit. The rejoinder also claims that Joshua Lalringsan, Lalbiekkung Hmar and Lallungawi Hmar were the only three men who received injuries and were killed.
The petitioners have also refuted DIG GP Singh’s claim that one of the deceased, Lalbikung Hmar, had a previous criminal record. They have presented a comparison between details in FIR No 152/2019, mentioned by the DIG in his social media post, and the actual details of the deceased (see below).
The discrepancies in Lalbikung Hmar’s details, according to his family.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalvez, who is representing the families of the deceased before the Gauhati high court, called the police’s version ‘unbelievable’.
“It is unbelievable because of one very important mistake. The DGP of Assam did not realise, nobody informed him, that two-three hours earlier their own policemen who had arrested these men from the auto had taken a video recording of the arrest and made it viral. The video proves their innocence,” the counsel said.
Gonzalves said that even if one was to believe the police’s story, the fact that they admitted to using the three men as ‘human shields’ during their special operation is outrageous and can be termed a war crime.
“Our Indian police from Assam are guilty of a war crime by using these people as a human shield,” he said.
“Peeling the skin, terrible torture and then they were killed. Horrible crimes, our Indian police commit terrible crimes but who will catch them. Which court will catch them, which judge will catch them, who cares? Even the judiciary doesn’t care. It is so sad. It is a clear-cut case of extra judicial killing,” he added.
On the orders of the Gauhati high court, a magisterial enquiry was carried out. The executive magistrate of the Cachar district submitted his report on November 14 and concluded that the apprehended persons tried to flee during the exchange of fire on Bhuban hills and succumbed to bullet injuries, thereby giving a clean chit to the police.
The families of the three deceased men have now pinned their hopes on the Gauhati high court.
Lalchunghnung, Joshua Lalringsan’s brother, said it is utterly preposterous that his brother is being labelled as a terrorist.
Members of his family said Joshua’s sudden disappearance has left his child in distress and they are unable to explain why he has not come back home. Lalchunghnung said, “We don’t have an issue if they were caught by the police. Let the police take them into custody. Follow the procedure required according to the law. These men died in the hands of the police. What kind of law and order is this? They were taken with their hands tied behind their backs. They were beaten black and blue. We have seen the pictures. We believe that they were killed by the police after being tortured for a long period of time. We want those who are guilty of extra judicial killings to be punished.”
The final hearing for the case is expected to take place before the Gauhati high court on January 7.
Courtesy: The Wire
BJP’s Dalit dilemma
Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi with other INDIA bloc members during a protest in Parliament premises demanding the resignation of Home Minister Amit Shah for his remarks related to B.R. Ambedkar, in New Delhi on December 19, 2024.
Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi with other INDIA bloc members during a protest in Parliament premises demanding the resignation of Home Minister Amit Shah for his remarks related to B.R. Ambedkar, in New Delhi on December 19, 2024. | Photo Credit: Arun Sharma/PTI
What’s in a name? A lot, especially if it is “Ambedkar,” as Union Home Minister Amit Shah discovered the hard way in the just-concluded winter session of Parliament. The showdown between the BJP and the Congress over Shah’s sarcastic comment on Ambedkar in Parliament has opened up multiple debates since December 18. What stands out in the entire episode is the BJP’s discomfort in handling controversies that stem from Dalit issues.
When Shah told opposition members, “It has become the new fashion to keep saying ‘Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar’. If they uttered God’s name as many times they would reach heaven,” neither he nor his party anticipated the nationwide controversy it would ignite.
With the comments, Shah ventured into what has historically been a challenging territory for the saffron party. The opposition, still smarting from the Assembly election setbacks in Haryana and Maharashtra, quickly seized the opportunity. They organised protests with the slogan “Babasaheb Ka Apmaan Nahin Sahega Hindustan [India will not tolerate the insult to Babasaheb]” and burnt the Home Minister’s posters in State capitals across the country.
A day later, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge decided to escalate the issue by filing a privilege notice against Shah. Kharge argued that the Home Minister’s remarks insulted the architect of the Constitution and showed contempt for the House. Nishikant Dubey of the BJP responded by filing a privilege notice against Rahul Gandhi, accusing him of showing a “criminally edited” version of Shah’s speech.
But the most dramatic moments unfolded outside the House. Tensions peaked when a physical altercation broke out at Makar Dwar, Parliament’s main entrance, between BJP and Congress members. The scuffle left two BJP MPs, Pratap Chandra Sarangi and Mukesh Rajput, injured and the BJP accusing Rahul Gandhi of instigating the violence. Police cases were filed against Rahul Gandhi. The Congress also made assault charges against BJP MPs, and alleged that the latter had hurt Kharge. BJP leaders shared photographs of the injured Sarangi and Rajput, insisting that “pictures don’t lie”, but refused to share security camera footage that, Congress members said, would clearly show what had taken place.
Staying on Ambedkar, the opposition MPs protested with placards featuring the Dalit icon’s photo, accusing the BJP of insulting Dalits. They sought to revive their “Constitution under threat” narrative, which had lost momentum during the Maharashtra, Haryana, and Jharkhand Assembly elections but had led to the INDIA bloc’s success in the Lok Sabha election, where the BJP lost its single-party majority.
Thanks to Shah, the latest controversy around Ambedkar, which began during a debate marking 75 years of the Constitution, has given a shot in the arm to the Opposition, particularly the Congress, which has been steadily losing its ability to keep the INDIA bloc allies united. The party has now got its mojo and momentum back. In the same debate, Rahul Gandhi compared the Constitution with the Manusmriti, holding up both texts and quoted V.D. Savarkar to suggest that the BJP valued the Manusmriti more than the Constitution.
This is not the first time the Dalit challenge has confronted the Modi government. In April 2018, nationwide Dalit protests erupted after the Supreme Court modified the SC/ST Act. The demonstrations, which resulted in over a dozen deaths and widespread shutdowns, compelled Modi’s Cabinet to restore the Act’s original provisions through legislation, overriding the court’s judgment. At the time too, with the 2019 Lok Sabha election looming, the opposition had seized on the issue.
There are other examples: the flogging of Dalit youths in Una, Gujarat, in 2016; the Bhima Koregaon violence in Pune in 2018; the 2016 suicide of Rohith Vemula at Hyderabad University, and more. In 2018, when Yogi Adityanath’s Uttar Pradesh government moved to add “Ramji” to B.R. Ambedkar’s name in official records, it set off widespread protests. Even the BJP MP Udit Raj opposed the change, warning it could lead to controversy. The BJP defended the use of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar’s full name, but the move was met with suspicion, as “B.R. Ambedkar” is the standard in official documents.
This raises a larger question: Why is the BJP consistently uncomfortable with Dalit issues? The party has many Dalit MPs, has made inroads into the Bahujan Samaj Party’s Dalit vote base in Uttar Pradesh, and appointed Ram Nath Kovind, a Dalit, as President—examples it frequently displays as proof of its commitment to Dalit empowerment. Yet, it continues to face a trust deficit. India’s Dalits, who represent 17 per cent of the population, form a voting bloc too significant to ignore. It seems like high time the BJP found a permanent fix to its Dalit dilemma. Clearly, the Band-Aid solutions aren’t working and the political costs are growing.
Jammu & Kashmir NEWS OBC STATE TRIBAL
Dalit Samaj members stage protest
JAMMU, Dec 20: Dalit, OBCs, Minorities and Adivasi (DOMA) Parisangh organized a demonstration at Ambedkar Chowk against the insulting remarks against Dr. B.R. Ambedkar by Home Minister Amit Shah on the floor of the Parliament.
A large number of DOMA Parisangh members and others participated in the protest and raised the slogans against Amit Shah. They claimed that Dalit Samaj will not tolerate insulting remarks against Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar.
R K Kalsotra, State president of DOMA Parisangh, while addressing the demonstration said that the country will not tolerate the defaming remarks against Dr BR Ambedkar on the floor of the Parliament. He said Amit Shah has not said this in anger or emotionally, but years of hatred is revealed behind it.
Kalsotra further said the hateful statement by Amit Shah came because the first constitutional amendment was made for Dalits, tribals and the poor. If the Zamindari system had not been abolished, the landless Dalits, tribals and the poor would not have been able to get land, this is the main reason for their hatred. He alleged that BJP has been conspiring to end reservation by selling airports, ports, PSUs to Adani and big capitalists. Reservation was also ended through outsourcing and contractual system .
Other prominent who spoke were Narinder Khalsa. Tarsem Khullar, Mir Shahid Saleem, Kishore Kumar, Ashu Peter Mattoo, Bansi Lal Choudhary, Ramesh Sarmal, Suraj Parkash, Ch Rafat, Molvi Mudassar Raja and Dr Ramesh Kaith.
Courtesy: Daily Excelsior
Dalit activists burn effigy of Union Minister Shah
Dalit activists belonging to Yuva Vikas Morcha, Phagwara, headed by its president Anu Sahota today burnt an effigy of Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Hargobind Nagar to protest over his alleged remarks against Dr BR Ambedkar in parliament. Congress…
Dalit activists belonging to Yuva Vikas Morcha, Phagwara, headed by its president Anu Sahota today burnt an effigy of Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Hargobind Nagar to protest over his alleged remarks against Dr BR Ambedkar in parliament.
Congress MLA from Phagwara Balwinder Singh Dhaliwal also participated in the protest. Later, they carried out a protest march from Ambedkar Park to the bus stand. The march culminated back at Ambedkar Park.
Meanwhile, activists of Ambedkar Sena Moolniwasi, Phagwara, led by district president Dharamveer Boudh, also protested against the Home Minister’s remarks. A march was carried out from Ambedkar Park to Gol Chowk and legal action sought against the Union Home Minister. The protesters burnt an effigy of Amit Shah at Gol Chowk, Phagwara.
The activists belonging to Guru Ravi Dass Tiger Force also staged protest against Union Home Minister Amit Shah for his alleged derogatory remarks about Dr Ambedkar. They later burnt an effigy of the Union Home Minister.
Courtesy: Tribune India
BJP’s Dalit dilemma
Published : Dec 20, 2024 18:37 IST - 4 MINS READ
COMMents 0
Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi with other INDIA bloc members during a protest in Parliament premises demanding the resignation of Home Minister Amit Shah for his remarks related to B.R. Ambedkar, in New Delhi on December 19, 2024. | Photo Credit: Arun Sharma/PTI
Dear readers,
What’s in a name? A lot, especially if it is “Ambedkar,” as Union Home Minister Amit Shah discovered the hard way in the just-concluded winter session of Parliament. The showdown between the BJP and the Congress over Shah’s sarcastic comment on Ambedkar in Parliament has opened up multiple debates since December 18. What stands out in the entire episode is the BJP’s discomfort in handling controversies that stem from Dalit issues.
When Shah told opposition members, “It has become the new fashion to keep saying ‘Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar’. If they uttered God’s name as many times they would reach heaven,” neither he nor his party anticipated the nationwide controversy it would ignite.
With the comments, Shah ventured into what has historically been a challenging territory for the saffron party. The opposition, still smarting from the Assembly election setbacks in Haryana and Maharashtra, quickly seized the opportunity. They organised protests with the slogan “Babasaheb Ka Apmaan Nahin Sahega Hindustan [India will not tolerate the insult to Babasaheb]” and burnt the Home Minister’s posters in State capitals across the country.
A day later, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge decided to escalate the issue by filing a privilege notice against Shah. Kharge argued that the Home Minister’s remarks insulted the architect of the Constitution and showed contempt for the House. Nishikant Dubey of the BJP responded by filing a privilege notice against Rahul Gandhi, accusing him of showing a “criminally edited” version of Shah’s speech.
But the most dramatic moments unfolded outside the House. Tensions peaked when a physical altercation broke out at Makar Dwar, Parliament’s main entrance, between BJP and Congress members. The scuffle left two BJP MPs, Pratap Chandra Sarangi and Mukesh Rajput, injured and the BJP accusing Rahul Gandhi of instigating the violence. Police cases were filed against Rahul Gandhi. The Congress also made assault charges against BJP MPs, and alleged that the latter had hurt Kharge. BJP leaders shared photographs of the injured Sarangi and Rajput, insisting that “pictures don’t lie”, but refused to share security camera footage that, Congress members said, would clearly show what had taken place.
Staying on Ambedkar, the opposition MPs protested with placards featuring the Dalit icon’s photo, accusing the BJP of insulting Dalits. They sought to revive their “Constitution under threat” narrative, which had lost momentum during the Maharashtra, Haryana, and Jharkhand Assembly elections but had led to the INDIA bloc’s success in the Lok Sabha election, where the BJP lost its single-party majority.
Thanks to Shah, the latest controversy around Ambedkar, which began during a debate marking 75 years of the Constitution, has given a shot in the arm to the Opposition, particularly the Congress, which has been steadily losing its ability to keep the INDIA bloc allies united. The party has now got its mojo and momentum back. In the same debate, Rahul Gandhi compared the Constitution with the Manusmriti, holding up both texts and quoted V.D. Savarkar to suggest that the BJP valued the Manusmriti more than the Constitution.
This is not the first time the Dalit challenge has confronted the Modi government. In April 2018, nationwide Dalit protests erupted after the Supreme Court modified the SC/ST Act. The demonstrations, which resulted in over a dozen deaths and widespread shutdowns, compelled Modi’s Cabinet to restore the Act’s original provisions through legislation, overriding the court’s judgment. At the time too, with the 2019 Lok Sabha election looming, the opposition had seized on the issue.
There are other examples: the flogging of Dalit youths in Una, Gujarat, in 2016; the Bhima Koregaon violence in Pune in 2018; the 2016 suicide of Rohith Vemula at Hyderabad University, and more. In 2018, when Yogi Adityanath’s Uttar Pradesh government moved to add “Ramji” to B.R. Ambedkar’s name in official records, it set off widespread protests. Even the BJP MP Udit Raj opposed the change, warning it could lead to controversy. The BJP defended the use of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar’s full name, but the move was met with suspicion, as “B.R. Ambedkar” is the standard in official documents.
This raises a larger question: Why is the BJP consistently uncomfortable with Dalit issues? The party has many Dalit MPs, has made inroads into the Bahujan Samaj Party’s Dalit vote base in Uttar Pradesh, and appointed Ram Nath Kovind, a Dalit, as President—examples it frequently displays as proof of its commitment to Dalit empowerment. Yet, it continues to face a trust deficit. India’s Dalits, who represent 17 per cent of the population, form a voting bloc too significant to ignore. It seems like high time the BJP found a permanent fix to its Dalit dilemma. Clearly, the Band-Aid solutions aren’t working and the political costs are growing.
What are your views on the Parliament ruckus and its follow-up tremors? Do let us know.
Until then,
Anand Mishra | Political Editor, Frontline
Comments
Post a Comment