On November 1st, Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party are gearing up to host a massive rally at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan. But for the people of India, November 1st is not just another date on the calendar. It is a date etched deep in our collective memory. It was on November 1st, 1984, following the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, that parts of our nation were plunged into chaos and violent riots - instigated and led by senior Congress leaders.
Fast forward to today, and we are witnessing a disturbing pattern. Instead of choosing a date that promotes national unity, the Congress leadership has chosen November 1st to mobilize thousands into the capital. Is this mere coincidence, or is history repeating itself? Rahul Gandhi’s recent calls to party workers to 'intensify protests' and keep up 'constant carpet bombing' tactics signal a clear pivot away from peaceful democratic dialogue toward street-level confrontation.
When political agitation replaces constructive opposition, law and order is the first casualty. Mobilizing large, aggressive crowds on a date historically burdened by conflict creates a volatile flashpoint. It puts immense pressure on law enforcement, disrupts daily public life, and risks triggering volatile law and order situations right in the heart of our capital.
India cannot afford a return to the political instability and unrest of the past. The democratic right to protest should never be weaponized to create chaos. We must ask ourselves: Is Congress genuinely fighting for public causes, or are they setting the stage for repeat history at the cost of public peace? The citizens of India demand accountability, restraint, and order, not agitation.
This is absolutely stunning. 'Pramana', an open, systematic library of the primary sources of the Indian subcontinent — beginning with the literature of the pre-Islamic period — in their original languages, with their recensions, commentaries and translations linked verse by verse.
https://t.co/M3qLZj7lh4
He was the same person whitewashing the death threats against Nupur Sharma after she called out religious misogyny, all by invoking his self-manufactured “punching up, punching down” doctrine. He’ll happily rationalise religious fanaticism so long as it comes from the very people he has spent years writing eulogies for. Free speech becomes sacred only when his side holds the microphone.
I’d have believed a word he said if he had defended free speech for everyone, not just those whose politics he shares. You’re no scholar. You’re an ideologue masquerading as one. And once Chandrachud demitted office, so too did your influence. Quite happy that it happened.
Now I’m just waiting for the Sabarimala judgment to expose what you’ve dressed up as constitutional scholarship for the academic bigotry it really is when it comes to genuine religious belief. Stay hydrated, stock up on your medicines, and prepare for a very long sulk because a nine-judge Bench is not something you’ll be able to wish away.
“India’s most divisive issue”? It would seem for @MujMash opposing a spiteful hatefilled Islamist’s ‘Islamic Manifesto’ amounts to pushing the divisive envelope.
As for pseudonyms, writers are terrified about revealing their identity when opposing the root cause of what you call ‘divisive issue’.
1) Not India’s ‘most divisive issue’ by any stretch of imagination. But South Asia Bureau chief of NYT is free to take flights of fancy. It costs nothing.
2) Elite and Privileged South Asia Bureau Chief of NYT may not have heard of ‘blasphemy’ killings. The author is only trying to have his head on his shoulders. Strange obsession liberal elites would say, but ordinary folks like to live.
Pseudonyms are used in publications across the world in exceptional cases when sensitive issues are tackled, including the New York Times when a senior Trump official wrote anonymously. There are many reasons why the name of the author is kept hidden, most importantly personal safety.
He’s the south asia bureau chief of @nytimes who wants @IbnKhaldunIndic’s identity to unleash Sar tan se juda gangs on him/her.
Instead of calling out Islamist radicalisation, these buffoons are busy whitewashing it.
Tells you the reporting standards of NYT.
This is the “South Asia Bureau Chief” of @nytimes essentially perpetuating a dog-whistle against another Moslem columnist who has expressed a contrary opinion on a topic. The constant taunts about the pseudonym essentially carry a threat - if we ever learn your real identity, you cannot hide. This person knows exactly what he’s doing. And the @nytimes has no issues with it. It has zero credibility left on covering the Indian Subcontinent 🤷🏻♂️
@ojasbhandarii@ShivAroor Tujhe paas ki jarurat padati hai modi ka lund chusne ke liye. Mujhe laga tu sadak pe uske piche bhagti rahti hai aur modi tere muh me daal deta hai lund
Exactly Bhatia Bro. Even Mein Kampf is same. People who foam at mouth at Nazis haven't actually read Hitler's full biography. Once you get past few difficult positions it makes so much sense.
*sarcasm alert*
It’s also clear that most people foaming at the mouth haven’t actually read the interview, because once you get past the first couple of questions, the other 90% is a critique of the centralising features of the constitution and a discussion of institutional political structures.