Category: News

In Letter, Ex-SCBA Chief Documents Strained Relations with Ex-CJI Chandrachud

Among other things, Adish Aggarwala accuses the former CJI of seeking his help to rein in senior advocate Dushyant Dave.

New Delhi: In the last six-odd months, just-retired Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has seen intra-court differences, an upset legal community, and questions and criticism over his public utterances. These culminated in a bowing out that took place with a whimper instead of the bang with which he came in.

Now, former Supreme Court Bar Association president and senior advocate Adish C. Aggarwala has shot off a stinging letter to the former CJI – his second this month. In his November 14 letter, Aggarwala asserted that his “contribution to our judicial system was more about appeasement and publicity at the costs of others” and also accusing him of getting involved in bar politics.

Among other things, Aggarwala accuses the former CJI of seeking his help to rein in senior advocate Dushyant Dave, getting involved in SCBA politics, getting designation of lawyers as seniors stalled so as to ensure the process happened after the retirement of two of the CJI’s strong-minded colleagues – Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ravindra Bhat, and not designating two retired judges as seniors due to personal reasons.

“The nation heard giga bytes of oral observations and passing mentions to discredit the government thereby getting kudos from media and social activists… There was little to match your activism by way of judicial decisions. History will judge Your Lordship as this: “Sound and fury, signifying nothing (much),” the 11-page letter reads.

Aggarwala says he initially thought very highly of the former CJI.

“I felt that you were a champion of individual rights and felt committed to the task of Court modernisation. You had the potential to achieve any desired goal if you had requisite support. Initially, you displayed a keenness to understand the problems and find solutions,” he writes.

Aggarwala alleges that Chandrachud did not take kindly to criticism by Aggarwala’s predecessor as SCBA chief, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, and allegedly requested him to criticise Dave.

“When former President of the SCBA, Mr. Dushyant Dave, in an open letter dated 06.12.2023 to you, expressed his anguish over the shifting of cases, some of which were politically sensitive, from one bench to another, I was called by you and asked for my opinion as to whether you have the right to be the master of the roster or not. When I told you that it is well settled law that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India is the master of the roster and he has the right to shift the cases from one Bench to another, then you requested me to criticise Mr. Dave on behalf of the SCBA,” he writes.

He then goes on to claim that he expressed his inability to criticise Dave by passing a resolution of the SCBA “as many members of the Executive Committee were his supporters and he had remained the President of the SCBA for three terms”.

“Although, I had defeated him with a huge margin of 191 votes on 17.05.2023 in the SCBA elections, you still pushed me to find a solution. Then, I agreed to write a letter to you on my individual letterhead and not on the letterhead of the SCBA clarifying the legal position. I drafted the letter and then I was asked by you to add the sentence: “After your Lordship took over as Chief Justice of India, all administrative issues have been streamlined right from mentioning of matters, listing of cases and other issues concerning the Registry”. I added the said sentence in my open letter dated 07.12.2023 addressed to you,” Aggarwala claims.

Aggarwala also asserts that he suggested to the then CJI that he (Aggarwala) could request Manan Kumar Mishra, chairman of Bar Council of India, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Dave. “You told me that it can escalate the situation,” he says.

“You told me that my letter dated 07.12.2023 has brought the desired results and now Mr. Dave will not create any nuisance for you during your remaining tenure as Chief Justice of India. This issue reflects that you can take any support to maintain your position but you did not want to escalate the situation by taking the extreme step,” he writes.

Mishra is currently a BJP Rajya Sabha MP.

On the issue of designation of senior advocates, Aggarwala says, “During my tenure as the President of SCBA, the Supreme Court of India was in a process of designating Senior Advocates. There was an apprehension that Supreme Court of India would not designate more than 15 lawyers as Senior Advocates as besides you, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna had very strong views on the issue of designating. I, however, requested you that you should be liberal in designating Senior Lawyers and atleast 100 lawyers should be designated Senior.”

He then expands: “You told me that you wanted 20 of your own acquaintances to be designated as Senior Advocates but with above-mentioned Judges being part of the decision making process, you may not be in a position to designate more than 15 lawyers and that you would not get even a single designation for your choices. You requested me to get the process of designation delayed and suggested me that I should write a letter to you in this regard and I did write a letter dated 14.08.2023, “with a request for clarification in the new guidelines for Senior Advocates designation that requirement for recommendation of Hon’ble Judge is not required in old applications and shall be applicable only for new applications.”

“Probably using this letter as a basis, you managed to get the time extended,” Aggarwala claims, adding, “I was asked to write another letter to you seeking extension of time till 08.11.2023 as soft copies of the publications needed to be collected from different parts of the country. I wrote the said letter on 09.10.2023 and sought extension of time. You were aware that during this time Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat would retire on 20.10.2023 and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on 25.12.2023. Thereafter, on 19.01.2024, you designated 56 lawyers as Senior Advocates.”

Aggarwala also accuses the ex-CJI of ensuring that “names of some capable and well deserving lawyers were withheld”.

He also claims that CJI Chandrachud then left for the USA to meet some “influential person” and also because he was not interested to be a part of the farewell and ceremonial bench for Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, “because you were annoyed with him”.

Aggarwala also accuses the previous CJI of being “fond of inaugurations” who continued with such events even after the official announcement of Justice Sanjiv Khanna as the next CJI.

He also claims that Justice Chandrachud told him to “delete the appreciation of Prime Minister” and praise only him in his speech at a function in the Supreme Court, which he refused.

About another event – the 2023 Christmas celebrations, Aggarwala claims that the then CJI specifically asked him to invite the print and the electronic media to cover this festival. “You would sing Christmas carols that will become viral throughout the world as this will be the first time that a Chief Justice of a Supreme Court of India will be singing,” his letter claims.

He also claims that Justice Chandrachud refused to attend a SCBA’s international seminar on International Terrorism and Human Rights in January-February, 2024, only because Aggarwala had invited Union home minister Amit Shah to inaugurate the same.

“When I informed you that I have invited the Union Home Minister for the inauguration, you told me that you would not attend the Seminar as Union Home Minister was invited and not you, to inaugurate the Seminar,” he writes.

Aggarwala claims that after he wrote to the then CJI questioning the court’s view in the electoral bonds case, the CJI got “very annoyed”.

“You were very annoyed with my letter and called the Executive Committee members and office bearers of SCBA to pass a resolution condemning me even though I had not sought the Suo Motu Review on the letterhead of SCBA. When Chief Justice of India is requesting the Executive Committee members to condemn their President then, they feel duty bound to oblige him and they issued a clarification distancing themselves from my views… I later came to know that you suggested to Mr. Kapil Sibal to contest for the Presidentship of SCBA as he can spend any amount and also he has been Union Minister for Law and Justice and President of SCBA. Not only this, you conveyed to lawyers ideologically inclined towards BJP that they should not support Dr. Adish Aggarwala and therefore anti-BJP cadre supported Mr. Kapil Sibal and BJP cadre supported Mr. Pradeep Rai and therefore Mr Kapil Sibal won and as a consequence of this, I was able to achieve only third position,” he alleges.

Comparing Trump and Modi: A Note From 2019

There is a philosophical question which stems from human experience: familiarity breeds contempt.

The victory of Donald Trump was not predictable. But it was not to be a surprise either. All poll surveys had indicated a tight race and any tight race by definition means that it equally throws both possibilities. 

The suspense is now over and the Republican Trump has defeated his Democratic rival Kamala Harris by convincingly winning both the electoral votes (295:226) and the popular votes (72,560,841:67,878,826). 

As expected, the Indian right is exuberant at the outcome. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the president-elect Trump have a record of bonhomie which was displayed most dramatically in Texas and Gujarat only a few years ago. Politically speaking, since both leaders are intrinsically transactional it is likely that the India-US relationship will remain on even keel unless there is any major goof up by either side.

But there is a philosophical question which stems from human experience: familiarity breeds contempt. Both are pathologically anti-immigrant but one’s illegal immigrant is other’s innocent and desperate job-seeker. The shared anti-Muslim sentiment of Trump and Modi may find them on the same plank but insofar as illegal immigrants are concerned for Modi they are Bangladeshi Muslims but for Trump they may belong to any religion or any region, who may as well include Hindus from India, that too from Modi’s home state, Gujarat, which Modi advertises as India’s most happening state, the so-called ‘Gujarat model’.

Now that Trump is once again elected with a huge baggage of promises to the Americans Narendra Modi will have to settle many contentious matters with him such as mutual tariff rates, technology transfer questions, India’s BRICS ambitions which are in clear conflict with those of America, the respective roles of the two nations in the fiercely boiling Middle Eastern cauldron, the future of dollar as the most dominant currency, etc.  It may be instructive, therefore, to recall how Modi dealt with Trump during the latter’s first stint.

When Trump was sworn in as the president of America for the first time in 2017, Modi had already been in power for three years. In 2019, he won the general election once again with a bigger margin. It was during those days that an American colleague had asked me how I would compare the two leaders. His idea was to sense their relative strengths and weaknesses for one led the world’s ‘greatest’ democracy while the other, the world’s largest democracy. 

In 2024, five years later, that 2019 note may make an interesting read.

Similarities

Least foreign policy experience yet intense involvement in foreign affairs once in power

When in power, Trump made major policy moves like withdrawal from TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), diluting the NAFTA, ridiculing NATO as “obsolete”, hostility to the UN system (threatening to cut the US financial commitment by 40%), expanding US nuclear capability to the extent of thinking of “limited” nuclear wars and in the process showing less interest in upholding the NPT principles, patching up with Russia, not enthused about globalisation, rather going isolationist, and disinterest in environmental issues. For him, ‘America first’ is the motto, one achieved by revamping hyper-nationalism. 

Modi, in a foreign policy blitzkrieg, had invited all South Asian heads to his inaugural ceremony. He has undertaken a massive number of foreign visits inviting such popular jokes as “India’s multinational (bahu rashtriya) prime minister”, taken up more belligerent moves against Pakistan exemplified by “surgical strikes”, the “Make in India” slogan, high profile photo-ops with foreign heads, made all out efforts to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, professed a greater commitment to international environmental decisions, and taken the nationalism question to feverish pitches.

Popular base

Both pose as if they have majority support which is not true. Trump got three million popular votes less than his opponent Hilary Clinton in 2016, but because of the electoral college system, he got more electoral votes. Modi’s party BJP got 31% votes in 2014 nationally but because of the first-past-the-post system in India’s parliamentary democracy, BJP singlehandedly got absolute majority in the parliament.

Direct communication with the masses

Both are least bothered about the press and the liberal voices. This was evident during Trump’s election campaign the first time around. Ironically, however, he took full advantage of the popular polls which suggested that 85% Americans did not trust the national press and 90%, the US Congress. His demagoguery had outsmarted Hillary Clinton by raking up less important issues, thereby deflecting the debates away from larger national questions.  

In the case of Modi he established direct communication with the masses by his forceful speeches made in record number of rallies.  Like Trump, Modi too has disregard for the press and the liberal opinion. He has not so far addressed any press conference nor given any serious interview to any journalist barring known Modi-supporting news outlets who are not expected to ask any uncomfortable or follow-up questions to the prime minister. 

Instant communication

Both Trump and Modi made use of their Twitter – now X – handles to make policy announcements. For Trump it was in sharp contrast to the Chinese style where every word is a well thought out one. So far as Modi’s Twitter diplomacy is concerned it used to be a source of huge embarrassment of the concerned minister as was the case with external affairs minister, the late Sushma Swaraj.  She was not aware that President Barack Obama had been invited to be the chief guest at India’s Independence Day celebrations in 2015 till it appeared in newspapers the next day, it is said.

Dissimilarities

  1. Trump’s victory in 2016 was questioned from day one through popular demonstrations but Modi’s personal popularity seems to remain in place. Even his grossly short-sighted demonetisation policy has not evoked any popular umbrage.
  2. Trump has a superrich background. Modi’s background is very modest, he claims that he sold tea in his youth.
  3. There was vacillation in the Republican Party as to whether to nominate Trump for the presidential race. Modi was the unanimous choice of the BJP.
  4. Because of the difference in the two national systems, Trump can have an altogether new bureaucracy (leave alone his cabinet) filled with his own people. Modi has a permanent bureaucracy though he can as well choose his officers. This is evident in the choice of India’s Foreign Secretary (S. Jaishankar). He has even been given an extension of one year beyond the end of his tenure.  Modi’s virtual neglect of the advice of external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj speaks of how he wants to run the foreign office his own way, at the cost of the institutional mechanism.
  5. Trump’s tenure is for four more years, as the US constitution limits presidents to two four-year terms. For Modi it can go up to 10, 15 or even more.

Postscript

In 2017, first year of Trump’s first presidency, when I was editor of the ICWA journal India Quarterly, published by Sage, I invited home for dinner a senior officer from the Sage headquarters in California. She visited us along with a middle-aged American. His story was interesting. He found the Trump presidency so unbearable that he was staying away from America by traveling all over the world. He would return to America only after Trump’s tenure was over.

The irony is that Trump is once again in power. I have no idea about his plans now. Who knows he may have voted for Trump this time. If not, India may not be a bad choice for a dollar is selling now for Rs 84+.

 Partha S. Ghosh is a retired JNU professor.

Drawing a Line with Joe Sacco at The Wire

‘I chiefly concern myself with those who seldom get a hearing,’ Joe Sacco had written in ‘Journalism’, 2012.

New Delhi: Legendary comics journalist, cartoonist and author Joe Sacco comes to The Wire for a discussion on November 11 at New Delhi’s Jawahar Bhawan at 6pm.


Malta-born and now US-based artist-journalist Joe Sacco’s work has revolutionised the coverage and understanding of war and conflict reporting. He looks at personal stories and has pioneered the application of “artistic and literary conventions of comics to war reporting.” He has got the American Book Award (1996) and the Eisner Award for Best Original Graphic Novel (2010), as well as the British Eagle Award in 2001. His Footnotes in Gaza won the Ridenhour Book Prize (2010) and the first Oregon Book Award for Graphic Literature (2012). He has won Time magazine’s Best Comic Book of 2000 award as well as a Guggenheim Fellowship (2001).

A detail from ‘Palestine’.

Sacco’s work on Palestine, his nine graphic novels put together as Palestine, A Nation Occupied followed two months spent there in 1991-2. The book had Edward Said writing the foreword where he acknowledged, “certainly his images are more graphic than anything you can either read or see on television.” Sacco draws himself into his work, literally and says about it in Journalism, “by admitting I am present at the scene, I meant to signal to the reader that journalism is a process with seams and imperfections practiced by a human being – it is not a cold science carried out behind Plexiglas by a robot.”

Joe Sacco was born on October 2, 1960 to parents who had survived the bombing of Malta during World War II. His family immigrated to Australia when Joe was a year old. As a child living outside Melbourne, he heard stories of the conflicts in West Asia and later remembered commemorations of World War II, which kindled his interest in bearing witness to and reporting conflicts in the war zones.

Sacco’s family immigrated to the United States in 1972 and Sacco as a child, began drawing and worked on a comic about the Vietnam war. He graduated from the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon in 1978. Sacco worked as a reporter for The Comics Journal, which covers freedom-of-speech issues. In 1988, he developed Yahoo, published by Fantagraphics, further honing his craft which he describes as “comics journalism.”

In his work, Sacco has described and reflected on his own experiences, and worked with a variety of subjects, including the Miracle Workers, an Oregon punk group, designing their T-shirts and an album cover. He has also sketched and created work about the music group, Rolling Stones and American blues.

Sacco’s work includes his mother, Carmen Sacco’s recollections of the bombing of Malta in World War II, in “More Women, More Children, More Quickly, Malta 1935-43” and “When Good Bombs Happen to Bad People.” 

His best known works remain Palestine, then Safe Area Gorade: The War in Eastern Bosnia 1992–95; The Fixer: A Story from Sarajevo; Footnotes in Gaza; Journalism, a collection on Iraq, conflicts in Chechnya, African migrations to Malta, poverty in India, and the Bosnia Serb war crimes trials; and Paying the Land, on the Dene people of the Canadian Northwest Territories and attitudes about resource extraction and the effects of colonisation. 

‘In his work, Sacco has described and reflected on his own experiences, and worked with a variety of subjects.’

Sacco has also collaborated with Pulitzer-Prize-winning author Chris Hedges to illustrate Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt in 2012, a book on corporate capitalism. In 2016, Sacco spent time with people in Portland where he is currently based, who experienced Portland’s rising rent hikes and home prices.

The Wire’s editor Seema Chishti will be in conversation with Joe Sacco and they will discuss his work, what motivates him, the threats to journalism generally in the world today and the challenges more specifically that the violence in Gaza on the people of Palestine, and targeted elimination of journalists there poses to the world, to the future of documenting and remembering. This conversation is under the aegis of Nehru Dialogues and in partnership with Midland Bookshop.

Outrage as Bombay HC Says Not Allowing Daughter-In-Law to Watch TV, Go Out Alone Isn’t ‘Cruelty’

‘…[B]ut in the considered opinion of this court, none of the allegations has any severity or such nature of allegations would not constitute physical and mental cruelty as almost allegations are pertaining to domestic affairs of the house of accused.’

New Delhi: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court – in an order that has invited outrage on social media – has said that a man’s family not allowing his wife to watch television or venture out alone for any reason, and making her sleep on a carpet do not constitute ‘cruelty’ in the eyes of the law.

LiveLaw has exclusively reported that on October 17, a single-judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Waghwase quashed a 20-year-old trial court order convicting the man and his family of cruelty under section 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code.

The woman married the man on December 24, 2002. Her family had alleged that following a period of torture, she died by suicide on May 1, 2003. The trial court’s conviction order came in 2004.

The family was convicted for taunting her over meals that she prepared, not allowing her to watch TV, not letting her meet neighbours or visit the temple alone, making her sleep on a carpet, and so on.

Justice Waghwase held that none of these crimes were ‘severe’. He said:

“…[B]ut in the considered opinion of this court, none of the allegations has any severity or such nature of allegations would not constitute physical and mental cruelty as almost allegations are pertaining to domestic affairs of the house of accused”.

The judge claimed that not much of what was done to the woman can be termed harassment.

“Merely sleeping on carpet also would not amount to cruelty. Similarly, what sort of taunting was made and by which accused is not getting clear. Likewise, preventing her to mix with neighbour also cannot be termed as harassment,” he said, according to LiveLaw.

To the family’s contention that the woman used to be sent out to fetch water at midnight, the judge said that in the Varangaon village, water would usually come at that time.

Several commentators on social media have posted against the judgement, noting that women appear uniquely disadvantageous in the institution of marriage in India.

“Indian women should just stop getting married. Marital rape is legal, daughter in laws being treated like slaves is legal, men are incels and misogynists and women don’t want them, arranged marriages happen only when a woman’s family pays dowry. Marriages don’t work for women,” X user @mssakshinarula wrote.

“Not allowing” 🤔 That’s a typical patriarchal mindset, but surprised that even courts are a party to this regressive approach,” wrote @manoj_216 on X.

“If treating a daughter-in-law as a captive servant isn’t considered cruelty, then please define cruelty—it would certainly make life easier for all,” another commentator, @Indian10000000, wrote.

The Bombay high court has made news for controversial judgments before. In 2021, the Supreme Court set aside a judgment which held that ‘skin-to-skin’ contact is necessary for the offence of sexual assault under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

India Working Closely With US to Address Illegal Immigration Issue: MEA

New Delhi has said that it does not support illegal immigration and considers lawful migration an important part of India-US ties.

New Delhi: After announcements from the US noting that it has repatriated over 1,000 Indians who had entered its borders illegally since October last year, India has said it is working closely with the US to tackle the issue.

When asked about the stand of the incoming Donald Trump administration in the US on immigration, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, according to a report on Deccan Chronicle, that those staying illegally in the US “should come back.”

Trump, who was elected to the White House on November 6, has promised a “mass deportation” plan with “no price tags” attached.

New Delhi has said that it does not support illegal immigration and considers lawful migration an important part of India-US ties.

On November 2, Jaiswal had said during his weekly briefing that India engages in “regular dialogue” with the United States on migration and mobility.

In late October, as The Wire had reported, assistant secretary for border and immigration policy at the US Department of Homeland Security, Royce Bernstein Murray, said that around 1,100 Indians staying in illegally in the United States were repatriated to India between October 1, 2023, and September 30, 2024.

This came right after a press statement issued by the US Department of Homeland Security which stated that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had “conducted a large-frame charter removal flight to the Republic of India of Indian nationals who did not establish legal basis to remain in the United States” on that day.

China ‘Dragging Its Feet’ on Coordinating Depsang Patrolling: Report

The Army’s 14 Corps had said a day ago on X that after the consensus, the ‘Indian Army patrol to one of the patrolling points in Depsang was successfully conducted today’.

New Delhi: A day after the Indian Army noted that it had patrolled one of the five points at Depsang in Eastern Ladakh, The Tribune has reported that military talks between India and China to work out the modalities of patrols have reached a deadlock over the “extent and routes of patrolling” at Depsang.

The Army’s 14 Corps had said on X that after the consensus was reached between the Indian and Chinese sides for disengagement and resumption of patrolling in Depsang and Demchok [in Eastern Ladakh], “the Indian Army patrol to one of the patrolling points in Depsang was successfully conducted today.”

“This is yet another positive step towards maintaining peace and tranquility on the LAC [Line of Actual Control],” the 14 Corps said in a post on X.

The standoff between the two armies began in May 2020, when a skirmish led to the death of 20 Indian soldiers.

The Tribune has cited sources as having said that Chinese military negotiators who are working out the “patrolling arrangements”, have been “dragging their feet” on coordinating the schedule of Indian Army patrols.

The Chinese side has also, reportedly, expressed reservations over the extent of patrolling.

The reopening of patrolling was announced on October 21 by foreign secretary Vikram Misri, ahead of prime minister Narendra Modi meeting Chinese president Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Brics summit in Russia.

China has, according to Tribune, expressed reservations about the Indian Army going full extent on the patrol points’ 10 and 11 routes.

It also has reservations about the distance which the Indian army can patrol on patrol points 11A, 12 and 13.

In Autobiography, Anil Deshmukh Reiterates Blackmail Allegations Against Devendra Fadnavis

Deshmukh has again alleged that Fadnavis through a middleman tried to blackmail him into signing an ‘affidavit’ falsely implicating his alliance partners.

Former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh in his autobiographical book Diary of a Home Minister has levelled serious allegations of blackmailing at Bharatiya Janata Party leader and deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis.

The former Maharashtra chief minister had allegedly asked Deshmukh to falsely implicate Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray faction) leader Aaditya Thackeray in the “rape and murder” of Disha Salian, the former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, among other things.

Salian allegedly died by suicide and her post-mortem report said there was no evidence of sexual assault. Some have claimed that she was raped and murdered.

According to the book, the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar faction) leader was asked to draft an affidavit incorporating four specific “fabricated claim(s)”: Uddhav Thackeray’s involvement in an alleged Rs 300-crore scam, Ajit Pawar’s son Parth’s involvement in an alleged extortion scandal, Aaditya’s involvement in Salian’s alleged “rape and murder” and Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Anil Parab’s involvement in a resort ownership scam.

Sharad Pawar was quoted as saying that had Deshmukh signed the affidavit, the “Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress alliance government would have toppled the next day”.

Deshmukh first made the allegations in July this year.

Timeline of events

According to an excerpt released by Deshmukh from a chapter in his book titled “Affidavit, a Weapon”, the story began in April 2022 when an undivided Shiv Sena and NCP were in alliance with the Congress in Maharashtra. Deshmukh, a senior leader from the Vidarbha region, was home minister.

In April 2022, Deshmukh said that a man named Samit Kadam visited him at his residence, Gyaneshwari Bungalow. Kadam is the state president of the Jan Surajya Yuva Shakti Party. His social media posts indicate his affinity with the BJP and its leaders, especially Fadnavis.

Deshmukh claimed that Kadam came to his residence on behalf of Fadnavis. “I decided to call Devendra Fadnavis myself. I had just picked up my phone to call when Samit Kadam stopped me and said, ‘You don’t call him. I will make you speak to Devendra Fadnavis’.

“It seemed likely that Devendra Fadnavis did not want to discuss whatever he wanted to, using my phone, perhaps out of fear that my phone might be getting tapped or I might record this conversation,” read the excerpt.

In the following paragraphs, Deshmukh claimed that Fadnavis spoke with him using Kadam’s phone. Kadam allegedly visited Deshmukh four times on different occasions and each time, Fadnavis would allegedly threaten Deshmukh of using the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against him.

“This method of political blackmailing was invented in 2014, and its command was in the hands of the BJP,” Deshmukh wrote.

Further, he wrote that Kadam in their next meeting handed over a brown sealed envelope to him. On behalf of Fadnavis, Kadam allegedly asked Deshmukh to draft an affidavit – a legal document – incorporating four “fabricated claim(s)”. Deshmukh alleged that:

  1. There was an attempt to force him to falsely claim that former chief minister Uddhav Thackeray asked him to collect Rs 300 crore for funding the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation elections.
  2. He was pressured to lie in the affidavit, implicating Aaditya Thackeray in Salian’s death – which the affidavit portrayed as a rape and murder – and alleging he was involved in her death after a party.
  3. He was told to fabricate a claim that deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar and his son wanted his help in extorting funds from the tobacco industry.
  4. He was asked to falsely state that Parab invested in a Dapoli resort under another person’s name and sought his help in case of any complaints.

Deshmukh also claimed that Fadnavis offered to drop the point regarding Ajit Pawar’s son, but that he resisted drafting any of the four points in the affidavit.

“The moment I refused the offer of their affidavit, the next day, ED conducted raids at 8 different locations, including properties owned by me and properties of people connected to me,” Deshmukh wrote.

“They once formed a government with the Shiv Sena and the Thackeray family, but now they are assassinating the character of the heir of that very family … What a horrible man Devendra Fadnavis is.”

Allegations against Deshmukh

The ED is investigating Deshmukh for money laundering. It alleges that Deshmukh collected around Rs 4.7 crore from Mumbai bar owners through ex-police officer Sachin Waze, who is currently in jail in the Antilia bomb scare case and the Mansukh Hiran murder case. He was given bail in the corruption case involving Deshmukh.

Around Rs 4.18 crore of the alleged bribes were funnelled into Delhi-based shell companies, which later donated the sum to the Shri Sai Shikshan Sansthan Trust, which is managed by Deshmukh and his family, as per the ED.

Apart from the ED case, Deshmukh faces CBI and Income Tax department probes into allegations of corruption, extortion and tax evasion.

He was jailed in the ED case against him in November 2021 and was released on bail a little over a year later.

Fadnavis did not deny any of the allegations made by the former home minister, but responded by saying that he possessed recordings of Deshmukh in which he spoke against Sharad Pawar and Uddhav Thackeray. But Deshmukh claimed that he was telling the truth and had proof in a pen drive, and asked whether Fadnavis could provide proof for his allegations.

Deshmukh was offered a ticket from the Katol assembly constituency for the upcoming Maharashtra assembly elections but declined it. Now, his son Salil Deshmukh is contesting on an NCP (SP) ticket from Katol.

Modi Accuses Unnamed ‘Forces Inside and Outside India’ of Trying to Destabilise Country

Modi said one nation, one election and a “secular civil code” would be brought following Sardar Patel’s spirit of unity, while the Congress accused the BJP of ‘misappropriating’ his legacy.

New Delhi: Speaking on the occasion of ‘National Unity Day’, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday (October 31) said that some “forces” outside and within India were attempting to destabilise it and spread a negative image of the country.

He again made a pitch for ‘one nation, one election’ and a “secular civil code”, which he said would be brought following Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s spirit of unity.

“With India’s growing strength and the growing sense of unity within India, some forces, some disorderly ideas, some mentalities … such forces are very disturbed. [Present] within India and outside it, such people are trying to spread instability and anarchy in India. They are engaged in harming India’s economic interests …

“Such forces want that … a negative image of India emerges to the world. These people are trying to target even India’s military,” Modi said, adding that they were engaged in “trying to create divisions in India in the name of caste” and “never want India to become developed”.

In a veiled attack on the opposition, he said “urban Naxals” were attempting to target India’s unity.

Holding that “a new model of urban Naxals emerged” as Naxalism was being eliminated from the jungle, Modi said: “We have to identify and battle those people who dream of breaking the nation, who believe in an ideology of destroying the nation, whose faces are masked.”

“… Today, if someone says ‘if we are one, we are safe’, these people … try to give it the wrong meaning,” Modi continued to say.

Modi added that there were people who were sceptical about India’s unification but that Patel made it possible.

His address came after he paid floral tributes to Patel, India’s first home minister, at the Statue of Unity.

Meanwhile, the Congress has accused the BJP of making “continuous efforts” to misappropriate Patel’s legacy.

“Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel is an immortal part of the nation’s history. He was also a stalwart Congressman. Continuous efforts are being made to (mis)appropriate his legacy by those whose ideological gurus opposed the Quit India Movement in which the Sardar was jailed for almost three years and who criticised the constitution, a key committee of which was chaired by the Sardar later,” wrote Congress MP Jairam Ramesh on X.

“This only exposes the insecurities and hypocrisy of the (mis)appropriaters.”

In his address, Modi said that in the spirit of unity, the government was working on implementing ‘one nation, one election’ and a “secular civil code”.

“In line with our efforts on unity, we are now working on ‘one nation, one election’, which will strengthen India’s democracy, bring out an optimum outcome of India’s resources and which will bring a new speed in achieving the nation’s dream of ‘Viksit Bharat’ and a new prosperity.

“Today India is also moving toward ‘one nation, one civil code’ – that is, a secular civil code – and I had said this at the Red Fort: at the heart of this too is Sardar [Patel]’s inspiration of unity …”

Last month, the Union cabinet approved the report by the high-level committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind on the ‘one nation one election’ proposal that recommended simultaneous polls in the country to the Lok Sabha, state assemblies as well as local bodies (including panchayats and municipalities).

However, no timeline has been provided on its rollout yet.

Congress president and Rajya Sabha MP Mallikarjun Kharge said to reporters that Modi was attempting to “fool people” as any attempt to bring in simultaneous polls would require taking all political parties into confidence.

“What PM Modi has said, he will not do it, because when it comes in the parliament, he has to take everybody into confidence, then only this will happen. This is impossible, ‘one nation, one election’ is impossible, because several states have several problems. Regional problems are there. When we cannot give 2 crore jobs … Whatever he was supposed to do he is not doing, but these things he is saying to fool the people,” he said.

 

Kerala: More Than 150 Injured in Fireworks Explosion at Kasaragod Temple

Thousands of people had gathered at the temple to celebrate kaliyattam or theyyam – a popular annual ritual in the temples of North Kerala.

New Delhi: More than 150 people were injured in a fireworks explosion at the Anjootambalam Veerakavu temple in Kerala’s Kasaragod district on Monday night. Of these, nine are said to be grievously injured.

Thousands of people had gathered at the temple to celebrate kaliyattam or theyyam – a popular annual ritual in the temples of North Kerala – where bursting crackers is a traditional practice. 

According to the police, the explosion took place after sparks from fireworks fell inside the shed the crackers were stored in. The police said that the shed, also known as the magazine, was less than 100 metres away from the fire-line or where the fireworks are displayed. This caused a series of explosions, causing panic among the attendees and created a stampede-like situation.

The injured are receiving treatment at various hospitals in Kasaragod while the more seriously injured have been admitted to the government medical college in Kannur. Some were also taken to hospitals in Mangalore.

District collector K. Inbasekar told reporters that the temple authorities had not requested any permission to light fireworks and the police have taken the office bearers into custody, the Indian Express reported.

A case has also been registered against the temple committee’s office bearers.

Suresh Babu, a theyyam artiste who was present at the spot, said, “I have been staging theyyam at the temple for the last 40 years but this is a first. Our performance was going on when the magazine turned into a fireball. Several persons got injured in the stampede-like situation after the incident. When a series of palm leaf crackers were bursted, sparks fell accidently on the nearby magazine, leading to the massive explosion.”

According to the temple authorities, the explosion’s impact was reduced as the magazine was mainly storing low-intensity Chinese crackers.

Israel’s Evacuation of Palestinians from North Gaza Hints at a Particularly Ominous Plan

There is speculation that this could be part of Israel’s strategy is to defeat Hamas and propose the wholesale transfer of north Gaza’s population south beyond the Netzarim corridor.

Western political leaders were quick to argue that the killing of Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar, on October 17 presented a window of opportunity. Perhaps the decapitation of the militant group’s senior command would be a chance for renewed ceasefire talks and the release of the Israeli hostages.

The US president, Joe Biden, urged the Israeli government the following day to “make this moment an opportunity” to end the war in Gaza. But Israel had already launched a major operation in northern Gaza. On October 12, the IDF posted a message in Arabic on social media sites warning civilians living in an area designated as D5 on Israel’s grid map of Gaza to evacuate. It said the area would soon be a “dangerous combat zone” and ordered people to move to safe areas in the south of Gaza.

This process has continued as the IDF has renewed its offensive in the north of the enclave, with an estimated 400,000 people affected, about 20% of the population of Gaza. The UN reported on October 21 that only a “trickle” of food aid has been allowed into north Gaza over the previous week. The Israeli military has denied this. But it has also been reported that the emergency polio vaccination campaign in north Gaza has had to be suspended, due to Israeli bombardment and a lack of access to UN personnel.

The forcible transfer of a population during war is illegal under international law, as is denying access to humanitarian aid for civilians. But there are fears that there is a plan to move Palestinians out of north Gaza in a plan which could pave the way for settlers to move in.

The liberal Haaretz newspaper, a consistent critic of the Netanyahu government, published an editorial on October 22 saying that there was mounting evidence that Israel is now pursuing a policy of siege and starvation to force the complete evacuation of the civilian population of northern Gaza. In doing this, the newspaper said, Israel is implementing the now notorious “generals’ plan”. It asserted:

Make no mistake, [the generals’ plan] is a war crime, and it runs contrary to UN Security Council decision 2334, which states that land may not be taken through force, referring to acts of war.

Military plan or land grab?

The “generals’ plan” is attributed to retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, a former head of national security in Israel. As a strategy to defeat Hamas (something which has proved elusive in 12 months of bitter fighting in Gaza) it proposes the wholesale transfer of north Gaza’s population south beyond the Netzarim corridor. A siege would be imposed on those who remain.

2008 map of Gaza showing Gaza City and Netzarim Corridor.

The Netzarim Corridor runs across the Gaza Strip below Gaza CIty. Israel is moving Palestinians south of the corridor. ChrisO/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

In late September Eiland argued in an interview with Haaretz that “it’s permissible and even recommended to starve an enemy to death, provided you’ve allowed the civilians corridors of exits beforehand. And that is exactly what I am proposing”.

Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, recently told US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, that Israel is not planning to lay siege to northern Gaza. But the evidence of the military’s actions on the ground suggests otherwise. Since October 6 the IDF has been conducting what it calls a “clearing operation” in Jabalia, north of Gaza City, channelling civilians south while launching airstrikes against the Jabalia refugee camp, where it says units of Hamas are embedded.

Changing the reality

There is widespread concern that the end game in north Gaza will include the return of settlers. A conference on October 22 attended by members of the ruling Likud Party, including several ministers in the Netanyahu government, heard the national security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, assert that “encouraging emigration” of Palestinian residents of Gaza would be the “most ethical” solution to the conflict. The finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, told journalists on his way to the conference that the Gaza Strip was “part of the Land of Israel” and that “without settlements, there is no security”.

Settlers were moved out of the the Gaza Strip in 2005, under the then prime minister Ariel Sharon’s Disengagement Plan. The plan dismantled 21 settlements in the Strip, relocating an estimated 8,000 settlers. Many vowed at the time that they would return one day.

CIA map of the Gaza Strip in May 2005, a few months prior to the Israeli withdrawal. The major settlement blocs are shaded in blue.

CIA map of the Gaza Strip in May 2005, a few months prior to the Israeli withdrawal. The major settlement blocs are shaded in blue. CIA/Wikimedia Commons

There was a Jewish presence on the Gaza Strip from biblical times until 1929, when they were driven out during the Arab revolts, in which 133 Gazan Jews were killed. After the six-day war in 1967, Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. In the aftermath of the war, the main focus of settlement was national security, rather than religious ideology. Here the driving force was Israel’s deputy prime minister, Yigal Allon, who believed that national security could be guaranteed by building settlements.

As a consequence, in the 1970s, the Labour government established the initial modern settlements in the Gaza Strip. The settlements divided the enclave such that the Palestinian inhabitants in each area were isolated from each other, thus enabling Israeli control.

UK-based historian Ahron Bregman, a former Israeli army officer (who has written for The Conversation on the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians), warned in a post on X about how national security could once again be used as a pretext for settlements to be established in north Gaza.

Screenshot of post on X by Ahron Bregman

Warning: Ahron Bregman’s post on X on October 22. Twitter

The current operation in northern Gaza feels like a particularly ominous moment, not only in the Hamas-Israel war, but in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rather than use the opportunity of a weakened Hamas to reach a ceasefire and hostage deal and allow the people of Gaza to attempt to rebuild their shattered lives, Israel appears to be illegally, immorally and irreversibly changing the realities on the ground.The Conversation

Leonie Fleischmann, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, City St George’s, University of London.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.