Key questions before the PAC will revolve around how SEBI conducted its investigation into the allegations against the Adani Group. The American research firm Hindenburg had made serious accusations against Adani, claiming that the group used unethical methods to inflate its stock prices. SEBI had launched an investigation into the matter, but its impartiality is being questioned. Following the Hindenburg report, Congress also leveled several accusations against SEBI chief Madhabi Puri Buch. Congress claims that Buch and her husband have close ties with Adani, which could influence SEBI’s investigation. Additionally, Congress has alleged that a consultancy company promoted by Buch, Agora Advisory Private Limited, was paid approximately Rs 3 crore by SEBI, which represents a conflict of interest. However, Buch has dismissed all these allegations, calling them false.

The Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee is conducting a financial performance review of SEBI, an unusual occurrence. The PAC is scrutinizing SEBI’s accounts in detail, marking the first time the committee has focused so seriously on SEBI’s functioning. In a PAC meeting on August 29, the decision was made to inspect SEBI’s accounts, leading to the summoning of Buch and other officials.

Kharge further stated, “If we want our democracy to remain vibrant and active, elections should be held as needed.” His argument is that conducting elections periodically is not only a way to hear the public’s voice but also keeps the political process dynamic. The Congress party believes that if all elections are held together, local issues and needs may be overlooked. This would make it easier for political parties to focus on national issues, while regional problems and concerns could be sidelined.

Previously, several states have also raised their voices against “One Nation, One Election.” Political analysts believe that this plan could pose a threat to the freedom and diversity of elections. It may reduce political competition and affect the variety of voter options. Despite Congress’s criticism, the Modi government asserts that “One Nation, One Election” will enhance political stability and make the electoral process more effective. The plan aims not only to reduce costs but also to streamline administrative operations.

Moving forward, it will be interesting to see the stance of political parties on this issue and whether the “One Nation, One Election” plan can be implemented or not. Despite opposition from Congress and other parties, the government is preparing to push it forward.

The Modi government currently relies on the support of its allies. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has the backing of major parties like JDU (Janata Dal-United) and TDP (Telugu Desam Party). These parties are part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and are supporting the government’s idea of ‘One Nation, One Election.’ It is being reported that all parties within the NDA are in favor of this concept and are ready for its implementation.

This idea is not just a government agenda but has been presented by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the public and other political parties multiple times. The BJP’s 2019 Lok Sabha election manifesto also promised ‘One Nation, One Election.’ In his Independence Day speech this year, PM Modi urged political parties to come together in this direction. He said, “The demand of the time is that we achieve the resolution of ‘One Nation, One Election.'” It is expected that this will make the election process simpler and more time-bound.

The government formed a committee to study and deliberate on this issue, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind. The committee recently submitted its report to the government. According to the report, the committee recommended that the Lok Sabha and state assembly elections should be held together first. Following that, local body elections should be held within 100 days, so that elections at all levels can be completed within a fixed timeframe.

The primary aim of ‘One Nation, One Election’ is to reduce the frequency of elections and save resources. Frequent elections place a financial and administrative burden on both the government and the public. Holding elections simultaneously would lower administrative costs and reduce disruptions to developmental projects. However, there are arguments against this proposal. Opposition parties argue that it could harm regional parties and local issues might get overshadowed by national issues. Additionally, there are concerns that holding simultaneous elections could affect the parliamentary and democratic process.

PM Modi asked the public if Congress’s sole objective was to put Modi and BJP leaders in jail. He condemned the statement, calling it unethical and undemocratic. This comment was in direct response to Kharge’s earlier remark, where he had claimed that if Congress had won 20 more seats, BJP leaders would have been imprisoned. PM Modi also took aim at the regional parties that have traditionally dominated politics in Jammu & Kashmir, such as the National Conference and the PDP. He accused the three families (Gandhi, Abdullah, and Mufti) of having wronged the people of Jammu & Kashmir. “They shattered the spirit of both the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir and the Constitution of India, which was drafted by Baba Saheb. For years, two constitutions were being enforced here, an attempt to hide their misdeeds,” said Modi.

The Prime Minister also assured the public that only a BJP government would restore full statehood to Jammu & Kashmir. He urged the people to be wary of leaders who had long deprived them of their rights. Modi emphasized that this election would determine the future of Jammu & Kashmir, and urged the public to make a wise decision. Modi took sharp digs at Congress, recalling how bad things were during their rule, with the government’s Home Minister even fearing to visit Lal Chowk. “You all remember the time when an unofficial curfew would be imposed as soon as the sun set,” Modi remarked. He stated that the current situation had completely changed, crediting BJP’s governance and firm policies.

A few days earlier, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, while addressing a public rally in Jammu & Kashmir, had stated that if Congress had won 20 more seats, all major BJP leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, would have been jailed. He said, “BJP used to boast about winning over 400 seats, but this time, they were reduced to just 240. If we had 20 more seats, BJP leaders would have been in jail, which is where they belong.” Reacting to Kharge’s statement, PM Modi questioned, “Is this Congress’s main agenda? Are they just in politics to put us and BJP leaders in jail?” Modi criticized this as being against the spirit of democracy and urged people to think carefully before allowing parties like Congress to return to power.

“We will do large deportations in Springfield, Ohio,” Trump stated on Friday, referring to his hardline stance on immigration, which he has upheld throughout his political career. Typically, Trump’s calls for mass deportations have targeted undocumented immigrants; however, this latest announcement suggests a broader scope that could include legal residents. Springfield, a city with a Haitian population of approximately 15,000, has found itself at the center of a growing political and social divide. Haitian immigrants in the area have contributed significantly to the local economy, but tensions have also arisen as social services are stretched to meet the needs of the expanding community. The majority of the Haitian population in Springfield has either been granted asylum or has Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which allows them to live and work in the U.S. without fear of deportation due to unsafe conditions in Haiti.

The controversy took a disturbing turn when right-wing agitators latched onto unverified social media claims that recent Haitian arrivals in Springfield were eating pets. These accusations, which have no basis in reality, have since been widely debunked. City officials, including Karen Graves, a spokesperson for Springfield, confirmed that there have been no credible reports of anyone consuming household animals. Graves added that while there have been some crimes against Haitian residents, such as property theft, they are more likely to be “crimes of opportunity” rather than targeted hate crimes.

However, the damage has been done. The misinformation has led to a surge in hostility toward the Haitian community, culminating in anonymous bomb threats made against the city’s schools. On Friday, two elementary schools were evacuated, and a middle school was closed for the second consecutive day due to these threats. Despite the lack of evidence supporting the allegations, Trump referenced the situation during his campaign rally in Las Vegas later that same day, fueling further division. “You see that mess, don’t you?” Trump told the crowd. “I’m angry about illegal Haitian migrants taking over Springfield, Ohio.” He followed this by linking the situation to a broader narrative of criminality, stating, “I’m angry about young American girls being raped and murdered by savage criminal aliens that come into our country very easily, but very illegally.”

Though he did not repeat the specific claim that Haitian immigrants were eating household pets, his rhetoric played into longstanding fears and prejudices about immigrants, particularly those from non-European countries. During Tuesday’s presidential debate with Democrat Kamala Harris, Trump had made the false assertion, which was quickly mocked and discredited in mainstream media. Trump’s comments have drawn swift backlash from leaders across the country, particularly from the Haitian-American community and its allies. Haitian community leaders expressed concern that the former president’s statements could further inflame tensions and incite violence. “We need help, not hate,” Springfield Mayor Rob Rue told ABC News, urging the federal government to intervene to ensure the safety of his city’s residents.

At the national level, the Biden administration has condemned the rhetoric surrounding Springfield. During a press conference at the White House, President Joe Biden called on Americans to stop the attacks on the Haitian community. “It’s simply wrong. There’s no place in America for this. This has to stop – what he’s doing has to stop,” Biden stated emphatically. In June, the Biden administration extended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to hundreds of thousands of Haitians living in the United States, giving them a reprieve from deportation and allowing them to obtain work permits. TPS was initially introduced as a humanitarian measure, recognizing the dire conditions in Haiti, which has been plagued by political instability, natural disasters, and, more recently, escalating gang violence. The country’s deteriorating security situation has forced more than half a million people to flee their homes, while nearly five million Haitians face severe food insecurity.

While Trump has framed the Haitian presence in Springfield as a threat, local officials and economists have a different perspective. The influx of Haitian immigrants has brought both challenges and benefits to the city. On one hand, the growing population has strained some of the city’s social services, particularly in housing and healthcare. However, the Haitian community has also contributed to the local economy, filling labor shortages in key industries such as manufacturing and agriculture. Nevertheless, the toxic political environment surrounding the issue has made life increasingly difficult for Haitian immigrants in Springfield. Many fear that Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric could lead to real-world violence. Haitian community leaders have reported receiving an uptick in threatening messages, and some residents now worry about leaving their homes.

The city’s leadership is working to address these concerns, but the atmosphere remains tense. “We’re doing everything we can to keep people safe,” Mayor Rue said, “but this type of rhetoric makes our job much harder.” As the 2024 presidential race heats up, immigration is likely to remain a hot-button issue, with Trump using Springfield’s Haitian community as a flashpoint in his broader campaign for stricter immigration enforcement. The consequences for the residents of Springfield, and for the Haitian-American community at large, could be far-reaching.

The remarks, intended to underscore the Congress party’s commitment to secularism and religious freedom, have sparked controversy back home. The BJP, the ruling party in India, has accused Gandhi of making anti-national comments on foreign soil, especially in light of his current role as the Leader of the Opposition. The party has expressed concern that such statements harm India’s image globally, and could be seen as playing into the narrative of certain expat Sikh groups that have been critical of India, especially in regard to past grievances.

Among the leading voices criticizing Gandhi’s comments is Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri. Calling the remarks “sinister,” Puri accused the Congress leader of attempting to spread a “dangerous narrative” abroad. The minister took particular offense at the implications that Sikhs are currently under threat in India, arguing that these statements were far from reality. Referring to the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, which erupted after the assassination of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards, Puri reminded the public that it was under Congress’s rule when Sikhs faced one of the darkest periods in their history. “If there has been one time in our history when as a community, we have felt anxiety, a sense of insecurity, and existential threat, it has been the times when Rahul Gandhi’s family has been in the seats of power,” he said.

The 1984 anti-Sikh riots remain a painful chapter in India’s history, with thousands of Sikhs killed in violence that erupted in Delhi and other parts of the country following the assassination. Congress has long been criticized for its alleged failure to control the violence, and some of its leaders were accused of inciting mobs during the riots. In contrast, BJP supporters argue that the current government has fostered a more secure environment for religious minorities, including Sikhs. Protestors at Sonia Gandhi’s residence emphasized that under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, Sikhs have been able to freely practice their faith and enjoy greater safety and stability than under previous Congress governments.

The controversy surrounding Rahul Gandhi’s remarks comes at a politically sensitive time for Congress. While his comments align with the party’s secular stance, the timing has been problematic, especially given the growing international scrutiny over India’s human rights record. Expats, particularly in countries with large Sikh populations like Canada and the UK, have been vocal critics of the Indian government’s treatment of minorities, and some of these concerns have occasionally fed into separatist movements. The BJP has been quick to capitalize on Gandhi’s comments, portraying him as out of touch with India’s reality and dismissive of the progress made under Modi’s rule. For the BJP, the issue is not just about religion, but also national security, with the party frequently linking such criticisms to broader concerns about India’s sovereignty and unity.

In response, Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, alleged that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is attempting to destroy the constitution with a ‘distorted version’ of Ram Rajya and is trying to strip away reservation rights for marginalized communities. He called it an attack on Dalits, OBCs, and Adivasis and highlighted the issue on the social media platform ‘X’. Gandhi also claimed that Prime Minister Modi is attempting to recruit public servants through the RSS instead of UPSC, which he considers a direct attack on the constitution.

Government ally Chiranjeevi Paswan also expressed concern about this recruitment process, stating that reservation in any government appointment is essential. He noted that while there is no reservation in the private sector, the absence of reservation in government positions is alarming and that he will raise this issue before the central government.

In his letter, Jitendra Singh mentioned that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a supporter of reservation in public service and that his government is committed to strengthening social justice. He requested UPSC Chairperson Preeti Sudan to review and cancel the advertisement released on August 17.

The letter also referenced the initiation of lateral entry during the UPA government, mentioning that the central government first considered it in 2005 under the chairmanship of Veerappa Moily, and discussions on such appointments took place in 2013 during the UPA government. It also discussed the appointment of super bureaucracy in UIDAI and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

In light of the protests against the lateral entry process, the government decided to cancel the recruitment advertisement. This decision indicates that the government has opted to amend its policy considering the sensitivity of various societal groups regarding the reservation issue.

In the early days of 1993, West Bengal was under the Left Front government led by Jyoti Basu. During that time, a physically disabled girl was raped in Nadia district. The incident caused an uproar in the state, and attacks on Jyoti Basu’s government began. Mamata Banerjee, who was an emerging leader at the time, brought the victim to the West Bengal government secretariat, the Writers’ Building. Mamata accused the government of not arresting the culprits due to their political connections and demanded a meeting with the then-Chief Minister Jyoti Basu. When her demand was not met, she began a sit-in protest in front of the CM’s chamber.

When Jyoti Basu refused to meet Mamata Banerjee, the police forcibly removed her and the victim from the secretariat. Female police officers dragged Mamata down the stairs, tearing her clothes in the process. After this incident, Mamata vowed that she would only set foot in that building again when she became the Chief Minister. After 18 years of struggle, Mamata entered the building as Chief Minister on May 20, 2011, shaking the foundations of Left rule in West Bengal. Mamata Banerjee continued her protests and demonstrations against the Left Front government for 18 years. Her struggle shook the foundation of Leftist rule and eventually brought her to power. It is said that former Chief Minister Jyoti Basu was so upset with Mamata’s politics that he never publicly mentioned her name, always referring to her as “that woman.”

Mamata Banerjee’s political career has been filled with struggles and controversies. The recent rape-murder case of a doctor at Kolkata’s RG Kar Hospital has once again put Mamata under scrutiny. But this is not the first time Mamata Banerjee’s role in rape cases has been questioned. There was an incident in Hanskhali, where Mamata dismissed the rape case as an “affair.” Similarly, when people protested against a rape in Kamudini, she labeled them as CPI(M) supporters. Mamata Banerjee’s controversial statements on rape cases during her tenure have often made headlines, especially when the allegations involved members of her party. Throughout her years in power, Mamata has often labeled rape cases as “false.” When asked to respond to rape cases as a woman leader, she presents herself as a victim. If the opposition questions her, Mamata does not hesitate to turn the tables and accuse them instead.

The rape-murder case of a trainee doctor in Kolkata has once again put Mamata Banerjee’s leadership under the spotlight. The role of her government and the statements she has made regarding rape cases remain fresh in people’s memories. The people of West Bengal, who have witnessed Mamata Banerjee’s struggle and courage, are now asking her why her approach to heinous crimes like rape is so passive. The question on everyone’s mind is whether Mamata Banerjee will show the same courage today as she did in 1993.

The BJP has sharply reacted to this transfer decision. The party has alleged that doctors who criticized the state government were transferred. BJP national spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla has termed the decision of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s government as a “Talibani fatwa.” Poonawalla shared a post on X (formerly Twitter), claiming that doctors who spoke out against the heinous incident were transferred on the orders of Mamata Banerjee. He also shared WhatsApp chat screenshots confirming that the state government targeted those who were vocal against the incident.

BJP IT cell chief and party’s Bengal co-in-charge Amit Malviya also attacked the state government regarding the transfers. He wrote, “On August 16, the Bengal government’s health department released an eight-page long transfer list, exacerbating the situation.” Malviya alleged that Mamata Banerjee is targeting Kolkata Medical College and Calcutta National Medical College. Senior doctors from these institutions have been transferred to places like Siliguri, Tamluk, and Jhargram. He described it as a desperate attempt by the government to intimidate senior doctors and gain their support.

The incident of violence at RG Kar Hospital on the night of August 14-15 took a new turn when a group of around 40 people entered the hospital premises, causing extensive damage and mayhem. Following this, the hospital’s nursing staff went on strike demanding security and created a hostile environment against the principal. Additionally, junior doctors at the hospital have been on strike for a long time, conducting demonstrations. The state government’s action comes amidst criticisms that it has targeted protesting doctors. Many experts view such measures as an attempt to suppress dissent and prevent marginalized voices from being heard.

By Neelam Singh.

Dr. Bose said that despite such an incident occurring with a female doctor, the police did not conduct a proper and impartial investigation. He mentioned that there is an atmosphere of outrage across the state, with people taking to the streets to demand justice. This justice is important not just for the victim but for the entire society. In an interview with media, the Governor also expressed his views on the possibility of imposing President’s Rule in Bengal. He said that there have been demands for President’s Rule, and he will remain vigilant on this issue. However, he also made it clear that he would keep his options open at this time and would not disclose his next steps under the Constitution.

Dr. Bose further stated that this case is not just a law-and-order issue but a matter of tampering with the judicial and constitutional structure of society. He expressed concern over the vandalism incidents at RG Kar Hospital and said that he himself visited the site on Thursday. There, he saw that people are simply demanding justice, and it is the state’s responsibility to deliver it.

The Governor said that since this incident, a climate of discontent and distrust has developed in society. He urged the police and administration to conduct an impartial investigation and ensure that the culprits are punished. He also stated that if the police and administration do not handle this case properly, it could send a dangerous message to society. In conclusion, the Governor said that this incident has shaken every section of society. It has made it clear that the administration must take its responsibilities seriously to maintain law and order and ensure justice in society.

By Neelam Singh.