The daily Inquilab, in its editorial on October 26 writes: “At the moment there is a fierce battle within the Samajwadi Party (SP) and signs of a split are clearly visible. It had been made public that CM Akhilesh Yadav had warned he would form his own party. In such a situation, only Mulayam Singh Yadav can save the SP. Whether he does it by marginalising Amar Singh or acts according to the objectives for which he had brought Singh back to the party, keeping him at the centre of the developments, has to be decided by him and by no one else. The tug-of-war going on in the party for long may have been intensified because of Amar Singh or the pretext of Amar Singh’s presence might have been used to make it public. But that he alone is responsible for the controversies or the crisis may not be true.The crisis in the party seems to be getting somewhat reduced. But it should not be considered as being over. Because the issues that could have been sorted out inside the offices and homes have come out on the street and the party workers too are divided.”
Roznama Khabrein, in its editorial on the same day, writes: “Differences within the party have crossed their limits and entered the realm of enmity. It seems that the grip of the mukhia of the parivar, Mulayam Singh, is loosening, and Akhilesh is being projected in a very organised manner.This battle is for being at the centre of power in the parivar. It is entirely wrong to say that these things are happening at the instigation of BJP because a weak Samajwadi Party is certainly not in the interest of BJP. The Muslim vote that can be divided between the BSP and SP would tilt towards the BSP, if the SP is weakened, and BSP can emerge as the largest party with its 22 per cent Dalit vote plus about 20 per cent of the Muslim vote. Muslims and Dalits would go to the party which can defeat BJP in such a situation.The fire in the party has not been extinguished despite Mulayam Singh’s efforts for a temporary truce.The rebellious stance of Akhilesh is very meaningful. It implies an appeal to Mulayam to vacate his singhasan.”
BRICS by BRICS
The daily Munsif, in its editorial on October 18, writes: “The member countries of BRICS, at their summit meeting in Goa, agreed on the dangers emanating from terrorism, fundamentalism, and extremism and the need for cooperation to investigate those providing financial support to terrorists. They agreed about the necessity of decisive action to put an end to terrorism. But, contrary to India’s desire, the attacks at Uri and Pathankot were not directly mentioned. The reason for this is obvious. BRICS includes China which has much warmer relations with Pakistan than with India. China does not want to fall short in helping or patronising Pakistan. This is evident from the fact that even before the BRICS summit its stand on the issues of Masood Azhar and India’s membership of NSG was unshakable despite repeated expressions of anxiety by India on these issues. As a result, in the official declaration of BRICS, names of terrorist organisations like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Al-Nasra were mentioned but Pakistan-sponsored organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad were not. In any case, away from the formal declaration, India and Russia did gain out of this event. There were agreements worth Rs 72,000 crore between the two countries for energy, defence and other spheres, the most important one being about the S-400 Defence Missile System.”
India as Israel ?
PM Narendra Modi’s comparison of India’s surgical strikes across the line of control with Pakistan with similar strikes by Israel has drawn a couple of sharp reactions. Editor of Inquilab, Shakeel Shamsi, in his signed column on October 20, writes: “At a time when justice-loving people of the entire world are raising their voice against the Israeli forces’ attacks on innocent citizens of Gaza and Lebanon, when the tyranny of Israel is being openly condemned even in the countries considered its best friends, every justice-loving citizen of India is irked by the comparison of Indian forces with the army of Israel. Unlike the Israeli forces, our armed forces did not target civilian areas or schools or hospitals in Pakistan. Why, then, the comparison with the Israeli attacks?” Editor of Jadid Khabar, Masoom Moradabadi, in his signed commentary on October 23, writes: “The Israeli army is the most tyrannical army in the world and it has been brutally attacking the people of Palestine to force them to vacate their settlements. The Indian forces have not illegally occupied any piece of land in any other country. Obviously, comparison of a secular, democratic and peace-loving country with a tyrant country having scant regard for peace, like Israel, is not acceptable in any manner.”