Both Sangh Parivar weeklies have used Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi’s recent interview to a news channel to attack him and the Congress, with an editorial in the Organiser calling it an “entertaining interview”, while a Panchjanya editorial described it as an “accident” that has “boomeranged” on him by exposing his weaknesses. “Family sycophants may be defending him tooth and nail, but his inability to present any vision to minimising the damage done by the family-run government is the real failure,” the editorial in the Organiser states. Though treating Gandhi’s remarks on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots as a “self goal” that exposed the “cowardice mindset [sic]” to seek refuge under the sacrifice of his family members, both editorials perceive him to be testing the ground for the communal violence bill, which they caution against. Both editorials have also criticised Gandhi for not attacking the Aam Aadmi Party, and expressed apprehension that the Congress is hand-in-glove with the AAP. The Organiser accuses Gandhi of “tacitly supporting” the AAP’s politics, while Panchjanya views his non-combative stance towards the AAP as an indicator of the tacit understanding between the two parties. “The Gandhi scion does not have the sensibilities to address these issues,” surmises the Organiser, stressing the need for “decisive leadership” as championed by Narendra Modi.
The Sangh Parivar appears to have been rattled by minority status being granted to the Jain community. “The concept of minorityism is anti-national and destroys the social fabric,” an article in Panchjanya quotes RSS general secretary Bhaiyyaji Joshi as saying. It attributes the move to the tendencies of “influential people” among the Jain community to preserve their interests. “Influential people among the Jain community have eventually managed to get themselves declared as separate from the Hindu community,” states the article, surprised that the “Jain community’s intellectuals would stoop to this level… only to protect their educational institutes, and [acquire] better amenities for their businesses and religious organisations”. Suggesting that Jains are part of Hindu society, the article blames the community for the move, rather than the ruling Congress.
- Here’s Why Delhi-NCR Gets Pollution Code On Lines Of Beijing
- PM Modi Is More Interested In TRP Politics Rahul Gandhi At Congress Parliamentary Meet
- Bigg Boss 10 December 1 Review: Priyanka Jagga Succeeds In Her Divide And Rule Strategy
- Kahaani 2 Audience Reaction: Vidya Balan Starrer Thriller Gets Mixed Reviews
- Find Out What PM Modi Said About Demonetisation On LinkedIn
- Row Over West Bengal ”Military Coup” Issue Escalates: Who Said What
- Here’s How Mohammad Kaif Replied To Virender Sehwag’s Birthday Wish On Twitter
- West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee’s Flight Reportedly Had Low Fuel: Here’s What Happened
- Reliance Jio Welcome Offer Extended Till March 31, JioMoney Launched
- Uri Attackers Came From Pakistan, Establishes Digital Data
- Bigg Boss 10 Nov 30 Episode Review: Captaincy Brings Differences In Manoj Punjabi & Manveer Gurjar
- Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi’s Official Twitter Handle Hacked
- After Rahul Gandhi’s Twitter Handle, Congress Official Twitter Account Hacked
- 3 Dead As Army Helicopter Crashes In Sukna In West Bengal
- BJP, Congress Engage In War Of Words Over Nagrota Attack: Find Out More
A report in Panchjanya declares that the Mamata Banerjee-led TMC has decided to send the “SIMI founder in West Bengal to Rajya Sabha”, while the Organiser has objected to Karnataka’s Republic Day tableau depicting Tipu Sultan. Panchjanya has alleged that the “Mamata government in West Bengal is a threat to the existence of Hindus in that it is preparing to send a person with a jihadi mindset to Parliament” in the form of TMC candidate Ahmed Hasan Imran, who is the editor of a Bengali daily. The report charges Banerjee of playing “divisive politics” in the state. A report in the Organiser has questioned Congress-ruled Karnataka’s decision to have Tipu Sultan as its tableau. “Was Tipu really a proud freedom fighter fighting against the British… Or was he a horrendous, mass murdering, human rights violating, anti-Hindu, anti-Kannada ruler, who should never be an icon to be paraded in the 21st century?” the article asks. In the same journal, a report on the feud within the DMK’s first family equates that political tussle with the one in Mughal courts during the Aurangzeb era. “The street fight in Tamil Nadu between two of the sons of DMK supremo M. Karunanidhi has all the ingredients, short of the fratricides witnessed in the Mughal courts of yore involving emperor Humayun and his brothers, and emperor Aurangzeb killing three of his brothers, especially the much-admired Dara Shikoh,” it says.
Compiled by Ravish Tiwari