In the context of the central government’s decision to provide 10 per cent quota to economically weaker sections from the general category, the editorial in Organiser called the move a “political decision”. It added that by showing sincerity towards the implementation of reservations on the basis of caste, and simultaneously providing opportunities to the economically weaker sections, “we can ensure equality of opportunities, and, at the same time, further the cause of fraternity”. The editorial claims that there was an interesting position taken during the debate on the 124th Amendment to the Constitution, which proposed reservations for the weaker sections of people from the general category. “The conventional proponents of caste-based reservations were arguing for ensuring that the reservations for ‘poor’ from the conventionally termed as the ‘upper-caste’. This was unprecedented in the generally vitiating discussion on reservation policy. Though there was an obvious political mud-slinging during the discussion, in many ways, this bill has opened up new possibilities in realising the actual objectives of the Reservation Policy, as envisaged by Dr Ambedkar and the Constituent Assembly,” asserts the editorial.
“Is it a political decision? Of course, it is. And that is how it is supposed to be in a democracy. Similar decisions have been taken by previous governments in the last leg of their tenure, so no party should complain,” the editorial asserts. It further adds that the 10 per cent quota will reduce the divisive perception about caste-biased reservations. The questions that are being raised about the dilution of caste-based reservations are baseless and with malafide intention, the editorial claims.
Babur and Rahul
An opinion article in Organiser alleges that the Nehru-Gandhi family has continued to visit the tomb of Babur, the founder of Mughal empire, who brazenly boasted of his fondness for killing the Hindu kafirs. “Ever wondered why each one of the scions of the Gandhi family never failed to pay obeisance to the Mughal emperor Babar at his far away tomb in Kabul, Afghanistan? Ever wondered why the newly-minted janeu dhari Shiv bhakt never gave a damn about visiting the grave of a Hindu King that’s lying there a few metres away?” questions the article, and claims that Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, and former PM Manmohan Singh had visited Babur’s grave. “It is time to expose Rahul Gandhi aka janeu dhari Shiv Bhakt. Why must they pay obeisance to the murderer of lakhs of Hindus and plunderer of our temples? Why must, even today, Zaheeruddin Babur, the destroyer of Sri Ram temple in Ayodhya, continue to beckon and inspire the members of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty?” the article ponders. It stresses that the hidden reasons for the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty’s contempt for the Hindu king (Prithviraj Chauhan), and love for Babur, are two important questions which require in-depth research. “It is time that the Indian Council of Historical Research undertook a study on this important project” article claims.
An article in Panchjanya attacked the Samajwadi Party (SP) president and former chief minister of UP, Akhilesh Yadav, after he accused the BJP government at the Centre of using the CBI against him in connection with a case of an alleged mining scam. Yadav had said that the BJP government was in a state of panic after the SP-BSP alliance came into being. Yadav’s remarks come after the CBI, a few days earlier, conducted raids at many places in the state in connection with the case, and hinted that the investigation agency could also probe his alleged role in the matter. The article states that the leaders of the political parties should answer clearly, instead of diverting from the matter, if they are accused in any case. “Now SP president Akhilesh Yadav is appearing cornered from all sides,” article goes on to claim.