Narendra Modi not propagating BJP but RSS ideology, says P Chidambaram

November 6, 2013

Narendra_ModiNew Delhi, Nov 6: Finance Minister P Chidambaram has warned that Gujarat Chief Ministerial and Bharatiya Janata Party Prime Ministerial candidate Nadrendra Modi is propagating dangerous RSS ideology. In an interview with Network18, Chidambaram claimed the BJP is making the mistake of making Narendra Modi larger than the party.

"The BJP has projected a person larger than the party, they'll realise this in the near future. It's a grave mistake. You can't project a person larger than party in a Parliamentary democracy. The RSS is fully behind this projection. So what is being propagated by Mr Modi today is not BJP's ideology but it is the ideology of the RSS. He is the chosen one of the RSS," Chidambaram said.

When asked whether the Congress has lost the plot, Chidambaram said, "This party has a long history of serving the people. We may have made mistakes but who hasn't made mistakes. Over 100 years, this party has made mistakes. Even during freedom struggle mistakes were made, but they were corrected. I don't think you can wish away Congress in near future."

Earlier on Monday, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had admitted that the influence of Modi cannot be ignored. He, however, said that the term 'Modi wave' is an exaggeration. "As far as Modi wave is concerned, it is a bit of an exaggeration also. It would be wrong on our part to deny any influence of Modi in the election, but I wouldn't go as far as saying there is a wave," Omar said.

Narendra Modi is the most preferred choice for the post of Prime Minister in the four Assembly election-bound states - Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and Rajasthan. A total of 35 per cent voters want him as the PM as against 17 per cent support for Congress Vive President Rahul Gandhi as the next prime minister.

When a CNN-IBN, The Week and CSDS survey in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and Rajasthan asked an open ended question without giving choices Narendra Modi came first. Rahul Gandhi came second followed by his mother and the Congress President Sonia Gandhi with 5 per cent popular support.

The incumbent Prime Minister Manmohan Singh equaled Sonia Gandhi with the same 5 per cent support. While the BSP supremo Mayawati got 2 per cent votes, the BJP patriarch LK Advani, who reluctantly forfeited his claim in favour of Modi, got just 1 per cent support.

The survey was conducted in only four Assembly elections bound states of Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The fifth poll bound state of Mizoram was not included in the survey. Modi is way ahead of Rahul Gandhi in Delhi and Rajasthan, but the gap narrows in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. In the national capital of Delhi, Modi has got 42 per cent support as against Rahul Gandhi's 15 per cent. In Rajasthan, Modi has got 40 per cent of the support as against Rahul Gandhi's 19 per cent.

When compared to CNN-IBN's July tracker, Modi's popularity has gone up in all four states. He was not named by the BJP as its PM nominee in July but he was the most preferred choice of 26 per cent in July. Rahul Gandhi's popularity has also seen a marginal increase of 2 per cent between July and October - 2013. In July, our sample size was also smaller in all four states.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 4,2020

New Delhi, Jun 4: CSIR Director-General Shekhar Mande said on Thursday that the World Health Organisation's (WHO) decision to halt hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drug trial was taken in haste and the global body should have actually analysed the data before making the decision.

"I firmly believe that WHO decision was taken in haste it was a kind of knee jerk reaction they should have actually analyse the data on their own before temporarily suspend the trials that is my personal opinion," Mande said.

India's nodal government agency ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) overseeing the country's response to the coronavirus pandemic last month wrote to the WHO citing differences in dosage standards between Indian and international trials that could explain the efficacy issues of HCQ in treating COVID-19 patients.

In addition, Dr Sheela Godbole, National Coordinator of the WHO-India Solidarity Trial and Head of the Division of Epidemiology, ICMR-National AIDS Research Institute also wrote a letter via an email to Dr Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at World Health Organisation.

In a letter, Dr Godbole stated: "There was no reason to suspend the trial for safety concern," attributing it to the current RECOVERY data which differs significantly from the non-randomised assessment by Mehra et al, a scientific paper.

Referring to the letter, the CSIR head said, "We don't know what actually happened behind the scenes but the hypothesis is that because of the paper published in Lancet. It is a very well known journal and if Lancet has done due vigilance in publishing the paper. 

Therefore, the WHO thought the paper's findings are right that's why WHO hold based on what is published on Lancet. The WHO shouldn't have accepted it immediately this should have taken their own due vigilance to find out that study is right or not."

DG CSIR said because there is a global outcry it must have put pressure on both Lancet as well as WHO and both of them now retracted from their original position. "WHO has started a trial again and Lancet has put an expression of concern on their website both of these are very welcome development for science," he said.

"So I am pretty sure that Lancet would have published the reports only after seeing somewhere the drug failed to work," Mande said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 13,2020

New Delhi, Jan 13: The Delhi High Court on Monday sought response of the city police, Delhi government, WhatsApp Inc, Google Inc and Apple Inc on a plea of three JNU professors to preserve data, CCTV footage and other evidence relating to the January 5 violence on the varsity campus.

The Delhi Police informed the court that it has asked the JNU administration to preserve and hand over CCTV footage of the violence.

Justice Brijesh Sethi listed the matter for further hearing on Tuesday.

The court was told by Delhi government Standing Counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra that the police has not yet received any response from the university administration.

The counsel said police has also written to WhatsApp to preserve data of two groups "Unity Against Left" and "Friends of RSS" including messages, pictures and videos and phone numbers of members, related to JNU violence incident.

The petition was filed by JNU professors Ameet Parameswaran, Atul Sood and Shukla Vinayak Sawant seeking necessary directions to the Delhi Police Commissioner and Delhi government.

The petition also sought direction to the Delhi Police to retrieve all CCTV footage of JNU campus.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
August 6,2020

New Delhi Aug 6: In a new twist in the Vijay Mallya case, a certain document connected with the case in the Supreme Court has gone missing from the apex court files. 

A bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and Ashok Bhushan adjourned the hearing to August 20.

It was hearing the review plea filed by Mallya against a July 14, 2017 judgment wherein he was found guilty of contempt for not paying Rs 9,000 crore dues to banks despite repeated directions, although he had transferred $40 million to his children.

The bench was looking for a reply on an intervention application, which it seemed has gone missing from the case papers.Parties involved in the case sought more time to file fresh copies.

On June 19, the Supreme Court sought explanation from its registry regarding Mallya's appeal against the May 2017 conviction in the contempt case for not repaying Rs 9,000 crore dues to banks not listed for the last 3 years.

A bench comprising Justices Lalit and Bhushan had asked the Registry to furnish all the details including names of the officials who had dealt with the file concerning the Review Petition for last three years.

The bench said according to the record, placed before it, the review petition was not listed before the court for last three years. "Before we deal with the submissions raised in the Review Petition, we direct the Registry to explain why the Review Petition was not listed before the concerned Court for last three years," said the bench.In May 2017, the apex court held him guilty of contempt of court for transferring $40 million to his children, and ordered him to appear on July 10 to argue on the quantum of punishment.

The bench said let the explanation be furnished within two weeks. "The Review Petition shall, thereafter, be considered on merits," it added.In 2017, the apex court passed the order on a contempt petition against Mallya by a consortium of banks led by the SBI. 

The banks claimed Mallya transferred $40 million from Daigeo to his children's accounts, and did not use this money to clear his debt. Banks cited this as violation of judicial orders.

stm88 info live rtp slot

slot auto scatter hitam

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.