Since it is a new department, it is not clear if the leaders would be in the Cabinet, have to be confirmed by the Senate, and what their titles would be…reports Asian Lite News
US President-elect Donald Trump has announced that he is appointing two maverick entrepreneurs — Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency (DoGE) that will be charged with drastically changing government while cutting waste.
Announcing the appointments on Truth Social on Tuesday night, Trump said that DoGE “will become, potentially the ‘Manhattan Project’ of our time” — a reference to the US effort during World War II to develop atomic weapons in record time and profoundly affect the world.
Musk said, “This will send shockwaves through the system, and anyone involved in Government waste, which is a lot of people!”
Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump makes a campaign stop at McDonald’s on Monday, October 21, 2024. (Photo: IANS)
He wrote on X: “All actions of the Department of Government Efficiency will be posted online for maximum transparency. Anytime the public thinks we are cutting something important or not cutting something wasteful, just let us know! We will also have a leaderboard for most insanely dumb spending of your tax dollars. This will be both extremely tragic and extremely entertaining (with a smiley emoji).”
Ramaswamy posted his reaction on X, “We will not go gently, @elonmusk.”
The structure of the department and its leadership is vague because Trump said, “The Great Elon Musk, working in conjunction with American Patriot Vivek Ramaswamy, will lead the Department of Government Efficiency.”
Since it is a new department, it is not clear if the leaders would be in the Cabinet, have to be confirmed by the Senate, and what their titles would be.
“Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies,” Trump said.
About its role, he said, “To drive this kind of drastic change, the Department of Government Efficiency will provide advice and guidance from outside of Government and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large-scale structural reform and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before.”
Musk said during the campaign that he could cut $2 trillion from the federal budget of $6.5 trillion.
Both Ramaswamy and Musk campaigned for Trump, and Musk ran a parallel campaign for Trump in Pennsylvania to turn out the vote in the state that he won.
The world’s richest person, Musk heads the electric car company, Tesla, and the rocket company Space X, and owns X, which was known as Twitter before he bought it.
He is an immigrant from South Africa.
Ramaswamy, whose parents are from India, is a multimillionaire pharmaceutical entrepreneur.
He ran against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, but dropped out and endorsed him.
While they can be expected to bring their business expertise to make government, there are questions about conflict of interest, especially in the case of Musk, whose SpaceX has government contracts.
He also has extensive business in China, where he makes Tesla vehicles and sells and exports them.
The warning came amid reports that the government is to offer a financial lifeline to protect hospice charities…reports Asian Lite News
Charities have warned of “life-changing consequences” for a million vulnerable children and adults as a result of cuts to state-funded disability services driven by tax changes and wage rises announced in the budget.
The Voluntary Organisations Disability Group (VODG), which represents 100 charities in England, said Rachel Reeves’s decision to raise employers’ national insurance contributions (NICs) had been “ill thought through” and would put many local charity services at risk.
The warning came amid reports that the government is to offer a financial lifeline to protect hospice charities, who had said the rise in NICs would cost them £30m a year and lead to end-of-life services being cut or even closing.
VODG, which represents household names like Mencap and Sense as well as scores of smaller disability charities, said the NICs and national minimum wage increases would leave many members having to cut back on staff and services.
The quality of services for disabled people who are being supported to live independent lives would be reduced, it said. Many disability charities would be forced to hand contracts back to local authorities because services they provide could not be delivered safely on the funding available.
“Social care is designed to protect the most vulnerable members of our community, and this Labour government is letting them down,” said the VODG chief executive, Rhidian Hughes.
Nurseries have warned of higher fees to parents and possible closures as a result of the increases to NICs and the minimum wage, which will push the early-years sector “to the brink”, according to the Early Years Alliance (EYA).
Voluntary sector providers of public services, who unlike the NHS and local authorities are not protected from the impact of the NICs rise, and unlike private companies cannot pass costs on to consumers, say they are increasingly alarmed at the impact of the extra costs on their financial viability.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which met the minister for civil society, Stephanie Peacock, last week to discuss the crisis, said more than 7,000 of its member charities had now signed an open letter to the government warning of the “dire situation” facing the voluntary sector as a result of rising costs.
While the Treasury has so far been adamant it cannot exempt charities and private businesses from NICs rises, the prospect of an exemption for voluntary hospices has given fresh hope to the charity sector that a broader agreement can be reached.
The sector sees the national insurance rises as the third financial disaster to hit it in the past five years, after Covid and the cost of living crisis. It believes failure to address it could sour attempts to establish what Keir Starmer, the prime minister, earlier this year called a “renewed social contract” with charities.
The charity sector employs 1 million people and delivers about £17bn of services a year in areas such as social care, addiction, health, homelessness and hospice care. Charities estimate they face an extra bill of £1.4bn as a result of the changes.
Separately, more than 100 homelessness charities, including Crisis and St Mungo’s, delivered an open letter to Reeves, the chancellor, on Monday warning the NICs rises could take up to £60m a year from frontline services such as street outreach, emergency beds and supported housing.
Rick Henderson, the chief executive of Homeless Link, which organised the letter, said he had “rarely seen the sector as angry and frightened” as they were by the planned NICs rise. “It is a very real threat that could impact thousands of people who are currently homeless or threatened with homelessness, leaving them without support,” he said.
An online survey of 1,000 nurseries in England found that 95% of EYA members were likely to have to increase fees to cover the extra costs, while two in five (40%) were likely to close permanently without additional support from the government to cover increased costs.
The sector is working to deliver the biggest expansion in its history, as it implements the government’s funded childcare scheme. Working parents of children over the age of nine months are now able to access 15 hours of government-funded childcare, increasing to up 30 hours a week for eligible families from next September.
Assisted dying bill has strict safeguards, MP says
A historic bill to legalise assisted dying will set out hardline safeguards, including lengthy prison sentences for coercion and powers for judges to cross-examine patients.
The Labour MP Kim Leadbeater said she believed she had put forward “the best possible legislation” but warned wavering MPs that parliament may not get another chance to vote again on the issue for another decade.
She pledged it would contain the “strictest protections and safeguards of any legislation anywhere in the world” amid growing concerns from some MPs over the potential for mission creep and coercion.
The bill is expected to run to 40 pages – believed to be one of the longest ever private members’ bills – and Leadbeater will stress to colleagues over the coming days that the bill has been the subject of exhaustive consultation.
But critics in parliament have raised alarm about the process of the bill, which has limited time for debate, and many have significant concerns about the potential for undue pressure and the risk of the scope of the bill widening under legal challenges.
Some critics of the bill however have said there are still questions over the safeguards – and have said there must be provisions against “doctor shopping” if patients do not get the preferred answer from their first choice of medic.
They are also expecting to ask questions as to whether a six-month prognosis includes those refusing treatment and whether doctors will have an assumption of mental capacity. An even more hardline approach would require a patient to be cross-examined in court by an advocate who would put the case before a judge for refusing the procedure.
Leadbeater saidthe vote on 29 November would be just the first step and would allow the bill to receive further scrutiny at later stages.
In comments responding to criticism over the lack of scrutiny of the bill, Leadbeater said it had been a “through and robust process” involving medical and legal experts, the palliative care and hospice sectors, and disability rights activists and faith leaders, as well as those with personal experience of watching a loved one die in difficult circumstances.
She said MPs still had three weeks to look at the bill before debate and added: “I hope MPs will agree with me that we can offer the safest choice to those who want it at the end of their lives, while at the same time working to make our already excellent palliative care provision even better and protecting the rights of people with disabilities, mental illness and other challenges to have all the support and care they need throughout their lives,” she said.
The pro-assisted dying side in parliament has an organised system, with designated MPs running the numbers for each of the parliamentary intakes. Those who have seen the most recent tallies say there are a number of members they expect to make final decisions within days of seeing the bill.
“For some it is a principle about not saying yes until they have seen the legislation,” one supportive MP said.
MPs with concerns about the process and potential widening of the scope of the legislation are being invited this week to meet Dr Sally Talbot, one of the architects of assisted dying in Western Australia and currently a member of the panel undertaking review of the law.
Those opposed have been hosting events with a number of disabled parliamentarians who oppose the changes, including the peer Tanni Grey-Thompson and Pam Duncan-Glancy, a Scottish Labour MSP, as well as academics and lawyers who have concerns about the process.
There are believed to be at least 100 Labour MPs who remain undecided and both sides say the numbers are a real unknown, with a significant number declining to attend any of the parliamentary events run from either side.
The government and NatWest said on Monday that the Treasury’s holding will drop from 14.2% to 11.4%, after the sale of shares at a price of about £3.81, the bank’s closing price on Friday. ..reports Asian Lite News
NatWest has bought back shares worth £1bn from the UK government, as the privatisation of the bailed-out bank continues after a plan to offer a chunk of the stock to retail investors was abandoned.
The government and NatWest said on Monday that the Treasury’s holding will drop from 14.2% to 11.4%, after the sale of shares at a price of about £3.81, the bank’s closing price on Friday.
The government’s shareholding has reduced by more than two-thirds in 2024 from about 38% in December 2023. The sale means the government has now recouped more than £20bn from the sale of shares that it has held since a £46bn bailout in 2008 during the financial crisis, when the Treasury was forced to step in to prevent the bank, then called Royal Bank of Scotland, from going under. The government owned 84% of NatWest when it was part-nationalised.
In the years since, the bank has returned to a more stable footing and the Treasury has tried to recoup what it can from sales of shares to return it to private ownership.
The former Conservative government also tried to use the stake to further other policy goals. Under the former chancellor Jeremy Hunt that included a push to encourage British people to invest more in UK stocks through a privatisation campaign aimed at retail investors.
The planned retail sale, promoted through an advertising campaign starring newsreader Trevor McDonald, would have tried to emulate the “Tell Sid” campaign to privatise British Gas in the 1980s under the then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. However, NatWest was left with costs of £24m spent on the campaign, which was left unused after the Conservatives called a general election in May.
At the budget last month under the new chancellor, Rachel Reeves, the Treasury said it was “stopping programmes that are no longer priorities, such as the retail sale of NatWest shares”.
Instead, the Treasury intends to sell its stake by 2025 or 2026 “utilising a range of disposal methods, subject to market conditions and achieving value for money for taxpayers”. It sold more shares a day after the budget, on 31 October.
The £1bn share purchase announced on Monday was the second off-market “directed buy-back” of the year, after NatWest shareholders voted in favour of allowing the bank to buy up to 15% of shares a year from the government.
The Treasury has also been selling shares gradually via the stock market. Shares in NatWest have risen nearly 20% since Labour’s election victory in early July.
Gary Greenwood, an analyst at Shore Capital, said: “This directed share buy-back has come a little sooner than we expected and so brings forward the likely point at which the government will have fully exited its shareholding – we assume it will be all out by the middle of next year or possibly sooner.”
Paul Thwaite, the NatWest chief executive, said: “As a result of NatWest group’s continued strong performance, we are pleased to have today completed our second buy-back of government shares of 2024, further reducing HM Treasury’s shareholding.
“This transaction represents another important milestone on the path to full privatisation. We believe it is a positive use of capital for the bank and for our shareholders and we are pleased with the sustained momentum in reducing HM Treasury’s stake in NatWest group throughout this year.”
At the budget on 30 October the government said it had raised £19.1bn from sales of NatWest shares. Within that figure, £8.6bn was achieved through a trading plan announced in 2021 by the former Conservative government.
The regular share sales have provided a steady stream of work for bankers. The US investment bank Goldman Sachs is working as “privatisation adviser” for UK Government Investments, the body that manages the stake, while another, Morgan Stanley, manages the trading plan. Merrill Lynch is advising NatWest.
The campaign strategy of the Democrats was based largely on creating fear amongst the electorate about the consequences of a Trump comeback, writes Prof. Madhav Das Nalapat
Donald Trump was brought back into the political centre stage not by his supporters but by his foes. The relentless manner in which he was charge-sheeted and prosecuted by agencies directly linked to the Biden administration or leaning towards the Democrats ensured that he would remain the most talked about, the most reported about, political leader in the US. Some in the Democratic Party say that it was Hillary Clinton, still smarting over her 2016 defeat by Trump, who convinced Biden that making him a felon would render him unelectable.
If so, she shares with Biden the credit for creating circumstances which boosted rather than ended the electability of Donald Trump. With each prosecution, he came closer and closer to locking up the Republican nomination and subsequently the Presidency. The key drivers of his rising popularity, besides the countless cases slapped against him, were illegal immigration and inflation caused by the way in which President Biden assisted President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in his futile efforts at forcing the Russian Federation to cede control over territories.
Land that had been under the control of Russian-speaking Ukrainians since 2014. When President Vladimir Putin was given what he believed to be credible intel that the NATO-assisted military under Zelenskyy was in February 2022 on the cusp of entering Donetsk, Lugansk and the Crimea, he decided to attack first. The White House considered Ukraine another Afghanistan, where in the 1980s US assistance to those fighting Soviet occupation ensured the defeat of the Soviet military and hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Instead, it is Ukraine which has become a quagmire for the US and its Atlanticist allies, trapping them into massively assisting Zelenskyy in his futile war since 2022. The Ukraine war has become unpopular with much of the population of the countries on either side of the northern part of the Atlantic. Every booster of Zelenskyy’s effort against the Russian side, whether it be Biden, Sunak, Macron, Scholz or others, lost their jobs or are on the path towards doing so. Unlike Trump and Vance, Kamala Harris made the mistake of backing Biden in his war on Russia even after she was made the Democratic Party nominee for the Presidential elections in July.
Much of the inflation being endured by citizens of the US is linked to the supply disruptions and the financial sanctions which came about after Russian armies entered Ukraine on 26 February 2022. And it is that inflation, coupled with unprecedented numbers of illegal migrants (including from hostile countries) entering the US through the southern border, which caused the defeat of Harris on 5 November. In contrast, Trump promised to end the Ukraine war within a day of entering the White House on 20 January, 2025, a pledge that resonated with voters.
Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump makes a campaign stop at McDonald’s on Monday, October 21, 2024. (Photo: IANS)
Why Biden and his European allies embarked on their Ukrainian adventure so soon after the world had endured the havoc wrought in their economies during 2020 and 2021 is a textbook example of folly. An investigation is likely into the way in which the Covid-19 pandemic caused Covid-19 vaccines to be turned out at warp speed. How effective these vaccines were or what their long-term impact on health would be needs to be given more attention. Trump and the 2025-27 US Congress are expected to undertake a serious investigation of the entire episode once the new administration and Congress is sworn in. R.F. Kennedy Jr may be a key driver of such a process, given his controversial views on the pandemic.
At the same time, J.D. Vance is expected to be very different from Vice-President Harris, who was content to remain in the shadows into which the White House had pushed her from the start. Trump is no Biden. He understands that an active VP of the calibre of Vance would be an asset to him during his term, just as he was during the campaign. He would also likely to have an interest in seeing that a friendly Vance succeeds him in the White House when his term ends. Hence, as President, he is likely to give Vance much more policy space than almost all past US Vice-Presidents had.
Just as it was some of the policies of President Biden that ensured Trump would be elected as the 47th US President, it was the unwillingness or inability of Kamala Harris to create a perception wall between herself and the unpopular policies of President Biden which led to her defeat. Added to that was complacency about the campaign strategy being followed by the Democrats, which was based in large part by seeking to create fear amongst the electorate about the possible consequences of a Trump comeback.
Given the awesome power of government, added to the high costs of litigation both in human as well as in financial terms, several of those responding to exit polls adopt what in their view is the safe option of claiming that they voted for the ruling party. At the same time, given the increasing polarisation within so many democracies, in an age of smartphones and the ease of concealing its camera and audio devices, respondents to exit polls may believe that they are at risk of identification and retribution, should they reveal their preference for anti-government political formations to the pollster.
Such a fear has a valid basis, if anecdotal evidence is to be accepted, in parts of India such as Bengal. Only when there is a palpable wave against a ruling party and hence towards its rivals do many responders feel confident enough to reveal their actual preferences. All of which is probably why exit polls in many democracies have proven to be inaccurate predictors of the actual results, and why basing analyses on voting behaviour on such polls may not infrequently prove an exercise treacherous to the credibility of the analyst.
Humourists in the US have been busy trashing those exit polls shown on domestic television channels which predicted a close contest in what were regarded as “battleground states”, or states that were neither safely Blue (Democratic) nor safely Red (Republican). Actual voting showed that in several of these states, the only battle was not on whether Trump would win, but about how high his margin of victory would be.
So polarised has political discourse been in the US, so widespread its effect on societal relationships, that for many, it was impossible within some groups to openly admit support for Harris or Trump, for immediate ostracisation from the group would follow such an admission. Instead, they expressed their preferences through voting. Or in the case of many who were unhappy with Harris but did not support Trump, by not voting. Kamala Harris called for change to a new generation of leaders, standing by helplessly as US voters plumped for far more changes than the age of a candidate. Instead, the majority of voters in the US chose a change far more radical than the age of a candidate, by choosing Trump over Harris.
Dar acknowledged that although significant decisions were made to halt the Gaza conflict, the situation in the Middle East has since worsened…reports Asian Lite News
Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar has voiced high hope that the incoming US administration will renew its commitment to fostering peace in West Asia, advocating for a strategic, UN-aligned approach to end the crisis as per local media.
Speaking at the Council of Foreign Ministers’ Preparatory Meeting for the Second Arab-Islamic Summit on Sunday, Dar emphasised that “mere condemnation of Israeli actions would not be enough.” He urged Muslim leaders to fulfill their “moral and legal duty” in supporting Palestinians’ rights and achieving justice, Dawn reported.
“The whole Muslim Ummah is looking at us today. We need to demonstrate unwavering political will and complete unity and take concrete steps to effectively address the situation at hand,” he said.
Dar called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza, unrestricted humanitarian assistance for Palestinians, and urged the United Nations to ensure continued support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which has faced mounting challenges.
He proposed several measures, including support for Palestine’s full UN membership and legal action to hold Israel accountable for alleged war crimes. Dar also advocated for imposing an arms embargo on Israel, reassessing its UN membership, and appointing a Joint Arab-Islamic Special Envoy on the Middle East as a focal point for coordinated peace efforts, reported Dawn.
Reflecting on the resolutions from last year’s inaugural Arab-Islamic Summit in Riyadh, Dar acknowledged that although significant decisions were made to halt the Gaza conflict, the situation in the Middle East has since worsened. He condemned Israel’s “war crimes and crimes against humanity against the innocent Palestinians,” accusing it of pushing a “greater Israel” agenda with potentially severe repercussions for regional stability.
“The reckless pursuit of a so-called greater Israel by encroaching upon the sovereignty of states beyond Palestine is fraught with serious implications for regional peace and stability,” he warned. Dar also criticised Israel’s military actions as blatant violations of international law, lamenting that the UN Security Council has remained largely ineffective despite calls from the General Assembly, OIC, and International Court of Justice for a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, and protection for civilians.
He commended Saudi Arabia’s recent efforts to promote a Two-State Solution through the Global Alliance and confirmed Pakistan’s commitment to the alliance’s objectives. Dar highlighted Pakistan’s consistent support for Palestine, noting the humanitarian aid sent over the past year, as well as scholarships for Palestinian students and educational opportunities for Palestinian medical students, Dawn reported.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also left for Riyadh on Sunday to attend the summit, where he is expected to address key issues and reaffirm Pakistan’s stance on the Palestine situation. Accompanied by Information Minister Attaullah Tarar and Special Assistant Tariq Fatemi, Sharif will meet with Arab League and OIC leaders to build diplomatic partnerships addressing regional security and humanitarian challenges.
This summit reflects Saudi Arabia’s commitment to addressing Middle East crises and fostering multilateral engagement, with Riyadh as a diplomatic centre for discussions that may shape the region’s future. (ANI)
Tsao strongly rejected these allegations, stating that the sanctions were part of China’s broader attempt to suppress the lawful political views of those supporting Taiwan’s independence…reports Asian Lite News
Taiwanese tycoon Robert Tsao, the retired founder of United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC), has declared his intention to sue senior Chinese officials for sanctions imposed against him due to his outspoken support for Taiwan’s independence Voice of America (VOA) reported.
Tsao, one of Taiwan’s wealthiest individuals, has been sanctioned by China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, which accused him of being linked to the “Black Bear Academy” — an organisation allegedly promoting separatism and endangering cross-strait relations.
However, Tsao strongly rejected these allegations, stating that the sanctions were part of China’s broader attempt to suppress the lawful political views of those supporting Taiwan’s independence.
The businessman emphasised that China’s move was aimed at silencing the voices of pro-independence advocates in Taiwan. Tsao announced that he would file a lawsuit in Taiwan against Song Tao, head of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, and the office’s spokesperson, Chen Binhua, reported VOA.
While Tsao’s lawyer, Cheng Wen-lung, acknowledged that Taiwan’s courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over Chinese officials and that enforcement would be impossible without their physical presence on the island, he emphasised the symbolic nature of the lawsuit.
“We have to do this legally. Taiwan is in a difficult spot, but we have to work hard. You cannot do anything,” Cheng stated.
In addition to the Taiwanese legal action, Tsao is also considering suing these Chinese officials in the United States under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows foreign nationals to sue for violations of international law, VOA reported.
The sanctions came at a time of growing tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Recently, China conducted a large-scale military exercise near Taiwan, which it described as a warning to “separatist acts” and any moves toward Taiwan’s independence.
This escalation in military activity has further strained relations between Taiwan and China, which has vowed to take strong measures against any moves that might push Taiwan closer to declaring independence. (ANI)
CJI Khanna was also part of the bench that scrapped the electoral bonds scheme passed in the Parliament earlier…reports Asian Lite News
Justice Sanjiv Khanna was sworn in as the 51st Chief Justice of India (CJI) by President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan in a brief ceremony on Monday. Khanna has been part of benches in the Supreme Court that heard important judgments, including upholding the abrogation of Article 370.
CJI Khanna was also part of the bench that scrapped the electoral bonds scheme passed in the Parliament earlier.
Khanna took the oath in English, in the name of God, bearing his allegiance to the Constitution of India ensuring that he will perform the duties of his office without fear or favour, affection or ill will.
The event was attended by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal and several other Union Cabinet ministers, who graced the occasion with their presence.
Justice Khanna, who has served as a judge in the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, succeeds former CJI DY Chandrachud. Khanna will serve a six-month term as the 51st CJI.
In addition to the judges, the function was also attended by other legal luminaries, government officials, and key political figures.
The participation of retired judges, including retired Chief Justices, adds a layer of respect and tradition, acknowledging the contributions of former members of the judiciary while also emphasizing the collaborative and collegial nature of the Indian legal system.
The Government of India recently issued a formal notification appointing Justice Sanjiv Khanna as the next Chief Justice of India, effective from November 11, 2024. The Ministry of Law and Justice, in its notification, confirmed that the President, under clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution of India, has appointed Justice Khanna to the highest judicial post in the country.
Justice Khanna, who was born on May 14, 1960, began his legal career in 1983 by joining as an advocate with the Delhi Bar Council. He has experience in a wide range of legal fields, including constitutional law, taxation, arbitration, commercial law, and environmental law. Justice Khanna also worked as senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, representing the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
On his last working day, outgoing Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, became emotional as he reflected on his tenure, saying, “There is no greater feeling than being able to serve those in need.”
In his heartfelt farewell speech on Friday, CJI Chandrachud shared his journey from being a law student seated in the back row to presiding over the Supreme Court.
He expressed the honour of serving the nation and highlighted how each day in office offered opportunities for both professional growth and personal development. (ANI)
The party criticised the “racial slurs” by the Minister and demanded his resignation….reports Asian Lite News
Janata Dal Secular on Monday strongly condemned the “racist remarks” made by Karnataka Minister Zameer Ahmed Khan for Union Minister HD Kumaraswamy.
JD(S) on its social media handle X, shared a video where Minister Zameer Ahmed Khan while an election campaign in Channapatna by-polls purpotedly makes disparging remarks against the former chief minister terming him as “Kala Kumaraswamy.”
In a social media post on X, the official handle of JD(S) wrote, “Housing Minister @BZZameerAhmedK used racial slurs during Channapatna by-election campaign. Union Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy was insulted by Jameer Ahmed Khan as “Kala Kumaraswamy” (Black Kumaraswamy) in Urdu. By this they have racially insulted the black people and committed racial discrimination. Apart from that, these words of racial hatred coming from the mouth of Jameer Ahmed, who has uplifted a community and encouraged people to deteriorate the peace and order in the society, are unforgivable crime.”
The party criticised the “racial slurs” by the Minister and demanded his resignation. The party also demanded the state Home Minister G Parameshwara and Ramnagar district police to immediately take appropriate legal action against minister Jameer Ahmed for “racial abuse, racism and trying to disturb peace in the society.”
The tweet added, “The Secular Janata Dal Party demands that the Home Minister @DrParameshwara and @spramanagara Ramnagar district police immediately take appropriate legal action against minister Jameer Ahmed for racial abuse, racism and trying to disturb peace in the society. Mr. @kharge and @INCIndia president of National Congress should get the resignation of this racist Jameer first if he can maintain morals for the party. @INCKarnataka.”
Union Minister Kiren Rijiju also condemned the remarks. In a post on X, he said :I strongly deplore Congress Minister Zameer Ahmed calling Union Minister & Ex CM of Karnataka Sh. Kumaraswamy as ‘Kaalia Kumaraswamy’. This is a racist remark, same as Rahul Gandhi’s adviser calling South Indians look like Africans, North East as Chinese, North Indians as Arabs.”
The JD(S) reposted Rijiju’s remarks stating, “The nation vehemently condemns the disgraceful and racially charged remarks by Zameer Ahmed against HD Kumaraswamy. This kind of hateful language marks a new low in political discourse and has no place in a civilized society. We demand accountability from leaders who choose divisive attacks over constructive dialogue.”
The bypolls on Shiggaon, Sandur and Channapatna is scheduled for November 13 and the results for the respective seats will be announced on November 23. These seats were vacant after resignation of the respective candidates. (ANI)
With unprecedented legal support, the Pakistan Army will now determine nearly all policies—economic, legal, political, telecommunication, and security—rendering civilian authorities ineffective and leaving the population at the mercy of the military, writes Dr Sakariya Kareem
In another development undermining democracy in Pakistan, the powerful military establishment pressured ruling coalition lawmakers to pass crucial bills in parliament without discussion. Demonstrating unprecedented haste, the government passed all six bills—seeking to extend the tenure of the chiefs of the country’s three armed forces and to increase the number of judges in the superior courts—from the National Assembly within 24 minutes and then from the Senate in just 16 minutes, without allowing any debate.
Among the six bills, the most controversial is the tenure extension of the three military chiefs from three to five years. In simple terms, Pakistan’s chief of army staff (COAS) can now legally serve for ten years, and the army chief can serve for two terms. This move further erodes democracy in Pakistan, and de facto military rule has taken hold. Moving forward, the army will not need to conduct a coup to gain power in Pakistan, as the new extension rule grants unprecedented control to future military chiefs. The new bill guarantees that Army Chief General Syed Asim Munir, who has served for two years, will continue leading the country’s powerful military establishment until November 2027. He can also legally seek an additional five-year term after his initial five-year term ends in 2027. Munir’s extension could have severe consequences for opposition parties, particularly Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI). Experts believe that the ruling coalition, led by Shehbaz Sharif, pushed for the army chief’s tenure extension as a way to protect itself from political opposition and public discontent. In return, the military establishment is expected to keep Khan imprisoned, selectively target PTI supporters, and prevent large street protests against the ruling coalition. Notably, Sharif, in November 2022, selected General Munir for a three-year term as army chief, an appointment that was opposed by Imran Khan.
The bills passed by Parliament included the Supreme Court Number of Judges (Amendment) Bill 2024, the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure (Amendment) Bill 2024, the Islamabad High Court (Amendment) Bill 2024, the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Bill 2024, the Pakistan Air Force (Amendment) Bill 2024, and the Pakistan Navy (Amendment) Bill 2024. These bills were passed without prior discussion and silenced lawmakers from opposition parties. Furthermore, just hours after the new laws were passed, the government sent the documents to the acting President of Pakistan, Yusuf Raza Gilani, who signed them informally at his home. This demonstrates how non-serious the ruling coalition was about these crucial legislations and suggests they were under pressure from the military to pass them quickly.
Critics argue that the new legislation will create discontent within the three military branches, as many senior officers will lose the opportunity to become chiefs. Additionally, the armed forces, particularly the army, may become more politicized as senior generals seek to align themselves with major political parties in hopes of advancing to chief positions. Importantly, the prime minister of Pakistan has the authority to select the army, navy, and air force chiefs. Furthermore, the amendments eliminate previous age limits and expand tenure options, allowing the Chief of Army Staff and other military leaders to serve beyond the earlier prescribed age of 64 if national security or urgent needs arise. The new rules have been heavily criticized by Pakistani politicians and policy experts. One expert commented on X/Twitter regarding the services extension issue: “Thanks to the bill the government rushed through parliament suddenly today, Pakistan’s army chief can now be in power for a full 10 years (because an extension is possible). The country’s authoritarian turn has been cemented today.” Another post claimed that “the most damaging aspect of this government is how it has undermined Parliament and democratic norms. 6 bills passed in the NA within 24 minutes. A constitutional amendment passed in a midnight session marred by coercion and abductions. No debates, no public drafts.” Politicians and members of ethnic minorities, such as Pashtun and Baloch, are worried about the new rules because they will directly affect their safety and security. A former Pashtun senator, Afrasiab Khattak, stated on social media, “Aside from movements led by popular young leaders from oppressed communities and activists from the left, there are no opposition political parties in Pakistan. The ruling party and the main opposition see eye to eye on extending the tenure of the generals. Don’t blame the people.” Under the current ruling coalition government in Islamabad and the army chief, General Munir, ethnic minorities are facing increasing state-sponsored violence and forced incarcerations based on unsubstantiated legal charges. With the recent amendment to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 and the extension of the army chief’s tenure, people in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa will experience more instability due to selective counterterrorism and intelligence-led operations by the Punjabi-dominated armed forces in Pakistan.
On November 5, two major religio-political parties—the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI-F) and Jamaat-i-Islami (JI)—criticized the coalition government for recent bills. JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman stated that the ruling parties were “gagging” democracy by empowering the military establishment. At a press conference in Islamabad, Rehman argued that the new bill to amend the anti-terrorism law would tarnish democratic institutions and that it “is tantamount to civil martial law and a slap in the face of democracy.” The long-term consequences of these rules for the people of Pakistan, particularly ethnic minorities like the Baloch and Pashtun, will be significant as General Munir and other security agencies openly violate the constitution, transforming the country into an autocratic military state. With unprecedented legal support, the Pakistan Army will now determine nearly all policies—economic, legal, political, telecommunication, and security—rendering civilian authorities ineffective and leaving the population at the mercy of the military.
Launching BJP’s campaign for the November 20 Maharashtra assembly polls, Modi had mentioned ‘Ek Hai to Safe Hai’ while accusing the Congress of trying to divide OBCs, SCs and STs….reports Asian Lite News
Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge on Sunday criticised the “Ek Hai to Safe Hai” and “Batenge to Katenge” slogans, claiming threat to India from the RSS, BJP, PM Narendra Modi, and Home Minister Amit Shah. Addressing a ‘Save Constitution’ conference in Mumbai, Kharge targeted the prime minister, alleging discussions and debate are not allowed in Parliament.
“The prime minister says ‘Ek Hai to Safe Hai’ while other leaders (of BJP) talk about ‘Batenge to Katenge’ (divided we fall). Who is threatened? Is there any problem? In fact, the country faces threat from RSS, BJP, Modi, and (Union home minister Amit) Shah,” Kharge said.
Launching BJP’s campaign for the November 20 Maharashtra assembly polls, Modi had mentioned ‘Ek Hai to Safe Hai’ while accusing the Congress of trying to divide OBCs, SCs and STs.
Yogi Adityanath’s ‘Batenge to Katenge’ slogan, viewed as a call for Hindus to stay united, is also gaining traction. Continuing his tirade against Modi, Kharge wondered whether he could be termed as a democratic prime minister.
“Issues can be resolved through discussions which will strengthen democracy. But they (BJP) want to dismantle democracy,” the Congress veteran alleged. According to Kharge, political decorum is not maintained under Modi’s leadership, unlike the days of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. “Vajpayee, Nehru, and Indira Gandhi mutually respected each other despite their political differences. But Modi constantly attacks us and we had to respond,” he said. Kharge was in Mumbai to unveil the manifesto of Maha Vikas Aghadi, comprising Shiv Sena (UBT), Congress, and NCP (SP), for the assembly elections. The MVA and ruling BJP-led Mahayuti alliance are locked in a fierce contest for political supremacy in the western state. Kharge accused the BJP of distorting issues and dividing people. “BJP and RSS have already divided people. We work to unite people,” he said. He alleged that whenever BJP realises that it cannot win elections and form a government, it uses ED, CBI and other Central agencies against its political adversaries. “How long the Central agencies will continue to intimidate politicians and put them in jail? We are fighting against the government with a strong resolve,” Kharge said. NCP (SP) working president Supriya Sule said the Sharad Pawar-led faction and Shiv Sena (UBT) will continue their legal battle in the Supreme Court to freeze the symbols allotted to the rival factions. “We feel our new symbols are better than the previous ones,” she said, adding that their fight against BJP is of ideology and principles and not personal.
Shah takes a jibe at Uddhav Thackeray
Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Sunday hit out at Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party for “insulting” Veer Savarkar. He challenged Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray to ask Rahul Gandhi to praise Savarkar and Shiv Sena founder Balasaheb Thackeray. “I want to ask Uddhav Thackeray from this stage. Can he ask Rahul Gandhi to say something good about Veer Savarkar? Can any Congress leader speak something to honour Balasaheb Thackeray? This is an internal (ideological) difference. People of Maharashtra should take note of such contradictions in the MVA alliance,” Shah said while addressing an election rally in Mumbai. Shah also accused Rahul Gandhi of insulting the Constitution and Babasaheb Ambedkar. “When a friend from the media (a media person) opened the cover of the Constitution that Rahul Gandhi was waving and reminding the Parliament about Babasaheb Ambedkar’s resolves, there was nothing inside. There cannot be a bigger insult than this of the Indian Constitution. This is also an insult to the Constituent Assembly and Babasaheb Ambedkar,” he said. Attacking Congress party further, he accused the party of indulging in ‘appeasement politics’ by readily accepting the demands by Ulema that reservations be given to Muslim minorities. “Congress leader Nana Patole has given an acknowledgement letter accepting such demands. I want to ask the people of Maharashtra, are you fine with this? Are the people of Maharashtra fine with this idea of giving reservations that belong to Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and OBCs to Muslims? Our constitution does not allow reservation on the basis of religion. But Congress has promised this even before coming to power. I want to warn the people of Maharashtra to take note of this,” the Home Minister said. Notably, in 2023, Rahul Gandhi had made remarks against Savarkar calling him a “coward” for which he was made party in a defamation case filed by Savarkar’s kin. Shah also took a dig at Uddhav Thackeray and said, “Uddhav ji, I can’t decide where you sit. But I want to tell you that you’re sitting with those who opposed the abrogation of Article 370. You’re sitting with those who opposed the construction of Ram Janambhoomi temple. You’re sitting with those who speak ill of Savarkar. You’re sitting with those who opposed CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) and UCC (Uniform Civil Code).” Amit Shah launched the Sankalp Patra (manifesto) of BJP offering 25 guarantees. He was accompanied by various senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders including Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis who said that through this manifesto PM Modi’s visions are being realised in Maharashtra. The Maharashtra assembly elections are scheduled for November 20, with votes for all 288 constituencies to be counted on November 23. The opposition MVA coalition, comprising Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT), and the Nationalist Congress Party (SCP), seeks to reclaim power in the state, challenging the Mahayuti alliance, which includes Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and Ajit Pawar-led NCP. (ANI)
