CAIT confronts Rahul Gandhi over Delhi trade disruptions

The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has written to Lok Sabha Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, accusing political demonstrations in Delhi of repeatedly disrupting commerce and demanding accountability for losses suffered by traders.

The organisation expressed “deep anguish and resentment” over rallies, marches and protests during the past month, singling out the Congress-led INDIA bloc gathering at Ramlila Maidan on November 1. It questioned the Congress party’s continued support for demonstrations that it said had obstructed customers and affected businesses during the festive shopping period.

CAIT national president B C Bhartia said the organisation would await Gandhi’s response before convening a national meeting of Delhi traders and business representatives from other states after Diwali. The meeting will determine further action, including the date of a proposed nationwide protest described as Dhikkar Diwas, or Day of Condemnation.

Bhartia challenged Gandhi to explain how his appeal to rally participants to shop in Delhi markets could be reconciled with political gatherings that traders said made those markets difficult to reach. Gandhi had urged people attending the November 1 demonstration to support local businesses by making purchases while visiting the capital.

The traders’ organisation asked whether the Congress and its allies accepted responsibility for hardship allegedly caused by demonstrations they supported. It also sought an explanation of who would compensate shopkeepers and working families for commercial losses attributed to traffic restrictions, reduced customer access and interrupted movement of goods.

CAIT did not provide an independently verified assessment of the total losses in its latest communication. The extent to which individual businesses were affected, and whether disruption resulted directly from the rally rather than other factors, remains contested.

The November 1 demonstration was organised by opposition parties to protest alleged electoral irregularities and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Opposition leaders also demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Their complaints concern the conduct of electoral processes, which they argue warrants public mobilisation and scrutiny.

Gandhi had publicly encouraged those travelling to Delhi for the rally to combine participation in the protest with shopping. His appeal followed warnings from traders that holding a large gathering immediately before Diwali could affect sales at a particularly important time for retailers and wholesalers.

The Chamber of Trade and Industry, a separate Delhi-based organisation, had asked Gandhi to postpone the demonstration until after the festival. Its chairman, Brijesh Goyal, warned that shops in markets around Ramlila Maidan could close and that transport restrictions might deter customers. Those warnings were projections made before the event, not independently established losses. The chamber estimated that hundreds of thousands of shops could be affected, but the figures reflected its expectations ahead of the rally and should not be treated as a confirmed count of closures.

The chamber identified Chandni Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Chawri Bazar, Khari Baoli and other commercial districts as vulnerable to disruption. It sought discussions between Gandhi and representatives of affected markets, arguing that the timing of the gathering mattered as much as its political purpose.

CAIT’s latest letter also raised a constitutional argument. Bhartia referred to Article 19(1)(a), protecting freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(1)(g), protecting the freedom to practise a profession or carry on trade or business. He argued that political activity should not prevent others from earning a livelihood.

The organisation acknowledged the democratic importance of peaceful protest but maintained that competing rights needed to be respected. Its position does not establish that every inconvenience associated with a demonstration amounts to a constitutional violation; that question depends on the circumstances and applicable legal restrictions.

On November 2, CAIT separately approached Delhi Lieutenant Governor Taranjit Singh Sandhu, requesting officially designated protest locations on the capital’s outskirts. It said moving large demonstrations away from major trading areas could reduce interference with commercial activity while preserving opportunities for public assembly.

That representation identified shopkeepers, street vendors, transport workers, delivery personnel and daily wage earners among those vulnerable to interruptions. CAIT argued that disruptions affected not only individual establishments but also people whose earnings depend on uninterrupted market access and movement throughout the city.

The proposed national meeting is expected to bring together representatives of Delhi’s trading associations and trade leaders from elsewhere in the country. CAIT has not announced a date for that meeting or for the planned nationwide observance.

Congress assails Agnipath revision as government policy reversal

The Congress on Wednesday accused the BJP-led Centre of reversing course on the Agnipath military recruitment scheme, calling the government's decision to extend service opportunities for Agniveers a political U-turn.

Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera said the overhaul vindicated opposition leader Rahul Gandhi's objections to the scheme, introduced in 2022, and argued that the government would ultimately have to withdraw it.

“The rate at which the BJP flips, it should be called the Bharatiya Janata Palti,” Khera said, using a play on the ruling party's name to accuse it of changing its position.

His remarks followed the Union Cabinet's approval of an additional two-year engagement for Agniveers who are not selected for regular military service after their initial four-year term. Those completing the extension will be eligible for regular enrolment, provided they wish to continue and satisfy prescribed selection criteria.

Under the original arrangement, only 25 per cent of Agniveers could enter regular service after four years, while the remaining 75 per cent were required to leave. The revised policy retains the initial merit-based selection of 25 per cent but offers the others another opportunity to remain in uniform.

Khera alleged that the decision was influenced by approaching assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Manipur and Himachal Pradesh, states he described as important sources of military recruits. The government has not linked its decision to the electoral calendar.

“This government is a U-turn government,” Khera told reporters, contending that the Centre had dismissed Gandhi's criticism before changing a central feature of the recruitment system.

He maintained that the extension did not address all the concerns raised by the opposition about employment security and military recruitment. He also questioned the position of personnel who might fail to qualify for regular service after completing six years.

The Congress leader said Gandhi had warned that the scheme was unsustainable and demanded its reconsideration. Khera described Wednesday's announcement as a significant departure from the earlier requirement for most recruits to leave after four years.

The government presented a different explanation, saying the changes followed an evaluation of Agniveers' performance and recommendations from the armed forces. The Ministry of Defence said assessments had found strong levels of fitness, motivation, technological ability and professional skills among recruits.

Chief of Defence Staff General N S Raja Subramani announced the decision after a Cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He said the revised framework provided a pathway for all willing Agniveers to seek regular military service, although enrolment would remain subject to objective selection standards.

The distinction is important because the Cabinet has not announced unconditional permanent appointments. The additional engagement is voluntary, and continued service after the sixth year depends on meeting the military's requirements.

The ministry said the Agnipath scheme itself would continue. It described the two-year extension as an adjustment intended to reconcile the aspirations of recruits with organisational efficiency, rather than an abandonment of the recruitment model.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh welcomed the decision, describing the additional engagement as a second tour of duty. BJP chief spokesperson Anil Baluni also supported the Cabinet's move, saying it would strengthen opportunities for young personnel and benefit the armed forces.

The disagreement centres on whether the modification amounts to a correction of an unsuitable policy or a response to operational experience. Congress regards the revision as confirmation of its objections, while the government says performance assessments justified providing further service opportunities.

The timing is significant for the first group of Agniveers, whose initial four-year engagement is approaching completion. Around 18,300 personnel had been due to leave the armed forces by December 31 under the previous provisions.

The Cabinet's announcement means those not selected for immediate regular enrolment can instead seek the additional two-year term, potentially avoiding the departure originally envisaged under the scheme.

The Defence Ministry said the second engagement would carry higher remuneration, an enhanced Seva Nidhi package and seniority benefits. It did not specify detailed selection thresholds in its announcement.

The government also cited wider recruitment coverage across districts, more standardised selection procedures and improved technological adaptability among personnel as achievements identified during its review.

Agnipath was launched in June 2022 to recruit personnel into the armed forces for an initial four-year period. Its retention provisions became a point of political disagreement because most recruits originally faced compulsory departure after completing that term.

More than 300,000 personnel recruited under the programme are currently serving in the armed forces, according to figures presented during Wednesday's briefing.

Supreme Court schedules hearing on Delhi voter deletions

The Supreme Court on Wednesday assured Delhi voters excluded from the draft electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) that they need not fear prosecution while their concerns remain under judicial consideration.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed to examine objections to the Election Commission of India's November 3 clarification permitting previously registered voters to seek inclusion through Form 6, which requires a declaration associated with first-time enrolment.

The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, scheduled the matter for November 19 and permitted petitioners to file an application challenging the Commission's position.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioners Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri, submitted that the clarification failed to address fundamental difficulties identified by the court during an earlier hearing on October 28.

"How can they feel afraid like this when we are hearing the matter?" Chief Justice Kant asked, responding to concerns that deleted voters could face legal consequences for submitting declarations inconsistent with their previous registration.

The Chief Justice indicated that the court could consider asking the Commission to extend the deadline for claims and objections if additional time became necessary. However, the bench declined to issue immediate directions.

Bhushan argued that the Commission's assurance against prosecution did not resolve the underlying contradiction of requiring people registered until May or June 2026 to apply as first-time voters merely because their names were omitted from the draft rolls.

The Commission had clarified on Tuesday that previously enrolled electors could submit Form 6 without facing proceedings under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, solely because they appeared on an earlier electoral roll.

The protection applies where applicants are not registered in another parliamentary or Assembly constituency and their declarations otherwise comply with statutory requirements.

Section 31 provides penalties for making false statements or declarations connected with electoral roll preparation, creating concerns among voters whose earlier registration could appear inconsistent with the prescribed Form 6 declaration.

Bhushan maintained that immunity from prosecution addressed only one aspect of the problem. The larger issue, he submitted, concerned the appropriate procedure for restoring voters whose names disappeared during the revision exercise.

During the October 28 proceedings, the Supreme Court questioned the Commission's insistence on treating previously enrolled voters as fresh applicants. It raised concerns about the structural inconsistency between their established electoral status and the requirements imposed for restoration.

The court suggested that voters who had shifted residence should be permitted to use Form 8, ordinarily employed for changes or corrections to electoral particulars.

It also asked the Commission to consider accepting delayed enumeration forms from voters classified as absent or untraceable during the revision.

Bhushan contended that the November 3 communication effectively reiterated the requirement to submit Form 6 without adequately addressing those alternatives.

Delhi's draft electoral roll, published on August 31, contained approximately 9.75 million electors, compared with about 14.5 million before the revision exercise began.

Nearly 4.76 million names were omitted under categories covering absent, shifted, deceased and duplicate electors. The scale of the exclusions prompted demands for accessible procedures allowing eligible voters to establish their status.

The Supreme Court had asked electoral authorities to contact affected electors, make relevant lists available locally and facilitate applications through booth-level officials.

Particular attention was directed towards approximately 3.16 million voters classified as shifted and another 1.17 million identified as absent or untraceable.

The Commission's clarification cited an October 14 Delhi High Court order concerning objections to Form 6 declarations. The High Court had accepted the Commission's position that previous enrolment alone would not expose an applicant to prosecution.

Delhi's Chief Electoral Officer reiterated on Wednesday that electors omitted from the draft roll could seek inclusion without prosecution merely because they had previously been registered.

The authorities extended the deadline for submitting claims and objections to November 25. The final electoral roll is scheduled for publication on December 22.

Applications can be submitted electronically through the Commission's voter services portal and ECINET application, or physically through electoral registration officers, assistant electoral registration officers and booth-level officers.

The Commission has also instructed chief electoral officers across states and Union Territories to publicise its clarification, including through translations into local languages, so that affected electors understand the applicable procedures and conditions.

Democrats capture Congress and Georgia governorship in midterms

Democrats secured sweeping victories in the United States mid-term elections, capturing control of Congress and overturning Republican dominance in several states, dealing a major electoral setback to President Donald Trump.

The November 3 elections saw Democrats reclaim the House of Representatives and Senate, while winning governorships in Georgia, Texas, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada. The results substantially altered the political balance in Washington and strengthened Democratic representation in state governments.

Georgia delivered one of the most significant Democratic victories, electing former Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms as governor. She defeated Republican businessman Rick Jackson, becoming the first Black woman elected governor of a US state and Georgia's first female governor.

Bottoms secured approximately 54.3 per cent of the vote against Jackson's 45.7 per cent, ending more than two decades of Republican control of the governorship. She will succeed Republican Governor Brian Kemp, who was constitutionally barred from seeking another consecutive term.

Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff also retained his Georgia seat, defeating Republican Congressman Mike Collins by approximately 59 per cent to 41 per cent. His comfortable victory strengthened the party's position in a state considered crucial to national electoral competition.

The Democratic advance extended across Georgia's statewide offices. Josh McLaurin won the lieutenant governorship, Penny Brown Reynolds captured the secretary of state's office, and Tanya Miller secured the attorney general's position. Democrats also defeated Republican incumbents in several administrative contests.

Texas produced another major upset as Democrat Gina Hinojosa defeated Republican Governor Greg Abbott, ending more than three decades of Republican control of the state's governorship. Ohio elected Democrat Amy Acton, while Democratic candidates also captured governorships in Iowa and Nevada.

The congressional results represented a particularly consequential development for Trump's administration. Democratic control of both chambers will give the opposition greater authority over legislation, federal spending and congressional investigations during the remaining two years of his presidency.

The elections also brought victories for several Americans of India origin, including two candidates elected to the House of Representatives and Maryland's incumbent lieutenant governor.

Suhas Subramanyam, 40, secured another term representing Virginia's 10th Congressional District. The Democrat defeated Republican Dave Beckwith, consolidating his position in a constituency covering parts of northern Virginia.

Subramanyam, who entered Congress following the 2024 election, had previously served in Virginia's legislature. His victory ensures continued representation for a district that includes communities within the Washington metropolitan region.

Pia Dandiya, 39, won Florida's 22nd Congressional District, defeating Republican Casey Askar. Her election adds another lawmaker of India origin to the Democratic congressional delegation and represents an important development for political representation in Florida.

The two victories came as Democrats expanded their congressional presence across several states, benefiting from voter dissatisfaction with the administration and competitive contests in suburban constituencies.

Maryland Lieutenant Governor Aruna Miller, 61, was re-elected alongside Democratic Governor Wes Moore. The pair defeated Republican challengers Dan Cox and Rob Krop by a substantial margin.

Unofficial figures released by Maryland's State Board of Elections showed Moore and Miller receiving approximately 62.6 per cent of the vote, compared with 33.2 per cent for their Republican opponents.

Miller, who became Maryland's first lieutenant governor of South Asian heritage following the 2022 election, will continue serving in the state's executive administration during Moore's second term.

Other candidates of India origin also secured electoral victories. Democratic Representatives Ro Khanna of California and Pramila Jayapal of Washington retained their congressional seats, maintaining their positions within the party's national legislative delegation.

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul also won re-election, while Aparna Raj secured a seat on the Washington, DC, Council. Jyot Singh won a Georgia state legislative contest, adding to the representation of Americans with family connections to India.

The election results reflected dissatisfaction among voters over living costs, economic conditions and the administration's policies. Exit polling indicated that opposition to Trump's performance was an important consideration for substantial sections of the electorate.

Republicans nevertheless retained representation across numerous congressional districts and state governments, demonstrating that the Democratic gains were uneven across the country.

The Georgia results also included Democratic victories in elections for agriculture commissioner, insurance commissioner, labour commissioner and state school superintendent. These offices oversee areas ranging from agricultural regulation and insurance markets to employment administration and public education.

Georgia's statewide vote counts remained subject to the customary certification process, with election officials responsible for validating the returns before formally confirming the results.

Kerala vigilance to examine fresh allegations against election chief

Kerala Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala has directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to examine fresh bribery allegations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar concerning a road construction project undertaken nearly two decades ago.

The directive, issued on Wednesday, follows a complaint by former contractor V O Sajan, who alleged that Kumar demanded Rs 2 crore to release outstanding payments under the Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP) while serving as the state's Public Works Department secretary in 2006.

Officials said the complaint would be examined through a preliminary inquiry before determining whether further legal proceedings were warranted. The allegations remain unproven, and no finding of wrongdoing has been established against Kumar.

Sajan, a resident of Chadayamangalam in Kollam district, submitted his complaint to the VACB director, alleging that approved payments amounting to approximately Rs 17 crore had been withheld despite the completion of relevant engineering and administrative procedures.

The disputed payments concerned work undertaken by PATI-BEL, an India-Malaysia joint venture engaged in upgrading sections of the Main Central Road under the World Bank-assisted transport project.

According to Sajan, Malaysian engineer Lee See Been, who was associated with the project, informed him that Kumar had demanded Rs 2 crore before authorising the release of outstanding bills.

Sajan claimed that the company's management refused to make the alleged payment, leaving contractors, suppliers and workers facing mounting financial difficulties. He maintained that the payment delays disrupted construction activities and placed considerable pressure on those responsible for executing the project.

The contractor further alleged that Lee arranged funds from another company project in Bengaluru to meet immediate liabilities after payments remained outstanding.

Sajan linked the financial difficulties and alleged bribery demand to Lee's death by suicide in 2006. He also claimed that the engineer had mentioned Kumar in a suicide note, citing information purportedly conveyed by Lee's family to company employees.

However, the alleged suicide note has not been made public, and its contents have not been independently established. The circumstances surrounding Lee's death and any connection with the alleged demand remain matters requiring examination.

Sajan has offered to produce witnesses, including members of Lee's family and former employees associated with PATI-BEL, to support his allegations before investigators.

He also questioned the handling of the original vigilance inquiry, alleging that investigators had failed to interview individuals possessing direct knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the disputed payments.

The latest complaint is expected to be considered alongside an existing preliminary inquiry concerning alleged irregularities in the same road project.

Chennithala had authorised that inquiry on October 4 following a petition submitted by Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee leader Malayinkeezhu Venugopal, who sought renewed scrutiny of allegations involving Kumar's tenure in the Public Works Department.

The earlier petition raised questions about the circumstances surrounding Lee's death and the manner in which previous investigations had been discontinued.

The Home Department sought legal advice before proceeding with the renewed examination of the allegations. Officials indicated that the vigilance authorities would assess the available material and determine whether additional evidence justified further action.

The decision has attracted political attention because Kumar currently heads the Election Commission, which is facing criticism from Congress and other opposition parties over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The electoral revision controversy is separate from the contractor's allegations, which concern administrative decisions made during Kumar's service in Kerala.

Chennithala informed the state Assembly last month that earlier vigilance proceedings concerning public works contracts had been closed because investigators could not substantiate the allegations.

He said the VACB had examined complaints involving 76 works allegedly awarded without following prescribed tender procedures between 2003 and 2006.

The minister stated that the agency had recommended discontinuing proceedings after the alleged irregularities could not be established through its inquiries.

He also disclosed that eight cases were referred to courts in 2012 as mistakes of fact, with the courts accepting the reports submitted by investigators.

Those earlier findings remain relevant to the assessment of whether the new complaint contains evidence that was unavailable or insufficiently examined during previous proceedings.

The renewed scrutiny centres on the KSTP road improvement contract, including sections of the Alappuzha-Changanassery and Changanassery-Madukkamoodu stretches.

Sajan has identified himself as a contractor involved in supplying materials for the project and maintains that his dealings with the Malaysian project engineer gave him knowledge of the disputed payment arrangements.

Modi’s Pawar telephone call stirs Maharashtra political debate

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s telephone conversation with Sharad Pawar has revived questions about Maharashtra’s divided Nationalist Congress Party, although the exchange was described by the veteran politician’s aide as an enquiry about his health.

Vitthal Maniyar, a close associate of Pawar, said Modi called on Wednesday and urged the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) president to rest following treatment at a Pune hospital. Maniyar attributed to the Prime Minister remarks suggesting Pawar’s daughter, Lok Sabha member Supriya Sule, was ready to shoulder national responsibilities.

Neither Modi nor Pawar publicly confirmed the precise wording of the conversation. There has been no official announcement of an alliance negotiation, party reunification or proposed government position for Sule arising from the call.

Maniyar told journalists in Pune that Modi had spoken warmly to Pawar and asked him to take complete rest. He quoted the Prime Minister as saying that Sule was ready and could help look after the country while her father recovered.

Pawar thanked Modi for his concern and indicated that he was resting, according to Maniyar. The account prompted discussion because Sule remains a prominent figure in the opposition INDIA grouping, while the other NCP faction participates in the BJP-led governing coalition in Maharashtra.

Union Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment Ramdas Athawale separately suggested that Sule could be considered for a Union Cabinet position if she joined the National Democratic Alliance. His remarks were conditional and did not constitute an offer from Modi or confirmation of any discussions with Sule.

The political uncertainty follows renewed differences within the NCP organisation led by Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar. Senior party figures met Union Home Minister Amit Shah earlier this week, amid disagreements over internal decision-making and demands concerning the finance portfolio in Maharashtra’s government.

State NCP president Sunil Tatkare subsequently said the party would continue under Sunetra Pawar’s leadership and ruled out a merger with the Sharad Pawar faction. He acknowledged that reunification had figured in discussions, but his public position offered no indication that an agreement was approaching.

The rival organisations have remained separate since Ajit Pawar broke with his uncle Sharad Pawar in 2023 and aligned with the BJP. Ajit Pawar died in an aircraft crash in January 2026, after which his wife Sunetra Pawar became deputy chief minister. The leadership transition brought renewed attention to possible reconciliation within the wider political family.

Sharad Pawar has previously rejected suggestions that his organisation was preparing to merge with the rival faction. Any change would have implications for the balance of power within Maharashtra’s governing Mahayuti alliance and for opposition cooperation at the national level.

Sule, who represents Baramati in the Lok Sabha, has continued to participate in opposition politics. Her position makes any suggestion of a move towards the NDA politically significant, but neither her participation in government nor a change of allegiance has been established.

The immediate reason for Modi’s call was Pawar’s health. The veteran leader was admitted to Ruby Hall Clinic in Pune on Monday after complaining of a cough and pleuritic chest pain. Hospital officials said he underwent medical evaluation and observation before being discharged on Wednesday.

Dr Purvez K Grant, chairman and managing trustee of Ruby Hall Clinic, said Pawar was stable and doing well at discharge. Sule said her father was feeling better and thanked the hospital team for its care.

Later on Wednesday, however, Sule disclosed that Pawar had been admitted to Breach Candy Hospital in Mumbai for further tests. The additional hospital visit followed his transfer from Pune and was not accompanied by an announcement of a new diagnosis.

Modi’s conversation took place against this medical backdrop, with Maniyar describing advice on rest and recovery rather than a formal political proposal. His account nevertheless drew attention to Sule’s standing and to unresolved questions surrounding the NCP’s two organisations.

The NCP divisions also involve questions over party organisation and leadership authority. Tatkare’s statements underline the distinction between informal conversations among politicians and decisions authorised by the parties. No joint statement from the two factions has outlined a timetable or terms for reunification.

A proposed visit by Modi to Baramati for the inauguration of a museum complex at Vidya Pratishthan has also been under discussion. An earlier date was postponed, and a revised programme had not been officially confirmed.

Rahul Gandhi renews public debate challenge to Modi

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has renewed his challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a public debate on alleged foreign influence, financial affairs and government decisions, prompting ministers to demand that he raise his accusations in Parliament.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha issued a video message on Tuesday, saying 24 hours had passed since his first invitation and asking Modi to choose the venue. He proposed a face-to-face exchange before journalists and young people, with a moderator selected by the Prime Minister.

Gandhi even suggested Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat could preside over the discussion. He said the debate should establish who had connections with foreign forces, what those connections involved and whether allegations against the opposition could withstand public scrutiny.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman rejected the premise that a separate venue was necessary, arguing that Parliament already provided the appropriate forum. She accused Gandhi and his allies of disrupting proceedings and walking out when ministers responded to their charges.

Sitharaman urged him to provide evidence supporting his accusations rather than merely listing contentious subjects. She said his position as opposition leader carried a responsibility to listen to answers as well as demand them.

Home Minister Amit Shah also said the government was prepared to discuss disputed matters in Parliament, including the special intensive revision of electoral rolls and electronic voting machines. His remarks, however, did not amount to acceptance of Gandhi's proposed personal debate with Modi.

Gandhi's renewed invitation broadened a confrontation that began on Monday when he accused Modi of securing and retaining office through foreign assistance. He also alleged that foreign interests controlled and supported the Prime Minister's financial arrangements and that overseas social media platforms backed him.

Those allegations remain unsubstantiated publicly. Gandhi did not identify specific foreign entities, disclose documentary evidence establishing control over financial arrangements or explain the mechanism through which outside support allegedly determined Modi's political position. The claims therefore remain political accusations rather than established findings.

His Tuesday message expanded the proposed agenda to include the country's financial structure, an agreement with the United States, questions surrounding the Adani case and the Jeffrey Epstein controversy. Gandhi asked why the US agreement had allegedly been concluded hurriedly and without informing the Cabinet.

He also questioned what he described as the closure of the Adani case. Neither the alleged circumstances of the agreement nor his characterisation of the case's status was independently established by his remarks. Gandhi did not provide supporting records in the message.

The Congress leader further challenged Modi to pursue defamation proceedings if the accusations concerning foreign connections were false. He claimed that approximately 45 defamation cases had been brought against him over other matters, while none had been filed over this particular allegation.

Separately, Gandhi posted an online poll asking whether young people wanted to watch a debate between the two leaders. He appealed to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, ministers Nitin Gadkari and Shivraj Singh Chouhan, and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to persuade Modi to participate.

The dispute followed remarks delivered by Modi on Saturday during Rashtriya Ekta Diwas commemorations at Ekta Nagar in Gujarat. The Prime Minister accused opposition parties of becoming an obstructionist force rather than fulfilling their democratic role of scrutinising government policy.

Modi also questioned undisclosed meetings abroad and alleged that hostile forces were exploiting rumours and social media to undermine national stability. His remarks did not publicly identify evidence proving that Gandhi or any particular opposition leader was acting on behalf of foreign interests.

Gandhi responded on Monday by accusing the Prime Minister of misrepresenting the opposition and demanding an open discussion. The exchanges have consequently involved competing allegations about foreign influence, although neither side's broader claims can be treated as proven merely because they were made by senior political figures.

Sitharaman, in her response on Tuesday, referred to Shah's offer of parliamentary discussion on electoral issues and questioned why Gandhi was not equally enthusiastic about debating there. She also criticised an opposition mock parliamentary exercise and called for greater respect for established legislative procedures.

Gandhi ended his video message by extending Diwali greetings to Modi. His accompanying appeal invited the Prime Minister to nominate a moderator and set the terms for a discussion in front of the media and young citizens of the country.

Owaisi disputes Centre’s secularism argument over Delhi mosque

AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi on Wednesday challenged the Centre’s justification for removing the century-old Qadeemi Masjid from Delhi’s Krishi Bhawan compound, accusing the government of applying inconsistent standards of secularism.

The Hyderabad MP questioned why religious ceremonies associated with the Central Vista redevelopment were acceptable while a longstanding mosque on government property was considered incompatible with the secular character of an administrative complex.

Writing on X, Owaisi referred to the Bhoomi Pooja conducted for the Central Vista project and contrasted it with the government’s position before the Delhi High Court. He said the mosque had stood at the site before 1912, well before Krishi Bhawan was constructed.

“Apparently, secularism is not offended by the use of one faith’s rituals for a public project, but is allergic to a masjid,” Owaisi wrote, questioning the distinction drawn by the Centre. His intervention followed the government’s formal submission that the mosque must be removed to accommodate new secretariat buildings.

The Land and Development Office, functioning under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, has told the court that Qadeemi Masjid occupies land required for Common Central Secretariat Buildings 4 and 5 under the Central Vista Redevelopment Master Plan.

The proposed construction covers the existing Krishi Bhawan and Shastri Bhawan sites. The government describes the redevelopment as an important public infrastructure project intended to modernise offices used for national administration.

Its status report argues that government office complexes are dedicated to administrative and public service functions and cannot permanently reserve land for a religious structure. It maintains that retaining the mosque would conflict both with the redevelopment plan and with the secular nature of government property.

The government also disputes the caretaking committee’s claim to continued occupation. It says an agreement executed on November 8, 1940, permitted the managing committee of Jama Masjid to use the premises for worship without transferring ownership or any proprietary interest in the land.

According to the Centre, the site at Plot No. 120 on Dr Rajendra Prasad Road belongs to the government and remains under the administrative control of the Land and Development Office. The mosque’s status as a place of worship, it argues, does not establish a permanent right to occupy the land.

The Centre has further contended that removing the structure would not violate Article 25 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of religion. Its position is that the provision does not guarantee worship at a particular location on government property occupied under a permissive arrangement.

Justice Anish Dayal, hearing the dispute on November 2, asked the government to clarify whether any rule specifically prohibits space for prayers by a religious community within a government complex. The judge directed counsel Nishant Gautam to communicate the question to the Additional Solicitor General.

The High Court has not issued a final determination on the proposed removal. It has allowed the mosque’s caretaking committee time to respond to the government’s submissions and listed the matter for further hearing on November 23.

The committee approached the court fearing demolition during the redevelopment. It has sought protection against removal without proper consideration of whether the mosque can be retained at its present location.

Its petition also seeks a reasonable, nearby and adequate alternative prayer facility if retaining the existing structure proves impossible under the approved construction plans. The committee has maintained that it does not intend to obstruct the wider Central Vista project.

Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, representing the petitioners, previously told the court that the mosque predates the government buildings and has long served Muslim employees working at Krishi Bhawan and neighbouring offices.

The mosque was notified as a waqf property by the Delhi Waqf Board in 1970. The Centre, however, maintains that the notification does not displace the government’s ownership claim or the conditions governing the committee’s occupation.

The government has rejected the demand to reserve space for the mosque within the redeveloped complex. It has identified Shahi Masjid Zabta Ganj near India Gate, within approximately two kilometres of Krishi Bhawan, as an operational alternative for worshippers.

The court proceedings arose after the Central Public Works Department initiated arrangements for the construction of the two secretariat buildings. The redevelopment proposal includes replacement of the existing government office structures on the site. The mosque committee says employees have used the prayer space during working hours for decades.

Supreme Court withholds Bhide’s pay over Borivali encroachments

The Supreme Court has ordered Mumbai civic commissioner Ashwini Bhide’s November salary withheld and issued her a contempt notice over the failure to remove encroachments from land reserved for a public bus station.

A three-judge bench on Tuesday also barred payment of salaries to the commissioner’s personal staff, rejected the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) request for another 30 days to act and imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the civic body.

Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana found prima facie grounds to question the commissioner’s compliance with directions issued on November 13, 2025, and July 28, 2026. The show-cause notice asks Bhide to explain why contempt action should not follow. No final finding of contempt has yet been made.

The dispute concerns approximately 3,400 square metres in Borivali, earmarked for a bus station and administrative facilities of the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport undertaking, known as BEST. The court had instructed municipal authorities to secure possession, remove unauthorised occupation through lawful procedures and enable the project to operate.

Tuesday’s order restrains both the municipal corporation and the Maharashtra government from releasing the commissioner’s salary or that of her personal staff while the court considers compliance and the contempt notice. The intervention follows repeated judicial deadlines that the bench said had not produced the required action.

The judges expressed particular dissatisfaction with the corporation’s application seeking four more weeks to complete the eviction process. Municipal lawyers said notices had been served on occupants and hearings conducted, but final decisions remained outstanding. They also referred to civil litigation involving occupants and the need to translate documents written in Marathi.

Justice Bagchi challenged the explanation concerning translation, questioning why municipal officers could not understand Marathi documents. The bench considered the outstanding administrative steps insufficient justification for missing the deadline fixed in July.

Chief Justice Kant raised the possibility of collusion between officials and people occupying the property. His remarks were made while questioning the delay and did not amount to a judicial determination that particular officials had engaged in wrongdoing beyond the alleged disobedience under examination.

The bench refused to extend its timetable despite counsel offering to complete the process within another month. Justice Bagchi told the corporation’s representatives that salary payments would remain withheld through November, making compliance with the court’s directions the immediate priority.

The underlying proceedings have involved a dispute over possession of the Borivali property between the corporation and a private developer. An earlier Supreme Court direction required the developer to hand over the land and an administrative building, while placing responsibility on the municipal authorities to address occupants remaining at the site.

By November 2025, the court was already dissatisfied with the pace of removal. It directed the commissioner to submit a personal affidavit identifying occupants, the notices served on them, their replies and any documents relied upon to claim ownership or tenancy rights. The court also sought details of the municipal verification of those claims.

At the July 28 hearing, the corporation explained that some occupants had challenged eviction notices issued under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, before a civil court. The Supreme Court responded that pending litigation did not automatically prevent enforcement where no interim order restrained the authorities.

The bench accordingly gave the corporation three months to complete the required exercise and file a compliance report. That period expired without the encroachments being removed, leading to Tuesday’s application for additional time and the court’s refusal to grant it.

The contempt notice places the commissioner under a formal obligation to answer the court’s concerns. Such a notice allows the official concerned to present an explanation before the judges decide whether any punitive action is warranted. The salary restriction is an interim coercive direction rather than a final contempt punishment.

The corporation’s position before the bench was that statutory procedures involving notices, hearings and competing occupancy claims still needed to be completed. The judges nevertheless emphasised that those procedures had to be carried out within the deadlines already set, rather than used to justify further postponement.

The Borivali land is intended for BEST, Mumbai’s municipal bus transport undertaking. The unresolved occupation has prevented the authorities from completing the court-directed steps needed to bring the proposed bus station into use under the court's earlier binding directions.

Democrats capture Senate majority as Republicans lose ground

Democrats have regained control of the United States Senate after sweeping Republican-held seats in Tuesday’s midterm elections, delivering a major setback to President Donald Trump as his party struggles to retain its majority in the House of Representatives.

The result ends Republican control of both chambers of Congress and gives Democrats the power to block presidential appointments, scrutinise administration decisions and challenge legislation during the final two years of Trump’s presidency. The House remained undecided as counting continued, although Democrats had gained at least seven Republican-held seats.

Democratic victories extended beyond the competitive states initially expected to decide the Senate. The party captured seats in Texas, Kansas, South Carolina, North Carolina and Ohio, overturning longstanding Republican advantages in several states that backed Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

Texas state legislator James Talarico defeated Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, becoming the first Democrat elected to the Senate from Texas since 1988. His victory followed a campaign centred on household costs and questions surrounding Paxton’s conduct. Paxton, who had Trump’s endorsement, argued that Talarico’s positions on social issues were outside the state’s political mainstream.

Former Democratic senator Sherrod Brown defeated Republican incumbent Jon Husted in Ohio, returning to the chamber after losing his seat in 2024. Brown told supporters they had sent an unmistakable message and pledged to represent Ohio residents regardless of how they voted.

South Carolina elected Democrat Annie Andrews, who defeated Republican Darline Graham. Andrews said she would defend the state’s interests even when that required opposing fellow Democrats. The result marked another unexpected loss for Republicans in territory where the president had enjoyed substantial electoral support.

Former governor Roy Cooper defeated Republican Michael Whatley in North Carolina, while Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff retained his Georgia seat against Republican congressman Mike Collins. Democratic congressman Chris Pappas also won in New Hampshire, succeeding retiring senator Jeanne Shaheen and preserving the party’s hold on that seat.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer described the outcome as a transformation of the electoral map. “Five words for the American people: relief is on the way,” he told reporters in Washington, promising a change in direction after two years of Republican dominance.

The election was shaped by dissatisfaction over living costs, the war in Iran and concerns about corruption. An election-day voter survey found widespread unhappiness with the country’s direction and the economy, with many respondents saying inflation had placed substantial pressure on their households.

Trump had urged supporters to vote as though his name appeared on the ballot. He maintained before the results that inflation had been solved, despite government figures showing consumer prices rising by 3.6 per cent over the year to September. His administration’s handling of the economy became a central issue in contested states.

The president subsequently said he would accept the election results and was willing to work with Democrats. He has also indicated that he would use his veto against legislation he opposes, raising the prospect of disputes between the White House and a Senate controlled by the opposition.

A Democratic Senate majority will affect the confirmation of federal judges, senior executive officials and any Supreme Court nominees. Senators can also use committee hearings and investigations to demand testimony and documents from administration officials. Passing major legislation, however, would still require agreement across Congress and either presidential approval or sufficient votes to override a veto.

Democrats were also gaining ground in the House, where the outcome remained unresolved. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries promised to focus on affordability and oversight of the administration. Republicans had sought to defend their narrow majority through campaign spending and changes to congressional district boundaries, but several Democratic incumbents targeted by redistricting survived.

The party’s gains extended to governors’ races. Democrat Gina Hinojosa defeated Republican Governor Greg Abbott in Texas, while Keisha Lance Bottoms won Georgia, Amy Acton prevailed in Ohio and Rob Sand captured Iowa. Those results shifted several state executive offices away from Republican control.

In California, Democrat Xavier Becerra defeated Republican Steve Hilton to succeed outgoing Governor Gavin Newsom. Missouri voters separately rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have restored restrictions on most abortions, following another statewide vote on abortion rights two years earlier. The proposed measure had been referred to voters by the Republican-controlled state legislature and included provisions concerning medical procedures for transgender minors.

Auraiya cleric's election warning draws cross-party criticism

A speech by Muslim cleric Maulana Jarjis Ansari warning of attacks on Muslim homes if Uttar Pradesh's Bharatiya Janata Party government wins another term has provoked criticism from political parties and religious leaders ahead of the 2027 Assembly elections.

The controversy intensified after a video of his October 29 address at a gathering in Auraiya circulated on social media on November 2. Ansari claimed that Muslim households could face arson and bulldozer demolitions if Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath returned to power. His remarks expressed a political warning rather than evidence of any announced government plan. The claims were framed as possible consequences of another BJP victory, not as descriptions of specific incidents already ordered by officials.

BJP representatives accused the cleric of spreading fear among Muslims and exploiting religious identity to influence voters. They alleged that his appeal would benefit the opposition Samajwadi Party and Congress, although no evidence of coordination between Ansari and either party was established.

The Samajwadi Party distanced itself from his language. Party spokesperson Deepak Ranjan described the remarks as Ansari's personal opinion and declined to endorse them. He nevertheless criticised the Adityanath administration, alleging authoritarian governance and discriminatory action against sections of the population.

Religious figures also challenged the speech, particularly Ansari's comparison of conditions in Uttar Pradesh with those in Palestine. Maulana Saif Abbas Naqvi, chairman of the Shia Chand Committee, rejected the suggestion that Muslims throughout the state lived in fear and accused the speaker of seeking attention through provocative statements.

Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi Barelvi, national president of the All India Muslim Jamaat, said the comparison was inappropriate because India operated under a constitutional and legal framework. He condemned the remarks and called for action by the authorities.

Islamic scholar Mohammad Jameel Hayat urged restraint, warning that inflammatory language could aggravate tensions. Mufti Intizab Qadri of Moradabad also questioned Ansari's portrayal of widespread insecurity and objected to equating the circumstances of Muslims in Uttar Pradesh with those of Palestinians.

Mahant Vishnu Das of Ayodhya demanded police action against Ansari, alleging that references to Palestine could provoke communal discord. His demand was a call for official intervention, not confirmation that a criminal case had been registered over the October speech. No verified police announcement of such a case was available at that stage.

Addressing the gathering, Ansari urged Muslims to overcome internal differences and coordinate their political choices in next year's state election. He argued that divisions within the community could weaken its electoral influence and help the BJP retain power.

He referred to the conflict in Palestine and the communal violence in Gujarat in 2002 to reinforce his warning. The Gujarat riots involved extensive attacks on Muslims, including documented sexual violence, following the burning of a train coach at Godhra. Ansari used those events to argue for greater political solidarity, drawing objections from critics who said the comparisons risked inflaming tensions.

The cleric also invoked West Bengal while discussing what he regarded as the electoral consequences of fragmented Muslim voting. His comments were directed towards political mobilisation, but critics argued that predictions of burning homes and demolition could heighten anxiety without establishing that such actions were planned.

Bulldozer demolitions have long been a contentious issue in Uttar Pradesh. The state administration has defended enforcement actions as measures against unlawful construction and criminal activity, while opponents have alleged selective targeting and punishment without due process. Those competing positions form part of the political backdrop to Ansari's remarks, but do not substantiate his prediction of future attacks.

The Supreme Court has laid down safeguards governing demolitions, including notice and procedural requirements, and has rejected the use of demolition as punishment merely because someone is accused or convicted of an offence. The legal distinction between authorised action against unlawful structures and punitive demolition remains central to disputes over the practice.

Ansari's speech surfaced as parties prepared for the 2027 Assembly contest, in which Adityanath's BJP administration will seek another mandate. The opposition has criticised the government's approach to minority rights, while the BJP maintains that its law-and-order policies apply irrespective of religion.

The address took place on October 29, several days before clips circulated widely online. The ensuing objections came from both political organisations and Muslim religious figures, with the strongest demands for intervention focusing on the cleric's language and his comparison with Palestine.

Three BSF personnel hurt as Tripura protest erupts

Three Border Security Force (BSF) personnel and local residents were injured during a violent confrontation in Tripura’s Sepahijala district on Monday after villagers protested against the alleged assault of a man by border guards.

The clash occurred at Ashabari, under Kalamchoura police station, where residents blocked a road demanding action against personnel accused of detaining and beating Hefzur Rahman. The confrontation escalated when a BSF vehicle encountered the protesters, resulting in injuries and damage to vehicles.

Police and additional BSF personnel intervened to restore order. Senior officers visited the area, while complaints concerning the confrontation prompted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the violence.

Accounts of the casualties differed. Several accounts identified three injured BSF personnel and multiple villagers, while other accounts put the number of injured security personnel at four. The precise civilian casualty figure remained unclear.

The disturbance began around 10 am near Natun Bazar, close to Ashabari Gram Panchayat, when BSF personnel encountered Rahman during an operation near the border.

Villagers alleged that Rahman, whose father was identified as Shahajan Miah, had been clearing vegetation when security personnel detained him on suspicion of involvement in unlawful activity.

Residents claimed that the personnel assaulted Rahman during the encounter, leaving him with a fractured leg. The allegation has not been independently established, and the circumstances of his detention remain under investigation.

The confrontation was also linked to suspicions of smuggling near the international border. However, no publicly established evidence confirming Rahman's involvement in smuggling was available.

Angered by the alleged assault, villagers assembled near Natun Bazar and blocked the Ashabari-Rahimpur road, interrupting traffic and demanding accountability from the border force.

The protest intensified when a vehicle belonging to the BSF's 49th Battalion approached the blockade while travelling from Rahimpur towards Boxanagar.

The vehicle was carrying personnel identified as Rohit Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Manjit. Rohit was identified as an officer, while Sunil Kumar was described as the driver.

Members of the crowd allegedly attacked the vehicle and its occupants using bamboo poles and sticks. The assault injured security personnel and damaged the vehicle, including its windscreen.

Some accounts identified Rohit Kumar as an assistant commandant, although descriptions of his assignment differed. The injuries sustained by the personnel prompted their evacuation for medical treatment.

The injured personnel were initially taken to a medical facility at Boxanagar. They were subsequently referred for further treatment, although accounts differed on whether all those injured required transfer.

Additional personnel from the Ashabari Border Outpost joined officers from Kalamchoura police station in responding to the disturbance.

The intervention brought the immediate confrontation under control, although unease persisted among residents following the allegations against the border guards and the attack on security personnel.

Both the alleged assault on Rahman and the subsequent violence against BSF personnel are central to the police inquiry. Investigators must establish how the initial encounter unfolded, whether excessive force was used and who participated in the attack on the security vehicle.

The allegations have raised questions about the conduct of border patrols and the response of residents to enforcement operations. However, responsibility for the violence cannot be established solely from the competing accounts.

Another resident, Taher Miah, alleged that BSF personnel damaged his parked Maruti car during the disturbance. He said the vehicle was used to transport schoolchildren to Bishalgarh. His allegation forms a separate account of property damage during the confrontation.

The incident occurred in an area where security personnel regularly patrol settlements close to the Bangladesh border. Operations intended to prevent smuggling sometimes bring border guards into direct contact with residents carrying out agricultural and other activities.

The BSF had not issued a detailed public statement addressing the allegations against its personnel when the initial accounts of the confrontation emerged.

Police were examining the circumstances of the confrontation, including the allegations surrounding Rahman's injuries and the attack on the BSF vehicle.

The vehicle involved in the confrontation was identified as a Bolero bearing registration number TR-01-AL-1051, attached to the BSF's 49th Battalion.

Rijiju challenges Congress over disputed rally crowd image

Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has accused the Congress of circulating an AI-generated image to exaggerate attendance at the INDIA bloc’s Ramlila Maidan rally, intensifying a political dispute over Sunday’s Opposition demonstration in Delhi.

Rijiju questioned the authenticity of a photograph shared by Congress MP Gaddam Vamsi Krishna from Telangana, which appeared to show a densely packed gathering at the venue. The minister alleged that the image had been artificially created to suggest substantially greater public participation than the rally attracted.

Posting on X, Rijiju said: “Even the fake AI photo to show that Ramlila ground was full is not done properly by the fake narrative team of Congress Party!”

The minister also criticised the apparent quality of the image, suggesting that those responsible had failed to reproduce the actual setting convincingly. His remarks, posted on Sunday and widely discussed on Monday, followed competing claims by the BJP and Opposition leaders about the demonstration’s attendance.

The disputed photograph was circulated by several Congress leaders and supporters, including former parliamentarian and Congress Working Committee member Jagdish Thakor. Social media users questioned its authenticity, pointing to apparent discrepancies between the stage depicted in the image and the arrangement visible at the actual rally.

The image appeared to feature representations of Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi on a stage whose configuration differed from photographs of the event. These inconsistencies strengthened suspicions that the picture had been digitally generated or altered, although the precise circumstances of its creation remain unclear.

The controversy developed alongside a separate disagreement over crowd estimates. BJP leaders maintained that substantial portions of Ramlila Maidan remained unoccupied, challenging Congress assertions that the demonstration had attracted an exceptionally large gathering.

BJP parliamentarian and spokesperson Sambit Patra claimed that approximately 40 per cent of the venue was empty despite the Opposition’s extensive mobilisation efforts.

“The Congress said there will be a crowd of 10 lakh, but 40 per cent of the ground was empty,” Patra said, disputing the turnout projections publicised before the event.

Congress leaders countered the BJP’s assessment by circulating drone footage and photographs that they said demonstrated extensive participation. The party maintained that large numbers of supporters had assembled for the protest, rejecting the ruling party’s portrayal of the gathering as unsuccessful.

Neither side produced independently authenticated attendance figures establishing the total number of participants. The competing visual material also raised questions about the timing, vantage points and completeness of images used to support rival political claims.

The rally, organised under the Opposition INDIA bloc’s Chalo Dilli mobilisation, focused on allegations of electoral irregularities and demands for accountability from the Election Commission.

Opposition leaders targeted Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and alleged failures in safeguarding electoral integrity. The Congress and its allies have questioned the exercise, arguing that electoral procedures must remain transparent and protect eligible voters.

Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, addressed the gathering alongside Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and several prominent Opposition figures.

Among those attending were Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav, Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee, National Conference president Farooq Abdullah, Peoples Democratic Party chief Mehbooba Mufti and Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Yadav.

Gandhi accused the Election Commission’s leadership of facilitating electoral manipulation and demanded action against Kumar. He also criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, linking the Opposition’s campaign to wider allegations concerning the conduct of elections.

The BJP rejected the allegations and challenged Congress leaders to substantiate their accusations through appropriate institutional and legal channels. The Election Commission has also rejected allegations that its electoral processes were designed to benefit the ruling party.

The Opposition’s demonstration followed a campaign questioning the independence of electoral administration, with participating parties demanding greater scrutiny of voter-list revisions and the handling of complaints concerning electoral procedures.

The dispute over the rally photograph added another dimension to those disagreements, shifting part of the political exchange towards the reliability of digitally circulated campaign material.

Artificial intelligence can produce convincing images of public gatherings, complicating efforts to distinguish authentic photographs from synthetic representations when original files and verifiable provenance are unavailable.

The November 1 demonstration brought supporters from several Opposition parties to central Delhi, with participants marching towards Ramlila Maidan from the Minto Road-Connaught Place junction before assembling for speeches by alliance leaders.

BJP assigns three leaders distinct Uttar Pradesh campaign roles

The Bharatiya Janata Party is preparing a three-tier campaign for Uttar Pradesh’s 2027 Assembly elections, assigning Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and party president Nitin Nabin different levels of electoral mobilisation.

The proposed campaign, expected to intensify after November 20 and continue through December, would combine large regional rallies, district-level organisational meetings and sustained activity across Assembly constituencies. The arrangements remain a planning exercise, with individual programmes and dates yet to be formally announced.

Modi is expected to address major rallies covering Uttar Pradesh’s 18 administrative divisions, providing the principal statewide platform for the BJP’s election messaging. The divisional approach would allow the party to reach several districts through each gathering rather than rely exclusively on constituency-specific appearances by the Prime Minister.

Shah’s proposed responsibilities centre on district and regional coordination. His programme is expected to include targeted public meetings, consultations with party functionaries and conferences involving booth-level workers. Organisational preparedness, local mobilisation and coordination between campaign committees would form an important part of that exercise.

Nabin, meanwhile, is expected to concentrate on Assembly constituencies, undertaking tours and participating in political and organisational programmes. His assignment would connect the national leadership’s campaign with the party’s local units, which will be responsible for maintaining contact with voters between larger rallies.

The division of responsibilities is intended to produce simultaneous activity at several levels of the party organisation. While Modi’s rallies would draw attention to the BJP’s statewide campaign, district and constituency programmes would focus on mobilising workers and establishing a regular presence in individual electoral areas.

Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath is also expected to undertake district-level rallies and constituency outreach. His participation would give the campaign a state-government dimension alongside the programmes led by the party’s central leadership. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and other senior BJP figures are also expected to participate in public meetings.

The party’s organisational preparations include a proposed household-contact exercise involving booth workers and small local teams. Under the plan being discussed, each worker or team would reach at least 50 families, presenting the government’s programmes and seeking direct engagement with voters. The precise implementation arrangements have not been publicly detailed.

The emphasis on booth organisation reflects the BJP’s intention to link prominent leadership appearances with systematic work at polling-station level. Such activity requires coordination among district committees, constituency representatives and local workers, particularly when large rallies and smaller meetings are scheduled within the same period.

Uttar Pradesh has 403 Assembly constituencies, making the scale of the proposed exercise substantial. The BJP is seeking another term in office under Adityanath, while opposition parties are preparing to challenge its electoral position. The timing of the Assembly election in 2027 has not yet been formally notified.

The proposed November and December programme is an early stage of preparations rather than the formal election campaign. The BJP leadership is expected to use the period to assess organisational readiness, reinforce local structures and establish a framework for subsequent electoral activity.

The division between Modi’s divisional rallies, Shah’s district work and Nabin’s constituency visits also gives the party separate channels for communicating priorities and receiving feedback. Local concerns identified during meetings could be passed through the organisation, although no formal mechanism for that process has been announced.

The BJP’s planned programme follows discussions within its central and state organisations over preparations for the next Assembly contest. The emphasis so far has been on geographical coverage and worker mobilisation, rather than a published list of election promises or constituency candidates.

The organisational effort will need to account for differences between centres, districts and constituencies with varying political conditions. Divisional rallies can bring together workers from a wide area, but constituency visits and booth conferences serve a purpose by involving smaller groups responsible for local campaigning. The proposed structure therefore places responsibility on state and district office-bearers to organise meetings, arrange participation and coordinate travel. No announcement has yet specified how the responsibilities will be distributed among district presidents or constituency committees during the November and December programmes.

The anticipated schedule leaves room for individual events to be adjusted as arrangements are finalised. Details of venues, attendance by senior leaders and the sequence of district and constituency meetings have not been officially released. The party has also not published a comprehensive calendar for the proposed statewide rallies.

Sunetra Pawar summons legislators after NCP leaders meet Shah

Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar has called a meeting of Nationalist Congress Party legislators in Mumbai on Tuesday after senior colleagues held talks with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, exposing competing accounts of the party’s internal leadership arrangements.

The meeting, scheduled at her Devgiri residence, follows discussions in New Delhi involving prominent figures from the NCP organisation previously led by her late husband, Ajit Pawar. Party officials insist the delegation’s visit was authorised and deny suggestions of a leadership rebellion.

Among those who met Shah were Praful Patel, Maharashtra NCP president Sunil Tatkare, ministers Chhagan Bhujbal and Hasan Mushrif, and senior politicians Dilip Walse-Patil and Dhananjay Munde. Sunetra Pawar and her son, Rajya Sabha member Parth Pawar, did not attend.

The absence of the two prompted questions about divisions within the party, although its leadership maintains that the engagement was planned in advance. Accounts from people familiar with the discussions suggest that organisational decision-making, consultation with senior figures and relations with the ruling Mahayuti alliance were raised.

Tatkare rejected suggestions that the delegation represented a dissident group. He said the party remained united and that the meeting with Shah had been arranged beforehand. The NCP has also disputed claims that Sunetra Pawar and Parth were deliberately excluded.

National spokesperson Umesh Patil said Sunetra Pawar had herself requested time for senior colleagues to meet Shah during an earlier interaction with the home minister. He described suggestions of deliberate exclusion and internal confrontation as an attempt to create a misleading impression about the organisation.

Tuesday’s gathering is expected to bring together NCP legislators and senior office-bearers, providing an opportunity for Sunetra Pawar to address questions about coordination and organisational priorities. Attendance and statements emerging from the meeting could indicate the extent of agreement among the party’s elected representatives, although no formal leadership contest has been announced.

Senior figures held further consultations in Mumbai after returning from Delhi. The sequence of meetings has drawn attention to the distribution of authority within the party following Ajit Pawar’s death in January and Sunetra Pawar’s subsequent assumption of its leadership.

Another issue under discussion is the party’s position within the Maharashtra government headed by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. Some NCP leaders have pressed for the return of the finance portfolio, which Ajit Pawar held before his death and which subsequently passed to the BJP.

Differences have also surfaced over appointments and representation in government. Questions surrounding Cabinet vacancies, the selection of organisational office-bearers and consultation with established leaders have added to concerns about how decisions are taken. No official party resolution confirming a challenge to Sunetra Pawar has been made public.

The possibility of bringing together the NCP and the separate organisation associated with Sharad Pawar has featured in political discussions. Some accounts of the Delhi engagement suggested that a merger and its implications for the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance were considered, but the NCP has not announced any agreement.

Tatkare said discussions about a merger had ended, seeking to distinguish speculation about reunification from the party’s immediate organisational business. Leaders associated with the Sharad Pawar camp have likewise not announced a decision to join the governing alliance.

The competing accounts matter because the NCP is a constituent of the Mahayuti government alongside the BJP and the Shiv Sena led by Eknath Shinde. Its internal arrangements influence the coordination of ministers and legislators within the coalition, even as its leaders publicly emphasise unity.

Shah’s participation has added a national dimension to what party representatives describe as routine consultations between alliance partners. The home minister has not publicly announced any intervention in the NCP’s leadership structure or endorsed a particular faction within it.

For Sunetra Pawar, Tuesday’s meeting offers a forum to hear legislators directly and discuss the party’s next organisational steps. The party has indicated that strengthening its structure and improving coordination will form part of the agenda.

The dispute over consultation has also drawn attention to the roles of experienced party figures who supported Ajit Pawar when the organisation split in 2023. Their continued participation in government and party affairs remains important to maintaining coordination across constituencies and administrative responsibilities.

The gathering is scheduled for Tuesday evening in Mumbai, with legislators and senior organisational figures invited to attend. Details of any decisions taken are expected to emerge only after the discussions.

Sanjay Jha challenges BJP account of rally turnout

Author and political analyst Sanjay Jha has rejected the Bharatiya Janata Party’s criticism of the Opposition rally at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan, arguing that the gathering demonstrated political unity and unsettled the ruling party.

Jha said the INDIA bloc’s mobilisation on Sunday reflected growing support for its campaign over electoral accountability. He maintained that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi had placed the BJP on the defensive by sustaining scrutiny of voter lists and the Election Commission’s conduct.

His assessment followed a dispute over attendance at the November 1 demonstration, where Opposition leaders demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and challenged the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The BJP disputed the organisers’ expectations of a crowd numbering up to one million.

BJP parliamentarian Sambit Patra questioned the turnout at a press conference, citing footage which he said showed substantial empty space and unoccupied seating at the venue. He accused Opposition leaders of exaggerating participation and challenged their account of the rally’s success.

Patra said approximately 28,000 chairs had been arranged and claimed that between 5,000 and 7,000 remained vacant when footage was recorded during the afternoon. He also argued that the stage and other enclosures reduced the area available to spectators.

Those figures were Patra’s estimates, not an independently established count. No authoritative attendance figure has emerged, making it impossible to determine the precise size of the gathering or substantiate either side’s broader assertions about its political significance.

Jha countered that the BJP’s emphasis on crowd calculations overlooked the participation of Opposition parties and the issues raised by demonstrators. His contention that the government was unnerved represents a political interpretation rather than evidence of a change in the ruling party’s position.

The rally brought together prominent figures from several INDIA bloc parties, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav, Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee and Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Yadav. Their appearance alongside Gandhi provided a visible demonstration of cooperation among parties with differing regional interests.

The Opposition’s central demand concerned the electoral roll revision, which its leaders allege has excluded eligible citizens and compromised confidence in elections. They have pressed for accountability from the Election Commission and questioned the handling of voter registrations and deletions.

The Election Commission has defended the revision process as a means of identifying duplicate, deceased and otherwise ineligible entries. It maintains that eligible voters have procedures available to challenge exclusions and seek restoration of their names. Allegations of deliberate electoral manipulation remain contested.

Gandhi used the demonstration to accuse the authorities of undermining voting rights and to call for Kumar’s removal. He presented the dispute as a question of democratic representation rather than merely an administrative disagreement over electoral records.

The BJP rejected that characterisation. Its leaders accused the Opposition of undermining public confidence in constitutional institutions and disputed Gandhi’s allegations about electoral legitimacy. Patra also challenged arguments linking Kumar personally to the 2024 parliamentary election, pointing out that he became chief election commissioner in 2025.

The competing positions have shifted attention towards both the credibility of the revision exercise and the ability of Opposition parties to coordinate protests. Jha’s comments focused on the latter, portraying the shared platform as politically more important than competing estimates of attendance.

The demonstration drew participants from several states, including people who described difficulties involving voter registration and electoral records. Such accounts formed part of the Opposition’s case for closer scrutiny, although individual complaints do not establish that irregularities were systematic or politically directed.

Organisers had projected attendance approaching one million before the event. Police preparations, however, were based on a considerably smaller anticipated gathering, with security arrangements extending beyond the main ground to nearby roads and access points.

Authorities deployed thousands of police personnel and used surveillance cameras and other monitoring measures to manage crowds. The venue was divided into designated areas, with arrangements for entrances, movement and security around the rally.

The turnout dispute also highlighted a distinction between the number of people inside the ground at a particular moment and the total passing through the surrounding streets during the demonstration. Neither measure was independently verified.

The protest was organised under the slogan “Vote Bachao, Desh Bachao”, meaning save the vote, save the country. Participants also raised concerns extending beyond electoral administration, including living costs and public services.

Jairam Ramesh disputes BJP claims over Delhi rally

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh on Monday claimed that the BJP's attempt to discourage attendance at the INDIA bloc's November 1 rally in Delhi had failed, disputing warnings that the gathering would damage business across the capital.

Ramesh said the opposition alliance's demonstration at Ramlila Maidan had attracted visitors who could also support local traders. He accused the Bharatiya Janata Party of using fears about market closures to undermine the protest and divert attention from allegations concerning electoral rolls and the Election Commission.

His assertions, however, faced a direct challenge from the Chamber of Trade and Industry (CTI), whose chairman, Brijesh Goyal, estimated that traders had lost between Rs 10,000 crore and Rs 11,000 crore because of disruption associated with Sunday's rally. Those figures remain estimates rather than independently established losses.

Goyal claimed that approximately 250,000 shops had remained closed across 20 to 25 markets around the venue. He said the affected commercial areas contained roughly 300,000 shops, and attributed closures partly to apprehension about crowds, traffic restrictions and the movement of vehicles.

The sharply different accounts have turned the commercial impact of the opposition demonstration into another political dispute. Ramesh pointed to accounts of shops remaining open and markets conducting business, while the traders' organisation described widespread closures and interrupted deliveries during the important shopping period preceding Diwali.

Writing on X in Hindi, Ramesh accused the BJP of spreading a misleading narrative that businesses would suffer and markets would have to close. He argued that people travelling to Delhi from elsewhere would also purchase goods, benefiting shopkeepers either directly or indirectly.

He alleged that the campaign was designed to keep people away from Ramlila Maidan and shift attention from the opposition's allegations of electoral malpractice. Ramesh also linked the criticism of the rally to the alliance's demand for accountability from Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The BJP has rejected the opposition's broader allegations about the electoral process and criticised the demonstration. Party leaders questioned its attendance and accused Congress and its allies of disregarding the concerns of small businesses during the festive shopping season.

Before the rally, the BJP had publicly criticised Rahul Gandhi and the INDIA bloc for proceeding despite warnings about possible commercial losses. Its argument echoed concerns expressed by traders' associations, although those organisations maintained that their objections concerned business disruption rather than support for a political party.

The rally formed part of the opposition alliance's campaign against alleged irregularities in the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. Congress leaders and their allies have questioned the Election Commission's handling of the exercise and called for greater scrutiny of the electoral process. The allegations remain contested.

The Chamber of Trade and Industry had appealed to Congress leaders to postpone the gathering until after Diwali, citing the proximity of major wholesale and retail markets to Ramlila Maidan. It warned that restrictions on movement could prevent shoppers, suppliers and delivery vehicles from reaching commercial districts.

Other traders' associations also approached opposition leaders before Sunday, seeking a change of date. Their concerns covered markets including Sadar Bazaar, Khari Baoli and Chandni Chowk, where wholesale transactions and seasonal retail demand make transport access particularly important.

Goyal subsequently claimed that hundreds of thousands of customers and business visitors had stayed away from Delhi's markets. He also said thousands of goods vehicles could not operate normally, disrupting loading and unloading activities. The scale of those disruptions has not been independently confirmed.

Traders in Connaught Place separately described weak customer demand around the time of the protest, citing occupied parking spaces and concerns about congestion. Their accounts complicate Ramesh's assertion that warnings of damage to trade had been disproved, without establishing the citywide financial impact claimed by the CTI.

The opposition's gathering also prompted a separate dispute over crowd numbers. BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra challenged the organisers' claims about attendance and described parts of the venue as empty. The competing political assessments did not provide an independently verified count of participants.

The CTI had previously suggested shifting the rally to another venue if postponement proved impossible, arguing that a location farther from the busiest trading areas would reduce disruption. Its appeals were addressed to Congress leaders ahead of the November 1 event. Suggested alternatives included Burari Ground and Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, which the organisation considered less disruptive to central Delhi's commercial activity.

Congress targets Modi over commercial cooking gas increase

Congress attacked Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday over another increase in commercial cooking gas prices, calling him “Mehengai Man” and accusing his government of pursuing an agenda to “loot the public”.

The opposition party's criticism followed a revision by state-owned oil marketing companies that raised the price of a 19-kg liquefied petroleum gas cylinder by Rs 10 to Rs 2,820 in Delhi from November 1. The increase adds to the operating expenses of restaurants, hotels, caterers and other businesses dependent on commercial cooking fuel.

Congress used its official social media account to challenge the government's record on prices, claiming that a commercial cylinder costing Rs 1,684 at the beginning of the year now costs Rs 2,971. It said the difference amounted to Rs 1,287 over 10 months and alleged that Modi's sole agenda was to extract money from the public.

The Rs 2,971 figure corresponds to the revised commercial cylinder price in Kolkata, rather than Delhi, where the current rate is Rs 2,820. Prices differ between cities because of local taxes and other pricing factors. The party's comparison therefore needs to be understood in the context of the location and period covered by its figures.

The party's description of Modi as “Mehengai Man”, or inflation man, formed part of its political attack on the government over living costs. Its allegation that the administration intended to loot consumers was a partisan accusation, not an established finding about the purpose of the pricing decision.

The latest revision is the third consecutive monthly rise in commercial LPG prices. A 19-kg cylinder became Rs 9.50 dearer in September and Rs 62.50 dearer in October, before the additional Rs 10 increase took effect on Sunday. Together, those changes amount to an increase of Rs 82 per cylinder over three monthly revisions in Delhi.

The higher charges arrive after sharp movements in commercial LPG rates earlier this year. Prices rose steeply between February and June, before oil marketing companies reduced rates in July and August. Those reductions were subsequently followed by the September, October and November increases.

Domestic cooking gas prices, however, were not changed in the November revision. A standard 14.2-kg household cylinder continues to cost Rs 942 in Delhi. That distinction matters because the immediate price increase applies to commercial customers, rather than directly increasing the regulated retail price paid by households for domestic cylinders.

Nevertheless, commercial LPG is a significant input for food-service establishments, particularly smaller restaurants, roadside eateries and catering operators. Businesses purchasing multiple cylinders can face cumulative increases in their fuel bills, although the extent to which they pass those costs on to customers depends on their consumption, margins and pricing decisions.

The November adjustment also coincided with a rise in aviation turbine fuel prices. State-owned retailers increased the jet fuel rate by approximately Rs 1.37 a litre to Rs 138.50, extending a series of monthly increases that have added to airline operating costs. Petrol and diesel retail prices were left unchanged in the same round of revisions.

Commercial LPG and aviation fuel rates are ordinarily reviewed at the beginning of each month, with international benchmark prices and currency movements influencing the calculations. Global energy supply disruptions and higher transport costs have contributed to volatility in fuel markets, although those factors do not independently establish the political motives alleged by Congress.

The commercial cylinder now costs about Rs 2,775 in Mumbai and Rs 2,994.50 in Chennai, compared with Rs 2,820 in Delhi. Kolkata's revised rate is Rs 2,971. The differences underline why a single national price cannot be used to describe the amount paid by every commercial LPG customer.

The dispute comes as opposition parties seek to connect changes in administered and market-linked prices with the wider cost of running households and small businesses. Yet the commercial cylinder revision is set through the oil retailers’ pricing process, and the available figures do not show that the November increase was accompanied by a change in household LPG charges. The distinction also limits any immediate calculation of its direct effect on family fuel expenditure nationwide.

The oil companies' revised schedule also lists a five-kilogram free-trade LPG cylinder refill at Rs 782, with a new connection priced at Rs 1,903. These smaller cylinders are sold under a separate market-linked category and were included alongside the principal commercial and aviation fuel adjustments.

Trump pledges vetoes if Democrats capture Congress

President Donald Trump has pledged to veto legislation advanced by Democrats if they capture both chambers of Congress in Tuesday's midterm elections, while leaving open the possibility of negotiating agreements after an initial political standoff.

Trump outlined his approach in an interview with Miranda Devine for the New York Post's Pod Force One podcast, excerpts of which aired on Fox News on Sunday. The remarks offered his clearest description of how he intends to respond if Republicans lose control of the House of Representatives and Senate.

“I guess I’ll become Mr. Veto,” Trump said, adding: “I’m not going to let them ruin it.” He suggested that repeatedly rejecting Democratic legislation would eventually encourage opposition lawmakers to seek compromises with the White House.

“They’ll be sending stuff up, you veto it,” he said. “Eventually, after a month or two of getting all vetoed — you know, it’s just waste — they come over and make a deal.”

The president also acknowledged that negotiations could produce legislation acceptable to both parties. He said agreements would probably emerge at some stage, although he expressed hope that Republicans would retain their congressional majorities and make such an arrangement unnecessary.

His comments came as voters prepared to decide control of Congress for the remaining two years of his second presidential term. Democrats are competing to regain the House, where Republicans hold a narrow majority, while the Senate contest remains more uncertain.

A Democratic takeover of both chambers would alter Washington's political balance. Opposition lawmakers would control legislative schedules and congressional committees, giving them authority to investigate the administration, examine federal spending and challenge its policy decisions.

The Senate would also gain the ability to delay or reject presidential nominees, including candidates for federal judgeships and senior administration positions. Such powers could constrain Trump's appointments even when his administration continued operating through executive decisions.

Nevertheless, Democratic control would not automatically translate into the enactment of the party's legislative programme. The Constitution allows presidents to reject bills approved by Congress, requiring a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a veto.

Neither party is expected to command the overwhelming congressional numbers needed to routinely overcome presidential objections. Consequently, legislation opposed by Trump could fail despite securing ordinary majorities in the House and Senate.

Senate procedures create another obstacle. Most contested legislation requires sufficient support to overcome a filibuster, generally meaning 60 votes. That threshold could force Democratic leaders to seek Republican backing even before legislation reaches the president.

Trump's stated strategy therefore points towards confrontations over domestic policy, spending and oversight, alongside negotiations on measures that require cooperation between Congress and the executive branch.

Government funding and the federal debt ceiling are areas where prolonged disagreements could have practical consequences. Congress controls federal appropriations, while the president must sign spending legislation or allow a shutdown when existing funding expires.

The administration is preparing for the possibility of divided government by examining actions it could pursue under executive authority. Officials have considered options involving tariffs, immigration restrictions, federal grants and regulatory policy, although any measures would remain subject to statutory limits and judicial review.

Executive action would not eliminate congressional influence. Democratic committee chairs could issue subpoenas, hold hearings and scrutinise decisions taken by federal departments. Control of both chambers would additionally give opposition leaders greater leverage during negotiations over spending priorities.

Trump had already signalled a similar approach when questioned about potential Republican losses during the campaign. He argued that presidential veto powers would provide a means of resisting legislation he opposed while creating pressure for eventual deals.

The president's position reflects the distinction between blocking legislation and securing agreement on new measures. Although a veto can prevent a bill becoming law, it cannot independently deliver funding authorisations or policy changes requiring congressional approval.

The elections also determine which party controls the congressional committees responsible for drafting tax, defence and healthcare legislation. Committee leadership determines hearing schedules and can influence which proposals receive votes. The midterm elections take place on November 3, with every House seat and a portion of the Senate being contested. The new Congress is scheduled to convene in January 2027, leaving a transitional period during which the outgoing chambers retain their existing powers. Republicans could use that interval to advance outstanding nominations or legislation before any change in the balance of power.