Election Commission curbs political activity by reappointed officials

The Election Commission has instructed the Uttar Pradesh government to prevent retired officials re-employed in public posts from participating in political activities during elections, extending neutrality requirements to appointments previously lacking explicit conduct rules.

The directive, issued on November 9, applies when the Model Code of Conduct takes effect ahead of the state's 2027 Assembly election. It places retired personnel engaged by the government under restrictions already applicable to serving civil servants, regardless of the capacity in which they have been appointed.

Such officials cannot campaign for candidates, canvass for political parties or use their names, positions or authority to favour one political group over another. The Commission has also prohibited them from summoning election-related officers for official discussions or meetings in constituencies and districts where elections have been announced.

The prohibition expressly covers video conferences with officers involved in election duties. It is intended to prevent individuals holding government appointments after retirement from exercising influence over the administrative machinery responsible for conducting polls.

The Commission communicated the instructions to chief secretaries and chief electoral officers in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Goa and Manipur. All five states are scheduled to hold Assembly elections in 2027, making the directive relevant to preparations across several administrations rather than Uttar Pradesh alone.

The poll authority identified a gap in the rules governing retired government employees who return to public service as advisers, appointees or other personnel. Although serving officials are bound by conduct regulations, some post-retirement appointments have lacked specific provisions addressing political neutrality during election periods.

The Commission said the restrictions and prohibitions applicable to government servants would similarly apply to individuals attached, engaged, employed or re-employed by state and Union Territory governments where separate neutrality rules were absent. Its instructions concern their conduct during the Model Code period, rather than imposing a general prohibition on political activity by every retired public employee.

The letter warned that any action, or failure to act, contrary to its directions would be treated seriously. State authorities have been instructed to communicate the requirements to those affected and ensure compliance during the election process.

The decision follows concerns over the role of former officials who continue to hold influential positions within state administrations after leaving regular service. Election authorities have received complaints about such appointees convening meetings involving officials responsible for election work while campaign restrictions were operating.

The Commission has not identified particular Uttar Pradesh appointees as having breached the new directions. Nor does the order, as communicated, announce disciplinary proceedings against named individuals. Its immediate effect is to establish a uniform standard for the category of government-appointed personnel covered by the clarification.

The instructions also reaffirm that the Model Code of Conduct applies to government-funded bodies, including organisations, committees, corporations and commissions, whether their funding comes wholly or partly from public sources. Employees of these institutions are consequently expected to observe the relevant election-period restrictions.

Existing conduct rules prohibit serving government employees from taking part in political activities and elections. Earlier Commission instructions also required officials to avoid election campaigning and refrain from lending their official standing to any party, candidate or political group.

The latest clarification builds on earlier election-management measures concerning re-employed officers. Previous directions restricted the involvement of officials serving on extensions or post-retirement appointments in election-related work, subject to specified exceptions for personnel working in the chief electoral officer's establishment.

The distinction matters because an appointment after retirement does not necessarily carry the same service conditions as a regular government post. By explicitly extending election-period restrictions, the Commission has addressed that difference without announcing changes to the underlying terms of appointment.

Uttar Pradesh is due to elect a new Assembly in 2027, with the current legislature's term ending in May. The other four states covered by the communication have Assembly terms ending earlier in the year.

The Commission's instructions distinguish between ordinary administrative responsibilities and activities capable of compromising electoral neutrality. They specifically address contact with election officers after polls are announced, when administrative decisions and official communications face heightened scrutiny under the Model Code of Conduct.

Separately, the Commission has instructed the five states to transfer certain officers connected with election work, including those posted in their home districts or who have completed prescribed periods in the same district. For Uttar Pradesh, the relevant service-period assessment uses May 31, 2027, as its cut-off date.

India challenges US summons procedure in Pannun lawsuit

India's Ministry of External Affairs has rejected allegations against senior government officials named in a United States civil lawsuit brought by Sikh separatist Gurupatwant Singh Pannun, questioning the procedure used to transmit court documents.

Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said on Tuesday that New Delhi considered the accusations fabricated and malicious, following confirmation that the US State Department had delivered judicial papers to India's embassy in Washington.

“We reject the fabricated and malicious attacks on our high officials. Also, we reject the frivolous lawsuits,” Jaiswal told a briefing in New Delhi.

He insisted that requests to serve judicial documents within India must pass through the Ministry of Law and Justice, the country's designated central authority. His remarks highlighted a procedural dispute alongside the government's categorical rejection of the lawsuit's allegations.

The case names National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing chief Samant Goel among defendants. Pannun seeks damages over an alleged conspiracy to assassinate him in New York in 2023. The accusations in his civil complaint have not been established by a court.

The US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order on November 9 permitting Pannun to pursue service of summons on Doval and Goel through courts in India. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed him to submit a proposed package of documents by November 30 outlining the intended procedure and relevant legal provisions.

That order concerns how defendants may be notified of proceedings. It does not determine whether the allegations are true, establish liability or resolve any jurisdictional objections that the defendants might raise.

Separately, the State Department confirmed in a filing that it had transmitted a summons, complaint and notice of suit to the embassy in Washington. Its diplomatic note was signed on September 30 and delivered on October 9, preceding the November court order.

The department explained that its action followed a request from the federal court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which governs certain proceedings involving foreign states before US courts. It said the transmission was a statutory responsibility rather than an endorsement of Pannun's allegations.

The diplomatic communication made clear that Washington was not taking a position on the merits of the claims, the status of any defendant or whether the requirements for service had been satisfied. It also stated that the US government was not a party to the civil action and could not represent its defendants.

The court has not announced a trial date in the civil action, and the dispute over notification remains separate from its claims.

The distinction is significant because delivery of court papers is a procedural stage, not a ruling against the people or institutions named. Questions concerning jurisdiction, immunity and the validity of service remain matters for judicial consideration.

Pannun is associated with Sikhs for Justice, an organisation banned by India. The Ministry of Home Affairs has designated him a terrorist under domestic law. That designation reflects the government's legal position and does not constitute a US judicial finding on his civil claims.

His lawsuit follows a separate US criminal investigation into an alleged plan to kill him. Federal prosecutors accused Nikhil Gupta of participating in a murder-for-hire conspiracy involving an individual they identified as a government employee from India. The criminal allegations and the civil claims involve distinct proceedings and legal standards.

US authorities have also identified Vikash Yadav in connection with the alleged plot. New Delhi previously established an inquiry committee to examine information supplied by Washington about the case, while maintaining that activities contrary to its stated policies would not be tolerated.

The criminal prosecution does not itself establish the responsibility of Doval or Goel for the allegations made in Pannun's civil complaint. Any determination of their legal position would require proceedings before the appropriate court.

The State Department's diplomatic note also explained that jurisdictional defences, including assertions of sovereign immunity, must be raised before the US court hearing the lawsuit. It advised parties seeking to pursue such arguments to obtain legal representation in the United States.

The November 9 order requires Pannun's proposed service package to address applicable provisions of law in India and previous efforts to deliver documents under the Hague Convention framework. Those requirements form part of the court's consideration of the appropriate means of notifying the named defendants.

Shiv Sena challenges Gandhi over Modi's Naxal remarks

Shiv Sena spokesperson Anand Dubey has questioned Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's response to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's remarks on Naxalism, arguing that the Prime Minister had not named Gandhi or his party while criticising what he described as intellectual Naxalites.

Dubey's intervention on Tuesday intensified a political confrontation between the ruling alliance and the Opposition over Modi's comments during a Diwali address to Central Reserve Police Force personnel in Chhattisgarh's Bastar district.

Speaking in Mumbai, Dubey questioned why Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, interpreted the remarks as a personal attack. He maintained that Modi had referred to an ideological tendency rather than identifying particular political leaders.

"Why does Rahul Gandhi ji keep taking this personally upon himself?" Dubey asked, pointing out that the Prime Minister had not explicitly mentioned the Congress leader.

Dubey also challenged Gandhi's demand for a public debate with Modi, arguing that Parliament provided the appropriate platform for political exchanges. He urged the Congress leader to raise his objections during a parliamentary session rather than insist on a confrontation outside the legislature.

"As far as the debate is concerned, when the Parliament session convenes, come and let us debate," Dubey said. He maintained that public demonstrations and parliamentary discussions served different democratic purposes.

The controversy followed Modi's November 8 address at a CRPF camp in Karanpur, Bastar, where he declared that armed Naxalism had been substantially weakened but warned that what he called intellectual Naxalites remained active within political parties and organisations.

Modi alleged that such elements were encouraging opposition to constitutional institutions and democratic processes. He called for their identification and defeat, presenting the issue as a continuing challenge to national security despite progress against armed Maoist insurgency.

The Prime Minister's language drew criticism from Opposition leaders, who interpreted the reference to political parties as an attempt to associate political dissent with extremist ideology.

Gandhi responded on November 9 through a social media statement addressed to CRPF personnel, accusing Modi of making misleading claims and asserting that the Prime Minister had effectively described Opposition politicians as Naxalites.

"He called us Naxals," Gandhi wrote, renewing his challenge to Modi for a direct debate over allegations of anti-national conduct and foreign influence.

"My challenge stands. Let him debate me on who is anti-national and who is controlled by foreign forces. Any time, any place," Gandhi said.

The Congress leader also claimed that the expressions of security personnel listening to Modi demonstrated scepticism towards the Prime Minister's statements. That interpretation was Gandhi's political assessment, rather than an independently established account of the personnel's views.

Dubey rejected the suggestion that Modi's remarks amounted to a direct accusation against Gandhi. He argued that the terminology concerned individuals holding a particular ideological outlook and questioned the Congress leader's insistence that it referred to him.

Other leaders from the governing alliance joined the criticism. Shiv Sena leader Shaina NC challenged Gandhi's demand for a debate and accused him of supporting political positions she characterised as detrimental to national interests.

Her allegations formed part of the political exchange and were not accompanied by independently established evidence linking Gandhi to extremist organisations.

Bharatiya Janata Party legislator Ram Kadam also criticised Gandhi's approach, arguing that the responsibilities attached to the office of Leader of the Opposition required greater seriousness in political discussions.

Kadam questioned the conditions under which Gandhi wanted to debate Modi and maintained that parliamentary proceedings offered an established opportunity to challenge government policies and statements.

The dispute has consequently extended beyond the original remarks on Naxalism to disagreements over political accountability, parliamentary debate and the language used by government leaders when addressing ideological opponents.

Gandhi's challenge centred on whether the Prime Minister was justified in invoking Naxalism while discussing political organisations. The ruling alliance's response focused instead on Modi's failure to identify Gandhi by name and the Opposition leader's choice of forum.

The controversy also unfolded against the background of the government's campaign against Maoist insurgency, particularly in areas of Chhattisgarh where security operations have been a major policy priority.

During his Bastar address, Modi distinguished between armed insurgents and those he accused of promoting similar ideas through institutions and political organisations.

Dubey, meanwhile, referred to the abrogation of Article 370 while criticising Congress's political positions, broadening his response beyond the immediate disagreement over the Prime Minister's Bastar speech.

Diwali crowds at Charminar temple revive heritage dispute

Thousands of devotees gathering at Hyderabad’s Bhagyalakshmi Temple during Diwali have renewed questions about the protection of the adjoining Charminar, as silver coin distribution and visits by political leaders draw attention to the contested shrine.

The temple, situated beside the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)-protected monument, has attracted long queues for its annual Khazana programme. The crowds have prompted traffic restrictions and objections from activists who want authorities to clarify whether arrangements around the shrine comply with existing court orders.

Devotees began receiving silver coins on Sunday evening, November 8, following special prayers. Temple organisers scheduled distribution through November 11, keeping the premises open around the clock and establishing four queues to accommodate visitors. By Monday, queues extended towards Gulzar Houz, several hundred metres from Charminar.

The coins, distributed as religious offerings, depict Goddess Lakshmi on one side and Charminar on the other. Worshippers associate them with prosperity and good fortune. The silver is collected through donations made by devotees, while the distribution forms part of the temple’s annual Diwali observances.

Temple trustee Shashikala described the turnout as unexpected. Visitors travelled from Hyderabad, Secunderabad and surrounding districts, adding to congestion in the densely populated Old City. The scale of the gatherings has also intensified scrutiny of the arrangements used to manage crowds beside a protected historical structure. Organisers said the separate queues were intended to maintain orderly movement and reduce difficulties for families waiting to enter the shrine.

Hyderabad Traffic Police advised motorists to avoid roads approaching Charminar between November 6 and 11. Its advisory identified the Madina–Charminar, Murgi Chowk–Charminar and Shah Ali Banda approaches as potential congestion points. Police designated parking locations and asked visitors to follow traffic instructions.

Political visits have added another dimension to the dispute. Union Home Minister Amit Shah offered prayers at the shrine on November 2. Telangana Governor Shiv Pratap Shukla and his wife, Janaki Shukla, visited during Diwali, while Bharatiya Janata Party leaders and representatives of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi also attended.

Among those who visited were Telangana BJP president N Ramchander Rao, Rajya Sabha member K Laxman, BRS legislators D Sudheer Reddy and Talasani Srinivas Yadav, and former Haryana Governor Bandaru Dattatreya. Their appearances have drawn attention because the temple’s physical relationship with Charminar has been disputed for years.

Rao welcomed the enthusiasm surrounding the festival, while Laxman praised the growing number of worshippers. Their statements emphasised the religious significance of the celebrations. Critics, however, have questioned whether the prominence given to the shrine is accompanied by adequate safeguards for the monument.

Journalist Mubashir Khurram publicly asked who was ensuring Charminar’s protection and called on the ASI to clarify the legal status of structures adjoining it. All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen leader Mohammed Mubashir alleged that political parties had enabled structures at the site despite restrictions imposed by the courts. Those allegations have not been established by a fresh judicial finding.

The dispute centres partly on a November 2012 order of the then Andhra Pradesh High Court directing that the temple’s position remain unchanged from October 30 that year. The court also prohibited construction touching Charminar. The temple committee assured the court that the shrine would not be expanded.

The restrictions were subsequently maintained, but the court did not direct removal of the temple. Questions about temporary installations, decorations and alleged expansion have surfaced at different times. In 2022, ASI officials disputed allegations of expansion, saying the changes then observed were temporary.

The present crowds do not, by themselves, establish that construction has occurred or that a court order has been breached. Distinguishing temporary festival arrangements from permanent alterations remains important to assessing the complaints. No new court ruling or official finding of structural damage has been established in connection with this Diwali gathering.

Charminar, completed in 1591, is among Hyderabad’s best-known monuments and stands at the centre of a busy commercial district. Its proximity to the shrine makes crowd management and access particularly sensitive during major festivals, when worshippers, shoppers and other visitors converge on the surrounding streets.

Police also identified slow traffic on November 9 around Salar Jung Museum, Madina, High Court Road and the Afzalgunj–Nayapul corridor. Designated parking areas included Sardar Mahal Road, Charminar Bus Terminal and Government City College, with commuters directed to follow signs and officers stationed along affected routes and nearby junctions.

Naidu seeks withdrawal of Rs 500 currency notes

Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu has renewed his demand for withdrawing Rs 500 banknotes, arguing that eliminating high-denomination cash would help curb corruption, illicit transactions and the influence of money in elections.

The Telugu Desam Party president made the appeal on Monday, a day after the tenth anniversary of the Union government's 2016 demonetisation decision. He urged greater reliance on digital payments and proposed retaining Rs 100 and Rs 200 notes for cash transactions.

Naidu said he had raised the proposal with Prime Minister Narendra Modi before and intended to continue pressing for changes to the currency system. His remarks amounted to a policy recommendation, not an announcement of any decision by the Union government or the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

“I had urged the Prime Minister to consider this earlier and I am demanding it again now. I will keep raising this issue,” Naidu said. He also advocated removing denominations of Rs 1,000 and Rs 2,000, although the former is no longer issued and the latter has already been withdrawn from circulation.

The chief minister linked his proposal to concerns about the use of cash to influence voters. He argued that restricting access to large notes could make the distribution of money during elections more difficult and reduce incentives for candidates to recover campaign expenditure after entering office.

Naidu said the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) had attempted to establish a different political culture by discouraging cash distribution during elections. He claimed the alliance had achieved considerable success in limiting the practice, although he did not provide independently verifiable figures establishing its extent.

“Politics should not be about money; it should be done with a spirit of service,” he said, describing electoral expenditure as a factor that could encourage corruption among successful candidates.

His argument rests on the premise that smaller denominations increase the difficulty of storing and transferring large amounts of physical cash. However, withdrawing a denomination would not, by itself, prevent unaccounted transactions or establish that corruption had declined. The effectiveness of such a measure would depend on implementation, enforcement and the availability of alternative payment methods.

There has been no announced RBI programme to withdraw the current Rs 500 banknote. It remains legal tender and is widely used for ordinary transactions. Naidu's remarks therefore do not change the status of notes held by households, traders or businesses.

The distinction is important because the 2016 exercise invalidated the then-existing Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes, while the RBI's later withdrawal of Rs 2,000 notes did not remove their legal tender status. The central bank announced the latter withdrawal in May 2023 as part of its clean note policy.

Under the RBI's published arrangements, Rs 2,000 notes can still be exchanged at its designated issue offices, and holders can use specified procedures to have their value credited to bank accounts. The central bank said in May 2026 that 98.47 per cent of the value outstanding when the withdrawal was announced had been returned by the end of April.

Naidu's renewed intervention places the focus on Rs 500 notes, which remain the highest denomination in routine circulation. His suggestion to retain only Rs 100 and Rs 200 notes would represent a substantial change in the denominations available for everyday cash payments.

The chief minister also promoted technology-driven administration, saying better systems could help address corruption while supporting wealth creation and poverty reduction. He said weaknesses in existing processes had allowed corrupt practices to become entrenched and that he had sought changes over many years.

He connected those concerns with election financing, contending that candidates who spend heavily to secure office may subsequently feel pressure to recoup their expenses. Reducing campaign spending, he argued, could shift political incentives towards public service rather than personal financial recovery.

The proposal also raises practical questions for cash-dependent consumers and small businesses, particularly where electronic payments are unreliable. Naidu did not set out a timetable, an exchange mechanism or an estimate of the costs associated with replacing the denomination.

Naidu leads the Telugu Desam Party, a constituent of the NDA at the national level. His comments were made as a political appeal for currency reform, rather than as a measure initiated by the Andhra Pradesh administration, which does not determine the denominations of banknotes issued by the RBI.

BJP demands Abhishek arrest as Kolkata police investigate clashes

Kolkata Police have registered four FIRs and arrested three Trinamool Congress supporters following violent clashes outside MP Abhishek Banerjee’s Kalighat residence during his birthday celebrations, prompting the Bharatiya Janata Party to demand his arrest.

BJP leader Keya Ghosh accused Banerjee and his supporters of creating disorder on a public street and assaulting police personnel during the confrontation early on Saturday. She demanded action against the Trinamool national general secretary, whose name appears in a complaint filed by a BJP worker.

The confrontation has intensified political tensions between the ruling BJP and the opposition Trinamool Congress, with both parties accusing each other of provoking violence near Banerjee’s residence.

West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari said on Monday that police were identifying suspects through video recordings and would prosecute those responsible for attacking or threatening officers. He maintained that political affiliation would not protect anyone implicated in the violence.

Adhikari said cases had been registered against individuals identified in footage showing assaults, intimidation and obstruction of police personnel. He instructed investigators to pursue chargesheets against those responsible and ensure that the prosecution proceeded according to law.

The four FIRs registered at Kalighat police station include two initiated independently by police officers. One concerns allegations that personnel were assaulted while attempting to restore order during the confrontation.

Another complaint, lodged by a BJP worker, names Banerjee alongside approximately 30 to 40 others. Banerjee has separately filed a complaint accusing unidentified BJP supporters of attacking his residence and office.

Police have not established Banerjee’s personal involvement in any assault. His inclusion in an FIR does not constitute a finding of guilt, and investigators are examining the circumstances surrounding the competing allegations.

Three Trinamool supporters arrested in connection with the disturbances were remanded to eight days of police custody. Two suspects, identified as Mohammad Tauqir Alam and Mohammad Ershad, also known as Tipu, were arrested following the complaint lodged by a BJP worker.

Another Trinamool worker, Sreedip Das, was arrested in connection with allegations involving an assault on police personnel. Investigators are examining recordings from surveillance cameras and other available footage to identify additional participants.

The disturbances began after Trinamool supporters gathered outside Banerjee’s residence shortly after midnight to celebrate his 39th birthday. The gathering included supporters carrying cakes and fireworks.

Police accounts indicate that tensions escalated between approximately 2 am and 3.30 am after BJP supporters arrived near the premises. Rival groups exchanged accusations, and the confrontation developed into physical clashes.

Several political workers and police personnel sustained injuries during the disturbances. The precise sequence of events remains disputed, with investigators examining whether the violence began with attacks on the birthday gathering or confrontations involving those assembled outside the residence.

Banerjee alleged that BJP supporters deliberately targeted his house and office after conducting surveillance of the premises for two days. He accused the attackers of using sticks fitted with nails against Trinamool workers.

The Diamond Harbour MP maintained that the attack was politically motivated and questioned why police had failed to prevent the confrontation despite security arrangements around his residence.

He subsequently staged a demonstration outside his house, demanding action against those allegedly responsible for the violence.

Former chief minister Mamata Banerjee joined the protest and accused BJP supporters of organised intimidation. She criticised the handling of the incident by Kolkata Police and questioned whether officers had acted impartially.

Mamata also challenged the conduct of Kalighat police station officer Balai Bag and demanded the resignation of Kolkata Police Commissioner Ajay Nand, alleging failures in maintaining security around the premises.

The BJP rejected allegations that its workers had orchestrated an attack and instead blamed Trinamool supporters for turning the birthday gathering into a confrontation.

The dispute has placed the police response under scrutiny because complaints have been registered against individuals associated with both political organisations.

Authorities have imposed prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in the affected area for two months, restricting gatherings that could threaten public order.

Police are examining footage from streets surrounding the residence to establish the identities and movements of participants during the confrontation.

Investigators are also considering whether additional individuals should be summoned for questioning after reviewing the recordings and statements collected from witnesses.

The clashes occurred near Banerjee’s residence at 121 Kalighat Road, where the midnight gathering had attracted supporters from outside the immediate neighbourhood.

Federal judge halts construction of Trump's Washington arch

A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s plan to construct a towering triumphal arch in Washington, delivering a legal setback days after Republicans lost control of Congress in the midterm elections.

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a 14-day restraining order preventing construction of the proposed 250-foot monument near Arlington National Cemetery, shortly after the National Capital Planning Commission approved the project by an 8-4 vote on November 5.

The ruling halted preparations that the Trump administration had indicated could begin immediately following final federal approval. It followed legal challenges brought by the District of Columbia and Virginia, which argued that construction would cause substantial disruption and lacked the necessary congressional authorisation.

Chutkan, sitting in Washington, found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated an immediate risk of harm from construction activities, including traffic restrictions, emergency service disruptions and significant financial costs.

“The harm is certain,” the judge wrote in her 33-page opinion, citing the administration’s notification that work could commence on November 5 once the required approvals were secured.

The temporary order prohibits excavation, demolition, utility installation, road closures and other construction-related activities at Memorial Circle. It does not permanently cancel the project or settle the underlying dispute over its legality.

The decision came after the planning commission spent several hours hearing objections from veterans, preservationists, residents and elected representatives. More than 120 people registered to address the commission, with many questioning the monument’s scale, location and justification.

Despite those objections, the commission approved the proposal, clearing an important administrative hurdle for an initiative that Trump has made central to his plans for reshaping the capital.

The president wants the arch to commemorate the United States’ 250th anniversary. Standing approximately 250 feet tall, it would exceed the height of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris and occupy a prominent position near Arlington Memorial Bridge.

The administration maintains that the monument would celebrate American history while enhancing the appearance of the capital. Officials have also advanced national security arguments supporting its construction.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth described the proposed structure as a potential military asset capable of accommodating surveillance equipment and counter-drone technology.

Administration filings suggested that the arch could provide elevated positions for monitoring aerial threats and supporting protective operations around important federal installations.

Chutkan examined those arguments but questioned whether the government had established sufficient legal authority to proceed. The administration has relied partly on legislation governing Arlington Memorial Bridge, while opponents contend that the Commemorative Works Act requires specific congressional approval.

The judge also scrutinised the timing of the administration’s security justification, which emerged during the litigation after the project had initially been presented primarily as a commemorative monument.

Virginia and Washington authorities warned that prolonged construction would disrupt a heavily used transport corridor connecting the capital with Arlington and neighbouring communities.

Government assessments indicated that building the arch could require extensive lane closures, traffic diversions and excavation over approximately two to three years.

Chutkan accepted that those disruptions could impose substantial costs on local authorities responsible for managing roads, emergency responses and public safety.

The dispute has acquired additional political significance following the November 3 congressional elections, which gave Democrats control of both the House of Representatives and Senate.

The change in congressional leadership, effective in January, could complicate efforts to obtain legislative authorisation should the courts determine that such approval is indispensable.

Trump has sought to advance several architectural projects during his second presidency, arguing that major construction initiatives can leave a lasting contribution to Washington’s landscape.

Opponents maintain that federal monuments must comply with established preservation requirements and undergo appropriate scrutiny regardless of presidential preferences.

The proposed site has generated particular objections because of its proximity to Arlington National Cemetery, where generations of military personnel and prominent public figures are buried.

Preservation advocates argue that a monument of such dimensions could alter historic views connecting the cemetery, Arlington Memorial Bridge and the Lincoln Memorial.

The administration disputes suggestions that the structure would diminish the significance of surrounding memorials, maintaining that its design would honour military service and national heritage.

Separate litigation brought by veterans and an architectural historian also challenges the project’s legality. Chutkan has deferred consideration of their preliminary injunction request while the temporary restrictions remain operative.

The court required the government to notify contractors of the restrictions and submit a compliance report by November 9. The plaintiffs were directed to provide a nominal one-dollar security bond, with the temporary order preserving existing conditions while further proceedings continue.

Adityanath alleges mass Hindu voter omissions in Uttar Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has alleged that 1.27 crore Hindu voters are missing from the state's electoral rolls, while Muslim enrolment has increased, escalating a dispute over voter registration ahead of next year's Assembly elections.

Adityanath said the Bharatiya Janata Party had submitted a memorandum to the Election Commission seeking the inclusion of eligible voters allegedly omitted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). He claimed the number of Muslim electors had risen by 1.65 per cent after the exercise, although publicly available electoral data do not independently establish either community-wise figure.

Speaking at a public discussion in Ayodhya, the chief minister challenged Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav to demand that the revision be withdrawn. He argued that Yadav would avoid doing so because, according to his calculations, Muslim voter numbers had increased despite the overall contraction of the electorate.

Adityanath said discrepancies had emerged when electoral rolls maintained for Assembly elections were compared with those used for panchayat polls. He questioned why people appearing on local election lists were absent from the Election Commission's rolls and called for their eligibility to be examined.

The chief minister identified 66 lakh people allegedly listed for panchayat elections but absent from Assembly rolls. He also cited 55 lakh Hindu beneficiaries of government welfare schemes and approximately 4.5 lakh people aged 18 or 19 whose names, he said, were missing. The categories and their relationship to the overall estimate have not been independently verified.

His intervention has sharpened an unusual political confrontation. The BJP has defended the SIR as necessary to clean up voter lists, while its chief minister is simultaneously questioning omissions arising from the exercise. Opposition parties have criticised the revision over the possibility that eligible electors could lose their voting rights.

Adityanath maintained that removing ineligible entries was legitimate, including those belonging to deceased people. He cited approximately 46 lakh deceased electors and called for the exclusion of foreign infiltrators, while insisting that every qualified citizen should be able to register. Those figures and allegations were presented as his claims rather than findings independently established by election authorities.

Yadav has questioned how the chief minister obtained a religious breakdown of voter registrations when the Election Commission has not published comparable religion-wise totals. The Samajwadi Party leader has also challenged the basis of the alleged exclusions, demanding greater transparency about the data underpinning Adityanath's assertions.

Samajwadi Party spokesperson Udaiveer Singh said the chief minister should seek action against election officials if he believed the revision had been mishandled. Singh questioned why Adityanath did not support moves against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and called for scrutiny of officials responsible for the exercise in Uttar Pradesh.

The Election Commission's aggregate figures confirm a substantial reduction in the state's registered electorate. Uttar Pradesh had approximately 15.44 crore voters before the revision began on 27 October 2025. The final rolls published on 10 April 2026 recorded 13,39,84,792 electors, a net decline of roughly 2.04 crore.

The final total included 84.28 lakh additions during the claims and objections process. However, the overall figures cannot establish whether the people removed were predominantly from any religious community, nor whether particular names were omitted improperly. Determining eligibility requires examination of individual records rather than comparisons based solely on population or community estimates.

A separate discrepancy has emerged between Assembly and local-government voter lists. Uttar Pradesh's Chief Electoral Officer has directed district election officers to reconcile Assembly records with panchayat and urban local body rolls following a difference of nearly 2.4 crore between the panchayat electorate and the rural Assembly voter count.

The lists serve different elections and are maintained through separate administrative processes, making reconciliation important before treating every unmatched entry as an excluded eligible voter. The comparison is particularly significant as the state prepares for Assembly elections in 2027 and local electoral arrangements remain under scrutiny.

Yadav has separately proposed linking Aadhaar identification with voting, introducing metal voter identity cards and using fingerprints or iris scans to strengthen identity checks. He argued that such measures would help prevent fraudulent voting, although the proposals have not been adopted as changes to the electoral system.

Chief Electoral Officer Navdeep Rinwa has indicated that he will address questions about the revision on 17 November, after publication of the draft roll under the Special Summary Revision process.

BJP challenges Sonia Gandhi over Ayodhya demolition remarks

The Bharatiya Janata Party renewed its criticism of Sonia Gandhi on Tuesday, questioning her response to the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid and accusing Congress of overlooking other episodes of violence during its years in power.

BJP spokesperson C R Kesavan, writing on X as Gandhi's memoir reached bookshops, alleged that Belonging: A Journey of Love sought to soften the record of the Nehru-Gandhi family and the Congress. He suggested the book should instead have been called Whitewashing, an accusation reflecting the party's wider challenge to Gandhi's account of political events.

Kesavan asked whether Gandhi had expressed comparable grief over the anti-Sikh violence of 1984, the deaths of security personnel and the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. His questions followed her recollection that she cried while watching the demolition of the Ayodhya mosque on television on 6 December 1992.

The BJP spokesperson also criticised Gandhi's treatment of the Emergency imposed by former prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1975. He accused her of attempting to justify restrictions on constitutional rights, although Gandhi had described the decision to impose the Emergency as a mistake in an interview accompanying the book's publication.

Gandhi, chairperson of the Congress Parliamentary Party, said the mosque's destruction had convinced her that preserving the secular republic envisaged by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru would require a prolonged political struggle. She also acknowledged that complacency within Congress had contributed to the BJP's rise.

Her comments appeared in an interview published ahead of the memoir's release on 10 November. The book, published by HarperCollins, revisits her family life and experiences of political violence alongside her assessment of the country's changing political landscape.

Kesavan's intervention extended criticism voiced on Saturday by BJP Rajya Sabha member Sudhanshu Trivedi, who argued that Gandhi's emotional recollection demonstrated Congress's sympathy for the Mughal emperor Babur. Trivedi said the party had moved away from Mahatma Gandhi's idea of Ram Rajya towards what he called Babar Raj.

That characterisation was Trivedi's political allegation, rather than an admission or stated position of Congress. Gandhi's remarks concerned the destruction of a mosque and its implications for secularism, not an endorsement of the Mughal ruler.

Trivedi also challenged the chronology of her account, asking which television channel she had watched on the day of the demolition. He questioned whether footage had been broadcast at the time Gandhi described, referring to news coverage and the political developments that followed the mosque's destruction.

The questions did not establish that Gandhi's recollection was false. Her interview did not identify a broadcaster or specify the hour at which she saw the images, leaving the precise circumstances of her viewing unspecified.

The BJP leader broadened his criticism by invoking the 2008 Batla House police encounter and Gandhi's expressions of concern about Gaza. He accused Congress of selective sympathy and contrasted her position with the political symbolism used by her late husband, Rajiv Gandhi, during the 1989 election campaign.

Other BJP figures challenged Gandhi's discussion of Congress's historical record. Spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari accused her of seeking to rehabilitate Indira Gandhi's Emergency, while party leader Tarun Chugh questioned whether the memoir adequately addressed controversies associated with earlier Congress governments.

Gandhi's own account presented a different assessment. She said Indira Gandhi had been uncomfortable with the Emergency and maintained that Rajiv Gandhi had opposed its imposition. Those recollections did not alter the established fact that the Emergency suspended civil liberties and was imposed under Indira Gandhi's government.

The Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindu activists mobilised around the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. The destruction triggered communal violence and became central to a long-running dispute over the Ayodhya site.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the disputed land should be allotted for construction of a Ram temple and directed that an alternative five-acre plot be provided for a mosque. The court also described the demolition as an egregious violation of the rule of law.

The political exchanges have also focused on how leaders remember separate tragedies. Kesavan cited the 1984 killings and Mumbai attacks as tests of consistency, but did not provide evidence that Gandhi had never previously mourned those victims in public.

HarperCollins announced that Gandhi's memoir would become available in bookshops on Tuesday morning, placing the publication at the centre of the renewed exchange between the governing BJP and the opposition Congress.

NCP reunion claim draws denials from party leaders

Maharashtra minister Sanjay Shirsat's assertion that the two Nationalist Congress Party factions are nearing a merger has met with denials from party leaders, leaving the prospect of reunification uncertain despite a series of meetings involving Sharad Pawar.

Shirsat, a leader of the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena, said on Sunday that political developments appeared to be in their final stages and the future responsibilities of prominent figures would soon become clear. His comments followed visits by leaders of the ruling NCP to the veteran politician.

On Monday, NCP spokesperson Umesh Patil challenged Shirsat's intervention, questioning why a Shiv Sena minister was commenting on another party's internal affairs. Patil said the two Shiv Sena factions should address their own differences before raising the possibility of an NCP reunion.

The ruling NCP has denied that merger negotiations are currently taking place. Leaders of the opposition NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) have likewise said the meetings attracting political attention were primarily concerned with Sharad Pawar's health rather than organisational arrangements.

Shirsat had told journalists in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar during Diwali that developments were already visible. He said the remaining question was which faction would merge into the other, suggesting that decisions about individual leaders' positions were approaching.

His assessment was not accompanied by an announcement from either NCP faction, a proposed agreement or a timetable endorsed by their leadership. No joint decision on the parties' names, organisational structure or political alliances has been made public.

The speculation intensified after Parth Pawar, NCP general secretary and son of the late Ajit Pawar, visited Sharad Pawar at his Silver Oak residence in south Mumbai on Saturday and Sunday. The visits followed the senior leader's discharge from hospital after treatment for a chest infection.

Parth's meetings drew attention because the two factions have remained politically separated since 2023. NCP representatives, however, described the encounters as family visits and rejected suggestions that their occurrence established an agreement to reunite.

NCP national working president Praful Patel also visited Sharad Pawar at Breach Candy Hospital. A video showing the politicians discussing another meeting after November 10 circulated widely, prompting further questions about whether negotiations might resume.

Patel said the hospital visit was intended to enquire about Sharad Pawar's wellbeing, not to conduct substantive political discussions. He explained that the reference to November 10 concerned his return to Mumbai from Gondia and a possible further visit to check on Pawar's health.

Sharad Pawar also met senior NCP (SP) figures, including Jayant Patil, Shashikant Shinde, Amol Kolhe, Anil Deshmukh and Jitendra Awhad. Kolhe and Awhad maintained that the gathering concerned the leader's health and did not involve negotiations over combining the parties.

Another intervention came from NCP Maharashtra president Sunil Tatkare, who said the factions would have reunited in February had Ajit Pawar survived. Tatkare's account acknowledged earlier discussions but did not establish that a new agreement was being negotiated or that an announcement was imminent.

Ajit Pawar, who led the ruling faction and served as Maharashtra's deputy chief minister, died in a plane crash in January. His widow, Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar, now leads the NCP, which remains a partner in the BJP-led Mahayuti government.

The political consequences of any reunion would depend partly on whether the combined organisation remained in the governing coalition. Sharad Pawar's NCP (SP) belongs to the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi alongside the Congress and Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena faction.

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut rejected the merger speculation on Monday and said Sharad Pawar should clarify his own position. Raut maintained that no proposal was on the table and argued against assuming the opposition leader would align with the BJP.

Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has said the NCP factions are separate parties entitled to make their own decisions. His position leaves any organisational change to their respective leaderships rather than the government's coalition partners.

Senior NCP figures also met Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Delhi without Sunetra Pawar attending.

The NCP divided in July 2023 when Ajit Pawar and supporting legislators joined the state government. The Election Commission subsequently recognised his faction as the NCP, with the clock election symbol, while Sharad Pawar's organisation adopted the NCP (SP) name.

Shirsat, meanwhile, said his Shiv Sena faction would welcome anyone seeking to join it when asked whether the rival Sena groups might also reunite.

Raut dismisses NDA entry for Sharad Pawar faction

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut on Sunday ruled out Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) joining the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance, as speculation intensified over a possible reunion of the two NCP factions.

“The NCP (SP) headed by Sharad Pawar won’t join the NDA,” Raut told reporters in Mumbai, drawing a distinction between discussions about organisational reunification and any decision to enter the ruling alliance.

His remarks followed meetings involving senior figures from the NCP led by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar and the veteran opposition leader. The contacts have prompted competing assessments of whether the parties could reunite after their split in 2023.

Maharashtra minister Sanjay Shirsat, a leader of the Shiv Sena allied with the BJP, said on Sunday that developments surrounding a possible merger appeared to be approaching their final stages. He cautioned, however, that the direction of any merger and the roles of individual leaders remained to be determined.

“I think the developments are in their final stages, and the roles of various people will soon be decided,” Shirsat said in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. His assessment was not accompanied by an announcement from either NCP faction confirming an agreement.

Parth Pawar, son of the late Ajit Pawar and a leader of the NCP, visited Sharad Pawar at his Silver Oak residence in south Mumbai on Saturday. The meeting followed the veteran politician’s discharge from hospital after treatment for a chest infection.

NCP working president Praful Patel had separately met Sharad Pawar at Breach Candy Hospital. A video circulating online showed the two discussing another meeting after November 10, although the exchange did not establish that a merger had been agreed.

Patel subsequently said he had discussed national and Maharashtra politics with Sharad Pawar during the hospital visit, rather than internal party matters. The explanation left unanswered questions about whether political negotiations were taking place through other channels.

NCP state president Sunil Tatkare added to the discussion by saying that reunification would have occurred in February had Ajit Pawar been alive. Ajit Pawar, whose breakaway faction joined the state’s ruling coalition in 2023, died in a plane crash in January this year.

Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said on Saturday that the decision on any merger belonged to the NCP leadership. Since the party was a constituent of the NDA, he expected it to consult its alliance partners before taking a decision.

Fadnavis also said neither faction had informed the BJP of merger discussions. His comments stopped short of endorsing or opposing reunification, underscoring the absence of any formally disclosed arrangement between the parties.

The issue carries immediate significance for Maharashtra’s political alignments. Sharad Pawar’s faction is associated with the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi, alongside Shiv Sena (UBT) and Congress, while the NCP headed by Sunetra Pawar participates in the BJP-led Mahayuti government.

Sharad Pawar had told party workers in September that his organisation would not merge with another party merely to obtain power. He urged those wishing to work with him to join his organisation and emphasised strengthening its independent structure.

Raut had also questioned the BJP’s position on a potential reunion, arguing that the party had benefited politically from the earlier NCP split. Those comments reflected opposition concerns about the implications of a merger, rather than evidence of a settled negotiating outcome.

The NCP leadership had also rejected suggestions of an internal rift after senior party figures met Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Delhi without Sunetra Pawar. The gathering, attended by Patel and Tatkare among others, had attracted attention because of the absence of the party president and her sons. Party representatives characterised the interaction as routine.

Separately on Sunday, Raut criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Fadnavis over their Diwali engagements with security personnel and farmers. He described the visits as one-day affairs and argued that symbolic appearances could not substitute for sustained government action.

Modi spent Diwali with Central Reserve Police Force personnel at a camp in Bastar, Chhattisgarh. Raut said such visits could not by themselves prevent cross-border incursions or attacks of the kind seen at Pulwama and Pahalgam.

Fadnavis visited farmers in Lohari Savanga village in Nagpur district during the festival weekend. Raut said drought-affected cultivators needed concrete assistance and more regular engagement from the state government, rather than attention confined to a festive occasion.

Sonia Gandhi defers Congress dynasty questions to party

Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi has declined to explain why her family continues to dominate the party's leadership, directing questions about its political influence to the Congress organisation itself.

Asked in an interview published on Saturday why Congress could not move beyond the Gandhi family, she replied: “You would have to ask the party.” Her response left unanswered a question that has accompanied the opposition party through successive electoral defeats and leadership changes.

Gandhi also rejected the suggestion that family connections alone determined political standing, without directly addressing allegations of nepotism. “We all fight elections: we win them, we lose them. All of us have,” she said, pointing to electoral participation rather than explaining how leadership positions are decided.

The exchanges came during an unusually extensive interview at her Delhi residence ahead of the publication of her memoir, Belonging: A Journey of Love. Her daughter Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, a Congress parliamentarian, attended the conversation. Gandhi discussed her political career, the assassinations of former prime ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, and her assessment of the country's political direction.

Congress is formally headed by Mallikarjun Kharge, who became party president in 2022, ending the Gandhi family's direct occupancy of that office. Nevertheless, Sonia Gandhi remains chairperson of its parliamentary party, Rahul Gandhi serves as leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra is a member of Parliament.

Their positions illustrate the distinction between holding the party presidency and exercising political influence within its wider organisation. Critics, particularly within the Bharatiya Janata Party, have long accused Congress of relying on inherited prominence. Congress leaders have defended the family's role by emphasising political experience, party support and electoral accountability.

Gandhi did not announce any change to the party's leadership arrangements or indicate that her children intended to withdraw from politics. Asked whether a Congress associated with her family could still challenge the BJP, she maintained that it could, although she offered no detailed organisational prescription in the interview.

The party's electoral difficulties have sharpened scrutiny of its leadership. Congress lost national power in 2014 and failed to dislodge Prime Minister Narendra Modi's BJP in subsequent general elections. Its position as the principal national opposition force has nevertheless kept its senior figures central to parliamentary debates and opposition coordination.

Gandhi acknowledged that Congress had made mistakes contributing to the BJP's political ascent. “I think we have been too complacent in many ways,” she said, describing a past attitude of insufficient urgency. Her admission contrasted with her refusal to engage substantively with questions about the family's continuing prominence.

She was sharply critical of Modi's government, accusing it of undermining democratic institutions and limiting the opposition's ability to participate meaningfully in parliamentary proceedings. Those allegations reflected her political assessment; the government and BJP have consistently contested opposition claims that democratic institutions are being systematically weakened.

Gandhi also described an atmosphere of fear surrounding political criticism. She expressed encouragement at demonstrations by younger people, saying they were challenging government decisions and conduct. She did not suggest that the protests were organised by Congress or that their participants had endorsed the party.

The interview coincided with preparations for the release of her memoir, which recounts her entry into the Nehru-Gandhi family and her reluctant involvement in politics. Gandhi said she had never sought political office for personal ambition and recalled declining the prime ministership after Congress's 2004 election victory.

Discussing the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi in 1975, she called the decision a mistake and said Rajiv Gandhi had opposed it. The Emergency remains a contentious part of Congress's record because of the suspension of civil liberties, restrictions on the press and detention of political opponents.

Gandhi also spoke about difficulties surrounding the publication of her book. She said an initial publishing arrangement had faltered over concerns about criticism of the government. Penguin Random House India disputed her account, denying that it had decided against publication because she refused editorial changes.

Now less involved in Congress's daily management, Gandhi said she continued to receive political updates from her daughter and attended occasional meetings. She described their continued involvement as especially important under current political circumstances. She also welcomed Rahul and Priyanka's participation in opposition politics, despite having earlier wished to shield them from the dangers she associated with public life.

Racist protesters interrupt Seattle Diwali festival celebrations

A Diwali celebration in Seattle was disrupted by two far-right activists displaying racist and anti-Hindu placards on Saturday, prompting condemnation from a US congresswoman and civil rights organisations.

Jake Lang and Thomas Allen entered the Seattle Center Armory on November 7 while families attended Diwali: Lights of India, a free cultural festival featuring music, dance and community activities. Footage circulated online showed the men carrying American flags and placards near a stage during a performance. Attendees confronted them, and they were subsequently escorted from the venue.

One placard declared “Deport All Dot Heads”, using a racial slur directed at South Asians. Another read “Stop Hindu Replacement of Christians”, invoking a conspiracy narrative portraying religious minorities as a demographic threat. The messages targeted a gathering intended to celebrate cultural traditions and religious diversity.

Democratic congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, whose district includes Seattle, condemned the incident on Sunday. “I am beyond disgusted by this vile and racist display,” she wrote on X. “Diwali is an important holiday and our community should feel safe to celebrate it. This hateful display has no place in our city or this country.”

The Washington chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations also denounced the disruption, describing it as racist, xenophobic and anti-Hindu. Its statement highlighted the use of explicit racial slurs and claims about religious replacement, placing the confrontation within concerns about intimidation at public cultural gatherings.

The Indian American Muslim Council identified Lang and Allen as the activists involved and called for stronger protection at forthcoming community events. Its president, Mohammed Jawad, said families celebrating Diwali deserved peace and safety. He described the incident as racist intimidation directed at a religious community and urged public officials to respond.

The council asked the Seattle Police Department and Seattle Center to ensure security at future religious and cultural programmes. The request followed the activists' reported threats to disrupt additional celebrations over the weekend. Those threats were cited by the organisation; no independent confirmation of any subsequent disruption was available.

There was no confirmed announcement of criminal charges arising from Saturday's confrontation. The available accounts also did not establish whether police made arrests at the festival. The distinction matters because being removed from a public event does not itself establish that a criminal offence occurred.

Community advocate Ajay Jain Bhutoria criticised the protest on social media, describing the targeting of Hindu Americans and immigrants through racial slurs as unacceptable. His comments reflected concern that an occasion centred on families and cultural exchange had become the setting for a confrontation over identity and immigration.

The festival was organised by Northwest SHARE in partnership with Seattle Center Festál, the city's programme of free cultural festivals. It was scheduled from noon until 6pm at the Armory Food and Event Hall, with admission open to the public. Organisers had promoted it as a family-friendly celebration of Diwali traditions through performances, visual arts and participatory activities.

Seattle Center’s published schedule listed a youth classical violin ensemble at noon, followed by several dance schools and cultural groups throughout the afternoon. The performances were complemented by activities upstairs, including galleries and workshops showcasing traditional decorative art.

The programme included Bharatanatyam, Kuchipudi and Kathak dance, traditional Kerala percussion, classical violin and Hindustani music. Visitors could also attend art workshops, watch a roti-making demonstration and view a flower mandala. A vegetarian meal was offered to attendees, while displays explored cultural practices associated with the festival.

Seattle Center described Diwali as celebrating the triumph of light over darkness and knowledge over ignorance. The programme was designed to introduce audiences to a range of artistic traditions, rather than serve exclusively as a religious observance. Its public setting brought together performers, volunteers, families and visitors from different backgrounds.

The event took place on the eve of Diwali itself, which fell on Sunday this year. The festival is observed by Hindus and also holds significance for Jains, Sikhs and some Buddhists, although their traditions and interpretations differ. Its Seattle celebration formed part of a broader calendar of community events hosted at the civic venue.

The Metropolitan King County Council issued a recognition dated November 7 honouring the festival and encouraging residents to appreciate the traditions and contributions of South Asian communities. The document carried the names of all nine council members and acknowledged the event's cultural role within the county.

Congress challenges Modi over Diwali Naxal remarks

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of using a Diwali visit to security personnel in Chhattisgarh to attack political opponents, objecting to his description of ideological adversaries as “Dimagi Naxals”.

Ramesh, the Congress general secretary in charge of communications, said on Sunday that the Prime Minister's comments in Bastar breached institutional norms and turned an occasion intended to honour security forces into a political confrontation. His criticism followed Modi's warning that ideological supporters of Maoism remained active despite the government's declared success against armed insurgency.

“The Prime Minister has not spared the nation even on Diwali day his trademark abuse,” Ramesh wrote on X. “He has once again spoken of what he calls dimagi naxals.” He characterised the remarks as “a brazen assault on all institutional norms”, arguing that the Prime Minister was using allegations of extremism against people who disagreed with his policies.

Modi made the comments while addressing personnel at the CoBRA Operations Base in Karanpur, Bastar, where he celebrated Diwali on November 8. The facility has served as a training and operational base for counterinsurgency missions in Bastar and Abujhmad.

The Prime Minister said armed Maoists had been driven from forest areas but warned that the danger had not entirely disappeared. He alleged that people he termed “Dimagi Naxals”, or ideological Naxals, had entered political parties and other organisations and were encouraging opposition to constitutional and democratic institutions. He called for such elements to be identified and defeated.

The allegations were political claims rather than findings against any named party or organisation. Modi did not identify particular individuals in the remarks highlighted by Ramesh, and the Congress leader challenged the wider practice of associating government critics with Maoist extremism.

Ramesh cited two earlier political disputes to support his argument. He referred to Modi's criticism of advocates of a caste census during the 2024 general election campaign, when the Prime Minister used the expression “urban Naxals”. Ramesh contrasted that position with the government's announcement in April 2025 that caste enumeration would form part of the next national census.

The Congress leader also pointed to the protests against three agricultural laws enacted in 2020. He alleged that Modi had associated opponents of the legislation with Naxal ideology, before the government announced the repeal of the laws in November 2021 following prolonged demonstrations by farmers.

Those policy reversals, Ramesh suggested, undermined the use of ideological labels against critics. He described Modi as “distraught, disturbed and desperate” and added a personal political jibe about the Prime Minister's future. His intervention was directed principally at the language of the Bastar address rather than at the security forces' operational achievements.

Modi, meanwhile, presented the visit as recognition of personnel who had spent years confronting Maoist violence. He said the 2026 festival marked the first Diwali when every district was free of Naxalism, describing the outcome as a national achievement attributable substantially to the sacrifices of security personnel.

That sweeping assessment reflected the government's position on the insurgency. It did not remove the distinction Modi himself drew between the claimed defeat of armed groups and what he described as a continuing ideological threat. His speech combined praise for counterinsurgency operations with criticism of earlier administrations, which he accused of limiting the freedom of security forces to act.

He said his government had empowered personnel to make operational decisions and had worked to disrupt the support networks sustaining Maoist violence. The address also referred to efforts to improve conditions in areas affected by the insurgency and to draw local communities towards government programmes.

The Bastar event brought together personnel from forces involved in internal security operations. Modi acknowledged the contributions of the Central Reserve Police Force, its CoBRA commandos, the Border Security Force, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, state police units and specialised local formations.

The dispute also exposed contrasting interpretations of the occasion. For the government, the visit celebrated the conclusion of a security campaign. For Congress, the objection concerned the Prime Minister’s decision to introduce accusations about political organisations while addressing personnel during Diwali.

He also extended Diwali greetings to personnel deployed along the country's borders, saying those serving away from their families were part of his own extended family. The Prime Minister's Office described the Karanpur base as a launch point for operations in Bastar and Abujhmad.

Sonia Gandhi acknowledges Emergency mistake and Indira's regrets

Congress leader Sonia Gandhi has described the 1975 Emergency as a mistake, saying she believes former prime minister Indira Gandhi eventually recognised that imposing it had been wrong.

Her assessment, made ahead of the November 10 publication of her memoir, Belonging: A Journey of Love, offers an unusually direct acknowledgement of the decision that remains one of the most contentious episodes in the Congress party's history.

Gandhi, the Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson, also disclosed divisions within the family over the decision. Her husband Rajiv Gandhi opposed the Emergency and urged his mother to await elections, while his younger brother Sanjay supported tougher action against political opponents.

In her memoir, Sonia Gandhi writes that keeping Sanjay under control could have prevented much of the damage that followed. Her account places particular emphasis on the competing advice Indira Gandhi received from family members and senior Congress colleagues.

Speaking about her mother-in-law's thinking, Sonia Gandhi said she believed Indira Gandhi was fundamentally committed to democracy, despite taking a decision that sharply restricted political freedoms.

“I always feel that Mrs Gandhi was a democrat at heart,” she said, adding that she believed the Emergency weighed heavily on the former prime minister.

Sonia Gandhi's comments distinguish between her assessment of Indira Gandhi's intentions and the consequences of her government's actions. She did not dispute that fundamental democratic protections were curtailed during the period.

In a separate interview published on Saturday, she acknowledged restrictions on democratic rights and the suspension of habeas corpus, the legal safeguard allowing detainees to challenge unlawful imprisonment. She maintained that the Emergency had been imposed through constitutional procedures.

That distinction does not erase the consequences of the proclamation. Opposition politicians were imprisoned, press censorship was enforced and civil liberties were severely restricted during the 21-month period. The measures remain central to criticism of Indira Gandhi's administration.

Sonia Gandhi said she had not fully understood the gravity of events while they were unfolding. Only after the Emergency ended, she explained, did she appreciate the extent of the restrictions and their impact.

She also described Indira Gandhi as struggling with the political unrest preceding the proclamation, including violent demonstrations, attacks on public property and calls for officials and security personnel to defy government instructions.

Her account nevertheless acknowledges that circumstances did not make the decision correct. She said hindsight had helped place the period in perspective and maintained that Indira Gandhi eventually took steps to address what had happened.

Sonia Gandhi pointed to her mother-in-law's subsequent expression of regret and apology for excesses committed under the Emergency. She also cited the decision to call parliamentary elections in 1977 as evidence that Indira Gandhi had recognised the need to restore normal democratic politics.

Asked whether Sanjay Gandhi alone was responsible for the excesses, Sonia Gandhi rejected that interpretation. She said several senior colleagues had pressed Indira Gandhi, while relatively few people close to her, including Rajiv, offered a contrary view.

The family disagreement, she recalled, was serious. Rajiv challenged his mother's course, but she did not accept his advice. Sanjay, by contrast, argued that political opponents had to be stopped before they could bring down her government.

The Emergency was proclaimed on June 25, 1975, under President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, acting on the advice of Indira Gandhi's government. It ended on March 21, 1977, following elections in which Congress suffered a decisive defeat.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has repeatedly invoked the Emergency in its criticism of Congress. The government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi designated June 25 as Samvidhan Hatya Diwas, or Constitution Murder Day, to commemorate the curtailment of democratic freedoms.

Sonia Gandhi's remarks arrive as her memoir prepares to reach readers, providing her account of events she witnessed within the family during years of political upheaval. The book also addresses her subsequent involvement in public life after the deaths of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi.

The memoir is being published more than five decades after the proclamation, when the debate over accountability for the Emergency continues to shape exchanges between Congress and its political opponents. Sonia Gandhi has presented her recollections as a family witness.

Indira Gandhi announced elections in January 1977, ending the period of rule without a parliamentary contest. She and Sanjay subsequently lost their parliamentary seats, while the opposition Janata Party formed the government under Morarji Desai.

Rahul Gandhi challenges Centre over Karnataka ethanol findings

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi accused the Centre on Saturday of allowing excessive ethanol blending in petrol, citing Karnataka laboratory findings that oil marketing companies have rejected as unreliable.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha alleged that 11 of 14 fuel samples tested from seven districts contained more than 20 per cent ethanol, exceeding the level associated with the government's E20 programme. He demanded an explanation from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and action against companies found breaching fuel specifications.

“E20 turned into 420 – stealing petrol from the public's cars!” Gandhi wrote on X, invoking the number associated with cheating under the former penal code. His accusation followed Karnataka's disclosure of test results that have triggered a dispute over sampling procedures, laboratory methods and the composition of petrol sold at filling stations.

Gandhi cited ethanol concentrations of 31.2 per cent in a sample associated with Indian Oil Corporation and 30.5 per cent in one associated with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. He also named Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Nayara Energy and Shell among suppliers whose samples, he alleged, exceeded the specified proportion.

The allegations remain contested. Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum issued a joint rebuttal, maintaining that their E20 petrol complies with Bureau of Indian Standards requirements. They challenged the state's testing process and said the evidence supplied was insufficient to validate its conclusions.

The companies said tests on 56 Karnataka samples showed ethanol content between 19 and 20 per cent. They sought full laboratory documentation, information identifying the retail outlets and access to retained samples so that testing could be repeated jointly under agreed procedures.

The disagreement leaves two competing sets of findings before consumers, without a publicly established reconciliation of the measurements. A laboratory result showing excessive blending would raise questions about compliance, but the disputed Karnataka figures do not by themselves establish that petrol across the country contains more ethanol than permitted.

Karnataka Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Minister Rizwan Arshad said the state had commissioned independent examination after laboratories associated with fuel companies failed to provide the ethanol percentages sought by officials. He identified the Shriram Research Institute, an accredited testing facility, as the laboratory involved in the state's investigation.

The broader Karnataka exercise involved 63 samples collected across seven districts. Gandhi highlighted a subset of 14 results in his intervention, rather than the entire exercise. The districts covered Bengaluru, Bengaluru Rural, Kolar, Chikkaballapura, Ramanagara, Tumakuru and the Mangaluru area.

Arshad has argued that consumers deserve accurate information about what they purchase and that excess ethanol could affect vehicles, including models designed for E20 fuel. He has called for accountability if violations are established and raised the question of compensation for motorists facing demonstrable losses.

Gandhi similarly questioned whether motorists were paying petrol prices while receiving fuel with a greater ethanol share than advertised. He alleged that excessive blending could reduce mileage, affect vehicle performance and increase maintenance expenditure, particularly where vehicle components were not designed for higher concentrations.

He asked why filling stations did not clearly display ethanol percentages and accused fuel companies' own laboratories of failing to disclose the information. He challenged Modi to explain the actual blending levels and said the issue could be included in his proposed public debate with the prime minister.

The Centre has defended ethanol blending as a means of reducing crude oil imports and supporting domestic agricultural production. Its E20 initiative targets a blend of approximately one fifth ethanol, although the precise compliance question depends on applicable fuel specifications and validated testing methods.

The oil companies said their petrol meets the relevant national standard and objected to tests conducted without their representatives or corresponding retention samples. They maintained that laboratory certificates cited by Karnataka lacked details needed to assess how ethanol content was determined.

The dispute also concerns how the measurements should be interpreted. Karnataka officials have presented their results as evidence of fuel sold above the stated blending level, while the suppliers insist that properly collected and tested samples demonstrate compliance. Neither side has announced an agreed independent retest resolving the contradictory figures publicly available so far.

Arshad said on Saturday that he would provide a detailed response to the companies' objections on Monday. The disagreement has therefore moved beyond the initial measurements to the documentation and procedures required for independently checking them.

Siddaramaiah misses Gandhi gathering as Karnataka leaders attend

Former Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah stayed away from Rahul Gandhi’s Diwali gathering in New Delhi on Friday, while Chief Minister DK Shivakumar and Congress leader BK Hariprasad attended, drawing attention to differences within the state party organisation.

Siddaramaiah, a member of the Congress Working Committee, had received a personal invitation but cited previously scheduled engagements for his absence. He was expected in Hassan for a programme connected with the Hasanamba temple festival. No evidence has emerged establishing that his decision was a protest against Gandhi or the state leadership.

The absence nevertheless attracted scrutiny because Siddaramaiah had met Gandhi earlier in the week amid controversy over an alleged sting operation involving the former chief minister. Questions about the investigation and competing political allegations have added to pressure on Congress leaders in Karnataka.

Siddaramaiah’s son, legislative council member Yathindra Siddaramaiah, said his father had explained his position on the controversy to Gandhi. Speaking in Mysuru, Yathindra expressed confidence that the authorities would act against anyone found responsible and that the matter would be resolved through lawful procedures.

“We are waiting patiently. I have faith in the govt and trust that action will be initiated against whoever is responsible,” Yathindra said. He added that the case would reach a logical conclusion in accordance with the law.

Union minister HD Kumaraswamy has made allegations concerning the chief minister’s involvement in the sting operation controversy. Those allegations remain disputed, and they do not establish wrongdoing by any of the people named. The status of the investigation offers no confirmed basis for linking Siddaramaiah’s absence to dissatisfaction with Gandhi.

Shivakumar, meanwhile, publicly emphasised organisational unity after attending the gathering at Gandhi’s residence on Sunehri Bagh Road. He said the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha wanted Congress workers who had remained committed to the organisation to help make it stronger.

“He wants all the workers and cadres who have worked for the party, stayed with the party and remained loyal to it to help it grow stronger and better,” Shivakumar said. He described the occasion as a celebration of unity, peace and togetherness rather than a forum for resolving Karnataka’s internal disputes.

Shivakumar also defended Gandhi’s campaign concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. He said the issue went beyond an individual leader and concerned the rights of voters and the protection of democratic institutions. His remarks reflected the national leadership’s effort to sustain its electoral campaign while bringing senior party figures together for Diwali.

Hariprasad shared photographs from the gathering and said he had exchanged festive greetings with Gandhi and Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. He also described conversations with party representatives from different states about political developments. Neither his comments nor Shivakumar’s public remarks established that Siddaramaiah’s absence was discussed at the event.

The gathering brought together senior office-bearers, Congress Working Committee members and former chief ministers. Sonia Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh, Sachin Pilot, Kumari Selja and Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu were among those attending. Former chief ministers Ashok Gehlot, Bhupesh Baghel and Bhupinder Singh Hooda also participated.

Participants offered differing descriptions of the political content of their conversations. Some characterised the occasion primarily as an opportunity to exchange greetings and reconnect with colleagues, while others referred to discussions about electoral issues and the party’s organisational priorities. No formal decision concerning Karnataka was announced at the gathering.

The meeting took place as Congress leaders continued to challenge the electoral roll revision exercise and press their allegations of irregularities. Gandhi has sought a public debate with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the issue, while party figures have discussed maintaining their campaign across states facing assembly elections.

Shivakumar separately declined to give an immediate position on proposals concerning the linking of voter identification with beneficiary schemes. He said the subject required discussions within the Karnataka government before he could offer a detailed response.

The event was organised as an informal festive meeting rather than a scheduled policy conference. Gandhi greeted leaders individually, and attendees described conversations across state delegations, underscoring the breadth of participation without establishing any agreement on Karnataka.

Siddaramaiah’s scheduled Hassan visit coincided with the Hasanamba festival, whose temple celebrations began on October 29 and are scheduled to continue until November 11. His stated prior commitment was made known before Friday’s gathering took place.

Surat textile trader distributes lakh-plus Diwali cash bonuses

A Surat textile trader has given more than ₹1 lakh each to 20 employees ahead of Diwali, presenting the cash on ceremonial trays in a distribution that left several workers visibly emotional.

Ramswaroop Munde, who operates Mahadev Cloth Centre at Sudama Chowk in the Varachha area of Gujarat's Surat city, handed out the festive payments with members of his family present. The bonuses amounted to more than ₹20 lakh altogether, based on the number of recipients and the minimum amount given to each.

Footage circulating widely on social media shows bundles of crisp currency notes arranged on silver-coloured puja plates before being passed to employees. One woman breaks down in tears during the presentation, while other recipients appear surprised by the size and manner of the gifts.

The notes included denominations of ₹10, ₹20, ₹50, ₹100, ₹200 and ₹500. Rather than distributing envelopes or transferring the money electronically, Munde chose to display the cash on decorated trays, turning the bonus distribution into a ceremony attended by his family and staff.

Munde said his decision reflected both the contribution of his employees to the business and his understanding of the financial pressures associated with festivals. He described growing up in poverty and experiencing the difficulties that families can face when trying to meet household needs and festive expenses.

He said he regarded those working at his establishment as members of his extended family rather than simply employees. Their efforts and commitment throughout the year, he explained, had contributed to the growth of the textile business, and he wanted them to share directly in its success.

The trader said the purpose of the payments was to ensure that workers could purchase what their families needed for Diwali without facing the same financial constraints that he had experienced earlier in life. He also indicated that the cost of the distribution had not deterred him from making the payments.

The workforce receiving the gifts was described as comprising 20 women. Munde also linked the presentation to the Rajasthani custom of mamera, under which a maternal uncle traditionally gives money or gifts to female relatives. He said he had chosen to extend a comparable gesture to his employees.

The ceremonial setting was therefore part of the message he wanted to convey. The decorated plates and the presence of family members distinguished the distribution from a conventional workplace bonus, although the money itself remained the principal benefit for recipients.

A recording of the occasion shows the notes being counted and arranged before distribution. Employees stand together as the money is handed over, and some respond with visible emotion. The footage does not establish how individual recipients subsequently used their payments.

Munde's wife also participated in handing out the cash. The employees' reactions, including tears and gestures of gratitude, have attracted considerable attention as clips of the presentation have spread across social media platforms since Saturday.

The businessman has spent several years in the textile trade. His explanation for the bonuses centred on the relationship with his staff and the practical value of giving money directly, rather than selecting gifts that might not meet individual household requirements.

The exact amount received by each employee beyond the stated threshold of ₹1 lakh has not been specified publicly. Nor has a detailed breakdown of the total expenditure or the basis for calculating individual bonuses been made available. The reported aggregate therefore represents a minimum, not an independently established final figure.

The payments were presented as festive gifts to staff, rather than as part of an announced company-wide compensation policy. No information has been disclosed about whether similar cash distributions took place in previous years or are planned for future festivals.

The widely circulated footage captures the distribution itself, but does not provide payroll records or other documentation of the payments. Munde has publicly explained his reasons for making the gifts, while the employees shown receiving them have not been identified individually in the available accounts of the ceremony.

The video has also drawn attention to the traditional puja plates used in the presentation. Bundles of different denominations were stacked across the trays, which were carried forward as each employee approached to receive the money.

The ceremony took place ahead of Sunday's Diwali celebrations, with family members standing alongside the trader during the distribution at his Surat business.

Congress donations above Rs 20,000 shrink by 75%

NEW DELHI: The Congress received Rs 130.7 crore in donations exceeding Rs 20,000 during 2025-26, a fall of nearly 75% from Rs 517.4 crore in the preceding financial year, its latest contribution disclosures show.

The figures submitted to the Election Commission also reveal a sharp contraction in funding from Prudent Electoral Trust, previously the party's largest contributor through the electoral trust system. Prudent donated Rs 25 crore in 2025-26, compared with approximately Rs 216 crore in 2024-25.

Its share of the Congress's declared contributions consequently fell to about 19%, against 41.8% a year earlier. The trust accounted for roughly Rs 191 crore of the overall Rs 386.7 crore reduction in donations above the statutory reporting threshold.

The decline places the Congress's disclosed contributions at their lowest level in three financial years. The party had reported approximately Rs 281.5 crore in such donations during 2023-24, meaning the latest figure is also about 53% below that earlier total.

The comparison is significant because contributions rose sharply in 2024-25, the financial year encompassing the 2024 Lok Sabha election. That year's reported receipts were about 84% higher than in 2023-24. The subsequent fall therefore reflects both the unusually high preceding base and a substantial reduction below the earlier level.

Prudent was the only electoral trust identified as routing contributions to the Congress in the 2025-26 disclosure. Electoral trusts collect donations, primarily from companies, and distribute them to political parties under a regulated framework. Their reported disbursements offer one measure of institutional political funding, although they do not capture every source of party income. The disclosure also does not establish how much the trust collected from its corporate donors during 2025-26 or their identities.

The Congress's filings identify several other sizeable contributors. Star Cement Ltd donated Rs 5 crore, while Sajjan Bhajanka contributed Rs 4 crore. Afnan Constructions gave Rs 3 crore and Prem Kumar Bhajanka Rs 2 crore. IPSUM Proadvisors and SMS Builders each contributed Rs 1 crore.

Large payments represented a substantial share of the reported total. Nine contributions of at least Rs 1 crore amounted to Rs 43 crore, approximately one-third of all donations declared above Rs 20,000. The figures underline the importance of a relatively small group of donors within the party's disclosed receipts.

At the other end of the distribution, 1,321 contributions of Rs 5 lakh or less added up to Rs 37.2 crore, or about 28.5% of the total. Across 1,735 contribution entries, the median donation was Rs 3 lakh, substantially below the average, reflecting the influence of larger payments on the aggregate.

The report covers individual contributions exceeding Rs 20,000 and should not be treated as a comprehensive statement of the party's finances. Political parties also receive money through other permitted channels, and their annual audited accounts provide a wider picture of income and expenditure.

The Congress's audited financial statement for 2025-26 was not available alongside the contribution figures. Consequently, the reported reduction cannot by itself establish an equivalent decline in the party's overall income, cash resources or election expenditure during the financial year.

For comparison, the party's 2024-25 accounts included more than Rs 350 crore collected through the issue and sale of coupons. Such receipts are distinct from the donations listed in the contribution report, making it necessary to distinguish the narrower disclosure from total funding.

The lower declared donations came during a financial year that included the Bihar assembly election and preparations for assembly polls in Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Puducherry in April 2026. The figures do not explain whether donor preferences, election cycles or other factors drove the reduction.

Annual contribution statements are intended to disclose the identity and amounts of donors whose individual payments exceed Rs 20,000. The threshold means smaller donations do not necessarily appear in the published list, while the number of entries need not equal the number of distinct contributors.

Earlier figures compiled from party disclosures showed Prudent had supplied approximately Rs 216.3 crore to the Congress in 2024-25. The corresponding share of 41.8% made it a particularly important source of the party's declared contributions that year.

The latest filing records Rs 25 crore from the same trust, equivalent to roughly 11.5% of its previous contribution to the party. The remaining listed donations were received from companies and individual contributors outside the electoral trust route.