Loading…
Just in:
Loading latest syndicated reports…

Top stories

Updated continuously

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.

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.

Fadnavis and Shinde visit hospitalised Sharad Pawar

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde visited Sharad Pawar at Mumbai's Breach Candy Hospital on Friday, November 6, as political leaders crossed party lines to enquire about the opposition veteran's health.

Fadnavis also telephoned Pawar's daughter, Baramati MP Supriya Sule, to seek an update on his condition and treatment. The 85-year-old Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) president had been receiving treatment for a chest and respiratory infection.

Pawar was discharged from hospital on Saturday after doctors reported an improvement in his condition. His treating physician, Dr Pratit Samdani, said he was stable and would continue treatment at home, with additional precautions appropriate to his age.

The discharge followed several days of medical observation in Mumbai. Pawar had initially been admitted to Ruby Hall Clinic in Pune on November 2, before leaving on November 4 and entering Breach Candy Hospital the same day for further care.

Shinde, who met Pawar on Friday, told journalists that the veteran politician was recovering well and that doctors had found his medical parameters satisfactory. He said there was no cause for alarm and indicated that discharge could take place the following day, an expectation subsequently fulfilled.

The deputy chief minister said his conversation with Pawar extended beyond medical matters. Despite being under treatment, Pawar had asked about drought conditions and water shortages affecting parts of Maharashtra, particularly Satara, an area with which both politicians have longstanding family connections.

Shinde said Pawar remained concerned about farmers and the difficulties facing drought-affected communities. He described the former Union agriculture minister as attentive to developments outside the hospital even while recovering from illness.

Shinde rejected suggestions that the meeting carried a political message. He said he had called on Pawar as a senior leader with whom he maintained personal relations beyond party differences. The visit, he emphasised, was intended to enquire about his health rather than discuss political alignments.

Shinde leads the Shiv Sena faction that is part of Maharashtra's governing Mahayuti coalition, while Pawar heads an opposition party. Their encounter attracted attention because the state's principal political formations have remained divided by successive party splits and shifting alliances.

The chief minister's telephone conversation with Sule provided another instance of contact between political rivals during Pawar's hospitalisation. Sule, who represents Baramati in the Lok Sabha, has been closely involved in her father's political organisation and was among the family members attending to him during treatment.

Other senior figures also visited Pawar during his stay. Nationalist Congress Party working president Praful Patel met him on Thursday, despite belonging to a different political formation from the one led by Pawar. Patel said their families maintained close ties and insisted that the hospital was not an appropriate setting for political negotiations.

Congress leaders Sushilkumar Shinde and Balasaheb Thorat, along with NCP leader Dilip Walse-Patil, visited on Friday night. Industrialist Gautam Adani also called at the hospital, reflecting the range of visitors who sought information about Pawar's recovery.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke to Pawar by telephone during his illness and advised him to rest before resuming his engagements. The calls and visits took place while the veteran leader remained under medical supervision, rather than at a formal political gathering.

Pawar's hospitalisation had interrupted his public schedule, including engagements connected with conditions in drought-hit areas. His questions to Shinde about water scarcity underscored the immediate local issues that remained on his mind during their meeting.

The NCP factions have been separate since the party's 2023 split, which placed leaders now associated with the governing alliance on the opposite side of the political divide from Pawar and Sule. Patel's visit nevertheless reflected personal connections maintained across that division.

Shinde was accompanied during his hospital call by Shiv Sena Rajya Sabha member Milind Deora and Maharashtra Legislative Council Deputy Chairperson Sachin Ahir. He also sought information from the doctors responsible for Pawar's care.

The physician said the bronchitis episode and accompanying chest infection were improving, although treatment would continue after discharge. He said Pawar had responded to the prescribed care and was following medical advice. The hospital did not announce a date for his return to public engagements.

Following his discharge on Saturday, Pawar returned to his residence near Breach Candy Hospital. Doctors advised him to continue medication and observe precautions while recovering from the infection.

Pralay missile completes flight trial off Odisha coast

The Defence Research and Development Organisation successfully flight-tested its Pralay quasi-ballistic missile off Odisha on Thursday, November 5, bringing the domestically developed weapon closer to induction into military service.

The missile was launched from Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Island at approximately 11.10 am as part of user evaluation trials, the Ministry of Defence said. Data recorded by instruments deployed by the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur confirmed that all stipulated test objectives had been achieved.

The ministry said the outcome meant the missile's induction had become imminent, although it did not announce a commissioning date, identify the first operational unit or specify when deliveries would begin. The distinction is significant because a successful evaluation does not, by itself, establish that a weapon has entered operational service.

Senior officials from DRDO, representatives of defence manufacturers and personnel from the armed forces attended the trial. Their participation reflected the test's focus on assessing the missile for prospective military use rather than solely demonstrating a developmental capability.

Pralay is a surface-to-surface missile intended to deliver conventional warheads against targets at relatively short ranges. Its reported engagement range extends from approximately 150 to 500 kilometres, allowing planners to consider it for missions against selected ground targets without relying on aircraft to deliver the payload.

The quasi-ballistic designation refers to a flight profile that differs from the comparatively predictable arc of a conventional ballistic missile. Pralay is designed to follow a lower trajectory and manoeuvre during flight, features intended to complicate interception. Those design characteristics do not establish how the system would perform against any particular air defence network in combat.

The missile uses solid propellant and guidance technology intended to support precision strikes. Published descriptions indicate that it can accommodate different conventional payload configurations. The ministry's statement on Thursday, however, did not disclose the payload carried during this flight, its precise distance, the designated target or the measured accuracy achieved.

Research Centre Imarat in Hyderabad led the missile's indigenous development alongside other DRDO laboratories, according to the ministry. Bharat Dynamics Limited, identified as one of the programme's development-cum-production partners, manufactured the system used in the trial.

That division of responsibilities places the research organisation and the production partner at different stages of the programme. The research laboratories have developed the missile technology, while the manufacturing partner is involved in translating the design into hardware suitable for evaluation and eventual supply.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh congratulated DRDO, the armed forces and industry partners after the launch. He said the technologies incorporated in Pralay would strengthen the military's technical capabilities and operational preparedness in responding to emerging threats.

Singh also said the evaluation had met its stipulated objectives, citing the measurements collected by the range instruments. He described the test as a milestone for the country's domestic defence capabilities, while the ministry linked its success directly to the anticipated induction of the weapon.

The latest flight follows earlier tests undertaken to assess the missile across its intended operating envelope. Those evaluations have included launches at different ranges, providing a basis for examining performance under varying mission conditions. Thursday's announcement did not say whether additional user trials would be required before formal acceptance.

User evaluation is an important stage because the services must assess whether a system satisfies operational requirements, beyond the technical performance demonstrated during development. Acceptance, training, maintenance arrangements and deployment decisions are separate matters, and the ministry provided no detailed timetable for those steps.

The test was conducted at a coastal range that supports missile launches and tracking activities. Instruments operated through the Chandipur facility collected the flight data used to assess the trial, although the ministry did not publish a technical breakdown of the measurements or identify the individual evaluation parameters.

The announcement did not specify whether the missile was fired from a mobile launcher or describe the conditions under which the weapon was evaluated. It also gave no figures for flight duration or terminal speed, limiting what can be inferred about the performance demonstrated during the exercise.

Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh, who also serves as Secretary of the Department of Defence Research and Development and chairman of DRDO, congratulated the teams associated with the launch. The ministry's statement identified the participating organisations but did not provide a list of individual scientists or production personnel involved in the exercise.

Rahul Gandhi alleges electoral manipulation through welfare identification

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Friday accused the Narendra Modi government of seeking to manipulate elections and restrict citizens’ rights by linking welfare benefits to voter identification, drawing a rebuttal from Union minister Rajiv Ranjan Singh.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha alleged that the proposed identification arrangement, combined with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, could deprive people of both voting rights and access to government assistance. He characterised the initiative as an attempt to retain power indefinitely, an allegation the government has not accepted.

Gandhi’s intervention followed statements by Singh, also known as Lalan Singh, suggesting that voter identity numbers and biometric verification would replace Aadhaar as the basis for identifying beneficiaries and processing certain payments.

Posting a video of the minister’s remarks on X, Gandhi questioned whether the proposed change could eventually affect food rations, pensions, employment guarantees, housing assistance and scholarships. He argued that eligibility for essential public services should not depend on an individual’s presence on electoral rolls.

“This isn't just vote theft; it's rights theft,” Gandhi said, warning that the consequences could extend beyond elections. He alleged that names were being removed from voter lists through the SIR process and claimed that people opposed to the Bharatiya Janata Party were particularly vulnerable.

Those allegations have not been independently established. Electoral roll revision is administered by the Election Commission, and removal from a voter list does not, by itself, establish that an individual has become ineligible for welfare assistance.

Singh rejected Gandhi’s interpretation, accusing the Congress leader of distorting facts. He said the government was seeking to ensure that benefits reached legitimate recipients directly, without intermediaries exploiting the system.

Clarifying the proposal, Singh said the Pradhan Mantri Viksit Gram Swaraj Yojana was intended to provide training and guidance to eligible panchayat representatives and people associated with local government institutions. Their identities, he explained, would be verified through Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) numbers alongside Aadhaar-based biometric authentication.

That clarification narrowed the apparent scope of his earlier comments, which had suggested a broader replacement of Aadhaar for beneficiary payments. It also indicated that Aadhaar authentication would continue to play a role rather than disappear altogether.

At a national workshop on the People’s Plan Campaign 2026–27 on October 30, Singh had questioned the reliability of Aadhaar as the principal identification document for payments. He argued that Aadhaar enrolment facilities were widely available and claimed that cards could be obtained with little difficulty.

He said beneficiary payments would instead be processed using biometric information and voter identity numbers. His remarks did not identify every scheme potentially affected, specify an implementation date or establish that an across-the-board policy change had entered into force.

The distinction matters because the Ministry of Panchayati Raj does not directly administer many of the principal cash-transfer programmes cited in the political dispute. Separate ministries oversee schemes covering agricultural support, housing and social security, while Aadhaar-based identification remains embedded in numerous payment arrangements.

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh had raised objections on Thursday, asking whether Singh’s statements represented official government policy. He warned that making electoral registration relevant to welfare eligibility could compound existing difficulties faced by people unable to complete identity verification.

Ramesh also questioned whether the SIR exercise might exclude additional beneficiaries if voter records became a prerequisite for assistance. His remarks preceded Gandhi’s intervention and reflected the opposition party’s wider criticism of electoral roll revisions.

The controversy centres on the difference between an identity document used to verify an individual and a legal entitlement to receive a benefit. An EPIC number identifies a registered elector, whereas Aadhaar is used across numerous government services, including arrangements that can cover people who are not eligible to vote.

Children and other people outside the electorate may qualify for particular welfare programmes. Consequently, any proposal to make electoral registration a universal eligibility requirement would raise questions requiring explicit government clarification. No such universal requirement has been formally demonstrated by Singh’s remarks.

The Election Commission’s SIR exercise involves checking and updating electoral rolls, a process that has generated disputes over documentation, inclusion and potential wrongful deletion. The Commission maintains responsibility for electoral registration, while eligibility rules for welfare programmes are determined under their respective legal and administrative frameworks. The minister's clarification was issued in a video statement on Friday.

Rahul Gandhi presses Modi for electoral rolls debate

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Friday renewed his demand for an open debate with Prime Minister Narendra Modi over electoral roll revisions, urging Home Minister Amit Shah to persuade the Prime Minister to accept his challenge.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha accused Shah of sending conflicting signals about whether Parliament could discuss the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists. Gandhi circulated a video juxtaposing statements made by the Home Minister in December 2025 and at a political rally on Thursday.

Addressing Shah in a Hindi post on X, Gandhi asked him not to confuse Modi but to convince him to participate in a debate. He offered to appear on any platform at any time and ended his message with an appeal not to be afraid.

The exchange followed Shah's speech in Karnal, Haryana, on November 5, when he challenged Gandhi to discuss the electoral roll exercise in Parliament. Shah said the government was prepared to convene a special parliamentary session if the opposition wanted a substantive discussion of its objections.

Shah argued that Parliament was the appropriate forum for such disagreements and accused Congress of disrupting proceedings instead of engaging with the government. His remarks came during a BJP campaign event that also criticised opposition protests over the revision process.

Gandhi's video contrasted that invitation with Shah's intervention in Parliament on December 10, 2025. During that exchange, Shah had argued that the revision fell within the jurisdiction of the Election Commission, an independent constitutional institution, and that Parliament could not debate its work in the manner demanded by the opposition.

Gandhi presented the two statements as evidence of inconsistency. The comparison, however, does not by itself establish that the government has changed its position on the Election Commission's constitutional independence. Shah's latest offer concerned a parliamentary discussion of the political dispute, while his earlier remarks addressed the commission's authority over electoral administration.

The disagreement has become part of a wider confrontation between Congress and the BJP over the integrity of electoral rolls. Congress has questioned the conduct and consequences of the intensive revision, alleging that eligible voters risk being excluded. The BJP has rejected the opposition's accusations and defended the need to scrutinise voter lists.

The Election Commission is responsible for maintaining electoral rolls and determining the procedures used to verify entries. The SIR process involves checking voter details and identifying entries requiring correction or removal, subject to applicable procedures. Disputes over the exercise have centred on safeguards for eligible voters and the handling of contested entries.

Gandhi has repeatedly challenged Modi to face him publicly, extending the confrontation beyond the technical questions surrounding voter registration. Earlier in the week, he also demanded a debate over accusations concerning foreign influence and the political loyalties of the opposition.

On Wednesday, Gandhi suggested holding the exchange on NDTV and said he would allow the Prime Minister to choose both the venue and the moderator. He made an extraordinary allegation that he could establish within five minutes that Modi had acted against the country's interests. That accusation remains Gandhi's political claim, not an established finding.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has backed calls for the Prime Minister to answer questions about alleged electoral malpractice. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh also responded to Friday's challenge, saying Modi could use a teleprompter during any debate.

BJP leaders have dismissed Gandhi's invitations as political theatre. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has argued that the opposition leader already has a platform for questioning the government in Parliament and should discharge the responsibilities associated with his position.

The latest dispute also reflects different demands about the format of any exchange. Gandhi is seeking a direct, public encounter with Modi, whereas Shah has offered a discussion within Parliament, where debate is governed by parliamentary rules and the business agreed for a sitting.

Neither Gandhi's social media invitation nor Shah's rally speech amounted to a jointly agreed debate arrangement. A special parliamentary session would require formal steps, and no date or agenda for such a sitting was announced in the statements at issue.

Shah's Karnal address was delivered during the BJP's campaign under the banner of saving democracy and opposing anarchy. He criticised Congress for demonstrations and walkouts, while Gandhi's Friday intervention concentrated on the difference between Shah's two statements about discussing SIR.

Iran routes nuclear offer through Qatar with conditions

Iran has delivered a nuclear proposal to the United States through Qatar but will not discuss it until Washington fulfils seven demands, according to a senior Iranian official, underscoring the obstacles confronting efforts to end the war.

The official, speaking anonymously on Thursday, said Washington was examining the proposal but provided no details of its provisions. Neither the precise terms of the document nor an American response accepting Tehran's conditions has been made public. The proposal's precise enrichment limits and verification arrangements have not been disclosed.

Iranian security official Mohsen Rezaei separately reaffirmed Tehran's position during a visit to Russia, linking the resumption of negotiations to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial passage for international energy shipments.

Rezaei said Iran had communicated seven conditions to the Americans and would neither reopen the waterway nor negotiate until those requirements were implemented. His remarks indicated that Tehran was treating economic relief and security guarantees as prerequisites rather than matters to be settled during nuclear discussions.

The demands identified publicly include the removal of American sanctions, the release of frozen Iranian assets and compensation for damage caused by the war. Tehran has also sought an end to the American blockade of its ports and hostilities across the region. A complete, authoritative list of all seven conditions has not been publicly detailed.

Washington has maintained that Iran's nuclear activities must be addressed in the opening phase of any negotiations. That difference over sequencing remains a central barrier: Tehran wants concessions before formal talks, while the United States insists that nuclear restrictions cannot be deferred until after broader political or economic arrangements.

Qatar's involvement has become increasingly important as regional intermediaries seek a framework capable of bringing both governments back to the negotiating table. The Gulf state has been discussing proposals with Tehran and Washington, although the existence of a channel for exchanging documents does not establish that either government has accepted the other's terms.

Two regional government officials described discussions around a possible interim arrangement involving confidence-building steps over two days. Those ideas included easing the American blockade and releasing some frozen Iranian funds, alongside arrangements for international nuclear inspections and the Strait of Hormuz. The proposals remained under consideration rather than constituting an agreed settlement.

President Donald Trump said on Friday that Washington was communicating with Iran, while reiterating his administration's determination to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons. His remarks followed statements indicating that further American military action remained possible if diplomacy failed to produce an acceptable outcome.

The military confrontation continued to complicate those contacts. Trump said American forces carried out limited strikes on Friday against an Iranian air-defence installation near Qeshm Island, close to the Strait of Hormuz. The operation added to the pressure surrounding negotiations at a moment when intermediaries were attempting to narrow differences over a ceasefire and nuclear oversight.

Tehran has warned that renewed American attacks could provoke wider retaliation. Its insistence on prior concessions reflects a broader dispute over whether negotiations can proceed while military operations, economic restrictions and threats of further strikes remain in place.

The Strait of Hormuz is particularly sensitive because restrictions on shipping through the passage have disrupted energy markets and heightened concerns among Gulf producers and major importing economies. Iran's decision to connect access to the waterway with its diplomatic demands has therefore extended the dispute beyond nuclear policy to regional trade and maritime security.

The war began with American and Israeli attacks on Iran on 28 February, followed by Iranian strikes against Israel and Gulf states hosting American military facilities. Fighting subsequently involved Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, while the Iran-aligned Houthi movement in Yemen attacked infrastructure and other targets in Saudi Arabia.

International nuclear monitoring remains another unresolved issue. The International Atomic Energy Agency has identified an Iranian stockpile of 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 per cent purity, a level substantially above that used in civilian power generation. Questions over inspectors' access to damaged facilities are among the practical matters being discussed through intermediaries.

For Qatar, the immediate diplomatic task involves transmitting positions between governments that continue to disagree on the order of concessions, inspections and security measures. The exchanges have not yet produced an announced date for direct negotiations or a jointly endorsed text defining the terms of a ceasefire.

Trump faults voters for Wall Street market plunge

President Donald Trump blamed American voters for Thursday's stock market rout, arguing that Democratic victories in the midterm elections had triggered heavy losses across Wall Street.

The president delivered his criticism on Truth Social on Thursday evening, two days after Democrats captured control of both chambers of Congress. His remarks followed a sharp sell-off in technology shares that pushed the Nasdaq Composite down 5.52 per cent, its steepest daily decline in about 19 months.

“The Stock Market crashed today because the Dumocrats had a big Tuesday — So sad to see, you only have yourselves to blame!” Trump wrote, using a derogatory variation of the Democratic Party's name.

In a separate message, Trump described the decline as one of the market's worst days and linked it directly to the election results. He said Americans' retirement savings had suffered and insisted Republicans were not responsible.

“Your 401(k)s have, therefore, dropped. Remember, it wasn't Republicans, it was Dumocrats,” he wrote. Trump also predicted that markets would eventually recover, although he offered no evidence establishing that the election outcome alone caused Thursday's losses.

The Nasdaq Composite closed at 24,315.00, entering correction territory, defined as a fall of at least 10 per cent from a previous high. The broader S&P 500 dropped 4.36 per cent to 7,353.73, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 1,833 points, or 3.44 per cent, to finish at 51,523.06.

The S&P 500 recorded its biggest one-day decline since the market turbulence following Trump's sweeping tariff announcements in April 2025. Losses extended across all 11 sectors of the benchmark, although technology companies and businesses linked to artificial intelligence infrastructure suffered particularly heavy selling.

Investors were reassessing the outlook for artificial intelligence following Democratic gains in Congress and state governments. Several successful Democratic candidates had campaigned for stronger oversight of data centres, whose electricity consumption, water requirements and effects on local communities have become contentious political issues.

Democrats gained seven Senate seats and at least 39 House seats, alongside five governorships, in Tuesday's elections. Their incoming congressional majorities could subject major technology companies to closer scrutiny and complicate efforts to accelerate the construction of facilities supporting artificial intelligence.

Nevertheless, the scale of Thursday's retreat reflected more than a single political development. Questions about the enormous cost of building artificial intelligence systems, the pace of potential returns and the valuations assigned to technology shares had already unsettled investors before the elections.

Chipmakers bore the brunt of the selling. Nvidia shares declined approximately 9 per cent, while memory manufacturer SanDisk lost about 22 per cent. The Philadelphia semiconductor index fell roughly 12 per cent, one of its largest daily declines on record.

Melissa Brown, global head of investment decision research at SimCorp, said investors appeared to be recognising that some newly elected lawmakers and governors wanted to slow artificial intelligence infrastructure development. That prospect added a regulatory dimension to existing concerns about spending and profitability.

The downturn also represented a reversal of Wednesday's market rally, when shares advanced as election results became clear. The Dow rose more than 1,000 points during that session, while the Nasdaq and S&P 500 also gained ground.

Trump had welcomed that earlier advance, highlighting stock market records and gains in Americans' retirement accounts. His contrasting statements underscored the political significance he attaches to share prices, which he has repeatedly presented as evidence of his administration's economic performance.

The president's explanation did not distinguish between investors' concerns about future regulation and the broader pressures affecting financial markets. Elevated borrowing costs and uncertainty surrounding corporate spending on artificial intelligence have also influenced trading, while the war involving Iran has added pressure through higher energy prices.

The market's reaction also highlighted uncertainty about how quickly the incoming Democratic majorities could translate campaign commitments into legislation, particularly where proposed restrictions would affect investment decisions already made by technology companies.

Market volatility spread beyond the United States on Thursday. European shares weakened, and Asian markets faced pressure as investors reduced exposure to technology companies. The dollar was little changed, while oil prices rose and bitcoin declined.

The Nasdaq's losses left it more than 10 per cent below its October peak. Despite Thursday's fall, the S&P 500, Dow and Nasdaq remained higher than at the beginning of the year, illustrating the difference between the severe daily reversal and their performance over 2026.

CJP schedules Kochi demonstration against electoral roll revision

The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) has announced a protest in Kochi on November 7 against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, demanding cancellation of the exercise and removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The demonstration, named “Jantar Mantar at Kochi”, will begin at Rajendra Maidan at 4 pm on Saturday. The organisation announced the programme on Thursday through its official account on social media platform X, inviting supporters to participate under the slogan “Save Democracy! Cancel SIR!”

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke is scheduled to attend alongside national secretary Aafreen Nawaz and Vijay Mallangi, who oversees the organisation’s activities in the southern region. The announcement signals an expansion of its campaign beyond Delhi, where earlier attempts to organise demonstrations encountered police intervention.

The organisation has accused the Election Commission of pursuing an electoral roll revision process that could undermine voting rights. Its campaign also seeks Kumar’s removal, reflecting broader objections to the commission’s handling of voter registration and electoral administration.

The Kochi programme will be the organisation’s first major announced demonstration since its leaders were detained in Delhi during October. The decision to organise the gathering in Kerala follows a confrontation over restrictions on demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, traditionally associated with political protests in the national capital.

On October 13, Delhi Police detained Dipke and fellow CJP leaders Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das as they attempted to organise a demonstration against Kumar and the electoral revision exercise. Police maintained that the organisers lacked the necessary permission to hold the gathering.

The confrontation subsequently intensified after authorities withdrew Jantar Mantar’s designation as a protest venue. Das and Ranka entered the restricted location and displayed the national flag while opposing the decision. Both were arrested and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.

They were released on October 21 after proceedings before a Special Executive Magistrate, having undertaken not to organise further demonstrations at Jantar Mantar while the restrictions remained applicable.

The Delhi developments have shaped the organisation’s decision to shift its campaign to another city. By adopting the name “Jantar Mantar at Kochi”, the CJP has linked Saturday’s proposed gathering with its earlier confrontation over access to public protest spaces.

The dispute has also involved police investigations arising from the October demonstrations. Das and Ranka appeared before the Delhi Crime Branch on Thursday after receiving summons connected with the Jantar Mantar trespassing case. Their appearance coincided with the announcement of the Kochi programme.

The CJP has continued to challenge the Election Commission’s approach to electoral roll verification, arguing that the exercise could exclude eligible citizens. However, the organisation has not established that the revision itself has resulted in systematic disenfranchisement. Its objections remain allegations requiring examination against official electoral records and applicable procedures.

The Special Intensive Revision involves scrutiny of electoral registers to identify eligible voters, correct inaccuracies and remove entries that do not meet statutory requirements. The Election Commission maintains that electoral roll revision is necessary to preserve the accuracy and integrity of voter lists.

The distinction between electoral verification and exclusion has become central to the controversy. Critics have questioned whether documentation requirements and verification procedures could disadvantage people who face difficulties establishing their eligibility. The commission’s stated objective is to ensure that electoral registers contain accurate particulars of eligible voters.

Kerala’s electoral administration has meanwhile moved towards the annual Special Summary Revision following completion of the intensive exercise. The Election Commission has scheduled publication of draft electoral rolls for November 12, followed by a period for submitting claims and objections until December 11.

Kerala Chief Electoral Officer Sajith Babu has outlined arrangements allowing registered political parties to examine draft electoral registers and submit objections through their booth-level agents. Electoral officials are also expected to conduct hearings and field verification where necessary to resolve discrepancies.

The timetable provides for disposal of claims and objections by December 28, with publication of the final electoral rolls scheduled for January 4, 2027. These procedures form part of the commission’s established mechanism for correcting electoral records before their finalisation.

The CJP has circulated campaign material calling for Kumar’s removal alongside its demand to cancel SIR. Its Kochi announcement identifies Rajendra Maidan as the principal gathering point, while accompanying publicity also refers to Marine Drive.

The organisation has not announced any confirmed attendance figures for Saturday’s programme. Its publicity identifies Dipke, Mallangi and Nawaz as participating leaders and invites members of the public to join the demonstration at the specified venue and time.

Congress seeks clarity on voter ID welfare proposal

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh has challenged the Narendra Modi government to clarify whether voter identification cards will replace Aadhaar for identifying welfare beneficiaries, warning that the proposed change could deprive vulnerable people of essential benefits.

The controversy erupted on Thursday after Union Panchayati Raj Minister Rajiv Ranjan Singh, popularly known as Lalan Singh, indicated that electoral photo identity cards and biometric authentication would become the basis for identifying beneficiaries under government welfare programmes.

Ramesh, who oversees Congress communications, questioned whether the minister's statements represented an approved government decision or merely a proposal. He said Singh had publicly discussed replacing Aadhaar on two occasions without explaining the implications for existing beneficiaries.

"Is this now official Modi Govt policy?" Ramesh asked in a post on social media platform X on November 5.

The Congress leader warned that linking welfare eligibility to electoral identification could compound existing problems of exclusion, particularly while the Election Commission conducts its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

"Making SIR the basis will end up excluding even more people on a massive scale," Ramesh said.

His intervention followed statements by Singh concerning changes to beneficiary verification. The minister indicated that Aadhaar would cease to be the primary identification document for certain welfare payments, with beneficiaries instead required to provide their Electors' Photo Identity Card (EPIC) numbers alongside biometric verification.

Singh had raised questions about the reliability of Aadhaar identification, arguing that widespread enrolment facilities made it comparatively easy to obtain Aadhaar documents. His remarks suggested that electoral identification, supported by biometric checks, could provide an alternative mechanism for verifying beneficiaries.

However, the government has not publicly clarified which welfare schemes would be affected, whether the proposed requirements would apply across ministries, or when any changes might take effect.

No formal nationwide decision replacing Aadhaar with voter identification for welfare delivery had been established by Thursday. The distinction between a ministerial announcement and an enforceable policy remains central to the dispute.

Ramesh argued that abandoning Aadhaar as the principal identification mechanism for welfare beneficiaries would represent a departure from the purpose for which the system was originally developed.

"If indeed it is, then it means that Aadhaar will not be used for the primary purpose for which it was conceived and intended," he said.

He also acknowledged longstanding concerns about Aadhaar-based authentication, alleging that failures and administrative difficulties had already prevented substantial numbers of eligible people from receiving welfare assistance.

"There have been legitimate concerns that the way Aadhaar has been used lakhs have been denied access to social welfare and security schemes," Ramesh said.

The Congress leader did not provide fresh figures establishing the scale of exclusions attributable to Aadhaar authentication. His warning concerning electoral identification similarly represents an assessment of possible consequences rather than evidence that beneficiaries have already lost entitlements under a new system.

The proposed approach raises a significant distinction between the purposes of the two identification systems. Aadhaar provides a unique identity number to residents, while EPIC documents are issued to registered electors.

Consequently, possession of an electoral identity card is not equivalent to eligibility for welfare assistance. Children, people who have not registered to vote and certain other residents may lack EPIC documents despite qualifying for government programmes.

Whether alternative identification arrangements would remain available has not been explained.

Ramesh connected his objections to the ongoing political confrontation over the Election Commission's electoral roll revision exercise. Congress has questioned aspects of the SIR process and expressed concern about the potential exclusion of eligible voters.

The Election Commission's exercise concerns verification of electoral registration. It does not, by itself, establish eligibility conditions for social welfare programmes.

Ramesh nevertheless suggested that using electoral registration as a prerequisite for welfare identification could extend the consequences of disputed voter list revisions beyond participation in elections.

"Vote Chori is just the trailer. The full picture is haq-huqooq Chori," he said, invoking allegations of electoral manipulation and the possible deprivation of citizens' rights and entitlements.

The Ministry of Panchayati Raj does not directly administer several major welfare programmes involving payments to individual beneficiaries. These include schemes overseen by other ministries, making the administrative reach of Singh's proposal particularly important.

Aadhaar identification currently operates within a statutory framework governing targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services. Any wider replacement would therefore require clarification of applicable legal provisions and administrative procedures.

Singh had outlined the proposed identification changes during discussions surrounding panchayati raj programmes, including the People's Plan Campaign for 2026-27.

Vijay Sinha calls Rahul Gandhi intoxicated at BJP march

Bihar Agriculture Minister Vijay Kumar Sinha has accused Congress leader Rahul Gandhi of being mentally disturbed and intoxicated, escalating the confrontation between the BJP and the Opposition over allegations of electoral malpractice and threats to democracy.

Sinha made the remarks on Thursday during a BJP-organised march in Gaya, where leaders of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) gathered to challenge the Opposition's campaign against the government and constitutional institutions.

The minister described Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, as a “nashedi”, a Hindi expression meaning someone addicted to intoxicants. He also questioned Gandhi's mental condition, alleging that his political statements demonstrated a disregard for constitutional responsibilities.

Sinha claimed that nobody could make such statements without being under the influence of intoxicants. His remarks were personal allegations rather than claims supported by publicly presented medical evidence.

The comments came during the BJP's “Save Democracy, Remove Anarchy” march, which began at Gandhi Maidan in Gaya and proceeded towards Tower Chowk. Leaders and workers from NDA constituent parties participated in the demonstration, raising slogans against the Congress and other Opposition parties.

Sinha accused Gandhi of undermining constitutional institutions and disrespecting the democratic mandate. He alleged that the Congress leader was attempting to destabilise an elected government through political agitation.

The minister also questioned whether Congress lacked leaders who respected the Constitution and the country's democratic institutions. He maintained that Gandhi's conduct was incompatible with the responsibilities attached to his parliamentary position.

His criticism extended beyond Gandhi to the Rashtriya Janata Dal, Left parties and political figures including Arvind Kejriwal. Sinha alleged that Opposition groups were attempting to encourage unrest through movements influenced by foreign interests.

No documentary evidence establishing foreign financing of the political activities cited by Sinha was presented alongside his allegations. The accusations therefore remain political claims rather than established findings.

The immediate confrontation followed disagreements over the Opposition's criticism of electoral procedures, particularly the revision of voter lists and allegations that eligible citizens had been deprived of voting rights.

Gandhi has accused the Election Commission of failing to protect electoral integrity and has demanded greater accountability over the handling of voter registrations. The BJP has rejected the Opposition's allegations and accused Congress leaders of undermining public confidence in democratic institutions.

The dispute intensified after Opposition supporters assembled in Delhi on November 1 to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Gandhi argued that protecting voting rights required accountability from the election authorities.

The Election Commission has maintained that electoral roll revisions are intended to identify duplicate and ineligible registrations while providing mechanisms for eligible voters to seek restoration of their names.

Against this background, the BJP organised demonstrations challenging the Opposition's accusations and defending the legitimacy of the electoral process.

Sinha's intervention followed another attack on Gandhi by BJP parliamentarian Sudhanshu Trivedi on Wednesday. Trivedi questioned Gandhi's political judgement while responding to comments concerning the government's commitment to combating drug abuse.

Trivedi argued that the Congress should examine whether Gandhi was capable of providing responsible political leadership. His criticism formed part of the BJP's broader response to Opposition allegations against Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government.

There was no independently confirmed formal Congress response specifically addressing Sinha's Thursday remarks at the time the controversy emerged. Nor was there confirmation that Gandhi had personally responded to the minister's description of him.

The distinction matters because the allegation concerning intoxication was directed at Gandhi personally, rather than at a particular government policy or parliamentary statement. No substantiated evidence of substance abuse accompanied the minister's comments.

Parallel BJP demonstrations were held in Darbhanga, where Union minister Bhupender Yadav participated in a march attended by senior NDA leaders.

BJP legislator Sanjay Saraogi and Janata Dal (United) leader Sanjay Jha accused Gandhi and RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav of spreading misinformation about the special intensive revision of electoral rolls.

Jha challenged the Opposition's claims concerning voter deletions, maintaining that its leaders had failed to identify affected voters during their political campaign in Darbhanga.

The Darbhanga procession began near the protest venue and concluded at Daru Bhatti Chowk. Local legislators, NDA representatives and party workers participated.

Darbhanga MP Gopal Ji Thakur was also among the political figures associated with the demonstration, which formed part of the BJP-led mobilisation against the Opposition's electoral allegations across Bihar.

Deepke challenges government to substantiate CJP funding allegations

Cockroach Janata Party founder Abhijeet Deepke has challenged the government to produce evidence supporting allegations that his organisation receives foreign funding, following accusations by Union Minister Jitendra Singh involving donors in the United States and Pakistan.

The dispute intensified after Singh alleged that Deepke received financial support from donors based in the United States, while another CJP leader, Ashutosh Ranka, received money from Pakistani political figures. The minister claimed that organisations operating inside and outside the country were supporting the movement through unauthorised channels.

Deepke responded on social media by questioning the funding of fellow activist Saurabh Das. His intervention followed growing scrutiny of how the CJP finances demonstrations, public meetings and organisational activities across several states. No independently established financial records substantiating the minister's specific accusations have been made public in the material available about the dispute.

Speaking to journalists in Bengaluru on Wednesday, Singh asserted that sufficient evidence existed to demonstrate financial connections between CJP figures and organisations he characterised as hostile to the country. He referred to non-governmental organisations, overseas donors and what he described as foreign influence operations, but the allegations remain contested.

The minister's assertions did not, by themselves, establish that the organisation had violated any funding law. Details of the alleged transactions, including amounts, dates, account holders and the identities of the purported donors, were not disclosed in the statements accompanying the controversy.

Deepke has previously rejected suggestions that the movement receives foreign financial assistance or functions as a proxy for another political party. He has described its activities as sustained by supporters, including citizens and professionals, rather than overseas sponsors or established political organisations.

During a July interview, Deepke said the CJP intended to operate as a political pressure group instead of contesting elections. He identified student grievances, unemployment, examination irregularities and economic insecurity as issues around which the organisation sought to mobilise supporters.

His latest response also revived questions about the position of Das, whose name has figured in public discussion of the movement. Deepke's question about Das's funding was not accompanied by documentary evidence establishing any improper payment to the activist. It therefore remains a question directed at the authorities rather than a substantiated allegation of wrongdoing.

Senior advocate Harish Salve had separately questioned how Deepke, Das and other figures associated with protest activity could finance their campaigns. Salve argued that organising demonstrations required resources and raised the possibility of external support. Deepke challenged him to provide any evidence to Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

American singer Mary Millben also alleged in October that donors in the United States opposed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi were financially supporting Deepke. She did not publicly identify the donors in the statement cited in the controversy, leaving the claim without the transaction-level information necessary to assess it.

The distinction between allegations of overseas sympathy and proof of unlawful foreign contributions is central to the dispute. A political movement may attract international attention without necessarily receiving overseas funds. Establishing a breach would require evidence of actual transfers and an assessment of the applicable legal provisions.

The CJP has organised demonstrations associated with student rights and education policy. Its founder addressed supporters at a June gathering in Amritsar, where participation was limited, and described the initiative as a youth movement rather than an electoral campaign. The organisation has also been associated with protests in Delhi.

Questions about expenditure have focused on the practical costs of transporting supporters, arranging venues, publicising events and maintaining operations. However, the scale of those costs cannot be reliably calculated without accounts, invoices or other records. Attendance at a protest, by itself, offers no reliable measure of its organisers' financial resources.

The movement's position on funding has not resolved demands for greater transparency. Equally, demands for disclosure do not establish that any individual named in the dispute received prohibited contributions. The competing assertions leave a clear distinction between the political controversy and findings that could emerge from a formal examination of financial records.

At the Amritsar demonstration in June, Deepke told supporters that the organisation was concerned primarily with students' rights and education-related grievances. He said its activities were intended to secure justice for students, underscoring the public agenda that the movement says its supporters are financing. He also indicated that further demonstrations were planned in Pune and Delhi.

CAIT confronts Rahul Gandhi over Delhi trade disruptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress assails Agnipath revision as government policy reversal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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