Thank you @Pawankhera ji Sir and @Charanssapra ji Sir I am humbled and honoured 🙏🏼 It's a great opportunity with a big responsibility. Sir I appreciate the trust you have placed in me and will definitely make you feel proud. Super enthusiastic to be a soldier of a Grand Old National party @INCIndia Congratulations to all other Coordinators .

Does it bother you @narendramodi @PMOIndia

राहुल गांधी ने भाषण में क्या बोला ? गुरदीप सिंह सपल ने बताया क्यों बोला? @RahulGandhi @gurdeepsappal

Don’t give her any time or attention, @iamharmeetK they don’t deserve this leave alone ur time. For them @RahulGandhi has always been a punching board. Whatever iota of respect the Godi media had left has been lost when they didn’t bother to cover the protests of the youth,or raise the issues on their sponsored platforms, only bcoz they are more interested in their pay cheques. If we ignore them, hopefully they will be irelevant soon. @navikakumar @republic @IndiaToday @aajtak @ThelogicalTI

90% of Iran’s oil reportedly goes to China. Chinese ships have crossed this illegally imposed American blockade repeatedly. Russian ships too. Yet not one Chinese or Russian vessel was attacked by the United States military. But Indian civilian crews were targeted. Indian sailors were left dead. Why? Because Washington knows it can get away with it when it comes to India. They know there will be no real consequences, no visible outrage, no strong retaliation — only carefully worded statements and diplomatic helplessness. And now the world heads to the G7 for another festival of photo-ops, rehearsed smiles and handshakes, while innocent Indian sailors lie dead. Ask yourself honestly, If European sailors had been killed, would the mood at the G7 remain this casual? Would world leaders still be laughing for cameras and talking about “shared values”? Most importantly — will PM Modi walk into the G7 carrying India’s anger and fury, or will he once again be busy hugging Donald Trump, smiling for pictures and making reels while Indian blood is ignored? The world takes cues from our leadership. If our own Prime Minister does not show visible outrage over dead Indian sailors, why would any other leader care? INDIAN LIVES MATTER. Not just during elections.Not just in speeches.Not just for hashtags.

The Indian National Congress announces the first phase of a nationwide campaign against paper leaks, exam irregularities, unemployment, and the systematic betrayal of India’s youth by the Modi government. Here is the statement by Congress General Secretary (Org.) Shri @kcvenugopalmp. 👇

7 मई 1999 की रात को नाटो (NATO) ने यूगोस्लाविया से युद्ध के दौरान राजधानी बेलग्रेड में चीन के दूतावास पर बम गिरा दिया था। इस हमले में 3 चीनी पत्रकार मारे गए थे और 20 से अधिक लोग घायल हुए थे। उस समय चीन और अमेरिका के बीच हनीमून चल रहा था लेकिन चीन की सरकार ने इसे तुरंत “जंगलीपन” और “संप्रभुता का गंभीर उल्लंघन” बताया। अमेरिका से औपचारिक माफी, जांच और दोषियों को सजा देने की मांग की। बीजिंग, चेंगदू और गुआंगज़ौ में लाखों लोग बड़े-बड़े विरोध प्रदर्शन में शामिल हुए। बीजिंग में अमेरिकी दूतावास के बाहर हजारों लोग उतर आए, कई जगहों पर तोड़फोड़ भी हुई। TIMES के रिपोर्टर ने वह भयावह मंजर रिपोर्ट किया था। अमेरिका ने तुरंत इसे “दुखद गलती” बताया, कहा – पुराने नक्शे और गलत सूचना के कारण यह हुआ। चीन ने इस स्पष्टीकरण को “बेबुनियाद और असंतोषजनक” करार दिया। कई चीनी आज भी इसे जानबूझकर किया गया हमला मानते हैं। अमेरिका ने मकानों को नुकसान के लिए 28 मिलियन डॉलर और मृतकों के परिवारों को 4.5 मिलियन डॉलर की मानवीय सहायता राशि दी। चीन ने अमेरिका से सेना, कूटनीति और व्यापार (WTO) वार्ता रोक दीं। इस घटना ने चीन-अमेरिका संबंधों को गहरा धक्का दिया। इस घटना के बाद चीन ने सर्बिया से अपने रिश्ते और मजबूत किए, और अमेरिका पर हमेशा के लिए भरोसा कम हो गया। तब चीन की अर्थव्यवस्था करीब कुल एक ट्रिलियन डॉलर थी।

Reposting the article where I try to explain: the phenomena of defections in cultural context, how Gandhian-Nehruvian idealism tried to change that servile elite into resistance movement and make a promise to marginalised that they will be within the ambit of governance. And how RSS has reversed that promised. ✍️ thewire.in/politics/baba-bha…

This is where Modi’s “my frand Donald Trump” friendship has gotten us. Our diplomacy is so wrecked the US has not shown even an iota of regret over the killing of our civilians 😢

A very harsh response from Rubio. Implicitly justifying the killing of Indian mariners. The US is not upholding peace and security in the Strait. Iran may not be innocent but It is the US that is the cause of disturbing peace and security there by its initial attacks on Iran. India has to tolerate the killing of its mariners because the US will not tolerate the violation of its unilateral blockade. Not even a pro forma regret at the killing of civilian unarmed nationals of a friendly country. Rubio has raised the ante. He has snubbed us.

Leaving aside the politics of @BJP4India and @INCIndia, the case of Meenakshi Natarajan represents a complete travesty of justice and fair play by the entire system, cutting across all pillars of democracy. ✅ The Returning Officer rejected her nomination in blatant violation of Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Section 210 & 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. ✅ On 11.06.2026, despite fervent pleas made by @DrAMSinghvi, @ECISVEEP sat on the judgment, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene even for a day till proper hearing. With no interim order by the Apex Court or the ECI, the Returning Officer declared the result! ✅ The matter was heard by the Supreme Court this forenoon. However, without examining the apparent illegality in the Returning Officer's order, the petition was dismissed in terms of the attached order on the ground that Article 329 bars judicial intervention after the declaration of results and that only an Election Petition can now be filed. ✅ While the fate of the case was effectively sealed when the Supreme Court declined to stay the declaration of the result, it was surprising to hear a legal luminary of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi's stature argue that the description of an entry in Form 26 overrides Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951!! ✅ Let me attempt to demonstrate why that contention is untenable. Form 26 was prescribed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which themselves derive their authority from the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Yet it was implicitly argued that Entry 5(ii) of Form 26 overrides Section 33A of the parent statute!! ✅ Moreover, even after Section 33A and Rule 4A were introduced in August–September 2002, @SpokespersonECI, through its letter dated 10.09.2012, categorically clarified that Entry 5(ii) covers only those cases in which cognizance has been taken by a competent court. That condition was clearly not applicable in the case of @MNatarajanINC. ✅ Appearing virtually from London, Mr. Rohatgi argument, that a candidate's right to contest elections is merely a statutory right and not afundamental right, may hold relevance in normal circumstances. However, this was no ordinary case. By adopting a perverse interpretation of Section 33A, the Returning Officer descended to the nadir of partisan conduct and effectively denied the candidate the equal protection of the law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, Section 210 read with 223 of BNSS makes it conclusively fall beyond the purview of Entry 5(ii) of Form 26. I would be happy to be corrected by anyone looking at facts and laws objectively. I am sure that @sardesairajdeep @_YogendraYadav @KapilSibal @adrspeaks @Mukul_Rohatgi @harishsalvee et al will appreciate that, by not intervening in time, #GyaneshKumar led ECI and the top court just let the case shift from Article 32 to Article 329 and the Returning Officer hide under it.

For those who, despite being informed of the unequivocal legal position and the facts of the case, persisted in claiming that cognizance had been taken against @MNatarajanINC before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally: 1️⃣ The very same court has now categorically held that no criminal case is pending against Ms. Meenakshi Natarajan. Further, it has observed that it lacked the jurisdiction to proceed in the matter in the first place. 2️⃣ Mr. Arvind Sharma, the Returning Officer, is also the Principal Secretary, @MPVidhanSabha. By virtue of his sheer experience, he should have known the rudimentary principles of law. 3️⃣ How bizarre is the operative portion of the order passed by the Returning Officer (copy attached)! He appears unable to distinguish between a mandatory notice issued under the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS - merely an opportunity of being heard to the person against whom a complaint has been made - and a summons issued after cognizance has been taken by a court. The picture of the notice itself expressly mentions Section 223, leaving little room for ambiguity. 4️⃣ Even more astonishing is the apparent inference that because Ms. Meenakshi Natarajan responded to the notice, she somehow admitted the complaint. A reply to a statutory notice is nothing more than an exercise of the right to be heard; it is neither an admission of allegations nor proof that cognizance has been taken. 5️⃣ The subsequent finding of the court itself, that no criminal case was pending against Ms. Natarajan and that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed, completely exposes the fallacy underlying the reasoning adopted while rejecting her nomination. 6️⃣ The order passed by Mr. Arvind Sharma is so manifestly perverse that one is tempted to infer that it may have been influenced by political pressure or perhaps by expectations of a post-retirement plum assignment. The reasoning is difficult to comprehend otherwise. One of my IAS colleagues remarked, only half in jest: "If even High Court judges have started joining political parties immediately after retirement, how can one blame a middle-level government officer for thinking about his future?" 😀 Whether one agrees with the quip or not, the episode underscores a larger concern: public confidence in institutional impartiality suffers whenever decisions appear to depart so starkly from settled law and established facts.

IMPORTANT: Dear Mr @N_RamchanderRao do read section 33 A of the Rep of People Act. Section 33A deals with disclosure of criminal antecedents by a candidate. Broadly, a candidate is required to disclose information where he or she is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more and where charges have been framed by a competent court, or where the candidate has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of one year or more. None of these conditions exist in the Meenakshi Natarajan case. In fact, Hyderabad court refused to take cognisance of the case today, albeit on procedural grounds but there is no prima facie case made out against Ms Natarajan either in this private complaint . Far from it in fact with no FIR also filed naming her. As for the returning officer, he is not expected to act in a mechanical manner. Please read para 6 (6): Para 6(6) says there is a presumption that every nomination paper is valid unless the contrary is prima facie obvious or has been made out. In case of a reasonable doubt as to the validity of a nomination paper, the benefit of such doubt must go to the candidate concerned. Please also read Para 10(12) that says that where the prescribed affidavit has not been filled at all, or where the affidavit has been filed but is found or considered defective or containing false information, the nomination should not be rejected on that ground alone. Clearly this means that the candidate must be given a fair chance to explain if at all any defect is found. Net net: it is apparent that the case was decided in an arbitary manner and justice should be done to avoid such rulings that diminish public faith in the election process. I am sorry to turn to my original profession of a lawyer here with this lengthy response . I have no skin in this political game , have never even met Ms Natarajan but will speak out when there is a blatant miscarriage of justice . I sure hope the day doesn’t come when a nomination is rejected for a non disclosure of a parking offence next. Indian democracy deserves better 🙏

विश्व गुरु’ नहीं, ‘विश्व चपरासी’ बन गए हो 🤭 “जयशंकर साहब @sjaishankaroffc कह रहे हैं ‘हमें अमेरिका ने ही रूस से तेल खरीदने के लिए बोला था’ 🤭 यानी भारत की विदेश नीति अब अमेरिका के आदेश पर चल रही है? पहले रूस से तेल खरीदो, अब अमेरिका ने मना कर दिया तो बंद? 3 भारतीय शहीद हो गए अमेरिकी मिसाइल से, ट्रंप ईरान को कोस रहा है, और जयशंकर साहब अभी भी अमेरिका के ‘बोला था’ वाली बातें कर रहे हैं? ये लताड़ है या चापलूसी?

भारत को अमेरिकी सैन्य हमले में तीन युवा भारतीय नाविकों की हत्या के लिए माफ़ी की मांग करनी चाहिए थी – और यह मांग बिना शर्त के स्वीकार भी होनी चाहिए थी। इसके बजाय, सेक्रेटरी रुबियो ने एक चेतावनी देना उचित समझा और कहा कि अमेरिकी सेना के आदेशों का पालन न करना "बर्दाश्त नहीं किया जाएगा।" यह पश्चाताप की नहीं, हुक्म चलाने की भाषा है। न जान गंवाने वालों के प्रति कोई संवेदना व्यक्त की गई, न ज़िम्मेदारी स्वीकार की गई, और न ही कोई माफ़ी मांगी गई। इस पूरे प्रकरण को और भी शर्मनाक नई दिल्ली की प्रतिक्रिया ने बना दिया। हमले को उसके असली रूप में प्रस्तुत करने के बजाय, विदेश मंत्री ने सिर्फ इतना कहा कि व्यावसायिक जहाज़ों के ख़िलाफ़ जानलेवा कार्रवाइयाँ "न्यायोचित नहीं हैं।" "न्यायोचित नहीं हैं"? यह आप किसी हवाई अड्डे पर हद से ज़्यादा महंगे सैंडविच के लिए कहते हैं, न कि उस सैन्य हमले के लिए जो निर्दोष नागरिकों की जान ले लेता है। अमेरिका की कार्रवाई के लिए सही शब्द हैं: ग़ैर-क़ानूनी, लापरवाह और अस्वीकार्य। लेकिन इसके बजाय हमें ऐसी सावधानी से गढ़ी गई साफ़-सुथरी शब्दावली सुनने को मिली जो किसी को नाराज़ नहीं करती — सिवाय उन परिवारों के जिन्होंने अपने प्यारों को खो दिया।

India should have demanded – and received – an unconditional apology for the killing of three young Indian sailors in an American military strike. Instead, Secretary Rubio reportedly chose to issue a warning, declaring that failure to comply with the orders of the U.S. military “will not be tolerated.” That is the language of command, not contrition. There was no acknowledgement of the lives lost, no acceptance of responsibility, and no apology. What makes the episode even more embarrassing was New Delhi’s response. Rather than calling the strike what it was, the External Affairs Minister merely observed that lethal actions against commercial shipping are “not justified.” “Not justified”? That is the phrase you use for an overpriced airport sandwich, not for a military strike that kills civilians. The appropriate words for America's actions are: illegal, reckless, and unacceptable. Instead, we got the kind of carefully sterilised euphemism that manages to offend no one – except the families of the dead.

U.S. response does not reflect even an iota of regret for the killing Indian seafarers.

The United States has REFUSED to apologize for the killing of Indian citizens. The US State dept readout of Jaishankar-Rubio call indicates a vast difference to what @DrSJaishankar has given the impression — "Secretary Rubio stressed that all commercial vessels should immediately comply with orders from U.S. forces as they seek to uphold peace and security in the Strait.  He underscored that violations of the U.S. blockade and the illicit transport of Iranian oil will not be tolerated.".