The new task assigned to Madhav points to an expanded role for him within the BJP and reflects the importance given by the party to the Greater Bengaluru Municipal polls.
Majority of Bengal Congress's office-bearers are opposed to tie-up with TMC & in favour of discontinuing decade-old electoral alliance with Left Front, it is learnt.
Data submitted to EC shows BJP spent Rs 3,355 crore on elections & propaganda, dwarfing Congress’s Rs 896 crore. Experts say resources give advantage but don’t guarantee votes.
Council of Ministers approved text criticising governor for delay in passing Bills & Centre for withholding state share of tax. But, Governor says govt went back on agreement to drop 'half truths'.
BJP functions as a tradition and a family where relationships go beyond membership, the PM says to describe the party as more than just a political organisation.
In response, Chief Minister MK Stalin calls the Governor’s action a 'direct insult to the Assembly, its traditions, and the democratic mandate of the people of Tamil Nadu'.
The party backed Swami Avimukteshwaranand after UP police stopped his Sangam dip in Prayagraj, amid his blow-hot, blow-cold ties with Congress over mixed views on Rahul Gandhi.
Mann's claim about the 'recovery of 139 unauthorised' Guru Granth Sahib and projecting it as his govt's achievement in the missing saroops case, has sparked a storm in Punjab.
Shinde Saturday moved his 29 newly elected BMC corporators to a Mumbai hotel amid 'ghar wapsi' jibes. Posturing not just for Mumbai, but other corporations too, party functionaries say.
For over three decades, AR Rahman has been a cultural ambassador of Indian pluralism. And yet, in today’s climate, that legacy seems disturbingly fragile.
Instead of buying more Mirages outright in early 2000s, the requirement was tweaked in favour of a medium-weight, multi-role fighter with Mirage-like performance.
Pakistan not only has zero chance of catching up with India in most areas, but will inevitably see the gap rising. Its leaders will offer its people the same snake oil in different bottles.
Let us be a bit braver here.
Bharatiya languages coexisted for centuries, never saw feuds like this.
Then, two things happened:
(1) Urdu was born as a direct consequence of Rasulullah (SAWS)’s OG two-nation theory – believers being supposed to differentiate themselves from non-believers in every aspect (including language). You can see this in Urdu, e.g. Urdu people will set themselves apart form Hindi-speakers by even things as petty as minor pronunciation differences (e.g. prārthanā –> prāthnā , parvat –> parbat, etc.), and of course the entire Perso-Arabicisation that is obvious at a first glance.
Significance: This is the beginning of the idea of language as a marker of communal identity, separate from and antithetical to that in the immediate environment (I am not pro-homogenisation, so I reject the idea of “one” mainstream – but the difference here is intended to set oneself apart, or really stick out [like a sore thumb sometimes] from one’s immediate surroundings).
(2) The advent of English which came with a clear hierarchy, where all languages of the uncivilised “orient” were inferior, rustic, backward, and not worth studying or using in education, science, official purposes etc.
Significance: Combined with the rise of British power, the capture of education by missionary and colonialist forces over a couple of centuries gradually led to the internalisation of the hierarchy of world languages, where English is at the top, and other western languages a close second, with Bharatiya languages being good-for-nothing at best or often even a mark of shame.
Thus, we internalised two different notions from these historical experiences: (1) Urdu imperialism taught us that language is a marker of identity (it is, no doubt) – BUT “identity” is perverted into a separatist/adversarial sense. Then, (2) taught us that there is a hierarchy of languages, superior and inferior, a view we did not hold before (as an example, consider the rich exchange of vocabulary between Thamizh and Sanskrit, and how both nourished and enriched the other Bharatiya languages in their spheres of influence).
Let us be a bit braver here.
Bharatiya languages coexisted for centuries, never saw feuds like this.
Then, two things happened:
(1) Urdu was born as a direct consequence of Rasulullah (SAWS)’s OG two-nation theory – believers being supposed to differentiate themselves from non-believers in every aspect (including language). You can see this in Urdu, e.g. Urdu people will set themselves apart form Hindi-speakers by even things as petty as minor pronunciation differences (e.g. prārthanā –> prāthnā , parvat –> parbat, etc.), and of course the entire Perso-Arabicisation that is obvious at a first glance.
Significance: This is the beginning of the idea of language as a marker of communal identity, separate from and antithetical to that in the immediate environment (I am not pro-homogenisation, so I reject the idea of “one” mainstream – but the difference here is intended to set oneself apart, or really stick out [like a sore thumb sometimes] from one’s immediate surroundings).
(2) The advent of English which came with a clear hierarchy, where all languages of the uncivilised “orient” were inferior, rustic, backward, and not worth studying or using in education, science, official purposes etc.
Significance: Combined with the rise of British power, the capture of education by missionary and colonialist forces over a couple of centuries gradually led to the internalisation of the hierarchy of world languages, where English is at the top, and other western languages a close second, with Bharatiya languages being good-for-nothing at best or often even a mark of shame.
Thus, we internalised two different notions from these historical experiences: (1) Urdu imperialism taught us that language is a marker of identity (it is, no doubt) – BUT “identity” is perverted into a separatist/adversarial sense. Then, (2) taught us that there is a hierarchy of languages, superior and inferior, a view we did not hold before (as an example, consider the rich exchange of vocabulary between Thamizh and Sanskrit, and how both nourished and enriched the other Bharatiya languages in their spheres of influence).