Oppn parties attack Amit Shah for remarks against Nehru; BJP hits back
New Delhi, Dec 7: Opposition parties attacked Home Minister Amit Shah for his remarks against India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, with Congress leaders saying nobody has the right to insult those who fought against British Rule and offered everything to support the freedom struggle.
BJP leaders, however, asserted that whatever Shah said in the Lok Sabha about Nehru is correct, and history has to be told.
Shah on Wednesday blamed Nehru's "two major blunders" -- declaring a ceasefire without winning the entire Kashmir and taking the issue to the United Nations -- for the sufferings of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The home minister trained his guns at Nehru while replying to a debate in the Lok Sabha on the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill.
Reacting to Shah's remarks, Congress general secretary and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh wrote on X, "Today in the Lok Sabha, the home minister made deliberately provocative and blatantly false statements on Nehru's role in J&K in 1947 and 1948".
"Dr Farooq Abdullah immediately called out the distorian masquerading as a pseudo-historian," he said. Abdullah is the National Conference's president and represents Srinagar in the Lower House of Parliament.
"These are tactics to derail the Congress and INDIA's narratives, and I for one will not fall into the Shah trap. His office should get him to read Chandrasekhar Dasgupta's masterly book, 'War and Diplomacy in Kashmir' in which many such myths have been exposed," Ramesh added.
Congress MP Manish Tewari described Shah's remarks against Nehru as "absolutely erroneous" and told PTI that "in hindsight with a six by six vision, you can find fault with any decision of the government".
"Ceasefire happened because the then government was advised by the commander-in-chief of the Indian Army General Roy Bucher," he said, asserting that the ceasefire was "inevitable" then.
Tewari said, "In so far as taking the matter to the United Nations is concerned, let's not forget that the world was emerging from the devastating second world war which had killed millions and millions of people. The atomic bomb had been used for the first time."
He said the United Nations was created as an institution to end all future wars and India was a signatory to the UN convention even before it became independent.
"Therefore, the government at that point in time sought the intervention of the United Nations to make Pakistan vacate the territory it was illegally occupying, it was not a wrong decision," the Anandpur Sahib MP added.
Congress Rajya Sabha MP and party's Gujarat unit president Shaktisinh Gohil said nobody has the right to make such comments against India's first prime minister who fought against British Rule and offered everything to support the freedom struggle.
"Be it Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Nehru ji, Baba Saheb Ambedkar, they fought against the British, offered everything that they had including ancestral property on the feet of Mahatma Gandhi for freedom struggle," he said.
"Nehru and Patel were two sides of the same coin. The comment that he (Amit Shah) has made today is an insult to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Nehru ji. Nobody has the right to do so," he said, adding, "Making such comments at this time is an insult to the country, Sardar Patel, Nehru Ji and their policies. Such politics is not good for the country at all".
Congress Rajya Sabha MP Pramod Tiwari slammed Shah for his remarks, saying, "We would not have got freedom, if Pandit Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and other freedom fighters were not there. What Nehru saved amid those adverse circumstances (in Kashmir), thanks for that," he added.
RSP leader and Lok Sabha member N K Premachandran said it was "quite unfortunate" on the part of central cabinet ministers describing India's first prime minister's "activities as Nehruvian blunders".
"They are saying that these are the mistakes of the then prime minister (Nehru). Maybe a mistake but using the word blunder means it is a stupid mistake," he said and asked, "Is it the way of addressing the first prime minister of the country, freedom fighter and architect of modern India."
"I don't say that it's unparliamentary. Maybe there is no technical defect in it. But at the same time we have to maintain the decorum and have mutual respect for each other, be it is treasury benches or opposition side," Premchandran told PTI.
Abdullah said, "They have always had differences with Nehru. There is nothing new in it. They will never acknowledge Nehru's work. So it keeps happening. This is politics".
BJP leader and Union Minister Giriraj Singh described Shah's remarks about Nehru as correct and claimed that "happiness" has returned in Jammu and Kashmir since the scrapping of Article 370.
Another BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur described Shah's remarks on Nehru as "most appropriate" and added, "History has to be told in the present".
Today in the Lok Sabha, the Home Minister made deliberately provocative and blatantly false statements on Nehru’s role in J&K in 1947 and 1948. Dr. Farooq Abdullah immediately called out the Distorian masquerading as a pseudo-historian. These are tactics to derail the Congress…
— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) December 6, 2023
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
