Ram was non-vegetarian, says NCP MLA Awhad; BJP leader demands FIR against him
Shirdi (Maha), Jan 4: Jitendra Awhad, an MLA of the Sharad Pawar-led NCP and former Maharashtra minister, has kicked up a row by stating that Lord Ram was a "non-vegetarian" who hunted animals.
As the claim led to a BJP MLA as well as the rival faction of the Nationalist Congress Party led by Ajit Pawar to demand registration of a criminal case against him, Awhad said he had not said anything without studying the matter, yet he was expressing regret if he had hurt anybody's sentiments.
Speaking at a party conclave at Shirdi in western Maharashtra's Ahmednagar district on Wednesday, Awhad said Lord Ram belonged to "bahujans".
The term 'bahujan' is traditionally used in Maharashtra to refer to the non-Brahmin sections of Hindu society, especially the marginalised communities.
"He (Lord Ram) used to hunt and eat. He is ours, of bahujans. You (an apparent reference to the BJP) are turning us into vegetarians, (but) we are following the example of Ram and consuming mutton," the NCP MLA said.
"Ram was not a vegetarian, he was a non-vegetarian. Where would a person who lived in the forest for 14 years find vegetarian food?" Awhad said.
NCP chief Sharad Pawar was present on the occasion.
On Wednesday evening, workers of the Ajit Pawar-led NCP tried to stage a protest near Awhad's residence in Thane. Former MP Anand Paranjpe, who owes allegiance to the Ajit Pawar camp, demanded that an FIR be registered against him.
Awhad later said those who wanted to fight without any logic resort to such demands.
"It is not my job to distort history...I have not made any statement without studying the matter, but these days emotions get much more importance than scholarship. I express regret if my remarks have hurt anyone," he added.
BJP MLA Ram Kadam submitted an application to the suburban Ghatkopar police in Mumbai, seeking an FIR against Awhad for allegedly hurting Hindu sentiments.
Talking to reporters, he also sought to know why Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray and Sharad Pawar -- whose parties are constituents of an alliance in the state -- were "keeping silent when their own leader and colleague is hurting the sentiments of crores of people".
"The NCP leaders and Awhad can not digest the fact that a grand temple of Ram is going to be inaugurated on January 22. Why is he using such foul language?" Kadam asked.
Police have not registered any case against Awhad yet. "We have received the application and will seek a legal opinion on it," said an official of Ghatkopar police.
मैं अरुण यादव महाराष्ट्र सरकार से इस रामद्रोही JITENDRA AWHAD को तुरंत गिरफ्तार करने की मांग कर रहा हूं।
— Arun Yadav🇮🇳 (@beingarun28) January 3, 2024
मेरे साथ सभी राम भक्त इस ट्रेंड का समर्थन करे। 👇👇#ArrestJitendraAwhad https://t.co/Tr4wwg2isQ pic.twitter.com/N8RI3BFNLZ
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.
Justice must be seen to be done: Kejriwal on refusal to appear in excise case before HC judge
New Delhi (PTI): Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal has written to Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, saying he will not appear in the excise case personally or through a lawyer before her, the party said on Monday.
Pointing to a "grave miscarriage of justice", Kejriwal, in a four-page letter, said he has "serious and unreconciled" concerns regarding the matter.
"I have decided that I shall not participate in the further proceedings in this matter, either in person or through counsel. I do not take this step lightly," Kejriwal added.
In his letter, Kejriwal further said that "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done".
"The principle that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done, is among the most sacred assurances that a court gives to a citizen in a democracy," he said.
The assurance cannot be dishonoured by asking the citizen to ignore what "anyone can plainly see" in a case like this, he added in the letter.
The letter also invoked the principles of Satyagraha and the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, with Kejriwal saying that his intent is "strengthening of judiciary and prevent its weakening".
He added that he has given the authority an opportunity to consider and correct what he perceived to be a grave miscarriage of justice.
His earlier plea seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma, which was rejected on April 20, was interpreted as a personal attack, the AAP chief claimed.
"After the said judgment, I am left with the painful and inescapable impression that what I had urged as a lawful plea of apprehension was received and answered as a personal attack upon Your Ladyship and as an assault on the institution itself.
"Those are not, with respect, answers to the case I had brought. They show me that my plea of apprehension has been judicially understood as a personal and institutional affront," he said in the letter.
The letter further noted the leader's belief that it was now "impossible to receive an impartial hearing" in Justice Sharma's court.
Kejriwal also reiterated two grounds cited earlier in his recusal plea.
"First, the issue of Your Ladyship's repeated public association with the RSS's legal front, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP) -- an organisation belonging to the ideological ecosystem of the ruling dispensation," he wrote, further pointing out that Justice Sharma's children "are professionally engaged on multiple advocates' panels of the Union government which happens to be the opposite party in this case".
Reflecting on his personal experience during the proceedings, the former Delhi chief minister expressed concern over the broader implications of his case on public trust in the judiciary, while he said he maintains respect for the institution.
ALSO READ: ED raids in case against former Punjab Police DIG Bhullar, linked entities
"When I appeared before Your Ladyship to argue my case, the question in my heart was simple: Will I get justice? Today, with the deepest respect, I must say that the same question has become graver and deeper in my conscience," he said.
This case has now become a matter of widespread public discussion. It is being discussed not merely in legal and political circles, but in homes across the country, the letter read.
Addressing potential criticism, Kejriwal clarified that his remarks should not be interpreted as opposition to the judiciary.
"As I write this, I am also cognisant of the fact that some might portray me as someone 'against' the judiciary. But how can that ever be the case when I have personally received relief from the judiciary, including orders of bail and the present discharge?
"Today, I walk free because of the judiciary. Let there exist no figment of imagination that my present stand is against the institution," he asserted.
Kejriwal further said his respect for the judiciary "remains intact" and he has "unwavering faith" in the Constitution of India.
"My objection is not to the institution of the High Court or the larger judicial system, but only to the continuance of this matter before Your Ladyship (Sharma) under a cloud of grave and unresolved questions and circumstances that have generated grave public doubt in your ability to dispense impartial justice," Kejriwal further wrote in the letter.
He also clarified that his "personal inability" is confined to just this matter.
"I shall continue to appear in matters where these serious and unreconciled concerns do not arise, including matters in which the solicitor general does not appear and matters unconnected with the Union government, the BJP or the RSS," the letter added.
He further said he has made the decision by listening to the voice of his conscience and that he is prepared to bear the consequences.
"I may prejudice my own legal interests. I understand that I may lose the opportunity to advance submissions before this Hon'ble Court and that adverse consequences in law may follow. I am prepared to bear those consequences," the AAP chief said.
He added that he will reserve the right to approach the Supreme Court to appeal against Justice Sharma's decision.
