Subramanian Swamy makes explosive claims about former PM Vajpayee’s personal life in podcast
Says Vajpayee had romantic relationship with many including air hostesses
New Delhi: In a startling revelation, veteran BJP leader Dr. Subramanian Swamy has made sensational claims about the personal life of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee during a recent podcast interview with ex-Aaj Tak anchor Shubhankar Mishra. The podcast, titled Unplugged with Shubhankar, has already generated significant controversy due to Swamy’s explosive remarks.
During the interview, Swamy shed light on what he described as the "dark secrets" of Vajpayee’s life, particularly his relationships and personal affairs. Swamy, known for his outspoken nature, accused Vajpayee of leading a questionable personal life, alleging that despite his public image, he was involved in several relationships, including one with a Kashmiri woman during his student days in Gwalior.
Swamy claimed that Vajpayee’s father disapproved of his relationship with the Kashmiri woman, forcing him to relocate to Kanpur, where he was assigned as a Pracharak for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The woman's life, according to Swamy, was “ruined” as her parents married her off to an elderly man.
Swamy went on to narrate that Vajpayee reconnected with the same woman years later when he was an MP, inviting her and her husband to live in his residence on Feroz Shah Road in Delhi. According to Swamy, Vajpayee kept her husband in the servant quarters while she lived with him. The woman, Mrs. Kaul, became a well-known figure in Vajpayee’s life, and Swamy alleged that Vajpayee’s daughter, Gunnu, was not actually the biological daughter of Mrs. Kaul’s husband.
In another shocking statement, Swamy also spoke about Vajpayee's romantic relationships with air hostesses, insinuating that the former prime minister had multiple affairs. “He had to say he was unmarried but not a virgin,” Swamy remarked, further adding, “He had it with so many people.”
Swamy’s remarks have stirred a hornet's nest, with many questioning the timing and veracity of these claims. While Vajpayee has long been revered as a towering figure in Indian politics, Swamy’s allegations about his personal life are likely to spark debate and controversy.
Mishra, the host of the podcast, briefly intervened during the interview, acknowledging that the stories about Vajpayee and Mrs. Kaul were well-known but left Swamy to continue sharing his account. Swamy even humorously suggested that the more sensitive parts of his revelations could be edited out of the podcast.
This is not the first time that Swamy has made bold claims about public figures, but the nature of these allegations about one of India’s most respected political leaders has left many in shock. Vajpayee, a key architect of modern Indian politics and the Bharatiya Janata Party, served as Prime Minister three times and remains a beloved figure across political lines.
सुब्रमण्यन स्वामी ने इस पॉडकास्ट में अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी की सारी कलई खोल के रख दी है।
— Priyanshu Kushwaha (@PriyanshuVoice) September 5, 2024
pic.twitter.com/pHzrq7XR89
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.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
