Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

At Calcutta Debating Circle debate on whether Hinduism needs protection from Hindutva, Senior Adv. Sai Deepak J tore into TMC MP Mahua Moitra while opposing the motion, drawing loud audience reactions.

On Record

1,503 subscribers

114,330 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Mahua Moitra & J Sai Deepak's Fiery Exchange Over Hindutva & Hinduism “Hindutva Exists Because…” The Debate 2026 by the Calcutta Debating Circle sets the stage for a charged and unfiltered clash on one of India’s most polarising questions: “Hinduism Needs Protection From Hindutva.” A fiery face-off between TMC MP Mahua Moitra and legal scholar J Sai Deepak as they lock horns over faith, politics, identity, and the future of Indian democracy. Sharp arguments, ideological fault lines, and no easy answers. This is a debate that cuts to the core of contemporary India. Moitra took jibes at her senior Swapan Da, which obviously people found uncalled for and not funny at all. J Sai Deepak, opposing the motion, he argued that Hinduism actually needs protection from secularism, rather than Hindutva. He challenged the narrative that Hindutva began with V.D. Savarkar in 1923. Instead, he traced its roots to 19th-century Bengal (1860s–1909) as an “organic Shakta response” to colonial invasion, citing figures like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and Sri Aurobindo. He countered claims that Hindutva is “hyper-masculine” or strictly “Brahminical vegetarian,” asserting that Bengali masculinity and Shakta traditions (which include offerings of meat and alcohol) are foundational to Hindutva. J Sai Deepak argued that Hindutva is a civilizational necessity that translates into a political vision, and that it is unconstitutional to deny political representation to Hindutva while allowing it for other ideologies like communism. The event featured sharp rebuttals against co-debaters Mani Shankar Aiyar and Mahua Moitra. He accused Aiyar of conflating Hindutva solely with Savarkar and questioned Moitra on whether she had similar critiques for non-Hindu worldviews. The debate, which also featured Sudhanshu Trivedi and Ashutosh, concluded with the audience overwhelmingly voting against the motion, supporting J Sai Deepak's stance. In no way Moitra could’ve matched J Sai, nowhere near and totally decimated. Credit : ANI.

Mahua Moitra & J Sai Deepak's Fiery Exchange Over Hindutva & Hinduism “Hindutva Exists Because…” The Debate 2026 by the Calcutta Debating Circle sets the stage for a charged and unfiltered clash on one of India’s most polarising questions: “Hinduism Needs Protection From Hindutva.” A fiery face-off between TMC MP Mahua Moitra and legal scholar J Sai Deepak as they lock horns over faith, politics, identity, and the future of Indian democracy. Sharp arguments, ideological fault lines, and no easy answers. This is a debate that cuts to the core of contemporary India. Moitra took jibes at her senior Swapan Da, which obviously people found uncalled for and not funny at all. J Sai Deepak, opposing the motion, he argued that Hinduism actually needs protection from secularism, rather than Hindutva. He challenged the narrative that Hindutva began with V.D. Savarkar in 1923. Instead, he traced its roots to 19th-century Bengal (1860s–1909) as an “organic Shakta response” to colonial invasion, citing figures like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and Sri Aurobindo. He countered claims that Hindutva is “hyper-masculine” or strictly “Brahminical vegetarian,” asserting that Bengali masculinity and Shakta traditions (which include offerings of meat and alcohol) are foundational to Hindutva. J Sai Deepak argued that Hindutva is a civilizational necessity that translates into a political vision, and that it is unconstitutional to deny political representation to Hindutva while allowing it for other ideologies like communism. The event featured sharp rebuttals against co-debaters Mani Shankar Aiyar and Mahua Moitra. He accused Aiyar of conflating Hindutva solely with Savarkar and questioned Moitra on whether she had similar critiques for non-Hindu worldviews. The debate, which also featured Sudhanshu Trivedi and Ashutosh, concluded with the audience overwhelmingly voting against the motion, supporting J Sai Deepak's stance. In no way Moitra could’ve matched J Sai, nowhere near and totally decimated. Credit : ANI.

Augadh

100,122 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

“A Hindu practitioner in Hinduism can imagine love between Hindus and Muslims, but a Hindutva practitioner will say, No, this is love jihad. A Bengali Hindu eating meat will offer meat to Maa Kaali, but a practitioner of Hindutva will say that's not on...,” says Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra participating in the debate on the theme "Hinduism Needs Protection From Hindutva,” on Sunday. Watch:

“A Hindu practitioner in Hinduism can imagine love between Hindus and Muslims, but a Hindutva practitioner will say, No, this is love jihad. A Bengali Hindu eating meat will offer meat to Maa Kaali, but a practitioner of Hindutva will say that's not on...,” says Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra participating in the debate on the theme "Hinduism Needs Protection From Hindutva,” on Sunday. Watch:

Maktoob

47,831 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

J. Sai Deepak delivered a passionate defense of Hindutva in a recent debate, sharply criticizing Mani Shankar Aiyar. The event, hosted by the Calcutta Debating Circle on January 12, 2026, centered on the provocative topic "Hinduism Needs Protection From Hindutva." The debate took place in Kolkata, described by Deepak as the birthplace of Hindutva due to its historical resistance to colonial influences from the 1860s onward. He reframed the motion, arguing Hinduism requires protection through Hindutva, not from it, and needs safeguarding from secularism. Deepak traced Hindutva's roots to Bengal's intellectual history, citing figures like Sri Aurobindo, Swami Vivekananda, and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, predating Savarkar and RSS by decades. He portrayed Hindutva as an "organic Shakta response" to colonial invasions, embodying Bengal's revolutionary spirit with imagery like Bharat Mata and Durga worship. Deepak dismissed critics conflating Hindutva with RSS origins, emphasizing its civilizational imperative over mere politics, while noting irony in politicians opposing it as a political tool. Deepak went "ballistic" against Mani Shankar Aiyar (referred to as JMA), mocking his outdated script linking Hindutva solely to Savarkar despite contrary scholarship. He ended with a rallying cry: "Jai Ma Kali, Hindutva is the way of the future," positioning it as inevitable amid regional threats. Credit : ANI.

J. Sai Deepak delivered a passionate defense of Hindutva in a recent debate, sharply criticizing Mani Shankar Aiyar. The event, hosted by the Calcutta Debating Circle on January 12, 2026, centered on the provocative topic "Hinduism Needs Protection From Hindutva." The debate took place in Kolkata, described by Deepak as the birthplace of Hindutva due to its historical resistance to colonial influences from the 1860s onward. He reframed the motion, arguing Hinduism requires protection through Hindutva, not from it, and needs safeguarding from secularism. Deepak traced Hindutva's roots to Bengal's intellectual history, citing figures like Sri Aurobindo, Swami Vivekananda, and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, predating Savarkar and RSS by decades. He portrayed Hindutva as an "organic Shakta response" to colonial invasions, embodying Bengal's revolutionary spirit with imagery like Bharat Mata and Durga worship. Deepak dismissed critics conflating Hindutva with RSS origins, emphasizing its civilizational imperative over mere politics, while noting irony in politicians opposing it as a political tool. Deepak went "ballistic" against Mani Shankar Aiyar (referred to as JMA), mocking his outdated script linking Hindutva solely to Savarkar despite contrary scholarship. He ended with a rallying cry: "Jai Ma Kali, Hindutva is the way of the future," positioning it as inevitable amid regional threats. Credit : ANI.

Augadh

48,833 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

"Hinduism is endangered by Hindutva" My speech at the Calcutta Debating Circle last evening. Will be uploading a recording of the QnA soon as well. Here's the link to the full debate ( I start from 1:18:41 onward

"Hinduism is endangered by Hindutva" My speech at the Calcutta Debating Circle last evening. Will be uploading a recording of the QnA soon as well. Here's the link to the full debate ( I start from 1:18:41 onward

Dr. Ruchika Sharma

165,735 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

#WATCH | Kolkata: At 'The Debate 2026' hosted by the Calcutta Club, TMC MP Mahua Moitra says, "... Hindutva believes that as a political platform, mine is the only way, and Hinduism believes as a religion and a spiritual platform, that there is room for a lot of others along the way. A Hindu practitioner in Hinduism can imagine love between Hindus and Muslims, but a Hindutva practitioner will say, No, this is love jihad. A Bengali Hindu eating meat will offer meat to Maa Kaali, but a practitioner of Hindutva will say that's not on... So the core question here is, does Hinduism need to protect itself from Hindutva? I would say that the best way to continue to protect Hinduism is to continue to realise that Hindutva is there because Hinduism was there..."

#WATCH | Kolkata: At 'The Debate 2026' hosted by the Calcutta Club, TMC MP Mahua Moitra says, "... Hindutva believes that as a political platform, mine is the only way, and Hinduism believes as a religion and a spiritual platform, that there is room for a lot of others along the way. A Hindu practitioner in Hinduism can imagine love between Hindus and Muslims, but a Hindutva practitioner will say, No, this is love jihad. A Bengali Hindu eating meat will offer meat to Maa Kaali, but a practitioner of Hindutva will say that's not on... So the core question here is, does Hinduism need to protect itself from Hindutva? I would say that the best way to continue to protect Hinduism is to continue to realise that Hindutva is there because Hinduism was there..."

ANI

104,633 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

What Was Hinduism Like Before "Hindutva" Existed? In the Calcutta Club debate on 'Whether Hinduism Needs Protection From Hindutva', Mani Shankar Aiyar says, "You have seen that Hindutva vigilantes beat up and even kill anyone suspected of hoarding, eating, or transporting beef (cow’s meat)." He then quotes Gandhi, saying, "It is a denial of Hinduism and ahimsa to kill a human being to protect a cow." And then attributes this violent Hindu reaction to 'Hindutva', saying "How then can Hinduism rely on thugs and murderers calling themselves Hindutvawadis to protect itself?" So, for the likes of Aiyar, here is a sneak peek into the history of Hinduism (as told by foreign travellers), long before Hindutva - the "bigoted", "exclusionary" ideology invented in the 19th century- existed. This is what Hindus, i.e. the believers of 'Hinduism', used to do with anyone who dared kill a Cow:

What Was Hinduism Like Before "Hindutva" Existed? In the Calcutta Club debate on 'Whether Hinduism Needs Protection From Hindutva', Mani Shankar Aiyar says, "You have seen that Hindutva vigilantes beat up and even kill anyone suspected of hoarding, eating, or transporting beef (cow’s meat)." He then quotes Gandhi, saying, "It is a denial of Hinduism and ahimsa to kill a human being to protect a cow." And then attributes this violent Hindu reaction to 'Hindutva', saying "How then can Hinduism rely on thugs and murderers calling themselves Hindutvawadis to protect itself?" So, for the likes of Aiyar, here is a sneak peek into the history of Hinduism (as told by foreign travellers), long before Hindutva - the "bigoted", "exclusionary" ideology invented in the 19th century- existed. This is what Hindus, i.e. the believers of 'Hinduism', used to do with anyone who dared kill a Cow:

Prateek Rajput

23,088 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

#WATCH | Kolkata: On an egg attack on TMC MP Mahua Moitra, WB BJP President Samik Bhattacharya says, "This egg-throwing must stop, and the TMC leader who is sitting hidden at home needs to step out into the field. TMC is attacking TMC... How can the police identify those who have eggs in their pockets? There is no machine to catch this. Metal detectors don't detect eggs, so let us bring in a new machine... It is ruining Bengal's image..."

#WATCH | Kolkata: On an egg attack on TMC MP Mahua Moitra, WB BJP President Samik Bhattacharya says, "This egg-throwing must stop, and the TMC leader who is sitting hidden at home needs to step out into the field. TMC is attacking TMC... How can the police identify those who have eggs in their pockets? There is no machine to catch this. Metal detectors don't detect eggs, so let us bring in a new machine... It is ruining Bengal's image..."

ANI

320,002 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

UPDATE from Calcutta Club - The speakers for the motion, particularly Mani Shankar Iyer and Mahua Moitra, stayed true to form. A heady cocktail of arrogance, selective history and personal diatribes, ensuring their time was spent more on sermonising than substantiating. Ms Moitra, in a moment of intellectual self goal, attempted to paint Hinduism as comfortably non vegetarian and Hindutva as rigidly vegetarian. A theory that collapsed under its own weight when she invoked Gandhi’s Hinduism (Gandhi being a staunch vegetarian), while conveniently forgetting that Savarkar, the most vocal proponent of Hindutva, was an atheist and a meat eater. The House, rather sportingly, even recalled the delightful anecdote of Savarkar cooking prawns when Gandhi visited him in London. Reality, as usual, proved inconvenient. ashutosh, sadly, seemed to be debating a motion that only existed in his head. A complete disconnect from both subject and audience, marred by weak articulation and arguments that struggled to locate either logic or coherence. Dr. Ruchika Sharma started with promise but quickly wandered into an entirely different TED Talk on ancient Hindu history and Sanatan Dharma. The actual motion was left abandoned at the altar, while we were treated to an oddly abrasive, patronising monologue delivered with the self certainty of the only “real historian” in the room. Fortunately, KunalSARKAR played the role of the reality check, puncturing the self importance with humour and restoring some order. His intervention was a reminder that good moderation is not just about keeping time, but about keeping egos in check. From the against the motion camp, Swapan Dasgupta was in sublime form. Witty, precise, historically grounded and linguistically commanding. His ten minutes were a masterclass in how control over language shapes narratives, and how Anglophile discomfort with the word Hindutva is often rooted more in prejudice than principle. Agnimitra Paul BJP, from whom much was expected, unfortunately and prematurely, converted her slot into a miniature election rally to the wrong audience. The motion was nowhere to be found, and even the ever patient moderator KunalSARKAR had to humorously rein her in, a moment that drew more applause than her argument. Then entered Sai Deepak J, the speaker many were waiting for. Unapologetic, unburdened by political correctness and razor-sharp. He dismantled the proponents arguments with clinical ease, to thunderous approval from the “guspetias” in the audience (a term Ms Moitra used rather generously for the alleged Hindutvawadis who had infiltrated Calcutta’s elite circle, and one that earned her a solid round of boos). His arguments were crisp, historically honest, and refreshingly free from cherry picking. Finally, Dr. Sudhanshu Trivedi arrived to loud cheers, only to leave many disappointed. Instead of engaging the motion, he drifted into grievance-listing and rhetorical digressions, turning what should have been a strong finish into a missed opportunity. Though the judges declared the debate a draw (perhaps in the fear and the pressures mounted by the elite administrators), the overwhelming show of hands against the motion was a rude awakening for Calcutta’s pseudo-liberal elite. It signalled that the tide is turning, and that their once-comfortable narratives are now being dismantled with ease by voices they never thought belonged to the “intelligentsia”

UPDATE from Calcutta Club - The speakers for the motion, particularly Mani Shankar Iyer and Mahua Moitra, stayed true to form. A heady cocktail of arrogance, selective history and personal diatribes, ensuring their time was spent more on sermonising than substantiating. Ms Moitra, in a moment of intellectual self goal, attempted to paint Hinduism as comfortably non vegetarian and Hindutva as rigidly vegetarian. A theory that collapsed under its own weight when she invoked Gandhi’s Hinduism (Gandhi being a staunch vegetarian), while conveniently forgetting that Savarkar, the most vocal proponent of Hindutva, was an atheist and a meat eater. The House, rather sportingly, even recalled the delightful anecdote of Savarkar cooking prawns when Gandhi visited him in London. Reality, as usual, proved inconvenient. ashutosh, sadly, seemed to be debating a motion that only existed in his head. A complete disconnect from both subject and audience, marred by weak articulation and arguments that struggled to locate either logic or coherence. Dr. Ruchika Sharma started with promise but quickly wandered into an entirely different TED Talk on ancient Hindu history and Sanatan Dharma. The actual motion was left abandoned at the altar, while we were treated to an oddly abrasive, patronising monologue delivered with the self certainty of the only “real historian” in the room. Fortunately, KunalSARKAR played the role of the reality check, puncturing the self importance with humour and restoring some order. His intervention was a reminder that good moderation is not just about keeping time, but about keeping egos in check. From the against the motion camp, Swapan Dasgupta was in sublime form. Witty, precise, historically grounded and linguistically commanding. His ten minutes were a masterclass in how control over language shapes narratives, and how Anglophile discomfort with the word Hindutva is often rooted more in prejudice than principle. Agnimitra Paul BJP, from whom much was expected, unfortunately and prematurely, converted her slot into a miniature election rally to the wrong audience. The motion was nowhere to be found, and even the ever patient moderator KunalSARKAR had to humorously rein her in, a moment that drew more applause than her argument. Then entered Sai Deepak J, the speaker many were waiting for. Unapologetic, unburdened by political correctness and razor-sharp. He dismantled the proponents arguments with clinical ease, to thunderous approval from the “guspetias” in the audience (a term Ms Moitra used rather generously for the alleged Hindutvawadis who had infiltrated Calcutta’s elite circle, and one that earned her a solid round of boos). His arguments were crisp, historically honest, and refreshingly free from cherry picking. Finally, Dr. Sudhanshu Trivedi arrived to loud cheers, only to leave many disappointed. Instead of engaging the motion, he drifted into grievance-listing and rhetorical digressions, turning what should have been a strong finish into a missed opportunity. Though the judges declared the debate a draw (perhaps in the fear and the pressures mounted by the elite administrators), the overwhelming show of hands against the motion was a rude awakening for Calcutta’s pseudo-liberal elite. It signalled that the tide is turning, and that their once-comfortable narratives are now being dismantled with ease by voices they never thought belonged to the “intelligentsia”

Adit

110,770 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Calcutta Club debate & Sai Deepak J’s speech underline the urgency of framing new Bharat with Hindutva in its true historical context. As I had argued in my🧵 on the “Triangle of Hindu Nationalism” - Bengal ➝ Punjab ➝ Maharashtra - the ideological roots of Hindutva lie in Bengal. Sai Deepak reiterated this, calling Bengal its birthplace, forged in Shakta spirit as a response to dual colonialism faced by Hindus. Point to ponder: As I have always said, in order to reclaim any region into the Hindutva fold, one must not mock its political choices but gently detach it from narrow ethnic, linguistic or caste identities through culture and politics. Once a civilisational periphery, Bengal became the subcontinent’s nerve-centre in the 18th century, only to slip back after Independence. The moment has come for Bengal to reclaim leadership, and act as the Hindutva vanguard for the entire East, from West Bengal to Bangladesh to the North-East.

Calcutta Club debate & Sai Deepak J’s speech underline the urgency of framing new Bharat with Hindutva in its true historical context. As I had argued in my🧵 on the “Triangle of Hindu Nationalism” - Bengal ➝ Punjab ➝ Maharashtra - the ideological roots of Hindutva lie in Bengal. Sai Deepak reiterated this, calling Bengal its birthplace, forged in Shakta spirit as a response to dual colonialism faced by Hindus. Point to ponder: As I have always said, in order to reclaim any region into the Hindutva fold, one must not mock its political choices but gently detach it from narrow ethnic, linguistic or caste identities through culture and politics. Once a civilisational periphery, Bengal became the subcontinent’s nerve-centre in the 18th century, only to slip back after Independence. The moment has come for Bengal to reclaim leadership, and act as the Hindutva vanguard for the entire East, from West Bengal to Bangladesh to the North-East.

Crystal Clear

176,564 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

The Wokeshwari Show | SPOOF PM Modi is getting the 'Knesset Medal' in Israel, but Swara is winning the 'Sharia Benchmark' at home. Watch Wokeshwari Ritika J Chandola's loud makeup tutorial for the Jerusalem Parliament. From renaming her son 'Mohammad Rahul' to swapping her foundation for Multani Mitti from Palestine, she’s carrying the entire weight of Indian secularism on her double chin. In this biting satire, 'Swara' explains why her makeup needs to be LOUD enough to reach Jerusalem. Watch her transform into a 'Sharia-compliant' activist while reacting to the PM's visit.

The Wokeshwari Show | SPOOF PM Modi is getting the 'Knesset Medal' in Israel, but Swara is winning the 'Sharia Benchmark' at home. Watch Wokeshwari Ritika J Chandola's loud makeup tutorial for the Jerusalem Parliament. From renaming her son 'Mohammad Rahul' to swapping her foundation for Multani Mitti from Palestine, she’s carrying the entire weight of Indian secularism on her double chin. In this biting satire, 'Swara' explains why her makeup needs to be LOUD enough to reach Jerusalem. Watch her transform into a 'Sharia-compliant' activist while reacting to the PM's visit.

OpIndia.com

32,744 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

VIDEO | At a press conference, TMC MP Mahua Moitra says, "On the Election Commission of India, it is pertinent to note that on July 2, at around 12 noon, the traitors of the Trinamool Congress, who were elected on Mamata Banerjee's symbol but are now very shamelessly calling themselves a breakaway bloc, petitioned the Election Commission. They submitted their complaint around noon, and by that very evening, the Election Commission had written to us. This is unheard of. We have approached the Election Commission many times, and it is usually hard-pressed to respond even within a week. So, for it to write to the Trinamool Congress within three to four hours was unprecedented. The Election Commission has always insisted on proper authorisation and authorised representatives. I remember a time when very senior leaders of the INDIA alliance had gone from each party, and only two or three were allowed inside, while senior leaders like Mr. Jairam Ramesh had to wait outside. They were not even allowed into the room. So, first, whom did this faction represent that they were allowed to go in?..."

VIDEO | At a press conference, TMC MP Mahua Moitra says, "On the Election Commission of India, it is pertinent to note that on July 2, at around 12 noon, the traitors of the Trinamool Congress, who were elected on Mamata Banerjee's symbol but are now very shamelessly calling themselves a breakaway bloc, petitioned the Election Commission. They submitted their complaint around noon, and by that very evening, the Election Commission had written to us. This is unheard of. We have approached the Election Commission many times, and it is usually hard-pressed to respond even within a week. So, for it to write to the Trinamool Congress within three to four hours was unprecedented. The Election Commission has always insisted on proper authorisation and authorised representatives. I remember a time when very senior leaders of the INDIA alliance had gone from each party, and only two or three were allowed inside, while senior leaders like Mr. Jairam Ramesh had to wait outside. They were not even allowed into the room. So, first, whom did this faction represent that they were allowed to go in?..."

Press Trust of India

60,875 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 Rory & Mal on J. Cole’s The Fall Off Mal says Cole will never mentally get over the decision he made that day when he apologized on stage stressing Cole sounds stuck in that moment, with the confidence gone and the music coming from a near victim mentality, Disc 29 sounds like Off-Season Cole, while Disc 39 sounds more timid and reflective. Rory & Mal say “What If” dragged Kendrick and Drake back into the conversation unnecessarily, making it impossible to fully move on. Mal also questions why Kendrick isn’t on the album at all, saying whether it was cleared or not, the absence is loud.

🚨 Rory & Mal on J. Cole’s The Fall Off Mal says Cole will never mentally get over the decision he made that day when he apologized on stage stressing Cole sounds stuck in that moment, with the confidence gone and the music coming from a near victim mentality, Disc 29 sounds like Off-Season Cole, while Disc 39 sounds more timid and reflective. Rory & Mal say “What If” dragged Kendrick and Drake back into the conversation unnecessarily, making it impossible to fully move on. Mal also questions why Kendrick isn’t on the album at all, saying whether it was cleared or not, the absence is loud.

CY Chels

340,273 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Can the police freeze a political party's bank accounts and bring its day-to-day functioning to a halt? Before the #CalcuttaHighCourt, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for a faction claiming to represent the Trinamool Congress (#TMC), challenged the freezing of the party's bank accounts under Section 102 #CrPC. He argued that the provision does not permit a blanket freeze on bank accounts without a clear and direct nexus to the alleged offence. According to Singhvi, the action has disrupted the party's functioning by preventing it from paying salaries, utility bills, and other routine expenses. The opposing side questioned whether the petitioners were authorized to represent the party, arguing that their tenure had ended and new office bearers had been appointed. The case brought into focus the limits of police powers under criminal law and the rights of political parties. Credits: Calcutta High Court This video is shared for legal awareness and educational purposes only. #BankAccountFreeze #ConstitutionalLaw #CriminalLaw #PoliticalParties #RuleOfLaw #CourtProceedings #IndianJudiciary #LegalAwareness

Can the police freeze a political party's bank accounts and bring its day-to-day functioning to a halt? Before the #CalcuttaHighCourt, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for a faction claiming to represent the Trinamool Congress (#TMC), challenged the freezing of the party's bank accounts under Section 102 #CrPC. He argued that the provision does not permit a blanket freeze on bank accounts without a clear and direct nexus to the alleged offence. According to Singhvi, the action has disrupted the party's functioning by preventing it from paying salaries, utility bills, and other routine expenses. The opposing side questioned whether the petitioners were authorized to represent the party, arguing that their tenure had ended and new office bearers had been appointed. The case brought into focus the limits of police powers under criminal law and the rights of political parties. Credits: Calcutta High Court This video is shared for legal awareness and educational purposes only. #BankAccountFreeze #ConstitutionalLaw #CriminalLaw #PoliticalParties #RuleOfLaw #CourtProceedings #IndianJudiciary #LegalAwareness

Lawstreet Journal

16,415 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨PENTAGON WHISTLEBLOWER: ‘Pete Hegseth is revelling in death & destruction. ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL use of military force has been amplified by the war on Iran.’ ‘We’ve seen the rhetoric from the start, from the day of the inauguration, there was internal paperwork in the Pentagon, I whistleblew on this, going up to senior levels, calling for the dissolution of the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence. These people on Hegseth’s transition team, people aligned with Hegseth’s vision already that were looking at the civilian protection effort as one of those woke efforts that needs dissolved. We see the rhetoric from Hegseth on this, revelling in death and destruction and lethality, on so-called ‘wokeness’ and ‘stupid rules of engagement’, disregard for Geneva Conventions and just the law of war. So it’s just not surprising at all that our programme, and everything it was doing, was one of the casualties. Let’s look at this whole year and the illegal and criminal use of military force under Hegseth and then going into the Iran war where that’s just been amplified.’ —Master Sgt. Wes Bryant, Pentagon Whistleblower and Former Pentagon Chief of Civilian Harm Assessments, on the latest episode of Going Underground Watch the full interview in the quoted post below👇 Wes J. Bryant - Former Pentagon | War Analyst

🚨PENTAGON WHISTLEBLOWER: ‘Pete Hegseth is revelling in death & destruction. ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL use of military force has been amplified by the war on Iran.’ ‘We’ve seen the rhetoric from the start, from the day of the inauguration, there was internal paperwork in the Pentagon, I whistleblew on this, going up to senior levels, calling for the dissolution of the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence. These people on Hegseth’s transition team, people aligned with Hegseth’s vision already that were looking at the civilian protection effort as one of those woke efforts that needs dissolved. We see the rhetoric from Hegseth on this, revelling in death and destruction and lethality, on so-called ‘wokeness’ and ‘stupid rules of engagement’, disregard for Geneva Conventions and just the law of war. So it’s just not surprising at all that our programme, and everything it was doing, was one of the casualties. Let’s look at this whole year and the illegal and criminal use of military force under Hegseth and then going into the Iran war where that’s just been amplified.’ —Master Sgt. Wes Bryant, Pentagon Whistleblower and Former Pentagon Chief of Civilian Harm Assessments, on the latest episode of Going Underground Watch the full interview in the quoted post below👇 Wes J. Bryant - Former Pentagon | War Analyst

Going Underground

20,511 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🔥⚔️ PRIME SHOWCASE ANNOUNCEMENT — WW1 ⚔️🔥 A major new matchup is officially set for the Word War Debate arena. Ana Kasparian (Ana Kasparian) is stepping into #WWD for the first time at WW1, bringing years of experience as a progressive commentator, journalist, and cultural critic. Known for her sharp analysis, confident delivery, and deep engagement with feminist theory and modern political movements, Ana has spent her career debating some of the most contested ideas in American culture. She will face an already-announced contender who needs no introduction. Pearl Davis (H. Pearl Davis) has rapidly become one of the most polarizing voices challenging modern feminism, gender norms, and cultural narratives. Unfiltered, confrontational, and quick on the rebuttal, Pearl enters the arena ready to defend her views under real pressure, live on stage. These two will meet LIVE in Atlantic City, NJ on January 10th as the Prime Showcase debate at WW1. Debate Topic: “Has modern feminism empowered women-or led them into cultural and relational decline?” The debate will be moderated by Ben Swann (Ben Swann), with live analysis from the WWD panel: •Gavin McInnes (Gavin McInnes) – Right-wing analyst •Kyla Turner (notsoErudite) – Left-wing analyst •Sam Tripoli (Sam Tripoli) – Independent analyst This is not a discussion. This is not a podcast. This is structured, live debate—where ideas are tested in real time and the audience decides what lands. Follow Word War Debate for all matchup drops and updates. We still have the MAIN CARD to announce! Get your tickets now — link in the comments. The stage is set. The arguments are ready. #WW1 is coming.

🔥⚔️ PRIME SHOWCASE ANNOUNCEMENT — WW1 ⚔️🔥 A major new matchup is officially set for the Word War Debate arena. Ana Kasparian (Ana Kasparian) is stepping into #WWD for the first time at WW1, bringing years of experience as a progressive commentator, journalist, and cultural critic. Known for her sharp analysis, confident delivery, and deep engagement with feminist theory and modern political movements, Ana has spent her career debating some of the most contested ideas in American culture. She will face an already-announced contender who needs no introduction. Pearl Davis (H. Pearl Davis) has rapidly become one of the most polarizing voices challenging modern feminism, gender norms, and cultural narratives. Unfiltered, confrontational, and quick on the rebuttal, Pearl enters the arena ready to defend her views under real pressure, live on stage. These two will meet LIVE in Atlantic City, NJ on January 10th as the Prime Showcase debate at WW1. Debate Topic: “Has modern feminism empowered women-or led them into cultural and relational decline?” The debate will be moderated by Ben Swann (Ben Swann), with live analysis from the WWD panel: •Gavin McInnes (Gavin McInnes) – Right-wing analyst •Kyla Turner (notsoErudite) – Left-wing analyst •Sam Tripoli (Sam Tripoli) – Independent analyst This is not a discussion. This is not a podcast. This is structured, live debate—where ideas are tested in real time and the audience decides what lands. Follow Word War Debate for all matchup drops and updates. We still have the MAIN CARD to announce! Get your tickets now — link in the comments. The stage is set. The arguments are ready. #WW1 is coming.

Word War Debate

78,362 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

#KukiTerrorists have launched attacks at the Naga dominated areas of Moirangpurel and Tumulok areas at around 1 p.m. on 6th February. They came down from the Kuki village of Molham and fired indiscriminately on a group of labourers (at least 8-9 people) working in a sand quarry. Workers Ebomcha and Bobocha allege that the Kuki terr0rists had attempted to surround them and continued to fire upon the fleeing labourers. Several people, including women and children were forced to flee for their lives. Kuki terr0rists fired several rounds into the vehicles used for carrying sands and damaged the tyres of three vehicles. The repeated targeting of civilians by Kuki_Zo in Manipur must stop. 28 civilians have lost their lives in the last 2 months. Full scale military action must be taken against these Kuki terr0rists and their sympathisers. Ritu #सत्यसाधक हम लोग We The People 🇮🇳 Divya Kumar Soti Abhijit Iyer-Mitra Abhijit Chavda Nupur J Sharma Hindu Genocide Watch HinduPost Stop Hindu Hate Advocacy Network (SHHAN) Kreately.in Zee News English Anand Ranganathan WION AajTak Dainik Bhaskar Anshul Abhishek 🔥 Anshul Saxena The Pamphlet Dr. Suresh Chavhanke “Sudarshan News” Sudarshan News 🇮🇳 Indrani 🇮🇳 Sai Deepak J Dr Manisha Sharma Shashank Shekhar Jha ADV. ASHUTOSH J. DUBEY 🇮🇳 Sanjay Dixit ಸಂಜಯ್ ದೀಕ್ಷಿತ್ संजय दीक्षित The Jaipur Dialogues Right Singh Rati #ProtectWithPen Shivam Mishra कालनेमी ACRF मुन्ना भाई, पूर्वसैनिक/RSP पं धवरैया.आरक्षण गंदा @UnapologeticH1 Ritika J Chandola Shubham Sharma Shubham Shukla Pak Army Elections 2024

#KukiTerrorists have launched attacks at the Naga dominated areas of Moirangpurel and Tumulok areas at around 1 p.m. on 6th February. They came down from the Kuki village of Molham and fired indiscriminately on a group of labourers (at least 8-9 people) working in a sand quarry. Workers Ebomcha and Bobocha allege that the Kuki terr0rists had attempted to surround them and continued to fire upon the fleeing labourers. Several people, including women and children were forced to flee for their lives. Kuki terr0rists fired several rounds into the vehicles used for carrying sands and damaged the tyres of three vehicles. The repeated targeting of civilians by Kuki_Zo in Manipur must stop. 28 civilians have lost their lives in the last 2 months. Full scale military action must be taken against these Kuki terr0rists and their sympathisers. Ritu #सत्यसाधक हम लोग We The People 🇮🇳 Divya Kumar Soti Abhijit Iyer-Mitra Abhijit Chavda Nupur J Sharma Hindu Genocide Watch HinduPost Stop Hindu Hate Advocacy Network (SHHAN) Kreately.in Zee News English Anand Ranganathan WION AajTak Dainik Bhaskar Anshul Abhishek 🔥 Anshul Saxena The Pamphlet Dr. Suresh Chavhanke “Sudarshan News” Sudarshan News 🇮🇳 Indrani 🇮🇳 Sai Deepak J Dr Manisha Sharma Shashank Shekhar Jha ADV. ASHUTOSH J. DUBEY 🇮🇳 Sanjay Dixit ಸಂಜಯ್ ದೀಕ್ಷಿತ್ संजय दीक्षित The Jaipur Dialogues Right Singh Rati #ProtectWithPen Shivam Mishra कालनेमी ACRF मुन्ना भाई, पूर्वसैनिक/RSP पं धवरैया.आरक्षण गंदा @UnapologeticH1 Ritika J Chandola Shubham Sharma Shubham Shukla Pak Army Elections 2024

Vladimir Adityanath

11,290 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

0 FIRs before the election results. 16 FIRs after. Coincidence — or a question the court must examine? The Calcutta High Court asked the BJP government’s counsel to show whether any FIR had been registered against Abhishek Banerjee before May 4, the day the Bengal election results were declared. The Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju replied: “There were no cases before that. Your Lordship is correct.” The Court then noted that the FIRs under consideration were registered after the Assembly election results — and even questioned who had filed one of them. The hearing also saw a tense exchange over whether the State’s submissions were being adequately heard. The High Court did not quash the FIRs. Instead, it allowed the investigation to continue while granting protection from coercive action until August 31, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on August 25. So the bigger question remains: When there were 0 FIRs before the election results and 16 afterwards, should a court look only at what an FIR alleges — or also examine the timing and circumstances in which it was registered? 👇 What do you think? Is the timing itself a legitimate factor for judicial scrutiny? #AbhishekBanerjee #CalcuttaHighCourt #WestBengal #FIR #BJP #TMC #SVCourt #IndianJudiciary #LegalNews #IndianLaw #JudicialReview #CriminalLaw #RuleOfLaw #WestBengalPolitics #HighCourt #Justice #LawAndJustice #PoliticalLaw #LawChakra

0 FIRs before the election results. 16 FIRs after. Coincidence — or a question the court must examine? The Calcutta High Court asked the BJP government’s counsel to show whether any FIR had been registered against Abhishek Banerjee before May 4, the day the Bengal election results were declared. The Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju replied: “There were no cases before that. Your Lordship is correct.” The Court then noted that the FIRs under consideration were registered after the Assembly election results — and even questioned who had filed one of them. The hearing also saw a tense exchange over whether the State’s submissions were being adequately heard. The High Court did not quash the FIRs. Instead, it allowed the investigation to continue while granting protection from coercive action until August 31, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on August 25. So the bigger question remains: When there were 0 FIRs before the election results and 16 afterwards, should a court look only at what an FIR alleges — or also examine the timing and circumstances in which it was registered? 👇 What do you think? Is the timing itself a legitimate factor for judicial scrutiny? #AbhishekBanerjee #CalcuttaHighCourt #WestBengal #FIR #BJP #TMC #SVCourt #IndianJudiciary #LegalNews #IndianLaw #JudicialReview #CriminalLaw #RuleOfLaw #WestBengalPolitics #HighCourt #Justice #LawAndJustice #PoliticalLaw #LawChakra

LawChakra

15,710 Aufrufe • vor 18 Tagen

🚨 PEOPLE ARE SAYING THE SUN LOOKS DIFFERENT — AND THEY'RE BLAMING BILL GATES People who claim the sun looks different are often treated like they're crazy. They say it looks whiter. Harsher. More like an LED spotlight than the warm yellow sun they remember growing up with. Most people laugh it off. But now many are wondering if something bigger is going on. While the public was debating whether anything had changed at all, some of the world's most powerful people were openly discussing ways to change it. Real discussions about solar geoengineering, the idea of reflecting a portion of sunlight away from Earth to cool the planet. The controversy exploded even further when Bill Gates became associated with funding research into the concept, and the subject later surfaced in high profile reports and interviews that brought the "dimming the sun" debate to a much wider audience. The stated goal is reducing global temperatures. But many people have a different concern: Who gets to decide how much sunlight reaches the planet? Now videos are going viral showing people comparing old photos, documenting unusual glare patterns, and claiming the sun doesn't look or feel the same as it did years ago. Scientists point to atmospheric conditions, pollution, climate factors, and camera technology. Others think that explanation doesn't tell the whole story. Then people discovered something that made the entire debate even more controversial. The idea of dimming the sun wasn't coming from internet conspiracy forums. It was being discussed by some of the world's most powerful people. That's when a lot of people started asking a very different question. Not whether the sun looks different. But who gets to decide if it should. Should Bill Gates decide how much sunlight reaches Earth?

HustleBitch

90,194 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

😩 Britain has wasted ten years trying to square the Brexit circle that cannot be squared: how do you remove the barriers while refusing the structures that remove them? Starmer chose the Ming vase strategy with red lines that protected Brexit by making any meaningful reset impossible and leant heavily into Atlanticism. The red lines of the 2024 mandate stunted the EU reset and Burnham can’t easily escape this. He also needs to keep together a country still scarred by the Leave/Remain divide, while freeing Britain from red lines. This is why the security argument is vital - Russia. Ukraine. Trump. Energy. Food. Defence. Technology. Critical supply chains. Nick Boles’s proposed goods-only arrangement may ultimately be unacceptable cherry-picking to the EU. But domestically it creates political space to ask whether Britain’s security now requires a fundamentally different relationship with Europe. Andy Burnham doesn’t need to fight the next election shouting Single Market, Customs Union, freedom of movement. He needs a manifesto giving him a mandate to negotiate the deepest economic and security relationship with our European allies necessary to protect Britain’s national interest without repeating Starmer’s red lines. Then negotiate. If the electorate endorses that manifesto, Burnham isn’t breaking the previous mandate. He has won a new one. And for the first time since Brexit, Britain could sit down with Europe without tying both hands behind its back before the negotiations even begin. Britain’s chief EU negotiator Hamish Falconer MP says the Burnham government wants a deeper, more ambitious relationship with Europe on trade, services, security and technology. He also says plainly: We are part of Europe. The 2024 Brexit red lines remain … for now. But Falconer is deliberately talking about the art of the possible, while refusing to bind Labour’s next manifesto to those red lines. The world has changed since 2016; Britain can’t change its geography.

😩 Britain has wasted ten years trying to square the Brexit circle that cannot be squared: how do you remove the barriers while refusing the structures that remove them? Starmer chose the Ming vase strategy with red lines that protected Brexit by making any meaningful reset impossible and leant heavily into Atlanticism. The red lines of the 2024 mandate stunted the EU reset and Burnham can’t easily escape this. He also needs to keep together a country still scarred by the Leave/Remain divide, while freeing Britain from red lines. This is why the security argument is vital - Russia. Ukraine. Trump. Energy. Food. Defence. Technology. Critical supply chains. Nick Boles’s proposed goods-only arrangement may ultimately be unacceptable cherry-picking to the EU. But domestically it creates political space to ask whether Britain’s security now requires a fundamentally different relationship with Europe. Andy Burnham doesn’t need to fight the next election shouting Single Market, Customs Union, freedom of movement. He needs a manifesto giving him a mandate to negotiate the deepest economic and security relationship with our European allies necessary to protect Britain’s national interest without repeating Starmer’s red lines. Then negotiate. If the electorate endorses that manifesto, Burnham isn’t breaking the previous mandate. He has won a new one. And for the first time since Brexit, Britain could sit down with Europe without tying both hands behind its back before the negotiations even begin. Britain’s chief EU negotiator Hamish Falconer MP says the Burnham government wants a deeper, more ambitious relationship with Europe on trade, services, security and technology. He also says plainly: We are part of Europe. The 2024 Brexit red lines remain … for now. But Falconer is deliberately talking about the art of the possible, while refusing to bind Labour’s next manifesto to those red lines. The world has changed since 2016; Britain can’t change its geography.

Liz Webster

19,906 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen