Tag: freedom

  • The man who wanted to challenge Modi but lost the battle even before it began

    For many years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was not just a leader but a hero for Shyam Rangeela, mirroring the admiration held by millions of Indians. Shyam was so inspired that he began to mimic Modi, even mastering the PM’s iconic “Bhaiyon, Behno” greetings.Over time, however, things changed. Shyam experienced a shift in perspective, particularly after facing what he called restrictions on his work from a group of Modi supporters. This marked the beginning of his transformation from a devoted fan into a critic.Recently, the comedian made headlines with his announcement to contest against Modi from Varanasi as an Independent candidate.“Halfway into the show in which I was mimicking the PM, I was asked to walk out, and mend my ways. That day, I felt that my freedom was clipped. Later, I realised that such intimidation was common. Politicians are not so generous in taking humour and criticism,” a ToI report (by Shailvee Sharda) quoted Rangeela as saying.AllUttar PradeshMaharashtraTamil NaduWest BengalBiharKarnatakaAndhra PradeshTelanganaKeralaMadhya PradeshRajasthanDelhiOther StatesJourneying all the way from Rajasthan’s Sriganganagar to file his nomination, Shyam’s efforts were thwarted by a technical error. The reason for the cancellation of his papers was due to the omission of “not taking oath” during submission, leading to what he calls the “shattering of a dream”. Though disappointing, Rangeela sees the rejection as a form of victory. “The cause of freedom for which I stood up got some attention,” he adds, reflecting on his “chhoti si poll story”.Embracing the rejection, Shyam is relishing the moment, giving interviews, and meeting journalists and influencers from around the globe.Sharing his experience with TOI, the comedian says, “Wo kehte they ki challenge ke bina maza nahi aata hai. Why couldn’t Modi ji keep his words?” he wonders, questioning his rejection.

    Does he regret his political venture? The narrative doesn’t explicitly answer, leaving room for interpretation.

    “Haan, main toh kahin ka nahi raha. BJP wale kehte hain ki maine Modi ji ka mazak banyaya. Congress wale kehte hain main Rahul ki mimicry ki hai. Mujhe dono taraf se kaam nahi milta hai. Chunav mein bahut paisa bhi kharch ho gaya hai to ab naya kaam dhoondh ke hisab theek karna hoga,” Rangeela told the newspaper.

    He claimed to the newspaper that he said no to offers to join opposition candidates and target Narendra Modi from a stronger political platform.

    “I didn’t want to get tagged. In this way, I will prove my trollers right,” Rangeela adds.

    “Jibes such as ‘mazak mazak mein serious ho gaya’ and ‘ghode pe aaya tha nomination bharne’ are very decent compared to allegations like my nomination was rejected because of a pending rape case against me,” he says.

    Rangeela says he will miss the love that people showered on him when he announced to contest poll from Kashi.

  • CPM's Sitaram Yechury refers to Congress' Emergency days in presence of Sonia, Rahul Gandhi at INDIA bloc rally

    CPM's Sitaram Yechury refers to Congress' Emergency days in presence of Sonia, Rahul Gandhi at INDIA bloc rally

  • Necessary to have discipline in schools but not at cost of freedom & dignity: Justice Dhulia

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: It is necessary to have discipline in schools but not at the cost of freedom and dignity, Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia said on Thursday in his judgement on the Karnataka Hijab ban row.

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered split verdicts in the case and said the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate bench.

    Justice Dhulia, who set aside the Karnataka High Court verdict which had refused to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state, referred to one of the findings in the high court judgement and said it is difficult to accept.

    “This is where the high court determines that the petitioners cannot assert their Fundamental Rights inside a classroom which the court terms as ‘qualified public places’ and the rights inside a school are only ‘derivative right’,” he said in his 73-page separate judgement.

    He noted the high court had rejected the case of the petitioners on ‘reasonable accommodation’ and also the argument that schools are a showroom for diversity of culture, for reason that the schools being ‘qualified public places’, schoolgirls have to follow the dress code, which does not prescribe hijab.

    Justice Dhulia said comparison of a school with a war room or defence camp, seems odd, to say the least.

    ALSO READ: Asking pre-university girl to take off hijab at school gate invasion of privacy & dignity: Justice Dhulia

    “Schools are not required to have the discipline and regimentation of a military camp. Nevertheless, in my understanding, what the high court wanted to convey was that all public places have a certain degree of discipline and limitations and the degree of enjoyment of a right by an individual inside his house or anywhere outside a public space is different to what he or she would enjoy once they are inside a public space,” he said.

    Justice Dhulia observed, as a general principle, one can have no quarrel with this proposition. He said laying down a principle is one thing, justifying that to the facts of a case is quite another.

    “We must be a judge of fact as well as a judge of law. Do the facts of the case justify the restrictions inside a classroom, which is admittedly a public place? In my opinion there is no justification for this,” he said.

    While Justice Gupta dismissed the appeals challenging the March 15 judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to lift the ban, Justice Dhulia held there shall be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state.

    In his verdict, Justice Dhulia noted school is a public place, yet drawing a parallel between a school and a jail or a military camp, is not correct.

    “Again, if the point which was being made by the high court was regarding discipline in a school, then that must be accepted. It is necessary to have discipline in schools. But discipline not at the cost of freedom, not at the cost of dignity,” he said.

    ALSO READ: SC delivers split verdict on Karnataka Hijab ban

    Justice Dhulia observed that another question which the school administration and the state must answer in this case is as to what is more important to them — education of a girl child or enforcement of a dress code.

    “We have been informed at the Bar by many of the senior counsels appearing for the petitioners, that the unfortunate fallout of the enforcement of hijab ban in schools in Karnataka has been that some of the girl students have not been able to appear in their board examinations, and many others were forced to seek transfer to other schools, most likely madrasas, where they may not get the same standard of education.”

    “This is for a girl child, for whom it was never easy, in the first place, to reach her school gate,” he noted.

    Justice Dhulia said a girl child has the right to wear hijab in her house or outside her house, and that right does not stop at her school gate.

    He said the child carries her dignity and privacy even when she is inside the school gates, in her classroom.

    “She retains her fundamental rights. To say that these rights become derivative rights inside a classroom, is wholly incorrect,” he said.

    Justice Dhulia noted that the question of diversity, which was raised by the petitioners before the high court, was not considered by the court since “it was thought to be a ‘hollow rhetoric,’ and the submissions made by the lawyers on ‘unity and diversity’, were dismissed as an ‘oft quoted platitude’.

    He observed question of diversity and our rich plural culture is important in the context of the case.

    NEW DELHI: It is necessary to have discipline in schools but not at the cost of freedom and dignity, Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia said on Thursday in his judgement on the Karnataka Hijab ban row.

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered split verdicts in the case and said the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate bench.

    Justice Dhulia, who set aside the Karnataka High Court verdict which had refused to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state, referred to one of the findings in the high court judgement and said it is difficult to accept.

    “This is where the high court determines that the petitioners cannot assert their Fundamental Rights inside a classroom which the court terms as ‘qualified public places’ and the rights inside a school are only ‘derivative right’,” he said in his 73-page separate judgement.

    He noted the high court had rejected the case of the petitioners on ‘reasonable accommodation’ and also the argument that schools are a showroom for diversity of culture, for reason that the schools being ‘qualified public places’, schoolgirls have to follow the dress code, which does not prescribe hijab.

    Justice Dhulia said comparison of a school with a war room or defence camp, seems odd, to say the least.

    ALSO READ: Asking pre-university girl to take off hijab at school gate invasion of privacy & dignity: Justice Dhulia

    “Schools are not required to have the discipline and regimentation of a military camp. Nevertheless, in my understanding, what the high court wanted to convey was that all public places have a certain degree of discipline and limitations and the degree of enjoyment of a right by an individual inside his house or anywhere outside a public space is different to what he or she would enjoy once they are inside a public space,” he said.

    Justice Dhulia observed, as a general principle, one can have no quarrel with this proposition. He said laying down a principle is one thing, justifying that to the facts of a case is quite another.

    “We must be a judge of fact as well as a judge of law. Do the facts of the case justify the restrictions inside a classroom, which is admittedly a public place? In my opinion there is no justification for this,” he said.

    While Justice Gupta dismissed the appeals challenging the March 15 judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to lift the ban, Justice Dhulia held there shall be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state.

    In his verdict, Justice Dhulia noted school is a public place, yet drawing a parallel between a school and a jail or a military camp, is not correct.

    “Again, if the point which was being made by the high court was regarding discipline in a school, then that must be accepted. It is necessary to have discipline in schools. But discipline not at the cost of freedom, not at the cost of dignity,” he said.

    ALSO READ: SC delivers split verdict on Karnataka Hijab ban

    Justice Dhulia observed that another question which the school administration and the state must answer in this case is as to what is more important to them — education of a girl child or enforcement of a dress code.

    “We have been informed at the Bar by many of the senior counsels appearing for the petitioners, that the unfortunate fallout of the enforcement of hijab ban in schools in Karnataka has been that some of the girl students have not been able to appear in their board examinations, and many others were forced to seek transfer to other schools, most likely madrasas, where they may not get the same standard of education.”

    “This is for a girl child, for whom it was never easy, in the first place, to reach her school gate,” he noted.

    Justice Dhulia said a girl child has the right to wear hijab in her house or outside her house, and that right does not stop at her school gate.

    He said the child carries her dignity and privacy even when she is inside the school gates, in her classroom.

    “She retains her fundamental rights. To say that these rights become derivative rights inside a classroom, is wholly incorrect,” he said.

    Justice Dhulia noted that the question of diversity, which was raised by the petitioners before the high court, was not considered by the court since “it was thought to be a ‘hollow rhetoric,’ and the submissions made by the lawyers on ‘unity and diversity’, were dismissed as an ‘oft quoted platitude’.

    He observed question of diversity and our rich plural culture is important in the context of the case.

  • Freedom over time

    Express News Service

    In Sebastian Meise’s Great Freedom-streaming on MUBI-Franz Rogowski plays Hans Hoffman, imprisoned for being gay under Paragraph 175 in post-World War II Germany. The concept of time folds over itself in Great Freedom, we see Hans in prison in 1945, 1949 and 1969. The temporal granularity of the film exposes the conflict beneath the smoothness of the visuals and its celebration of spooned bodies.

    The driving force of the film is Hans’s fearlessness, routinely locked up for his deviant-under-the-law behaviour and just as often put under solitary confinement within the prison for his restless nature. Great Freedom also traces the arc of Hans’s relationship with Viktor (Georg Friedrich), his first cellmate and homophobe, and another constant in prison whenever Hans finds his way into it.

    Details in the film are out of our grasp for extended sequences. We get tiny information from 1949 to connect to events in 1969. We get 8mm footage of a rare joyous phase in Hans’s life to connect it to his younger version in prison. A tattoo is defaced and shines anew two decades later only for the film to insert a scene from the intervening years when its makeover is completed. 

    Our haziness about Hans’s times in prison is shared by Viktor’s crisscrossing shallowness towards him, time heals, and time turns him soft, our understanding of the film originates from Viktor’s linear growth that is at odds with the film’s non-linear affectations. Therefore, their friendship, also a mutually beneficial relationship is also linear despite the film’s trajectory.

    Rogowski has constructed a career out of playing arresting, uneasy men with tragic pasts and future, specially in films of Christian Petzold. He plays one such character here, acting not just with his face but with his whole body, his unknowing walk on prison floors gradually gaining familiarity over the years and finding ways to love in prison and ever ready to pay the price for it both inside and outside. It’s a fascinating way to measure the passage of time and the growth of a character-during one term Hans uses pages from Bible to send coded messages and in another he uses them to roll his cigarettes. 

    The sounds of prison and the film’s agony becomes relatable to the level that we share Hans’s lack of enthusiasm in Neil Armstrong’s first steps on moon and his quiet excitement when he learns that Paragraph 175 has been abolished. 

    Great Freedom paints a picture of how someone can become a prisoner of their circumstances, which is harder to bust out of compared to a maximum-security prison. A detail painted tragically but too beautifully by the ending. An out-of-tune saxophone does not help.

  • An Easter gift: Justin Bieber releases surprise EP ‘Freedom’

    By ANI
    WASHINGTON: Singer-songwriter Justin Bieber had the perfect Easter gift for his fans as the star dropped a six-track EP titled ‘Freedom’ on Sunday night.

    Bieber announced the release on his social media platforms, simply writing, “Freedom on all platforms.”

    The project’s artwork is also quite simple, featuring a Notes app screenshot with the word ‘Freedom’ typed out (and very low battery charge).

    The EP’s tracks all contain collaborations, except one. They are as follows: ‘Freedom’ with BEAM, ‘All She Wrote’ featuring Brandon Love and Chandler Moore, ‘We’re In This Together’, ‘Where You Go I Follow’ featuring Pink Sweats, Chandler Moore and Judah Smith, ‘Where Do I Fit In’ featuring Tori Kelly, Chandler Moore and Judah Smith and ‘Afraid to Say’ featuring Lauren Walters.

    Freedom on all platforms https://t.co/k9a33Pb2Gu pic.twitter.com/BkAqqaKJRZ
    — Justin Bieber (@justinbieber) April 4, 2021

    The Grammy-winning singer had just released his sixth studio album titled ‘Justice’ on March 19.

    As per Variety, the record debuted at No. 1 on the Rolling Stone album chart last Monday, finally knocking country music star Morgan Wallen from his 11-week reign. ‘Peaches’, Bieber’s fourth single off of ‘Justice’, also debuted at No. 1 on the song chart.

    Overall, ‘Justice’ debuted with 146,000 album units, and streams for the album totaled at over 138.4 million on March 29. Bieber also released a deluxe version of the album on March 26, which features an extra six songs.

    Before ‘Justice’, Bieber had released ‘Changes’ on February 14 last year, featuring singles ‘Yummy’, ‘Intentions’, and ‘Forever’. The album was nominated for the best pop vocal album at the Grammys and served as his return to music since releasing ‘Purpose’ in 2015.

  • CM ‘Yogi’ gives strict order in UP in the name of ‘Bharat Bandh’

    Bharat Bandh has been called by farmer organizations across the country on Tuesday, 8 December. Although there have been 5 rounds of talks between the farmers and the government so far to demand the repeal of agricultural laws, the meeting could not reach any conclusion. All eyes are now on the farmers’ talks with the government on December 9. In such a situation, on December 8, a day before the farmers have announced the Bharat Bandh, which has been supported by 24 political parties of the country. Let us tell you that no untoward happened during the Bharat Bandh in Uttar Pradesh, in such a situation, the Yogi government of Uttar Pradesh seems completely ready. To maintain law and order in the state, strict instructions have been given from the government level. Let us know that on December 7, a day before the Bharat Bandh, UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said that the law and order should be maintained.

    He wrote in his tweet that, “Under no circumstances should law and peace be compromised.” It is clear that the Yogi government will give freedom to protest, but in the name of protest and Bharat Bandh, it will deal strictly with those who spread chaos in the state. The Yogi government has made its full preparations to create a furore in the name of protest and will not give any relaxation to maintain law and order.