Quantcast
Channel: Huffington Post India
Viewing all 46147 articles
Browse latest View live

Article 370 Giving Special Status To Jammu And Kashmir Scrapped, Says Amit Shah

$
0
0

NEW DELHI —Home Minister Amit Shah announced in the Rajya Sabha on Monday that Article 370 of the Constitution of India, that grants special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been scrapped. 

The government has also proposed the bifurcation of the state into two separate union territories: While Jammu & Kashmir shall be a union territory with a state legislature — on the lines of Delhi and Pondicherry; Ladakh shall be a separate union territory without a legislature, much like Chandigarh.

The government announced that an order scrapped Article 370 had been signed by President Ram Nath Kovind. 

Article 370 of the Indian constitution was the bedrock of the special autonomous that Jammu and Kashmir had.

Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad criticised the BJP government saying, “Today the BJP government has murdered the Constitution.” 

Shah made the announcements amid huge uproar in the Rajya Sabha. This comes after hasty mid-night house arrests of Opposition leaders in Jammu and Kashmir including Mehbooba Mufti, Omar Abdullah and Sajjad Lone. 

Section 144 was imposed in several areas, including Srinagar. Schools and colleges remained closed on Monday and internet services were also shut down in the run up to Shah’s announcement.

Former chief minister of the state Mehbooba Mufti,  took to Twitter to criticise the Narendra Modi saying, “Today marks the darkest day in Indian democracy. Decision of J&K leadership to reject 2 nation theory in 1947 & align with India has backfired. Unilateral decision of GOI to scrap Article 370 is illegal & unconstitutional which will make India an occupational force in J&K.”

Follow live updates here:


'BJP Murdered Constitution': Opposition On Modi Govt Scrapping Article 370

$
0
0

The Narendra Modi government on Monday scrapped Article 370, which confers special status to Jammu and Kashmir, through a presidential order, triggering strong protests from the Opposition.  

The government also moved a bill proposing bifurcation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories — Jammu and Kashmir division and Ladakh. 

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on TwitterFacebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

Making the announcement in Rajya Sabha, Home Minister Amit Shah said the UT in Ladakh will have no legislature like Chandigarh while the other UT of Jammu and Kashmir will have a legislature like Delhi and Puducherry.

Shah introduced the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation bill.

The Opposition created an uproar in the Parliament. Here’s what the Opposition parties said:

- Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad said BJP has “murdered constitution”.

- PDP chief and former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Mehbooba Mufti said government’s unilateral decision “to scrap Article 370” is illegal and unconstitutional. She called it “the darkest day in Indian democracy”.

- BSP extended support to the bill. BSP MP Satish Chandra Mishra said, “Our party gives complete support. We want that the bill be passed. Our party is not expressing any opposition to Article 370 Bill & the other Bill.”

- National Conference’s Omar Abdullah said the government’s “unilateral”  decisions are “illegal and unconstitutional”. He said that the decisions will have “far-reaching” and “dangerous” consequences. “A long and tough battle lies ahead. We are ready for that.”

- JD(U)’s KC Tyagi said that the party does not want Article 370 to be scrapped. 

Article 370 Scrapped: PDP Lawmaker Tears Copy Of Constitution, His Own Clothes In Protest

$
0
0

Even several political leaders in Kashmir remained under house arrest, two MP from the PDP protested in Parliament against the scrapping of Article 370 that grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir. 

PDP MP Mir Mohammad Fayaz was reportedly asked to leave the Rajya Sabha after he attempted to tear a copy of the constitution in protest. He also tore his own clothes as well after he was asked to leave the House by speaker Venkaiah Naidu.

Earlier in the day the two MPs — Nazir Ahmad Laway and Mir Mohammad Fayaz — were seen protesting outside the Parliament against the complete shutdown of the Kashmir valley. They were wearing black bands and carried posters that read “war cannot bring peace,” and “we don’t need more violence to end violence”. 

Restriction were imposed across Kashmir from midnight on Monday ahead of Amit Shah’s announcement in the Rajya Sabha. Opposition leaders like Mehbooba Mufti, Sajjad Lone and Omar Abdullah were held under house arrest last night. 

Mobile internet services were shut down as well. 

This Photo Tells Us More About Amit Shah's Kashmir Plans Than The Govt Has So Far

$
0
0

On Monday morning, as the panic over the NDA government’s plans for Jammu and Kashmir was peaking, home minister Amit Shah was photographed  entering Parliament. While that in itself is not out of the ordinary, by then, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s cabinet had just finished an hour-long meeting, internet and mobile services had been snapped in many parts of Kashmir and at leasttwo former state chief ministers had been placed under house arrest.

While there had been rumours that the government was aiming to abrogate Article 35A, which, among other provisions, bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state, the announcement by Shah in Parliament that the government plans to revoke Article 370 and bifurcate the state into two union territories still came as a shock to many.

The notoriously close-mouthed Modi administration had neither been confirming nor denying any of the speculation that had been floating about, instead concentrating on sending more military personnel to the state and evacuating Amarnath pilgrims. Indeed, interviews given by top union ministers to the media hours before Monday’s developments suggest they were either kept in the dark or encouraged to lie to journalists. 

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on TwitterFacebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

The photograph in question—the most clear image that has been zoomed into and is doing the rounds of social media has been attributed to AFP photographer Prakash Singh—shows Shah holding what appears to be a checklist of action points related to the scrapping of Article 370. The list begins with the “constitutional” points that need to be addressed, including the President’s notification and the passage of the bill in Parliament. 

According to this list, PM Modi is scheduled to “address the nation” on 7 August, Wednesday. The list says he will also speak to Jammu and Kashmir governor Satya Pal Malik as well as the chief ministers of states such as Punjab and Haryana, though it doesn’t specify a date for this.

This well-organised list also tells us that the government is preparing for the possibility of “violent disobedience” from sections of uniformed personnel, which some have speculated may refer to the Jammu and Kashmir police.

It’s in keeping with the Modi’s government’s systematicshutting-out of the media that the most information so far on the government’s plans to deal with the aftermath of its plan to scrap the 70-year Article 370 has to be gleaned from an agency photograph, rather than an official statement. 

From BSP To AAP, Parties Supporting Govt's Article 370 Decision

$
0
0

While the Congress, National Conference and PDP were vehemently opposed to the decisions announced by home minister Amit Shah in Rajya Sabha — including the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill and the resolution for removal of Article 370 — some political parties in the extended support to the government. 

NDA ally JD(U), meanwhile, said it would not support the government’s move.

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on TwitterFacebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

Opposition parties

BSP

Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party supported the Centre, with party leader Satish Chandra Mishra saying, “Our party is not expressing any opposition to Article 370 Bill & the other Bill.”

AAP

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal tweeted in support of the decisions. “We hope this will bring peace and development in the state,” he added. 

NDA Allies

AIADMK 

AIADMK also said that it supports the resolution to scrap Article 370, Reorganisation Bill and the Reservation Bill. 

Others

BJD

Party MP Prasanna Acharya said in the Rajya Sabha that his party also supports the resolution. “In real sense today, Jammu and Kashmir has become a part of India. We are a regional party but for us nation is first.

Supreme Court Suggests Unnao Rape Survivor Be Airlifted And Brought To Delhi

$
0
0

NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court directed on Monday that the Unnao rape survivor, who suffered critical injuries when her car was hit by a truck last week, be airlifted from Lucknow and brought to New Delhi for better treatment at the AIIMS.

Minutes before the direction, the apex court had deferred the hearing on transfer of the woman and her injured lawyer, for further hearing on Friday as no one on behalf of their families appeared and sought the transfer. 

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on TwitterFacebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

However, the lawyer representing the family then appeared before a bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose and said the woman’s mother now wanted her to be shifted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) for better care as she continued to be critical.

The bench took note of the submissions of lawyer D Ramakrishna Reddy, appearing for the victim, and ordered that she be transferred from the King George’s Medical College in Lucknow to the AIIMS.

Fixing the case on Friday, it also made clear that the family of the injured lawyer can also seek the same relief and approach it as and when they need.

The woman, allegedly raped by BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in 2017 when she was a minor, is battling for life after a truck rammed into the car she was travelling in with some family members and her lawyer. Two of her aunts died in the accident last Sunday.

The bench was informed that Mahesh Singh, uncle of the Unnao rape survivor had been transferred to the Tihar jail in Delhi from a jail in Uttar Pradesh in pursuance of its earlier direction to ensure his safety.

Singh’s wife was in the ill fated car and had died in the accident. He participated in her cremation on Wednesday after the Allahabad High Court granted him parole for a day.

He has been convicted in a 19-year-old case and sentenced to 10-year jail term on a case filed by Sengar’s brother, Atul Singh.

The top court had on Friday put on hold its earlier order transferring the case of the collision from a Lucknow court to Delhi to enable the CBI to complete its investigation.

The order was passed after the CBI told the apex court stating that due to shifting of the case, the local court was facing technical hurdle in passing orders of remand for the accused who are being arrested in course of the probe.

Besides the main rape case, the three other matters which were transferred to the national capital are the FIR which was lodged against victim’s father under Arms Act, his custodial death and the gang rape of the victim.

The apex court had directed to hold trial on daily basis and completing it within 45-days along with a direction to all media houses not to disclose the identity of the victim directly, indirectly, or in any manner.

The top court had also directed that the victim, her mother, other members of the family and their lawyer will be provided security by the CRPF and an officer of the level of commandant will file a compliance report forthwith.

Sengar, a four-time legislator who represents Bangermau in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly, is the main accused in the rape case and is lodged in jail since April, 2018.

As Kashmir Is Erased, Indian Democracy Dies In Silence

$
0
0

The decision to eliminate the state of Jammu & Kashmir by legislative decree was made in absolute secrecy, and will be executed in absolute darkness. 

Thousands of troops have been deployed on the streets, opposition leaders have been put under house arrest with a midnight knock on their doors, the internet has been blacked out, and phone lines have been severed.

The only inkling of the government’s moves came from a chance photograph, snapped as home minister Amit Shah entered Parliament this morning, August 5 2019.

A neat Excel sheet laid out a checklist for Kashmir’s erasure:

“Inform the President —— Done”, the checklist read, under the sub-head, titled ‘Constitutional’. “Inform the Vice President —— Done.” There was a cabinet meeting, and then the bill was brought before Parliament, where a noisy but largely ineffectual Opposition was given an hour to deliberate the redrawing of India’s political map.

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on TwitterFacebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

If all goes as planned, and there is little sign it won’t, the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be replaced by two union territories — one with a legislature subservient to a puppet governor, and one with just a puppet governor.

What of the Kashmiris? Where do they appear in Amit Shah’s checklist? Way down on point number 14 and 15 under “Law and Order”. 

While Point 14 calls for the Home Secretary to make his way down to a state that has been amputated into a colony administered by New Delhi, Point 15 reveals that colonising one’s own territories carries an attendant risk: “Possibility of violent disobedience amongst sections of uniformed personnel.”

Kashmir is the boundary condition of Indian democracy; and as of now, democracy is dead in the darkness.

From the margins to the centre

Independent India has seen the creation of new states from older ones — Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand from parts of Bihar and Bengal, Uttarakhand up in the north. Union territories like Goa have become states, but this is perhaps the first time a state and its residents have simply been imagined out of existence.

So what do the Kashmiris think of all this? At the moment it is impossible to say. News from the state has simply been throttled by shutting down all lines of communication, deploying thousands of troops, and forbidding any public assembly. 

As Delhi lays out Kashmir’s abbreviated future, the Kashmiris have been silenced; and in this silence we see the demise of Indian democracy. 

Over the long years of insurgency and counter-insurgency, we have learnt that the atrocities committed at the nation’s margins have a way of finding their way to the centre. 

Military doctrines honed in Kashmir are readily adopted in Jharkhand. A quirk of military rationing and troop provisioning brings the Border Security Force and Indo Tibet Border Patrol to camps in southern Bastar.

As Delhi lays out Kashmir’s abbreviated future, the Kashmiris have been silenced; and in this silence we see the demise of Indian democracy.

The detention camps for so-called foreigners in Assam don’t appear very different from the mass incarceration camps prototyped in Srikakulam in the 1960s and 1970s and deployed decades later in Bastar, to suppress local populations. Draconian laws enacted to police troubled areas soon bleed out into the rest of the country, right up to the point that Parliament passes a law to denote individuals as terrorists. 

Fatal urgency

“There is no emergency, only urgency,” Venkaiah Naidu, India’s Vice President, the Rajya Sabha’s Chair and formerly a minister in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s previous tenure, said this morning, as he shouted down the opposition. 

But what is an emergency but a fatal urgency to override democracy’s slow-moving methods?

What more turbulence will this urgency bring? Which state will next feel the sharp edge of Amit Shah’s knife?

A nation of 1.2 billion citizens requires deliberation, conversation, and consensus. Take that away and all we have left is the empty spectacle of a parliament of mostly ageing, balding, bloody-thirsty men, eager to throttle any possibility of a peaceful future for the opportunity to live out their impotent fantasies of imposing their will on a besieged populace.

What more turbulence will this urgency bring? Which state will next feel the sharp edge of Amit Shah’s knife? The populace of which town, district, taluka, mountain-side, river valley, sugar-cane field will be deemed too troublesome to be allowed to participate in democracy? 

Will a troublesome province in West Bengal suddenly find it has been turned into a union territory headed by an ageing pracharak reinvented as a Governor? Or will the state of Tamil Nadu, whose entire politics has been based on a refutation of Delhi-based autocracy, suddenly find it has been urgently demoted down democracy’s ladders?

It isn’t hard to predict how the erasure of Kashmir will play out over the next few weeks. The government’s gaggle of friendly news anchors have already begun dancing to their master’s tunes. At some point, someone will hail this as a political masterstroke. Someone will find a way to blame the opposition. 

But a rubicon has been crossed, a boundary has been breached, a state has been erased and a populace has been blanked out of the national conversation. 

For us citizens, there is urgency, yes. But there is also a state of emergency.

Article 370: The Truth Behind Viral SMS Offering Land For Sale In Kashmir

$
0
0

If there is anything that can beat the present government’s penchant for disruption, it has to be the fake news factory of the country. No soon than Article 370 was scrapped, a sms offering land for sale in Kashmir at a price as low as Rs 11.25 lakhs started doing the rounds. 

The SMS was shared, both exhorting people to buy land in Kashmir and berating the state of affairs in India.

When we called the number, it turned out to be the customer care number of Eden Realty, a major real estate group based out of Kolkata. The real estate company was found in 2003 and is headed by IIT Kharagpur graduate Sachidananda Rai.

According to its website, the group has collaborated with the West Bengal government on various projects including the building of a refugee rehabilitation center. In a joint venture with the government of West Bengal, the group is building Bonorini, a rehabilitation center for refugees. It has also built skywalks, solar plants and is behind housing projects across West Bengal. 

The only locations listed under its current projects are areas in Kolkata and towns around the city — Bonhoogly, EM Bypass, Joka, Serampore.

A representative of the company said that they were not offering any land for development and sale in Kashmir. “There is no such offering and definitely not at that price. Anyone with some understanding of real estate can say the price is too low,” the representative who refused to be named told HuffPost India. 

She added that she did not know how this sms went ‘viral’ and said that the issue will be fixed soon. She also said they have been flooded with calls since the SMS started doing the rounds.

 

 


Pakistan Condemns Modi Govt's Decision To Scrap Article 370 In Kashmir

$
0
0

After Home Minister Amit Shah on Monday announced the government’s decision to scrap Article 370, which confers special status to Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan condemned the move. 

Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, according to The Washington Post, told a Pakistani TV station that Pakistan would step up diplomatic efforts to prevent the revocation made by presidential order from coming into effect.

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on TwitterFacebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

In a statement, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, “As the party to this international dispute, Pakistan will exercise all possible options to counter the illegal steps.”

It also said that “no unilateral step by the Government of India can change this disputed status, as enshrined in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. Nor will this ever be acceptable to the people of Jammu & Kashmir and Pakistan.”

Here’s the full statement:

Pakistan strongly condemns and rejects the announcements made today by the Indian Government regarding the Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir. 

The Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory. 

No unilateral step by the Government of India can change this disputed status, as enshrined in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. Nor will this ever be acceptable to the people of Jammu & Kashmir and Pakistan. 

As the party to this international dispute, Pakistan will exercise all possible options to counter the illegal steps. 

Pakistan reaffirms its abiding commitment to the Kashmir cause and its political, diplomatic and moral support to the people of Occupied Jammu and Kashmir for realization of their inalienable right to self-determination. 

Meanwhile, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) president and opposition leader Shehbaz Sharif also condemned the move, reported Geo News. He called it “unacceptable” and an “act of treason” against the United Nations.

Kashmir, Article 370: Another Betrayal By India Says Activist Shehla Rashid

$
0
0

NEW DELHI —Home Minister Amit Shah’s announcement about the revocation of Articles 370, which safeguards Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, was met with a silence from the people it impacts the most: Kashmiris who have been left without mobile phone and internet services.

This communication blockade, which was put in place the night before the Narendra Modi government’s announcement, ensured that hardly any voices from the ground reached the mainland. 

Speaking from Bengaluru, Shehla Rashid, a Kashmiri political activist, described this development as the Bharatiya Janata Party government “bulldozing their will.” 

Rashid asked how the BJP-led central government could take this step when there is no functioning government in Jammu and Kashmir.

“Let there be a Legislative Assembly and an elected government. They cannot do this without consulting the government of J&K,” Rashid said. 

The J&K Assembly was dissolved in November, six months after the PDP-BJP coalition government collapsed. 

According to Shah, Ladhakh will be a union territory without a legislature, while  Jammu and Kashmir will be a union territory with a legislature. 

Ram Nath Kovind, President of India, has signed this notification, Shah told Parliament. 

Rashid admitted feeling helpless, but she said that Kashmir’s leaders, many of who are under house arrest at present, “will fight.”

“This is yet another betrayal in the sea of betrayals by India,” she said. 

National Conference leader chief Omar Abdullah said that the Government of India (GO) “has resorted to deceit and stealth in recent weeks to lay the ground for these disastrous decisions.”

“Government of India (GOI)’s unilateral and shocking decisions today are a total betrayal of the trust that the people of Jammu & Kashmir had reposed in India when the state acceded to it in 1947. The decisions will have far-reaching and dangerous consequences. This is an aggression against people of the State as had been warned by an all-parties meeting in Srinagar yesterday,” he said following Shah’s announcement. 

Kashmir: Total Internet Shutdown Means Its People Don't Have A Voice

$
0
0

HYDERABAD — While the future of Jammu and Kashmir is being decided in Delhi, there’s one community of people whose voice isn’t being heard by anyone: Kashmiris. The people of Kashmir are facing a complete communications blackout, with mobile Internet services, landlines and even broadband connections being shut since Sunday night. Some broadband providers are still active but for the most part, Kashmir has gone dark.

This is not some isolated event, though—clamping down on communications has almost become the de facto state of living in Kashmir. According to internetshutdowns.in — a platform to track Internet shutdowns in India, created by the Software Freedom Law Centre, India — there have been 176 Internet shutdowns in the state since it started tracking this data in 2012.

This has not only meant a loss of economic opportunity to the people in the state, it also means that decisions that change their lives are being taken without their voice of assent or dissent being recorded. 

Hurting the economy

Aside from silencing voices within the Valley, actions like Internet shutdowns also have serious economic impact. According to areport by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), India has lost approximately $3 billion between 2012 and 2017 due to Internet shutdowns. A similarreport by the Brookings Institute in 2016 also arrived at a similar figure, estimating that shutdowns cost the country $2.4 billion.

These are just abstract figures, but for the people living in Kashmir, regular Internet shutdowns have meant a real loss of opportunity. Speaking toQuartz, entrepreneur Sahil Verma talked about how he quit a high-paying job in Mumbai to move to his family home in Kashmir and set up an online store for dry fruits and saffron. After the death of Burhan Wani, Internet shutdowns were imposed and for 100 days in a row, Verma’s business had to stay shut. Eventually, he gave up and moved out of Kashmir.

For the people living in Kashmir, regular Internet shutdowns have meant a real loss of opportunity

There are several start-ups in Kashmir, but many face challenges similar to Verma’s.KashmirOneStop.com, which sells traditional Kashmiri goods, was in the middle of a fundraise when it was affected by Internet shutdowns. They told Quartz that the investors backed away in the face of the turbulence. In another incident mentioned in the report, the delivery boy of a local e-commerce company was caught in pellet firing while working.

Speaking toMoneyControl, a Kashmiri start-up founder said: “The major problems for the technology-based startups that want to have Kashmir as their base are internet shutdowns, lack of inclination for technology education besides the incessant cases of violence in the state.”

“Recently, a Kashmiri startup Czar said that the company was on the verge of being sold out until the founders decided to shift some of the important operations in Uttarakhand and the startup got a new lease of life.”

Does it even help law and order?

Aside from the fact that shutdowns erase the voice of the people, and also hurt the economy, there’s also the fact that such measures might not help with law and order, the ostensible reason for which they’re being used in the first place.Police in Haryana have given testimony against the effectiveness of Internet shutdowns which, they say, cause additional challenges.

Faced with the potential of a riot ahead of a Haryana court verdict in a rape case against Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, police in Panchkula faced a challenge in estimating the size of crowds gathered at different locations.

“We were until then sharing information and photos on WhatsApp to figure out the number of people pouring in the city from various points as it helped identify problem areas. DSS followers had started gathering August 22 onwards,” Panchkula police commissioner Arshinder Singh Chawla has said, according to a report by Manoj Kumar first published by the Centre for Internet and Society.

As the Haryana police’s experience shows, the shutdowns are not just harming citizens, but are counter-productive to maintaining order as well.

This was a replay of events during the Jat agitation of 2016 as well—protestors were present in much greater numbers than police personnel, who were not aware of the scenario on the ground. The police also had to think twice about sending messages asking for help over the radio, as this could have been tapped into by the protestors.

This is in stark contrast to what happened in Mumbai, where former police commissioner Rakesh Maria made use of WhatsApp and SMS messages to prevent a scuffle from turning into a riot during Eid celebrations in early 2015.

India’s Internet shutdowns have been criticised by many, including the UN, and as the Haryana police’s experience shows, the shutdowns are not just harming citizens, but are counter-productive to maintaining order as well.

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on TwitterFacebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

Kangana, Vivek Oberoi Gush Over Scrapping Of Article 370 In Kashmir

$
0
0

The Narendra Modi-led BJP government’s decision to scrap Article 370, which safeguarded Kashmir’s special status, has given several Bollywood celebrities a fresh occasion to suck up to the government.

Cue laudatory tweets from Vivek Oberoi, Kangana Ranaut, and of course, Anupam Kher who seems to have given up Bollywood and has become a full-time bhakt.

Their comments came even as political leaders like Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti and Sajjad Lone were put under house arrest in the middle of the night on Monday. 

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on TwitterFacebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

 

Restrictions were imposed across the state, with curfew in some places, in the hours leading to Amit Shah making the announcement. 

Several Bollywood stars took to social media before and after the announcement to gush about the government’s decision. There were lots of Indian flag emojis involved.

Kangana Ranaut, who is known to have praised the government before, said that she knew only Modi could achieve this feat. She claimed that this would lead to a “terrorism free nation”. 

Anupam Kher too praised the government. He, in fact, tweeted hours before the announcement. 

Raveen Tandon couldn’t find words 

Vivek Oberoi, who even did a whole movie about Modi’s achievements, said this was “homage to all those braves martyred for the dream of a United India.”

Others prayed for peace and safety of Kashmiris: 

Gang Leader Dressed As His Own Teenage Daughter In Jail Break Bid

$
0
0

A Brazilian gang leader tried to escape from prison by dressing up as his teenage daughter when she visited him behind bars.

Clauvino da Silva, known as “Shorty” tried to leave the prison in the west of Rio de Janeiro, dressed as the 19-year-old, but was rumbled because he was so nervous.

Da Silva’s plan was apparently to leave his daughter in jail and police are looking into her possible role as an accomplice in Saturday’s failed escape attempt from Gericino prison.

Clauvino da Silva dressed as his 19-year-old daughter in a bid to escape from Gericino prison on Saturday He had planned to leave his daughter behind bars in his place 

Rio’s State Secretary of Prison Administration released photos showing da Silva in a silicon girl’s mask and long dark-haired wig, wearing tight jeans and a pink shirt with a cartoon image of doughnuts.

They also released a video in which da Silva can be seen removing the mask and some of the clothes, and saying his full name.

Authorities say da Silva was part of the leadership of the Red Command, one of the most powerful criminal groups in Brazil that controlled drug trafficking in a large part of Rio.

After the failed escape bid, da Silva was transferred to a unit of a maximum-security prison and will face disciplinary sanctions, officials said.

The gang leader has now been transferred to a maximum-security prison 

'Bold Step': LK Advani Hails Modi Govt's Decision To Scrap Article 370

$
0
0

NEW DELHI — BJP veteran LK Advani on Monday termed as “historic” the Union government’s move to scrap Article 370 and said it is a “bold step towards strengthening national integration”.

Advani, the longest serving BJP president, said the scrapping of Article 370 has been a part of the BJP’s core ideology since the days of Jan Sangh.

“I congratulate Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi and Home Minister Shri Amit Shah for this historic initiative and pray for peace, prosperity and progress in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh,” he said in a statement.

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on TwitterFacebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

He said he is happy with the government’s decision to revoke Article 370 and believes that it is a bold step towards “strengthening national integration”.

Earlier in the day, Union Home Minister Amit Shah informed the Rajya Sabha that Article 370, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special rights, has been scrapped with the President’s assent and also moved a bill to divide the state into two Union territories.

What It's Like To Fall In Love After Your Parent Has Died

$
0
0
Falling in love (and out of love) hurts a little more when your parent isn't there to shepherd you through the process. 

Losing a parent feels insurmountable at any age. Our series helps you face it ― from the practical logistics to the existential questions about death and dying today.

At 19, writer Julie Hoag met her future husband in college. It was three years after her mother’s death and three years into a deep, pervasive depression triggered by the loss. 

Falling in love with her then-boyfriend Dave helped pull her out of that depression. But the prospect of bringing him home to meet her family without her mom around brought aspects of it back. 

“All I could think about was how he’d never meet my mom, ever,” the Minnesota blogger said. “I wanted my now-husband to know that my mom was the most generous and giving person I’ve ever known and that she gave to others as easily as she took her breaths.”

Hoag wondered if this feeling would pass, along with the grief. It ebbed and flowed, but inevitably, she had the same gnawing feeling on her wedding day five years later.

“There was a mom-sized hole there that no one on earth could ever fill,” she said.

Writer Julie Hoag and her mother (left) and the writer on her wedding day.

As someone who also lost a parent in her teens, I know where she’s coming from. It’s a new fact of life: Any time you get even semi-serious with someone, the same sad, spiraling thoughts kick in: What would my parent think of this person? Would they love the little personality quirks I find so endearing or be annoyed by them? Would the two of them shoot the shit at family gatherings or keep a polite but noticeable distance? 

As Hoag alluded to, it stings slightly more to know your partner will never know what kind of person your parent was: how unrelentingly kind your mom was, in Hoag’s case. Or how your dad, in my case, laughed so obnoxiously, so distinctively, that people literally shushed him in movie theaters. (I can tell people about it, but it’s damn near impossible to replicate that infectious, movie-ruining laugh.) 

Matt Sloan, a contributing editor at The Mighty and a fiction writer living in Belfast, Northern Ireland, agrees. As much as he tries, he can never quite share a story like his dad did. And even if he could, the memories and details become more ill-defined with each coming year.

“It’s been eight years since my dad died. I’m in a committed relationship now and I so wish she could’ve met him,” he told me. “My dad had a lot of stories — he was a merchant sailor and traveled the world — but no retelling quite captures the wonder and magic of hearing it from him directly.” 

Sloan added: “I just keep telling my girlfriend how funny he was, how kind, how interesting, but in the end, they feel like nothing more than empty words,” he said. “She would’ve loved him, and he would’ve loved her. It’s heartbreaking to know she’ll never meet him.”

Sloan and his dad as Sloan receives his master’s degree in 2009.

That regret is part and parcel of the experience of losing a parent early in your life and forging relationships later on. Research on early parental lost suggests adolescents can react two different ways when they start forming serious romantic relationships: They either move more quickly into committed relationships or avoid these relationships entirely. (They tend to do this even more than peers whose parents divorced.)

Going the first route ― rushing into love, but still being open to the experience ― seems like a minor win compared to the alternative of never falling in love at all, but you take an L regardless: Experiencing love ― falling in love, pining for it, or losing it ― without your parent as a witness and confidante hurts like hell. 

Grief doesn’t fit into a box. Falling in love, weddings and otherwise ‘happy’ occasions can often reactivate a great deal of pain.Marina Resa, marriage and family therapist

For Anna Nordberg, a freelance writer in San Francisco, it wasn’t so much the falling in love sans-mom that hurt; it was getting her heart broken. (Nordberg was 17 when her mom died of colon cancer and is currently writing a memoir about becoming a mother without your mom around.)

Years before she met her husband and became a mom, she met her first love. He broke her heart in the shittiest, most unceremonious way possible.  

“I was traveling alone when he broke he up with me, over email,” she said. “I remember sort of staggering out of an internet cafe, just thinking, ‘Where is she?’”

Nordberg could have called on a close friend or her brother or dad, but her mom was her go-to for knotty, emotional issues like this. (And admittedly, she was too embarrassed to tell anyone else that the man she loved, who’d loved her back just as intensely, didn’t anymore — and told her so via email.) 

“This was a question of grief, but also, because it was my first experience in a serious relationship, I kept relentlessly running over things, imagining what I could have done differently,” she said. “I felt such a failure. She was good at talking to you about that kind of thing, listening and then steering you through mild crises, and I didn’t have her. It felt, well, miserable.”

Anna Nordberg and her mother in an undated photo

Nordberg’s wedding, much like Hoag’s, was incredibly bittersweet, but she found ways to incorporate her mom’s legacy. 

“I wore the veil she’d worn,” she said. “My brother sang during our wedding ceremony, just as he had during my mother’s memorial service. It was probably the most direct link between the two events.”

Those intentional funeral callbacks might’ve seemed a little odd for something as celebratory as a wedding, but Nordberg and guests who knew her mom embraced it: “I wanted it, this lovely, sad echo [of my mom]. It was the only time I cried.”

Of course, therapists say it’s human nature to envision how a new loved one would fit into your old, pre-loss family dynamic ― and to feel a resurgence of sadness over your parent’s absence in those big-ticket personal moments.

“Grief doesn’t fit into a box,” said Marina Resa, a marriage and family therapist in Los Angeles. “Falling in love, weddings and otherwise ‘happy’ occasions can often reactivate a great deal of pain.”

But as Resa notes, it’s also easy to lionize your late parent and to some extent overvalue their opinions. Think of it this way: If your living parent had a hard-line stance on your partner, would it make or break your feelings for that person?  That stamp of approval is always ideal, but ultimately, your feelings about the relationship are independent of your family’s, she said. 

“You have to trust your gut with falling in or out of love,” Resa said. “If your parents modeled healthy and loving relationships, your likelihood of picking the right partner is strong.”

Ultimately, that’s one of the most lasting parts of a loving parent’s legacy: that they taught you how to love and loved you so much that you struggle to put it into words. In their absence, you fall in love, retell their stories to the ones you love as best you can, and when you need to, simply lean into the sadness.

“Falling in love is easy,” as Sloan told me. “Even with the depression I’ve fought since his death, it’s easy to fall in love. The hard part is doing so without Dad around.”


The Impact Of 'Jane The Virgin' Cannot Be Overstated

$
0
0

“What do you mean the telenovela’s gonna end?” a young Jane Gloriana Villanueva, sandwiched on the couch between her mother and grandmother, asks in a flashback in the beginning of the “Jane the Virgin” series finale.

“They always have an ending,” her abuela Alba says. “But it’s always a happy one. The good people always get what they deserve. And there’s usually a wedding.” 

Warning: Spoilers ahead.

After five whirlwind seasons, the “Jane the Virgin” finale delivered on that promise with an end resembling a modern-day fairy tale. Jane actualizes her dream of becoming a successful, published author; she marries Rafael, after years of tension; and she grows alongside her family in an intergenerational tale about the strength, beauty and power of women. 

“In television, you rarely see three female Latinas being in charge of their lives,” Ivonne Coll, who portrays Jane’s abuela, says in the look-back special that preceded the finale. 

By bringing three passionate, flawed Latina leading ladies to the screen, “Jane” changed the landscape of television and brought Latinx representation to viewers who were so hungry for it — a cross-cultural accomplishment done so seamlessly and sincerely that it’s difficult to remember what entertainment looked like before this show upended our lives in 2014. Latinos on television shows continue to be represented primarily as criminals or in law enforcement, as hypersexualized beings and in low-wage work, according to a 2014 study that looked into the quality of roles available for Latino actors. So the impact of seeing the uber-talented Gina Rodriguez, Andrea Navedo and Coll kill it on “Jane” cannot be overstated. 

“Jane” has been rightfully praised for bringing the telenovela genre to English-speaking audiences and may even be partly credited with the surge in popularity of Spanish-language programming among such audiences in recent years. Despite its unquestionable histrionics, however, the show — which is a loose adaptation of the 2002 Venezuelan telenovela “Juana, la virgen” — poked fun at Latin America soap operas. It melded realism and drama, giving viewers characters they could be wholly invested in and coalescing to form a perfect firestorm of a series. 

As a Latina writer, I easily saw myself in the character of Jane. While I’m nowhere near the intense outliner she is, watching her sit in front of her computer, trying to scribble down the cacophony of thoughts in her head and seeing her sometimes get in trouble for pulling from her own life experiences were moments I’m all too familiar with. Jane hustled; she fought to tell her stories. She worked endless shifts at The Marbella, all while striving to find an agent and publishers for her books. So when she lands a huge book deal in the penultimate episode of the series after not even feeling comfortable enough to say she was a writer in the beginning of the show, you know just how well-deserved her accomplishments are. 

Perhaps one of the biggest accomplishments of the series, however, was in revolutionizing conversations and depictions of sex on television. Like Jane, I grew up in a Catholic family, received all my sacraments and internalized the message from my religious elementary and high schools that sex was a bartering chip you traded for marriage. 

No one (luckily) gave us a white flower and had us crumple it up, like Alba did for Jane. We didn’t have to take a piece of tape and stick it on a partner, in an attempt to demonstrate that if we tried to stick it on other people, it wouldn’t work because the tape had lost its ability to bond to others, that it was used and worthless ― like we would be once we “gave away” our virginities. Nor were we instructed to unwrap a peppermint patty and pass it around the room, an exercise meant to signal that the more people that touched the chocolate ― and us ― the dirtier and more undesirable it ― and we ― became. We simply never talked about sex, and in ignoring its existence, we sullied it further.

For a young, impressionable woman who wasn’t getting positive sex messaging from anywhere back then, “Jane” was refreshing. For the first time, I wasn’t watching a poorly disguised PSA that made me feel like I lacked autonomy, nor was I watching a show about a girl who didn’t have to grapple with religion’s influence over one of life’s most personal decisions. 

Jane waits until her marriage to Michael to have sex ― a decision she ultimately decides is right for her ― but the fact remains that viewers were privy to a complicated feminist attempting to separate her beliefs from those of her grandmother’s, unlearn patriarchal mores and reconcile being a woman of faith who could actually find pleasure in sex. 

The sex positivity isn’t simply reserved for Jane, either. Alba, who still feels somewhat shameful about having sex before marriage, has her own coming-of-age journey, which involves Jane helping her shop for a vibrator ― a storyline that empowered viewers by showing that growth comes at all ages. 

Because the series was a balancing act between authentic U.S. Latinx representation and hyperdramatic telenovela-like plot twists, “Jane” could approach some of the most difficult issues today with nuance and without didacticism. In “Chapter Sixty-One,” Alba is ringing up a customer’s items at The Marbella gift shop, while her co-worker helps a Spanish-speaking customer find lotion. Before Alba’s customer leaves the gift shop, she tells the other women, “This is America. You should learn how to speak English.” 

Alba, who is a Venezuelan immigrant, is too shocked to say anything to the woman, but when she returns home, her pain turns into anger.

“You know what I should have said? ‘We the people of the United States,’” she says, before reciting the beginning of the Constitution. “How much of the preamble do you think she knows?”

The character of Alba, in particular, pushed forward Latinx representation on television, as she pretty much exclusively spoke in Spanish, despite the fact that the show is otherwise conducted in English and was aimed at English-speaking audiences. 

From left: Justin Baldoni, Gina Rodriguez, Ivonne Coll, Andrea Navedo, Jennie Snyder Urman, Yael Grobglas, Jaime Camil and Brett Dier of the

From multiculturalism to xenophobia to abortion, the storylines were situated in the current cultural moment, making the show feel fresh and relevant. And just as important, “Jane” was comedic and ironic. Her father, the over-the-top Rogelio De La Vega (Jaime Camil), was on a  journey to become a telenovela star in the United States. His trajectory shows the struggle of trying to break into an industry where Latinos are vastly underrepresented — a pretty meta plot arc. But Rogelio prevails and winds up achieving success among American audiences by the show’s end with his pilot episode of “This Is Mars.” 

Given the place “Jane” occupied in my life these past five seasons, it’s strange to think that I almost stopped watching the show after Michael “died.” 

How could the series possibly bounce back after killing off the love of the titular character’s life shortly after they got married? Michael (Brett Drier) had already overcome so much in their relationship. They survived Jane’s accidental artificial insemination with another man’s child, they survived after that child was kidnapped by a crime lord and, perhaps even more daunting, they survived the classic television love triangle trope. Jane finally chose Michael over Rafael (Justin Baldoni), the debonair father of her son Mateo.  

Yeah, maybe you could argue that by Season 3 of the show, I really should have been more skeptical and realized that the “Jane” writers were doing what they do best: playing me and making me feel all the feels only to laugh among themselves in some writers room in Los Angeles. 

But while many viewers suspected that Michael was still alive, I brooded in my resentment at the unjust nature of life and the cruelty of these writers. It wasn’t until I picked the show back up again that I realized the writers were playing the long game — and even then, I could not have anticipated the 2,946 other twists and turns that would follow. (Disclosure: I am fully Team Rafael now and if you aren’t, maybe you should reevaluate your life.) 

After suffering from amnesia, induced by the aforementioned crime lord, Sin Rostro, Michael is no longer the same guy. And he seems pretty happy with Charlie (Haley Lu Richardson) ― who, in another stroke of writing brilliance, is Drier’s real-life fiancée. 

Yet for as much time as I’ve spent talking about the men of the show ― who admittedly are a significant aspect of the plot ― “Jane” was always more than its “Will they, won’t they, when will they?” dramatics. 

“The show deals with a lot of interesting aspects of what it means to be a hero,” Baldoni said in the flashback special. “It takes the everyday person and turns her into a hero.”

It’s difficult to accept that the opinionated narrator ― who was revealed to be Mateo in the finale ― definitely said “The End” in the final seconds of the finale. But “Jane” offered many of us the chance to see ourselves on screen ― not just as who we are today, but as who we can potentially become.

And because of that, the show lives on.

Tarantino’s Secrets, Brad’s Pits And Leo’s Flames: Tales From ‘Once Upon A Time In Hollywood’

$
0
0

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” is Quentin Tarantino’s salute to what he loves most: movies. On Los Angeles backlots and inside lavish homes where the rich and famous dwell, egos may rule, but everyone shares an unyielding desire to create something magical. Do it well enough, and they’ll be mythologized in the American consciousness forever — or at least until somebody else comes along and waves a shinier wand. More than any of Tarantino’s previous work, the film has a sweet core. Behind the wealth and scandals that haunt Tinseltown are real people, from the uptight headliners and their fearless stunt doubles to the era-defining directors and their obsessive hangers-on, each just as complicated as the rest of us. 

Making “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” also required a lot of real people, toiling for months to put together Tarantino’s sterling romp about fading star Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his exceedingly loyal stuntman and gofer Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Set amid the changing tides of 1969, the film explores the moment at which Rick’s fame — built on gun-toting Westerns that are now passé — is being eclipsed by the decade’s countercultural wave. Rick’s neighbor Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha) is a figurehead for a new type of movie magic that favors psychological nuance and stylistic complexity. That puts Rick in close quarters with Polanski’s wife, the burgeoning actress Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie), who that year was slaughtered by members of Charles Manson’s cult.

Clocking in at almost three hours, “Once Upon a Time” is a feast for pop-culture lovers and revisionist-history diehards alike. Because this is a Tarantino flick we’re talking about, it’s rife with tiny details and sight gags that give the story zeal. Especially compared to his last project, “The Hateful Eight,” which was talky and cynical, the film is a reflective, optimistic valentine that begs for repeat viewings. 

It also begs for behind-the-scenes anecdotes. So I talked to a handful of people — the stunt coordinator, the cinematographer, a few actors, the prop master and the production designer — to find out what they could tell me about Tarantino’s latest masterstroke. Here are seven tales, dispatched from once upon a not-so-distant time in Hollywood.

Tarantino’s Secretive Script Reads

Tarantino has been burned too many times to take any risks in disseminating his screenplays. The scripts for his last three movies — “Inglourious Basterds,” “Django Unchained” and “The Hateful Eight” — all leaked online before production had finished. This time around, he shrouded everything in secrecy. Only one copy of the full script existed, and it was locked in a safe at Tarantino’s office. Those who were allowed to read it had to go there or to his house to do so, and each signed a nondisclosure agreement. Most people working on the movie were only privy to certain portions of the script, and very few knew what the climactic ending entailed. 

Barbara Ling, the production designer, read the “novelesque” text at Tarantino’s Los Angeles home, where an assistant brought it to her in a private room. “This script was the best script I ever even imagined you could read,” she said. Lorenza Izzo, who plays the actress Rick Dalton marries after a six-month stint making low-grade Italian Westerns, had to go to the set and read the script in a trailer, after which she promptly gave it back. Kate Berlant, the comedian who plays a box-office clerk, was only exposed to her one scene and had little information about the overall plot. 

For Robert Richardson, Tarantino’s longtime cinematographer, the stakes were even higher. “I went to his house to have dinner,” Richardson explained. “We had drinks beforehand. We were talking about the movie and how to possibly shoot it. Then I sat down in the kitchen, which is adjoining the little dining-room table that adjoins his living room. I was thinking he was going to leave. He didn’t. He was walking about the living room the entire read. And I’m talking three and a half hours. And I’m writing notes down. I could see him in the corner, and he’d just sort of look and see if there’s a smile on my face and why I was making a note. He would calculate how deep I was into the script, how many pages. It was very difficult and hard to do. But I have such a close relationship with him. For me, I didn’t mind. I didn’t have anything to hide.”

At that point, Richardson said, Tarantino was meeting with DiCaprio, Pitt and Tom Cruise to decide which combination of the two he’d cast in the lead roles. As far as Richardson knew, Cruise could have played either of the parts that eventually went to DiCaprio and Pitt. But casting aside, there was one glaring holdup. 

“When I finally left, I said, ‘Oh, the only thing I’m missing is the ending,’” Richardson recalled. “He gave us no ending.”

Only DiCaprio, Pitt and Robbie knew the revisionist finale before the five-month production began. Two months ahead of shooting the culminating sequence, Richardson and others were finally given the film’s conclusion at Tarantino’s office. 

And that wasn’t the only precaution taken to avoid leaks. “There was a big rule on set of no cellphones, and I loved it,” Izzo said. “I can’t tell you the amount of times you’re on set and everyone starts looking at their phone. On the set, we had a point where you would check in your phones, like valet.”

In the end, the project avoided any spoilers trickling out prior to the release. That mystique helped it to feel like an event, which perhaps contributed to a bigger-than-expected haul during its first weekend in theaters. 

Maybe that’s what was in the gleaming, hyper-covert “Pulp Fiction” briefcase all along: the “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” screenplay.

Quentin Tarantino shooting a

A Tale Of Two Pit(t)s

“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” is a twofold buddy comedy. The rich relationship between Rick and Cliff undergirds the story, but when Cliff isn’t tending to his oft-drunken pal’s many needs, he has another heavyweight in his life: Brandy, a brown pit bull. 

The film’s posters cite a dog named Sayuri as the canine thespian that played Brandy, but the role actually required three different pit bulls of varying temperaments: two females and a more aggressive male for the violent ending. “I don’t want to ruin it for anybody, but if you want to take a close look, you might find out that Brandy is Brandon,” Richardson said. 

Brandy is a good girl, but Cliff has trained her to attack on command. Enacting those scenes without anyone getting hurt was tricky. “The viciousness that we wanted would determine which dog we would use,” stunt coordinator Robert Alonzo said. “What we really had to explain to everyone was that the dogs had to feel like they were having fun. It has to feel like a constant game. … As with most people who have dogs, it’s not only necessarily training the dog, but it’s also training the owner.”

That means Pitt needed to bond with the entire trio so his chemistry with them would feel as convincing as his chemistry with DiCaprio. Picture it: Pitt — shirtless or not; your pick — and a pit bull nuzzling up to each other in ecstasy. Handlers would bring the pooches to the set early so Pitt had time with them before the cameras rolled. “He would always go up to them and feed them or touch them so he could keep that bond going knowing that the scene was about to play,” Richardson said. 

The Dog Food Was Tarantino’s Invention

Tarantino is known for concocting fictitious brands, a device that helps to connect his movies. Big Kahuna Burger appears in “Reservoir Dogs,” “Pulp Fiction” and Tarantino’s segment of the anthology film “Four Rooms.” The Japanese airline Air O is seen in “Kill Bill” and “Death Proof.” Most famously, Red Apples cigarettes ― first introduced in “Pulp Fiction” ― pop up in almost all of his catalog, including the closing credits of “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.”

Now we can add Wolf’s Tooth to the list. At a mobile home where Cliff lives behind the historic Van Nuys Drive-In theater, he has a cabinet filled with vintage-seeming Wolf’s Tooth cans. The slogan: “Good Food for Mean Dogs.” The mouth-watering flavor options: raccoon, bird, rat, lizard. 

But even fake dog food requires a little science. Tarantino wanted the cylinder of congealed chow to slide out and land in Brandy’s bowl in one perfect, if slightly gross-looking, clump; he even wrote it into the script. Chris Call, the prop master, had to “audition” dog foods to see which real brand had the best slide and could therefore serve as a Wolf’s Tooth substitute. He tested four brands, ultimately landing on Pedigree. 

Brad Pitt and Mike Moh in

The Bruce Lee Scene Almost Ended Differently

One of the most memorable scenes in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” finds Cliff squaring off with the legendary Bruce Lee (Mike Moh) on the set of the short-lived TV series “The Green Hornet,” which in this universe also featured Rick. The moment reveals Cliff’s formidability. If he can hold his own against history’s most famous martial-arts star, who knows what Cliff is capable of? (Murder, perhaps.) 

When Bruce brags about being able to beat Mohammed Ali in a fight ― “My hands are registered as lethal weapons,” he purrs ― Cliff chuckles, in turn angering Bruce, who challenges him to an immediate standoff in front of the crew. Whoever lands on his butt after three rounds loses. But after Cliff takes a punch, he hurls Bruce into a parked car, at which point the stunt coordinators (Kurt Russell and Zoë Bell) put a swift end to the affair and kick Cliff off the set. That leaves the contest unfinished.

In the initial script, however, no one interrupted the fight. Cliff emerged a more clear-cut winner, which made Bruce the loser. That didn’t sit well with Alonzo or Pitt, who were keenly aware of Lee’s cultural renown. 

“I know that Brad had expressed his concerns, and we all had concerns about Bruce losing,” Alonzo recalled. “Especially for me, as someone who has looked up to Bruce Lee as an icon, not only in the martial-arts realm, but in the way he approached philosophy and life, to see your idol be beaten is very disheartening. It really pulled at certain emotional strings that can incite a little anger and frustration as to how he’s portrayed. … There’s a certain mythology and mysticism about who Bruce Lee is, which is understandable. Being an Asian American myself, I definitely related to how Bruce was a symbol of how Asians should be portrayed in movies, instead of the old ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ model that was really prevalent back in the day. … I had a difficult time choreographing a fight where he lost. Everyone involved was like, ‘How is this going to go over?’ Brad was very much against it. He was like, ‘It’s Bruce Lee, man!’”

Round 3 of the fight would have been a much longer battle in which both men kept going at each other, with Cliff eventually making what Alonzo called a “cheap-shot move” that put Bruce on his butt. But the point wasn’t to turn Bruce into the underdog, Alonzo told Tarantino. Rather, it was simply to “explain to the audience the level at which Cliff was [operating].” So Tarantino agreed to have the “Green Hornet” stunt coordinators break up the brawl before the third round, meaning no proper victor could be declared. 

As for the actual fight, Alonzo spent nearly three months, on and off, training Pitt and Moh in various modes of hand combat. Then they spent more time rehearsing the specific choreography needed to make the scene look natural. At no point could the men display what Alonzo calls a “concentration face” — the phony look that actors sometimes evince when they are performing contrived stunts. “I’ve done so many movies with Tom Cruise that I know how to get people to do their own stunts,” he said. Everything we see is actually Pitt and Moh, including the uproarious car slam.

Locals Weren’t Pleased To See Spahn Ranch Return

Deep into “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” as Charles Manson’s followers play an increasing role in the events, an eeriness sets in. Cliff picks up a hitchhiker (Margaret Qualley) who requests a ride to Spahn Ranch, the 55-acre land that once housed Western movie sets and a horseback-riding operation. In 1968, the so-called Manson Family moved to Spahn Ranch, convincing the eponymous owner (played by Bruce Dern) to let them reside there rent-free in exchange for labor. The site ― fairly dilapidated by the time Manson and his mostly female disciples took over ― came to represent the counterculture’s evil underbelly. What used to be a productive, joyful place became a haven for racist murderers. 

It makes sense, then, that some nearby residents were aggrieved when they saw Spahn Ranch being rebuilt at a public park near the Santa Susana Mountains, where it was originally located. “They thought it was going to be a movie about the Manson Family,” Ling said. “There was pushback to the [Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks], and the park came back and said, ‘Stop. This is just one set of a Tarantino movie.’”

Margot Robbie in

At First, Leo Wasn’t So Sure About The Flamethrower

DiCaprio had to work with one of the most intimidating props in cinema history: a flamethrower, the self-explanatory weapon that was common during both world wars. A quick flashback to an “Inglourious Basterds”-esque movie scene featuring Rick torching a cabal of Nazis required DiCaprio to actually set his co-stars on fire ― a task that would make any sensible person nervous, even one whose targets are covered in flame-retardant material.

Alonzo, who after 23 years in the business has “a lot of experience with fire-burning,” demonstrated the Nazi scene for DiCaprio by allowing himself to be set ablaze first. “Leo was not very gung-ho with all the flamethrower stuff,” Alonzo said. “Literally, he doesn’t want to hurt anyone. And I completely understood it. Normally you use a stunt person in that spot to be able to manage firing a flamethrower at somebody. When I did ‘Tropic Thunder,’ Nick Nolte [accidentally] fired a flamethrower at me. … This time, [Leo] is actually lighting them up and holding a flame to them for about seven to eight seconds as the flamethrower is traversing back and forth around eight guys that he’s never met. That is psychologically difficult to do, so kudos to him on being able to stay in character and do that scene.” 

It “took some coaxing” to make DiCaprio comfortable. When he saw that everyone in Alonzo’s demonstration was indeed safe, DiCaprio made everyone in the room give him a round of applause.

DiCaprio’s Eye-Contact Rumors Are Apparently False

In a story about DiCaprio’s career, The Hollywood Reporter cited an anonymous “on-set source” who claimed that some crew members were told to avoid eye contact with the A-list actor. Richardson and Ling both quashed the rumor. 

“He’s the sweetest,” Ling said, insisting no such command was issued. 

Richardson said most movie stars aren’t the divas we like to think they are, a theory that “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” echoes in its humanizing depiction of Rick’s career dip. Closing yourself off from the crew, Richardson said, is the “wrong energy” for a medium that requires constant collaboration among hundreds of people. 

“They said the same thing about Ben Kingsley, that you couldn’t look him in the eye,” said Richardson, who shot Kingsley in “Hugo” and praised his professionalism.

“And Val Kilmer,” Ling continued. Both worked with him on “The Doors,” the 1991 biopic about the titular rock band. “Not true.” 

How Amit Shah Introduced Move To Scrap Article 370 In The Rajya Sabha

$
0
0

The Narendra Modi government on Monday scrapped Article 370 that gives special status to Jammu and Kashmir and moved a separate bill to bifurcate the state into two separate union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

The Rajya Sabha passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill on Monday. 

Home Minister Amit Shah moved the resolution on Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill 2019 in the Rajya Sabha amid massive uproar by opposition parties. He informed the House that President Ram Nath Kovind had signed the official notification abrogating Article 370.

As soon as Shah made the announcement, members of the Congress, TMC and DMK squat on the floor of the House, one of the PDP members tore his clothes and then along with another PDP member tore copies of the Constitution, prompting Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu to order that they be physically removed.

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on TwitterFacebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

Shah, who received a standing ovation from his party colleagues when he entered the House minutes before proceedings in the Rajya Sabha commenced, termed the move as “historic”, saying Article 370 had not allowed integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the country.

Shah said Article 370 would no longer be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir.

What happened in the House?

When the House met, Naidu said he had used his discretionary powers to waive the requirement of the government to give advance notice and circulate a bill as the issue was of urgent national importance.

Leader of the Opposition and senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad said he wanted the situation in Kashmir to be discussed first but Naidu allowed Shah to move the resolution.

Shah moved the resolution to abolish Article 370 as well as the state reorganisation bill along with listed bills to extend the reservation for economically weaker sections in educational institutions and government jobs in Jammu and Kashmir.

The reorganisation bill provides for the formation of the union territory of Ladakh without legislature and a separate one for Jammu and Kashmir with legislature.

While Naidu said only the bill for providing reservation is being moved now and the other (reorganisation bill) would be done after it is circulated to members, the House in a voice vote approved the introduction.

So, later, Naidu allowed Shah to re-introduce the resolution and the reorganisation bill, saying copies have now been circulated to members.

Shah said Article 370 was always temporary and past governments did not remove it because of lack of political will and vote bank politics.

“It is not true that Jammu and Kashmir joined India because of Article 370,” he said.

Shah in his resolution said, ”...the President, on the recommendation of Parliament, is pleased to declare that, as from 5th of August, 2019, all clauses of the said article 370 shall cease to be operative except clause (1) thereof.” 

“All provisions of this Constitution, as amended from time to time, without any modifications or exceptions, shall apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir,” it read.

During the discussion, SP’s Ram Gopal Yadav asked the Deputy Chair whether Article 370 could be repealed without amending Constitution.

Amit Shah stepped in to say that provision 370(3) within Article 370 provided that the President had the power to bring out a public notification to cease Article 370, but only on the recommendation of Constitution Assembly.

In the notification that the President issued on Monday morning, Shah said that Constituent Assembly meant the state assembly.

Since Jammu and Kashmir was under President’s Rule, all powers of the state assembly are vested in the Parliament. Therefore, the Parliament could pass a resolution to abrogate Art 370, Shah said.

He also said, “This is not the first time Article 370 has been amended. Congress in 1952 and 1962 amended it through a similar process.”

Article 370 of the Constitution granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir whereby provisions of the Constitution which are applicable to other states are not applicable to J&K.

As per this article, except for defence, foreign affairs, finance and communications, Parliament needs the state government’s concurrence for applying all other laws. It was introduced in the Constitution on October 17, 1949.

(With PTI inputs)

The Govt Didn't Actually Scrap Article 370. A Law Professor Explains What Really Happened

$
0
0
A file image of Prof. Faizan Mustafa, a senior law teacher and jurist of constitutional law.

The division of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories is the most worrying part of Monday’s developments, said Prof. Faizan Mustafa, a senior law teacher and jurist of constitutional law. This bifurcation has deprived J&K of even the status of an ordinary state, said Mustafa, who is also the Vice Chancellor of Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad. 

“The problem is that Kashmir will now be ruled from Delhi. This is not good for federalism. Federalism is the basic structure of the Constitution,” he told HuffPost India in an interview. 

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on TwitterFacebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

The presidential order, Mustafa clarified, does not scrap Article 370 but extends all its provisions to Jammu and Kashmir, thereby rendering void Article 35A, which gave special status to the state. This order is “constitutionally suspect” and can be challenged in the Supreme Court, but it’s unlikely that the country’s highest judicial body will intervene, he said. Edited excerpts from an interview:

What does the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) order, 2019, issued by President Ram Nath Kovind mean for the state of Jammu and Kashmir?   

It is being said that Article 370 of the Constitution is scrapped. The Presidential order does not scrap Article 370, which guarantees special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The Presidential order has invoked Article 370 to extend the whole or all provisions of Indian Constitution to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. As the order now extends Part 3 of the Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Article 35 A, which was part of Article 370, now becomes void. The Article had given the state exemption from fundamental rights earlier. It was under the provisions of Article 35A and the exemptions that it brought that Jammu and Kashmir had special rights (right to decide permanent residents and their right to ownership of immovable assets, special rights in government jobs, scholarships etc). When the order extended the fundamental rights to the state, the special status which gave the state autonomy became nonexistent.  

Why is the order being questioned? Does it violate any existing provisions? 

Article 370 of the Constitution is based on an Instrument of Accession (IoA) signed by Maharaja of Kashmir, Raja Hari Singh. This instrument assured autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir by agreeing that the state could have its own constitution and Constituent Assembly. 

As per this IoA, Indian Union has to take concurrence of Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly to extend provisions of the Constitution to the State. Based on this, if we read Article 370, clause (3), it specifically states that the Article can be suspended and can cease to operate only through a resolution from the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. 

When the Constituent Assembly is not functional (it is currently dissolved), the concurrence of its successor body, the Legislative Assembly, should have been taken. Legislative Assembly of J&K is the successor body of its Constituent Assembly, just like the Parliament is the successor body of India’s Constituent Assembly. A resolution withdrawing the special status should have ideally come from the State’s Legislative Assembly. This democratic and Constitutional means was not adopted. 

It should have been adopted because it would have been in tune with commitment that was extended to the people of Kashmir and Raja Hari Singh. Kashmir was a country by itself under the Indian independence act. When two countries draft an agreement it should ideally honour the terms of that agreement. 

Jammu and Kashmir is now divided into two Union territories. What does that mean to the state which until today had special status? 

This is more worrisome than the revocation of special status. If Jammu and Kashmir had remained like any other state, it would still have been fine. The division has deprived Jammu and Kashmir of even the status of an ordinary state. Now J&K has a lower status because it was reduced to a union territory. This is unprecedented as far as I know. Usually union territories are upgraded to form States. 

By dividing the State into Union Territories, the Centre has deprived Jammu and Kashmir of the autonomy which is available to other states under provisions of the Constitution. Like Delhi or Puducherry, Kashmir will now be under the control of a Lieutenant Governor and it will be a centrally administered territory.

Many Kashmiri political leaders have said that the people of Kashmir have been betrayed by this move. Have the people of Kashmir become more vulnerable now? 

It is not a question of vulnerability. The problem is that Kashmir will now be ruled from Delhi. This is not good for federalism. Federalism is the basic structure of the Constitution.

In a federal polity, all states should not be treated in the same manner. Under federalism, all states must have autonomy and Kashmir has a 70-year-old history of autonomy. Giving more autonomy to the states do not weaken the centre. 

I will go by the old saying, “If we risk federalism then it gives birth to secessionist sentiment. If we strengthen federalism then the country remains united and integrated”.

Was this move by the centre a sudden development or was it in the offing? In 2015, a PIL was filed in the Supreme Court challenging Article 35A. 

Bharatiya Janata Party and the Jan Sangh has been maintaining that Kashmir should not have special status. They have been maintaining that special status to Kashmir was only a ‘temporary provision’. It was not a temporary provision. I say that it was not a temporary provision because the Supreme Court of India on several occasions made the same observation. The Supreme Court in a number of cases had said that even though the word “temporary” is used in Article 370, the provision is not temporary. Forty five presidential orders were issued under article 370.    

When NDA government was formed with Atal Bihari Vajpayee as the Prime Minister, BJP was clear that they could not insist on scrapping of special status as it was a contentious issue. With Narendra Modi as Prime Minister and the massive majority which BJP won in 2019 election, the party realized that the time was right to push this. 

It should be remembered that even in the past, Article 370 has been misused. But the Article over a period of time became a tunnel between the Centre and the State. Through this tunnel, almost all provisions of the Indian Constitution were extended to Jammu and Kashmir. But the little autonomy the State had is now taken away.     

Can the Presidential order and the division of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territories be challenged?

The Presidential order can be challenged in the Supreme Court. But Constitutional questions generally get referred to the Constitutional benches and they take 2-3 years to decide. I do not foresee a quick Constitutional remedy of the Supreme Court staying the Presidential order. I am not very hopeful of it.

It is constitutionally suspect. But going by the way the Court examines an issue, I do not think the Court is going to intervene. 

I am inclined to believe that the court may not interfere. 

BJP's Manoeuvring Of Article 370 And The Retreat Of Liberal Politics

$
0
0

All the speculation around the Modi government’s plans for Jammu & Kashmir came to an end on Monday with President Ram Nath Kovind issuing a public notification and home minister Amit Shah submitting a Bill in the Rajya Sabha seeking the scrapping of Article 370 and Article 35A. As the subsequent debate ensued in the Upper House of Parliament, it became clear that the objections were less on the proposed measure, which sought the abrogation of Article 370 which gave the state of Jammu and Kashmir special status to have its own rules and modes of deciding citizenship. Rather, the main objections were about the very procedure which, critics said, lacked fairness. Therefore, from a liberal vantage point, the primary objection was on the grounds of ethics and morality about the way the bill was introduced. There was a legal objection to the process, but it seemed almost secondary to ethical considerations.

A cursory glance at the events of the past week would indicate that all the hallmarks of the liberal school of politics, namely, greater transparency, a consensus-seeking attitude and adopting a middle path, have been trampled upon by the BJP to push through this move. It sought to do this by 

a.) re-reading constitutional norms in the light of the subjective political situation in the state

b.) employing the exceptional and extraordinary measure of secrecy and 

c.) delegating the recommendatory power to the governor. 

It can be argued that the third point is technically legal because, as per Article 370(3), it is the Constituent Assembly of the state which has the power to recommend the abrogation of the said article to the President. Since the constituent assembly of J&K does not exist anymore, this power is delegated to the state assembly of the state. But as J&K is under President’s rule, legally the state assembly is suspended. So as per the constitutional provision, the governor assumes all the power of the Assembly.

Therefore, in a strictly legal sense, the governor could recommend such a measure, how baffling and unethical it might seem, especially considering governor Satya Pal Malik was, until Sunday, denying any such move despite continuous questioning from the media.

What also deserves attention is the BJP’s political timing: The J&K legislature comprises 87 elected members, wherein the Kashmir valley alone accounts for the majority, i.e, 46 MLAs. Jammu has 37 MLAs and Ladakh 4. Therefore, taking into account the political mood of the Valley, it would have been near impossible for an elected state Assembly in the state to pass a resolution to scrap Article 370. Therefore, the BJP had no choice but to go for the extraordinary measure of scrapping the Article when the state was under President’s rule.

But what has got this Bill passed on Monday is not merely the BJP’s legal ingenuity, which indicates that it will push through more changes like these by taking everyone by surprise and abandoning any pretense to liberalism. Rather, it is the more cunning invocation of the ‘political’ by the government that ensures its hegemony over its rivals.

For instance, by arguing that Article 370 stood in the way of an egalitarian and gendered notion of Citizenship as it marginalized Dalits, tribal sections and women in the state, the BJP was able to isolate liberals who were trying to take recourse to existing political norms and common sense. This is one reason why the Bill drew support across the political spectrum, including from the Bahujan Samaj Party, Aam Aadmi Party and even the Bodoland People’s Front. While the Congress voted against the Bill, its chief whip in the Rajya Sabha resigned, saying its stand was “against the mood and emotions of the nation”.   

The BJP not only succeeded in catering to the popular nationalist sentiment but also managed to entrap liberal critics by framing its arguments for the law to support a logic of egalitarianism by invoking the empowerment of subaltern sections.

For the latest news and more, follow HuffPost India on TwitterFacebook, and subscribe to our newsletter.

Here, it would be pertinent to look at the historical debate in 1920s Germany, the Weimar Republic, between the votaries of Liberal Jurisprudence and their arch-rival Carl Schmitt. In his seminal book, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, Schmitt, the German jurist and political theorist, critiqued the ‘liberal jurisprudence and school of thought’ by pointing out that a state and society doesn’t run according to the static texts of its constitution. Rather, the constitutional norms are mediated by the situations of the day wherein the law-enforcer (the leader with a mandate) has to take a call and go for a decision. Hence, for Schmitt, it’s the politics of the decisions of the day that supersedes and determines the constitutional morality of a nation.

For Schmitt, sovereign is he who decides on the exception, and the leader has the right to exercise “exception over the norm” and “ordinary over extraordinary”. This, to him, is the essence of politics, which gets limited by the very liberal approach of privileging the principle of unanimity and consensus over partisan decision-making. The liberal school, naturally, was diametrically opposed to the Schmittian conception of politics and society and the state.

The BJP not only succeeded in catering to the popular nationalist sentiment but also managed to entrap liberal critics by framing its arguments for the law to support a logic of egalitarianism by invoking the empowerment of subaltern sections.

The approach of the second Modi government must also be seen in continuum with its earlier decisions. The party has gone ahead with passing the triple talaq bill, despite the objection by opposition parties that the said Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution by turning the civil crime of a Muslim husband of divorcing his wife into a criminal one. There also, BJP created a dilemma among the opposition, taking recourse to the liberal conception of invoking the constitutional norm of Article 14, which ensures everyone’s equal before the law by privileging the political logic of gender justice. 

Its decision to go for scrapping Article 370 demonstrates the core characteristic of the current regime. It follows a regime of decision-making wherein the old procedures, constitutional norms and established conventions aren’t considered as superseding framework. The fact that in the current session, the two Houses of Parliament in its 35 sittings have passed an astounding 26 bills proves that a new mode of politics has emerged in India.

At this juncture, it’s too early to predict what the fallout of this new mode will be. However, this certainly heralds India into an intense state of political contestations wherein the domain of political permeates every sphere and issue in a big way. While the advocates of Schmittian politics and jurisprudence would endorse the unfolding of the intense state of the political in India, the liberal Scholl is certainly on the path of a grand retreat. Any shift from the current scenario and any liberal quest to work towards a massive reversal of such a mode would require a leader who can match Modi’s sovereignty in day-to-day decisions.

Viewing all 46147 articles
Browse latest View live