The Queen’s spokespeople have challenged the Sun story, which was that at a gathering of some ministers of the Privy Council, traditionally advisers to the monarch, she expressed strong opinions in favour of Brexit.Neither Mr Clegg nor Mr Gove have categorically said that the Queen said no such thing. Mr Cameron wisely or unwisely allowed his ministers to dissent and the Tories are now at war with themselves. The Queen, and indeed the members of the Royal family, are permitted to pilot helicopters, join the armed forces, head up charities and international commissions to get rid of landmines, to ride in carriages and wave at the public, to throw garden parties for their subjects, speak on behalf of British business on forums abroad, launch ships, cut ribbons to open fetes and many other duties. On June 23, British voters will be summoned to a referendum which will determine the issue by a majority vote. Royalty are now figureheads and they are not so much "above" politics and policies, as forbidden to participate in them.According to this constitution, ever since Cromwell and his Republicans (not to be confused with Donald Trump’s lot) cut off Charles I’s head in the 17th century, the monarchs of England have haemorrhaged power. One or two Cabinet members, serving in Mr Cameron’s government are shamelessly positioning themselves to succeed him as Prime Minister. One of the Brexit advocates, Michael Gove, who is serving at present as justice minister is suspected of using what the unwritten British constitution considers a dirty tactic. In this case, it’s the argument of whether to stay in European Union or to leave it. The Sun now says it has very many more details which it hasn’t yet published and that it is ready to face an investigation into the scoop as it stands by the two impeccable sources who gave the paper the story.Of course, the opponents of Brexit, those who want Britain to remain in the EU, which includes British Prime Minister David Cameron, argue that the bombings prove that cooperation between European nations is the only guarantee of future security. The Queen can’t very well now say that the story is a lie and that she wholeheartedly supports being in the EU. Mr Clegg merely said he could recall nothing. An enquiry by the regulators of the British press has been initiated. They are not permitted to say what they think of cutting taxes or increasing them, of going to war in Iraq or for that matter to say whether they think Britain is better off outside the EU or inside it. As in the internecine wars of the Mughals, the ultimate prize is the top job. It will enquire into whether the Queen did breach the convention of strict political neutrality.“Twinkle twinkle little starWe by-and-large know what you areThough it may sound a little crassYou’re just a bunch of nucleating gasTwinkle twinkle little star "Twinkle twinkle little starWe by-and-large know what you areThough it may sound a little crassYou’re just a bunch of nucleating gasTwinkle twinkle little starA billion light years is much too far "From The Collected Works of L. The voters of England rule, okay The Queen and her household are expected to venture no political opinion and Elizabeth II is reputed to have staunchly avoided any interference in government or public policy. When the Privy Councillors met the Queen, Michael Gove was education minister and was present when the Sun says the Queen expressed such an opinion. Mr Gove is the justice minister in the present government and a very vociferous and influential voice on the Brexit ticket. The corollary: British voters should vote to leave. By Bachchoo)No sooner had news of the suicide bombings in Brussels hit the world than the vile opportunists of British politics began using the slaughter to further the ends of their political argument. Her job depends on remaining neutral, even though this job is defined by an unwritten constitution and relies on precedent, on tradition and to a certain degree on common sense. The Queen’s people, backed by one of the then ministers present, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democratic Party who is now out of government and is strongly opposed to Brexit, said no such conversation took place. The editor of the Sun, Tony Gallagher, says he won’t disclose the identity of his highly reliable sources but will back up his paper’s scoop with more information.The Queen is now accused by the Sun newspaper of breaking the golden rule of silence and expressing an opinion on Brexit to politicians and ministers who were her guests at Windsor Palace. The Sun and its sources certainly calculate that the Queen’s opinion will influence a significant number of voters. Mr Gove told Mr Cameron, his boss and personal friend, who is on the opposite side, that it was not he who leaked the story to the Sun and Mr Cameron told the world that he believed his pal. When asked to confirm or deny the Sun’s story, he merely said, "have a nice day" or "how’s your uncle" or some such deeply meaningful denial to the reporters hounding him. Their antagonisms bear comparison to a Mughal war of succession in which sons will imprison fathers and blind or kill their brothers. The issue is the hottest potato in British politics today and promises to be so for at least the duration of this year and perhaps this Parliament, whose term expires in 2020. Mr Cameron and his finance minister George Osborne, who is also against leaving the EU, are in trouble. In all probability it will not force the Sun to reveal its sources because if the revelation does implicate Mr Gove, it will put him in a very awkward constitutional position as violating the privacy of the Privy Council and the Queen. Fell (Ed. The proponents of British exit from the EU ("Brexit"), even before the blood in the Brussels Metro was dry, issued scare-mongering statements China Aluminum/Steel CSK Head Blind Rivets Company claiming that the acts of terror which murdered 35 people and injured 150 was a direct consequence of membership of the European Union

That such an endorsement may eventually trigger a return to the dark past when democratic institutions and thought were bludgeoned into submission is a real worry for mainstream political parties. Yet, three months later, Mr Trump has expanded an Islamophobic campaign that buttresses insecurity among White Americans and plays on this group’s fear of the "other" who, in their imagination, is sounding the death knell for white supremacy. This underscores the inherent hypocrisy of democratic nations because they confront Islamophobists in their countries with regularity but display concern on Mr Modi’s prejudice-promoting politics only when Christians and their religious properties are targeted. Even earlier, mainstreaming of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Jana Sangh was a result of its partnership with other anti-Congress parties during the Emergency, when it became part of the Janata Party.In the aftermath of the events in Jawaharlal Nehru University, the ruling dispensation is forcing every person intervening in the debate to first prove his/her nationalistic commitment. Muslims, according to Mr Trump, are bad because they import terror while Indians are evil for stealing jobs. Last year, when India marked the 40th anniversary of the imposition of Emergency, L. In most countries, public support for this viewpoint, though significant, has not been overwhelming — one that could force a change in the dominant political discourse. Unlike in Europe or the US, this change has not been overnight; it has been accompanied by the Bharatiya Janata Party’s gradual progression to power.The writer is the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, the Times and Sikhs: The Untold Agony of 1984 The challenge to Mr Trump’s proposition that security challenges in Europe can be met only by racial and sectarian means suggests that the majority of people and political forces do not support his tactics and theories. Will someone be labelled anti-India for supporting Bangladesh in the T-20 finals Will I be anti-national by wishing that JNU should remain as it is India is beginning to resemble Hirak Rajya or the Kingdom of Diamonds, the imaginary kingdom of Satyajit Ray’s classic Hirak Rajar Deshe. Advani stunned the nation by stating that he did not rule out the possibility of a similar situation in future. At that time, Mr Trump securing a presidential nomination appeared as remote a possibility as any of them becoming the next Indian President. Questioning its steps or saying that the Indian armed forces do not have the best of human rights records is labelled a grossly anti-national act. Instead of official censorship, there is social restriction on what can be said. Emergency may not have been imposed by law but it is already in place by action. Governments and mainstream political parties have, by and large, reacted with dread to odd groups channelising this nascent support and converting it into a wider backing. Moral and political custodians of the day can then be reformed and a semblance of pluralism restored in our social discourse. Despite charges of Prime Minister Narendra Modi being complicit in anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002, which led to global condemnation and extreme steps like denying him a visa to the US and disapproval in the UK, after he became Prime Minister, several nations and their leaders, starting with the US, the UK, France and Germany among several others, fawned over him as the new hero from India who would not only transform bilateral partnerships with their country but also become a more potent global ally in the war against terror.25 billions people forces them to pay obeisance. They stand in line waiting for their turn to be hugged and get selfies taken because in their mind they are tabulating economic gains from treaties and agreements. No effort is made to rationally detail what being anti-India means.Over the past two and a half decades, India has witnessed a steady rise in support for majoritarianism and totalitarian definition of nationalism. Compared to the 1980s, the majority of Indians have an altered perspective now when talking on the minority question and the relationship of the majority community with the minorities. The rise of Islamic terror post-Cold War has witnessed resurgence of Right-wing politics in several parts of the Western world, including Europe. It is forgotten that anyone who questions accepted assumptions is neither rejecting the broad consensus nor committing a crime. After all, the West has always turned a blind eye to human rights violations in countries it has economic interests.In the past 22 months, India has taken a huge step back. Yet, his claim of representing 1.The American establishment is not exactly gung-ho at the prospect of Mr Trump becoming President and upsetting the status quo. The Indian Army is now viewed as an institution that can do no wrong. One can hope that a fantasy machine like the film’s Jantar Mantar miraculously appears. The attack on JNU and other temples of learning resembles the despot’s decision to shut schools because knowledge empowers people to protest. Forget dissent, one is not even allowed to question basic presumptions of the ruling government. Yet, we have a situation in India where the ruling party and government browbeat the entire populace into accepting a unitary view on every issue. In conversations with diplomatic representatives of several nations, it is evident that they consider Mr Modi little more than a showman. Not agreeing with the BJP discourse — no one should have a contrarian view on Afzal Guru or Yakub Memon’s execution — means that the person is anti-national. The rise of the BJP, it must be factored, was greatly assisted by other political parties which facilitated this by discreet electoral pacts and open coalitions since the 1980s.Three months ago, I jocularly argued in these columns (Our ‘liberal’ worries, December 18) that American presidential aspirant Donald Trump could be considered an avatar of fringe Hindutva politicians China FLAT HEAD SLOTTED BODY BLIND RIVET NUTS Company Three months ago, I jocularly argued in these columns (Our ‘liberal’ worries, December 18) that American presidential aspirant Donald Trump could be considered an avatar of fringe Hindutva politicians like Praveen Togadia, Sakshi Maharaj and Yogi Adityanath.K. Mr Trump attacks all immigrants; Muslims and Indians constitute a fair number of them. Questioning authority — political as well as intellectual — is the essence of democracy

In the three years I spent at St. From what my contemporaries tell me, their late-night sessions at the various dhabas and hostel rooms were equally enthralling — with the presence of women students adding to the attraction. Its admissions policy was structured to ensure that people with access to less privileged undergraduate education were accommodated. Whereas the Stephanians compensated this shortcoming with a vibrant culture of peer group support, it discriminated against those who needed constant encouragement and even some spoon-feeding.I am not in a position to accurately reflect the quality of social life in JNU. The political spectrum was wide but could have been wider. This was partly due to a sharp abhorrence of the senselessness of a preceding generation that had chosen to abandon their studies and go "underground" to join the Naxalite movement in some corner of Bihar. A consequence of this social levelling was that the student body had a far richer and varied social connect. Their traumatic experiences — usually marked by an overwhelming sense of futility — narrated to us by those who had returned to complete their education, proved a major deterrent. However, what was disconcerting was that it ended with a bout of voluble and excitable war of slogans between supporters and opponents of our present Prime Minister. Stephen’s College, situated at the other end of Delhi, JNU epitomised the exact opposite of our undergrad experience. Southern and western India was, by contrast, under-represented. That, after all, is the hallmark of student meetings. However, the overwhelming majority were from similar English-medium schools and, consequently, shared not only a common language but broadly similar social assumptions. The ridiculously cheap (often verging on near-zero cost) fees also made it possible for students with modest parental income to receive quality education. At Stephen’s the overwhelming majority shunned political activism. For a start, it was socially varied. But what seems apparent is the fact that blind hatred towards a regime, the growing obsolescence of a belief system and the rise of alternative challenges has propelled a move towards unacceptable extremism. Many of these Coffee House friendships have endured over the years.Contrary to a stereotypical view that some people have of me, I entertain a sneaking admiration of Jawaharlal Nehru University. Today, after Mr Modi’s victory in 2014, and the growing marginalisation of the Left, it is this sloganeering that has become the norm with absolutely absurd fringe groups using the campus as a safe house. However, there was one major difference. Thus, even the handful of us who were excited and inspired by Jayaprakash Narayan’s "total revolution" call, were not enthralled by the idea of abandoning studies for a year. In an article celebrating the JNU ambience, Professor Peter DeSouza — a truly wonderful individual whose political orientation is far removed from mine — has argued that in JNU "the liberal persuasion was not allowed the space it should have been given by the Stalinist Left. This, quite naturally, facilitated a better quality of education. I can recall the unending early-evening adda sessions at the University Coffee House that used to be located at the rear corner of the vice-chancellor’s office. Finally, the collegiate atmosphere of the two institutions was markedly different. Stephen’s, the high points of political excitement were a boisterous meeting of Tariq Ali (organised on a Sunday evening by Stephanians who were now in JNU) and convivial discussions with the likes of the amiable Piloo Mody of the Swatantra Party. Second, unlike Delhi University where the engagement between students and teachers was nominal at the post-graduate level, except at the Delhi School of Economics, JNU’s healthy student-teacher ration made it possible for teachers to engage more closely with their students. What has stunned me is not a possible police flat-footedness but the inability of the larger JNU community (and its fellow travellers) to acknowledge that even intellectual permissiveness has its limits. It was here that some of us got to be friends with the likes of Arun Jaitley, an ABVP activist and an office bearer China Aluminum/Stainless Steel Open Type Blind Rivets of the Delhi University Student’s Union. Stephanians were usually disdainful of activism. And that wider society also matters. All the 57 varieties of Marxist thought may have been rigorously dissected but it was all Left politics and more Left politics. The political fare offered at JNU was both more varied and limited. Analytical thinking was feeble and ideological camps gave protection to the less capable. The college "residence" (as the hostel was called) had a generous sprinkling of students from Patna, Hazaribagh, Jaipur, Calcutta, Lucknow and the north-eastern states. Yes, St. This is not to imply that they were apolitical. Stephen’s had a fairly representative student body in terms of geographical spread. And it was at the Coffee House that we met the hostel girls from Miranda House and Indraprastha College and other students from Hindu College. By contrast, JNU was far more socially diverse. There was a seamless and untroubled transition from the public schools and Christian-run schools to Stephen’s. The ideological cronyism that often marked its academic appointments ensured that belief systems were reproduced and perpetuated over generations. With activism being marked by astonishing sets of certitudes, it was only natural — and, indeed, inevitable — that the ambience would turn roguish once there was a challenge to the existing ideological ecosystem. Despite the apparent civility and the openness, JNU of the late-1970s was also defeating the very purpose of a university and becoming an ideological centre." DeSouza was, predictably, rationing his criticism in view of the present controversy over the explosion of "azadi" sloganeering in JNU, but the thrust of his observations are apparent. Contrary to a stereotypical view that some people have of me, I entertain a sneaking admiration of Jawaharlal Nehru University. There was a large audience who heard me and then posed both friendly and hostile questions. Whether its Student’s Union President is guilty of sedition or was a mere "useful idiot" in a more sinister game that he had failed to grasp is for the courts to decide. I sensed some of this in early-2014 when I was invited to deliver a post-dinner talk on the Narendra Modi phenomenon.The writer is a senior journalist end-of. Some of this may be explained by the fact that Stephen’s was essentially for undergraduates while JNU catered to post-graduate and research students. Billed by Indira Gandhi as a "centre of excellence" when it was established in the early-1970s, around the time I was an undergraduate at St