A fiery showdown is brewing between the White House and one of America’s most prestigious universities
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening, you're watching News Today. I am Preeti Chaudhary.
00:03Our big talking points over the course of the next one are Donald Trump guns for Harvard University
00:09and Howard stands up to Trump. Also, National Herald case, Congress rallies behind the Gandhis,
00:16all of that coming up through the course of the next one hour.
00:19First up, allow me to take you through the headlines.
00:24Congress stages massive protest over ED charge sheet against Gandhi's National Herald case.
00:29BJP says Gandhi's will have to give answers.
00:32Karge accuses BJP of vendetta politics.
00:38Robert Wadra quizzed for nearly six hours in Haryana Land Deal case,
00:42summoned for round three of questioning tomorrow.
00:50Supreme Court refuses to stay Operation of WACF Act, post-matter for tomorrow.
00:56Supreme Court to give order on whether WACF properties will be denotified
01:00and inclusion of non-Muslims in WACF board.
01:08Mamta blames BJP for instigating riots, claims BJP-BSF plot.
01:13West Bengal BJP chief and violence victims meet police DGP.
01:18Lingayat Vokaliga groups oppose Karnataka caste census.
01:27Plan all surveys.
01:29Karnataka Congress MLA demands Lingayat ministers' resignation over caste survey.
01:35EPS denies power sharing in 2026, contradicts ally BJP.
01:45EPS says he will lead the state while Prime Minister will lead nationally.
01:54Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna recommends appointment of Justice B.R. Gavai
02:00as the next Chief Justice.
02:08After 2.3 billion federal funding freeze, Trump calls Harvard a joke.
02:13Says university has been hiring woke teaching staff.
02:17And Trump massively ramps up China tariffs.
02:24U.S. lapsed 245% tariff on China now.
02:29Move after China paused export of rare earth minerals.
02:32All right, news break right on top.
02:45U.S. vice president and his wife, Usha Vance.
02:48J.D. Vance to visit India.
02:51J.D. Vance on India and Italy visit from April 18th to 24th.
02:56The second lady of the U.S.
02:58Usha Vance to accompany the United States vice president.
03:02The U.S. vice president will hold meetings with Prime Minister Modi, J.D. Vance and family
03:07to visit Delhi, Jaipur and Agra.
03:09This, we have largely, is a personal visit.
03:12Let's cut across right now to my colleague Geeta Mohan,
03:14our external affairs editor, joining us live.
03:17Geeta, what largely is now a personal visit?
03:20What could be the official takeaway from it?
03:22Well, there is a bilateral meeting between Vice President Vance and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
03:29This could encompass all issues that are to do with India-U.S. ties,
03:35particularly right now, Preeti, the fact that there's a lot of conversation on regarding tariffs.
03:41That could come up during talks, but it is not going to be specific to any one issue,
03:46given that there are concerned departments that are working on ensuring an early BTA,
03:51bilateral trade agreement between India and the United States of America.
03:54Having said that, they are looking at how to take forward the trust initiative between India and the U.S.,
04:01and that certainly is going to be part of the conversations and announcements when the two leaders meet.
04:07But it certainly is a private visit.
04:10Usha Vance and J.D. Vance, along with the three kids, are going to be in Delhi, Jaipur, Agra.
04:15So, a lot of personal visits, expect a lot of photo opportunities, the kids always go viral.
04:23So, that certainly is going to happen during the visit in India.
04:26But 21st is the day when you'll have some official level talks between the two sides,
04:33between Prime Minister Modi and Vice President Vance.
04:37Gita, so there is a bilateral, so in all probability,
04:40one of the biggest issues staring us in the face is trade that will be on the table for talks,
04:45but a largely personal visit starting the 18th, which is not very far off.
04:50Where does the Vice President and his wife, Usha Vance, and the India Connect there wish to travel?
04:57Well, they are going to travel to three cities that we know of, Delhi, Jaipur and Agra.
05:03She has a massive India Connect, but it's connected to Hyderabad.
05:07We do not really know whether if she's going to be in Hyderabad or connect with the family there.
05:15Most probably what we're given to understand is that her family members could travel to Delhi
05:19to meet with her and the family and the kids.
05:23But that's certainly, again, you know, all under wraps for security reasons.
05:27We've been asking details of what really happened and how is the trip going to pan out in Jaipur and Agra as well.
05:35Again, mostly under wraps for security reasons, but we will have details on logistics so that we can plan coverage accordingly.
05:43This is going to be a very important visit when it comes to the United States of America,
05:48one of the highest level visits between India and the U.S.
05:52Mike Waltz was also supposed to be here around the same day as the National Security Advisor of the United States of America,
05:57Preeti, but he's cancelled or rescheduling his visit.
06:01For now, this certainly remains the highest level visit from the U.S.
06:06And we'll have to wait and see.
06:07Even the bilateral between him and Prime Minister Modi is not a structured bilateral.
06:12It's just a meeting between the two leaders, given that he's going to be in India.
06:17And Prime Minister Modi will be travelling out to Saudi Arabia immediately after.
06:22So, the window for them to meet is only on the 21st.
06:26All right, only the 21st there, where in all probabilities there will be a bilateral,
06:31where the Prime Minister Narendra Modi would be meeting with the Vice President of the United States of America.
06:37Appreciate you joining us, Geeta, on that.
06:39We're going to come back to you for more.
06:40Let's stick with the news coming in from America.
06:43And a massive face-off is building.
06:46President Trump versus the Howard University.
06:49Well, that battle has only but escalated.
06:53President Trump has said Howard hiring radicals left and, yes, losing the word idiots and bird brains.
07:02Moreover, suggesting Howard should not get federal funds.
07:06Two billion dollar federal grants to Howard have been frozen.
07:09Howard refuses to bow to Trump diktat.
07:13Trump admin wants more say in university affairs.
07:17And Howard has dug in its feet saying, absolutely not.
07:24All right.
07:25The U.S. President is relentless in his attacks on Harvard University.
07:31The latest social media jibe comes in the wake of his threat to strip Harvard off its tax-exempt status on 15th April.
07:39Because on Monday, Harvard University rejected what it called unlawful demands to overhaul academic programs or lose federal grants.
07:50First, when it comes to Harvard, as I said, the president has been quite clear they must follow federal law.
07:55He also wants to see Harvard apologize.
07:57And Harvard should apologize for the egregious anti-Semitism that took place on their college campus against Jewish American students.
08:05There were professors who said that he had engaged in discriminatory behavior against Jewish students.
08:13Of course, you had the former president of the university saying bullying and harassment depends on the context.
08:19You also had an encampment on Harvard Yard that we all saw play out before the cameras.
08:24The university failed to impose formal discipline on any students for this anti-Semitic conduct violations,
08:30including the occupation of a campus building and the disruption of classes with bullhorns.
08:34Beginning with Columbia University, the Trump administration has rebuked universities across the country
08:40over their handling of the pro-Palestinian student protest movement that royal campuses last year.
08:47Following the 2023 Hamas-led attack inside Israel and the subsequent Israeli attacks on Gaza,
08:54students across different campuses protested, especially so in the Harvard University.
09:02Donald Trump has called the protests anti-American and anti-Semitic.
09:07He accused universities of peddling Marxism and radical left ideology.
09:13Through his presidential campaign and after assuming office,
09:16he promised to end federal grants and contracts to universities that do not agree to his administration's demands.
09:24Columbia, a private school in New York City, agreed to negotiations over demands
09:30to tighten its protest rules after the Trump administration said
09:34it had terminated mainly medical and scientific grants worth $400 million.
09:42But Harvard University did not buckle down.
09:46In an ex-post on Monday, Harvard University stated,
09:48the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.
09:56White House had said that the policy changes were designed to combat anti-Semitism on the campus.
10:03Harvard University President Alan Garber, in a letter to Harvard Community on Friday,
10:08had stated that the sweeping demands violated the university's First Amendment rights
10:13exceeds the statutory limits of the government's authority under Title VI.
10:19Former U.S. President Obama took to social media to applaud his alma mater,
10:24Harvard University, for rejecting Trump's demands, and he said,
10:28this sets an example.
10:32A few of Harvard's peer institutions lent support on Tuesday
10:36to the school's stand against the Trump administration,
10:39including Princeton and Stanford University.
10:43Bureau Report, India Today.
10:45All right, let's cut across to the nerve center of it all,
10:51Harvard University.
10:52And joining us from Harvard is Rajdeep Sardasai,
10:55our consulting editor, who finds himself there this week.
10:58Rajdeep, at a time, beautiful blue skies behind you.
11:02What's the mood like in Harvard?
11:04It's a time where President Trump, a short while ago,
11:07has called out Harvard,
11:09where he says they are woke,
11:11bird brains, idiots,
11:13and they need to apologize.
11:14Most Ivy Leagues have caved in, like Columbia,
11:18but Harvard seems to be standing up to Trump.
11:22That's right, Piti.
11:23It's been a rather dramatic 48 hours,
11:26and clearly, first of all,
11:27good morning here from Harvard.
11:29It's been a rather dramatic 48 hours
11:32that the same Harvard University,
11:33which just a few days ago
11:35appeared also willing to negotiate with the Trump administration,
11:39is now holding very firm.
11:41The letter which its President Alan Garber sent to the Trump administration
11:45made it clear that they would not tolerate any interference in academic freedom.
11:51Remember, this is a university with an endowment of as much as 50 billion,
11:5550 billion dollars.
11:56So it has the financial muscle to perhaps take on the Trump administration,
12:01to perhaps go in for a lawsuit.
12:04And remember the quality of its alumnus,
12:05not just in this country,
12:07but across the world.
12:08This is seen as the true gold standard in that sense of global academia.
12:12And Harvard symbolized for decades and centuries
12:16Americans of power when it came to academic excellence.
12:20So Harvard comes from a position of strength.
12:23The President of the United States has today reiterated
12:26that Harvard would lose its tax exemption status.
12:29But there are others,
12:30certainly in the university who I've spoken to,
12:33who believe that they are on legally strong grounds,
12:36that the President cannot withdraw the tax exemption.
12:38That can only be done through an inquiry
12:40which is independent of what the President does.
12:43So Harvard, in a sense,
12:44comes to this battle now
12:46with a sense of muscle
12:49that perhaps other universities don't have.
12:51What is interesting is
12:52when I speak to many of the academics here,
12:54they believe that now that Harvard has chosen
12:57to take on the bully,
12:58as they call President Trump,
13:00other universities may also be encouraged
13:02to join hands with Harvard.
13:04That hasn't fully happened yet,
13:06but we are hearing murmurs from Princeton, Stanford,
13:09other universities who are also now
13:11not willing to allow the administration of Donald Trump
13:14to enter campuses.
13:16And this is going to therefore be a classic face-off
13:19because Trump isn't backing down either.
13:21Trump, from the very beginning,
13:22Preeti, even during his campaign,
13:24said he was going to take on
13:25what he describes as elite woke institutions
13:28and get them to fall in line.
13:30So this is the classic battle of Trump 2.0,
13:34a populist right-wing administration
13:37taking on what the Trump administration believes
13:40is the heart of left-wing,
13:42liberal, old, elite America.
13:45And it's fascinating to be here.
13:48I am not here technically to report this story.
13:51I'm here for a symposium on South Asian media.
13:54But just to be here and speak to academics
13:56is very energizing because,
13:59unlike in India,
14:01the academic freedom that is guaranteed
14:03under the First Amendment
14:04gives a certain confidence
14:06to universities like Harvard
14:08that they can take on the political establishment.
14:10But, you know, Rajdeep,
14:12you say and you're correct
14:13that Harvard has this massive financial muscle
14:15in terms of endowments,
14:17but Harvard is also known
14:18for scholarships, international students.
14:21All of that will take a huge hit
14:22if Harvard continues to dig in its heels.
14:24Well, we will have to wait and see
14:28how Harvard deals
14:29with any kind of financial strain that it suffers.
14:34Remember, the tax exemption
14:35comes to just over $2.8 billion.
14:37That's a fraction of the endowments that Harvard has.
14:40I don't see Harvard pulling back at this moment
14:43when it comes to scholarships,
14:44when it comes to fellowships.
14:45Look, there is concern on the campus.
14:47There is concern and fear
14:48that if you speak out against the administration,
14:51could a student lose his or her visa?
14:54Those are legitimate concerns
14:55that are there on the ground.
14:57But I think in terms of Harvard
14:59wanting to retain its preeminent status
15:01amidst global academia and global universities,
15:04I think Harvard has realized
15:05that if it can now look President Trump in the eye
15:09and win this battle,
15:10it'll only raise the stature of the university further.
15:13Just a few weeks ago,
15:15when the president had accused Harvard
15:16of breeding anti-Semitism,
15:18of allowing the pro-Palestinian protests
15:21to take place,
15:21it appeared, as I said at the outset,
15:23that Harvard was willing to negotiate.
15:25They didn't want to get into a confrontation
15:27with the administration.
15:29The president, Alan Garber,
15:30is an academic of economics and medicine,
15:33seemed to be relatively low-profile,
15:36hardly the revolutionary type.
15:38A previous president,
15:39remember his predecessor,
15:40had to resign
15:41because of her views
15:42on certain contentious issues.
15:44So Harvard appeared to be wanting to play it safe,
15:48but something has changed.
15:49And I think what has changed
15:50is a lot of the alumni,
15:52both within the United States and outside,
15:54want Harvard to take on the Trump administration
15:57because they believe that if Harvard was to cave in,
16:00then it would be impossible
16:01for any other university in America
16:03to resist political interference in campuses.
16:07So I think Harvard is gearing up for a battle
16:10and every indication is
16:12they've already got a legal team in place
16:14which, if necessary,
16:16will take the Trump administration
16:17to court on this issue.
16:19But, you know, Rajdeep,
16:20what's the sense?
16:21Because, you know,
16:22you're there,
16:22you're delivering a guest lecture,
16:24you're speaking to the faculty,
16:25you're speaking to the students there.
16:27Many would, you know,
16:28I would reckon,
16:28but at least what we're reading up here,
16:30many felt this was long time coming.
16:32And you're right,
16:33in the offset,
16:34it did look that
16:35Harvard was looking to compromise
16:36and they were not the only one
16:38because you look at Colombia,
16:39Colombia practically bent over backwards,
16:41did exactly what,
16:42you know,
16:42the administration wanted.
16:44Is there hope
16:45that other Ivy Leagues
16:46will now come in?
16:48Look,
16:49every Ivy League
16:50has distinctive problems.
16:52Colombia, yes,
16:53you're right,
16:53was the first to negotiate.
16:55They were under great strain,
16:56particularly for some of their research projects.
16:58But earlier,
16:59I was also at Brown University
17:00speaking to academics.
17:01And they too seem to be now enthused
17:04by what Harvard has done.
17:06Clearly,
17:06they want to build
17:07a coalition,
17:08if possible,
17:09of the Ivy Leagues.
17:10Whether that will happen in the end,
17:11we don't know.
17:12As of now,
17:13clearly Harvard has taken
17:14a leadership position.
17:15Look,
17:15this is America.
17:16And in America,
17:17the First Amendment
17:18does offer you
17:19considerable protection
17:20when it comes to free speech.
17:22This is America
17:23where,
17:23as I said,
17:24you've got universities
17:25with $53 billion
17:27endowments like Harvard
17:28which generate on its own
17:30over $2 billion
17:31just in interest
17:32that Harvard can earn from that.
17:35And that gives
17:36that financial muscle
17:37plus the fact
17:38that this is a university
17:39that has produced presidents,
17:41leaders across the globe,
17:42including many people
17:44who've been closely connected
17:45with Mr. Trump
17:46at the past.
17:47You know,
17:47you were mentioning
17:48J.D. Vance
17:49coming to India.
17:51One of the interesting aspects
17:52is J.D. Vance himself
17:53is a product of an Ivy League.
17:54He's a Yale graduate
17:56in law.
17:57Now,
17:58how many of his peers
18:00and contemporaries
18:01will agree with J.D. Vance
18:02on the issue?
18:03There is a battle in America
18:05for the soul of America.
18:06There are those
18:06outside the Ivy League
18:08who believe that the Ivy League
18:09are far too privileged,
18:11far too elitist,
18:12and maybe they will side
18:13with Donald Trump.
18:14That's the battle
18:15that Donald Trump
18:16wants to wage.
18:17It's part of his campaign
18:18during the presidential elections
18:20as well.
18:20But I think Harvard,
18:22in a sense,
18:22because of its global stature,
18:24is in a position
18:25to take on Donald Trump
18:27like few other institutions
18:28can at the moment.
18:30Well,
18:30you're right there,
18:30and that's a battle
18:31that's not just playing out
18:32where the universities
18:33and Ivy League are concerned.
18:34It's playing out
18:34on the streets
18:35of the United States
18:36of America as well,
18:38where there's a clear split
18:39in the difference of opinion
18:40and the protests
18:41that we see.
18:41Appreciate you joining us.
18:43Rajdeep,
18:43have a wonderful trip.
18:44Blue skies behind you.
18:46Enjoy yourself,
18:47and we'll see you back
18:48in the studio next week.
18:49All right.
18:53Let me cut across
18:54right now
18:55to Andrew Manuel Crespo,
18:57Maurice Wasserstein
18:59Public Interest
19:00Professor of Law.
19:01He joins us.
19:02He is a professor
19:03at the Howard Law School.
19:06Appreciate you
19:06taking the time off
19:07and joining us,
19:08Professor,
19:09especially at this time.
19:10First up,
19:11your comments
19:11on the current conflict
19:13between President Trump
19:14and your university,
19:15where President Trump
19:16has practically
19:17called out Howard
19:19for being woke,
19:21bird brains,
19:21or even using
19:22the word like idiot.
19:24This is a dire moment,
19:26not just for my university,
19:27but for higher education
19:29all across our country,
19:30and really for our country itself.
19:32We are seeing an attack
19:34on the oldest university
19:35in the United States,
19:37and it is an attack
19:38that is trying to change
19:39the way that we teach,
19:41the way that we research,
19:42who we hire,
19:43and an attack
19:44on our academic freedom
19:45and on our independence.
19:47This is an attack
19:47on one of the central institutions
19:49of a constitutional democracy.
19:51Our president
19:51has been attacking
19:52our press,
19:53our courts,
19:54our legal profession,
19:54and now our universities.
19:56And I think it's very critical
19:57that these institutions
19:58stand up for each other,
19:59stand up for themselves,
20:00and insist on protecting
20:02their constitutional rights,
20:03including their freedom of speech
20:04and their right to teach.
20:07But Professor,
20:08you know,
20:08well,
20:08many would see it
20:09as a brave move,
20:10but how are you going to deal
20:11with the cuts
20:11in federal grants,
20:13in tax?
20:14Where is the money coming from?
20:16Understandably, yes,
20:17Howard has this huge endowment.
20:18Even then,
20:19you know,
20:19how are you going to deal
20:20with the cuts?
20:24I am proud to see
20:26our faculty
20:26and our administration
20:27standing up.
20:29It is a scary time.
20:31There is no institution
20:32in the world
20:33that can just blink
20:34at losing
20:35nine billion dollars,
20:37which is what
20:37the Trump administration
20:38has threatened.
20:39At the same time,
20:40there is no university
20:41in the world
20:42that is more well-known
20:44and that is wealthier
20:46than Harvard.
20:47So I think it was incumbent
20:48on us to take this stand.
20:49I think we had
20:50a moral obligation
20:51to do it,
20:51but we can't do this
20:52by ourselves.
20:53We're going to need support
20:54from every other university
20:55in the country.
20:56We're going to need support
20:57from people
20:58who understand
20:58that this is a threat
20:59to democracy
21:00around the world.
21:00This is a critical moment
21:02and a critical test
21:02for institutions
21:03that are part
21:04of the lifeblood
21:05of democracy
21:06in countries
21:07that hold themselves out
21:08as democratically governed.
21:09Professor,
21:11you say,
21:12you know,
21:12you will need support,
21:13but if you continue
21:14to remain isolated,
21:15standing up
21:16against the administration,
21:17then I would reckon
21:18Harvard will go
21:19into self-preservation mode.
21:22How much will it then
21:23impact foreign students,
21:24scholarship,
21:25all that,
21:25you know,
21:26Harvard is known for?
21:29The attack
21:29on our foreign students
21:30is one of the most
21:31devastating aspects
21:32of the way
21:32the Trump administration
21:33is trying to bend Harvard
21:35and other universities
21:35to its will.
21:37We have seen
21:38our foreign students
21:39arrested
21:39and taken into
21:40federal detention centers
21:42without any criminal charges.
21:44Some of these students
21:45have been held there
21:46for weeks.
21:46We saw that at Columbia.
21:47We've seen it
21:48at other universities
21:49across the country.
21:50We have seen
21:51hundreds of students
21:52have their visas revoked
21:54for things like
21:55writing an op-ed
21:56in their college newspaper.
21:58This is an all-out
21:59authoritarian tactic.
22:01When you grab people
22:01off the street
22:02because they wrote something
22:03in a newspaper
22:04that you didn't like
22:05and you put them
22:05in a detention center
22:06for weeks
22:07without criminal charges
22:08that is as authoritarian
22:10of a move
22:11as you can see.
22:12It is dangerous
22:13and it is really,
22:14really important
22:15that we fight back
22:16against that
22:16with everything
22:17that we have.
22:18That is one of the threats
22:18facing Harvard
22:19and you're right
22:20these are scary times
22:21but it is important
22:22also that we realize
22:23that we have tools
22:24at our disposal.
22:25For one,
22:26all of these actions
22:27are illegal.
22:28They are unconstitutional.
22:30I am a law professor.
22:31I teach law
22:31at Harvard University.
22:33It violates
22:34the First Amendment
22:34of our Constitution
22:35to try to use
22:36the power of government
22:37to coerce people
22:38into either shutting up
22:39or saying
22:40what the government
22:40wants them to say.
22:42That's why our chapter
22:43of the American Association
22:44of University Professors
22:45went to court
22:46last Friday
22:47and filed a lawsuit
22:48on behalf of faculty members
22:49here at Harvard
22:50to try to get
22:51these funding cuts frozen.
22:53Weeks before that,
22:54our chapter went to court
22:55to try to get
22:55a court order
22:56to stop
22:57these unlawful
22:58and unconstitutional arrests
22:59of our foreign-born students.
23:01These are the types
23:02of efforts
23:03that it takes
23:03to push back,
23:04but courts alone
23:05are not enough.
23:06We need people.
23:07We need the American people
23:08to understand
23:09that our universities
23:10are a central part
23:11of our country
23:12and of our democracy.
23:13This is where
23:13critical research
23:14that benefits people
23:15across the globe,
23:16cures to diseases,
23:17important new medicines
23:18are discovered.
23:19This is where
23:20we understand
23:20our history
23:21and our democracy
23:22and the role
23:22that law plays
23:23in our country.
23:24This is where
23:24we study our literature
23:25and the literatures
23:26of the whole world.
23:27This is where
23:28we study arts
23:29and dance
23:29and find out
23:30all the things
23:30that make our life
23:31worth living
23:32and our human-flourishing
23:33central parts
23:34of our lives.
23:35You can't have
23:36a flourishing society
23:37without flourishing universities
23:38and everyone in the country
23:39needs to realize that
23:40and I hope that people
23:41around the world
23:42will see that attacks
23:43on universities
23:43are attacks
23:44on the lifeblood
23:45of what a country
23:45can be
23:46and what it is.
23:48The opinion on that
23:49is very divided
23:50in your country,
23:50Professor,
23:51today and there
23:52is this new reality
23:53and to take off
23:54from the question
23:54I asked you earlier,
23:55how are you going to deal
23:56with this new reality
23:57because there will be
23:58students who are,
23:59you know,
23:59international students
24:00would be very worried today
24:01where scholarships
24:03are concerned,
24:04number two,
24:04because Howard
24:05might have taken
24:06this very hard stand
24:07but on the other hand,
24:08you know,
24:09what about students
24:10who might fear
24:11their visa being revoked
24:12if, you know,
24:14they fall in line
24:14with the stand
24:15that Howard has taken
24:16so it has deeper implications
24:18for students
24:18who are studying
24:19at your university.
24:23It's a great question.
24:24I'm proud to see
24:25our university
24:25taking some steps
24:26to try to mitigate
24:27on the financial side
24:28of this.
24:29They issued new bonds
24:30and sort of taking
24:31on new debts
24:31to have the type
24:32of financial security
24:33to handle this.
24:35I'm also very proud
24:36to be at the law school
24:37at Harvard
24:38where we have
24:39an initiative
24:39where a law professor
24:41here at Harvard Law School
24:42and a team of lawyers
24:43give representation
24:44to any of our
24:45foreign-born students
24:46who are facing
24:47immigration consequences
24:48and work in partnership
24:50with lawyers
24:50around the area
24:51to try to provide
24:52the type of legal protection
24:53that we are able
24:54to provide.
24:55All of that said,
24:56it is a scary time.
24:57The Trump administration
24:58has arrogated to itself,
25:01has tried to grant itself
25:02broad unilateral power
25:04to cancel visas
25:05and to punish
25:06foreign-born students.
25:07And I understand
25:08and realize
25:09how much our
25:09foreign-born students here
25:11are the most
25:11at threat right now
25:12and are very scared.
25:13I have conversations
25:14with students
25:14in my office
25:15all the time
25:16about the fears
25:17they have
25:17about whether something,
25:18you know,
25:18a protest that they went to
25:19is going to cause them
25:21to face these consequences.
25:23And I think it's essential
25:24in these moments
25:25for all of us here
25:26to realize
25:26we need to take care
25:27of the members
25:28of our community
25:28who are facing
25:29these threats.
25:30Harvard has to continue
25:31putting the resources
25:33into providing
25:33legal representation
25:34to any of our affiliates,
25:36our faculty,
25:37our staff,
25:37our students
25:38who are facing
25:39immigration consequences
25:40because of these threats.
25:41And we need to continue
25:42communicating to the world.
25:44Harvard is a global university.
25:46We are a global institution.
25:48Large, large, large numbers
25:50of our members
25:51of our student body,
25:52our faculty,
25:52come from around the world,
25:54including from India.
25:54This is an essential question
25:56for the globe.
25:57Attacking Harvard
25:58is trying,
25:59when the Trump administration
26:00attacks Harvard,
26:01it is trying to shut the doors
26:02to a global university
26:04and trying to impede
26:05our ability
26:06to share knowledge
26:06across the world
26:07to build a global institution
26:09of knowledge
26:10and knowledge sharing.
26:11This is an issue
26:11just as much impacting
26:13other countries
26:13as it's impacting ours.
26:16Professor,
26:16you know,
26:17what some call
26:17wokeism,
26:18you know,
26:19what is clear
26:20is an attack
26:21on liberal thought
26:22in universities
26:22and Ivy Leagues
26:23across,
26:24not just your university.
26:25The likes of Colombia
26:26have caved in,
26:28bent over backwards.
26:29Other Ivy Leagues
26:30are also compromising.
26:31Harvard right now
26:32is seen as the only one
26:34standing up
26:35against the administration.
26:37Do you think
26:37you will get support?
26:38Do you think,
26:39you know,
26:40that possibly
26:40this could spark
26:41a larger resistance movement
26:44or do you find yourself
26:45isolated in all of this?
26:47I certainly hope
26:50we'll see support.
26:51That's why our chapter
26:52took the initiative
26:53and took the lead
26:54and filed this first lawsuit,
26:55moving even faster
26:56than the leadership
26:56of our university
26:57to try to make clear
26:58we are not going
26:59to back down.
27:00We are not going
27:01to sit down.
27:02We're going to stand up
27:03for our constitutional rights.
27:04We're going to stand up
27:04for the core mission
27:05of higher education
27:06in the United States.
27:07And we hope
27:08and are already seeing
27:09that others will be joining us.
27:11Look,
27:11the lesson from Colombia
27:12is critical to learn.
27:14Colombia was the first
27:14to face this onslaught
27:15and I feel
27:16for my colleagues
27:17at that school.
27:18It is terrifying
27:19to have the federal government
27:20come down
27:20and try and destroy
27:21your institution.
27:23Colombia acceded
27:24to the demands
27:25that the Trump administration
27:26made of them.
27:27It did not get
27:28its money back.
27:29Instead,
27:30the Trump administration
27:30came back
27:31and froze even more money.
27:33This is the critical lesson
27:34to learn
27:34when you are being attacked
27:35by a bully.
27:36If you do
27:37what the bully wants,
27:38he's just going
27:38to keep punching you
27:39in the face.
27:40You need to stand up
27:41and you need to stand up
27:42together.
27:43That's why I'm already
27:44encouraged to see
27:45leaders of other universities.
27:47I was encouraged
27:47to see the leadership
27:48of our university
27:49days after we filed
27:50our lawsuit
27:50say that they were
27:51going to stand up
27:52and not cave
27:52to these demands.
27:54And in the aftermath
27:54of that,
27:55you have seen
27:55statements coming out
27:56from other university leaders,
27:57presidents of other universities,
27:59saying that they appreciate
28:00what Harvard's doing
28:01and that they too
28:02are going to defend
28:02their academic freedom,
28:04defend their missions.
28:05We're seeing our
28:05former president,
28:06Barack Obama,
28:08standing up
28:08and saying how critical
28:09to the whole country
28:10higher education is
28:11and how we cannot
28:12let these attacks stand.
28:13I am hopeful
28:14we are seeing
28:14a turning point
28:15from fear
28:16to moral courage,
28:17from isolation
28:18to solidarity
28:19and from all of us
28:20trying to realize
28:21this is the moment
28:22where we need
28:22to stand up.
28:23This is the moment
28:24we need to stand together.
28:26Professor,
28:26let me put it this way.
28:27For a lot of,
28:28you know,
28:29or let me put it this way.
28:30Who you called
28:31a bully right now
28:32is also the popularly
28:34elected president
28:35of your country
28:36and I'm quoting
28:36what he says.
28:38He doesn't just
28:39want you to apologize.
28:40He wants accountability
28:41for the money
28:42that the federal government
28:43has been giving you.
28:48Look,
28:48if the president
28:49actually thought
28:50that there were
28:51legitimate legal grounds
28:53to take this money
28:54away from Harvard,
28:54he would invoke
28:55the statutes
28:56that govern the process
28:58by which these funds
28:59could be rescinded.
29:00We have a statute
29:01passed by our Congress.
29:02It's called
29:02the Civil Rights Act
29:03of 1964.
29:05Title VI
29:05of that statute
29:06spells out
29:07all of the processes
29:08and procedures
29:09that are available
29:09to the president
29:10if he wants
29:11to try to remove
29:12funding from an
29:13institution like Harvard.
29:14To do that,
29:15he has to actually
29:15make an allegation
29:17about what we have
29:18done wrong
29:18and then he needs
29:19to have a hearing
29:19and demonstrate it.
29:20He needs to put
29:21forward evidence.
29:22He has done none of that.
29:23The reason he has done
29:24none of that
29:25is because he does
29:25not have grounds
29:26to do it.
29:27That's why we've
29:28gone to court
29:28and insisted
29:29that this is not
29:30power that the president
29:31has.
29:31Our Congress
29:32under our Constitution
29:33has the power
29:34to appropriate funds
29:35and to put money
29:36where it wants
29:37that money put.
29:38For close to 70 years
29:39now,
29:40that Congress
29:41has put a lot
29:41of money into
29:42a partnership
29:43with the leading
29:43research universities
29:44in our country
29:45to ensure that
29:46scientific and medical
29:47advances can happen.
29:48The president
29:49is not using
29:50the statutes
29:51that are available
29:51to him
29:52to try to actually
29:53take this funding
29:53away because he
29:54knows he has
29:54no legal basis
29:55to do it.
29:57But,
29:57Professor,
29:58just this morning,
29:59you know,
29:59the president's
30:00come out with
30:00a very harsh
30:01statement
30:01where he said
30:03Harvard has been
30:04hiring almost all
30:05woke radical
30:05left idiots
30:06bird brains
30:07who are only
30:08capable of
30:09teaching failure
30:10to students
30:11and so-called
30:12future leaders.
30:12Harvard is a joke,
30:14teaches hate,
30:14stupidity,
30:15and should no longer
30:17receive federal funds.
30:18Now,
30:18do you also see
30:19what is happening,
30:20you know,
30:21in a division
30:23in your society
30:23because at one end
30:24a lot of protests
30:25are taking place
30:26not just in universities
30:27but across your country,
30:28but on the other,
30:29there are a lot
30:30who believe that,
30:31you know,
30:31institutions like
30:33Howard are elitist
30:34and only inspire
30:35wokeism.
30:37I'm hopeful
30:38that we can find
30:39a way through
30:39where the president
30:40recognizes the value
30:41that these universities
30:42bring to the country.
30:44Look,
30:44I think for all
30:45of the things
30:46that we disagree on,
30:47I think that
30:47President Trump
30:48wants to see America
30:49succeed in the world.
30:50You cannot succeed
30:51in the world
30:52if you try to destroy
30:54your leading universities.
30:55Harvard
30:56and the other universities
30:57that have been targeted
30:58by the administration
30:59have been critical
31:00to America's success
31:01over the past century
31:02and more.
31:03This is a university
31:04that has been here
31:05since before the founding
31:06of this country.
31:07We have contributed
31:08to our scientific advances.
31:09We've contributed
31:10to our medical advances.
31:11We've contributed
31:12to our learning.
31:13We've contributed
31:13to our governance.
31:14We've contributed
31:14to the arts.
31:16You cannot have
31:17a flourishing society
31:18if you try
31:19and eradicate
31:20all of its institutions
31:22of higher learning.
31:23Is there a divide?
31:24Yes, absolutely.
31:25There's a deep divide
31:25in our country.
31:26Do our universities
31:27need to do better
31:28about trying to reach
31:29across that divide?
31:30Yes, absolutely.
31:31Do we need to make
31:32our universities
31:32more accessible
31:33to people
31:34across the country?
31:35Yes, absolutely.
31:37There is no perfect institution,
31:38but you don't improve
31:40these institutions
31:40by destroying them,
31:42and that is what
31:42the president
31:43is trying to do.
31:45Professor Crespo,
31:46appreciate you taking
31:47the time off
31:47and joining us
31:48this evening.
31:50Thank you for that,
31:51and good luck.
31:52We in India
31:53would be keenly watching
31:54what really goes on.
31:55Good luck once again.
31:56Thank you for taking the time.
31:57All right, viewers,
32:01let's quickly move on
32:02to the big developing
32:03story back home.
32:04The Enforcement Directorate's
32:06charge sheet
32:07against Sonia Gandhi
32:07and Rahul Gandhi
32:08in the National Herald case,
32:09their first charge sheet,
32:11has snowballed
32:11into a major controversy,
32:13with Congress calling it
32:14an example of
32:15vendetta politics
32:16and BJP terming
32:17Sonia and Rahul
32:18biggest looters.
32:20Here's more.
32:21Congress workers
32:33hit the streets
32:33across the nation
32:34in protest
32:35against the charge sheet
32:36filed against
32:37Sonia Gandhi
32:37and Rahul Gandhi
32:38in the National Herald
32:40takeover case.
32:42In the National Capital,
32:44protesters breached
32:45barricades.
32:46shouting slogans
32:50against the central agency
32:52and confronted the police.
32:58Many were detained
32:59by the police.
33:01Many Congress leaders,
33:02including Sachin Pilot,
33:04joined the party workers
33:05in the protest
33:06on Wednesday.
33:06The E.D.
33:36in his charge sheet
33:37has named
33:37Sonia Gandhi
33:38as accused number one
33:40and Rahul Gandhi
33:41as accused number two.
33:43Gandhi family loyalist
33:44Sam Petroda
33:45and Suman Dube
33:46are also accused
33:47in the case.
33:48The E.D.
33:49has accused
33:49the Gandhis
33:50of money laundering,
33:51tax evasion
33:52and financial irregularities
33:54in the takeover
33:55of Associated Journals
33:56Limited
33:56by the Young Indian,
33:58the private firm
33:59controlled by
34:00Sonia Gandhi
34:00and Rahul Gandhi.
34:02This is actually
34:03a case
34:04which is nothing
34:06but vendetta
34:07in legal disguise.
34:10The E.D.
34:11should answer
34:12that why no NDA ally,
34:14no BJP leader
34:15is ever, ever
34:16touched by the E.D.?
34:19Selective justice
34:21is actually
34:23nothing but
34:24political thuggery.
34:26Sonia Gandhi
34:27and Rahul Gandhi
34:27kindly reply
34:29should the law
34:31be allowed
34:32to take its own
34:33course or not?
34:34B.G.P. supporters
34:51put up posters
34:52in Mumbai
34:53demanding
34:53bulldozer action
34:54against properties
34:55linked to the
34:56National Herald
34:57case.
34:57with Shivani
34:58Sharma
34:59and
34:59Mool Bali
35:00Rahul Gautam
35:01Bureau Report
35:01India Today.
35:02Alright, so the
35:05big questions
35:05that we asked
35:06this evening
35:06before we cut
35:07across to our
35:07political panel
35:08an open war
35:09clearly brewing
35:10between the
35:11government and
35:11the Gandhis
35:12because on the
35:13sidelines of it
35:14all there is
35:14also the
35:15questioning of
35:15Robert Vandran
35:16in an entirely
35:16different case
35:17by the
35:18enforcement
35:18directorate
35:19round two
35:19today,
35:20round three
35:20is tomorrow.
35:21The other
35:22question we
35:22asked,
35:23political
35:23vendetta
35:24against the
35:24Gandhis,
35:24this is what
35:25the Congress
35:25is claiming,
35:27is this law
35:28taking its own
35:29course,
35:29what the BJP
35:31says.
35:31Let's cut
35:32across to
35:32our guest,
35:33Bhavya Narsimha
35:34Murthy,
35:34Spokesperson
35:35Congress,
35:35Pradeep
35:36Bhandari,
35:36National
35:36Spokesperson
35:37Bharatiya
35:38Janata
35:38Party in
35:39the studio
35:40with me.
35:41Bhavya,
35:41you know,
35:41what's really
35:42interesting also
35:42is today that
35:43we saw the
35:44top leadership
35:45of the
35:45Congress,
35:45the biggest
35:46faces come
35:47out,
35:47take to the
35:47streets,
35:48rubbing
35:48shoulder to
35:49shoulder with
35:50the Congress
35:50carder.
35:51It's a rare
35:51sight because
35:52it usually
35:53only takes an
35:55attack on the
35:55Gandhis to see
35:56the show of
35:57strength that
35:58comes out on
35:59the streets
36:00hard against
36:01the government.
36:02It doesn't
36:02quite happen
36:03mostly even on
36:05other emotive
36:05issues.
36:08Every time
36:09Narendra Modi
36:10is rattled,
36:12the first arrow
36:13in his quiver is
36:14to vilify his
36:15opponents.
36:17We have
36:19elections in
36:19future.
36:20Bihar,
36:21Assam,
36:22some of the
36:22most important
36:23states.
36:25One thing,
36:27recently in
36:27Ahmedabad,
36:28we showed
36:29our strength
36:29by holding
36:30our Congress
36:31convention
36:32where Rahul
36:33Gandhi made
36:34a very
36:35powerful speech
36:36exposing every
36:38failure of
36:39Modi government.
36:42This is the
36:43reason that
36:44this National
36:45Herald case
36:46has come up
36:46again.
36:48But there is
36:48no, this is
36:49completely
36:50baseless because
36:51this is a
36:52PMLA act,
36:54but there is
36:54no money
36:55laundering or
36:55any transfer of
36:56money or
36:57property that
36:58has happened
36:58at all.
37:00Every time
37:01you see in
37:022015,
37:032018,
37:042023,
37:05every time
37:06he needs a
37:07distraction,
37:08he brings up
37:09National Herald
37:09case just to
37:11torture the
37:12Congress leaders.
37:14Coming to the
37:14details of
37:15this,
37:17this young
37:19India is a
37:20non-profit
37:20registered under
37:21Section 25 of
37:23the Companies
37:23Act,
37:24where it is
37:25not, it
37:26cannot distribute
37:27profit assets
37:28or dividends
37:29to its
37:30shareholder.
37:31And none of
37:32the transactions
37:32have been
37:33recorded at
37:33all.
37:34I don't know
37:35why they keep
37:35bringing this
37:36up again and
37:37again.
37:39One second,
37:40let me...
37:40It's just a sign
37:40of Modi being
37:41rattled.
37:42Okay, Bhavya,
37:43let me come up
37:43with a counter
37:44and I'm going to
37:44bring in, you
37:45know, the BJP
37:46spokesperson in
37:46this.
37:47Now, how does
37:48Congress justify
37:49the transaction
37:49which the ED
37:50in its chance
37:51sheet has
37:51mentioned,
37:52alleging that
37:53Sonia Gandhi,
37:54Rahul Gandhi
37:55through Young
37:55India acquired
37:57Associated
37:58Journals
37:58Limited,
37:59AGL here for
38:002,000 crore
38:01assets for
38:01just 50
38:02lakhs?
38:05Point,
38:06right?
38:09Is this
38:09question to
38:10me or the
38:11BJP spokesperson?
38:11To you, ma'am,
38:12to you.
38:12How does the
38:13Congress justify
38:14it is the
38:14question?
38:15Because that
38:15is the moot
38:15point in the
38:16charge sheet of
38:17the Enforcement
38:18Directorate.
38:18First of
38:21all, like I
38:22said, there
38:23cannot be any
38:24transaction.
38:25Once this
38:25goes to the
38:26court, it
38:27will definitely,
38:28they will
38:28definitely be
38:29proved innocent.
38:30First thing.
38:32And you
38:34know about
38:34AJL.
38:35They keep
38:36spreading these
38:36lies about
38:37AJL that
38:38Young India
38:38has completely
38:39acquired it.
38:40It is just a
38:40shareholder in
38:42the AJL and
38:43it was mostly
38:44because to
38:44convert the
38:45debt into
38:46the shares
38:46to make
38:48sure that
38:48National
38:49Herald is
38:49our heritage.
38:51It was used
38:51during the
38:52freedom struggle
38:52against the
38:53British back
38:54then.
38:55And it is
38:56our duty.
38:57One, as a
38:58government, it
38:59was their duty
38:59as well.
39:00But as a
39:01Congress party,
39:02it is our
39:03most important
39:03duty to
39:04protect it.
39:05When we
39:05were not in
39:06power, it
39:07had, you
39:09know, it
39:09went into a
39:10loss to
39:11recover that
39:11when we came
39:12to power,
39:13Young India
39:13was registered
39:14and there
39:15was this
39:16loan given
39:18to that
39:18only, you
39:19know, to
39:19cover up
39:19the PF,
39:20electricity,
39:21the salaries
39:21and all
39:22of this.
39:23But the
39:23shareholders
39:24are not
39:25allowed to
39:26transfer any
39:27property.
39:29Basically, you
39:29are saying
39:29there is no
39:30money trail of
39:30it, no
39:31financial gain.
39:31Is that what
39:32you are saying?
39:32No, not at all.
39:33I want to
39:33bring in
39:34Pradeep Bhandari.
39:35This is another
39:35example of how
39:36they keep
39:37using ED,
39:38income tax,
39:39misuse of ED.
39:41Allow me to
39:41bring in
39:41Pradeep Bhandari
39:42into this
39:42conversation.
39:43Pradeep Bhandari,
39:44you know, the
39:44charge is again,
39:45which the BJP
39:47makes of
39:48financial gain,
39:49money laundering,
39:50all of that.
39:52Now, there is
39:52no evidence of
39:53financial gain or
39:55direct financial
39:56gain where
39:56Sonia Gandhi and
39:57Rahul Gandhi are
39:58concerned.
39:59Well, Priti, first
40:01of all, a
40:02Section 25
40:03company is not
40:03exempted from
40:04the PMLA, that
40:05is law.
40:06Now, the larger
40:07charge of the
40:08Congress party,
40:09this is vendetta.
40:09And let me just
40:10quote certain
40:11straight facts.
40:12I will come to
40:12the politics of
40:13it later.
40:14On February 12,
40:152016, the
40:16Congress party
40:17went to the
40:17Supreme Court
40:18with a plea
40:19that entire
40:19cases vendetta
40:20should be
40:21quashed.
40:21The Supreme
40:22Court rejected
40:22it.
40:23In 2018, the
40:24Supreme Court
40:25gave the
40:25permission to
40:26the Income
40:26Tax Department
40:27to reassess the
40:28tax filing of
40:29Sonia Gandhi and
40:30Rahul Gandhi in
40:312011-12, which is
40:32exactly a year
40:33after Young
40:34India.
40:34In June
40:362018, Rahul
40:38Gandhi's
40:38counsel went
40:39to the
40:39court alleging
40:40that the
40:41entire media
40:41reportage of
40:42this case should
40:43be stopped.
40:43The Delhi
40:44High Court
40:44quashed it.
40:45On 8 August
40:462018, the
40:47counsel of Rahul
40:48Gandhi appeared
40:48and said that
40:49the entire
40:50proceeding should
40:51be stayed.
40:52The court
40:52said no.
40:53In February
40:532024, Congress
40:55Kati's counsel
40:56went to the
40:57Delhi High
40:57Court saying
40:58that the ED's
40:59attachment of
41:00the properties
41:00is illegal.
41:01The Delhi
41:02High Court
41:02rejected it.
41:03Further, in
41:052014, the
41:06Delhi High
41:06Court upheld
41:07the summons
41:08given by the
41:08trial court to
41:09Sonia Gandhi
41:10and Rahul
41:10Gandhi.
41:10In 2015, the
41:12Congress Party
41:13challenged the
41:13Delhi High
41:14Court order in
41:15Supreme Court.
41:16The Supreme
41:16Court also
41:17upheld the
41:18summons given
41:18to Rahul
41:19Gandhi and
41:19Sonia Gandhi.
41:20So, if you
41:20see the trail
41:21of this case
41:22which was
41:22initially filed,
41:23the genesis of
41:24it is from a
41:25primary complaint,
41:25a private
41:26complaint in
41:262014.
41:27The law is
41:28taking its own
41:29course and
41:29everything is
41:29happening as
41:30per the court's
41:31orders.
41:31That is one
41:32number one.
41:32Allow me a
41:33rebuttal.
41:34The fact is
41:35you do
41:35understand why
41:36that entire
41:37chronology that
41:38you just read
41:38out, why it
41:39happened, because
41:39this is a
41:40PMLA case.
41:41You understand
41:41under PMLA,
41:42which has very
41:42stringent attributes
41:44to it, the
41:45entire law is
41:46contentious.
41:47So, the courts
41:48with what they
41:49did, they had
41:49to do, because
41:50it's a stringent
41:51PMLA case.
41:51I can name
41:52five other
41:53cases which
41:53have gone
41:53the same
41:54way.
41:54But the
41:54courts have
41:55not said
41:55that PMLA
41:56is unconstitutional.
41:57There's a
41:57case going on
41:58right now.
41:58Which is fine.
41:59So, the law
41:59says that if
42:00there is a
42:00case going on,
42:01the previous
42:01verdict of the
42:02Supreme Court
42:03stays.
42:03So, as of
42:03right now,
42:04PMLA is
42:04constitutional.
42:05So, whatever
42:06the investigative
42:06agencies are
42:07acting, are
42:08acting as per
42:08the constitutional
42:09rule book.
42:10Now, my
42:10following charges
42:12the first.
42:12Number 1, a
42:13Congress party
42:14is a political
42:14party.
42:15How can a
42:16political party
42:16give a loan of
42:1790 crores to
42:18a private company
42:19which is AJL?
42:20Point number 1.
42:20Point number 2, AJL
42:22had properties
42:22worth 2,000 crores.
42:23How could a
42:24company which
42:25got a loan of
42:2650 lakh, which
42:26was Young
42:27India, which
42:27was nothing but
42:28Sonia Gandhi,
42:28Rahul Gandhi,
42:29Private Limited,
42:30how could it
42:30get the entire
42:31shares transferred
42:32of a company
42:33whose properties
42:34were worth
42:342,000 crores?
42:35This is unheard
42:36of.
42:36That is point
42:37number 2.
42:37She was talking
42:38about the history
42:39of AJL.
42:39Allow me to
42:40quote the
42:41Congress Chief
42:41Minister,
42:42Chandrabhanu
42:43Gupta, and
42:44this is at
42:44the time of
42:45National Herald,
42:45and I quote,
42:46I am surprised
42:47that National
42:47Herald is now
42:48considered as a
42:49private property
42:50of the Nehru
42:50family.
42:51If there is
42:51some investigation
42:52by an inquiry
42:53commission into
42:54how funds were
42:55collected for
42:55National Herald,
42:56there will be a
42:57big expose
42:58from the very
42:59beginning.
43:00This policy was
43:00nothing but to
43:01promote Mr.
43:02Nehru and his
43:02daughter.
43:03This is the
43:04Congress Chief
43:04Minister, three
43:05time Congress
43:06Chief Minister,
43:07Chandrabhanu
43:07Gupta.
43:08So there were
43:08initial allegations
43:09of those who
43:10were shareholders
43:11of National
43:12Herald that
43:12this was
43:13nothing but
43:13siphoning of
43:14money by Mr.
43:15Nehru, but
43:16Congress did
43:16not investigate
43:17it.
43:17The same
43:18principle was
43:18followed by
43:19Sonia Gandhi
43:19and Rahul
43:20Gandhi in
43:20Young India.
43:21All right, I
43:22want to bring
43:22in Bhavya
43:22Narasimha
43:23Murthy.
43:23Bhavya, you
43:24know, the
43:24main premise
43:25of the
43:25Congress is
43:26that there
43:26is no
43:26financial gain,
43:27there is
43:28no money
43:28trail, but
43:29having said
43:30that, this
43:31is an ongoing
43:31case, Bhavya,
43:32where constantly
43:33both Rahul
43:34Gandhi and
43:35Sonia Gandhi
43:35have appeared
43:36before the
43:36ED.
43:36Rahul Gandhi
43:37multiple times
43:38has stated,
43:39let the ED
43:40come for us,
43:41we are open.
43:42There is nothing
43:42in the case.
43:43Why then so
43:44much fervor,
43:46why so much
43:47protest, let
43:47law take it
43:48course.
43:49If there is
43:49nothing, nothing
43:50is going to
43:50come out of
43:51it.
43:51It's happened
43:51in the case
43:54of the
43:55Jharkhand
43:55Chief Minister
43:56where there
43:57was a
43:57charge sheet
43:58by the ED
43:58and look
43:59what the
43:59High Court
44:00said.
44:00So wait
44:01for it,
44:01you will
44:01get a
44:02clean shit
44:02if you are
44:02not guilty.
44:04Very good
44:05point.
44:06We are not
44:06going against
44:07the law.
44:08Rahul Gandhi
44:09and Sonia
44:10Ma'am both
44:11have been
44:12very cordial
44:17with all the
44:17officers.
44:18Whenever they
44:19interview, they
44:19have appeared
44:20before them,
44:20they have
44:21given their
44:21statements.
44:22But we
44:24as a
44:24Congress
44:24party cannot
44:25just look
44:27at Modi
44:28government
44:29vilifying our
44:30leaders and
44:31not letting
44:32the people of
44:32this country
44:33see what a
44:35hateful
44:35prime minister
44:37we have,
44:38what hateful
44:39politics they're
44:40playing against
44:41the only strong
44:43opposition party
44:44that exists
44:45today.
44:45one, and
44:46he spoke
44:47about the
44:47private
44:48company that
44:49young India
44:50has become.
44:51AJL
44:52was started
44:53by Congress
44:54leaders back
44:54then.
44:56Rahul Gandhi
44:56and Sonia
44:57Gandhi have
44:57been the
44:58presidents of
44:59Congress
44:59party.
44:59that is the
45:01reason they
45:02are among
45:03the shareholders
45:04of the
45:05so-called
45:06non-profit
45:07company.
45:09So, you
45:10can call it
45:11whatever you
45:11want, but
45:12the country
45:13knows the
45:13truth.
45:14And this
45:14is only,
45:15this protest
45:16that's happening
45:16across India,
45:17it's only to
45:18expose what a
45:20coward this
45:21government has
45:22been.
45:22Their cowardice
45:23has to be
45:24exposed.
45:24And our
45:25leaders have
45:26been very
45:26courageous in
45:27appearing before
45:28the ED
45:29officials, every
45:30time they have
45:31been called
45:31for.
45:32And, yeah,
45:33exactly.
45:34And law
45:34will be
45:35against the
45:37law.
45:37But we
45:38want to expose
45:38their cowardice.
45:40Fair point.
45:40Allow me to
45:41bring in
45:41Pradeep Bhandari
45:42in all of
45:42this.
45:42Pradeep Bhandari,
45:43I'll tell you
45:43what gives
45:44credence to
45:44the theory
45:45which the
45:46Congress and
45:47the opposition
45:48propagate,
45:49saying that
45:49this is
45:49political
45:50vendetta and
45:50a witch hunt.
45:51And I'll
45:51tell you,
45:52you know,
45:52why to
45:53many it
45:54might sound
45:54probable.
45:55I'll give
45:55you a figure
45:56where the
45:56ED in
45:5722 registered
45:59121 cases,
46:00right, against
46:01politicians.
46:02Out of that
46:02115 were of
46:04the opposition,
46:05only 6 came
46:06in from the
46:06BJP and
46:08the other
46:08NDA parties.
46:1096% of the
46:11cases were
46:11against the
46:12opposition.
46:13So when
46:13figures like
46:14that come in,
46:15then the
46:16opposition gets
46:17a stick to
46:17beat the
46:18government with
46:18that this is
46:19not enforcement
46:20directorate,
46:21this is
46:21selector
46:21enforcement.
46:23Well,
46:23Preeti,
46:23that does
46:24not make
46:24the actions
46:25of the
46:25ED in
46:26any of
46:26these
46:26cases
46:26illegal.
46:2793%
46:28has been
46:28the
46:29conviction
46:29rate
46:29of
46:29enforcement
46:30direct
46:30rate.
46:30I'll just
46:31answer the
46:32politics of
46:32Bhavya.
46:33Honestly,
46:33Arvind Kejriwal,
46:34before the
46:35Delhi elections
46:35was exactly
46:36in this
46:37whole Alice in
46:38the Wonderland
46:38country.
46:42Delhi defeated
46:43Arvind Kejriwal
46:43in Lok Sabha
46:44in Assembly.
46:45So if
46:45Sonia Gandhi
46:46and Rahul
46:47Gandhi feel
46:47that they
46:47are honest,
46:48they should
46:48go to the
46:49court of
46:49public opinion
46:49in Bihar.
46:50We are not
46:51afraid of
46:51the Congress
46:51party.
46:52It's a
46:529%
46:53vote share
46:53party in
46:53Bihar.
46:54Now I am
46:54called to
46:55the legality
46:55of it.
46:56She was
46:56speaking that
46:56all of
46:57this is
46:57illegal.
46:58Section
46:58120B,
46:59which is
46:59criminal
47:00conspiracy,
47:01is what
47:01the entire
47:01charge of
47:02ED,
47:02which is
47:02one of
47:03the
47:03investigative
47:04agency
47:04is.
47:05The
47:05Congress
47:05party
47:06went to
47:06Delhi
47:06high
47:07court
47:07saying
47:07that
47:08this
47:08section
47:08120B,
47:09there is
47:09no
47:09criminal
47:10conspiracy.
47:10Exactly
47:11what
47:11Bhavia is
47:11saying is
47:12what lawyers
47:12of the
47:12Congress
47:13party had
47:13said in
47:13Delhi
47:14high
47:14court.
47:14Delhi
47:15high
47:15court
47:15noted
47:15that
47:16there
47:16is
47:16a
47:17criminal
47:17design
47:17in
47:18the
47:18transactional
47:19reinforcing
47:20the
47:20theory
47:20of
47:20criminal
47:21conspiracy
47:21of
47:22the
47:22directorate
47:22of
47:23enforcement
47:23and
47:24the
47:24other
47:24investigative
47:24agency.
47:25This
47:25is
47:25Delhi
47:25high
47:25court
47:26in
47:26December
47:262023.
47:27Can
47:27you
47:28please
47:28answer
47:28me
47:28specifically
47:29that
47:30how
47:30can
47:30a
47:30company
47:31which
47:31got
47:31a
47:31loan
47:31of
47:3150
47:32lakh
47:32with
47:33no
47:33prior
47:33business
47:34transaction
47:34history
47:35of
47:35Rahul
47:35Gandhi
47:35and
47:36Sonia
47:36Gandhi
47:36how
47:37could
47:37they
47:37get
47:37the
47:37entire
47:38share
47:38of
47:39a
47:39company
47:39which
47:40had
47:40properties
47:40worth
47:412000
47:41crore.
47:42And
47:42she
47:42was
47:42speaking
47:42about
47:43heritage.
47:43My
47:43charge
47:44here
47:44is
47:44even
47:44on
47:45Jawana
47:45Nehru
47:45then
47:46Congress
47:46Chief
47:46Minister
47:47Chandrabhanu
47:47Gupta
47:48had
47:48charged
47:48that
47:49the
47:49entire
47:50cases
47:50of
47:58in
47:58a
47:58letter
47:59to
47:59Jawana
47:59Nehru
48:00and
48:00I
48:00quote
48:00Sardar
48:00Patet
48:01in
48:01view
48:02of
48:02the
48:02position
48:03which
48:03you
48:03have
48:03taken
48:03Jawar
48:04I
48:04feel
48:05it
48:05is
48:05useless
48:05to
48:06pursue
48:06the
48:06matter
48:06further.
48:07I have
48:07already
48:08told you
48:08how I
48:09view
48:09these
48:09activities
48:10and
48:10it
48:10is
48:10doubtful
48:11that
48:11if
48:11in
48:11any
48:12other
48:12province
48:12I
48:13had
48:13anything
48:13to
48:13do
48:13with
48:14this
48:14I
48:14will
48:14not
48:15be
48:15tolerating
48:16it.
48:16I'll
48:16take
48:16last
48:16two
48:17minutes
48:17and
48:17Pradeep
48:18maybe
48:18you
48:18can
48:18go
48:18first
48:19because
48:19I'll
48:19tell you
48:19why
48:19politically
48:20go ahead
48:21ma'am
48:21you answer
48:21first
48:21go ahead
48:22so
48:23the way
48:24Pradeep
48:24has been
48:25portraying
48:25this whole
48:26thing
48:26as if
48:26Rahul Gandhi
48:27and Sonia Gandhi
48:28has transferred
48:28the whole
48:29property
48:29into their
48:30names
48:30no
48:31it is
48:33in the
48:33name
48:34of
48:34the
48:35company
48:35for which
48:36they are
48:36the
48:36shareholders
48:37and
48:38the
48:38shareholders
48:39have
48:39no
48:39right
48:40to
48:42the
48:42salary
48:43or
48:43the
48:43property
48:44you need
48:45to know
48:45the
48:46very
48:46basics
48:46of
48:47this
48:47before
48:48making
48:48such
48:48an
48:49allegation
48:49right
48:50they have
48:50not
48:51can you
48:52provide
48:52any
48:53evidence
48:54that
48:54this
48:55property
48:55has been
48:56transferred
48:56in
48:57their
48:57personal
48:58accounts
48:58and
48:58personal
48:59names
48:59how
49:01could
49:01you
49:01just
49:01mislead
49:02on a
49:02national
49:03channel
49:03mislead
49:04the whole
49:04country
49:05like that
49:06okay
49:08ma'am
49:08you're
49:08done
49:08all right
49:09I'm
49:09going to
49:09take
49:09one
49:09final
49:10comment
49:10from
49:10Pradeep
49:10because
49:11we
49:11began
49:11with
49:11the
49:11congress
49:12spokesperson
49:12because
49:13you
49:13know
49:13Pradeep
49:14I'll
49:14tell
49:14you
49:14you
49:14know
49:14why
49:15there
49:15are
49:15so
49:15many
49:15questions
49:16which
49:16are
49:16swirling
49:16and
49:16I'll
49:17give
49:17you
49:17an
49:17example
49:17look
49:18at
49:18what
49:18happened
49:19with
49:19Heyman
49:19Sorain
49:19he was
49:20arrested
49:21by
49:21the
49:21ED
49:21months
49:22before
49:22the
49:22elections
49:23in
49:23the
49:24state
49:24of
49:24Jharkhand
49:25he had
49:25to
49:25immediately
49:26give up
49:26the
49:26seat of
49:27chief
49:27minister
49:28he
49:28stepped
49:28down
49:29the
49:30election
49:30could
49:31have
49:31gone
49:32the
49:32other
49:33way
49:33for
49:33Heyman
49:34Sorain
49:34with
49:34all
49:35the
49:35claims
49:35and
49:35the
49:35charges
49:36and
49:36the
49:36taint
49:36of
49:36the
49:37ED
49:37guess
49:38what
49:38he
49:38was
49:38let
49:38off
49:38by
49:39the
49:39courts
49:39and
49:40he
49:40was
49:40under
49:41the
49:41ED
49:41had
49:42charge
49:42sheeted
49:42him
49:42as
49:43well
49:43so
49:43yes
49:43charge
49:44sheets
49:44need
49:44to
49:45be
49:45taken
49:45seriously
49:46but
49:46should
49:46they
49:46be
49:47considered
49:47the
49:47gospel
49:48truth
49:48is
49:48the
49:48big
49:48question
49:49because
49:49you
49:49know
49:49what
49:50if
49:50he
49:50lost
49:50the
49:50election
49:51and
49:51then
49:51given
49:51a
49:51clean
49:52shit
49:52then
49:52what
49:52because
49:52you
49:53quoted
49:53an
49:53election
49:53I'm
49:53quoting
49:54another
49:54election
49:54well
49:55absolutely
49:56Preeti
49:56that's
49:56why I'm
49:56saying
49:57let's
49:57believe
49:57in
49:57the
49:57court
49:58we
49:58believe
49:58they
49:58are
49:58corrupt
49:59we
49:59believe
50:00that
50:00they
50:00have
50:00looted
50:00the
50:00money
50:01if
50:01congress
50:01party
50:01believes
50:02that
50:02they
50:02are
50:02honest
50:02please
50:03follow
50:03the
50:03court
50:04why are
50:04you
50:04going
50:04and protesting
50:05in order
50:05to pressurize
50:06the
50:06court
50:06and also
50:07specifically
50:07Rahul
50:08Gandhi
50:08and Sonia
50:09Gandhi
50:09in
50:09together
50:10own
50:1076
50:11percentage
50:11of
50:12young
50:12India
50:12it's
50:12not
50:13private
50:13it's
50:13their
50:13own
50:13personal
50:14company
50:14so
50:15if
50:15the
50:152000
50:15crore
50:2650 lakh
50:26of
50:27a
50:27company
50:27which
50:28is
50:28worth
50:282000
50:29crore
50:29name
50:29me
50:30one
50:30company
50:30in
50:30this
50:30country
50:31it is
50:33a
50:33non-profit
50:34company
50:35it is
50:36illegal
50:36it is
50:36fraudulent
50:37madam
50:37you can't
50:38have
50:38a
50:38company
50:38whose
50:39assets
50:39are
50:39worth
50:392000
50:40crore
50:40being
50:40given
50:40to
50:41a
50:41company
50:41that
50:41was
50:53to
50:53protect
50:53the
50:54national
50:54herald
50:55how can
50:55a
50:56political
50:56five
50:56donate
50:57to
50:57a
50:57company
50:57alone
50:58it's
50:58illegal
50:58nobody
51:00can hear
51:01a dime
51:01so I'm
51:01going to
51:01let it
51:02rest
51:02I appreciate
51:03both of
51:03you for
51:03joining us
51:04the congress
51:04is going to
51:05continue to
51:05protest
51:06tomorrow
51:06the spotlight
51:07of course
51:07on the
51:07Gandhis
51:08the ED
51:08has charged
51:09its first
51:09charge sheet
51:10once again
51:11like I said
51:11charge sheets
51:12need to be
51:12taken very
51:13seriously
51:13and yes
51:14let the courts
51:15decide
51:15but gospel
51:16truth
51:16no
51:16no
51:17with that
51:18let's
51:18quickly move
51:19on
51:19to our
51:20next big
51:21story
51:21that's coming
51:22in from
51:22the state
51:22of Karnataka
51:23the Karnataka
51:24cast survey
51:24that estimates
51:25a 38%
51:26increase in
51:27the population
51:28of OBCs
51:29and recommends
51:29increasing
51:30OBC quota
51:31has termed
51:32the state's
51:32politics
51:32completely on
51:33its head
51:34there is
51:34widespread
51:35discontent
51:36brewing
51:36amongst the
51:37dominant
51:37lingayat
51:38and
51:38vocaliga
51:39communities
51:39the survey
51:40has also
51:41split the
51:41congress
51:42in the
51:42middle
51:42with many
51:43ministers
51:43opposing
51:44the
51:44findings
51:45the
51:45socio-economic
51:46study was
51:47conducted
51:4710 years
51:48ago
51:48the question
51:49is
51:49why
51:49has
51:50Siddharam
51:50decided
51:51to put
51:52out
51:52the
51:53cast
51:53survey
51:53now
51:54hours
51:57before
51:58the
51:58Karnataka
51:58cast
51:59survey
51:59report
51:59is
52:00placed
52:00before
52:00the
52:01state
52:01cabinet
52:01a
52:02big
52:02political
52:03storm
52:03is
52:03brewing
52:04in
52:04the
52:04state
52:04the
52:06survey
52:07that
52:07recommends
52:07increasing
52:08the
52:08OBC
52:08quota
52:09in
52:09the
52:09state
52:09from
52:10the
52:10existing
52:1032%
52:11to
52:1251%
52:13has
52:13sparked
52:14massive
52:14churn
52:14within
52:15the
52:15congress
52:15and
52:16the
52:16dominant
52:16communities
52:17on
52:21Tuesday
52:21night
52:22Deputy
52:22Chief
52:23Minister
52:23DK
52:23Shivakumar
52:24a
52:24vocal
52:24leader
52:25himself
52:26met
52:26community
52:26leaders
52:27the
52:29report
52:47shared
52:4713
52:48months
52:48after
52:49the
52:49Karnataka
52:49State
52:50Backward
52:50Classes
52:51Commission
52:51presented
52:52it to
52:52the
52:52Siddharam
52:53Ayya
52:53government
52:53has
52:54estimated
52:54the
52:55population
52:55of
52:55OBC
52:56to
52:56be
52:5769.6%
52:5838%
52:59more
53:00than
53:00the
53:00existing
53:01estimates
53:01the
53:04socio-economic
53:05survey
53:05has come
53:06under fire
53:06from the
53:07Voka
53:07Liga
53:07ministers
53:08and
53:08leaders
53:08within
53:09the
53:09ruling
53:09party
53:10who
53:10have
53:10described
53:11it
53:11as
53:11a
53:11grave
53:12injustice
53:12to
53:12their
53:12community
53:13chief
53:27minister
53:27Siddharam
53:27Ayya
53:28who
53:28initially
53:28backed
53:29the
53:29report
53:29is
53:29now
53:30more
53:30cautious
53:30BGP
53:54is
53:54questioning
53:54the
53:55legality
53:55of the
53:56caste
53:56survey
53:56and
53:57accusing
53:57the
53:57congress
53:57of
53:58playing
53:58caste
53:58politics
53:59with
54:16concerns
54:16raised
54:17within
54:17the
54:17congress
54:17and
54:18outside
54:18the
54:18question
54:19is
54:19why
54:20has
54:20Karnataka
54:20chief
54:21minister
54:21suddenly
54:22decided
54:22to
54:22go
54:22public
54:23with
54:23a
54:23caste
54:24survey
54:24a
54:25decade
54:25after
54:25it
54:26was
54:26conducted
54:26with
54:29Nagarjal
54:29Dwarkanath
54:30and
54:30Sagai
54:30Raj
54:31in
54:31Bengaluru
54:31Bureau
54:32Report
54:32India
54:33Today
54:33All right
54:38joining me
54:38right now
54:39is Mr.
54:39Chandan Gowda
54:40Ramakrishna
54:41Higre
54:42Chair
54:42Professor
54:42at the
54:43ICIS
54:45EC
54:45Bengaluru
54:46Appreciate
54:47you joining
54:47us sir
54:48Mr.
54:49Gowda
54:49how do
54:50you
54:50what do
54:50you make
54:51of the
54:51social
54:51and the
54:52political
54:52fallout
54:53of this
54:53survey
54:53because
54:54the
54:54lingayats
54:54the
54:55vocal
54:55ligars
54:56are saying
54:56this is
54:56unscientific
54:57how do
54:57you see
54:58it
54:58pan out
54:58Preeti
55:01can you
55:03hear me
55:03I can
55:04hear you
55:04sir
55:04very well
55:05go ahead
55:05Preeti
55:07I think
55:07this
55:08reaction
55:09was only
55:10to be
55:11expected
55:11because
55:12both
55:14because
55:15the entire
55:16discussion
55:17right now
55:17is happening
55:18on the
55:19base of
55:19a leaked
55:20report
55:20not the
55:21complete
55:21report
55:22which runs
55:22into
55:23many
55:23volumes
55:24and there
55:25was always
55:25suspicion
55:26that the
55:26methods
55:27followed
55:27weren't
55:28correct
55:29or there
55:30was a
55:30deliberate
55:30intent
55:32at scaling
55:32down the
55:33numbers of
55:33these
55:33communities
55:34etc
55:34even before
55:35the leaked
55:36report
55:37actually
55:37so I
55:38really wish
55:39the whole
55:39thing had
55:39been made
55:40public
55:40at one
55:41go
55:41and allowed
55:42everyone to
55:43examine the
55:43report for
55:44what it
55:44was and
55:44then taken
55:46it from
55:46there
55:46but like
55:48you've seen
55:49that hasn't
55:50how it's
55:50panned out
55:51but tomorrow
55:52there'll be a
55:52cabinet meeting
55:53and I think
55:54it'll be made
55:54public and
55:55we'll have to
55:55see what
55:56happens
55:56but why
55:56you know
55:57just one
55:57final question
55:58before I
55:58let you
55:58go
55:59why do
55:59you think
55:59it's
55:59happening
56:00right now
56:00because
56:00clearly
56:01you know
56:01all of
56:03congress
56:03is not
56:03in on
56:04this
56:04there is
56:04a split
56:05within the
56:05congress
56:05as well
56:06it's not
56:06that the
56:07caste survey
56:07wasn't
56:08with the
56:08Karnataka
56:09government
56:09for a
56:09while
56:09why now
56:10the big
56:12thing is
56:13the sub
56:14castes
56:15which are
56:15supposed to
56:16be
56:16which were
56:17presumed to
56:17be part
56:18of the
56:18lingats
56:19which are
56:19presumed to
56:20be part
56:20of the
56:20vocal ligats
56:21have been
56:21set apart
56:23from them
56:24in the way
56:25their numbers
56:25have been
56:26counted
56:26that's brought
56:27down the
56:27numbers
56:27significantly
56:28so this
56:29is causing
56:30some concern
56:30about why
56:31this was
56:32done
56:32because routinely
56:33when births
56:34are allocated
56:35or tickets
56:35are given
56:35by parties
56:36people from
56:38these sub
56:39castes
56:39are considered
56:39the other
56:40vocal ligats
56:40and lingats
56:41so that's
56:41why there
56:42is confusion
56:42but I don't
56:43think this
56:44confusion is
56:46going to be
56:46of a permanent
56:46kind
56:47it can be
56:47set right
56:48already the
56:49lingats
56:49have considered
56:50a committee
56:51to study
56:51the report
56:51the vocal ligats
56:52will do the
56:53same
56:53and I suppose
56:54all other
56:55castes will
56:55also look at
56:56the report
56:56carefully to
56:57see how
56:57they have
56:58been represented
56:58if there's
56:59a need for
56:59regrouping
57:00of sub
57:00castes
57:01and if that
57:01will be okay
57:02with those
57:02subcats
57:03etc.
57:03it's a
57:03democratic
57:05but I only
57:05wish it had
57:06happened after
57:06the report
57:06had been made
57:07public
57:07but as you
57:08see the
57:10sequence has
57:10been different
57:13Mr. Gauda
57:14I wish we
57:15had more time
57:15to chat
57:15that's all
57:16the time
57:16that I have
57:17for on this
57:17show
57:17and that's
57:18the sad
57:19part about
57:20live news
57:21I appreciate
57:22you joining
57:22us
57:22thank you