The Magic of Christmas: Stories, Laughter, and Festive Surprises…! Share your stories.
Proposals - SUNLO
To share your thoughts...
⟶ Go to the home page of the BoloBolo Show app on your Android or iPhone. ⟶ Click on the microphone button icon on the bottom bar. ⟶ Then record your thoughts in a clear voice.
In the Lok Sabha, the script seemed familiar yet again. Whatever Rahul Gandhi tried to push ended up rebounding on him. While attempting to counter charges of nationalism by citing Gen. Naravane’s memoir, the focus quickly shifted away from China and onto procedure, House rules, and allegations of misleading Parliament, an opening seized by Rajnath Singh and the treasury benches. For a Leader of the Opposition still struggling to convert moments into momentum, the episode raises a larger question about consistency, strategy, and political sharpness at the top. So is this becoming a pattern for Rahul Gandhi as Leader of Opposition ?
लोकसभा में कहानी एक बार फिर जानी-पहचानी लगी। राहुल गांधी जो भी आगे बढ़ाने की कोशिश करते हैं, वही उलटा उन पर भारी पड़ता दिखता है। राष्ट्रवाद के आरोपों का जवाब देने के लिए जनरल नरवणे की स्मृतियों का हवाला दिया गया, लेकिन चर्चा चीन से हटकर प्रक्रिया, सदन के नियमों और “संसद को गुमराह करने” के आरोपों पर जा टिकी, जिसे राजनाथ सिंह और सत्ता पक्ष ने मौके में बदल लिया। एक ऐसे नेता प्रतिपक्ष के लिए, जो अब तक मौकों को रफ्तार में बदलने में जूझ रहा है, यह सवाल और गहरा हो जाता है कि रणनीति और राजनीतिक धार में कमी तो नहीं। तो क्या नेता प्रतिपक्ष के तौर पर राहुल गांधी के लिए यह एक पैटर्न बनता जा रहा है ?
With fresh disclosures revealing multiple email exchanges and meetings between Hardeep Singh Puri and Jeffrey Epstein, the earlier dismissal of it all as “mere name-dropping” now looks harder to sustain. While Puri insists the interactions were limited, professional, and focused on pitching India’s digital potential before he joined the government, the optics raise uncomfortable questions. In an era where political accountability is loudly demanded from opponents, should proximity to controversial power brokers be judged only by legality, or also by judgement and transparency ? And does this episode expose a double standard in how political associations are explained away depending on who is involved ?
