Home Blog Page 501

Politics of fascism

Anupam
-
0
Politics of fascism

In today’s time, everyone calls their opponent a ‘Fascist’. Every protest has a common slogan -‘Rise against Fascism’. Every protester uses the term ‘Fascism’ 10 times and people who don’t know the reason of their protest repeat this term 50 times to sound more convincing.

Don’t believe me? Do watch CAA protest videos on twitter. It’s hilarious!

At times, when even Bhallaladev uses the term ‘Fascism’ to convince Katappa against Bahubali, its very important to go beyond this term and analyse the govt policy and works more closely before we make our mind.

Mr. Modi’s policies till date before CAA – not a single policy starting from Scholarship program, LPG distribution, Reservation, Abrogation of Article 370 and on other matter of governance is discriminatory in nature or unconstitutional. But again, Opposition just have one word ‘Fascism’ if you ask to name one policy that’s discriminatory.

CAA – It’s a justice done to religiously persecuted people in 3 islamic nations. Even Congress/ Communists/ Mamta asked for CAA in past and have raised concerns on illegal migrants in parliament earlier. But the term ‘Fascism’ is heard once again on CAA by the same people.

Illegal migrants – Recently, 150 Indians were deported from US. Have you seen protest? No, till there is idea of a nation and boundary, this problem would exist and nations would try different mechanism to minimise the infiltration.

NRC is an idea to tackle this problem. Yes, Assam NRC, conceived by Congress and implemented on SC order was a total disaster. But then Today’s Govt accepts this problem and reason of failures of current NRC system. They have been promising that NRC draft would be much better and would not leave out a single citizen.

But Fear-mongers have begun their job. Instead of waiting to see the draft, analysing, debating those rules, we call Modi a Fascist and happen to oppose CAA act that’s a total justice to persecuted ones.

We should be cautious because many times, Bhallaldev (people with vested interests) plays a victim card, uses the term ‘Fascist’ for Bahubali and convinces Kattappa (citizens) to kill him.

The fringe has come to fore- on the anti-CAA agitation

G Indira
-
0
The fringe has come to fore- on the anti-CAA agitation

The country wide protests over Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) by the Left, Liberal and the so-called secular Congress are orchestrated and designed rather than a spontaneous outcry from all sections of the country. If at all there is a genuine outcry, that’s only from people of the North-East. The N-E is the epicentre of this agitation from which it spread to other metropolitan cities. The Centre, if it addresses the N-E, the other agitations would become irrelevant.

The forces (socio-political) that have been marginalised by the general public long ago, are raising their ugly heads, now, with these agitations. No one buys their hollowed theories. They have no connect with the majority of the people. Yet, they are seeking boldly, for citizenship to Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims! It goes without saying that they are not the persecuted minorities in those countries. Since the government wanted to include the Hindus and other Indic religious groups viz. Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and of course, Parsis (Zoroastrians) and Christians, these protestors wanted the inclusion of Muslims from the neighbouring countries who nearly represent all of them put together! What a broadminded thinking!

For the agitators, the Hindus are only, by default, a section of people in India. For them, it doesn’t matter their persecution here in India or anywhere in the world. Because they come under general rule of law. Their troubles come under ‘law and order’ problem. Whereas, in the case of Muslims, it is different. Those activists cry hoarse on minority rights/secularism!

These groups (the Left, Liberal columnists and TV anchors) are specimens from some other world. They say the country is polarised. ‘Us and them’ terms are used often, in the society, to divide Hindus and Muslims, they bemoan. The government is getting votes by showing ‘the other’, they complain. In fact, if they introspect themselves, they will know how much distortion they carry in their minds. Day in and day out, some TV channels castigate their own countrymen, the Hindus, as some lumpen elements and goons out to tear the (ever so fragile) secular fabric. They think their line of thinking is the only correct way. They need to know; those days are gone. Having birth in a privileged family, being educated in ivy- leagues in foreign lands, doesn’t give the privilege to criticise the countrymen in a derogatory way and passing snide remarks on them.

Sana Ganguly, the daughter of Sourav Ganguly alleged to have tweeted quoting Kushwant Singh’s views (from his book ‘The End of India’ published in 2003) in her Instagram account that raised a controversy. Her father rightly did the damage control. Many in India know what Shri Kushwant Singh stood for, all along, when he was alive. He was himself a controversial figure. Just because he was a writer of renown, his views are not the Vedas. Had the girl (Sana Ganguly) not been Saurav Ganguly’s daughter and the views were from a village/town girl, they would not have come to prominence. Very soon her (Sana Ganguly’s) supposed views were lapped up by Shehla Rashid, filmmaker Onir etc. It’s unfortunate in India, someone’s worth is determined by their place in the social hierarchy.

When Sana Ganguly (supposedly) said to have tweeted: ‘The Sangh is already targeting the Leftist historians and “Westernized” youth etc., it is clear where her mind is heading towards. She should also have read the book: “Eminent Historians, Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud” written by Arun Shourie in 1998 before coming to the conclusion. After all, this is what the advice that is given in a democracy—to hear both sides of the argument. Arun Shourie with facts and figures displayed, how the eminent historians, looted the tax payers’ money in enjoying their privileges and some of them, though being good for nothing in their work.

The detention of historian Ramachandra Guha on 19th December while protesting against the CAA in Bengaluru, was a big-breaking news on the news channels. R Guha emotionally said, on a TV channel that he was carrying Mahatma Gandhi’s picture and was protesting peacefully, yet the Karnataka police detained him. What’s the equation one has to deduce from that? Of course, he wrote the biography of Mahatma. He may (partly) like Gandhi ji because he (Gandhi ji) stood for Hindu-Muslim unity in India. However, Guha is selective. He may like Gandhi ji for his pro- Muslim attitude. But certainly not for Gandhi ji’s Hindu way of life and for Hindu spiritual practices.

Shri Yogindra Yadav was also detained in his protest against the CAA. He, as a psephologist, was always against the BJP and Modi’s win. Guha and Yadav are known baiters of the BJP ideology. They opposed Art-370, Ayodhya Temple Verdict and Triple talaq etc. That time, they merely aired their views on all channels, as the time was not ripe for them to agitate. Now, with the N-E regions fierce agitations in place, they got a chance to take to streets. Clearly, the NRC and CAA put together, there’s a confusion among many sections. The government should untangle the knot and should specify categorically what’s what. This day (20/12), it, of course, clarified some of the doubts through all channels.

Mamata Banerjee, the CM-West Bengal, keeping in view the coming state elections, going all out with her absurd demands of having a referendum by United Nations on the CAA. This, will send wrong signals to the outside world. In any case, the world is a Parliament of Nations. The government convincingly argued in the Indian parliament to pass the Bill. Now it’s time to convince the world.

An open letter to the “intellectual protestors”

Anonymous
-
0
An open letter to the “intellectual protestors”

Dear protestors,
You all are protesting against the CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT by citing “secularism”. Let me make it very clear that this is not a bill against a particular religion. This bill is for REFUGEES. The bill just makes it easier for the entry of persecuted minorities into India and is in accordance with the stands of the successive governments to grant citizenship to them.

Does the bill say that Muslims can’t enter India from the 3 countries? NO. Muslims can definitely enter India from these countries by the process of naturalisation. I.e. they have to live in India for a period of 11 years to apply for an Indian citizenship.

The act just relaxes the limit for Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians to 6 years!
So why were rules not eased for Muslims? Because they are not minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan and all these 3 nations are officially Islamic!

Citizenship Amendment act will never take away citizenship, it will only grant citizenship.
If the government had to appease Hindus, they could have got Hindus from Nepal and Bhutan too! But they haven’t done so.

Some parts of the North East has been exempted from the act in compliance with the 6th schedule of the Constitution which grants them autonomity and some states which comprise of the inner line permit (ILP). I bet most of you don’t know what these things are, but are speaking about it as if you are the Chief Justice of India.

What about the hypocrisy of Bollywood!

There is an “ASIAN” actress who had shared the picture of the preamble of the constitution before the 42nd amendment came in. She shared it without knowing that the word “secularism” was missing, which she apparently wanted to portray! Heights of illiteracy! And, allegedly, her brother has links with David Headley! Why is she barking so much?

Then, comes the son of a famous lyricist. A journalist asks him, “Why have you come here to protest?” and he replies,” Because everyone has come!” I am cent per cent sure that these people including you have never read text of the bill and don’t even know how a bill is passed in parliament and when a bill becomes an act.

You people protest in the name of secularism and article 14. Article 14 broadly gives equality before the law. Citizenship Amendment Act has no relation with article 14. Citizenship Amendment Act is valid constitutionally and the Supreme Court will re iterate this.

Also, I want to ask you, why didn’t you come out to protest against the practice of Triple Talaq?
Would you all hit the streets to protest against Nikah Halala and polygamy? Did you protest when a politician said, “tum 100 crore ho na. Hum 25 crore hai na. 10 minutes ke liye police hata do, hum dekh lenge”

Would you support the Uniform Civil Code citing article 14? Sickularism, huhh!

Our country is burning since almost a week now. It is our money which is being burnt indirectly. We have to stand up and bust this propaganda. Enough is enough!

In the end I would request you to read the text of the entire act and see for yourself what is written in it and what isn’t!

You people who make it a Hindu Muslim issue want to keep their communal shops running so that you all can fill your money bags. Remember, perpetrators of violence have vested interests!
Protesting is not wrong. But protesting violently is a point of concern and the so called protestors have to be arrested under the PSA act.

I am sorry to make this article communal but these so called “intellectual protestors” have compelled me to speak my heart out.
-An ordinary citizen
Divyam
JAI HIND

Constitutionality of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019

nikhar95
-
0
Constitutionality of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019

Social media channels are flooded with posts protesting against the implementation of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019. After a detailed study about the Act and the Indian Constitution, one can conclude that the arguments of the protestors have no merit in law or in fact. These are the arguments that support the case for CAA:

The Discrimination/ Equality Arguement:

The first argument that arises is that the law is discriminatory in nature as it “excludes” Muslims from the list of “persecuted minorities” as such is prima facie violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. While Article 14 offers equal protection under law, it also comprises of special provisions allowing formation of “groups” that qualify two major legal tests –

Intelligable Differentia: It tests the constitutionality of the “Group” formed under the special provision of Article 14. In the case of CAA, the religious minorities mentioned in the act dwindled and faced immense persecution. A basic look at the population statistics of the minoritiesalone proves this. The Act passes the test because the three nations mentioned are “Islamic Republics” and by their law, religious minorities are second class citizens; therefore they can be classified as a special “group”. Some argued that why not extend the same the law to “Ahmadiyya” and “Shias”. If they are included in this group, the CAA would fail the test, as they are not “religious minorities” but “ethnic minorities.”

This principle is the same principle which is used to argue for “Affirmative Action or Reservations” that recognize a group and grant them special status, not equal with the rest of the citizens. If this law is outlawed by the common law principle of precedent, all special status given to minorities will also be invalidated.

The Differential has rationale with the Objective of the Act: CAA 2019 aims to give citizenship to persecuted minorities who have entered India before December 2014. It DOES NOT strip anyone of citizenship and therefore will likely pass the equality test in the Supreme Court.

The law does not affect the citizenship of any Indian but only grants the citizenship to “persecuted religious minorities” of only Three countries. Any Muslim who is persecuted in these countries can still apply for asylum or even refugee status. They will have to go through the regular mechanism in place.

The International Law Arguement:

The two major international treaties that govern refugee laws are “The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951” and “The Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1967”. International treaties cannot be enforced unless the countries in question are parties to the convention. India is NOT a party to either conventions, and is only obliged to follow international customary practices but not these treaties.

The Rohingya, Sri Lankan Tamil Arguement:

Sri Lankan Tamils, Tibetan Buddhists, and Rohingyas have not been included in the list. And this was used as an argument for discrimination. Sri Lankan Tamils are no longer under threat as they were during the Civil War. Therefore, they do not require any special laws apart from the asylum laws already in place.

The Rohingya case is more complex. They do not qualify for refugee status because the international standard dictates that the first country of entry by a refugee has the responsibility of them. If thet migrate from there to any country, they will not be refugees but migrants; and migrants have different laws to refugees. Secondly, any new entry of a group is subject to approval of Intelligence Bureau (IB). The Rohingyas also bring in National Security Threat. (Please read up the Amnesty Report on the atrocities on Hindus and other Rohingya minorities in Burma). And the Rohingyas were not issued a security clearance from IB as they felt they could not differentiate the victims from perpetrators.

Tibetan Buddhists also have been excluded owing to the complex nature of Tibet as a state, and they cannot be classified as the same group.

The Parliamentary Power Arguement:

Constitutions are not inclusionary in nature but are exclusionary. They dictate what an entity or person can’t do, but not what they can do. The constitution by Article 11 gives parliament the exclusive authority to make law on who or who can’t be a citizen. The constitution does not define who is a citizen (This is owing the problems during partition and the complexity in integration of princely states, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar created the concept of “Karmabhoomi” where the populous enforces its will and ambitions and creates a nationhood. Read constitutional debate for further context). Therefore, the parliament has every right to make any law that determines citizenship.

The Moral Argument:

CAA keeps up India’s responsibility to minorities who could not migrate in due to the border closing in 1951. It is also necessary to uphold our duty due to the non-compliance of Nehru-Liaquat Pact by Pakistan and Bangladesh. Secondly, the most difficult part will be the implementation of NRC. Whatever the justification, knowing the realities in India, it will affect many innocent people. That is when we need to be active to provide them assistance to prove their case and not oppose laws that are both – legal and necessary to secure our borders, and set a citizenship standard.

In a politically sensitive democracy like India it is important that people, without any legal awareness about the Act, simply do not exaggerate the law-and-order situation in the country by posting half-baked facts as ultimate truth on Social Media.

Raghul Vinci support Judas Iscariot – Mamata asking for UN referendum on CAA

S Ranganathan
-
0
Raghul Vinci support Judas Iscariot – Mamata asking for UN referendum on CAA

Indian politics has touched new low with the bizarre demand of Mamata, the chief minister of West Bengal, UN referendum on CAA. No Indian with an iota of Indian-ness can accept, forgive or forget the un-patriotic rhetoric of Mamata.

Mamata is doing more favour to Pakistan than to India. Unfortunately she is the elected chief minister of one of the important states in India that has gifted Tagore, Vivekananda, Paramahansa, Aurobindo, Bose and many others to the world. West Bengal should be ashamed over its sitting chief minister for denigrating India’s sovereignty, parliamentary democracy and supreme power and authority of both houses of parliament in enacting law for the land.

The name Judas everyone in the world remembers with great element of melancholy for his betrayal of Jesus to the then authority to crucify. Jesus is worshiped and Judas is always referred as great betrayer in the history.

Only way India can be saved is by Hindus uniting selflessly under BJP and Hindus must pledge their unconditional support to Modi and Amit Shah. Similarly the minority communities in India also must realize that they were being used by the so called pseudo-secular political forces to come to power. It is not just the pseudo secular political parties that harvest vote bank politics through minority appeasement and then betray the minorities but some of the religions leaders like Bishops and Maulanas too benefit by pledging the en mass support of the community to certain political parties but the benefits are largely reserved to the self than to the community. Unfortunately large sections of minority communities remain poor economically, socially and educationally and the same time also kept as a formidable vote bank of several pseudo secular political forces. Unless and until minority communities realize the bitter truth that they are being used by these politicians for their political gain and nothing else and the minority communities must reject all those political forces to save India.

Look at the level and standard of Indian politics has touched now with the painful statement of Mamata of TMC. Just to win votes she attempts to divide the society and that too by sitting from the chair of chief minister of a state.

The question before the nation is quite different. Mamata has proven to be the new Judas of India.

Will Raghul Vinci, sorry Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, a born Christian would support the Judas- Mamata Banerjee? Will all those liberal left voices support Mamata? By linking their protest against CAA with anti-social elements and Judas, are they not betraying the country and its democratic values? Why Shiv Sena is quiet and deaf towards the Judas?

Are the so called liberal left voices are exhibiting their democratic rights or undermining India in the name of protesting against CAA.

The New India can overcome the dangerous trend and anti-Indian intellectual-political-liberalism culture only by Hindus uniting under BJP and Modi. To destroy an evil, united approach and not divided approach is needed. Only by Hindus uniting under BJP, India can be saved.  Muslims or Christians are not the problem creators.  Most of the Muslims and Christians are as Indian as their fellow Hindu. They never live in India as Christian or Muslim or Hindu, they all live in unity, mutual support and compassion to each other. Only some political forces that oppose Modi and Amit Shah are working against India and using minority as their pawn. In the name of vote bank politics, all these political forces are appeasing minority communities, tries to cause cleavage between different religions and make political capital out of such division.

BJP is a party of unity. BJP wants to unite India, unite all communities and religions and achieve sab ka vikas and progress and prosperity of the nation. Only when people totally and completely reject the entire band wagon of opposition and excommunicate them from Indian politics, India can be saved.

Every religion must recognise the truth that the existence of their respective God in the minds and hearts of each one, a satan or devil or evil forces is not necessary. In the kingdom of God, only love, equality and blessings exist and not opposition, protest or dissent.

The governance model of Modi is inclusive, equal opportunity and involvement centric, focused on sab ka vikas and hence people of India should not allow any opposition or negative force against the corruption free governance of Modi because such dissent at best can only derail the progress and prosperity of India.

Let all of us ask various opposition parties whether they support Judas- Mamata Banerjee who wants to denigrate India and betray the political decorum of Indian democracy and parliamentary supremacy.

Your friendly neighbourhood Bhakt (What it means to support right wing as a teenager)

dareshit
-
0
Your friendly neighbourhood Bhakt (What it means to support right wing as a teenager)

When a teenagers tells someone that they associate themselves with the ideas of the right wing, they are immediately reduced to a stereotype pre-set in the minds of their fellows. I’ve had the fortune of meeting several people with distinct political ideologies backed up with even more distinct reasons; and I’ve always looked for the arguments and ideas behind them even though at times it didn’t make any sense. But, having spent almost two years at a law school I’ve seen that this is not how my fellows function. They have a filter of political affiliation and if you’re even slightly tilted towards right, they don’t hear your words.

The stereotype.

A person with affiliation to the right wing as we all know is called a ‘bhakt’. Let’s break down what a bhakt essentially is for the huge pool liberal teenagers and adolescents. A bhakt is a person that primarily a strong theist and a person that puts divine order above logic. Secondly, bhakts are considered supporters of patriarchy and subsequently fans of every form of inequality. Everything that come in forms of speech is not even considered and thus the basic stereotype ends here, a bhakt is nothing less and nothing more.

The reason behind the stereotype.

In modern times, the concept of anarchy and rebellion are more than trends and have found home in hearts of the young. The lenses of revolution give them a view of an unequal, partial and unjust world. The context and the reasons are always handcrafted by the left in a language that soothes the youth. The access to all the networks like online streaming that circulate pamphlets of cynicism and anarchy has made it cool to hate the people in power and it is preferred to be mouthpiece of dissent (even uncalled dissent) Words like minorities and secularism are the extreme ends for the self-proclaimed liberal diaspora, they are not allowed to see beyond or through, and thus when they see surge of an opinion that has a vision beyond and through they get offensive, they shadow the contradiction and humiliate it with heavy words of foreign tongues. The inability to reply in the same manner makes the bhakt illiterate and devoid of logic; and the ability to reply in the same manner makes him/her a repercussion of some privilege.

What it is like to be young and a so called bhakt at the same time?

First and foremost, you’re out of the list of the ‘smart ones’ and if does not matter to you, you’ll be told that you’re not smart enough almost every day as a daily test of resistance. Further, there will be professors that preach communism and if they identify you, that’s the end of peace for you, after several attempts of radicalizing, there will be attempts at ridiculing you. The internet on the other end will always look for debates and you’re not allowed to deny because then, you’ll be called an uninformed jingoistic lad; so if you decide to participate and make your points and they somehow defeating the conditions make more sense, you’ll be told that it is all subjective and based upon your personal bias; and your narrow mindedness has acted as a catalyst to the fascist regime. The comics and actors in trend have a fan-base to please and in order to do that, they’ll make jokes on you; in other words, they’ll make money by ridiculing capitalism.

The good part:

Firstly, and most importantly, you don’t have to support a political party at all times. The right wing community has enough space for discussions and dissent. Unlike, the other side where supporting BJP is a heinous crime, at the right side of the discourse you can support according to each action, I’ve seen right wingers supporting Captain Amrinder Singh and Shashi Tharoor and rather than being subjected to extradition they are engaged in debates and discussions.

You’ll not be left alone, at platforms like twitter the community helps each other. You may feel overpowered by the Instagram warriors of the keyboard revolutionaries but the speakers of the right will find you. Don’t worry about the extreme humiliation from the other side, you’ll have an infamous group of people with good humor by your side.

You’ll connect to larger masses as the discussions here are not limited to the doomsday rhetoric of Shah-Modi, rather the discussions will range from food of the poor to the lux of the rich. The right wing consists of humans and may at times be incorrect, but it is willing to listen, we do not create a facade of freedom of speech, where you are only free to abuse Modi; here you’re free to question everything. SO in short you’ll meet diverse people, ideas definitions, stands and personalities.

We are adapting to the changes and have a lot to improve, it is hard to be in the right wing in this generation but, hashtag The Community has been a pleasure to me.

Darshit S.

Student, National Law University Odisha

Why CAA does not violate Article 14: An insight

atruesecular
-
0
Why CAA does not violate Article 14: An insight

Of late Article 14 of the Constitution of India is in the news since the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 was passed in both the Houses of Parliament and finally became the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. Although the ruling party hailed it as a historic bill to protect the right of the Sarnarthis, the opposition created the bill a center of contention on the allegation that the Bill violates the equality before the law as mentioned in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The argumentation put forward by the Opposition is that the Bill discriminates with the Muslim community by excluding them from the ambit of this Bill. This argumentation has also been picked up by a certain section of intellectuals and left-liberals. So let us look at the fact and check if CAA violates Article 14.

Article 14 of the Constitution states 

 “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

But in the terminology of Political Science “equality” hardly means every human being, irrespective of race, caste, and sex is equal in all circumstances. In fact, Political Science recognizes the fact that there can always be some mental, physical and economic differences and without addressing these differences it is impossible to cater to the idea of Equality.

This was the idea behind starting the Reservation in India because at that time many communities in India faced economic paucity due to lack of resources. If we look at Article 14 from a narrow perspective we may end up questioning the lack of one single matrimonial act in India.

There are the Christian Marriage Act,1872, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, The Hindu Marriage Act. Although Article 15 of the Constitution forbids the state to discriminate on the basis of race, caste, and sex, these Marriage Acts are completely constitutional because the Supreme court of India, on many occasions, observes that equality before the law is applicable to equal people of the same category which means the law cannot discriminate with two individuals from the same caste but the law can make different provisions for different castes.

In B. C & Co. vs Union of India, AIR 1973 case the Court observed that the guiding principle of article 14 will be the circumstances in which a person or a thing is. All persons who are similarly circumstanced will be treated alike in terms of privileges as well as Liabilities.

Thus it can be observed that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution makes classification inevitable. There must be various kinds of classification upon which equality before the law will be maintained. The Court also provided for this classification process and what will be the guiding principle.

In Shashi Mohan vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 SC case the Court observed that the basis of the classification can be the geography, occupation or other things. Thus, when the Citizenship Amendment Bill provides to give citizenship only to the Sarnarthis from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, it hardly challenges the idea of Equality before the law. At the same time, the apex court provided two conditions to make such classification:

  1. The process must be founded on an intelligent differentia in distinguishing persons that have been grouped together with the ones left out of the group.
  2. At the same time, the differentia should have a rational relation towards the object of the statute in question

This judgment was followed by the court on many such occasions where Article 14 was found to be questioned. The Citizenship Amendment Bill, in order to fulfill Article 14 must satisfy the conditions provided while classifying between the Sarnarthis and the illegal migrants. Here, the advantage the ruling government will enjoy is the fact that these Sarnarthis have already been recognized earlier by the previous Government by the Congress. The rationale of religious persecution will hardly apply to the Rohingyas or any other Muslims who migrated to India before 2014. Of course, the argument of including Ahmedias will not be any valid point since the persecution of Ahmedias, if any, will be of sectarian persecution in nature.

Thus, it can be observed that if the minorities of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh have been given citizenship through this Amendment, it will hardly violate Article 14 even if the draft of the Bill mentions the phrase ‘excluding Muslims’ because Muslims are not the minority in these three countries mentioned earlier.

However, those who are arguing that Article 14 does not apply to the Sarnarthis or illegal migrants are not speaking the truth since Article 14 promises to provide Equality to the Citizens as well as the foreigners.

Gang rapes reports daily; what to do?

richadec2019
-
0
Gang rapes reports daily; what to do?

The brutality against the Hyderabad Vet has drawn the usual response from all quarters. It is so stereotyped that it evokes no emotions anymore. After a day or two, we go back to our usual ways, till another such event occurs.

This seemingly endless violence goes on unabated everyday and numerous statistics point out that every minute in this country a woman/child is being brutalized. Why is there no introspection on this? The past records show that whatever has been done in this direction has clearly not worked. As always the buck stops at the police and the government. That the government is not doing enough to ensure the safety of the women or for that matter every citizen is safeguarded. But is the answer so simple? Is it possible for the govt to provide for the safety of each woman and child for its 1.3 billion population? The answer is clearly a resounding no. In my limited opinion, the government is responsible to address the problem but certainly not the way it has done so far. The reasons for increase of such incidents need to be analysed a little before we can think of the solutions.

Extremely charged sex filled atmosphere with no one telling the youngsters what to do when they feel tormented by sexual needs and feelings. 

The heading needs no justification or examples. It’s a well documented fact that the children world over are getting more and more sexualized. The media driven lifestyle of middle class Indians is creating the same conditions of hypersexualized children in India too. Is anyone talking to these children as old as 6 or 7 years what to do with their sexual feelings or what are the consequences of sexual activity. The internet and smartphone has made access to pornography as easy as never before. Hence, we have a generation of youth who are moving around with half baked knowledge about sex, and means of obtaining sex that society and law permits. It is very easy to forget that the act of sex in itself is just one part of a sexual relationship. And like all acts sex act too has consequences. Which stage of life this knowledge is to be imparted and who is going to do it? It is not certainly not being done now and every one hopes that this knowledge will reach the intended target on its own.

Undermining of religious teachers and religious teaching

For a long time, the religious teachers had the responsibility to preach and decide societal morality. In the late twentieth century and early twenty first century, the word Guru became a dirty word. Mostly, the word Guru got construed as Sex Guru. It was the misdeeds and human failings of a miniscule of Gurus that took the wretched 24×7 media to paint the entire community of religious teachers as exploiters and sex maniacs. As a result, gradually, the entire support base created by the religious teachers has been lost in the current day. Since the profession of religious teaching took so much of beating, the field stopped attracting talented people. With nuclearising of families and women joining the work force, the religiosity and the teachings of morality related to sex are all but lost. To make matters worse, we left this job to the jurists who themselves are most arrogant but least equipped to address the matter.

Taking responsibility of own safety

Tragic as it might be, there is a failure of judgement in most cases were such brutalizations have taken place. Whether it was Nirbhaya or Priyanka, the ease with which they trusted strangers put them in the danger that hurt them so badly. There are more instances to cite where pub hopping drunk or passed out women got raped by the cab drivers. Agreed, making public spaces safe is government responsibility but isn’t making a sound judgement the responsibility of individual too

Where is the education about consent?

Lastly, but most importantly, our school education is such a failure. The course and curriculum has been created and modified repeatedly be some learned school teachers and professors in and around Delhi, hardly teaches anything of practical use to the students and future youth of this country. To make matters worse, in parts of India north of Delhi, the entire secondary schooling has been abandoned in the form of non-attending schools. The most important part of teenage life when sexual urges are extreme, we have deprived the children even the marginal support system that existed erstwhile in the form of a regular school. More importantly, when is a teenager male or female told about sexual consent, the legal age for valid consent, and that “NO” means NO and “YES” means yes? Furthermore, that the consent is a right of the woman irrespective of her marital status or age. When have we invested in building this knowledge? Let alone teenagers or young adults, even middle aged men or women in India have little care for the concept of consent.

What are the likely solutions?

Tackle gender inequality though religiosity & morality

We have to establish back the respect for religiosity and religious teachings. Easier said than done, considering the battering it has taken in the last two decades. This step has to be undertaken in a concerted effort over a couple of years in a well coordinated effort driven by the government but implemented by the religious heads of all major religions. Failing by the religious heads must be severe yet objectivised. The root of the evil lies in the gender inequities that are getting magnified with more and more women succeeding than men in all works of life. The society is not adequately prepared for this. This preparation will have to be done by the religious teachers. From every TV channel, every satsang and every pulpit, this message has to be delivered that the female gender is not inferior in any way than the other.

The masses have to be communicated that the after death rites and rituals performed by the daughters will not hinder the transition to heaven, rather facilitate it. This message will have to be delivered in a scientific manner that the self aware man of today consumes and digests well by testing the evidence himself. The arguments have to be backed by solid quotes of the scriptures and these references should be verifiable. All this will not happen in a short time.

The usual, oft repeated response to the problem is just the opposite. To say or do something that takes the mind off the long term response. Doing this will help the establishment in dual way. The problem of overproduction of children will also go away slowly. The data and statistics are a clear pointer that the wait for a male child is the only reason now days for producing more than two children amongst Hindus. Contrary to the popular perception, Hindus are equal culprits in overproducing children. The inherent gender inequality is the reason why legislation against pre-natal sex determination has failed to do what it was intended to do. Sorting this problem of gender inequality will provide dividends that cannot be achieved in any other way.

Make sex education a must at the onset of adolescence and get it delivered by religious
teachers in school

After every incident of rape that manages to reach the rooms of news channel anchors, there are pictures of placard holding women urging ‘men not to rape rather than saying women not to get raped’. Well said. But what’s the point of holding that placard when rape has already occurred? The time to teach it is when the adolescent is going to become a man. At the same time woman must be taught the elements and consequences of sexual consent, in the context of our country and society. Most of the resistance to proposals of sex education comes from the parents with the fear that imparting knowledge about sex will promote sex desire and sexual activities in the adolescents. The truth is just the opposite. The knowledge of sex act is being acquired nevertheless through easy access to porn and the acting in the videos make the sex acts as the easiest ticket to heaven while alive. In this way there is no mention of the consequences of the journey to heaven. Delivering sex education will fill this glaring gap. The delivery has to be undertaken by the trained religious teachers because that will emasculate the resistance brought in by the parents and some reluctant teachers towards imparting the right information about sex and its consequences.

Kick the freedom of expression argument
The worst behaviour after rape events is experienced in the conduct of news channel anchors. The 24×7 news channels have denigrated the word news so much that one feels much better off without them. However, their adverse impact cannot be underestimated, considering the amount of this content that is consumed by millions of traders, householders and every place where people are not continuously busy, the poison of so called news channels is spread unconsciously. There has to be strict guidelines about reporting of heinous crimes and the regulations have to be changed so that ‘views’ should not be passed off as ‘news’. The truth is that most times, through these so called news channels what is dished out actually is ‘views’ of a third grade loser that is passed off as ‘news’. Most of the news channels of indigenous origin have neither the resources nor the knowhow to run 24×7 news.

Society is better off without them till they can show that they have the means to run a round
the clock news channel. Though considered as sin to even mention it, lets face it! Internet needs to be regulated. Availability of porn on mobile devices has to be banned. There are technical difficulties in regulating the internet. In the current scenario of advanced ‘AI’, it is not difficult. The will and motivation are needed and the economic impact of the action has to be catered for. Circulation of downloaded porn through mobile phones also needs to be banned in the same manner.

Legislation needs drastic improvement
The current legislation against sexual abuse has clearly failed as it has denied justice to the victims and permitted blatant misuse against men. It is a different matter altogether that, in more cases than not, men have used women to harass other men with false rape charges. Trial of rape cases must be undertaken in special fast track courts set up for this purpose, punishment for guilty be exemplary and punishment for false charge of rape should invite the same punishment as rape itself. Definition of rape should be changed to exclude consensual sexual relations of any type or duration. Consent obtained through fraudulent means should be redefined and all grey areas giving chance for misuse eliminated. Indirectly, all these measures will improve the delivery of justice to genuine victims. Bail provisions for those accused of rape be reworked so that chances of harm to the victims when the perpetrator is out on bail is minimised if not eliminated.

Availability of alcohol and other drugs of abuse
Gang rapes, like other heinous crimes are usually committed after getting intoxicated on some substance of abuse. Sale, availability and regulation of such substances will help controlling the incidence of crimes committed under the influence. 

Conclusion
Exponential rise in reported rape cases in India is a very complex problem with no knee-jerk solution. It is high time that a multi pronged approach be adopted to tackle the menace. We will make no progress till we keep considering it a law and order problem and using it to browbeat every such incident as the personal failure of the prime minister. Also, as mentioned by many a wise people, to keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome is foolish. If we want a different outcome, we will have to do the task in a different way.

Narendra Modi threw right challenge, let congress show courage to bring back article 370, Triple talaq, citizenship to Pakistani, scrap UAPA, re-install corruption

S Ranganathan
-
0
Narendra Modi threw right challenge, let congress show courage to bring back article 370, Triple talaq, citizenship to Pakistani, scrap UAPA, re-install corruption

Congress has been protesting against all most all reform initiatives of PM NArendra Modi because according to congress, it must oppose Modi for anything and everything. The CAB brought by Modi, the congress party is opposing mainly due to its vote bank politics that is nothing but minority appeasement.

The question Modi has asked to all the opposition parties especially those oppose CAB including the congress party of the dynast was that whether they wants to give citizenship to Pakistani people and is that the reason they oppose CAB blindly.

Let the congress party admit and accept openly to the world that congress party if elected back to power would give Indian citizenship to all those Pakistani people including the terrorists.

Similarly the congress party also must admit to the world unequivocally that the party will bring back Article 370 and 35 A in Jammu and Kashmir, will unify the state how it was before inactivation of the discriminatory status, cancel Triple talaq ban, break all those millions of toilets built by Modi government to poor people, freeze millions of bank accounts opened for poor people to integrate the poor people into the banking sector by Modi, disconnect all the cooking gas connections given to poor people by Modi, darken the villages that were electrified by Modi, cut all drinking water pipes given by Modi, will remove all initiatives taken by Modi to end corruption and re-install corruption, cause instability which Modi has broken and brought stability to our nation etc.

Congress also must tell the people that it would scrap the direct transfer of schemes to the bank account of poor people and instead would bring middleman to do the job.

Let congress explain to people why the party oppose Modi so hysterically and blindly and are they not harming the progress of our nation through such blind opposition and politicization of every great initiative of Modi and Amit Shah which the people of India applaud and appreciate?

The congress party that promotes dynastic culture has shown enormous courage in opposing and criticizing Modi for bringing several pro-poor, development centric initiatives, hence the question is, will the same congress party show courage to tell the people of India that it would scrap all the initiatives of Modi starting from Article 370, Triple Talaq ban, UAPA, CAB, anti-corruption efforts, recovery of bank loans from all those looted the banks etc.  Let people of India know from congress party how it is going to conduct its politics by opposing Modi?

Since independence, Moidji is seen by the contemporary generation as the first and foremost honest and in-corruptible Prime Minister ever India had. The governance of Modi is the fairest, development centric, focused on sab ka vikas agenda, national security and cultural integration to achieve the ethos of one India.

India should not be let to divide and exist as different unions because of linguistic differences but the larger aspect of Indians called Hinduism must be brought back to unite all Indians under one umbrella so that the spirit and letter of one India is achieved. The new India that Modi envisage involves equal partnership and equal opportunity for all Indians.

Instead of falling prey to narrow definition of political interest and ideology, people must unite for the nation and must support Modi unconditionally to make India a land of dignity, equality, fairness, free of corruption, dynastic politics, nepotism, divisiveness, fear mongering, promoting lies and instability.

Like several structural reforms that are initiated by Modi, we also need cultural, religious, civilizational, spiritual and philosophic reform in our country. Our religion must be Indian, our caste must be patriotism and our political identity must be corruption free nation and our national icon must be Modiji. 

India shall shine like the blooming Lotus flower in a rich pond under Modi. Need of the hour is people must pledge their unconditional support to Modi and Amit Shah to make India a great land.  It is not just congress mukt Bharat we should aim for, but opposition mukt Bharat that is what we want today.

For divinity, truth and dharma to exist, we do not need the counter balancing force called evil spirit, dishonesty and Adharma.

Modi is the embodiment of truth, divinity and dharma. Let us support Modi and oppose and defeat all those evil forces that oppose the divinity of Modi.

A rational approach to CAA

ssinha
-
0
A rational approach to CAA

Are you anti CAB or pro-CAB? I have been asked this question many times in the last few days. I knew about the protests, the brutality is shown by “both” sides and was a keen observer on the ignorance of each other’s views on display on social media.

I consider myself an observer of politics and political activities, it simply means that I try to observe and understand the views of both sides before commenting on it. So that’s what I did. I observed and observed and became sick of the afore-mentioned question and so I read and read tons of articles written by Think Tanks, journals and media outlets. I watched a lot of videos on CAB made by propagandists of both sides. It’d be very easy to have been swayed by any of those. They are all correct and because all of them are correct they are biased as well. In simpler words, independently all the articles are correct with their facts and references but when reading them side by side you can see they hide or simply do not address the issues raised by their counterpart.

Propaganda is on a roll on social media and people are, blindly concerning their ideologies or religion, simply following it. To protest is a great cause but to provide a solution rather than to just oppose is an even greater one. To support is also great but to do so with your ears shut and eyes closed is also wrong. I condemn both actions.

Citizens have been calling the government a fascist government. The word is being used too loosely in the present. People have been constantly labeling and asking if this is a fascist state, well eye-opener here, but it just means as mentioned by Jason Stanley in an interview with Sean Illing “It is just another way of asking if this person has a particular set of beliefs or an ideology” but I do not believe that you can label someone a fascist based on the set of ideas they believe in, I believe that fascism is a tool to retain power. Isn’t this what party politics is, parties trying to win the mandate of the people to retain “power” to be in “power”. So on this theory, if the government is fascist then so is the majoritarian election that elects those parties, but elections are democratic. If measured on a scale, to call the government fascist would be the same as calling democratic elections communist.

Now let us talk about the protests in Delhi which are different than what is happening in the North-East. I accept that the CAB is discriminatory, but on the other hand, I argue that it does provide equality to 6/7 parts of it. I believe in the idea of equality as mentioned in article 14 of the constitution but at the same time, I also believe as mentioned in article 14 (1.2) that there should be equal protection of the laws which conclude that “unequals” would be treated unequally to provide equality. The CAB allows minorities of not just “simple majoritarian Muslim states” but Islamic “republics” to get Indian citizenship provided that they fulfill the other requirements stated under the CAB. This excludes Muslims and with article 14 on the forefront, it is being heavily criticized and is the cause of such violence and unrest throughout the state because it is discriminatory. But the corollary that article 14 provides is that unequal would be treated unequally.

Being a minority in the states of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh is different than being a minority religion in India. Being an Islamic republic means that their state religion is Islam and the other religions are being frowned upon. Therefore their minorities are being treated unequally and article 14 of our constitution says that unequal would be treated unequally as to provide an equal base. The second part is what makes it more interesting.

While the CAB is constituted to help minorities of the above three states and provide them legal sanctuary in India. It has not included the Tamil-elams in Srilanka and the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. The logic of the bill states that the minorities of neighbor states can get shelter and citizenship in India But it has left the state of Myanmar and the state of Sri Lanka completely out of it. This is discriminatory, in essence, it feels so and it should be rightly so unless we compare what is the difference between these states:

Bangladesh, Afganistan, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka all have state religions, which means an official religion of the state.

Myanmar does not have a state religion but is a Buddhist majoritarian state similar to India, it has a majoritarian religion but it is not a “Religious republic”.

The opening of gates for minorities from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is based on religion.

The minority in Sri Lanka is based on linguistic lines rather than religious lines.

So what does it tell us, those states where there is a state-imposed religion in addition to discrimination towards minorities based on religious lines is included in the bill. While those which do not have state sponsored religion or division of minorties where they are treated unequally based on religion are not included.

In conclusion, the government has very shrewdly and carefully tread along the lines, It has targeted all minorities from specific states based on religion and therefore it cannot be discriminatory, It has left out states which do not meet those conditions and has also not provided any special provisions for the said minorities of these states, therefore, it is not discriminatory in rationale, in its essence though all of us know what it is and are just too heated to not give it the recognition it deserves or too blind to decline it.

-SOHIL  SINHA

1...500501502...889Page 501 of 889