Home Blog Page 512

Heightened Putra Moh (पुत्र मोह) – the business of Dridarashtra, Kaikeyi and Shakuni in Maharashtra 

S Ranganathan
-
0
Heightened Putra Moh (पुत्र मोह) – the business of Dridarashtra, Kaikeyi and Shakuni in Maharashtra 

Soon after the wonderful judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India in favour of building Ram temple at the birth place of Lord Ram- Ayodhya and BJP forming government in Haryana (Kurushetra) the symbolic place where Mahabharat war took place several centuries ago, Maharashtra and India are now witnessing a new age politics where Dridarashtra and Kaikeyi along with Shakuni are discussing about how to form a formidable alliance to jettison governance in Maharashtra.

The metaphor of Dridarashtra and Kaikeyi are used only to present certain facts that how the putra moh (पुत्र मोह) of the then King of Kurushetra – the Dridarashtra and the same putra moh of one of the wives of then king of Ayodhya – Dasharatha, the Kaikeyi had jettison the rule of law in both princely states and invited war.

The question is not about father or mother having boundless love for their son or daughter. Our value system and Hinduism always promote family relationship and duties of parents and their children in taking care of each other. Therefore the problem is not about putra moh. But can we allow putra moh to rule our state and suppress merit and democratic norms?

How can we blame Kaikeyi for sending Lord Ram to forest for long 14 years? It was Dasharatha who gave such advantage to Kaikeyi to make such demand. Certainly the role of Manthira cannot be seen lightly in the demand of Kaikeyi. Kaikeyi wants her son to rule Ayodhya so the only way was to get rid of Lord Ram to forest for long 14 years.

Similarly can we blame Dridarashtra for Mahabharat war? Dridarashtra wants to see his son as the king of Kurushetra and not the son of Pandu, his brother, was quite natural. But none of the great teachers and wise men in Kurushetra kingdom showed courage and decisiveness to correct the blind Dridarashtra. The result was the emergence and fall of Duryodhana and Dushashana and prolonged endurance of Kurushetra kingdom and its people.

Narendra Modi and BJP have been opposing dynastic politics because the dynastic politics is the birth place of nepotism, corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency, culture of sycophancy and mutiny. From extreme down south to Jammu and Kashmir the political dynasty was only making travesty in Indian politics until PM Modi enters the national scene.

DMK in extreme south of India and PDP, NC in extreme north are the best examples for dynastic parties in India besides the Indian National Congress.

The political agreement between Shiv Sena, NCP and INC in Maharashtra looks like the coming together of Dridarashtra, Kaikeyi and Shakuni to protect and promote family politics and having their children made as Chief Minister of the state. It is so unfortunate that Putra Moh has pushed Shiva Sena to go to this extreme level of politics knowing fully well that Shiva Sena has no future in Maharashtra beyond this season.

People of India must wake up from their lethargy and indifference. People of India must pledge that they would eliminate dynastic politics from India and will not elect family centric political forces hereafter.

India needs national a party – BJP to keep, guard and promote our national identity and governance free from corruption and nepotism. Regional parties really drag India backward due to the polarized regional politics.

India must move forward as one nation, one election, one tax and one cultural identity- Hinduism and only then India can advance and prosper further. India also needs one strong national party and decisive leaders like Modi and Amit Shah.

When we feel pained and regret at the way Shiv Sena, INC combines have demoralized Maharashtra voters, we also must pledge that correcting the system is in our hands. People should not see anything beyond BJP and must unconditionally support and promote BJP to save India. Punish and eliminate all those dynastic forces from Indian politics through your franchise and support Modiji to make India a great land.

Exposing Rana Ayyub’s half-truths

Desi Politicker
-
0
Exposing Rana Ayyub’s half-truths

Rana Ayyub wrote an article on The Washington Post about the recent Supreme Court verdict on the contentious Ram Janmabhoomi case. I read through the article, hoping to see her point-of-view as a Muslim, but also some fairness in the narrative. Unfortunately, she indulges in cheap rhetoric and omits key facts to present a completely one-sided, and often non-factual, narrative. Here is an attempt to point out some discrepancies in her article.

Rana talks about the “anti-Muslim” riots of 1992. Fact is, these were anti-Hindu riots, started when people (Muslims) came out on the streets reacting against the demolition of the mosque. Some mobs went on a rampage attacking Hindu homes and establishments. All of this was reported in the mainstream media. Then, of course, there were attacks and counter-attacks, leading to many deaths among both Hindus and Muslims. So yes, many Muslims were unfortunately killed in the violence. So were Hindus. But her characterization of these riots as anti-Muslim is definitely not right.

Rana also conveniently ignores to mention the serial bomb blasts in Mumbai in 1993, in which Muslim gangsters (er terrorists) killed hundreds of innocent Hindus by planting sophisticated RDX bombs in areas that had a Hindu majority. But why let facts come in the way of rhetoric?

Then she talks about the mosque being demolished in 1992, which is a fact. But she conveniently ignores the history. That the mosque was built by a Mughal (Muslim) invader on top of a Hindu temple. Archaeological excavations have proved that under the mosque lay a grand magnificent temple. Hindus have struggled to reclaim this temple for centuries, but Muslims have refused to relent, even though the mosque was hardly in use. Context does matter.

She also talks about Muslims feeling “othered” in India. Fact is, Muslims in the subcontinent first “othered” themselves in the early twentieth century when they said they could not coexist with Hindus, and that they needed a separate homeland for themselves. Muslims got their own homeland, Pakistan, after Jinnah’s famous “Direct Action” program, which was a call to Muslims to indulge in large-scale violence against Hindus. Yet, India chose to remain a secular state, but has always been indulgent of its minorities.

Rana also forgets to state that there are over 20,000 mosques, which have been built on top of Hindu temples. Mughal invaders and rulers demolished temples and then built mosques, often burying Hindu deities under the mosque, as a was a way of asserting their authority over the “kafirs” or infidels. Hindus have lived with this for centuries.

Even after independence, in a country with over 80% Hindus, all Hindus have asked for are the three most important Hindu sites: Ayodhya, Kashi, and Mathura. And have offered generous land in return. Yet, Muslims have refused to cede an inch. So, after decades of failed negotiations, what did 80% of the population do? Like good citizens, they went to the courts.

After a series of court cases and judgements, the case reached the Supreme Court, which has made a very fair judgement. The judges upheld the right of Hindus to pray at their holiest site.

Even before the case reached the Supreme Court, Hindus held about 67 acres of land around Ram Janmabhoomi, and Muslims held less than 3 acres. The Supreme Court recognised the rights of Hindus over those three acres. But asked the government to give five acres of land in the same city to Muslims, so they could build a mosque for themselves. Strictly speaking, placating the losing party is not something courts would do. But they did. And several Hindus have offered to contribute to build a mosque for Muslims.

Yet, Rana sees things through a myopic lens. She cannot see or think beyond her Muslim identity, and that is the perspective that she tries to convey. Even if it means sprinkling in a few non-facts and omitting key details and context. Welcome to India’s “secular” journalism!

DNA of Shiv sena, NCP and Congress are same with reference to dynastic politics

S Ranganathan
-
0
DNA of Shiv sena, NCP and Congress are same with reference to dynastic politics

The political ideology is nothing but a simple election eve jargon to fool the voters. Shiv Sena has proved the above truth loudly and eloquently than any other political party in the world.

Congress party although shows some resistance to openly support Shiv Sena, but in fact wants to support Shiv Sena for the simple reason called dynastic politics. Like Uddhav Thackeray who wants to see his son Adhitya Thackeray as the next Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Sonia Gandhi too wants to see her son Rahul Gandhi as the Prime Minister of India that is why her son, the unteachable dynast always abuse PM Modi. The party of both the loving parents (Shiv Sena and Congress) have lot of camaraderie to share and celebrate.

The political ideology is meant only to fool the voters is well known to congress party as well. In this regard, no one can comment anything against NCP too. From that perspective the DNA of all the three parties share strong similarity.

The similarity is at the level of core dynastic principle all the three parties promote and perpetuate nothing but dynastic culture, nepotism and sycophancy.

Even Raj Thackeray, the nephew of Balasaheeb Thackeray broke away from Shiv Sena several years ago, thanks to the dynastic culture that got creped inside Shiv Sena in the form of Uddhav Thackeray, the son of Balasaheeb Thackeray.

That was the time Shiv Sena had only opened its window towards dynastic politics by installing Uddhav Thackeray, son of Balashaheeb Thackeray as chief of Shiv Sena. But the Uddhav Thackeray has now opened not only its doors for dynastic culture but also had broken all its wall, boundary and fencing areas to plant the politics of dynasty.

The development of Maharashtra or following Hindutwa ideology and the alliance dharma are less important to Uddhav Thackeray than his son, Adithya Thackeray, the recent entrant, 30 years of age becoming the next Chief Minister of Maharashtra. To make such thing happen, Uddhav was ready to make any sacrifices such as removing the core ideology of the party, betraying the mandate of the people, ridiculing the alliance dharma etc. Uddhav Thackeray hijacked the state of Maharashtra and ransomed it for nearly 15 days since the election results were out just to see his son become Chief Minister of Maharashtra.

What really attracted NCP towards Shiv Sena might be the dynastic culture of Shiv sena. NCP also may want to reinforce the dynastic culture within NCP and see how the daughter of NCP supremo can be propelled to the post of Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Now NCP and Shiv Sena should agree that 2 ½ years each both Aditya Thackeray and the daughter of NCP chief rules the state of Maharashtra as its Chief Minister. All those congress legislatures who wants of form an alliance with Shiv Sena may have an indirect agenda of promoting dynastic politics where their family members needs to be brought to the political limelight. However the congress leaders from Kerala are reported to oppose this marriage may be because the dynastic politics is not that rampant in Kerala state.

In fact NCP, Congress and Shiv Sena should announce that all the 145 MLA’s would get a chance to serve the state as its Chief Minister for about 12 days in rotation so that these parties can prove to the world that they follow equal opportunity employer where every legislatures will be given equal opportunity and duration to serve the state as its Chief Minister. 

People of India must learn a lot from the day light butchery of people’s mandate by Shiv Sena in Maharashtra. If they give fractured mandate and compel the political parties for coalition government, political instability is bound to occur and that would adversely affect the growth and development of the state. Therefore people must give absolute majority BJP and Modi only then a stable government with great political assertiveness and vision, India can have.

Stable government and single party rule should be the mantra of New India. One India, one election, one tax, Uniform civil code, one language, one tradition called Hinduism and one political party should be the political ethos we must promote and popularize to save our country from power hungry, dynastic political forces which see nothing but their son or daughter as chief minister or Prime Minister of this country. 

Time for the liberals to get real

Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan
-
0
Time for the liberals to get real

The Sunni Waqf Board (SWB), a party to the suit/s and granted the remedy of ‘5 acres of land in a prominent place with Ayodhya” has thankfully confirmed that they were accepting the unanimous verdict of the Supreme Court. Of course, the contesting parties, on the other wise, have unanimously welcomed the decision. Peace has reigned in India, thus far, pursuant to the judgment. The Prime Minister of India has spoken and urged calm to move ahead. He has pointed out that India’s statute as the largest democracy got a huge shot in the arm as the upholder of Rule of Law as all ‘sections of society have by and large welcomed’ the verdict. The Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh has also gone on record echoing the sentiments from his leader.

Yet, our ‘liberals’ are egging on the community of a minority of ‘naysayers’ to dissent. It seems as though they are living and thriving in a different world. They simply cannot digest even the verdict of the apex court, that too a unanimous verdict from 5 wise men from the pulpit. These gentlemen and ladies are wiser than us all as they clamour that it was no ‘closure’ at all. They are harping and reopening old wounds for no purpose except to fan the faded or fading flames, if you will. “They” simply cannot accept the fact that Modi 2.0 is on the verge of fulfilling yet another manifesto promise of constructing a Grand Temple for Lord Ram in Ayodhya, perceived to be absolutely impossible or any time in the near future.

The future is here and now and upon us. These Lutyens Media a.k.a Khan Market log tried their darnedest to stop Modi returning to the helm in the May 2019 elections. They worked hard and Rahul Gandhi was propped as if he was all set to dislodge Modi. Rahul, to be fair, surprisingly had the spring in his step, and openly called Modi- Chowkidar Chor Hai and when he conflated it to a Supreme Court verdict on the Rafale defence deal, Rahul had to eat crow. The media noise made it as if the fight was equal and when Mayawati tied up with Akgilesh Yadav, ‘they’ concluded that this chemistry will trip Modi juggernaut. Not to be.

And well within hundred days, the legislative history of Parliament, Modi 2.0 created a host of records, as they managed a majority in Rajya Sabha. Emboldened, Modi-Shah conglomeration, embarked on repeal of Art.370 and in its wake Art.35 A of Constitution, granting Special Status to Kashmir. OMG cried these folks. It is illegal, unconstitutional. Modi 2.0 has hijacked the role of Constituent Assembly of J&K, in supplanting the ‘consent’ of Parliament, as sufficient. They were also up and angry with the ‘shut down and clamp down’ and accused even the top court of abdicating its responsibility in the vindication of human rights. It is all now being litigated in open and we await the verdict. So be it.

Truth is, one of the prime promises in the BJP manifesto, which the ‘other side’ has always taunted as as a ‘false promise’, when it became a reality, they were unable to digest it. And, mind you, Modi-Shah accomplished it, in full public view, of Parliamentary proceedings, with two thirds majority as well, in both Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. Constitutional means were adopted for the obliteration of the effects of Art.370. of course, it is now under scrutiny of the Constitution Bench of apex court, as is always the case with the precept and practice of Rule of Law.

And now the unanimous verdict of the 5 Judges’ bench on the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid verdict. The Sangh Parivaar and BJP were also told to comply with Rule of Law and abide by the orders of the court of law. Then came the Allahabad High Court verdict with a three way division of 2.77 acres disputed land, by a majority verdict of 2:1. Along with the contesting parties, these liberals were also peeved and protested and appeals ensured and stay operated for over a decade.

“They” have always complained that there was inordinate delay in disposal of cases by courts and even sought dispensing with the vacation holidays. And when Chief Justice agreed to take up this festering sore on the Indian body politic, as a 134 year old litigation, beginning in 1855, it was ‘they’ who again used vitriol language urging the Supreme Court not to hear the cause ‘before elections’. Agreed and postponed.

And then when the Chief Justice fixed a timeline for both sides to make their submissions and stuck to it, they cried foul. They accused the Supreme Court of ‘asking their side more questions than otherwise’. Rightly the learned judged ignored the insults, focusing themselves on the cause. Forty days of hearings took place, only the second that such a long rope was given, after the famous Kesavanand Barati – Basic Structure doctrine case- in 1973. On the last day of hearing on 17th Oct,2019, the Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, was so incensed with the enormity of challenge he faced amidst overwhelming evidentiary challenge from the Hindu side, that he angrily tore the map that was circulated to him, as a contesting party. The Bench was not amused. Chief Justice concluded the hearings, after a full and fair hearing to both sides, at 17.00 hrs that day, much after ordinary closing hours.

And on 9th Nov, 2019, on a Saturday, not a working day, the bench assembles to deliver the unanimous verdict. The Allahabad High court had granted 1/3 decree to each of the 3 contesting parties- Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board. The Supreme Court ruled that Nirmohi Akhara’s suit was barred by limitation and they made no case for the relief. As for the other two, the Supreme Court, chose law, over faith, culture and history as a court of law.

Legally, the top court found that the Allahabad High Court had treated the Title Suites filed by three plaintiffs as a ‘partition suit’ which was not permissible in law. They restored legality, that is all. And then all the contesting parties had been asked to give their suggestions/submissions in relation to ‘moulding the reliefs’ in the appeals. In addition thereto, there was also the contemporaneous Mediation process with Justice Ibrahim Khalifullah (retired Supreme Court Judge) and report was filed before orders were reserved in the appeals.

Based on the suggested/submitted ‘reliefs’ to be moulded allied with the reported and expressed willingness of Sunni Waqf Board to accept a larger piece of land elsewhere than the Hindu believed Lord Ram Janmasthaan, the Supreme Court invoked Art.142 of Constitution of India, which is uniquely theirs, ‘to do complete justice’.

It is this invocation of a constitutionally available power than is being complained of by ‘them’, when the Sunni Waqf Board itself has submitted to. Social media platforms are ingested with their carping and near contemptuous comments that the Supreme Court has rendered gross injustice despite concluding that Babri Masjid demolition was illegal. Not one of them appears to have read the 1045 pages of elevating prose. The Supreme Court has come to the irrefutable conclusion that the Janmasthaan as the place of birth Lord Ram was a matter of ‘faith’ but an ‘indicator of fact’. It may not be sufficient by itself but ‘continued and uninterrupted worship by Hindus was real not a myth’. This allied with the Archaeological findings of a ‘building with no Islamic characteristics below the Babri Masjid’ was of substantive evidence to uphold the claim of Ram Lalla, undeniably a juristic person, for the entire 2.77 acres, inner and outer court yards et al. It was not as if the Supreme Court did not invent the evidence or proof or facts to deprive the other side of any share in the disputed place.

To balance the equities, the basis philosophy behind Art.142, the Supreme Court has directed the Central/State governments to allot 5 acres to the Sunni Waqf to construct the Mosque, ‘in a prominent place within Ayodhya’. The constitutional court could not have played fairer.

Let us understand the facts. It was a title suit. Both parties or three parties claimed not a share or clice of the disputed land, but all of it. The Allahabad High Court was factually and legally wrong in slicing it or partitioning it. Step in the Supreme Court to set the law straight and give the proven and legitimate title holder Lord Ram, his due. Where pray is the folly, except in your warped minds? Sorry folks, India has moved on and shall too. Stop barking up the wrong tree to your continuing and eternal shame.

(Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan- Author is practising advocate in the Madras High Court)

Is Hindutva the same as Hinduism?

skandaveera
-
0
Is Hindutva the same as Hinduism?

“I am not anti-Hindu but anti-Hindutva”, “Hindutva is not the same as Hinduism” and several flavors of such distinction are heard, while prominently from the sec-lib camp, also among a fraction of confused Hindus.

While the words are not exactly synonymous, the difference is not really what it is made out to be in public discourse. Here is a brief inquiry into these terms and the phenomena represented by these.

Semantics and Reference – Hindutva

The semantics are simple. Hindutva literally means Hinduness. It doesn’t denote people or organizations but to a phenomenon. Hindutva is known in popular perception to be a movement. While Savarkar is known to have coined the word, it “refers” to several movements and organizations including RSS and VHP not just HMS of yore. However if we look through the self-references with this word, none of these indicate that this word is used to represent movements or organizations but to represent Hindu self-assertion. Importantly, it is a self-referential term and not an attribution. The word Hindutva therefore, applies to any Hindu who thinks of and stands for being Hindu, whether or not one uses that word for oneself. In fact it is not applied to individuals in any case.

Associated words like “Hindutva-vadi” are not self-referential and attributions to individuals by those who have a problem with Hindu self-assertion and hence Hindutva. This is like calling individuals “Manu-vAdi”. Calling someone “jAti-vadi” has some inaccuracy and mischief, because “jAti-vad” in its negative connotation refers to casteism and caste bigotry, not really the phenomenon of jAti. This is camouflaged to attack the phenomenon instead of perversion. But in case of Hindutva, the phenomenon is itself made to mean negative not because of any negative with the phenomenon but because of the inherent hatred for Hindu self-assertion. Thus comes about the word Hindutva-vAdi. The problem with it is the same as with using an “ism” – it attributes an argument in favor of something while there is none. There is no argument, and no need for an argument in favor of Hindu self-assertion, it is merely the survival instinct of a people. It can hardly be called an ideology for the same reason. Yes, it is definitely a visible phenomenon. There is a Hindutva. There is hardly, however, a Hindutva-vAda and there is no Hindutva-vAdi. If there is any, any Hindu owning a Hindu identity is a Hindutva-vAdi. Obviously this is not the sense in which the term is used by those that attribute the word to individuals.

Semantics and Reference – Hinduism

Hinduism is known to be a “religion”. Hinduism is an Abrahamic coinage that is mistakenly attributed. For all its “broader application to all Hindus not just fundamentalist Hindutva brigade“, Hinduism is an external attribution and not self-referential. The inherent mischief behind the word is quite apparent while not paid attention to. If Hinduism were a religion, how is the word coined? If the religion of Christ is Christianity, why is the religion of “Hindus” called Hinduism, putting it on par with some ideology (as in Marxism) or an organized system (as in feudalism) and why is it not given a word that indicates its “religious” nature? If “ism” is indeed applicable to religion, why is there no “ism” with Christianity? Of course, this mischief isn’t limited to Hinduism, the occident played this mischief with entire orient – Shintoism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Sikhism are all referred to as “ism”. Being a closer sibling, Islam overcame this easily and became that instead of Mohamedeanism.

That aside, is Hinduism really a religion? It is a religion as a religion (Christianity) saw it. Hindus really haven’t identified themselves as a religion in the sense that religions of the world identify themselves. That also doesn’t make it a non-religion either. It is a comprehensive eco-system with various kinds of traditions spiritual or otherwise, social & cultural units thrive in harmony. This system has seen full life cycles (inception, rise, fall, dissolution) of several traditions, philosophies, groupings. It is therefore a dharmic system, often wrongly used as an alternative to the word religion. It would however be wrong to say there are dharma-s just as there are religions, for dharma is singular for ecosystem and plural for category. For instance, there is just dharma, there is nothing like Hindu dharma or Sikh dharma. In that sense, it is singular. But when it comes to the roles individual plays in life, there is a rAja dharma, vyakti dharma etc, In this sense it is plural. It is accurate however, to say nigamAgama, jaina, bauddha etc are all dhArmic traditions, more like a forest where trees grow and branches (child-traditions) grow out of them.

Several of traditions in this ecosystem are knowledge traditions, several have been martial too. Any attempt to disassociate the “deep philosophy of Hinduism” from its martial element is to be seen as mischief, intended (in most cases) or otherwise. There are out-facing elements that defend the ecosystem just as there are in-facing elements that enrich it.

It is not as if Hindutva brought with it any intolerant or violent element which did not already exist in “Hinduism”. The amount of blood Hindus have shed for the defense of dharma, and the amount of gore Hindus withstood is unparalleled in human history. As a matter of fact Hindutva doesn’t even rank as a genuine martial uprising, an overwhelming majority of Hindutva activity is defensive and service oriented. It is the very fact that it represents a defense and assertion of Hinduness that makes the enemies of dharma hate it.

Who has problem with Hindutva?

Simply put, one who is saying he has problem with Hindutva but not Hinduism, is saying that he has a problem not with Hindus but has problem with those who stand for being Hindu and those who stand for Hindu causes.

Valentine Chirol’s hate for Tilak, missionary hate for traditional Hindus are not very different from sec-lib hate for Hindutva. All these have made their best attempts to isolate their hate targets from the Hindu ecosystem. They only make it look like their hate target is a separable entity from the ecosystem.

Camouflage and calumny can be overcome by clarity and awareness. So it comes back to Hindus being self-aware, being aware of their own ecosystem, collective identity and collective craving, that holds key to overcoming these problems.

Secular goons losing mind on Ram Mandir verdict

pulkitkaul
-
0
Secular goons losing mind on Ram Mandir verdict

Faizan Mustafa who is Vice Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law lost his mind and started denying historical facts in his Indian Express column.

He made a foolish argument that faith was kept about evidence law.

Well one cannot deny historical facts. Russians built Orthodox Church in Poland which was once capital of Roman Catholic. This was done to establish Russian supremacy. After Independence Poland pulled that Russian Church down.

This is exactly what Muslims did in Ayodhya. Hindus have solid evidence that Temple was destroyed to build mosque on the basis of Archaeological evidence.

But the claim that idols were kept only in 1949 has no evidence. Was there any credible witness to reiterate that fact? Answer is No.

In fact giving Muslims 5 acre land is insult to law and they are getting special privilege just because they are Muslims. As both Hindus (Nirmohi Akhada and other) and Muslims continued to claim land therefore Supreme Court asked Govt to make trust.

The illegal occupation of Muslims were challenged several times from British era and even in early Independent India till now.

No Justice to Hindus when Temples were destroyed in Kashmir in 1990s.Even West Bengal lost temples due to Jihadist mob under Left rule.
Many illegal mosques built over temples were challenged.
Even minority status claimed by Muslims is illegal. Because you need to define minority which cannot be greater than 5%.

Foolish arguments by secular goons to dishonor Supreme Court is utterly shameful.

Secular goons wish to deny every evidence against jihadist we cannot continue to appease them

Aradhana Kaul.

बॉलीवुड जगत की अशोभनीय धूर्तता

Author_Rishabh
-
0
बॉलीवुड जगत की अशोभनीय धूर्तता

एक मध्यमवर्गीय आदमी अपने परिवार के साथ कभी-कभी वीकेंड पर थिएटर की ओर रुख करता है तो इस उद्देश्य से कि उसका परिवार के साथ अच्छा वक्त गुजरेगा, उसका परिवार मूवी देखकर प्रसन्न होगा, कुछ अच्छा लेकर वापस लौटेगा लेकिन जब मूवी प्रारंभ होती है तो कभी कॉमेडी के रूप में वह अपनी संस्कृति पर हंस रहा होता है (जैसे— पीके मूवी), तो कभी परिवार नामक संस्था का जमकर मजाक उड़ रहा होता है और वह उस पर हंसता है (जैसे— पति, पत्नी और वो), कभी हिंदू-मुसलमान को आपस में भड़काने वाला एजेंडा मिलता है (जैसे— कलंक) तो कभी लव जिहाद को खूबसूरत तरीके से परोसा जा रहा होता है (जैसे— केदारनाथ मूवी) कभी जब अत्याचार वाली मूवी बनती है तो उसमें भी विलेन साधु या कट्टर हिन्दू के रूप में दिखाया जा रहा होता है फिर वह तार्किक हो या न भी हो। विलन हिंदू होना चाहिए, कट्टर धार्मिक होना चाहिए बस इतना ही तार्किक है। एक भारतीय मुसलमान कभी देश को धोखा दे ही नहीं सकता(मूवी— कमांडो-3 ट्रेलर का डायलॉग), एक मुसलमान कैसा भी हो शराब को हाथ भी नहीं लगा सकता क्योंकि उसके लिए वह हराम है (सुपरहिट मूवी— वॉर) लेकिन आपको एक भी ऐसी मूवी देखने को नहीं मिली होगी जिसमें यह कहा गया हो कि— एक हिंदू कभी कट्टर नहीं हो सकता।

हिंदुओं के लिए बॉलीवुड में एक ही प्रिय चरित्र है और वह है विलेन। विलेन भी ऐसा-वैसा नहीं, सदैव ब्राह्मण (आर्टिकल 15, केदारनाथ, मदर इंडिया) अथवा ठाकुर/ऊंची जाति क्षत्रिय (अनगिनत फिल्में जैसे कलंक) और ब्राह्मण/ठाकुर केवल विलेन ही नहीं दिखाए जाते बल्कि विशुद्ध धार्मिक प्रतीकों के साथ दिखाए जाते हैं। वो कभी तो आरती करते हुए, जय माता दी के नाम की पट्टी लगाए हुए (दबंग-3 ट्रेलर) अथवा कभी त्रिपुंड माथे पर लगाए हुए, कभी साधु-संतों के भेष में। किसी भी मूवी में आपको यह डायलॉग नहीं मिलेगा, जैसे एक सच्चा ब्राह्मण कभी धन का लालची नहीं होता या एक सच्चा ब्राह्मण कभी शराब को हाथ नहीं लगाता या एक सच्चा ठाकुर सदैव अपने गांव के गरीबों की रक्षा करता है (एक-आध अपवाद स्वरूप फ्लॉप मूवी को छोड़कर) या एक हिन्दू कभी लोगों पर अत्याचार नहीं करता। एक हिंदू ब्राह्मण लड़की को शराब पीता हुआ दिखाया जाता है (तनु वेड्स मनु)।

हाल ही में एक मूवी आने वाली है, नाम है मरजावां। दो ट्रेलर आ चुके हैं। कहानी एकदम स्पष्ट है। एक गुंडा होता है हिंदू, उसे प्रेम होता है जोया से, जब जोया उसे कुरान की आयतों वाला माऊथ ऑर्गन (विशेष हाइलाइट) देती है तो उसके दिल में मोहब्बत का संचार होता है (तात्पर्य— सेक्यूलर लोग), लेकिन शायद उसका बॉस सबसे बड़ा आतंकवादी टाइप विलेन, जिसका नाम विष्णु है ( यहां विष्णु को जान-बूझकर टारगेट किया गया है) वह दो प्रेम करने वालों को आपस में मिलते नहीं देता। गौरतलब बात यह है कि विलेन विष्णु का कद भी तीन फुट है ( भगवान विष्णु का वामनावतार) जिसका कोई तर्क नहीं।

यह कर रहा है हमारा बॉलीवुड। जिसमें हिंदुओं को कट्टर, आतंकवादी, गुंडा, लंपट, बलात्कारी, चरित्रहीन सब बताया जा रहा है। अंत में जब एक आदमी मूवी देख के थिएटर से बाहर आता है तो एक ही निष्कर्ष निकालता है कि हिंदू जिसमें ब्राह्मण और सवर्ण जातियां सदैव अत्याचारी रही हैं।

हिंदुओं को बांटने का यह खेल आजादी के बाद से ही मनमोहक रूपों में, कर्णप्रिय संगीत के साथ देश में खुलेआम परोसा जा रहा है, और स्वभाव से सरल हृदय हिंदू अपनी बुराई स्वीकारता आ रहा है। उनके प्रतीक इतने मनमोहक और भ्रामक हैं कि आप उन पर शक नहीं कर सकते। क्या फिल्में बगैर नफ़रत फैलाए नहीं बनाईं जा सकती। बिल्कुल बनाईं जा सकती हैं। आप बाहुबली या केजीएफ देख लीजिए। आपको नफरत नहीं मिलेगी। भारत में सिर्फ साउथ से उम्मीद है। आप हॉलीवुड की मूवीज देखिए, उनमें बिल्कुल भी ईसाई या मुस्लिमों की टकराहट हाइलाइट नहीं की जाती। बिना धार्मिक टकराहट दिखाए भी उद्देश्य पूर्ण फिल्में बनाईं जा सकती हैं लेकिन बनाई नहीं जाती। बॉलीवुड की यह धूर्तता असहनीय होती जा रही है। अब तो सीधा टारगेट करती फिल्में बन रही हैं। यह एक गंभीर मुद्दा है इस पर हमें विचार करना चाहिए। आखिर एक आदमी मनोरंजन के उद्देश्य से थिएटर जाता है और वहां उसे एजेंडा परोसा जाता है मतलब उसी के पैसे से उसी के विचारों को गाली। यह अनुचित है। विचार कीजिए।

The Supreme Verdict on Ayodhya Ram-Temple

G Indira
-
0
The Supreme Verdict on Ayodhya Ram-Temple

The Supreme Court of India’s supreme verdict on Ayodhya Ram Mandir is heartening to millions of Indians. For, the age-old case in the court is settled by the spirit of the Constitution in the form Article 142 that was demonstrably applied in this case. A sigh of relief for all! In a matured way the government at the Centre and states took care of law and order situation, after the verdict was pronounced on the sensitive case. The Muslim brethren in India are equally commendable for welcoming the verdict (barring a few minor miniscule ones of Assaduddin Owaisi type). Hence, credit goes to their inner resilience and fraternal feelings with their Hindu brethren.

For those majorities, who desired to see Ram Temple at that particular site in Ayodhya in their unshakeable devotion, it’s a dream come true. Many a secularist taunted the religious Hindus and Ayodhya temple proponents that some hospital/ educational institution/ some public amenity building to be built in that site (after demolition) instead of the temple as the best proposition, as if as there’s no other place in the country to build those said buildings! Some even went to the extent of building toilets there! This judgement is an eye-opener to them. It says that India’s thousands of years of civilizational ethos coupled with people’s genuine wishes have a place in this country.

Pure secularism (of France type) is high and dry in this country. India is, basically a religious country. That’s the reason there are personal laws for minorities. Through the same Constitution and the same laws of India (that gave the Ayodhya verdict), Mr Owaisi enjoys his medieval personal laws. He has no qualms in questioning the minor rectification like the talaq-e-biddat, but raises doubts on this verdict. He should know that-live and let live- be the principle.

Ramayana and Mahabharata are epics that have been coming for centuries by word of mouth and by ancient written palm-leaf inscriptions. The epics are also depicted in pictures from time to time and from age to age. They are the repositories of knowledge handed over from generation to generation. They contain stories within stories, each giving a message and each sending a signal as to how to lead life in this world wisely and ethically. Though many people live contemporary lives in the contemporary way, at the backdrop, Dharma contained in those scriptures, runs in their mind. Their patience, perseverance, self-effacing nature and other – worldliness are all qualities that sprouted from those epics.

Lord Ram is not only a religion deity for Hindus (specially for the practicing), he is also a cultural icon of this country. Many qualities of Lord Ram are worthy of emulation. Those qualities were copiously mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana. The great sage Valmiki called Shri Ram, “Ramo vigrahavan Dharmah”, meaning to say Ram is the embodiment of Dharma. India is basically a Dharmic country.

Lord Ram is known for his steadfastness on following Dharma, truth, friendship, gratitude towards those helped. He was knowledgeable and chivalrous. While he ruled his kingdom, he looked after his people (subjects) with kindness and equality. He always had a pleasing demeanor. He neither possessed anger nor jealousy. He won victory over those baser instincts in his human form. All these characters are written in Valmiki’s Bala-Ramayana. Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas is also famous in extolling Lord Ram. In Adhayatma Ramayana, Lord Ram would delineate the philosophical aspects of life which is read and understood by many philosophers in India. However, for our secularists, unfortunately, A.K. Ramanujan’s Ramayana appeals! Of course, we ordinary majorities believe in sages viz. Valmiki, Tulsidas and santh Kabir who do their work for the welfare of humanity more than ordinary mortals.

By expediting the process of Supreme Court proceedings on day to day basis for the years together pending case, this government could bring in finality to the Ayodhya temple issue. The judges very patiently heard the arguments and arrived to the conclusions keeping in view the sensitivity of this case. The verdict is historic and goes down into annals of history in the post-independent India. Let the temple in Ayodhya usher in Ram Rajya.

चिदंबरम और रघुराम राजन के काले कारनामे

RAJEEV GUPTA
-
0
चिदंबरम और रघुराम राजन के काले कारनामे

रघु राम राजन कांग्रेस सरकार के समय रिजर्व बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया के गवर्नर रह चुके हैं. 2014 में जब मोदी सरकार सत्ता में आयी तो उसने भी राजन को काफी समय तक गवर्नर बनाये रखा. राजन के कारनामे हालांकि ऐसे थे, जिसकी वजह से उन्हें मई 2014 में ही धक्के मारकर आर बी आई से बाहर निकाल देना चाहिए था. राजन अपने काले कारनामों से अनजान नहीं थे इसलिए जैसे ही मोदी सरकार ने उन्हें आर बी आई से बाहर का रास्ता दिखाया, वह तुरंत देश छोड़कर भाग खड़े हुए.

आइए अब समझते हैं उन काले कारनामों के बारे में जिन्हे चिदंबरम और रघु राम राजन ने मिलकर अंजाम दिया था. 16 मई 2014 को लोकसभा चुनावों के नतीजे आ चुके थे और मोदी जी के नेतृत्व में भाजपा को पूर्ण बहुमत मिल चुका था. उस समय तक देश में कांग्रेस की सरकार थी, चिदंबरम वित्त मंत्री और राजन रिजर्व बैंक के गवर्नर थे. कायदे से 16 मई 2014 के दिन से ही कांग्रेस सरकार को कोई बड़ा नीतिगत फैसला नहीं लेना चाहिए था लेकिन ठीक उसी दिन चिदंबरम ने “20:80 गोल्ड स्कीम” का प्रस्ताव रघुराम राजन को भेजा जिस पर राजन ने अपनी सहमति जताई और “20:80 गोल्ड स्कीम” का आर्डर चिदंबरम ने 21 मई को जारी भी कर दिया. यह “20:80 गोल्ड स्कीम” का आर्डर पी एन बी बैंक घोटाले के अपराधी नीरव मोदी और मेहुल चौकसी को फायदा पहुंचाने के लिए चिदंबरम और राजन की मिलीभगत से उस समय किया गया था, जब कांग्रेस सरकार 2014 के लोकसभा चुनावों में बुरी तरह हारकर सत्ता से बाहर हो चुकी थी.

नीरव मोदी और मेहुल चौकसी ने इसी आर्डर के सहारे 12000 करोड़ के पी एन बी बैंक घोटाले को बखूबी अंजाम दिया और जैसे ही मोदी सरकार ने इसका पर्दाफाश किया,देश छोड़कर भाग खड़े हुए.

रघुराम राजन को कांग्रेस सरकार ने नियुक्त किया था और उनका कार्यकाल 2016 में ख़त्म होना था. मोदी सरकार ने किसी विवाद में पड़ने की वजाये राजन को अपना पूरा कार्यकाल ख़त्म करने दिया लेकिन उस समय भी कांग्रेस यह शोर मचा रही थी क़ि राजन जैसे “काबिल अर्थशास्त्री” को मोदी सरकार एक्सटेंशन क्यों नहीं दे रही है. ज़ाहिर है क़ि राजन जब तक आर बी आई में रहते, कांग्रेस के दुष्कर्मों पर पर्दा डाले रहते लेकिन राजन के जाने के बाद जब 12000 करोड़ के पी एन बी घोटाले के खुलासा हुआ और उसकी जांच की गयी तो यह बात सामने आयी क़ि यह सारा खेल कांग्रेस,चिदंबरम और राजन ने मिलकर उस समय खेला था जब उन्हें कोई बड़ा नीतिगत फैसला लेने का अधिकार ही नहीं था. 21 मई 2014 को चिदंबरम ने यह आदेश पास करके राजन को भेज दिया था और 23 मई 2014 को मोदी सरकार ने कार्यभार संभाल लिया था. अगर यह आदेश राजन की सहमति से नहीं हुआ था या उन्हें लगता था क़ि यह गलत हुआ है तो उन्हें नयी सरकार के वित्त मंत्री से अपनी आपत्ति दर्ज़ करानी चाहिए थी लेकिन ऐसा कुछ नहीं हुआ और जब उनकी, चिदंबरम और कांग्रेस सरकार की काली करतूतों के खुलासा मोदी सरकार के सामने हुआ तब तक राजन देश छोड़ चुके थे, चिदंबरम अन्य मामलों में “जेल” से बचने के लिए “बेल” पर “बेल” लिए जा रहे थे और कांग्रेस के युवराज किसी तरह यह साबित करने में लगे हुए थे क़ि इस घोटाले के लिए और नीरव मोदी और मेहुल चौकसी को देश से भगाने के लिए भी मोदी सरकार ही जिम्मेदार है.

विदेश में रहते हुए राजन मोदी सरकार के हर अच्छे काम की आलोचना करते रहे चाहे वह नोटबंदी हो या जी एस टी का ऐतिहसिल फैसला. राजन आलोचना इस लिए कर रहे थे क्योंकि उससे उन्हें दोहरा फायदा हो रहा था. एक तो आलोचना करके वह कांग्रेस को फायदा पहुंचाने का काम कर रहे थे , दूसरा फायदा यह था क़ि जब कभी भी सी बी आई उनके काले कारनामों के लिए उन्हें पकडे तो वह यह कह सकें क़ि क्योंकि मैं मोदी सरकार की नीतियों का आलोचक था, इसलिए मेरे साथ मोदी सरकार यह बदले की कार्यवाही कर रही है. अप्रैल २०१८ में सी बी आई ने राजन के खिलाफ इस मामले में जांच भी शुरू कर दी और उस जांच के पूरा होने पर राजन क्या अपने मालिक चिदंबरम की तरह जेल पहुंचेंगे या फिर कोई और नयी चाल चलकर जेल जाने से बच पायेंगे यह तो आने वाला समय ही बताएगा.

PMC Bank and the present status of operation and supervision of urban cooperative banks in India

sudip47
-
0
PMC Bank and the present status of operation and supervision of urban cooperative banks in India

The Reserve Bank of India has put limitations on the withdrawal of deposits by account-holders of the Mumbai-based Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank (PMC). The restrictions remain in force for a period of six months starting the end of business hours on September 23. The Reserve Bank of India also restricted PMC Bank from making any advances or loans to its customers. The Reserve Bank of India has however said that the restrictions imposed by it should not be interpreted as cancellation of PMC’s banking licence. The regulator has also appointed an administrator for the bank. PMC, a cooperative bank with 137 branches and at least 51,000 members spread over seven states of the country including Delhi and Punjab, has deposits of about Rs 11,617 crore, making it among the country’s top five urban co-operative banks.

PMC’s collapse is unlikely to impact financial markets or other private or public sector banks as co-operative banks have meagre dealings in money markets as they largely depend upon deposits.

Normally, the RBI initiates the action after a regulatory supervision exposes wrongdoing and if it feels that the financials are weak for it to continue. Here, some whistle-blower wrote to RBI pointing out the wrongdoings so that things could be brought back to order, if at all it could. The bank has unusually huge exposure (about 73% of its total assets.) to one of the real estate firms, HDIL, which filed for bankruptcy recently. The amount of outstanding loan to HDIL is about Rs. 6500 Crore. PMC’s chairman S Waryam Singh was on the board of HDIL in and up to 2015.

PMC’s results in FY19 show no issues with the bank, with net NPAs of 2.19% and capital adequacy ratio (CAR) of 12.62% — above the RBI’s 9% threshold. It was among the top five co-operative lenders in India, with a loan book of Rs 8,383 crore. However, this exposure excludes the bank’s Rs 6,500-crore hidden loans to HDIL as of March 2019. It is clearly a case of financial fraud and a criminal case has been filed recently against the top management of PMC and promoters of HDIL.

Urban cooperative banks are registered as cooperative societies either with the State Cooperative Societies Act of each state or under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act of 2002. They are regulated and supervised by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies of states or by the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The RBI only regulates and supervises their banking functions and thus has less control on management and carries out on-site inspections and off-site surveillance on them. In fact, some time ago, RBI suggested that the Chairman be removed, but it was not acted upon.

The central bank’s decision to put withdrawal limits for account-holders of PMC led to protest by depositors outside the bank’s main branch in Mumbai’s Bhandup area and various other branches. Now, there is a PIL in Delhi High Court seeking lifting of restrictions on cash withdrawal. The petition also submitted that a full insurance cover of the depositors’ money was the need of the hour. Apart from that, it further seeks exhaustive and comprehensive guidelines to safeguard banking and cooperative deposits in the eventuality of an emergency financial crisis.

Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, a subsidiary of RBI has the mission to contribute to financial stability by securing public confidence in the banking system through provision of deposit insurance, particularly for the benefit of the small depositors. The insurance limit currently is 1,00,000/- and there is now a need to review the insurance limit.

Regarding exhaustive and comprehensive guidelines to safeguard banking, the legal and institutional framework for bank supervision in India is provided under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Amid concerns over the RBI’s recent regulatory record, the RBI is set to unveil a separate vertical for supervision .and regulation to focus on improving oversight for banks, non-banking finance companies and urban cooperative banks.

The writer is a long-standing commentator on contemporary issues.

1...511512513...889Page 512 of 889