Home Blog Page 678

A new face of Church

kingsukh
-
0
A new face of Church

Jesus of Nazareth, a religious preacher for some and convict of political sedition for a few is believed by the majority of people in the world, viz. Christians as God. This God in the contemporary era has a form which is church. However, closer understanding shows that it is the power of church on earth and not the power of God that is sacrosanct. This power of church is nothing but the power of clergy, an apostle of divine knowledge or enlightened souls. This power gives them carte blanche to act as per their whims and fancies.

The startling news from Germany about the thousands of children being sexually abused by Catholic clergy is of paramount concern. The countries like Chile, Argentina and India are dominated by sexual abuse cases. The designated cherubic souls meant to purify mankind from sins are themselves deeply engrossed in the heinous act. What a big hypocrisy!

A recent incident from the state of Kerala bears testimony to the above-stated fact. The Bishop F. Mulakkal is accused of raping a nun repeatedly between 2014 and 2016. A protector turns out to be a predator. What faith will they preach if they are outrageously breaching it? Catholic Church as an institution tries to mask this kind of incident. This to an extent reveals the DNA or working of churches across the country.

Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity was involved in child trafficking. This shameful deed reveals their malicious and covetous nature. The secular element is also missing in them. Christians won’t accept Prasad, a devotional offering, and if offered they will cross-check whether it is Prasad or a mere sweet.

The religion concerned also believes in conversion, if not forced one then by luring them with material benefits. Those innocent souls having nothing better to do just fall into the trap. They get lured and baptized in the process. If it is done on purely humanitarian grounds, then my question is why conversion? The paraphernalia involved in the working of churches is cumbersome and unaltruistic.

When will India have ‘one nation one election’?

Fayaz Ganie
-
0
When will India have ‘one nation one election’?

The perfect approach to life for an individual, and a nation, is to be, remain and act in living present while having plans for the future. Lagging behind the time or going ahead without taking due care of the present needs is failed method of dealing with the affairs of life. A nation working with the latter approach is doomed to suffer and fail.

India being a democracy is the nation of perpetual elections. No day, or at least no month, of the year passes off without there being an election in one or the other part of the country, and in one or the other level of democratic hierarchy of governance – From Parliamentary to the elections of the institutions of local self government.

Among them the elections to Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies are the main attractions, and emphasis, where the political parties utilize all their resources and manpower to gain upper hand over their opponents and acquire power, and role of governors at different levels in the federal structure.

The purpose of the elections is to elect the able and capable representatives for the best possible governance of the country. The representatives are duty bound to act as per the real interests of the ruled and the national interests of the country. In succinct, governance in the best interest of the country is the prime and primary goal, and objective, of the elections.

When governance is the objective the frequent elections in the country somehow put breaks in the better governance, and somewhere the governance of the country gets affected adversely. Especially the Parliamentary elections and the election to the State Legislative Assemblies act as impediments in the better governance of the country. In fact, it is not the elections but the way in which they are fought, and are conducted, acts as impediment towards the realization of the goals of the country.

The completion of the entire election process normally should not take more than three months. It should begin three months prior to the conduct of election and get completed in three months only. Beyond this time the political parties, and the branches, and institutions of the parliamentary democracy should devote all their time, resources and energies towards governance.

The people of the ruling party elected to govern the country should try to provide better governance to the people and the representatives belonging to the opposition should try their best to perform as responsible opposition. The interests of the country, not the interests of their respective parties, should be their first preference and priority.

However, in practice the story is completely different. There is hardly any period which is left purely for the governance of the country. At the Central Government level the political parties start their preparations around two years before the elections and during inter-election years of the parliamentary type, the innumerable elections at the state level and of local bodies make it difficult for Ministers and Ministries to work towards better governance.

In particular in the era of coalition governments the role of state elections and local body elections in the national politics has become for more important than it normally should be. The conditions today are such that in the largest democracy of the world the elections of a university become a national issue.

In the recently concluded elections of Jawaharlal Nehru University Elections bigwigs of the national politics were seen locking horns with each other. Those involved in the defense of the country were unduly concerned with the outcome of these elections, as if there is nothing to do in the Defense Ministry.

Therefore, as the country is going for elections in 2019 it seems the country is already in that year. All the moves that the Central Government makes are viewed in that context only, all policy decisions are analyzed while having the elections in mind and all the programs are arranged and managed in such a way where 2018 already seems a past story.

Even the foreign policies are conducted as if election were just on the following day. The national interest and the interests of the people have been made secondary and subservient to the first objective of parties and electoral gains. When it suits the electoral gains the death of one soldier is an attack on the sovereignty of the country and when it suits the same gains the death of many of them is even not talked of.

The parties are shedding their traditional robes, and ideologies, and wearing the new ones to stay in or gain power. In his recent address to the audience in the three day program in Delhi the RSS Chief presented a soft image of his party and talked about the inclusion and importance of Muslims and minorities in the future of India. On the face of it the speech was for good of India but the intention literally was to gain a favorable outcome in terms of elections of 2019.

The moves of the Congress Party towards Hindu appeasement are other points in sight which seeks favorable gains in 2019 elections. The role as a constructive opposition has been forgotten for now. It would have been better had these parties worked now for governance of the country and towards dealing with all the pressing problems that the country is beset with. The elections could be fought in the three months of 2019 and then back to governance. But unfortunately the reality is not so and governance, and better governance, of the country is no preference.

Amidst all this, it is reiterated, the country is lagging on governance front. Elections of 2019 seem the first and last preference of the political parties. All attempts are made to gain power out of these elections, whether legitimate or illegitimate. Criminalization of politics, communalization of the elections and caste considerations all are employed to outwit the opponents, thereby, forgetting the spirit and fundamentals on which the parliamentary form of government is based on.

India is facing lot of problems of poverty, unemployment, homelessness and unsatisfactory status of other human development indices. The country has to come out of this premature election fever and concentrate on the governance of the country – for a mature democracy should learn to limit the duration of election fever. When elections are fought for the better governance, why governance is sacrificed for the elections?

Plus, India should work for the electoral reforms where simultaneous elections are held for different levels of federal hierarchy. By doing that enough of time and resources are invested towards the betterment of the country and dealing with the problems of the country.

Did Veer Savarkar really begged the English to let him go?

Shatrunjay
-
0
Did Veer Savarkar really begged the English to let him go?

Few weeks ago, an actor by the name of Swara Bhasker, shared a meme involving India’s first PM Nehru and Veer Savarkar. In that meme, it showed that Savarkar have no role in freedom struggle.

I tweeted to Swara, asking her what she knows about Veer Savarkar. Of Course, I wouldn’t be getting any reply. I also said that she might term me as a troll. Good, no problem with that too. But, this is a question, what Savarkar did for India.

Look, neither I am a Sanghi, nor a BJP IT Cell person, nor a Bhakt, as a Muslim friend once termed me because I said I don’t like SRK. But I am a history buff. I like to read, understand things. I just happen to know Savarkar, like an average human do, that he was in Cellular jail. He lived till 1966 etc. I am writing about him only to let others know, that he is one of the most misunderstood person.

People say that he begged English to let him go, he was faithful to the Government and so. And not everybody knows him. So, if Swara shared a meme, what’s a big deal? Umar Khalid spoke about Savarkar in one of his tweets. Who is he? What does he know about Savarkar? Is he some literary person, who studied about Savarkar or anyone? I don’t think either of them knows Savarkar at all.

For it’s all trend now, to abuse people who stood for Hinduism, and turning the word ‘Hindutva’, itself in hateful word, hiding its true meaning. They are trying to sell the idea that Hindutva means, persons with swords and guns and knives attacking and killing everyone who comes in their way. Totally wrong.

In June this year, I went to Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The airport’s name in Port Blair is Veer Savarkar International Airport. I visited Cellular jail. Saw it with my own eyes, even felt that I am too a prisoner there. Small barracks, small alley, gallows, where people of my country got hanged by English, it is all very haunting. People lived there. They died there, martyred actually. Just one bowl for eating, no sanitation, no hygiene. If you want to go to the loo, only in the given time slot in the evening you are allowed. Not allowed to go out after 6 pm. If asked, they are beaten, sometimes even to death. People committed suicides, they were laden with tasks which passes any human power, they died doing it. All in all, they were all treated inhumanely & barbaric.

But who are these people? No one. Because, only Nehruji and Gandhiji had contribution in freedom struggle. They are the only patriots, India has ever produced. Is it so?

I asked Swara, if she knows who Madanlal Dhingra was. I bet she doesn’t. Shaheed Madanlal Dhingra assassinated Sir William Hutt Curzon Wyllie, after coming into contact with Veer Savarkar and Shyamji Krishna Varma in India House, 1905. He also joined Abhinav Bharat Mandal, founded by Savarkar and his brother Ganesh. Savarkar told Dhingra then, to not show his face to Savarkar before killing any British Official. Thus, Dhingra killed Curzon and a Doctor with seven bullets.

There is popular thing going on, that Savarkar sought forgiveness from English and begged to be spared. He although wrote letters during his term, but it was a covert thing. He was spending 50 year term in Cellular Jail, a double life imprisonment, where escape was impossible and the tortures were more than unbearable. He laughed at the Judge when he pronounced this sentence, asking if he was confident that he would last till then. He was 28 year old when he went to Cellular. The most tragic thing is that, for a long time Veer Savarkar didn’t know that his brother, Ganesh, too was there. He thought that Ganesh was with his mother. When, one day they met suddenly on the grounds of Cellular Jail, one should think what would have gone in the minds of two brothers then.

He filed a few mercy petitions, but the fourth petition was accepted. He and his brother moved to Ratnagiri Jail in 1921 and at last were released in 1924, on the condition of remaining forever unemployed. Although, he bargained for freedom, but writer named Jayant Joglekar, considered it as a ploy to indulge in the activities he loved. This is what I think too.

I think, living in jail, where he was unable to do anything for the freedom of India, he considered the option of asking mercy from British Government, seeking it on their terms better. So that, he could come out and start again to rout out the Britishers from his motherland. During his term, his focus shifted to Hindu culture and political nationalism. He wrote a book, Hindutva: Who is Hindu, which was taken out of prison hideously and got published by his supporters under name Maharatta.

Whatever the works of later life of Savarkar, there are things which cannot be refuted. Such as his contribution in the freedom struggle of India, as stated before and his works for the upliftment of Hinduism. In current times, talking about Hinduism, Hindutva, term you not only communal, Bhakt but if given chance the opposition try to destroy you in totality. Today, defintion of secularism is appeasement. For example, people oppose Manusmriti, did they read it? No. But Manusmriti should be burnt. That’s not sanity. But appeasement.

I think, that we should start something, which give an idea about the people who fought for us against the enemy. We should teach in such a manner, that people of India should know that it’s not because of only one family or two, we had what we had. It’s a cumulative effort from everyone and from all walks of life. We should let the current and future generations know that we are sitting on the treasure of rich culture. Our religion is not weak, its the most tolerant religion in this world and so, the most misunderstood.

I have no problem from those who abuse Savarkar, but will it not be better, if one should understand the facts before doing so? Else, it will only discredit you and not the one, who left the earth more than 50 years ago.

Ayodhya dispute timeline: From the time of Goswami Tulsi Das to present day

thesameergupta
-
0
Ayodhya dispute timeline: From the time of Goswami Tulsi Das to present day

Sanatana Dharma Scriptures have accurately described the geographic position of Ayodhya as well as the birth of Shri Rama in this holy city.

sahasradhārāmārabhya yojanaṃ pūrvato diśi ।।
pratīci diśi tathaiva yojanaṃ samatovadhiḥ ।। 64 ।।

dakṣiṇottarabhāge tu sarayūtamasāvadhiḥ ।।
etatkṣetrasya saṃsthānaṃ harerantargṛhaṃ sthitam ।। matsyākṛtiriyaṃ vipra purī viṣṇorudīritā ।। 65 ।।

‘Ayodhya is situated till one yojana to the East of Sahasradharateerth, till one yojana to the West of Samateerth, till one yojana to the South of river Saryu’s banks and till one yojana to the North of Tamasa river. This is the inner abode of Lord Vishnu. This city has been told to have a shape of a fish.’

[64,65 ayodhyāmāhātmya, vaiṣṇavakhaṇḍa, skandapurāṇa] gateṣu pṛthivīśeṣu rājā daśarathastadā।
praviveśa purīṃ śrīmān puraskṛtya dvijottamān।।1.18.5।।

‘After the departure of the rulers, the exalted king Dasaratha preceded by the foremost of
brahmins entered the city (of Ayodhya)’.

tato yajñe samāpte tu ṛtūnāṃ ṣaṭsamatyayu:।
tataśca dvādaśe māse caitre nāvamike tithau।।1.18.8।।

nakṣatre’ditidaivatye svoccasaṃstheṣu pañcasu।
graheṣu karkaṭe lagne vākpatāvindunā saha।।1.18.9।।

prodyamāne jagannāthaṃ sarvalokanamaskṛtam।
kausalyā’janayadrāmaṃ sarvalakṣaṇasaṃyutam।।1.18.10।।

‘Six seasons (one year) passed after the completion of the sacrifice. In the twelfth month of Chaitra on the ninth day (of the bright fortnight), with Aditi as presiding deity when the star Punarvasu was in the ascendent and the five planets Sun, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Venus, were exalted in their own house in karkata lagna, when Brihaspati was in conjunction with the Moon, Kausalya gave birth to a son: a facet of Visnu, Lord of the entire universe who received obeisance from all the worlds and was adorned with all auspicious signs, the venerable one to perpetuate the Ikshvaku race.’
[sarga 18, bālakāṇḍa, vālmīki rāmāyaṇa]

In 1528, during the reign of Babur, the first Mughal emperor, some have claimed that a Hindu Temple at the Janamsthan of Ramachandra was demolished, and a building was constructed at the same location by Mir Khan. The incident was recorded by eminent authors of the time, of both Sanatana Dharma and Islamic Communities, and it is well established that the temple was destroyed by Babur’s commander Meer Baki. The Archaelogical Survey of India found clinching evidence that the building was constructed over the Vishnu Hari Temple at the site during 2002-2003 excavations, under the observation of and verified by the Allahabad High Court.

In 1853, the first recorded communal clashes occurred over the site. In the first petition made to the British government by the Mutawalli of Babri Masjid on 30th November, 1858, the disputed structure was referred to as the Masjid-e-janmasthan. In 1859, the colonial British administration put a fence around the site, denominating separate areas of worship for Hindus and Muslims. In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das in a suit (no. 61/280 of 1885) filed in the court of Faizabad sub-judge against the Secretary of State for India prayed for the permission to build a temple on a plinth outside the mosque. His suit was dismissed in 1886. This is how the matter stood till December of 1949, when idols of Sanatana Dharma Deities were placed inside the mosque, and as fate would have it; both sides to the dispute filed civil suits. The government locked the gates, saying the matter was sub-judice and declared the area disputed. The civil suits were filed for ownership of the Plot no 583 of the area.

In 1961, a case was filed in the Indian courts against forceful occupation of the Babri Mosque and placing of idols within it. Interestingly, it was the Sunni Wakf Board that began a legal claim on this land starting 1961. However, as per Shia Wakf Board, Babur came to Ayodhya for seven days and in such a short time, it was not possible for him to destroy the Vishnu Hari Temple, construct a site for offering namaz and declare himself as a Wakif. That is why the case should have been fought by the Shia Wakf Board and not a Sunni. Also, it was Meer Baki, a Shia Muslim who wanted to construct a site where Shias could offer namaz. Since then, in 1984, the movement to rebuild the Vishnu Hari temple at the site, which Sanatana Dharma adherents claim to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, gathered momentum when various pro-temple groups formed a committee to spearhead the construction of the Vishnu Hari temple at the Ramjanam-bhoomi site.

The most important point to be noted is that, Indian, International as well as Sharia laws consider mosque as a prayer hall to offer namaz. Dr. Subramanian Swamy provides multiple legal citations in ‘Rebuilding Ram temple at Ayodhya’. The Supreme Court constitutional Bench in Faruqi vs Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 376] has held that a mosque is not an essential part of Islamic religion and that namaz can be performed anywhere.

On page 416 para 80 of the report, the Supreme Court observed,

“It has been contended that a mosque enjoys a particular position In Muslim law and once a mosque is established and prayers are offered in such a mosque, the same remains for all time to come a property of Allah and any person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in such a mosque, and even if the structure is demolished, the place remains the same where Namaz can be offered.”

In para 82, the Constitution Bench rebutted it stating,

“The correct position may be summarized thus: Under Muslim law applicable in India, the title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession. A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India.”

In 1986, a district judge ordered the gates of the mosque to be opened after 37 years (see 1949 above) and allowed Sanatana Dharma Adherents to worship inside the “disputed structure.” A Babri Mosque Action Committee was formed as muslims protested the move to allow Sanatana Dharma prayers at the site. The gates were opened in less than an hour after the court decision. In 1989, the clamour for building a Vishnu Hari/Ram temple was growing. In February, VHP proclaimed that a shila or a stone will be established for construction of temple near the area. In November, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad laid foundations of a temple on land adjacent to the “disputed structure” in presence of Home Minister Sh Boota Singh and then Chief Minister Sh ND Tiwari.

There were sporadic clashes in the country such as Bhagalpur in Bihar. In 1990, Sh V P Singh became the Prime Minister of India with support of BJP which had won 58 seats in the election, a massive improvement from its last tally of 2 seats. The then BJP president Lal Krishna Advani took out a cross- country rathyatra to garner support for the move to build a Ram temple at the site. On 23 October, he was arrested in Bihar during the yatra, following which BJP took back its support to the government. Sh Chandrashekhar became the Prime Minister of India with support of the Congress. On October 30, many were gunned down by the police on orders of the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav, when they gathered in Ayodhya as participants of the Rath-Yatra; their bodies were thrown in the river Saryu. This was the pre-cursor to the Babri Masjid Demolitions that got the pro-temple groups all riled up.

In 1991, Congress came to power at center after elections in 1991, while BJP became major opposition party in center and came to power in many states such as Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Kalyan Singh became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. State government acquired 2.77 acre land in the area and gave it on lease to RamJanmBhoomi Nyas Trust. The Allahabad High Court stopped any permanent construction activity in the area. Kalyan Singh publicly supported the movement while Central Government took no action to curb the increasing tensions. In spite of the High Court judgement, the disputed area was leveled.

In 1992, Kalyan Singh took steps to support the movement such as making entry into area easier, promising no firing on Karsevaks, opposing decision of central government to send Central Police force in the area, etc. In July, several thousand Karsevaks assembled in the area and the work for maintenance of temple started. This activity was stopped after intervention of the prime minister. Meetings started between Babri Masjid Action Committee and VHP leaders in presence of the home minister. On 30 October, Dharam Sansad of VHP proclaimed in Delhi that the talks have failed and Karseva will presume from 6 December.

Central Government was considering the deployment of central police forces in the area and dissolution of state government but in the end decided against it. The case was being heard in the Supreme Court which told that State Government is responsible for ensuring law and order in the area. The government was discussing it in Cabinet Committee meeting and Rashtriya Ekta Parishad. BJP boycotted the Parishad. The Allahabad High Court was hearing the matter of legality of structure of foundation laid in 1989.

On 6th December 1992, the dome of the superstructure known as Babri Masjid was brought down as an outcome of mob violence, with the presence of nearly 200,000 Karsewaks and thus a criminal case was filed in the courts. Communal riots across India followed. On the 16th of December, 1992, ten days after the demolition, the Congress government at the Centre, headed by PV Narasimha Rao, set up a commission of inquiry under Justice Liberhan. In 1993, three months after being constituted, the Liberhan Commission began investigations into who and what led to the demolition of the Babri Mosque.

In 2001, tensions rose on the anniversary of the demolition of the mosque as the VHP reaffirmed its resolve to build a temple at the site. On the 27th of February, 2002, at least 58 people were killed in Godhra, Gujarat, in an attack on a train believed to be carrying Hindu volunteers from Ayodhya by a mob of Muslims. Riots followed in the state and over 2000 people, both Hindus and Muslims, were unofficially reported to have died tragically in these. In 2003, the court ordered a survey to find out whether a temple to Lord Ram existed on the site. In August, the survey presented evidence of a temple under the mosque.

In the Farooqi Constitutional bench judgment of the Supreme Court [page 427-428], the Solicitor General is quoted by the Supreme Court Constitutional Bench as stating on affidavit as follows:
“If a Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished [babri] structure, government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community.”

This is also similar to the commitments made in 1991 by Muslim representatives of Babri Masjid Action Committee to the then Government. Prominent Muslim leaders made the following commitment, “…if these assertions were proved, the Muslims will voluntarily hand over the disputed shrine to the Hindus….”

This commitment/assurance is recorded in Government of India’s White Paper in paras 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.
In the report of the Archeological Survey of India, NW and Oudh in chapter 10, page 67, it is described that “Babri mosque was built in 1528 AD by Mir Khan on the very spot where the old temple of Janmsthan of Ramchandra was standing.”

GPRS excavations carried out under the supervision of Allahabad High Court establish that a large temple existed below where Babri mosque structure stood. The Sunni Wakf board doesn’t accept these findings as of any means or consequences. It doesn’t matter if all this was indeed so or not, since under Section 295 on Indian Penal Code[IPC] it is prescribed that “Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with the intention thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punishable with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

In September 2003, the court ruled that seven Hindu leaders, including some prominent BJP leaders, should stand trial for inciting the destruction of the Babri Mosque. This had political ramifications, as BJP’s political fortunes were rising in the early nineties among Hindus due to their support for the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya, and the opposition left no stone unturned to put a stop to this rise of BJP. In November 2004, an Uttar Pradesh court ruled that an earlier order which exonerated LK Advani for his role in the destruction of the mosque should be reviewed.
In 2007, the Supreme Court refused to admit a review petition on the Ayodhya dispute. In 2009, the Liberhan Commission, which was instituted ten days after the demolition of the Babri Mosque in 1992, submitted its report on 30 June- almost 17 years after it began its inquiry. Its contents were not made public.

On 30th September, 2010, the Allahabad High Court pronounces its verdict on four title suits relating to the Ayodhya dispute and divided the Ramjanam-bhoomi land into three parts and providing the claim to Hindu Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhada and Sunni Wakf Board. But immediately in December 2010, the Akhil Bharatiye Hindu Mahasabha and Sunni Wakf Board challenged part of Allahabad High court’s decision in Supreme Court. Supreme Court accepted it on 9th May 2011 giving a stay on High Court’s orders splitting the disputed site in three parts and said that status quo will remain. The two-judge bench of Supreme Court remarked that the High Court ruling was surprising as no party wanted a split of the site.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy had requested a day-to-day hearing in the court but the court said it couldn’t be done. In the trial on Ram Mandir on 5th December in the Supreme court, a three-judge bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer have deferred the hearing till 8th February 2018 after the petitioners asked for reasonable time to get the documents ready.

In pursuance of the apex court’s earlier direction, the Yogi Adityanath government has submitted English translation of exhibits and documents likely to be relied upon, as these were in eight different languages. The apex court said that this would be the last opportunity to get papers ready and no further details would be entertained.

The Sunni Waqf Board, arguing for a postponement in the hearing till after 2019 general election, says the proceedings in the Ayodhya Temple case would span over the entire next year. Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal appeared as a lawyer of Sunni Wakf Board and advocated their stand. The Supreme Court, however, says when original suit was finished in 90 days by the Allahabad High Court, why should it take longer here? Sunni Wakf Board also wanted the case to be heard by a five-judge or seven-judge Constitution bench. The Supreme Court questioned why a title dispute should be heard by a seven-judge bench. On 6th April ‘2018, the Supreme Court of India rules against immediate constitution of a larger bench to hear the case. The bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer will pronounce the verdict, which had reserved it on 20th July ‘2018. The current Chief Justice is retiring in October, 2018 so even he would probably want to settle the most burning case of India by today, the 27th of September 2018.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UP government, had said this dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for “almost a century”.

Where Sunni Wakf board is fighting for the possession of land, Dr. Subramanian Swamy is fighting for the fundamental right to worship which makes his case stronger. Shia Wakf board had accepted that they are in favour of leaving the RamJanam-bhoomi land and build a mosque someplace else.

The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against a high court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

  • The special bench will decide whether or not the Ayodhya case will go to a larger constitutional bench.
  • The Muslim Litigants are contesting the 1994 judgement that says that the Mosque is not essential to Islam for offering namaz.
  • UP government is saying that the Muslim Parties didn’t question the legality of the 1994 judgement till the appeal against the 2010 HC judgement.

Ayodhya Mandir Verdict in, Hearings Start as on October 29th, 2018. The case won’t be referred again to a constitutional bench of five judges, the 1994 judgement stands that a mosque is not essential to the practice of Islam.

Razing of the Ramjanam-bhoomi temple as described by Gosvami Tulsidas

The following excerpts have been taken from the book ‘Doha Shatak’ of Gosvami Tulsidas. It has been referred to by Jagadguru Rambhadracharya in Allahabad High Court and recorded on page 783 of the verdict.

maṃtra upaniṣada brāhmanahum̐ bahu purāna itihāsa । javana jarāye roṣa bhari kari tulasī parihāsa ॥85॥

Goswami Tulsidas Ji says that infuriated Yavans (barbarians /Mohammedans) burnt many texts/scriptures containing incantations, Upanishads, treatises like Brahmans (part of Veda- s), Puranas, Itihas (Valmiki Ramayana, Mahabharat) after ridiculing them.

sikhā sūtra te hīna kari bala te hindū loga।
bhamari bhagāye deśa te tulasī kaṭhina kujoga ॥ 86 ॥

Goswami Tulsidas says that in hard and inappropriate times, forcible attempts are being made by Muslims to expel the followers of Hinduism from their own native place (country), forcibly divesting them of their Shikha (lock of hair on the crown of head) and ‘Yagyopaveet’ (sacrificial thread).

bābara barbara āike kara līnhe karavāla ।
hane pacāri pacāri jana tulasī kāla karāla ॥ 87 ॥

Describing the barbaric attack of Babur, Goswami Tulsidas says that he indulged in gruesome genocide of the natives of that place (followers of Hinduism) using sword after repeatedly calling out to them.

saṃvata sara vasu bāna nabha grīṣma ṛtu anumāni ।
tulasī avadhahiṃ jaḏ javana anaratha kiya anakhāni ॥ 88 ॥

Gowami Tulsi Das Ji says that countless atrocities were committed by foolish ‘Yavans’ (Mohammedans) in Awadh (Ayodhya) in and around the summer of Samvat 1585, that is, 1528 AD (Samvat 1585- 57=1528 AD).

rāma janama mahiṃ maṃdirahiṃ tori masīta banāya ।
javahiṃ bahuta hinduna hate tulasī kīnhī hāya ॥ 89 ॥

Describing the attack made by Yavans on Shri Ramjanambhumi temple, Goswami Tulsidas says that after a number of Hindus were mercilessly killed, Shri Ram Janmbhumi temple was broken and converted to a mosque. Looking at the ruthless killing of Hindus, Goswami Tulsidas says that his heart felt aggrieved, that is, it began to weep, and on account of the incident it continues to writhe in pain.

dalyo mīrabākī avadha mandira rāmasamāja ।
tulasī rovata hṛdaya hati trāhi trāhi raghurāja ॥ 90 ॥

Mir Baqi destroyed the temple in Ayodhya along with the idols of Ram, Sita, Bharata, Lakshmana, Shatrughna and Hanuman. Goswami Tulsidas says that he cries, beating his chest, “O the best amongst scions of Raghu dynasty! Save us!”

rāma janama maṃdira jahām̐ lasata avadha ke bīca ।
tulasīracīmasītataham̐ mīrabām̐kikhalanīca॥91॥

Goswami Tulsidas says that the mosque was constructed by the wicked Mir Baqi after demolishing Sri Ram Janmbhumi temple, situated in the middle of Ayodhya.

rāmāyana ghari ghanṭa jaham̐ śruti purāna upakhāna ।
tulasī javana ajāna taham̐ kiyo kurāna ajāna ॥ 92 ॥

Tulsi Das Ji says that the Quran as well as Azaan call is heard from the holy place of Shri Ram Janam Bhumi, which once reverberated with discourses from Shrutis, Vedas, Puranas, Upnishads etc. and the sweet sound of temple bells.
Facts about a temple’s presence on RamJanam-bhoomi.

In the tenth chapter of Report of Archeological Survey of India, North-West and Oudh(1889), page 67 mentions that Babri mosque “was built in AD 1528 by Mir Khan on the very spot where the old temple of Janmsthan of Ramchandra was standing.”

GPRS excavations done under Allahabad High Court monitoring and verification in 2002-03 established that a large temple of Vishnu Hari, who according to Hindu beliefs had killed

demon king Dashanan, used to exist below the structure that came to be known as Babri mosque. Ain-i-Akbari [III:334, 316-17] records Ayodhya as the birthplace of Shri Ram.

Mughal authorities issued a sanad in July, 1723 and the writer of the sanad stated in Persian that he was writing it from ‘maulud i.e. birthplace of Rama.’

In the first petition made to the British government by the Mutawalli of Babri Masjid on 30th November, 1858, the disputed structure was referred as Masjid-e-janmasthan. On 21st January 1870, the structure was referred as Masjid Baburi Waqia Janmsthan.

Maulana Hakim Sayyid Abd al-Hayy in his work titled Jannah al-Mashriq wa Matla’an Nur al- Mashriq recorded mosque being built by Babur on the site where Shri Ram was born and a magnificent temple once stood here.
Foreign works of Urdu, Persian, Austria have recorded the same incident of the temple being razed and the subsequent erection of a structure by Babur.

After the British takeover of the city, all official records have unanimously declared that the Babri structure occupied the RamJanam-bhoomi land.

Undeclared emergency | A liberal culture

Vaibhav Chandruva
-
0
Undeclared emergency | A liberal culture

How easy it is to wax lyrical on the Hitlerisque, autocratic, communal (and newly added) corrupt regime of Prime Minister Modi where liberals everyday have to face the wrath of the govt just because they are dissenting voices, right? Murders of dissenting voices on a daily basis, threats to journalists and intelligentsia on WhatsApp, Instagram and where-not, lynching of disagreeing intellectuals, hue and cry over “Freedom of Expression” of woke artists, jailing them (for only planning, [not executing] Chhota Mota assassination plots) and branding all of them as Naxals, threatening to send them to a peaceful neighbor. Mota bhai has taken this war personally, and the response from one intellectual is, and I quote him (verbatim) “Kuchh Bhi”

Recently we came across a tweet from eminent historian (who also doubles up as liberal culturalist) Ram Guha, where he mentioned the following.

Why I specifically mentioned culturalist? If we scroll through the definition on Merriam-Webster, it says “one that emphasizes the importance of culture in determining behavior“.

What type of Left-Liberal culture does this fellow showcase here? The one specifically tweeted by MP Shashi Tharoor that the self proclaimed liberals stand for freedom of expression?

In 2011, NYTimes reported how GoI demanded screening of content on prominent sites like Google, Facebook after UPA felt offended on a post on Sonia Gandhi (who, by the way did not hold any official position in the govt).

After a series of embarrassing losses in elections consistently and utilizing wasting maximum political capital in the hilariously Sheikh Chilli styled acts like impeachment of CJI, “make in {visiting city} phone” rallies, awkward unceremonious smiles in funerals, imaginary corruption angles in Rafale issue against Prime Minister Modi, and much more like these, it seems future is not looking THAT bleak for the liberals after all.

After getting a Mon Homme CJI in the apex court, liberals are all smiles as Facebook India gets a new chief. This development is very crucial for the “liberal culture”. Twitter, one of the technology giants is already famous (but not alone) for shadow-banning right leaning voices on it’s platform. With the entry of a UPA leaning man leading Facebook India, which is approx 200+ million user strong, this censorship is expected to increase manifold.

Who can forget an innocent autotune spoof by a creative guy on Rahul Gandhi’s speech being removed by YouTube? The price Rohit Iyengar paid? He had to upload an apology video.

In the coming days, the conservative right should be aware of the actual undeclared emergency on them that the monstrous North Korean Darbaaris are (happily) yearning for.

We need a clean man Narendra Modi and not those on bail to achieve Swacch Bharat in Indian politics

S Ranganathan
-
0
We need a clean man Narendra Modi and not those on bail to achieve Swacch Bharat in Indian politics

The Honourable Supreme Court of India limiting its role to suggest the political parties and Parliament to do the needful to prevent criminals from contesting election deserve rich appreciation. Disqualifying or preventing people from contesting election purely based on charge sheet would create havoc in our political system.

The country is fully aware of the fact how the then UPA1 and 2 had tried every tricks to book Narendra Modi by foisting one false case after another.

The SC wants to give powers to Election Commission to deny symbol to political parties who filed criminals as candidates is also a welcome step.

The problem is not with the suggestion or intention but how a candidate can be declared criminal before conviction is complete. The debate is not about whether the court has the powers to direct the EC to add such conditions or not but the question is whether such an act would seems to encroach the supremacy of the parliament is the major point. The honourable SC has done the right thing by resting the responsibility upon the political parties and parliament to clean up the system.

If the court has done differently, it may warrant a situation where we have to witness several political parties filing criminal cases against each other to prevent them from contesting.

Congress party is known for political vendetta and misuse of power and government machineries.

The biggest question is why several corruption and criminal cases against politicians are getting dragged? If the SC wants to speed up the justice system, many such criminal cases would have come to its finality much swifter. For today’s political mess, the court also owes its fair share although such delay can be justified technically by citing insufficient manpower and other resources.

Like the reform SC wants in our political system, reforms are needed in our judiciary also. Reforms in judiciary shall auger democracy better than the political reform. While we respect and want autonomy and independence of judiciary, judiciary also must be seen working in tandem with the elected government. The big boss approach or attitude by taking the advantage of autonomy or independence may not do well for our country. The time of judiciary also should not be allowed to hijack by the so called activists who are known to cause policy paralysis.

Our political system needs to be reformed.

PM Modi is doing everything possible to achieve the above goal. We should not de-recognize the mission because Prime Minister has not fully achieved the cleaning up of our political system. Such political reformation cannot be achieved only through tough legal formalities, but the participation of every Indian is also needed to achieve the above Yagna.

People of India have recognized the honesty of Narendra Modi and the mission of PM Modi therefore have started to extend their unconditional support to him to ensure his continuation as Prime Minister of India in 2019 and beyond.

People also must recognize how certain forces spread and sell lies and are virtually on bail.

Judiciary is a super speciality institution and therefore it is desired that it just offers its services when asked for or sought. How India has to be shaped, what are the new programs and policies the government must introduce, how to develop the country and how to achieve Sab Ka Vikas, all such rights certainly belong to the popularly elected government and its leader- Narendra Modi.

The country is governed by a Government and the government is elected by people of this country and that is how democracy functions. The elected government only appoint judges. Therefore mutual respect and support between different autonomous and independent institutions and government alone will make India a progressive nation.

By taking the autonomy and constitutional independence and siding certain political parties and display public outcry shall only bring shame to the institutions and will also lower its dignity.

The voters of India certainly believe Narendra Modi and Narendra Modi will bring the much needed reforms in politics but it can be achieved only in phased manner. Need of the hour is everyone must pledge their unconditional support to PM Modi to achieve development and sab ka vikas.

On bail for corruption charges, the dynast sermons about honesty

S Ranganathan
-
0
On bail for corruption charges, the dynast sermons about honesty

People of India may get shocked if someone says Rahul Gandhi is very honest. He is indeed very honest in his engagement with lie. Further people may wonder how the dynast can be described as honest who is already on bail due to serious allegations of corruption in National Herald.

Honest people are the one who: “Manas-ekam, Vachas-ekam, Karman-ekam Mahatmanaam”

Narendra Modi is true to his conscience and true to our nation. He is honest at thought, in his words and as well as in his actions. That is why the world has recognized him as the most honest and incorruptible leader.

Rahul Gandhi is also honest but the only difference is that he is very honest in his engagement with lies.

Rahul Gandhi is very true, about being honest and committed to lying. At thought level, in words and in action, Rahul Gandhi displays his honesty for lies and he is very sincere to speak lies and nothing else.

In fact, it looks like he has taken an oath to speak only lies and therefore he speaks only lies whereas PM Modi has taken oath under the constitution of India and in the name of God, to develop India and achieve Sab Ka Vikas.

PM Modi speaks truth and he is committed to speak only truth and therefore he is honest in his commitment. On the other hand the dynast too has committed to speak lie, only lies and in fact he too is honest in his commitment to spread lies and falsehood.

The allegations of the dynast over Rafale deal is quite changeling. Instead of proving the scam, the dynast is diverting the attention from the question. His question is about the cost and number of fighter planes India proposes to buy. Even the ordinary man in the street would understand that it is not the number but the efficiency is important. When India proposed to buy fighter jets which are fully loaded and ready to fight, the capability of such flights alone matters and not how many such flights we buy. Naturally the fully loaded fighter jet would cost more than simple flying machines. This basic, elementary aspect is known to people of India therefore no one is going to buy the lie of the dynast. Even the car which is fully loaded would cost significantly higher than the one not loaded with various accessories. Therefore when we buy fully loaded fighter jet compared to simple flying machine as proposed by the then UPA, the cost of fully loaded jets will be higher and naturally the numbers also would be limited.

Another question of the dynast is that why Reliance was appointed as offset partner. When Reliance fulfills the requirements, what is wrong in appointing Reliance as partner? The friendship between Anil Ambani and the owner of Dassault shall no way going to make the deal spurious.

The dynast somehow wants to manufacture a scam to malign the image of beloved PM Modi.

Another reason is that congress exists today in Indian politics only through selling lies and making hue and cry to derail the agenda of development and sab ka vikas. Even if the people of India not respond positively to the dynast, some opposition parties may use the dynast as their sound system for no cost. Dynast wants some role in Indian politics which his own party itself does not have so he is searching the same among the opposition parties.

Finally if we ask who, PM Modi or Rahul Gandhi is happier in Indian politics, obviously the answer would be the dynast. Dynast got everything without merit but PM Modi came through pure merit.

PM Modi needs to prove his merit time and again but for the dynast, the sycophants and Chamchas always consider the dynast as the wisest.

PM Modi will not be happy until he completes the agenda of development and sab ka vikas. He will not be happy until corruption is eliminated from Indian soil, and not be happy until India becomes the economic super power.

Mahatma Gandhiji has defined happiness as “happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do are in harmony”.

On a closer look, the dynast is a liar at thinking level, lying when he speaks and his actions also has lies and the best example being National Herald expose. The dynast has perfectly harmonized lie at all the three levels so naturally he would to be happier.

But for BJP and PM Modi several tasks are to be completed and he is working tirelessly to awaken people of India to be responsible and empowered. People of India should not fall victim to the born liar who knows nothing but lie.  India needs Modi in 2019 and beyond to develop the state and achieve sab ka vikas.

The prime minister wants to build New India whereas the dynast wants to ruin India. Let Indians participate in the big Yagna of Modi to build New India and let as achieve Sab Ka Vikas.

Lie shall never become truth even if it is sold on hourly basis, dear dynast

S Ranganathan
-
0
Lie shall never become truth even if it is sold on hourly basis, dear dynast

Human civilization has always evolved with several superstitious belief systems, suspicion, doubts, believing and doubting the lie, falsehood, occultism etc. The religious leaders and several spiritual masters also were successful in creating ‘perception of truth’ which is nothing but lie and the best example being –God.

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda stated by Nazi Joseph Goebbels. But lie has never succeeded nor has ever become truth in real world. Therefore none of the attempts of the congress party or its president, the ‘great dynast’ is going to win. The dynast is on a mission to sell lie as truth with the hope that if he utters the same lie again and again, it would become true.

In Hindu mythology it is clearly stated that Hiranyakashipu was searching for Lord Vishnu everywhere to challenge. One day with great anger and revenge he asked his son to prove whether Lord Vishnu is present in one of the beams of his palace and finally the avatar of Vishnu- Narasimha came and killed the demon Hiranyakashipu. Hiranyakashipu sold the lie about Vishnu thinking that his kingdom and subjects would believe it but finally his own son did not buy his lie and the lie when turned truth, the truth had killed the liar- Hiranyakashipu.

Narada advised the hunter Valmiki just to chant ‘mara, mara several times, it turned to Rama and thus the hunter becomes the sacred poet and great scholar. Valmiki after realization of his past deeds and its implications and with the intent to attain divine abode chanted mara, mara, it becomes Rama. The born hunter cum dacoits in Indian politics when utters scam, scam over Rafale deal, such propaganda is not going to succeed as lie has never turned into truth.

Hiranyakashipu sold lie about Lord Vishnu and finally the same lie killed him similarly the dynast is selling lie about the honest Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi and certainly his malicious propaganda is going to expose him and will remove him from Indian politics.

In none of the court of law lie has turned to truth. Every criminal would repeat his lie that he is innocent continuously but were never given pardon based on how many times and how empathically they have been selling the same lie.

Rafale deal is fair, much needed and it is aimed at the security of India. The price of fully loaded and ready to fight flights cannot be compared with the prices of just the flying machines ordered by the then congress government.

How the government can reveal the details of cost escalation as it would reveal all the details about various weaponries assembled in the flight and such revelations would go in favour of our enemy countries.

Playing politics at the cost of our countries security interest is dangerous. Congress is known for playing politics in everything without least shame or dignity.

But for Narendra Modi and his government, India comes first.

Congress and some opposition parties may believe lie to be true because they are the real manufacturing and marketing companies of lie in India. Indians are not their customers and that is why India has elected Modi as their PM in 2014. Ironically, all these fringe political forces lead mostly by their dynast leaders are back in the scene again with the same marketing strategy of selling lies to capture Indian voters. India has grown fast and so are Indian voters. No amount of lie of the dynast is going help the dynast to fulfill his ambition of becoming the Prime Minister of India or can tarnish the honest image and character of the Prime Minister of the country.

Hiranyakashipu in Threta Yuga had failed to sell lie as truth so shall be the dynast who tries to sell lie about Rafale deal risking the internal security of India in the name of attacking Modi.

Kashmir cauldron: A legacy of Nehru’s grand failure

OliveGreens09
-
0
Kashmir cauldron: A legacy of Nehru’s grand failure

Kashmir, Land of Rishi Kashyap, was one of the most important centres of Hinduism since the early centuries of Christian Era. It gave way to Buddhism during the rule of Kushanas but later became known for Kashmir Shaivism after AdiShankara defeated a galaxy of scholars in a series of debates at Sarvjanapith or Sharada Peeth on Mimansa, Vedanta and other Hindu Philosophical subjects, he then opened the Fourth Door of the revered Peeth.

The venerable Sharada Peeth now lies in ruins in Pakistan occupied Kashmir just across the KishanGanga river in Neelam Valley. The corresponding region on our side of the river is known as Keren, Kupwara district. And, it doesn’t stand alone in its ruins, it’s given company by thousands of ancient temples and Mathas destroyed by the Islamic invaders ever since 13 CE when Kashmir finally fell to the iconoclast hordes of the North.

The torment continued till 1846, when Dogra Rajputs under Raja Gulab Singh signed a treaty with the English for ₹75,00,000, after Sikhs lost the First Anglo-Sikh War, to become the Sovereign ruler of erstwhile northern territories of the Sikh Empire Of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh. The territory of Jammu and Kashmir was given to Raja Gulab Singh when Sikhs were unable to pay ₹ 15 million to the East India Company as war reparations for an amount of ₹ 7.5 million. The sale was under the Treaty of Amritsar signed by Raja Gulab Singh, Sir Henry Hardinge, Major Henry Lawrence and Currie on 16 March 1846.
(Ref:Kashmir Legal Documents, Treaty Of Amritsar, archived 5 January, 2002)

Kashmir regained a sense of its culture, its religion and its rich heritage as the seat of Sharada in the years under a Hindu rule after 500 years of tyranny and brutal persecution. The gain was short lived as India gained independence in 1947, but British as a parting gift left it to the Princely States to decide their future and fortune based on their inclination.

Maharaja of Kashmir was under severe pressure by elements inimical to Indian interests who wanted to be part of Pakistan, the new Dominion found on basis of religion. As the Kashmir Valley and the Northern Areas were almost 100% Muslim, the clamour for Pakistan rose as the majority Muslims wanted to join the Theological State of Pakistan. Muslim Conference under Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas, Agha Shaukat Ali were inciting communal violence.(Ref: Korbel, 1966,p.23)
(Ref:Jha, Rival Versions of History,1966)

Meanwhile, predominantly Hindu Jammu wanted to be an inalienable part of the Independent India. Maharaja treading softly chose to linger with his decision or indecision to thwart off attempts by Pakistan and his majority subjects. His misery was compounded by Sheikh Abdullah, whose erstwhile Muslim Conference rechristened National Conference on behalf of Jawahar Lal Nehru was leading protests for Maharaja to step down and pave way for democratic options in the the State Of J&K.

The insidious design of Sheikh was the complete takeover of the State by these protests which were nothing but a conspiracy by Islamists to deny the Hindus of J&K a place of dignity and respect. Nehru, had a soft corner for Sheikh Abdullah and his brand of politics while never tried hide his dislike for the Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh.

This mutual dislike and distrust led to irreconcilable differences between the two points of views. Sardar Patel tried to intervene and cool things down which could pave way for an early Accession of Kashmir into the Union of India.
Maharaja removed his unpopular Prime Minister, Ram Chandra Kak to pacify Sheikh and Nehru. (Ref:Mahatma Gandhi, Collected Works, vol 89)

However, things were moving at a snail’s pace. Pakistan all the while was instigating the Northern Afghan tribes to invade Kashmir in garb of Razakars while supporting their efforts by infiltration of regular soldiers of Pakistan army.

In the bloodbath of the Partition, Kashmir had more than its share. On 18 August, in one of the worst massacres of the Partition, the train Wazirabad-Jammu filled with Hindus and Sikhs was completely butchered by the Lohars and Kashmiris of Nizamabad. (Ref:Chattha,Partition & Its Aftermath, 2009)

Meanwhile, the Pakistan Army was finalising Operation Gulmarg to organise a tribal invasion of Kashmir. All through these developments, the mutual distrust and fears of Maharaja Hari Singh Of ill-treatment by Congress in general and Nehru in particular did not allow any meaningful negotiations to take place. Even the efforts of Sardar Patel failed in this atmosphere of mistrust.(Ref:Jasbir Singh, Roar of the Tiger,2003)

On 30 September 1947, Nehru went ahead and proposed using Plebiscite as a means to settle disputes regarding Princely States. It was uncalled for as there were no issues of other than that of Junagadh and Nizam.(Ref:Dasgupta,War & Diplomacy in Kashmir, 2014)

By October, a full scale rebellion had started in Muzaffarabad, and provisional government of Azad Kashmir was proclaimed. The role of British Officers was dubious during the entire run up to the October invasion by Pakistan. They had actively colluded with Pakistan to weaken the position of J&K State Forces.

Kashmir invasion by regular troops began on 21 October which precipitated the the First Indo-Pak War. Thousands of Pashtuns accompanied the regular army at the prospect of loot and plunder. The invasion forced the Maharaja to accept accession at any terms. VP Menon was the conduit in the negotiations and the Accession was accepted on condition of future ratification by people and Sheikh Abdullah. The condition was not laid by Maharaja but it was a condition programmed to subvert the Unconditional Accession to a conditional one which depended on the whims and fancies of the Muslims of Kashmir rather than the whole population of the State Of J&K.

Indian Army entered the conflict after the Instrument of Accession was signed on 26 October, shockingly Sheikh Abdullah accepted it but termed it ad hoc. Abdullah at the insistence of Nehru was appointed head of emergency administration. (Ref:Sheikh Abdullah, Flames Of Chinar, 1993)

The fighting razed on with heavy losses on both sides, the British had stood down as it was decided in an event a war took place between two dominions.

Even as no resolution of the conflict of was in sight, Nehru referred the conflict to UN Security Council on 31 December 1947. (Ref: Ankit,Britain and Kashmir,2013)

The effect of referring the conflict led to a permanent UN intervention in what was primarily a question of a Princely State deciding its future.

Sheikh Abdullah, protege of Nehru thought of Independence of Kashmir while he was a member of Indian delegation to the UN. He even raised the possibility with the US delegate Warren Austin.

The British were favourably inclined towards Pakistan as was evident from the machinations of Noel-Baker who convinced UN that raiders will not be withdrawn until there’s a change of government in Kashmir.(Ref:Schaffer, Limits Of Influence,2009)
Meanwhile, Pakistani Forces mounted an attack on Skardu, the garrison held on for 7 months before capitulation. All the while Nehru hesitated to launch Army into the conflict with the aim of evicting the raiders and the Pakistani troops. This delay led to complete secession of Northern Areas of the State Of J&K, forever.(Ref:Bajwa, Jammu & Kashmir War, 2003)

Nehru ignored the sane advice of his colleagues and played into the hands of Sheikh Abdullah who wanted to rule J&K and oust the Maharaja.

The UN Security Council headed by China now called upon to withdraw the raiders from Kashmir while India to hold Plebiscite. The entire drama of going to the UN had turned into a veritable farce, where in the legitimate Accession of J&K became a matter of international politics where World Powers were jostling for a space in the hotly contested piece of real estate called Kashmir. (Ref:Dasgupta, War & Diplomacy in Kashmir,2014)

If the war time failures weren’t enough, Nehru went into an Appeasement Mode in form of Sheikh Abdullah and Kashmiriyat. The failure in War was compounded by Nehru’ inability to influence either the world opinion or his neighbours of the culpability of Pakistan in invasion of Kashmir.

The half hearted response to the invasion by Pakistan and its proxies of the State Of J&K especially after Maharaja Hari Singh unconditional acceptance of Accession is the sole reason for this sore to have developed into a festering wound. The inherent Islamic nature of the Kashmir conflict cannot be wished away by invoking some abstract notion of Kashmiriyat, Muslim Conference and later National Conference are all one and the same, both espouse the cause of Muslims of Kashmir Valley and not the State Of J&K as a whole.

Majority in Jammu and Ladakh wanted a complete integration with the Union of India but Nehru failed the people with his Kashmir centric policies which further alienated the Kashmiri people, mostly Muslims. Nehru even suggested a tentative Partition cum Plebiscite plan to Owen Dixon, the UN mediator. (Ref:AG Noorani, The Dixon Plan,Oct 2002)

The idea that Kashmir is different from India is Constitutionalised by Art 370 and Art 35A which gives J&K a separate Constitution, a separate Flag, a separate Criminal Procedure Code and the right decide who shall be a Permanent Resident Of the State Of J&K. The nature of these Constitutional provisions is secessionist and harbour a feeling of being different from the rest of the country.

Hindus and Buddhists of Jammu and Ladakh who were fighting for a complete integration of J&K with India were left high and dry by the policies of Nehru. It’s only the Kashmir Valley which has been the hotbed of Islamic militancy and secessionist activity, other areas including the areas closer to the LoC haven’t seen the kind of violence which has become a regular feature of Kashmir Valley in general and South Kashmir in particular.

More than 80% of the State Of J&K is peaceful, however, the feeling of alienation has steeped deep into the psyche of a common Kashmiri Muslim more than his Muslim counterpart in Kargil or Jammu. The radicalisation has worked well for the new wave of militancy in Kashmir, the lack of political will to do something out of ordinary is the only reason for this cauldron.

The policies of Nehru have to be rolled back if we want to achieve the aim of Complete Integration of J&K.

Mere exhortations of Jamhooriyat, Insaniyat and Kashmiriyat are nothing but empty slogans which have led to the ethnic Genocide of Kashmiri Pandits who today live in inhuman conditions in refugee camps in Jammu, Delhi and are scattered around the country. They have been waiting for last 30 years to be rehabilitated by our governments, the wait it seems is unending, for our politics do not have a coherent response to this abomination of Islamic Terror in Kashmir.

The daily deaths occurring in Kashmir are merely statistics for our policy makers sitting in the plush environs of Lutyens Delhi. The need is a complete overhaul of the policies of the Union of India with respect to Kashmir. The way forward is the removal of Articles 370 & 35A where in a complete integration of the State takes place with the Union.
The criticism stemming from this move cannot be the reason for a festering wound to become a malignant tumour which has the potential to destroy the the very existence of India as a Nation.

Foreign Policy is a temperament that every Indian needs to develop

manasdoon
-
0
Foreign Policy is a temperament that every Indian needs to develop

Before I go ahead, a quick disclaimer that I am adherent supporter of stricter border control, stringent implementation of immigration laws and understand the implication of demographic change. The illegal migrants not only put an extensive strain on our scarce resources, specially when we have more than 1.25 billion people to take care of.

It is the organisational philosophy of the ruling party which has taught me to put the country first and I hope that the following view will be read with an open mind.

Respected Mr. Shah, while addressing a rally at Gangapur in Rajasthan’s Sawai Madhopur district ahead of the state assembly elections comment was made about Bangladeshi’s being a termite which are eating our resources and making it hollow. This might have gained a lot of applauds from the audience but in today’s world where the audience is global, I would urge you not to reference and associate illegal migrants with any country, specially the likes of Bangladesh with which we have friendly relations.

There is ample evidence that lot of illegal migration does happen along our eastern borders, but calling out nationality does leave a long-term impact. While the Prime Minister has called each and every Indian as an ambassador of our great nation it becomes important that all Indians do have some sense of long-term vision of our foreign policy.

Calling out Bangladesh specifically does put our friendly nation in a tight spot where. The hostile block in Bangladesh can easily associate it with Bangla Pride would leave no option with Sheikh Hasina but to defend its national, which every sovereign nation would do. This can also be seen by the statement which was issued by the Bangladeshi government which called this statement as unfortunate. This is exactly the same dilemma which Government of India faces whenever H-1B visa comes up in America. Imagine if any other country would openly call out Indian migrants living who are living illegally in western countries. This would put unwarranted stress on our foreign office and govt on how to manage domestic sentiments and foreign relations together.

A good relation with neighbors is driven when the citizen of two countries have respect for each other’s culture, self-esteem and nationality and not just by good relationship between bureaucrats. It is important not to associate illegal migrants with a country. A prime example would be Australia and New Zealand. Both countries do not see eye to eye on a sport field and have a good amount of banter for each other. And whenever the citizen of either country is indulged in any illegality, the politicians make sure that they focus on failure of law and order, justice and just the illegality of the crime rather than focusing on the ethnicity of the criminal.

Being Bangladeshi is not a crime, but to be an illegal immigrant is a crime. Stroking the Bangladeshi sentiment again and again solves no issue, but creates an unwarranted aggression towards a nation. Many Indians, due to diverse nation of ours, would not able to distinguish between an Oriya from a Kannada, an Assamees from a Bangla leave aside identifying a Bangladeshi national.

Bangladesh, to the best of its capability has supported us in our war against terrorism and at the same time is also dealing with a very radical opposition. Being called out by party president of the ruling government not only makes the things harder for the Hasina government but we would not succeed in winning the support and heart of millions of Bangladeshi people.

Onus of stopping them from entering illegally is on us and their settlements are evidence of failure by our system and government. I humbly request not to callout countries name, specially when they are our friendly country in a neighbourhood where the dragon is looking to exploit any anti-India sentiment and by calling countries like these we only going make things harder for our friendly neighbours.

I hope this will be read as a constructive criticism and the supporters start seeing long term plans and vision and to the government in establish the regional dominance.

1...677678679...889Page 678 of 889