English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Three Mosques: “Muslim Generosity Would Electrify Hindu Masses”

Published

on

babri-masjid

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]By: Saeed Naqvi

The 25th anniversary of Babari Masjid demolition will rekindle debate: why was it demolished, historical wrongs, Mandal Commission inviting a Mandir backlash, Hindu yearning for a Ram temple and so on. But the clinching evidence Judges of the Supreme Court, steeped in the case, might find interesting is a video recording of celebrations at ground zero, the site of the demolition soon after the traumatic event.

The first scene opens with a number of girls in a circle, clapping in unison and singing a song with the following refrain:

“Ab yeh jhanda lehraayega

saarey Pakistan pe”

(Now this flag will flutter over Pakistan)

The next scene shows a group of young men, delirious with excitement wearing bandanas around their heads, carrying lances. They lunge towards the camera, shouting:

“Bomb girega Pakistan pe

Bomb girega Pakistan pe”

(Bombs will fall on Pakistan)

Third scene consists of a handsome Swami with wavy hair. In his booming voice he spells out:

“Abhi hamein Lahore jana hai,

Rawalpindi jana hai…..”

The final scene has the late Bal Thackeray predictably announcing in very matter of fact tones, from his Mumbai residence:

“We are going to build the Ram Temple, and if the Muslims don’t like it, they can go to Pakistan.”

There was no mention of Ram or a temple, only a frenetic triumphalism over Pakistan. In the context of the demolition of a mosque which carried the name of the first Moghul Emperor, the celebrations appeared to settle multiple scores against a long chain of Muslim “marauders” and Muslims who mushroomed under their auspices and who eventually walked away with an independent country. Worse, they left behind almost as many of their co religionists in this country.

No one ever disputed the primacy of Ram in the Hindu belief system, but the demolition of the mosque was an instance of faith being placed in the service of politics. L.K. Advani’s 1990 Rath Yatra was designed to neutralize caste divisions aggravated by the Mandal Commission. Its purpose was to compact the Hindu caste pyramid teetering because of excessive exposure to identity Politics. The mosque and by extension, the Muslim, was to be the foil in this primary enterprise. This was the cement that would be filled into the crevices to stabilize the pyramid.

In this masonry for compacting Hindu society, heavy collateral damage would have to be borne by the Muslim. This collateral damage, in other words, was to be no meager side show. The scaling down of a thousand years of civilization associated with the “invaders” would be cathartic, even exhilarating for the majority. By that very token, it would be degrading for the largest minority ever in history.

Pakistan had become a part of the country’s internal politics even before the 1965 war when Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri upturned Nehruvian secularism by seeking RSS volunteers for Civil Defence Duty. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister after Shastri, felt the heat when she lost the 1967 elections in eight states.

Even during electoral adversity in the north, Indira Gandhi felt reasonably secure so long as her charisma lasted in the southern states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. When these states were lost in 1982, she realized that the Congress rule could not be secured in the north without recourse to a shade of saffron. This shade she brought into play during the 1983 Jammu elections, harnessing Hindu sentiment against the Khalistan movement next door.

The 404 seats in a House of 533 that Rajiv Gandhi won in 1984, after Indira Gandhi’s murder, were interpreted by the Congress as Hindu consolidation against minority communalism. From the Sikh minority to the Muslim minority was an easy conceptual leap.

It was a moment of reckoning for the BJP, smarting with only two seats in 1984. It could not allow the Congress to steal the Hindu platform. Congress too would not give up the advantage. In 1986 it arranged for the locks of the Ram temple to be opened, having earlier pleased the obscurantist Muslims by upturning the Shah Bano judgement which provided maintenance to a divorced woman.

Then Rajiv Gandhi began the 1989 election from Ayodhya with a promise that he would usher in Ram Rajya. He allowed bricks to be laid for the temple’s foundation, exactly where the VHP had planned to.

To win this competition in Hindu radicalism, Advani’s Rath Yatra provided the BJP with an occasion to raise the stakes beyond the Congress reach. While Rajiv stood on a saffron platform, he was careful not to overtly offend the Muslims.

P.V. Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister reversed this ambidextrous approach. He slept while the Kar Sevaks pulled down the mosque. There was no ambiguity now. It was straightforward Hindu-Muslim polarization.

And now as 2019 elections approach, what should the Muslims do? My mother, who died three years ago, had accompanied my wife, daughter and me to Ayodhya to see the 1989 Shilanyas (bricklaying). She lived in Lucknow and we were there only for two days. This way, she thought, she would see more of us and also inform herself about the mosque in the news. After watching the grotesque drama this is what she said:

“A mosque of “fitna” (conflict) is not an auspicious place of worship. In any case, a Muslim can spread his prayer mat anywhere in the direction of Kaaba and say his namaz. A Hindu consecrates his idols in a temple.”

Muslims should, as an act of generosity, gift the disputed mosques in Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura. “Hindu masses would be ecstatic.” I chose not to argue.

Maulana Kalbe Sadiq of the Personal Law Board, echoes the same sentiment.

“Even if Muslims win the case in the Supreme Court, they should make a gift of the land to the Hindus.” The Supreme Court can be the guarantor that communalism would not claim more monuments.

Masses will be electrified and communalists on all sides will be defeated, he says.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Centre sends 3 letters to Punjab government after anti-drug activist’s killing

The Centre has sought reports from the Punjab government on three incidents linked to allegations surrounding drug-related activities, including the killing of anti-drug activist Parvinder Singh Jhota.

Published

on

Amit Shah

The Union government has sought detailed explanations from the Punjab government regarding three incidents linked to concerns over drug-related activities in the state. The move follows the killing of anti-drug activist Parvinder Singh Jhota in Mansa and comes amid renewed scrutiny of the state’s drug problem and law-and-order situation.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sent three letters to the Punjab chief secretary on October 16, with copies to the state’s director general of police. The communications sought information about Jhota’s killing, the fatal attack on Bikramjit Singh in Gurdaspur district, and the reported suicide of Gulzar Singh in September.

What the Centre’s three letters cover

The first letter concerned the October 13 killing of Parvinder Singh, popularly known as Jhota, who was known for raising concerns about drug abuse and alleged illegal sales of intoxicating substances in Punjab.

The ministry sought a comprehensive factual report on the incident and details of the steps taken by the state government following his death. It also asked about action taken on the Union government’s Vision Document on Narcotics Control for 2026–2029.

The document outlines measures to strengthen anti-narcotics enforcement, including dedicated anti-narcotics task forces, financial investigations, prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and action against transnational drug networks.

The second letter concerned the attack in Mari Panwan village in Gurdaspur district, in which Bikramjit Singh died and Nishan Singh and Gurmukh Singh were critically injured.

According to accounts cited in the report, the three men had objected to alleged drug peddling in their village before being attacked with sharp-edged weapons. However, police have denied that the incident was motivated by drug-related disputes and said an investigation was underway. Bikramjit’s relatives have also disputed the police account that the murder followed a dispute over a mobile phone.

The third letter sought details about Gulzar Singh’s death on September 8. The ministry referred to reports that he had raised concerns about the availability of synthetic drugs and had faced pressure and harassment from the local village panchayat. These allegations form part of the circumstances the Centre has asked the state government to examine and report on.

Amit Shah raises questions over Punjab’s law and order

Union Home Minister Amit Shah also raised concerns about the situation in Punjab, referring to the challenges posed by drugs, gangsterism and organised crime.

Questioning the Bhagwant Mann-led government over public safety, Shah called for action against the drug trade, protection for young people and strict measures against criminals.

The Centre’s requests place the three incidents under scrutiny, although the alleged links between the attacks or deaths and opposition to drug-related activities remain subject to the specific circumstances and investigations in each case.

Continue Reading

India News

Mallikarjun Kharge seeks all-party meeting with PM Modi on delimitation

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the fourth time, seeking an all-party meeting on delimitation. He also flagged the 64-day delay in proroguing Parliament’s Monsoon Session.

Published

on

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has renewed his demand for an all-party meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss the government’s proposed delimitation exercise, arguing that political parties must have adequate time to examine the proposals before they are finalised for consideration in Parliament.

In a letter to the prime minister on Friday, October 16, Kharge also raised concerns over what he described as an unprecedented delay in formally proroguing Parliament’s Monsoon Session. He said 64 days had passed since the session was adjourned sine die on August 13, while both Houses were yet to be prorogued.

Kharge seeks wider consultations on delimitation

Kharge said he had first written to Modi on April 11, requesting an all-party meeting before the government introduced a constitutional amendment bill concerning delimitation.

According to the Congress president, the government did not convene the requested meeting before making the bills public late on April 14 and calling a special session of Parliament on April 16.

The constitutional amendment bill on delimitation subsequently failed to secure the required two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha on April 17.

Kharge said he had again written to the prime minister on July 16 and August 27, reiterating his demand for consultations. In his latest letter, he made the request for the fourth time, asking the government to discuss its revised proposals with political parties before finalising them for parliamentary consideration.

The Congress chief stressed that political parties should receive sufficient time to discuss the proposals among themselves and with other stakeholders.

He also cautioned the government against attempting to push through another far-reaching constitutional amendment without adequate deliberation.

Congress raises concern over Parliament session

Apart from delimitation, Kharge highlighted the delay in proroguing the Monsoon Session, which was adjourned sine die on August 13.

He described the 64-day gap as unprecedented and linked the issue to concerns about possible government plans to bring fresh delimitation proposals before Parliament.

Prorogation formally ends a parliamentary session. Kharge’s letter raised the issue while urging the government to ensure wider political consultation before proceeding with any new legislative proposals.

Jairam Ramesh shares Kharge’s letter

Congress general secretary for communications Jairam Ramesh also drew attention to the letter by sharing it on X.

Ramesh said Kharge had written to Modi about the delay in proroguing the Monsoon Session and the possibility of further government moves on delimitation.

The Congress’s latest demand centres on securing time for political parties to examine the government’s proposals before they are finalised for consideration in Parliament.

Continue Reading

India News

Abhijeet Dipke detained ahead of CJP’s national flag march in Delhi

Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke was detained by Delhi Police on October 16, 2026, shortly before a planned national flag march. The proposed rally followed the judicial custody of two CJP members who had waved the Tricolour at Jantar Mantar.

Published

on

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke was detained by Delhi Police on Friday, October 16, shortly before he was due to participate in a planned national flag march in the capital.

According to the report, police personnel reached Dipke’s residence and detained him just minutes before the proposed ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ rally. The march was planned in Delhi amid tensions over restrictions on demonstrations and the detention of CJP members.

The latest detention marks the second time Dipke has been detained within a week. He was previously detained after arriving at Delhi’s airport from Mumbai for a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations of manipulation during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Why was the national flag march planned?

One of the main triggers for the planned march was the judicial custody of two CJP members, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka.

The two were sent to five-day judicial custody after entering Jantar Mantar while waving the national flag on October 13. The incident occurred a day after the historic protest site was denotified as a protest location, according to the report.

The proposed march was called ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’. CJP planned the rally amid its continuing opposition to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral irregularities.

The allegations concerning voter-list manipulation remain allegations and should not be presented as established findings.

Police had issued a notice before the detention

Before detaining Dipke, Delhi Police personnel visited his residence and served him a notice advising him against holding the proposed march.

The notice was issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), according to the report. It stated that prohibitory orders were in force in the Connaught Place area.

The notice also cited the absence of permission from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) for the proposed Tiranga Yatra. It warned that proceeding with the march despite the restrictions would be considered a violation of the law.

The detention came amid heightened attention to the proposed gathering in central Delhi and the dispute over whether the planned march could proceed under the prevailing restrictions.

A second detention in a week

Dipke’s latest detention followed his earlier detention at Delhi airport after he arrived from Mumbai for a planned protest over the SIR exercise and allegations concerning voter-list manipulation.

The latest episode adds to the ongoing confrontation between CJP and the authorities over its proposed demonstrations. The immediate context for the October 16 march was the judicial custody of two party members following their appearance at Jantar Mantar with the national flag.

The report does not establish that the allegations of electoral manipulation are proven, nor does it provide a final judicial determination of the dispute surrounding the planned march.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com