by admin | May 25, 2021 | Interviews
Mahant Satyendra Das
By Saurabh Katkurwar,
Ayodhya : Politics over the Babri dispute, including the hate campaign by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), has only complicated a possible amicable solution, contends Mahant Satyendra Das of the makeshift Ram Mandir at the disputed site here, saying there was no enmity here between the two communities over the issue.
He said the apex court’s verdict was likely to be in favour of constructing the Ram Mandir at the disputed site — where once stood the 16th century Babri Masjid that was demolished by Hindu fundamentalists in 1992 — as evidence “clearly showed” the existence of a temple at the spot in the past.
Satyendra Das said the court’s decision was expected soon, thus facilitating the construction of the “long-cherished” grand mandir at the birthplace of Lord Ram in a year’s time.
“The court’s decision is expected soon. All things are in place and all evidence has been presented by the Hindu side to prove that the Ram Mandir existed before it was demolished to build the Babri Masjid,” Das told IANS in an interview.
“On other hand, Muslims could not produce any evidence. They have sought time from the court till December for translation of some documents into English. So, the decision is expected early next year,” he said.
Citing good relations among people from both communities, he said they would sit together and try to find a solution in case the court’s decision was not acceptable to both sides. “We will find a solution through mutual understanding and talks, but no political party will be allowed to interfere as they have their political motives,” he said.
Satyendra Das slammed the VHP for spreading hatred by using foul language against Muslims when it started its agitation for the temple.
“The VHP used the language that made Muslims sad, angry and distressed. Slogans were like ‘Hindi Hindu Hindustan, Mullah Bhago Pakistan (Hindi Hindu India, Muslims go to Pakistan) or ‘Jo kahega Babri, usko samjho akhri (Whoever says Babri will meet his end). It only worsened the matter,” he said.
At the same time, he said such campaigns did not have any adverse impact on the communal harmony in the city.
“There was not such feeling of hatred towards Muslims among local Hindus. Politicians from both sides abused each other. However, common people did not harbour any such hatred.
“I have been the priest of the temple for 26 years, even during the period of demolition. Despite the pressure from the government, I declined any kind of personal security. I never felt scared of Muslims. There is no feeling of enmity between the people over Mandir-Masjid issues,” he said.
Also, if they fight, it will have negative repercussions on tourism and business here, he added.
Holding that the Allahabad High Court had erred in its order to divide the disputed land into three parts when no one had asked for this, he said: “It is clear that there will not be any division of land (by the Supreme Court).”
The priest said many Muslims had understood that the Ram Mandir once existed at the disputed site and they now had no problem with the construction of the temple, provided land was given for the masjid.
“Many Muslims understand that the masjid was built by demolishing the Ram Mandir in the past. It is proven now. Muslims have started thinking that it (the dispute) should be left in such circumstances. We have asked them to get land for a masjid anywhere they want. The size of the land is a point of contention,” he said.
Satyendra Das said the opponents of Ram Mandir have become less aggressive after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power at the Centre and in Uttar Pradesh.
However, the saffron party would not play a proactive role in the matter such as bringing legislation for the temple to avoid any blot on its image and damage to its electoral calculations, he asserted.
“If the BJP takes up the issue, it will meet with opposition from other parties. They will be called being against Muslims. So the BJP government will never attempt to bring legislation under any circumstances,” he said.
“So the best way to solve the issue is through the court. It would be more suitable,” Satyendra Das concluded.
(Saurabh Katkurwar can be contacted at saurabh.k@ians.in)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
BJP leader Sangeet Som
Noida : BJP leader Sangeet Som has triggered controversy by saying the Taj Mahal is a “blot” on Indian culture and misquoted history by saying that Shah Jahan, builder of the 17th century marble mausoleum, had jailed his father and wanted to wipe out Hindus from the country.
The remarks by the Sardhana MLA in Meerut came after the Uttar Pradesh government removed the Taj Mahal from the list of attractions in its tourism booklet.
“Many people were disappointed that the Taj Mahal was removed from the UP tourism booklet. What history are we talking about? Whose history?
“The creator of the Taj Mahal (Shah Jahan) imprisoned his father. He wanted to wipe out all Hindus from India. If these people are part of our history, then it is very unfortunate.
“I guarantee you that we will change this history,” Som was shown saying in an undated viral video, apparently addressing a public gathering.
TV reports said the BJP leader was addressing a gathering in Meerut.
Som wrongly quoted history saying Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan had jailed his father. It was Shah Jahan’s son Aurangzeb who had dethroned and jailed his father inside the Agra Fort.
The Taj, one of the Seven Wonders of the World and a UNESCO World Heritage site, was built by Shah Jahan in memory of his beloved wife Mumtaz Mahal.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
By Ram Puniyani
Hindu Rashtra is the goal of Hindu nationalist politics, which is also called as Hindutva. In contrast to Hinduism, Hindutva is a politics of in the name of Hinduism with Brahmanism as the core of the same. In nutshell Hindutva is a politics based on Brahmanical values of caste and gender hierarchy. The concept of Hindutva-Hindu nation is a modern one, which developed as a parallel to Islamic nationalism, and in opposition to the concept of Indian Nationalism. Indian nationalism developed during colonial period as the inclusive nationalism of people of all religions, different castes, languages and regions based on values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
Hindu nationalism developed from the section of Hindu landlords and kings with associated clergy on their side. As Indian nationalism was arguing for equalityof all the people, the previous ruling classes, felt threatened socially. Now their social privileges were under threat and so they gave a war cry of ‘Hinduism in danger’. This was a cry which was similar to the slogan of Muslim landlords and nawabs, who when their social status started declining; shouted ‘Islam in danger’.
Hindu Nationalism harped on the ancient glory of the times of Manusmriti and Vedas where the caste system was deeply entrenched in society. While national movement was articulating the need for land reforms, though they could never be properly implemented, Hindu nationalism harped on the earlier systems and was hiding its agenda of social inequality. It called for revival of a glorious period, despite the fact that the condition of women and dalits in those times were abysmal.
The needs of majority of Hindus were expressed in the national movement, which strove for democratic norms and its values got enshrined in Indian Constitution in the form of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The Hindu nationalists were opposed to these values and also the formation of Indian Constitution, which not only stands for liberation of all people from feudal bondages, it is a path of liberation of large sections of Hindus, barring of course the upper caste ones’, who stand to lose their primacy. Most of the Hindus participated in the freedom struggle while a handful of them wedded to ideology of Hindu Rashtra kept aloof from this massive process which was to pave the path of liberation of all the people including majority of Hindus.
Those standing for cause of majority of Hindus opposed the idea of Hindu Rashtra. Ambedkar points out, “It is a pity that Mr. Jinnah should have become a votary and champion of Muslim Nationalism at a time when the whole world is decrying against the evils of nationalism… But isn’t there enough that is common to both Hindus and Musalmans, which if developed, is capable of moulding them into one people?… If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country…’ Compare the Sangh Parivar’s view of nationalism with these two conceptions and draw your own conclusions. (https://www.kractivist.org/tag/history/)
Gandhi the greatest Hindu of his times pointed out, “In India, for whose fashioning I have worked all my life, every man enjoys equality of status, whatever his religion is. The state is bound to be wholly secular”, and, “religion is not the test of nationality but is a personal matter between man and God, and,” religion is a personal affair of each individual, it must not be mixed up with politics or national affairs” (Harijan August 31, 1947)
After Independence, the followers of Hindu nationalists were very small and they kept working for breaking the core pillar of Indian nationalism, Fraternity. They kept spreading hatred against religious minorities. This hatred became the foundation of communal violence in times to come. While majority Hindus were going along with the national policies for building modern India through modern education and modern industries, the Hindu nationalists were criticizing and opposing these policies all through. While the majority of Hindus are faced with the problems of bread butter shelter employment and dignity, Hindu nationalists have been raising the emotive issues to divide the society along religious lines. The result is that in the din of hysteria, in the name of Hinduism and Hindus; they have been sidetracking the real issues of Hindus and substituting them with identity issues.
When BJP led NDA came to power it opened the path of restoring blind faith by introducing courses like Paurohitya (priesthood) and Karmakand (ritualism). Hindus need to be liberated from the clutches of blind faith while these policies are intensifying the retrograde, obscurantist values and undermining the real needs of average Hindus as well.
Last three years (since 2014) Modi-BJP-RSS government has come to power; the identity issues have been hiked up. Attempts have been made to undermine and bypass the issues related to Rights for food, education and health. The attempt was made to grab farmer’s land in the name of land reforms; somehow they could not succeed in that. The attempt to bring in land reform legislation was against interests of Hindus so to say. The labor reforms brought by Hindu nationalists have ruined the lives of workers at large. De-monitisation was propagated as a blow to black money holders, but its real victims have been average Hindus, who have suffered in silence. A series of emotive issues are dominating the social scene, Ram Temple, Bharat mata ki jia, Vande matram, Cow protection, Love Jihad and Ghar vapasi among other. The vigilante culture is getting promoted due to Hindu nationalist agenda. The beneficiaries of these policies have been affluent corporate sector, section of upper and middle classes while average Hindus are suffering the pain and anguish.
The society is suffering as age old values of love and amity are being demolished; the issues of poverty, illiteracy, hunger and health are being relegated to the margins of policy making. All this is against the interests of Hindus at large. Average Hindus are a big victim of this agenda.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
Ram Puniyani
What is called as Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is as such dealing with the personal laws (marriage, divorce, maintenance, custody and inheritance). Our criminal and civil laws are same for all the religious communities but our personal laws have been related and linked to religion. So there are separate laws for Hindus, Muslims and Christians. Ironically Jain, Buddhists and Sikhs are included in Hindus. As such the prevalent laws and norms among diverse Hindu communities are not same for all Hindus as there is large number of variations among them. During the Constituent Assembly debates what finally emerged was that the personal laws should continue as such. In the directive principles of state policy article 44 it was stated that state shall try to evolve uniform common laws for all the citizens of India, irrespective of their religion. The aim was to bring these laws in consonance with concept of justice.
At the same time Nehru called upon B.R. Ambedkar, the law minister, to work for Hindu Code Bill whereby the diverse Hindu communities can be brought under the same umbrella. The idea was that since the Hindus are the largest religious community, if reform process can be initiated among them, the same process can be extended to other communities. Ambedkar formulated the Bill with the understanding that the prevalent laws don’t give equal justice to women. The draft Bill as it emerged was opposed by large section of Hindu community as it was too radical for the prevalent patriarchal norms. Later the Bill was diluted and implemented. The failure to carry through the bill was a setback to the efforts of Ambedkar; he felt dejected and left the Cabinet.
The debate further came to the fore in the wake of Shah Bano Judgment. Here, Shah Bano’s plea for the maintenance after divorce was upheld by the Court. The conservative section of Muslim society stood up to oppose this judgment. Buckling to the pressure Rajiv Gandhi Government passed a Muslim Women (Protection of rights on Divorce) Bill, which bypassed the judgment. With this the Hindu communal forces took up the issue and called for UCC. The main point which was propagated was that Muslims are allowed to marry four times. The unstated understanding behind this was that due to polygamy the population of Muslims will overtake that of Hindus. In real sense neither is the percentage of polygamy more among Muslims nor does polygamy lead to more children as number of children is restricted by the number of women.
The section of Muslims, Muslim leadership and organizations like Muslim Personal law board made it as the issue of minority identity and strongly stood against any demand for UCC. The practices like polygamy, Burqa, triple talaq became the marker of Muslim community. From within the Muslim community many a women’s groups came up which started campaigning for the gender justice and abolition of these practices. As such the focus of reforms came totally on the Muslim community and the need for reforms within Hindus took a back seat in popular imagination. While the Communal forces talked of uniformity in law they neither have any scheme of things nor any document in hand around which they can put this demand. The dominant notion is that UCC will be an exercise of picking up some laws from Hindus, some from Muslims and some from Christians to make the picture complete. The central notion of gender justice is missing in this discourse.
At the same time progressive Women’s movement had also demanded the UCC, but having realized that most of the personal laws which are prevalent in the name of religion are unjust to the women, they retracted and started talking about Gender just code through the process of reforms in the community. So how will UCC come in? Will gender justice be the basis of uniformity? There is a notion that somebody will prepare the laws and these will be brought in, imposed on all the communities. This is ‘top down’ approach. Second is the ‘bottom up’ approach. Here the focus is on reform process being encouraged in the society and the process being taken further given the shape of law. The crucial point here is the process of reform within the community, a process based on gender justice.
Among other, the efforts of Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) in this direction are noteworthy. BMMA has collected 50,000 signatures for abolition of triple talaq. The idea here is to campaign and do the advocacy for such changes, get the laws made on these lines which will strengthen the hands of Judiciary in giving justice to Women in particular. It is campaigns like this which raise the consciousness in the society and the possibility of the occurrence of such things in society go down. In other words such campaigns make the ground on which justice delivery becomes better and easier. The campaign for banning triple talaq is an important step in the direction of reforms based on gender justice.
It is true that communal forces which make loud noise on the topic have no interest in gender justice. Their central agenda is to frighten the Muslim community. Here the crocodile tears of those posing to give justice to Muslim women are more than obvious. Gripped in the patriarchal mind set men dominated Muslim organizations also don’t support such campaigns.
As such one should grant the point that an intimidated community gives secondary importance to issues of gender justice. Their primary concern is security and partly equity in social affairs. Men are the one’s leading the organizations promoting communal politics. Also self proclaimed Law Boards are gripped by patriarchal mind sets, surely it is the women who are struggling for gender parity and one stands with such equality based ‘bottom up’ approach of social change. The opposition to UCC comes mainly due to fear of intimidating communal politics and the values of patriarchy which needs to be overcome.
There is also an argument that the campaigns like abolition of triple talaq will open the door for Hindutva forces to bring in Hindu laws as UCC. That’s a tricky argument and does draw our attention to the dangers in demand for reforming the laws. Still one hopes that in current scenario to bring back the Hindu laws as UCC are unlikely as most of the Women’s groups have realized that the existing Hindu laws are nowhere close to giving justice to Hindu women, so it is unlikely that such an imposition can place in today’s context. It is time that reforms in the community and gender justice become the base of our thinking in this direction.
