by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : By a majority 2-1 judgement that could hasten the process of hearing in the vexed Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a plea for referring the issue to a larger Constitution Bench and referred the case to a three-judge bench to be set up that will begin hearing from October 29.
“We are of the considered opinion that no case has been made out to refer the Constitution Bench judgment of this court in Ismail Faruqui case for reconsideration,” said Justice Ashok Bhushan, reading the judgement on behalf of himself and Chief Justice Dipak Misra, who headed Thursday’s three-judge bench.
The bench was giving its verdict on petitions by some Muslims who had pleaded that the 2010 judgement of the Allahabad High Court splitting the title dispute into three parts be heard by a Constitution Bench as it involved reconsideration of a 1994 ruling by a five-judge bench of the apex court which had held that mosque was not an essential part of Islam to offer namaz.
Thursday’s order assumes significance in view of the fact that a possible early judgement in the case could have implications in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections as the Ayodhya dispute has been a major electoral issue in the last over 30 years.
The petitioners had contended that while deciding the title suit in 2010, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had referred to the observations made in the 1994 judgement by the five-judge bench.
However, in a dissenting ruling, Justice Abdul Nazeer said the judgement in the 1994 Ismail Faruqui case needed reconsideration and the matter should be referred to a larger Constitution bench.
The majority judgement on Thursday held that a newly constituted bench will commence hearing from October 29 on a batch of petitions filed by both the sides — Hindu and Muslim stakeholders — challenging the 2010 judgement trifurcating the disputed site into three parts for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and the original Muslim litigant.
“To conclude, we again make it clear that questionable observations made in Ismail Faruqui’s case as noted above were made in context of land acquisition. Those observations were neither relevant for deciding the suits nor relevant for deciding these appeals,” Justice Bhushan said.
“The issues, which have arisen in these appeals (Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid) are no doubt important issues, which have to be heard and decided in these appeals. Normally appeals arising out of suits are placed before a bench of two judges but looking to the importance of the matter, the present appeals have already been placed before three-judge bench.
“For the aforesaid reasons, we do not agree with the submission of petitioner that these appeals be referred to Constitution Bench of five judges to reconsider the constitution bench judgment in Ismail Faruqui’s case,” Justice Bhushan said in the verdict.
In his minority judgement, Justice Nazeer said “questionable” observations in the Ismail Faruqui ruling were arrived at without undertaking a comprehensive examination and they had permeated the judgement in the main Ayodhya title suit.
He said a Constitution Bench must decide what constitutes essential practices of a religion and thereafter the Ayodhya land dispute should be heard.
Justice Nazeer also said that whether mosque was an essential part of Islam for offering namaz was to be decided considering the religious beliefs and requires detailed consideration.
“It is clear from the aforesaid decisions that the question as to whether a particular religious practice is an essential or integral part of the religion is a question which is to be considered by considering the doctrine, tenets and beliefs of the religion. It is also clear that the examination of what constitutes an essential practice requires detailed examination as reflected in the aforesaid judgments,” Justice Nazeer said.
He also said that the question of the 1994 Ismail Farooqi judgement needed to be referred to a larger Constitution Bench.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court will likely pronounce on Thursday its verdict on the plea by Muslim litigants seeking direction that a larger Constitution bench hear the batch of petitions challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which directed splitting into three parts the disputed site at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh.
The bench of chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer reserved the verdict on the plea by the Muslim litigants seeking reconsideration of the part of 1994 top court judgement which had said that “mosque was not essential to Islam for offering namaz”.
The judgment was reserved on July 20.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in its September 30, 2010, verdict ordered that the disputed site be divided into three parts — one for deity (Ramlala Virajmaan), another for Nirmohi Akhara — a Hindu sect — and third to the original litigant in the case for the Muslims.
The Uttar Pradesh government, which is not a party in the title suit, had questioned the Muslim litigants in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit case for making “belated efforts” seeking a relook at the 1994 Ismail Farooqui judgment that had said that mosques were not an integral part of religious practice of offering prayers.
The State government had said that the Muslim parties did not question the legality of the 1994 judgement till the appeal against 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment on the ownership of the disputed land was taken up for hearing by the top court.
During the course of the hearing Justice Bhushan had observed that nobody was questioning that mosque is essential to Islam, but the question is whether offering namaz in mosque was essential.
The Hindu parties said that reference to 1994 judgement in the hearing of the title suit in no way impacted the 2010 High Court judgment.
The court was told that the birthplace of Lord Ram cannot be shifted to another site, while a mosque with no particular religious significance to the Muslims can be shifted as that will “not affect the right to practice religion by offering ‘namaz’ in other mosques”.
To go to pilgrimage is a practice of religious faith both for the Muslims and the Hindus as well, but for the Muslims, “Mecca and Medina alone are places of particular significance” as pilgrimage centres, but for them such was not the case with Ayodhya/Babri Masjid.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
Ravi Nair, Executive Director of South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre, (SAHRDC), delivering inaugural speech in the Convention on “NRC, Citizenship and Dissent” in New Delhi.
Issue of NRC’s Constitutional validity diverted
By Pervez Bari, Maeeshat.in,
New Delhi: In a resolution passed in a Convention on “NRC, Citizenship and Dissent” conducted by the National Confederation of Human Rights Organizations, (NCHRO), it has been demanded to give Amnesty to 4 million people in Assam, who have been left out of the draft of NRC, (National Register of Citizens), and treat them as Indian Citizens by including them in it; to drop Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016; to stop discrimination on the basis of religion and language; to withdraw terming people as ‘D’ voters as it is unconstitutional; to release the victims incarcerated in Detention Camps.
While in another resolution also adopted at the conclusion of the convention it was demanded to stop arbitrary arrests and to release immediately arrested activists viz. Sudha Bharadwaj, Gautam Naulakha, Vernon Gonsalves, revolutionary poet Varavara Rao (Hyderabad), lawyer and author Arun Ferreira. The resolution demanded to repeal the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act known in short as UAPA.
The overall message that emanated at the conclusion of the convention was that people should come forward and join hands to defeat the fascist designs of the Central and state governments under the BJP. Speakers in the convention by and large concurred that on the NRC issue people must gird up their loins to hit the street as the matter could not be left only at the discretion of the apex court.
The convention was held here on September 23, 2018 in the India International Centre. A host of prominent thinkers, rights activists and Assamese representatives put forth their views while discussing the issues about Assam NRC and arbitrary arrests of activists and intellectuals from across the country. Prof. A. Marx, chairperson of NCHRO, delivered the welcome address.
Three persons presented papers in the convention while others spoke their mind extempore. Adv. A.R. Sikdar, Convener of D’ Voters Legal Aid Committee, NCHRO Assam Chapter), paper was titled: “On the Citizenship and Human Rights Violation in Assam”. While Aminul Haque, State General Secretary, NCHRO Assam Chapter, presented paper on “Note on Preparation / Updation of NRC”, and retired Prof. V.K. Tripathi’s (IIT, Delhi), paper was on “Citizenship issue in Assam: Sons & Daughters of the soil rise together”.
The convention was concerned that the publication of the draft NRC in Assam, is an effort to make millions of people in Assam stateless on the dubious argument that they have no identity papers. Many people born and brought up in the state do not make into the NRC. This looks like a pilot project of the BJP and there are indications that it may use it to divide people on the basis of language or religion on the eve of 2019 general election.
The speakers in the convention raised the strong voice against the Central and state governments under the BJP regime, which have been arresting and imprisoning people who oppose them in different parts of the country. And, it also asserted that the aim of such arrests is to create a sense of fear among the general public by arbitrary arrests, shootouts, spreading of false stories about terrorists and Maoists and using the repressive laws like UAPA and other so-called security laws.
Issue of Constitutional validity of NRC diverted
Meanwhile, Ravi Nair, Executive Director of South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre, (SAHRDC), in his inaugural speech of the Convention alleged that the Supreme Court has diverted the real issue on Assam NRC and directed the authorities to give a second chance to those whose names not included in the final to prove their citizenship.
Nair lamented that the questions first drafted by the two-bench of the apex court to determine the issue of Constitutional validity of the NRC exercise has been sidetracked. Astonishingly the lawyer fraternity has not raised their eyebrows and remained a mute spectator the way Supreme Court has arbitrarily jumped the process and come to a thing which was to come much later.
Recalling late socialist leader, Ram Manohar Lohia’s quote: “Zinda qaumein Kisi mudde ke liye panch saal intezaar nahi kiya karteen”, Nair said the people need to hit the streets as without this struggle one cannot compel the parliament and government for decisions. He further quoted: “Jeena Hai to Marna Seekho, Qadam Qadam par Marna Seekho”.
Questioning the NRC exercise, retired Prof. V.K. Tripathi (IIT, Delhi), said the 2003 amendment (Section 3) in the Citizenship Act 1955 in 2003 says anyone (i) born between 1950 and 1987, irrespective of the citizenship of the parents, is Indian by birth; (ii) born between 1987 and 2003, is Indian if one parent is Indian citizen. The NRC must take this into account. The Indians who go abroad and work for few years get the citizenship of that country. As such we must accord at least the same right to people whose generations have lived here. In fact the borders are made porous for the working classes, he added.
Manisha Bhalla, a senior Journalist who was part of Fact Finding Team which visited Assam for 15 days before the publication of 2nd Draft of NRC, said the state is currently stalked by insecurity, uncertainty and trauma. There is grave possibility of huge fissures which will decisively impact the social and political fabric of this sensitive and strategic border state of Assam in the Northeast of India in the days to come.
Ms Bhalla said the crisis is centred on two issues: the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill first tabled in Parliament on July 15, 2016. The BJP backs the Bill. It is being vehemently opposed by All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and its political front, the Atom Gina Parisad (AGP), which is in alliance with the ruling regime led by the BJP in the state. The NRC is backed by both the BJP and the AGP.
Ms Bhalla revealed Prafulla Mahanta, founder-president of AASU and twice chief minister of the state, told the fact finding team in Guwahati on June 29: “The AGP will break the alliance with the BJP if it pushes the Citizenship Amendment Bill.”
The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, seeks to change the classification of “illegal migrants‟. The Bill will amend the Citizenship Act, 1955, to provide citizenship to “illegal migrants‟ from Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan, who are of Sikh, Parsi, Buddhist, Jain, or Christian origin. Muslims, or its various sects and communities, are not included in this Bill, including those who are facing persecution in Pakistan, such as the Shias and Ahmediyas.
Manisha Bhalla, a senior Journalist, addressing the NCHRO convention.
D-voter
Ms Bhalla informed that the concept of D-voter is only found in Assam. The concept of “D-Voter‟ is completely illegal. It has no place in the Indian Constitution. There can be citizens and non-citizens but not doubtful citizens.
Earlier, it was the complainant who used to bear the burden of proof, but, now, the burden of proof has shifted on to the accused. People complain that they have not received notices. Most have no access to internet. If, thereby, they miss the hearing, since they have not got a documentary/written notice, they can be declared “D-Voter‟ ex-parte.
“In majority of the cases, we found people being declared foreigners ex-parte. And therefore, they end up languishing in jails in the name of detention camps. We also found that people were declared foreigners but they have not been provided with a copy of the judgement so that they can challenge the verdict in superior courts”, Ms Bhalla stated.
E.M. Abdul Rahiman, National Executive Council Member, Popular Front of India, was of the view that until and unless the people of Assam rise to the occasion to fight out the NRC issues nothing can be done. It is not only Assam issue as it is wider matter of citizenship which may later on affect other states also. There should be a network support system within Assam to help out the aggrieved people, whose names have been excluded from the draft of NRC, to overcome the gigantic problem. It is not a humanitarian crisis but a social and political problem created by vested forces. A political agenda can only be defeated by a very vibrant, sensible and active movement which is missing in Assam at present, he opined.
Prof. Apoorvanand of Delhi University while putting forth his views, said BJP’s intentions are not any secret as its president Amit Shah dubbing all the 4 millions as “ghuspetiay’( infiltrators) which is against the ruling of the Court. He said BJP chief’s statement cannot be taken lightly as he is not a fringe leader and holds considerable clout. Recalling the speeches of Narendra Modi during run up to 2014 general election, he said first they (BJP) coined “Bangladeshi” term and now” Ghuspaitiay” as BJP’s policies will push the country on the path of disintegration. He said now demands for NRC are being raised in whole of the north east.
It is not Indian but Assamee nationalism
Dr. Tasleem Ahmad Rehmani, National Secretary of SDPI, said Assam NRC is purely a political issue to deprive Muslims and tribals from political power. He revealed that the inhabitants of Assam are not interested and concerned about Indian nationalism but their focal point is Assamee nationalism.
When the movement started the people of Assam wanted all non-Assamese, linguistic and religious, to be driven out of the state. However, Dr. Rehmani said, with the entry of saffron brigade in the political scenario in Assam and other N-E states the ongoing controversy with connivance was given a communal colour making it a Hindu-Muslim issue. He said myopic policies of RSS and BJP are pushing India towards disintegration with North Eastern states drifting away from the Indian nationalism
Aminul Haq, State general secretary, NCHRO Assam Chapter, also said the local staff involved in NRC exercise was inspired by Assami nationalism sentiments. It is an effort to make millions of people in Assam stateless on the dubious argument that they have no identity papers, he added.
Haq said with huge anomalies in the final draft of NRC lakhs of genuine Indian Citizens had not got equal opportunities in verification process. Many of the officers engaged for NRC duties misuse their quasi judicial power to exclude maximum names from the final draft. This happened mostly in the name of scrutiny (special verification and quality check). After the publication of final draft when excluded applicants want to know the causes of their exclusion as per the norms of NRC, the grassroots level officers could not give them proper reply. In many cases they give some absurd and arbitrary replies to their queries. In maximum cases the excluded applicants couldn’t be satisfied with the answers given by the NRC authorities.
Meanwhile, Dr. Abul Bashar (State president, NCHRO Assam Chapter), and Adv. A. Mohammed Yusuff (National Secretary, NCHRO), Adv. Amit Srivastav (Programme Convener, NCHRO), and Ashok Kumari (Delhi Chapter president, NCHRO) also spoke in the convention.
Swati Sinha (Joint Convener, NCHRO) conducted the proceedings while Adv. Ansar Indori, State General Secretary, NCHRO Delhi Chapter proposed a vote of thanks.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance, 2018 on the grounds that it invokes penal provisions against a class of people based on their religious identity.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance, 2018 — commonly referred to as triple talaq ordinance — abolishes the practice of triple talaq and makes its punishable.
Founded in 1925, the Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema ia a religious organisation of the Sunni Muslim scholars and clerics in Kerala.
Contending that the triple talaq ordinance is violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner organisation has said that it has national ramification as it has introduced penal provision punishing a class of persons based on religious identity.
The Jamiathul Ulema has contended that the ordinance is “causative of grave public mischief, which, if unchecked, may lead to polarisation and disharmony in society”.
The petitioner organisation has taken exception to the word “unabated” in the ordinance, which says that despite the Supreme Court holding the practice of triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) as unconstitutional, it is continuing “unabated”.
Describing the use of word “unabated” as “entirely whimsical”, the petitioner organisation termed it “misleading, inept and improper”.
It said that it is doubtful that anybody, including the Central government, has any idea of all-India statics on the occurrence of triple talaq across te country prior to the Supreme Court judgment.
It has contended the fact that the matter is pending before the Rajya Sabha is “reason to await the outcome of the matter, not basis to accelerate its coming into force by an emergency ordinance”.
The petitioner organisation have contended that the real thrust of the ordinance is not abolition of triple talaq but punishment of Muslim husbands.
Section 4 of the ordinance imposes a maximum sentence of three-year imprisonment when a Muslim husband pronounces triple talaq. The offence is also cognizable and non-bailable as per Section 7.
“Creation of an offence may be the prerogative of the legislature. The government is duty-bound to act reasonably and sensibly, not merely in administrative matters but also in sovereign matters,” says the petition, contending that to its knowledge, “there is no informed assessment or study that forms basis for the Central government to have created this offence”.
“Some isolated instances of the practice that have occurred after the top court judgment does not imply that a penal provision is required to be immediately enacted to prevent the practice,” the petition has contended.
Having said this, the petitioner Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema has contended that the ordinance under challenge is “patently unconstitutional and has immediate propensity to deprive Muslim men and women of their fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution”.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Books
By Mohammed Shafeeq,
Book: Shahryar: A Life in Poetry; Author: Rakhshanda Jalil; Publisher: HarperCollins; Price: Rs 599; Pages: 226
Shahryar (1936-2012) was arguably one of the best Urdu poets in the post-Independence era. Emerging as a poet in the 1960s, when progressiveness was drawing to a close and modernism was sweeping the literary scene, he carved a niche for himself even as he refrained from identifying with either of the two groups.
In this biography, writer, critic and literary historian Rakhshanda Jalil has brilliantly captured different aspects of Shahryar’s life, his works in the backdrop of “taraqqi pasand” (progressive) versus “jadeed parast” (modernist), his unique yet simple style of poetry and also his brief tryst with films.
Tracing Shahryar’s journey as a poet, the author demonstrates how he evolved a set of symbols, images and metaphors that, while seemingly personal, transcended the self and the individual to speak of universal concerns.
She believes that the brevity and succinctness in his description, and the softness and evenness in his tone, set apart Shahryar’s poetry from his contemporaries.
The author notes that unlike many Urdu poets, who used to coin new expressions with the use of hyphenated words, Shahryar’s short poems used to catch the reader’s attention with a simplicity that is startling and direct. For instance:
Bechi hai sehr ke haathon/Raaton ki siyahi tumne/Kii hai jo tabahi tumne/Kisi roz sazaa paoge (You have sold the ink of the night/To the morning/You will be punished some day/For the devastation you have wrought).
With her translation of Shahryar’s best ghazals and nazms in English, the author has introduced his poetry to a new generation while evaluating his considerable body of works.
According to her, the individualism and romanticism of Shahryar’s early years, as evident in his first collection of poetry, “Ism-e-Azam” (The Highest Name) published in 1965, soon gave way to an acutely felt concern for the world around him in subsequent collections such as “Satwan Dar”‘ (The Seventh Doorway, 1969) and “Hijr ke Mausam” (Seasons of Separation, 1978).
The author believes that while refusing to fully adopt the vocabulary of the revolutionary poets favoured by the progressives, he refused to write merely to satisfy his own creative self or ease the burden of his soul, thus differing sharply from “jadeed parast” as well.
The book also encompasses the early life of Kunwar Akhlaq Muhammad Khan, who later took “Shahryar” as his nom de plume. Under pressure to follow in the footsteps of his father and join the police department, this Rajput boy from western Uttar Pradesh left the family home in 1955 and lived with Khalilur Rahman Azmi, his friend and mentor who spotted his poetic talent and encouraged him to write.
Shahryar had begun writing poetry in the final year of his BA at Aligarh Muslim University.
The book also refers to the legendary rivalry between Shahryar and Rahi Masoom Raza. Both were contenders for the coveted post of lecturer at Aligarh University and it was Shahryar who bagged it while Raza moved to Mumbai where he earned name and fame in the film and television industry.
With his debut collection of poems “Ism-e-Azam”, Shahryar established himself in the world of Urdu poetry and a flattering review by Gopi Chand Narang gave him the sort of international recognition that few poets of his time could hope for.
The author observes that while Shahryar wrote only in Urdu, there was nothing in his oeuvre that makes an explicit call to any one community. “If ever there is a writer who can most effectively debunk the absurd misconception that Urdu is the language of Muslims or the cultural repository of Muslims alone, it is indeed Shahryar.”
In a literary career spanning five decades, Shahryar always managed to remain topical and his poetry could always be termed “the call of the time”. A self-confessed Marxist, Shahryar was, however, not an atheist.
The author believes that Shahryar’s film lyrics have caused him as much harm as the fame they brought his way. While his songs made him a household name and enabled his words reach all nooks and corners, it must also be acknowledged that in the popular imagination, he became etched as a lyricist and not a poet of gravitas and merit.
“That four films should cast such a long shadow over a poet who produced six highly regarded volumes of poetry and two different editions of critically acclaimed collected works is, to my mind, an injustice to a poet of Shahryar’s calibre,” the author concludes.
(Mohammed Shafeeq can be contacted at m.shafeeq@ians.in)
—IANS
