by admin | May 25, 2021 | Books
By Sheikh Qayoom,
Book: Aryabhata Clan; Author: Sudipto Das; Publisher: Niyogi Books; Price: Rs 595; Pages: 476
Spread across four parts, the narrative of Sudipto Das’ second book, “Aryabhata Clan”, starts like a typical crime thriller with the kidnapping of the protagonist, Kubha.
The book provides evidence that tackling sensitive and complicated topic like “Islamic terrorism” has its inherent risks. It is universally accepted that terrorism has no religion and yet the adrenaline triggered recourse to religion by Shamsur Ali, the terror mastermind of the book, would have us believe that the thick line between religion and terrorism does not exist.
Had the author, an alumnus of IIT-Kharagpur, not amplified the canvas of his narrative to encompass “Islamic terrorism”, we surely would have a plot for another James Bond blockbuster, what with all the international intrigues, and the beach volley played between India’s RAW and Pakistan’s ISI,
The oft repeated, misplaced references to the history of Islam by the terrorists can, however, act like a double edged sword in the book at hand.
“Rape can work like a dope for depraved young people wishing to exert their manhood, that too in a way approved by Islam,” asserts Shamsur Ali to Kubha, the hostage picked up by the terrorists from JNU, showing the levels of perversion to which a sick mind can stoop.
Kubha, however, wonders at the irony that the place where she is raped again and again is called the “Eight Heavens” by her abductors. Invoking the holy Battle of Badr led by the Prophet of Islam, the indoctrination of the terror recruits is done by reference to Islamic history.
Proving beyond doubt that his terror mastermind is no humble follower of any religion, the author’s “iconic Bangladeshi professor of death and destruction” does not hide his hatred for other religions as well.
“Jesus had spent a good amount of his growing years in Kashmir studying Buddhism. Many of the teachings of Jesus had surreptitious similarities with that of the Buddhism. If we want to eliminate all traces of Hinduism and Buddhism from the earth, we can’t spare Christianity.”
Gory, frightening and lunatic, the terror protagonist of the author will make you tremble at the sheer thought of waging a brutal war against the world in the name of fighting for peace.
It is precisely because of this realisation that an army general in Mardan tells Parush, the Aryabhata Clan’s superhero against terrorism: “Not the time for beach volley between the RAW and the ISI. You can give a press release blaming the murder on RAW and we can blame the ISI. But, do you realise that someone is fooling both the RAW and the ISI?”
The author takes the reader on a roller coaster ride to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan and to the motifs of Khushawari rugs. Finally, Shamsur Ali is hunted down by Parush and Rahul, the terror fighters of the Aryabhata Clan.
As to where and how the final battle between peace and terror would be fought, the author has few answers. Sadly perhaps, the words of Kubha sum up the spirit of the narrative: “There would be more Kubhas like me. There would be many more Aryabhata Clans like ours. We will not allow any apocalypse to happen anywhere in the world, in life and in death.”
Sudipto Das has done well to portray the design that emerges as terrorists plot to strike innocent people in the world. A word of caution must be added to the oft-repeated reference to Islam and its history by the terror pushers in “Aryabhata Clan”.
Islam has as little to do with terrorism as any other religion we follow. In fact, the narrative proves that the first victim of the terrorists’ plan is the religion they claim to follow.
(Sheikh Qayoom can be contacted at sheikh.abdul@ians.in)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Law Commission has suggested certain changes in marriage and divorce laws that should be uniformly accepted in the personal laws of all religions, while holding that the uniform civil code “is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage” in the country.
The Commission, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice B.S. Chauhan whose tenure ended on Friday, has come out with a 185-page consultation paper on “Family Law Reforms’ said a unified nation does not necessarily need to have “uniformity”.
It said the best way forward was to preserve diversity of personal laws even while ensuring they did not contradict fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Saying, secularism cannot contradict the plurality prevalent in the country, the Commission said in the paper that: “Cultural diversity cannot be compromised to the extent that our urge for uniformity itself becomes a reason for threat to the territorial integrity of the nation.”
Suggesting amendments in marriage and divorce in personal laws of all religion, the Commission advocated making adultery a ground for divorce for men and women and to simplify divorce procedure.
“While all family laws include adultery as a ground for divorce it is important to ensure that the provision is accessible to both spouses,” the paper said.
The Commission said the filing of Section 498A IPC (dowry harassment) cases was actually done by women wanting a quick exit from a difficult marriage.
It suggested that ‘Nikahnamas’ should make it clear that “polygamy is a criminal offence” and this should apply to “all communities”.
The paper stated: “This is not recommended owing to merely a moral position on bigamy, or to glorify monogamy, but emanates from the fact that only a man is permitted multiple wives, which is unfair.”
It favoured fixing the marriageable age for boys and girls at 18 years so that they marry as equals, and said that the insistence on recognising different ages of marriage between consenting adults must be “abolished”.
“If a universal age for majority is recognised, and that grants all citizens the right to choose their governments, surely, they must then be also considered capable of choosing their spouses.
“For equality in the true sense, the insistence on recognising different age of marriage between consenting adults must be abolished.
“The age of majority must be recognised uniformly as the legal age for marriage for men and women alike, as is determined by the Indian Majority Act, 1875, i.e. eighteen years of age.
“The difference in age for husband and wife has no basis in law as spouses entering into a marriage are by all means equals and their partnership must also be of that between equals,” stated the report.
The Commission suggested that Parliament should enact a law to address the issue of legitimisation of children born of live-in relationships that fail to reach the threshold of a deemed marriage.
“Further, such children should be entitled to inherit the self acquired property of their parents,” it said.
It is urged that the legislature should first consider guaranteeing “equality within communities” between men and women, rather than “equality between communities”, the report, released on August 31 stated.
“This way some of the differences within personal laws which are meaningful can be preserved and inequality can be weeded out to the greatest extent possible without absolute uniformity,” it added.
The Commission said “efforts have to be made to reconcile our diversity with universal and indisputable arguments on human rights”.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
Yogi Adityanath
Lucknow : Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Saturday said the date for construction of a grand Ram temple will be set by Lord Ram himself.
Speaking at a conclave in the state capital, organised by a Hindi newspaper, the monk-turned-politician said what has to happen at a given time will happen at that time only. “No body can stop if once it is ordained by the gods.”
He also pointed out how previous state governments were afraid of visiting the temple town of Ayodhya and added that he has visited the holy town, so that it can be developed to the level it should be.
To a question on education, the Chief Minister said for years a section of the society was being deprived of modern and technical education and his government is committed to changing it.
“Children of a specific section are being deprived of modern education and restricted to ‘mazhabi shiksha’ (religious education). We have decided to change it and hence we have initiated modernization of Madarsas,” Adityanath said.
He also trashed the efforts of the opposition to gang up against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and said this “mahagathbandhan” (grand alliance) would never work as there is confusion over who would be its leader.
He also refuted charges that the BJP pursues politics of caste and community and pointed out that the mantra of BJP governments was only and only development. “Welfare of the people and comprehensive development drives the BJP government,” he added.
Adityanath also rubbished charges of government laxity in the Deoria incident where girls and women were sexually abused in a government-run shelter home. “We acted immediately and the guilty have been brought to book.”
Claiming that the BJP government had rolled out several thousand jobs for the unemployed youth, Adityanath went on to say that the state government would be recruiting 1.37 lakh teachers and 1.62 lakh police personnel.
Strict action against criminals has yielded good results after which investment worth crores of rupees has come to Uttar Pradesh, he added.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Friday quashed an FIR lodged in Hyderabad against Malayalam actress Priya Prakash Varrier, who shot to fame following her ‘wink song’ ‘Manikya Malaraya Poovi…’ from the film ‘Oru Addar Love.’
The top court also barred registration of any further FIR against her in connection with the same controversial song in the film which is still under production.
Observing that no case is made out for an offence of hurting any religious sentiments, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said there was “no sign of blasphemy”.
The court said: “It (song) does not express any calculated tendency to insult or upset moral or public order, no sign of blasphemy.”
Quashing the FIR, the court in its order said, “We don’t find that the said provision (Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code) is attracted.”
“You have no other business but to file cases” CJI Misra said as respondent said that the picturisation of the song hurt the sentiments of the community and winking was prohibited in Islam.
Respondent in the case said that the contentious scene where Priya winks at a boy features the Mappila lyrics — a traditional Muslim song from the Malabar region of Kerala — that celebrates the love between Prophet Mohammed and his first wife Khadija.
Priya Varrier’s lawyer Harris Beeran told the court that the folk song was in existence since 1978 and is being sung ever since.
Earlier the top court had on February 21 stayed all criminal actions by Telangana and Maharashtra against Priya Varrier and restrained all other states from taking any action based on the song ‘Manikya Malaraya Poovi…’.
Some Muslim activists had lodged an FIR against the team of ‘Oru Adaar Love’ in Hyderabad under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code on February 14 for hurting religious sentiments.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions, Politics
By Amulya Ganguli,
If Rahul Gandhi participates in the meeting called by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to discuss the country’s future, he can take the opportunity to seek clarifications on the organisation’s worldview. The replies by the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, to the Congress president’s questions cannot but have an impact on the outfit’s future in case a clear picture emerges about its attitude towards the various communities.
For instance, did K.B. Hedgewar, who founded the RSS in 1925, call the Muslims “yavan-snakes”? If so, is this still the view of the organisation or has there been a change? A related question can be on Hedgewar’s successor, M.S. Golwalkar’s categorisation of the Muslims as “Internal Enemies No.1”.
It is possible to link these uncharitable assessments of India’s largest minority community to V.D. Savarkar’s thesis that the only true sons of the soil are the Hindus since India is both their “pitribhu” (fatherland) and “punyabhu” (holy land).
In contrast, such organic and emotive connections cannot be ascribed to the minorities whose pitribhu may be India, but their punyabhu is in Makkah or Rome. It is presumably because of this reason that Golwalkar described Christians as “Internal Enemies No.2”.
At one stroke, the two Maharashtrian Brahmins had relegated the Muslims and Christians to the status of being “aliens” because of their religious affiliations to foreign lands. It goes without saying that this perception persists among the rank and file of the saffron brotherhood to whom the patriotism of these two communities are forever in doubt.
Hence, the observation of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP, Vinay Katiyar, that Muslims have no place in India because their natural “homes” are Pakistan and Bangladesh, while another BJP MP, Roopa Ganguly, has said that West Bengal’s partition in 1947 meant that only Hindus would live in the state and that the Muslims should go to East Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh. If both these statements deny legitimacy to the Muslim citizens of India, the reason can be traced to Savarkar’s views.
It is obvious that the RSS cannot claim to be abiding by the Indian Constitution if it subscribes to such opinions. Yet, disowning the two Hindutva luminaries will cut the ground from under its feet because these beliefs constitute the core of its philosophy.
At a time, however, when the RSS is reaching out to eminent people outside its fold, it cannot be long before some among the invited guests question the basis of the organisation’s belief system. Otherwise, it will seem that they have all been taken for a ride.
Up until now, the RSS has been cautious in its outreach. The most prominent among those (apart from A.P.J. Abdul Kalam who was the BJP’s choice for the President) who have been called to deliver a lecture to the RSS cadres is former President Pranab Mukherjee. Ratan Tata was next, but he chose not to speak.
Reports that the RSS is now thinking of inviting Rahul Gandhi and the communist leader, Sitaram Yechury, suggest that it is gaining in confidence about the exposure to diverse and contrary views. It is also considering holding “vaicharik kumbh” sessions with intellectuals in various cities with non-RSS individuals.
Perhaps the interaction with Pranab Mukherjee has told the RSS that it can successfully conduct its programme of interactions. There is little doubt that the former President hedged his bets while speaking in Nagpur lest his hosts be offended.
For instance, while ranging over Indian history, he made no mention of the Indus Valley Civilisation, presumably because it would have raised questions about whether it was Aryan, as the Hindutva group claims, or pre-Aryan which is the generally accepted view.
Similarly, he skipped over the entire Muslim period after referring to the Muslims as “invaders”, which would have gladdened saffron hearts, and made no mention of Akbar, whose title of “the Great” given by “secular” historians is contested by the present dispensation.
It will not serve any purpose, either for the RSS or its opponents, if everyone plays safe to keep the hosts in good humour. Instead, a reference will be perfectly in order by a guest to Hedgewar, who warned “others” not to “infringe on the rights of Hindus” since they must remember that “they are living in Hindusthan of Hindus”, and to Golwalkar and Savarkar.
The latest initiatives of the RSS are obviously intended to secure acceptance among a wider section of hoi polloi by demonstrating that it is not quite the ogre that its critics allege. But as in Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s case, the flaunting of a gentler, kinder face may be construed as a mask unless the RSS formally dissociates itself from the anti-minority observations of its guiding lights like Hedgewar, Golwalkar and Savarkar.
There have been several occasions in history where a party has initiated major changes in its outlook. One of these was the British Labour Party’s decision to drop Clause IV of its constitution calling for the “common ownership” of the means of production. The communists, too, have done away with the concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Will the RSS follow suit by amending its basic ideology ?
(Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. The views expressed are personal. He can be reached at amulyaganguli@gmail.com)
—IANS
