Shameless Nitwits discourage taking action against the Terrorist Pakistan

 There is no death of dishonest nitwits, who try to justify the terrorism in Pahalgam by asking silly questions, why there was slackness in security. Many do not want any response from the Government of India, as it will further aggravate the situation against those cowards who killed 28 persons after profiling their religion. To ensure the religion of their targets, they asked for their names, undressed them to see their private parts to be sure that they were circumcised. Many even went to the extent of taking a guarantee that no Kashmiri could have done this despicable work, forgetting the fact that it was because of the involvement of local Kashmiris and politicians that the terror survived for very long in Jammu and Kashmir.

It is a glaring fact that terrorists cannot operate without local sleeper cells. During the Bombay blast case, a lot of the local Muslim population was involved in giving refuge to terrorists, who had come from Pakistan. The same was the case in the Red Fort attack and the Parliament attack cases.

The terrorist attack on the Red Fort in Delhi occurred on December 22, 2000. It was carried out by the Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba. Terrorists were indeed armed from outside, but it could not have been possible without local support. Similarly, the terrorists' attack on the Indian Parliament occurred on December 13, 2001. Five heavily armed terrorists from the group Jaish-e-Mohammed stormed the Parliament complex in New Delhi, leading to a fierce gun battle. The attack resulted in the deaths of nine people, including six security personnel, two Parliament staff members, and a gardener. The attackers were killed before they could enter the main building, preventing what could have been a far worse tragedy. But one thing is certain that the loyalty of a large number of Muslims cannot be taken for granted. They owe more allegiance to their religion that gives them identity than to the country or society.

Thus, so long vast majority of Muslims do not shed their religious notoriety and feel proud of the country of their birth and their ancestry, it would be almost impossible to curb and control Islamic terrorism. These Islamists have extra-territorial loyalty, otherwise, there is no reason to find slogan shouting and communal riots at many places in the country over the victory or defeat of Pakistanis in cricket or other sports. The communal tension in Murshidabad is an example of outside loyalty of local Muslims more from Bangladesh and other Muslim countries than for India. These loafer Muslims can be set right in two ways. One is to deal with them very stringently, and the second is to take the help of organisations like Arya Samaj to take them back to their old religion, which can be said to be Ghar Wapsi (home-coming) in simple parlance

Fifth Columnists Must be Crushed to Demolish Pakistan-Sponsored Terrorism

 Fifth Columnists Must be Crushed to Demolish Pakistan-Sponsored Terrorism

 One wonders to find the abundance of fifth columnists in the country. Their only aim is to obfuscate the issues and Islamic and Pakistani terrorists. It appears that if Pakistan wins against India, they will be happier because they want to settle scores with Narendra Modi by putting all the blame on him. Countless shameless people have no qualms about accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the security lapse. These people are so obsessed with anti-Modi feelings that they have no hesitation in supporting the demons of Pakistan. Perhaps they feign ignorance of the fact that no amount of security can make a system foolproof. Did 9 /11 happen in America because of any security lapse? Did any American ask for the resignation of the President of America or any other person responsible for what had happened? No, not at all. Did the attack by Hamas take place in the Gaza Strip of Israel because of any security lapse? It was unthinkable for any bird, as they say, to flutter safely in the area, yet Hamas had struck. Was there any laxity in security in the Parliament House in December 2001 or on 26/11 of 2008 in Mumbai? As a matter of fact, no amount of security can prevent terrorist attacks unless their morale is crushed. That is what the Modi government has done, and that is the reason that no terrorist activities have taken place for the last more than a decade; otherwise, during the previous regime, it was difficult to move out of houses without fear of any terrorist attack. Almost every month, some or other terror attacks took place either in buses, trains, bazars or parks before Modi came to power. Those who are criticising the Modi government are providing cover fire to Pakistan, and they must be hauled up. Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were killed despite the best security available to them.The need, therefore, is to come down heavily on these home-grown anti-social elements, who are ready to sell their souls for money from anti-Indian forces operating from abroad. Most of the politicians belonging to the opposition parties are either illiterate or have no understanding of the current geopolitics. Shockingly, many Indian journalists are found holding briefs for Pakistani/ Islamic terrorism. At a time when the whole world is facing Islamic terrorism, any support to them for the sake of petty vote bank politics will cause incalculable harm to the country. The time is to remain united and stand solidly behind the government to break Pakistan into many pieces.

 

R N Ravi's case of Tamil Nadu must be revisited

 The Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, is not a cloistered virtue. The judgments of the courts are matters of record and can be critiqued by citizens of the country. The only limitation is that no motives should be attributed to the judges who deliver those judgments. However, it is a fact that judges are often influenced by their predilections and prejudices.

 Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna is largely correct when he states that while serving as a judge, he or she does not belong to any religion or caste. Nonetheless, there have been many instances in which judges have revealed their religious biases. For example, while deciding Shayra Bano's case on triple talaq, Justice Nazeer did not sign the judgment because it conflicted with his religious beliefs. The Shayara Bano case was a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, where the practice of instant divorce was declared unconstitutional. Shayara Bano challenged the practice, arguing that it violated fundamental rights like equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that Triple Talaq was arbitrary and not an essential religious practice.

This decision was a significant step toward gender justice and the empowerment of Muslim women in India.  Justice Nazeer should have recused himself if he wished to remain detached from the case. To be fair to him, he did not express any bias in the Ayodhya case but remained aloof to demonstrate his agreement with the judgment of the other four judges.

There are two parts to any judgment: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. Ratio decidendi refers to the legal principle or rule that forms the basis of a court's judgment. It is the binding part of the decision that sets a precedent for future cases. Obiter dicta refer to remarks, observations, or opinions made by the judge that are not essential to the decision. These statements do not have binding authority but may be influential in later cases.

 In simple terms, ratio decidendi is the core legal reasoning that establishes a rule, while obiter dicta include additional comments that may provide guidance but are not legally enforceable. This is why judges should exercise extra caution when making any obiter dicta remarks. The way two judges made obiter remarks about Nupur Sharma was ludicrous, to say the least. They should have expressed regret in open court for their comments, which became more significant than the actual judgment. Therefore, the delicate case of Tamil Nadu Governor N Ravi should have been handled with greater sensitivity, which it duly deserved.

Since it involves interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court must give it the importance required to revisit and review the case.

 

 

Directions to the President and Governors are a constitutional overreach by the Supreme Court

How can there be any difference in the views of Vice President Jagadeep Dhankhar regarding Article 142 of the Constitution, that it should not be used as a nuclear missile, but rather for complete justice, which is the intent of the Constitution? Despite having extraordinary powers, it is not accurate to say that the Supreme Court can do no wrong. The infamous case of ADM Jabalpur versus Shivakanta Shukla is a permanent stain on the judiciary, i.e. the Supreme Court, when it suspended fundamental rights to life. This case primarily addressed whether citizens could file a writ of habeas corpus to challenge unlawful detention during the Emergency.

The Supreme Court's overreach has been felt many times in matters concerning constitutional posts. The cause of the current controversy is the recent case of ‘State of Tamil Nadu versus Union of India.’ In this case, the Supreme Court practically directed the Governors and the President of India to clear the bills within three months of their passage by the legislatures. However, the Supreme Court overlooked the provisions of Article 361 of the Constitution, which provides immunity to the President and Governors from legal proceedings while they are in office.

The President and Governors are not answerable to any court for actions taken in their official capacity. No criminal proceedings can be initiated or continued against them while they hold office. No arrest or imprisonment orders can be issued against them during their tenure. Civil proceedings related to personal acts can be initiated only after a two-month notice. This article of the constitution ensures that the highest constitutional authorities can perform their duties without legal distractions. Therefore, the President and Governors do not fall within the purview of Article 142 of the Constitution. This was why the late Somnath Chatterjee, the former speaker of the Lok Sabha, even refused to accept the notice of the Supreme Court, for which he was lauded by all believing in constitutional propriety.

The Supreme Court has committed many egregious mistakes, and this ruling will likely join the category of judgments made during the Emergency when it justified the suspension of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), meaning that individuals could not challenge their detention in court. This decision was widely criticised for undermining fundamental rights.

Likewise, Keshav Singh’s case revolves around the conflict between the privileges of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and the judiciary's authority. Keshav Singh, a member of the Socialist Party, was accused of contempt of the UP Legislative Assembly after distributing pamphlets alleging corruption by a Congress MLA. The Assembly sentenced him to seven days in jail. However, Singh filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, challenging his detention. The High Court granted him bail, which led the Assembly to charge the judges and Singh's lawyer with contempt as well.

This case raised significant constitutional questions regarding the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary. Similarly, Bihar also experienced tensions between the judiciary and legislative privileges in 1997. These cases underscore the delicate balance among the different branches of government. It is therefore crucial that all the organs of democracy understand their limitations. The Supreme Court cannot give directions to High Courts. That is why, in its judgments, the Supreme Court requests the High Courts and never directs them, as High Courts are also constitutional courts, and the Supreme Court does not have any advisory jurisdiction over them.

Supreme Court is Wrong in Saying that Urdu is Free from Religious Obstinacy

  

Facts are sacred, comments are free. Therefore, every person under 19 (1) (a) has the right to free speech and expression, which includes the right to reasonable criticism of the law courts or any executive action. Similarly, section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 states that a person is not punishable for contempt of court if he or she publishes a reasonable comment on the merits of a matter that has been heard and determined or if a person publishes a fair comment on the merits of a matter that has already been heard and determined.

The issue involved here is the Urdu language, which has been a bone of contention right from its inception in India. There is hardly any doubt that Urdu and Hindi are of the same genre. The only difference is the script. While Marathi, Hindi, and Nepali are written in Devanagari, Gujarati, Bengali, and Punjabi also share many similarities with the Devanagari script. However, a particular community is responsible for making Urdu a communal language, as this community insists on writing Urdu in the Arabic-Persian script. It was promoted more by the medieval Muslim rulers than by the common people.

In all the states where Urdu is the second language, its growth has been retarded for two reasons: one is its alien script, and the other is its support by a particular religious community, which has stubbornly refused to accept any change. Otherwise, there seemed to be no reason why Urdu should be foisted upon the people of West and East Pakistan, where not even a fraction of the people could speak this language. Even today, those who are fighting for the signboard of the Patur Municipal Council to be written in Urdu along with Marathi belong to only the Muslim community. They do not fight for homogeneity but for a separate identity. Thus, the lecturing of the Supreme Court on Urdu is injudicious, uncalled for, and has no connection with reality.

Judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court nurse a false notion that they know all, forgetting the fact that the Supreme Court is supreme, not because it is infallible, but because it is final. Urdu is undoubtedly a sweet language, and its growth will depend upon its acceptability by other communities, especially if its script is changed from Arabic-Persian to ancient Devanagari. For this, the obstinacy of Urduwalas belonging to a particular religious community will have to eschew its tenacity.

Rahul Gandhi and His Family did not Oppose the Waqf Bill in the House is still an Enigma shrouded in Mystery

 

One of my friends, who has been living in the US for nearly twenty years, asked me why Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, his sister Priyanka Gandhi, a member of Lok Sabha from Wayanad (Kerala), and their mother Sonia Gandhi, have not spoken a word against the Waqf Bill in the respective houses. Although they give the impression of being strongly opposed to the Waqf Amendment Bill, nevertheless, their silence remains a mystery to any conscientious person.

When I expressed my inability to provide any explanation or reason for their studied silence on the issue, he opened up and said that it was due to extreme pressure brought on them from Christian organisations. While it is true that Christians in Kerala have opposed the Waqf Bill, it is hard to believe that they could exert such a mountain of pressure on the Gandhi family that would force them to remain silent. Rahul Gandhi did not even attend the debate for the whole day; when he finally came to the Parliament house in his sleepwear, he was unable to participate or speak in the discussion. The same goes for other family members.

If they are truly opposed to the Waqf Bill, they should have openly supported the opposition to it with their logic.

The Waqf has indeed caused immense damage to the unity, integrity, and social fabric of the country, a reality that is difficult to articulate. During Mulayam Singh Yadav's tenure as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, thousands of mosques were constructed in remote villages. Money from Gulf countries was pumped in to foster an atmosphere of hostility and rancour among the peace-loving villagers. No one dared to raise a voice against this blatant highhandedness and the divisive atmosphere created by goonda elements. This trend was continued dutifully by his son, Akhilesh Yadav. This was all done for en bloc Muslim votes for the Samajwadi Party. The Congress did not lag in the exercise of appeasement policy, but it garnered no support from them during elections. The primary strategy for Muslims has been to vote for anyone who can defeat the BJP. Anti- BJP stance is writ large on the faces of Muslims. So, what right could they have to say that the BJP did not field any Muslim candidates in elections?

The reality is that poor Muslims are incited and instigated by politicians against any decision made in the interest of the people by the BJP government. If you ask any Muslim, even in rural areas, about any beneficiary scheme launched by the current government, they will have nothing good to say about them.

Like

Comment

Share

Those waving Rooh Afza are 'baffoons' at best

Some clowns have been seen waving bottles of Rooh Afza sherbet in their hands, more for denouncing Baba Ramdeo of Patanjali than out of their love for the rejuvenating elixir taken in the hot summer. Although it is claimed to be an Unani sherbet, the fact is that it is based on an Arabic-Persian formula. There is no Unani system of medicine, but it is predominantly Ayurvedic that has been adopted by Muslim Hakeems, giving it an Unani name. There is no doubt that the story of Rooh Afza is intertwined with the partition of India in 1947. After the death of its founder, Hakim Abdul Majeed, his sons took over the business. While his eldest son Abdul Hameen chose to stay in India because of the prosperous and flourishing business, the younger one, Mohammad Saeed, moved to Pakistan. In Pakistan, Mohammad Saeed started producing Rooh Afza by setting up a factory in Karachi. He used to dabble in the politics also and went on to become the Governor of Sindh.

This division led to the drink being produced in both countries, and it remains a beloved beverage on both sides of the border. Hakeem- Brothers on both sides fervently spent money on establishing Mosques and Islamic education centres. While in India, Jamia Hamdard University came into existence, the other brother, Hakim Muhammad Saeed of Pakistan, established Madinat-al-Hikmah, the “city of wisdom”, which includes the establishment of Hamdard Laboratories in 1948 and also Hamdard University that was founded in Pakistan in 1985.

Thus, both brothers played a vital role in the partition of India in the company of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, enjoyed the best of both countries. Their communalism knew no bounds; it was pernicious and condemnable by every stretch of consideration.

Coming to these jokers, it is not difficult to say that by showing the bottles of Rooh Afza, they are getting the perverted pleasure of teasing Baba Ramdev, for they might even get some financial gratification from certain sources.

All reactions:

9Ravindra Tripathi, Rajesh Tripathi and 7 others

1

Like

Comment

Send

Share

Uncouth Attitude of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister is Against the Basic Structure of the Constitution

The behaviour of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin is often found to be uncouth, indecorous, and uncivilised. He has been generating controversy and turmoil that could be easily avoided. For instance, during Prime Minister Modi's recent visit to Tamil Nadu for official business, Mr. Stalin was absent without a plausible reason. His absence insulted the people of the state more than it did the Prime Minister, especially since he was in Rameshwaram to inaugurate the Pamban bridge, which connects the mainland of the state to the historic religious island.

He and his party claim to uphold the Constitution of India, which emphasises three basic structural doctrines: federalism, judicial review, and fundamental rights. Therefore, it is courteous for Chief Minister Stalin to be present to receive the Prime Minister when he visits the state for governmental purposes. However, his absence in the official functions of Prime Minister demonstrates his arrogance, ignorance, and total disrespect for the Constitution, which he frequently champions.

Secondly, he stirs unnecessary controversy regarding the language issue and attempts to manipulate the sentiments of the state's people concerning Hindi imposition. He overlooks the fact that many residents of the state have been voluntarily learning Hindi due to more job opportunities and mobility outside the state. Moreover, 90 per cent of the Muslim population speaks and understands a blend of Hindi and Urdu. To my knowledge, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam speakers living in Tamil Nadu hold no ill will towards Hindi; they not only understand it but also converse in it. Many Tamils believe that Stalin stirs a Hindi controversy that does not genuinely exist. He and his associates also incite disputes about Sanskrit, neglecting that without Sanskrit, no Indian language can maintain a solid foundation.

Most shockingly, the recent controversy surrounding the Indian Rupee symbol arose from his decision to substitute the official ₹ symbol with the Tamil letter "Ru" in promotional materials for the state budget. The original ₹ symbol, designed by D. Udaya Kumar in 2010, combines the Devanagari "Ra" and the Roman "R." Kumar, himself a Tamilian, has expressed pride in his creation. However, narrow-minded MK Stalin may not grasp this.

All reactions:

22