Posted in Politics

BJP Lies – The Impossibility of Removal of Article 370 & 35A

Jammu and Kashmir is a state with special status is India, to the extent that every law in India is passed with this note in the very beginning, ” It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.” This is because Parliament of India and Government of India does not have suzerainty over the state except in matters as specified in the Instrument of Accession (actual available in high resolution here).

Why Article 370 can not be removed: In April 2018, Supreme Court of India said that Article 370 is no more a temporary provision, but it had acquired a permanent status because the constituent assembly had ceased to exist and President would not be able to fulfill the mandatory provision of getting recommendation from the constituent assembly for its abrogation. Here is the report and this is what the Supreme Court was referring to Article 370 itself,

Article 370 (3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this  article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this  article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:
Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.

How Article 370 Prohibits Change in Indian Constitution Regarding Matters Related to J&K: The Article 370 basically says that the Parliament or President is not allowed to make any amendments to constitution relating to J&K without permission of the State itself …

Article 370 (1) (b) The power of Parliament to make laws for the said state shall be limited to— 
(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and
(ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.

How Constitution of J&K Prohibits Indian Constitution to make Changes in it: The Constitution of J&K was adopted on 17 November 1956, and came into effect on 26 January 1957. And in the Constitution of J&K Article 147 provides provisions for amendment of the Constitution of J&K

Article 147: Provided further that no Bill or amendment seeking to make any change in- 
(a) this section; or
(b) the provisions of sections 3 and 5 ; or
(c) the provisions of the Constitution of India as applicable, in relation to the State, shall be introduced or moved in either House of the Legislature.

The above proviso means that nothing in the Indian Constitution can be changed or applied to J&K except that existed at that time. Basically any amendment in the Constitution of India is not applicable to J&K unless its own state legislature approves of it, hence all laws in India are passed with, “It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.” because the Parliament of India does not have power over J&K.

Complimentary Constitutions: Looking at the two constitutions, they are complimentary to each other, they both agree that nothing related to J&K can be changed unless the state legislature approves it. Although the case is still in the Supreme Court, there is a statement from the court itself which says that Article 370 can’t be removed, which essentially means that Parliament or Court will still need State Government Legislature to approve any law that can be passed.

So seriously, BJP can do any antics it wants, go to Supreme Court to remove it or anything else, but nothing is going to change. They are trying to fool people by saying that they can change…. even their own Ram Jethmalani in Nov 2014 said that he believes that Article 370 is in the basic structure of the constitution, and that it can not be changed or ameneded.

Although I am not a lawyer, but the above has been written after reading through and understanding the constitutional point from articles by various lawyers and judges.

Posted in History

Ungrateful Indians, Nehru and J&K

Often I call BJP/RSS as Ungrateful Indians because they are completely and utterly ungrateful to those who fought and gave India a government and constitution that has kept her from going into anarchy. India owes a great deal to these leaders for giving the country a solid start. And among all these leaders the biggest debt is owed to Nehru, even more than Gandhi.

Nehru was from a family who had settled in Delhi and UP for generations but was originally from Kashmir. Nehru loved Kashmir to the level of obsession. And because of his love for Kashmir he did something that was wrong and unjust and for which he is still blamed for by Pakistan and a lot of Indians do not even know his contribution, let alone acknowledge it.

So let us rewind to 1947 and and partition of India. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 in its schedules had provisionally allocated districts to each India and Pakistan, while agreeing that the final award will be through a Boundary Commission. In this Act the whole of Gurdaspur district had been marked for Pakistan (Wikipedia incorrectly mentions only one tehsil to Pakistan, the actual act can be check on British Government website here).

The Boundary Commission had to work out final boundary based on the finer details and rules of allocation on the lines of the Government of India Act. The Commission consisted of the Chairman Cyril Radcliffe and two judges of Muslim League and two judges of Congress. Whatever disputes would arise would be settled by Radcliffe. The Commission was supposed to work in utmost secrecy and there should have been no leaks about anything, but that was not the case and all the fingers usually point to Mountbatten. All the disputes of Boundary Commission apart from Chittagong Hill Tracts were in favour of India, and at great disadvantage of Pakistan. This again is usually credited to Mountbatten, because of his friendship Nehru. For example, Firozepur and Zira Tehsils with Muslim majority and continuous link to Pakistan were finally allocated to India after Raja of Bikaner found that his canals would go through Pakistan before coming back in India, obviously Mountabatten barely knew the Raja of Bikaner but both knew Nehru very well.

Another such contentious dispute was of Gurdaspur district, the northern most district of Punjab and the one touching the border of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistani judges allege that originally Gurdaspur District was allocated to Pakistan, not only because it was a Muslim majority district but also because it was continuously Muslim inhabited. Of the four Tehsils in Gurdaspur, three had clear Muslim Majority. Only Pahtankot was the one with Non Muslim majority. But Pathankot could not be included in India because it was an isolated Non Muslim majority Tehsil. For Pathankot Tehsil to go to India, another larger Tehsil would have to go to India to allow for continuity purposes. Hence all four Tehsils were kept in Pakistan according to the schedule in Indian Independence Act.

When this reached Nehru he asked Mountbatten to allocate Gurdaspur and Batala Tehsils of Gurdaspur District to India and let Shakargarh remain in Pakistan. Like Firozepur and Zira the excuse that Mountbatten gave to Radcliffe and Radcliffe gave to others was that the water for Amrtisar district goes from these Tehsils, hence they should be allocated to India. But if you look at the map below, you would laugh at such an excuse because Amritsar was surrounded by Muslim majority areas on all sides, not just Gurdaspur, Sialkot, Sheikhpura and Lahore but also Kapurthala state was a Muslim majority state with around 60% Muslims. But Raja of Kapurthala had already signed to join India and unlike Nawab of Junagadh Indian Government forgot to ask him what his population wanted.

That was the reasoning that Radcliffe gave for award of Gurdaspur and Batala to India. But the real reason Mountbatten wanted Gurdaspur and Batala to be in India was because of his friend Jawaharlal Nehru, and Nehru’s love for Kashmir. What is coming next is controversial and is not common in history books, but does make appearances off record. I believe it because it is presented with an extremely solid logical argument, and story has been there since I was a kid in Kashmir. Hence it is not an invention to save Nehru from J&K because it dates back far before these illegitimate and ungrateful children of Hindu Mahasabha came and started demonising Nehru.

To reach Kashmir Valley and Srinagar, there was no road except the traditional route along Jhelum which was over a hundred kilometers away from the closest Non-Muslim majority district. While Jammu too was connected to Sialkot for both Railways and Roads, but there was a possibility to connect Pathankot with Kathu and Jammu by having a bridge over Ravi. Although there would still remain a need to connect Jammu with Kashmir Valley. The map below is from 1955 which shows the Jammu-Srinagar highway still under construction, hence the highway signs fade away giving way to a single lane road laid during 1948 war (and it comes with warning of being unsafe in winters and night).

Full Resolution Here

The only land link for Jammu and Kashmir was through larger Gurdaspur District, and not just Pathnkot Tehsil. Gurdaspur and Batala Tehsils were required as well. If these were not there, a land link to J&K would not be possible, meaning that even if the Raja of Jammu and Kashmir wanted to join India despite the Muslim majority nature of his state, he would not be able to because there was no land link to India.

It was this favour that Mountbatten gave to India because of Nehru that J&K is in India. Had it not been Nehru’s foresight and his friendship with Mountbatten this would not have been possible. Because the only border Kashmir and India would have been through a very very difficult Himalayas. Even today if the Gurdaspur District was not in India and we had constructed the Himachal Pradesh and Leh route (which is world’s highest altitude and is maintained by military rather than civil), coming to Jammu would be through Leh and Srinagar.

This is Nehru’s great favour to India. The only and only reason of J&K is in India is because of Nehru. He had foresight to include Pathankot, Gurdaspur and Batala Tehsils in India, without which J&K under no circumstances could be in India. So let us show respect to the man.

Coming to Patel, he was of the opinion that the partition happened on religious grounds, hence it was only right for Jammu and Kashmir to stay with Pakistan rather than India. He wanted Hyderabad to stay with India rather than join Pakistan and J&K to go to Pakistan, there are several reports publications and studies to confirm this, they can be accessed
here, here and here.

Posted in Islam & Religion

Lies about The Last Prophet – 1. Relations with Jews

“Our current hypothesis about Mahomet, that he was a scheming Impostor, a Falsehood incarnate, that his religion is a mere mass of quackery and fatuity, begins really to be now untenable to any one. The lies, which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man, are disgraceful to ourselves only.” Thomas Carlyl.

The objective of the series is to dispel myth about the Last Prophet. This post is about his interaction with Jews. Prophet is accused of being
1. Anti-Semite or Anti Jewish
2. Expelled Jews of Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir because he hated Jews.
3. Executing all males of Banu Quraizah and enslavement of all women and children of Banu Quraizah.

For the rest we will need a bit of background on Medina, but the charge of Anti-Semite or Anti-Jewish can be dealt with straightaway.
Anti-Semite – Quraysh (the tribe Prophet belonged to) traced their lineage to Abraham through Ishmael, and Jews trace their lineage to Abraham through Issac, since they are both Semite and sons of Abrahams. So the accusation of being Anti-Semite barely holds any weight.
Anti-Jewish – Even after expulsion of the three Jewish tribes, several Jews continued to live in Medina, and this is confirmed even by his worst critiques who unashamedly lied about him. If he was Anti-Jewish why weren’t all Jews expelled from Medina? Aucontrair, Prophet Muhammad call Jews, “People of the book”, elevating their status over his own family and tribe who were called Polytheists.

Background to Jews of Medina : Medina, known as Yathrib during those days had principally five tribes, two Arabs and three Jewish. The two Arab tribes were Aws and Khazraj and had enmity between themselves for generations. An year before the Pledge of Aqabah a bloody battle was fought between these two tribes called Battle of Buath. Buath was a huge slaughter that killed almost every elder and the charge of tribes went to relatively young men. The Jewish tribes were relatively very small and had to be under protection of one of the Arab tribes to survive in lawless land of Arabia. However, Jews believed Arabs to be inferior to them, they boasted of their superiority over Arabs on several grounds, like education, language, culture, history, art, prophets, their “chosen people” status with God Almighty among others. And Arab tribes of Medina had completely bought Jewish superiority, they truly considered themselves to be inferior to the Jews, many had even left their religion and had become Jewish. But this social pecking order of was going to change with arrival of prophet Muhammad, and this loss of status contributed to a lot of Jewish angst.

While prophet was being persecuted in Makkah, he believed that Jews and Christians would be his natural allies against the Polytheists of Makkah. He thought that Jews will have goodwill for him against polytheists, because Jews believed in monotheism, prophets, last day and life after death, things Makkans did not believe. When Prophet arrived in Medina, he made a pact with Jewish tribes for joint defence of Medina against Quraysh and other polytheists. The terms of covenant were pretty simple (full covenant here), Jews would be equal citizen, free to practice their trade, laws and religion but if the dispute is between Muslims and Jews, Prophet would be the judge. Finally, the Jews will have to defend Medina from any attacks and they were prohibited to help Makkans in any Makkan endeavours.

However, things would not go the way Prophet (peace be upon him) thought, Saffiya the wife of Prophet who was from Jewish heritage narrated that when Prophet arrived in outskirts of Medina, her father and uncle went to meet him as they were among the chiefs of their Jewish tribe. When they came back from Quba in the evening, weary and tired, Saffiya heard her father and uncle confirm that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the Prophet they were waiting for, but instead of accepting him they had decided to become his enemies.

Soon, Abdullah bin Salam reverted to Islam. He was son of one of the Jewish leaders and priests and with his conversion Jews felt threatened to loosing their sons to Islam. Jews were not happy with Islam and Prophet as were loosing their status and influence among Arab tribes whom they considered inferior. Arabs tribes had followed various things of Jews, like their attitude to menstruating women but Islam was changing that, Arabs were abandoning the Jewish practices they used to do. The final nail in the coffin was changing of direction of prayer from Jerusalem (North from Medina) to Makkah (South from Medina). This was the thing that made them enemies of Muslims. Both Arabs and Jews knew that with changing of direction of prayer Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had declared that Makkah is now the centre the of religion and the symbolism of Jerusalem had come to an end.

Expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa : Filled with angst about loosing their high status among Arabs, it started with small incidences. For example, once a Jew called Shas bin Qais saw Aws and Khazraj chatting and laughing together. He became angry by seeing this unity, so he sent a boy to these men to recite songs of pride and courage they sang during battle of Buath. And the old rivalry was rekindled and led to a fight that reached Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and he had to reconcile the two groups. In everyday life, they started tightening ropes of financial dealings with Muslims. If they happened to owe a Muslim something, they would shirk their obligations on grounds that he had converted into a new religion and they would allege the basis of agreement was no longer valid. If it was the other way, they would never cease to harass him day and night to pay back the debt. All of this was a desperate attempt to decrease the influence of Islam on Arabs and regain their old position and status.

The victory of Badr had made Banu Qaynuqa jealous of Muslims, and they used to insult Muslims and boast about themselves that it was the inexperienced Quraysh that Muslims fought, had the battle been them (ie Banu Qaynuqa) and Muslims, they would have shown Muslims their superiority in war. They said this on back of 700 warriors and their expertise in metallurgy and weapon making. To settle constant bickering and complaining Prophet reached Banu Qaynuqa and tried to calm the matters and invited them to Islam. However, they insulted him with the same Badr insult saying that Quraysh were not warriors, had it been Jews they would have known war. This insult resulted in Prophet receiving a revelation of two verses (this and this) which basically warned Jews of their transgression ending with God’s statement that it is He who grants victory to whom He wills. The reply that came from Banu Qaynuqah tantamounted to declaration of war, but Prophet suppressed his anger and walked away with Muslims he came with.

In this environment one Jewish jeweller had a Muslim female customer and he pinned her clothes in such a way that when she got up, her genitals were visible. Seeing this a Muslim man killed the Jewish shopkeeper and the Jews killed the Muslim man. The family of the man came back to Muslims saying that covenant of Medina has been breached and Banu Qaynuqa must be punished. Prophet agreed and laid a siege on their forts with his uncle Hamza as incharge. After 15 days Banu Qaynuqa surrendered, their punishment was that they would surrender all their wealth and leave Arabian Peninsula.

To end, Prophet forgave their treachery first time. When he went to them for peace they used words that tantamounted to war. Next they murdered a Muslim and broke the covenant, and breaking Covenant meant that they had to face consequences for it.

Expulsion of Banu Nadir : The loss of Uhud had led to celebration in the camp of Banu Nadir. After this Banu Nadir were in continuous contact with hypocrites in Medina and Makkans trying to form an alliance against Muslims. This news had reached Prophet but since nothing concrete could be proven, they were given benefit of doubt. But it was clear that their ill will towards Muslims was reaching an unbearable level.

One day, Prophet and 3 other companions had to go to Banu Nadir for seeking help with raising finances for erroneous killings, this was in line with the pact. The Jews from Banu Nadir agreed to pay and asked Prophet and his companions to wait at a certain place while they arranged money. The Prophet and his companions agreed and went and sat down with their backs in support of a house of a Jew. Banu Nadir had no intention to pay, instead they decided to kill Prophet and his companions, Amr bin Jhash was supposed to throw and mill stone from the roof on to the head of Prophet. However Arch Angel Gabriel informed Prophet Muhmmad of the plot, upon which he left the area quickly.

Thereafter reaching Medinah, Prophet gave Banu Nadir ultimatum to leave Medinah within 10 days. However they decided to stay, saying that they will not move and it was upto Prophet to do whatever he could do. Prophet immediately ordered a siege, after sometime fate of Banu Qaynuqa started to bother them and they asked for a surrender. Prophet accepted the terms of surrender which included that apart from arms, they could take as much wealth as they could, and they did not leave anything behind, to the extent they even took pegs and beams fitted in the ceiling of their houses.

To end, Banu Nadir planned and plotted to kill their allies instead of protecting each other. Prophet was the uncrowned King of Medina, plotting his murder was treason, and treason can not be forgiven or excused. They had to pay for their crimes, and that is what Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) made them do.

Banu Quraizah Background : Medina was protected by desert, mountains, lava fields and date palms, there were only two places for someone to attack Medinah. One was open plain that everyone used to come and go from Medina, another was through strong fortifications of Banu Quraizah. Makkans had attacked Medina with Arabia’s largest army to finish of Muslims once and for all, they had declared that they will kill all Muslim men, women and children, putting this religion to end once and for all. On hearing, this some Muslims wanted to go out of Medina and fight, thinking that their deaths would suffice for the blood Makkans were after and then Makkans would spare women and children from slaughter. Among other suggestions, Salman Al Farsi’s advise was to stay in Medina and dig a trench since Arabs did not know anything about trench warfare, he was sure that they would not be able breach it. However, the trench had to have a heavy guard on it all the time. The Makkan attack was stopped by the trench, several attempts were made to cross the trench by Makkans, but they failed in all.

Banu Quraizah were supposed to protect Muslims during the time of invasion. However, like Banu Nadir before them, they were in conversation with Makkans on joining the alliance with Makkans. Soon, Banu Quraizah declared that their pact has ended and no pact or alliance exists between Muslims and Banu Quraizah. When this news reached people on the trench it ran a panic because every single fighting man was posted on Trench. All of them them had come forward leaving women and children behind in the city open for slaughter either by Makkans or by Banu Quraizah. This was very worrying for all Muslims to top this hypocrites started saying that Muhammad (peace be upon him) made us dream of conquering Persia and Rome only to be slaughtered in our own backyard. Anyone can imagine what this would have done to the morale of troops posted on the trench.

During this tumultuous time came conversion Naim bin Masud who was from a tribe Allied to Banu Quraizah. Naim hid his conversion from Banu Quraizah and sowed seeds of discord and doubts between Makkans and Banu Quraizah, delaying the planned attack on Medina and Muslims. And then one night came a desert storm which absolutely devastated the encamped Makkan Army, the next morning they all started to leave as they could not stay any longer without any provisions left.

Siege and Punishment of Banu Quraizah : After Makkans had left, Arch Angle Gabriel told Prophet not to rest till Banu Quraizah had been delt with. Banu Quraizah’s action were most trecherous of all. Their treason was not just to the Prophet himself but every single Mulsim man, woman and child. They had to be punished. After command from Gabriel, Prophet ordered a siege to be laid on the fortifications of Banu Quraizah. Trapped in their own fortification their leader Kab bin Asad offered them three options,
1. To embrace Islam, this would ensure their life and property.
2. To kill their women and children and then fight Muslims
3. To launch a surprise attack on Saturday as Muslims would be completely unprepared for Jews attacking on Saturday.

All three options were rejected, soon they were ready for surrender. When they were brought to their hands tied to their backs the Arab tribe allied to them the tribe of Al-Aws pleaded for mercy. On hearing their plea Prophet agreed that they be judged by Al-Aws themselves. Hence Jews and Aws together chose the chieftain of Al-Aws, Saad bin Muadh as judge.

Saad has had very close relations with Banu Quraizah and had fought with them against Khazraj during Battle of Buath. He was known for his friendship with Banu Quraizah and Banu Quraizah were among those who nominated his name as the judge. Saad was wounded in the battle and arrived sitting on a donkey. Prophet turned away as a mark of respect for Saad to be able to judge without being influenced by the Prophet. Saad had spent a long time with Jews, he was very well versed with Jewish laws, and the punishment that he gave was according the Jewish Law and described here in Deuteronomy 20:10-14. Hence all able-bodied males were put to sword, other men, women and children were taken as prisoners. All the wealth of Banu Qurayzah was also seized and distributed as per rules. Some people from Banu Qurayzah accepted Islam and they were restored with their life, properties and families.

To end, this accusation of genocide is also wrong because
1. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not the the judge, Saad bin Muadh was.
2. Saad bin Muadh was nominated as a judge by the Jews themselves.
3. Saad judged them according to their own Jewish law mentioned in the Bible.
4. Those who apologised and accepted Islam not only lived but had their properties restored to them.

Posted in Islam & Religion, Politics

Calling people Converted…. thinking it is an insult

Among the heap of dumb things Hindutvavadis say and do, this is definitely among the dumbest thing. Most people ignore such people purely for sake of not hurting their feelings or insulting their religion.

Not only it is purely stupid and can easily backfire but also it is blatantly false. Why don’t they realise that they run the risk of someone insulting Indian religions, suppose if someone replies with this, “No my ancestors chose Islam because it was not false and repugnant like the religion they used to follow… after they understood truth of Islam they reverted and left the filth that their parents gave them as religion.” And this is putting it mildly, it could be much worse, they could say that “My ancestors were intelligent who recognised 2+2=4, but many of their companions and friends kept believing 2+2=22 and we have to deal with progeny of those who believed 2+2=22.”

What these people are saying is that Islam has nothing good in it, and whoever became Muslim became because he was enticed or forced into it. This is completely false, because as far as Muslims are concerned we think that our religion is full of goodness and those who do not die Muslims, their loss. The first Muslims were persecuted to death for being Muslims, Meccans were forcing them to renounce Islam and join the religion of their ancestors’, and to imagine that they did not see any goodness in Islam is stupid. For 1400 years the religion has its followers in millions and to claim it has no good in it is bordering insanity. The same argument stands true for Christianity.

Of the four Mongol Khanates, three of them became Muslims, where Kings adopted the religion of people they had conquered. Who forced the Mongol Kings to change their religion? Of course no one. Who is forcing people to change their religion today? I mean who forced A.R. Rehman, Michael Jackson or Cat Stevens to become a Muslim? Who could force Mohammed Ali or Mike Tyson to change their faith? Who forced Wayne Parnell, Frank Ribery and Sonny Bill to become Muslims? Just a few days ago Van Klaveren a leader of Europe’s most vitriolic Anti-Muslim, Anti-Islam party led by Geert Wilders party reverted to Islam. And he was not the first from Geert Wilders party to revert, another member Arnoud van Doorn had reverted to Islam few years ago. The fact is that people choose Islam out of their free will, nobody is forcing anyone.

Posted in Politics, Social Issues

State of Law in India and two men from Gujarat responsible for it

Mr. Gandhi was born in 1869 to Diwan of one of the princely states in Gujarat, from there he went to London, South Africa and then finally India. Where he led a strong people’s movement against the British and commanded respect and loyalty of millions of Indians. There are countless things that Mr. Gandhi gave to India that we must appreciate. But, there is another thing that he gave Indians, with unintended consequences, it was that he told Indians not to respect the law, and broke several of them.

Mass disobedience movements that were led by him or his supporters did immense harm to Indian psyche where respect for law vanished, today nobody even talks about Respecting the Law. The situation is so bad that we do not even teach kids to Respect the Law, I remember my classroom, which had a chart of a whole list whom and what I should respect…. but there was no mention of respecting the law. When Mr. Gandhi started his mass movements often asking people to break the law, he in his wildest imagination would not have thought that he is training people to stop respecting the law. Masses supported his ideas around breaking the law, whether is was Salt Law or Civil Disobedience. I am not sure, but of all the texts I have read, none of them speak about Mr. Gandhi urging his followers to follow the law except the attitude did not die, we kept breaking the laws even after we had made them.

I blame Mr. Gandhi to have motivated Indian public to have no respect for the law, but since law was still the law breaking it still meant that you went to jail, this meant that although the respect was absent, the fear of law was still present, but this would change with Mr. Modi.

Mr. Modi is a lifelong member of Right Wing Hindu Group called RSS that believes only those people could be Indian whose Fatherland and Holyland are in India. Hence, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc are not Indians because their Holyland is not in India. And, people like Mother Teresa and Adnan Sami are not Indians because Fatherland is not India. The RSS says that such people are allowed to live in India but as second class citizens who have to incorporate Hindu culture in their lives. RSS also have militant wings like Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal.

Mr. Gandhi had removed the respect for law from Indian psyche. The Gujarat Pogrom of 2002 removed the fear of law, by actually telling the criminals participating the pogrom that they would be shielded by the law, Babu Bajrangi got into trouble only after boasting about it in front of camera. And after Mr. Modi became Prime Minister, the same message was delivered to Cow Vigilantes around the country…. look at one of them brag how he has government backing in these killings and how he does not fear the law and how he told the Jailor about his crimes.

These two men have done immense damage to Indian psyche, although Gandhi’s aim were noble and he hated violence (remember how Non Cooperation Movement was cancelled after Chaura Chauri). So his objectives were correct, his method was wrong. But Modi has completely changed the equation, where nothing is right, the respect and fear of law are completely absent. If civil society means that it is a society that respects the laws it sets for itself, then we are a long way from being Civil. And these two men from Gujarat are the primary reason for destroying civil society that used to exist in India.

Posted in Politics

The Parliament has spoken…

Since the Referrendum, Leavers can’t stop saying, “People have spoken” referring to their win in a Non-Binding Referendum. The last recourse to every loosing argument to stop Brexit is “People have Spoken”. Several Brexiteer leaders will quote it again and again sighting how it would be betrayal of democracy to ignore and not deliver Brexit. And I agree with it.

I am a hardcore Remainer, and I have always acknowledged that it was a democratic vote, it must be honoured and it would be a betrayal of democracy to not honour it. Even though it was an a non-binding vote, the spirit of democracy demands that the vote must be honoured. And the only way to overturn that vote is to have another referendum.

However, we also live in a Parliamentary democracy, hence what goes on in the parliament is no less important. Recently the Mother of All Parliaments voted in favour of another Non-Binding vote, ‘The Spelma-Dromey Amendment’. The amendment say, “and rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship.” In other words it says No to No Deal Brexit.

Any person who vouches for democracy has to respect this Non-Binding vote at par with the Non-Binding referendum. Hence for every democrat, it has to be a Brexit and it has to to be a Brexit with a deal. No-Deal Brexit is just as undemocratic as No-Brexit, hence all Brexiteers should start telling May to sign a deal under any circumstances.

Posted in Politics, Social Issues

Babri Masjid….. a hundred year old issue that I don’t get

Babri Masjid, 1529 – 1992

With elections near, and hearings about to start in Supreme Court, Babri Masjid is in news again. I am fascinated by how this contentious issue is spoken about, Muslims almost always call it Babri Masjid and Hindus almost always call it Ram Janam Bhoomi. Two names for the same place but different two identities, representing two different aspiration and desires.

Although Babri Masjid was nothing but a place of worship for Muslim, to some Hindus (ie not all Hindus) she represented defeat and humiliation and its mere existence really hurt their sentiments and their egos. They found it really hard to tolerate it, it used to hurt them that they were the ones now in-charge, they were the ones who were ruling, and still they could do nothing to this symbol of defeat and humiliation. So one day they decided that could not tolerate this place of worship any longer and they demolished it. Something that they perceived stood as a symbol of their defeat and humiliation was down to the ground.

To have a temple constructed at exact place of where Babri Masjid stood is an exercise in satisfying egos and not an act of devotion. Because everyone knows that if a temple is built there, it would lead to further bloodshed. Would Rama have approved his temple be built on dead bodies of children, women and men? Obviously Not. So let us be clear, it is not an act of devotion, it is act of ego, “I must build a temple to humiliate Muslims”.

I would be lying if I were to say that I don’t want to see the Masjid restored. And, I will also be lying if I say that it has nothing to do with ego. I believe Pathans are never born in odd numbers, all of them are born with their twin, their ego being the twin. Hence it is my ego that wants a Masjid there.

Anyway, leaving my twin behind and come back to the argument around Babri Masjid. The fact is that I really don’t find the arguments for Ram temple convincing, I find them wanting and unconvincing.

  1. Ramayana is Mythology: Ramayana is a mythological story, otherwise somebody has to explain a talking and intelligent monkey, who can make himself ginormous,  fly from Lanka to Himalayas to find a herb, when he is not able to find the herb on the mountain he uproots the mountain, picks the mountain and flies back to Lanka with mountain on his palm. To me it is a mythological  story, there is no need for bloodshed for mythology.
  2. Lack of Evidence in Text: I know many people believe Ramayana as absolute and inherent truth on basis of belief. But Ramayana, in no version of the text, mentions the exact place of birth of Rama, all it says is that he was born in Ayodhya. If no text mentions his exact place of birth, how could anyone be sure that location of the mosque is the exact same place where Rama was born.
  3. Other Claims of Exact Place of Birth: If a temple needed to be preserved in Ayodhya it should have been the one where he was born, and this should be undisputed as well. But that is not the case, there are 14 temples in Ayodhya whose Mahants claim that their temple is the place where Rama was born. And I think that is perfectly logical because someone who was allegedly born several thousand years ago and his exact place of birth is not recorded in any text, it would be impossible to point out his place of birth with absolute certainty.
  4. Gita says Rama and Krishna are not Born: Whether Rama could be born is a dispute in itself. Krishna in Gita (10.3) says that Krishna is unborn (ie he is not born like a normal person, who has to come out of his mother’s uterus and has to live in his own urine and stool in mum’s belly). Since Rama precedes Krishna as avatar of Vishnu, and have same status and qualities, same rules apply to both of them. Hence, according to Gita, if Krishna is not born, Rama can not be born either. Before anyone argues that I am interpreting Gita, please note that this is Hindu interpretation of Gita not mine, pick up a Gita and read commentary on the shloka. Gita makes it abundantly clear that individuals like Rama and Krishna are not born, they just appear and disappear at their own will. If this is the case, then it is illogical to argue about Rama’s birthplace who could not be even born.
  5. The illogical argument of mosque built over temple: The argument that Babur demolished the temple to erect a mosque in the exact same place is something I don’t find convincing. Archelogical Survey of India says that a structure (not necessarily a temple) existed right beneath the mosque, but it also says that when Babur arrived there was no temple and it was a public space says public space with no temple on it, then building a mosque on open land was fair game, no one in entire history digs 200 feet to find if remains of any temple are buried in the ground. Most advocates of this theory disregard the second part and say that Babur demolished the temple to build a mosque. But for Babur to make a mosque and yet leave remains of a temple buried under the ground, he would have to follow these steps, there is no second option:
    • Destroy the temple.
    • Move the temple rubble aside, emptying the space where temple stood.
    • Dig a very deep pit to bury the rubble and fill the pit with normal soil to a good depth for foundations to be dug above the rubble.
    • Next, he would move the earth he had dug previously back into the pit covering the rubble and extra space left for clear foundations.
    • Then, wait for it the rubble and earth to settle.
    • Finally, dig the foundations of the mosque and build the mosque.
    • The whole thing seems completely illogical and impossible even if Babur had CAT and JCB machines. At one place people accuse Muslims of being stingy and converting temples into mosques and on the other hand they are justifying such completely illogical expense. It just does not make any sense to me.

Seeking Solution instead of Conflict: After all said and done, we are in a situation we are. We should be thinking of possible solutions for the issue and not sticking to our pride and ego at the cost of lives and hurt feelings. For me the best solution for Babri Masjid is to build something that benefits the whole society like an Orphanage, an Old Age Home, a Hospital, a School, a Sarai or anything that the whole communities can use for social benefit. I don’t think that majority of Hindus and Muslims like to see mosques and temples built on bodies of children, men and women, I for one certainly don’t want to. And this seems as agreeable compromise for all.

The following is an excellent award winning documentary on the issue.