The Union Minister of Law and Justice, Communications and Information Technology, Ravi Shankar Prasad, in a written reply on Wednesday asserted that the central government has no plans to link Aadhaar with an individual’s social media accounts. He also reiterated that Aadhaar data is completely secure and it is audited from time to time. Prasad was responding to a question raised in the Lok Sabha.
Prasad added that under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the government has the right to block websites social media accounts in the country in matters of public interest. The government has so far blocked 633 URLs in 2016, 1,385 in 2017, 2,799 in 2018, and 3,433 in 2019.
Regarding the question asked by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi about the threat posed by the Israeli spyware on Whatsapp targeting Indian journalists and social activists, Prasad responded that the government had taken cognisance of the fact that the Israeli spyware tried to snoop on 121 individuals in India.
Prasad responded that Cert-In had issued an alert on vulnerability in WhatsApp after which the instant messaging service had responded saying that such loopholes can’t be used to launch an attack.
Prasad further added that the government has sought an explanation from WhatsApp about the Israeli spyware Pegasus attack on its users using its platform. WhatsApp then reportedly updated Cert-In, claiming that the full impact of the attack is difficult to gauge. “We are committed to uphold the Right to Privacy of citizens of India and have asked WhatsApp to provide a detailed explanation about the issue. We are bringing a bill for the private data security of citizens,” Prasad added.
Earlier too, when it was revealed that some Indian journalists and activists have been target of surveillance by the Israeli spyware Pegasus, Prasad had then assured people saying that the government is committed to preserving and safeguarding the privacy of Indians and that the government had asked WhatsApp to explain the kind of breach and what it is doing to safeguard the privacy of millions of Indian citizens.
In response to the allegations that the government was behind the snooping of Indian journalists and activists, Prasad had then said, “Government agencies have a well-established protocol for the interception, which includes sanction and supervision from highly ranked officials in central and state governments, for clearly stated reasons in the national interest.”
For a warrior, nothing is higher than a war against evil. The warrior confronted with such a war should be pleased, Arjuna, for it comes as an open gate to heaven. But if you do not participate in this battle against evil, you will incur sin, violating your dharma and your honour – Swami Vivekananda
‘Dharma’, which is at the soul of the Sanatan, is perhaps the most complex and liberating concept of Hinduism. Dharma has no equivalent term in any other language. Religion and Theology, the modern terms used are mostly anglicised, biblical and Abrahamic. It is a fact that ‘Dharma’ has been used in different religious texts of Hinduism in different forms. And it is in this fact, that the BHU controversy is rooted.
The crux of the BHU issue and the basic problem of students with the Muslim professor
BHU students have been protesting against the appointment of a Muslim professor in the Dharma Vigyan department. The students say, that in their course, they study mantra, shloka, yagna, vaidik rituals, Purohit Karm, recitation, Bhagwat recitation, jyotish, karmakand, etc. They are not only involved in studies but it is also the source of their livelihood. most of them spend their lives performing Purohit Karm. Essentially, the Dharma Vigyan department of BHU educates the future gatekeepers of Sanatan. The BHU students have repeatedly said that they are not against Muslims. They are not even against the Muslim professor teaching Sanskrit, however, they don’t want a non-Hindu, teaching them about their religion.
The facts of the case have been twisted beyond measure. One needs to understand at the very onset of this discussion that the students of Dharma Vigyan don’t learn Sanskrit as a linguistic endeavour.
The first fact to understand is that BHU has a separate Arts department that teaches Sanskrit as a linguistic endeavour. Just as one would perhaps learn French or English or even Hindi.
The Sanskrit being taught at the Dharma Vigyan department has deep religious significance. For this, I quote Professor Feroze Khan himself:
Excerpt of Indian Express article
He says that in the Sanskrit department of Dharma Vigyan, one has to not only learn the technicalities of Sanskrit as a language but also “famous dramas” like Abhigyan Shakuntalam, Uttar Ramcharitam or Mahakavya like Raghuvansh Mahakavya or Harshcharitam. He further says that these have nothing to do with religion.
With all due respect to Professor Khan, this statement itself shows that Professor Khan is looking at Sanatan with Abrahamic lenses. For Islam or Christianity, their religious text, so to speak, is limited to the Quran or the Bible. That is the final word of God for co-religionists. In Sanatan, however, there is no final word of God and no codified text that defines Hinduism.
Follow is what Professor Khan calls “dramas that have nothing to do with religion”:
Uttar Ramcharitam: The Uttararamacarita is a Sanskrit play in 7 acts in the Nataka style by Bhavabhuti. It covers the events of the Uttara Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana, the final years of Rama on Earth up to his ascension. Abhigyan Shakuntalam: A Sanskrit play by the ancient Indian poet Kālidāsa, dramatizing the story of Shakuntala told in Mahabharata. Or even Raghuvansh Mahakvya which is a Sanskrit Mahakavya by the most celebrated Sanskrit poet Kalidasa from the 5th century CE. It narrates, in 19 Sargas, the stories related to the Raghu dynasty, namely the family of Dilipa and his descendants up to Agnivarna, who include Raghu, Dasharatha and Rama.
Essentially, when one looks at what Professor Khan calls ‘just dramas that have nothing to do with religion’, one sees that the scriptures he talks of are deeply rooted in Sanatan Dharma. They are about our Gods and God-Kings who we, till date, revere. The fact that Professor Khan thinks these epics have ‘nothing to do with religion’, should in itself be a problem with his appointment to the Dharma Vigyan department because the students of the department do not view these epics as “dramas that have nothing to do with religion”.
I personally worship a Sati Goddess. There is a ‘paath’ that details her life that we call ‘Mangal paath’. It is in the form of poetry. Now for someone who doesn’t worship the Sati Goddess, it is just poetry that has ‘nothing to do with religion’. But for me, it is one of the most sacred texts. Similarly, the Bhagawat Gita in its original form is written in Sanskrit. However, there is another form of it called the Hari Gita, which is in Hindi poetic couplets. For a Sanatani, does Hari Gita become a ‘drama that has nothing to do with religion’, or is it as revered?
It must be mentioned here that I don’t have the knowledge or the expertise to question Professor Khan’s scholarship and in no capacity, am I trying to do so. I am simply trying to infer, from his own words, whether his scholarship is in tune with ‘faith’ that is the central focus of the Dharma Vigyan department. And hence, it becomes necessary to clarify that I come from a place of faith, and not scholarship, which is the crux of the BHU controversy, to begin with.
Are BHU students enrolled in the Dharma Vigyan department ‘bigots’?
One has to ask a very important question in this context – why would a student enrol himself in the Dharma Vigyan department of BHU? If a student enrols for an MBA, one can safely assume that he intends to work in the corporate sector in tune with his specialisation, which could be Marketing, Finance, Supply Chain Management, so on and so forth. When a student enrols for Mass Communication, one might safely assume that the student’s interests lie with fields like Journalism, for example. Now, when these students enrol in the Dharma Vigyan department, are they doing so to learn literature, or are they doing so to understand, learn about and pursue religious endeavours. If they had enrolled to merely learn literature, why would they enrol in Dharma Vigyan and not the Arts department?
Extrapolating from the above argument, it is thus safe to assume that the students of Dharma Vigyan enrolled there with the specific purpose of pursuing religious endeavours. While I love my faith and hold it very very dear, would not take it up as an academic exercise because my vocation lies elsewhere. But for these students, their faith is their vocation.
Do these students deserve to be called ‘bigots’ simply because they want the sanctity of their vocation to be preserved? Should they necessarily submit to secular ethos when their vocation itself is rooted is faith? Would we call a student of Physics a ‘bigot’ if he doesn’t want to learn about his subject from a Historian who might not understand the nuances of the subject? On the other side of the debate, is it alright for a man studying his faith as a vocation to be called a bigot if he doesn’t want a man, who calls parts of his faith as ‘dramas that have nothing to do with religion’ teaching him? The manner in which these Dharmics have been vilified is patently grotesque.
The Swarajya article
That brings me to the article published in Swarajya Magazine by Arihant Pawariya. Arihant is a friend whose journalism I deeply respect, however, in this matter, I daresay, he has been grossly off the mark.
The first argument that Arihant makes is that the family of Professor Khan is rooted in Indian culture and hence, protesting against him is counterproductive. My respect for Professor Khan increases manifold when I hear how his family has been rooted in Sanskrit and that his father would sing Bhajans and take care of Gaushalas. However, his family history has nothing do with the fact that he is in fact by all standards, someone who the students of Dharma Vigyan might not want to learn from.
Further, Arihant, in essence, says that a qualified Muslim professor is far better than a Hindu professor who is not as qualified as him. While on the face of it, this argument holds utmost merit, one needs to understand that this course itself is rooted in faith. And hence, his personal faith is as much a part of his ‘qualification’ as his Sanskrit scholarship. That he believes that certain epics are ‘dramas with nothing to do with religion’ vindicates that point further.
Arihant says, “Dr Khan will be joining the most secular of these departments. He will be teaching literature. Of course, it would be Sanskrit literature and many scriptures would be a part of the curriculum but it’s not theology per se”. I find this statement deeply problematic as well. Sanskrit as a language, firstly, cannot be secularised completely. It is a gateway to our Vedic wisdom. Secondly, if ‘many scriptures would be a part of the curriculum’, how can one assume that it is not related to theology since the students themselves are not learning it as a linguistic or literary effort but as a part of their faith, their scriptures?
Next, the article in Swarajya lists people like Dayanand Saraswati who wrote on Islam or Dr Ambedkar who wrote on Islam but was not an Islamic scholar. The central point being missed here is that none of them was employed to teach students of Islam. Professor Khan, just like anyone else is free to write about Sanatan or Sanskrit, the contention here is not whether a Muslim can write about Sanatan but whether a non-Hindu can teach students of Dharma Vigyan who are taking up faith as a vocation. The right question to ask here is that can a Hindu teach a future Maulvi? The Islamic community would resist and rightly so. A person who has no faith in the scripture he teaches has no business to teach the scripture to students of faith.
Further, he says, “Islam has already too many mullahs to issue a fatwa against apostates. Hindu nationalists would do better to side with heretics rather than mullahs. If Muslims, no matter how small a section, want to de-Arabise and Indianise, how can any Hindu nationalist find fault with this? It’s a no brainer”.
Here, I completely agree with him. Any Sanatani would welcome Muslims learning about Hinduism. Just like it was the Hindus who stood up for Triple Talaq petitioner Ishrat who got death threats for participating in Hanuman Chalisa recital. It was Hindus who stood up for Dilsher Khan who was thrashed for reading Ramayana and Mahabharata.
The “liberals” have drawn on this argument and fallaciously turned this into a “Hindu bigots uniting against Muslims” argument. For the sake of argument, even if we do accept this theory, one has to ask why these “liberals” did not stand up for Ishrat or Dilshad? Where was the outrage when Muslims were uniting against these Muslims?
Essentially, in the Swarajya article says that the BHU protestors are ‘entitled juveniles’ and them, including the ones supporting them, are ‘bigots’. A “bigot” essentially is a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. One has to wonder – who is the real bigot here? The BHU students who want to assert their right of learning Dharma from someone who holds the same faith, unequivocally, or those who are calling them bigots for holding a different opinion and not conforming to the touted ‘secular ethos’?
Tertiary allegations – casteism and ‘inclusivity of Hinduism’
The one argument that I repeatedly came across from various quarters that BHU students not wanting to learn Dharma from a non-Hindu is the same as Brahmins not wanting to the lower-castes to learn the scriptures. Here, I would like the shed the veil of subtlety and be categoric. Firstly, it is patently sinister to bring in the caste argument when the discussion is about Hindus vs non-Hindus. There is something extremely baleful since this argument aims to equate non-Hindus to “lower caste Hindus” and Hindus to Brahmins thereby insinuating that those who are not Brahmins are not Hindus. Nobody can deny that caste discrimination is real and a termite that has only weakened Hinduism. But in the context of BHU and the current controversy, the Hindu students of Dharma don’t wish to learn about their faith from a non-Hindu, there is no assertion that they do not wish to learn from castes other than Brahmins. This argument can only be considered a Leftist-Islamist agenda to drive a wedge in the Hindu community.
The other extremely misplaced, if not sinister argument is that Hinduism is “inclusive” and hence, the focus should not be on the religion of the Guru but his knowledge. As already established, his knowledge of Sanskrit is not a contention, his faith is. Secondly, it becomes important here to draw a comparison between ‘Pluralism’ and ‘Secularism’. Hinduism is Plural. It takes everyone along and even under Hindu supremacy, non-Hindus are not discriminated against, unlike Islamic nations. However, pluralism cannot mean that Hindus need to give up claim on all things Hindus. The problem is that the expectation from the Hindu community is that they should not claim exclusive rights even on faith. When a Ram Mandir is being spoken about, Hindus are ‘bigots’ if they don’t agree to a Masjid being made on Ram Janmabhoomi. When it is about theology, Hindus are ‘bigots’ if they don’t allow a Muslim man to teach them their own faith. The problem is that the starting assumption is that a Hindu is a ‘bigot’ unless he is willing to give up his claim on his own culture and his own religion.
The BHU students are being called ‘bigots’ because they refuse to give their claim on their own faith. The BHU students are being called ‘bigots’ because they are not willing to sacrifice their faith to prove that they are not ‘bigots’.
The BHU students are being called ‘bigots’ because they are Hindus. If the AMU students studying Islamic theology would have said they do not wish to learn about Islam from a Hindu or a Sikh, their demand would have been considered a reasonable demand coming from a place of faith. A reasonable demand of the devout and rightly so. But the BHU students, in the same situation, are bigots. Because a Hindu is always assumed to be one unless he is willing to give up his entire existence to conform to misplaced ideas of secularism.
The Importance of Boundaries
There are some fundamental truths about human society cannot be denied. Boundaries are important, borders are generally good. Society shouldn’t have to abolish boundaries and borders to prove that they are inclusive. Of course, overtime, the boundaries and the borders have to be redefined to include a particular section of society and exclude some others but the abolition of the boundaries themselves must occur after great introspection.
What we are essentially witnessing in BHU is abolition of boundaries not redefining them. The appointment of Dr Firoz Khan in the Dharma Vigyan department of the BHU erases the boundaries between Hindus and Non-Hindus in the teaching of Hindu theology itself. It’s a huge boundary and it’s being abolished without sufficient thought. This could have perilous consequences for the future. Thus, under such circumstances, when we have sufficient reason to believe that the consequences could be grave and not much evidence to suggest for the alternative, preserving the status-quo is the only way forward. The boundaries between Hindus and Non-Hindus ought to be preserved in the current context.
Furthermore, attempts have been made to paint the decision with the brush of caste. Such attempts are worthy of condemnation. Those who wish to bring Jaativad in this argument ought to remember Hindu society has reached a point where it seeks consolidation of Hindus under one banner. Greater unity is sought to be achieved although Jaativad does exist in current society.
However, it is pertinent to mention that Hindu society has redefined certain boundaries over time to open numerous doors to all castes and creed without discrimination but, at the same time, Hindu society does not wish to accord the same privileges to someone who is not a Hindu. Thus, essentially, what has occurred over the years is the redefinition of boundaries, not the abolition of it. Thus, the issue of BHU does not have an ounce of casteism in it.
Inclusiveness without boundaries is one gigantic mess. Not everyone belongs everywhere. All of us know it. We won’t allow everyone into our homes or our country even, that is why we oppose illegal immigration. That is the whole premise for the preservation of the traditions of Sabarimala Temple as well. “Not all exclusion is discrimination,” as J Sai Deepak is fond of saying. And it is the same argument that is being made for the support towards the students of BHU. Dr Firoz Khan may be a scholar of Sanskrit but he is not eligible for teaching Dharma Vigyan to Hindus by virtue of his faith. Only a person who has faith in Hindu theology could ever do justice to that role, and that could only ever be a Hindu.
The media-political establishment of the United States of America suffers from remarkable hubris. Despite the atrocious conduct of the USA in recent times, the liberal media and the Democrat party continues to feign moral superiority over the rest of the world, especially India. As the USA continues to struggle through an era of the great divide, CNN has become the embodiment of the rot that has taken over the country. In an article published by CNN on the 20th of November titled “In secular India, it’s getting tougher to be Muslim”, the author expects India to tolerate a state of affairs that the USA will never tolerate within its own territory.
The author uses the abrogation of Article 370, the Supreme Court verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi case and the NRC to paint a picture of Muslims in India living as second-class citizens.
The author of the CNN article about India says about the Ayodhya verdict, “The ruling on the Ayodhya site was seen as a blow to Muslims. It also came at a time when Muslims increasingly see themselves as second-class citizens in the predominantly Hindu country.” The author states further, “In August, the Indian government stripped the majority-Muslim state of Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomous status, essentially giving New Delhi more control over the region’s affairs.”
She adds, “That same month, nearly two million people in India’s northeast Assam state were left off a controversial new National Register of Citizens, which critics feared could be used to justify religious discrimination against Muslims in the state. All of this comes under the shadow of the country’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a self-proclaimed Hindu nationalist who has spoken out repeatedly against India’s secularism.”
This is a deliberate attempt to slander India at the international scene. We can only be grateful for the fact that CNN is not taken seriously even in the USA, let alone in India. And it is precisely this adamant refusal of the alleged news network to ignore facts at the altar of a preferred narrative that has destroyed CNN’s credibility.
The Ayodhya verdict was delivered by the Supreme Court of India, the conclusion wasn’t decided by the Narendra Modi led government. Will liberals now say the Supreme Court has fallen victim to Hindu Nationalism as well? Of course they will, it’s because they respect institutions only when they peddle the liberal agenda. Regarding the abrogation of Article 370, will the USA tolerate a law that provides for an Islamic state within its territory? All of us know the answer to that question and yet, India is expected to tolerate the same. Why?
With regards to the NRC, it is the duty of every country to ensure that illegal immigrants do not leech off the limited resources that are available to it. And the exercise is designed to suit that purpose. The political establishment of the USA may have different ideas but it is the moral imperative of every government to prioritize its own citizens over illegal immigrants. The political establishment of both parties in the USA do not believe it to be so. That is why Donald Trump got elected in the first place.
One of the reasons why the USA is so divided today is because of immigration. The Democrats support it because it increases their vote-bank. The Republican establishment supports it because it benefits businesses. But the average American is sick of it and does not want such a thing. That is why they voted Donald Trump to power, someone who promised to fix it but has been unable to due to resolute resistance from the political establishment.
India has different priorities than the United States and we still live in a country where Democracy at least functions the way it is supposed to. Narendra Modi promised to abrogate Article 370, he promised to enforce the NRC in Assam, his rise to power is defined by the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement and he has never shied away from it. Indians elected Narendra Modi to power on the basis of these promises and he delivered on these fronts. This is how a Democracy is supposed to work, not like the USA where an overwhelming majority of Americans do not want illegal immigration but the political establishment of both parties conspire to force it upon them.
Then, the author of the CNN article argues that the future looked bleak for India because of the looming prospect of a Uniform Civil Code. She says, “Currently, India has separate marriage, property and adoption rules for people from different religions — but code would wipe those out. That particularly worries the Muslim community, as it could mean that Sharia law no longer governs their marriage, inheritance and succession rights.” And adds, “Analysts worry that India’s attempt at marrying a pluralist society with a secularist system of governance will continue to be chipped away at as the ideas proposed by Hindu nationalists gain mainstream credence and support from citizens and public institutions.”
It is a ridiculous assertion that could only find credence in the minds of Western liberals. Does Sharia have any place in American society? Would their favourite president Barack Obama propose Sharia law in America? Did Muslims live in great fear in the USA during Barack Obama’s tenure as President? They did not have Sharia law governing United States jurisprudence back then and they do not have it now either. If any party or politician would propose Sharia law in the United States, they would be hammered by everyone. Why is it then that Western liberals expect India to tolerate Sharia law in our country? Is the USA a less pluralistic country because it doesn’t have Sharia in its society?
Amusingly enough, the enforcement of a Uniform Civil Code is a pretty liberal idea and every liberal ought to celebrate the abolition of Sharia law. And yet, we see continuously that its liberals who explicitly support Sharia. It only goes on to show that liberals love Islam more than liberalism and liberalism ends where Muslim feelings begin.
The article also uses Asaduddin Owaisi, a rabid hatemonger whose own brother wanted the Police to be lifted for 15 minutes so that Muslims could show Hindus who were the boss, to further its own charade. It also uses various other ’eminent intellectuals’ to further the notion that India is headed towards dark times.
Apparently, in order to uphold Secularism and liberal values, CNN believes India has to tolerate an Islamic state within its territory, it has to tolerate Shariah law and it has to tolerate illegal immigration as well. Does this look anything like Secularism or Liberalism? If it does, India wants none of it and it voted for a party that wants none of it either. And the political party is respecting the voters’ wishes. That is how Democracy is supposed to function.
Hindu Mahasabha has suggested that chanting slogans like ‘Jai Shri Ram’, ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ or ‘Vande Mataram’ should be a precondition to avail a ‘discount’ on the fee at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Over past few days, JNU students have been protesting against hostel fee hike, and have resorted to vandalism and violence.
On being asked about the ‘Jai Shri Ram’ being a religious slogan, Swami Chakrapani of Hindu Mahasabha said, “Jo Bhagwan Shri Ram ka naam lega wo maryadit rahega (Whoever will take Lord Ram’s name will be regarded)”. Then he added, “If you don’t want to take his name, you must chant ‘Vande Mataram’ or ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’. Ye to bol sakte ho (at least, you can say this much). It is patriotic to do so.”
Calling the students at JNU, “pizza-burger wale”, he claimed they lack “sanskar” (culture) and the majority of them are ‘anti-India’, said Swami Chakrapani. “Look, parents feed their children. But does it mean they can’t discipline them if they go astray? These students who have gone astray also need to be disciplined”, he furthered.
Earlier in the day, the Delhi Police had registered two FIRs in connection with Monday’s protest march. Reportedly, the Delhi Police had registered FIR against unknown protestors for allegedly violating prohibitory orders, obstructing police officers from discharging duties, and causing hurt.
The violent protests had erupted in JNU after the university administration had introduced fees for utility services like water and electricity on an actual basis, and a fixed charge of Rs 1700 per month for services like sanitation, maintenance, cook etc.
The room rent was also increased from ₹20 to ₹600 for single-seater and from Rs 10 to Rs 300 for double seater. One time security which is refundable had gone up from Rs 5,500 to Rs 12,000 and the students have been protesting against it.
Following the violent protests, the JNU administration had announced a ‘major rollback’ in the hostel fee hike. Despite the rollback, the JNU goons had resorted to shocking vandalism during the protest and had desecrated the soon-to-be inaugurated statue of Swami Vivekananda on campus shocking citizens across the country.
The Left Government in Kerala has been drawing flak from various Muslim groups and other political parties after P Mohanan, Kozhikkode district secretary of the CPI(M) claimed at a party function in Thamarassery, that some Muslim extremist outfits are supporting Maoists in the state.
“We have information that some Muslim extremist outfits are supporting Maoists in north Kerala. There is a new-found bonhomie between them. Some Kozhikkode-based extremist organizations are behind this. We need police to probe this,” said P Mohanan.
While stating that Kerala has been witnessing an unprecedented rise in the incidents of violence, the CPI(M) leader furthered: “Muslim extremist outfits are providing water and manure to Maoists.”
The controversial comment came at the backdrop of the death of four Maoists in an encounter with the police last month and the arrests of two student CPI(M) activists- Taha Fazal and Alan Shuhaib- by the Left government under the anti-terror Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for their alleged Maoist links.
This statement drew immediate condemnation from various political fronts and Muslim groups. The Muslim League demanded that the government name the Islamic groups that Mohanan alleged is acting in favour of Maoism in Kerala. “Let the party first examine its cadres before blaming others,” said Muslim League leader P P Ummer Koya.
Many self proclaimed liberals and intellectuals have also criticised the CPI(M). “No wonder, once they fall from grace they turn extremists in no time,” said writer and thinker Prof M N Karassery. The leader of Opposition Ramesh Chennithala also urged the government to clarify on the alleged presence of Islamic terrorism in the state. He also asked not to give the terrorist activities any communal angle.
Following the backlash, Mohanan later came up with a clarification that he never intended to slam Islam as a religion.
The Ministry of Home Affairs on Tuesday informed the Lok Sabha that 765 people have been arrested in Jammu and Kashmir for involving in stone-pelting since the abrogation of Article 370 on August 5.
According to the reports, Minister of State for Home Affairs G Kishan Reddy, responding to the question in Parliament, stated that the security forces have arrested the stone-pelters in connection with 190 incidents registered till November 15.
MoS Home Kishan Reddy said the government had adopted multi-pronged policies to curb stone-pelting. “A large number of troublemakers, instigators, mob mobilisers have been identified and various preventive measures have been taken against them which include detention under PSA and preventive arrests”, he added.
The minister accused various separatist organisations and activists part of the Hurriyat Conference for instigating people to resort to stone-pelting in Kashmir Valley. The National Investigation Agency has charge-sheeted 18 persons in terror-funding cases so far, he added.
Speaking on normalcy returning to the valley, the minister said while school attendance was low following the measures implemented by the government in Kashmir it was 99.7% in the ongoing examination. Responding to another question, Reddy said the Jammu and Kashmir administration had informed that a total of 34,10,219 tourists, including 12,934 foreigners, visited Jammu and Kashmir in the last six months and an income of Rs 25.12 crore was earned through tourism during this period.
Reddy said pump action guns were used with abundant caution since August 5, and only while dealing with severe law-and-order problems where civilian lives were under threat.
Within months after imposing restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir following the revocation of Article 370 and bifurcation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) into Union Territories (UT) of J&K and Ladakh, normalcy seems to slowly be returning to the valley.
Earlier in the day, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had reiterated that the curbs on the Internet in Kashmir valley will be lifted as soon as the local administration feels it fit to do so. Speaking in the Parliament, Home Minister Shah had said he agrees to the fact that the Internet is a necessity in today’s age but defended the ban on it in the Valley, saying the national security is paramount.
He also added all newspapers and TV channels are functioning freely in Kashmir. He added that the circulation of newspapers in Kashmir had not declined.
On Tuesday, the Jammu and Kashmir administration had said that restrictions imposed in the Valley will be lifted in a gradual manner in the wake of the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status. The new administration of the newly created Union Territory had stated that the move to ease the restrictions was taken following an assessment of different areas in the Kashmir division by local authorities.
Recently, the Modi government had informed the Supreme Court that it had revoked 90% of restrictions in the valley and the situation is reviewed every day.
Members of Indian Youth Congress today took to streets to protest against the removal of SPG cover of the Congress interim president Sonia Gandhi and other Gandhi scions-Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra.
Delhi: Indian Youth Congress stages a protest against the removal of SPG cover to Congress interim president Sonia Gandhi, and party leaders Rahul Gandhi & Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. pic.twitter.com/y1AofWdQC0
Thousands of Youth Congress members came on the street outside Shashtri Bhawan near the Parliament agitating over the downgrading of Security cover of the Gandhi family and demanding the restoration of the SPG cover. They also burnt effigies of PM Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
The government of India decided to withdraw the SPG cover granted to Gandhi family on November 8, 2019 and accorded then with Z+ security. The move came weeks after SPG protection was removed from another eminent Congress leader and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
In Rajya Sabha too, Congress leaders today created a ruckus over the removal of SPG cover of Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi. Congress demanded the restoration of SPG cover to the Gandhi family and said that the SPG cover should go beyond “partisan politics”.
Following the SPG cover removal of the Gandhi family, senior Congress leaders have launched a searing attack against the BJP, accusing it of “political vendetta”. However, the BJP has claimed that the removal of the elite protection cover was done because of several violations of the SPG norms on many occasions by the Gandhis that resulted in the demotion of their security cover.
According to the news agency IANS, Gandhi scion Rahul Gandhi travelled in non-BR (bullet-resistant) vehicles on 18 visits to different parts of the country between 2005 and 2014. In addition, there were 1892 instances when Rahul Gandhi travelled in a non-BR vehicle within Delhi and 247 times outside Delhi in such vehicle since 2015.
The news agency also cited violations of the SPG cover by the Congress interim President Sonia Gandhi. She did not use SPG BR vehicle on 50 occasions while travelling in New Delhi during 2015 and 2019. Sonia Gandhi also made 13 unscheduled visits across the country during that period in non-BR cars. She reportedly did not take SPG guards along with her on 24 of her foreign visits between 2015 and 2019.
The perennial protests in JNU held the city hostage as they marched on the streets demanding a roll-back of the supposed fee-hike. They violated section 144 that was imposed in and around the university and the Police had to detain ‘students’ and lathi-charge the protesters to break off the crowd.
Under such circumstances, numerous debates have erupted on social media on whether the protests held and demands made by the JNU protesters are legitimate. Anurag Singh, an alumnus of IIM-Lucknow and a value investor, recently posted a tweet thread on the social media platform where he elaborated on the fee structure of the JNU and analyzed whether the protests were justified on the basis of data available in the annual report of 2018.
A long thread on JNU fee hike. Is the protest justified ? Some data points can help us analyze. Step-1: Do you know how many courses are there at JNU & what is the student strength? Here is how it looks. @monikahalan@gchikermanepic.twitter.com/GxZLVPuIZt
There are nearly 8000 students at JNU, the majority of which are in social sciences. Anurag Singh further pointed out that almost 55% of the students were pursuing an M.Phil or a PhD degree. Furthermore, the income of the University was Rs. 383.62 crore while its expenditure was Rs. 556.14 crore. Thus, if one counts only the government aid/subsidies that the university receives, each student consumes about Rs. 4.40 lakh every year.
So JNU spends about Rs 556 crores per year on its https://t.co/MS89XHWx17 what is the cost per student at JNU ? We can calculate. Rs 556 crore / 8000 students gives us Rs 6.95 lac per student annually.
As Singh says in is an article for SwarajyaMag, “At any campus across the world, the strength of students declines as we move from undergraduate courses to postgraduate, and there are very few who pursue doctorate-level courses. This is also driven by financial compulsions as people need to get back to the earning workforce fast and get on to a career track.”
The Quality and Quantity of Academic Content
The academic content and research don’t appear to speak very highly of the university either. With over 4,000 students pursuing M.Phil or PhD degrees, just over 1,000 research articles were published in journals in the academic year 2017-18. Also, the ‘students’ attended nearly 2000 international conferences during the academic year and yet, there’s no evidence that anything good ever came of it.
With 4360 students in M.Phil. & Ph.D. courses, there are hardly 1000 research “articles” published in Journals. The university doesn’t name any notable journals while making such claims. This implies that there is just ONE “article” published for every 4.5 students each year.
As Singh says, “This implies that there is just one “article” published for every 4.5 students each year. This, when there are 600-plus Ph.D.s granted annually. Would you consider this any worthwhile research work?” He also says that for all the investment, JNU has been able to produce only four people with patents to their credit. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any student with a patent to his credit.
Is the fee hike justified?
When the data is compared with the ridiculously low fees that are charged from students at the university, it becomes obvious that the output does not justify the investment. As Anurag Singh says, “JNU is a perfect example of bad socialism. If you give something for free, people have no incentive to work and earn.”
He states in his article for SwarajyaMag that “they pay a generous Rs 6 for library and Rs 40 as a refundable security deposit. How a university was allowed to run with this fee structure and without any hike for decades is itself a research paper in the making. Of-course, nobody at JNU would have time to research on this. IIT Delhi, which is located close by, charges about Rs 2.25-odd lakh annually and IIMs charge about Rs 5 lakh to Rs 10 lakh per year. We don’t see any strikes at those places. Students know they need to jump into the job market, start their earning life and also repay the student loan that they carry. JNU is free of any such thoughts or troubles. Probably, the reason why students have much time left to create new troubles of their own.”
Meanwhile, the ‘intellectual’ class continues to fawn over the perennial protesters. Ravish Kumar even went ahead to assert that students in the Hindi heartland should emulate the conduct of JNU ‘students’. There appears to be very little willingness to address the elephant in the room here, which is, the lack of output compared to the massive investment.
In yet another embarrassment for terror state of Pakistan, a Dutch court has sentenced a Pakistani man to 10 years imprisonment on Monday for plotting the assassination of Dutch MP Geert Wilders.
Reportedly, the Dutch court found the 27-year-old Junaid, guilty of planning the murder of Wilders, who announced a Prophet Mohammed cartoon competition.
Junaid, who refers to himself as a “peace-loving” man had travelled from France to Holland, to plot the murder of Dutch MP Wilders. During the trial, he had stated that he had only visited Holland to protest against the cartoon competition.
However, he was arrested in August 2018 at a train station in The Hague after he posted a film on Facebook, wherein he claimed he wanted to “send Wilders to hell” and urged others to help.
The Judges at The Hague’s district court has now found the man guilty of “planning a murder with a terrorist motive” and incitement to commit a terror attack.
The Judges ordered handed down a 10-year sentence handed to Pakistani man Junaid on Monday. Defending the harsher punishment to the accused, the court had said, if the attack had succeeded it would have struck at the country’s “political and constitutional” heart and “caused a wave of fear”.
“Wilders was exercising his freedom of speech. The suspect wanted to carry out an attack in one of the parliament buildings: the heart of Dutch democracy,” added the judges.
Dutch MP Geert Wilders had announced a plan to hold the cartoon competition last year, which had sparked mass demonstrations in Pakistan and a march from Lahore to Islamabad by some 10,000 protesters. The protestors had even demanded the Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan to cut diplomatic ties with the Netherlands.
In June 2018, Wilders had announced Prophet Muhammad cartoon competition to be held at his party’s parliamentary offices. Later in August, he was forced to cancel the event after threats of terrorist violence became too significant.
The events were cancelled after thousands of supporters of TLP took to the streets of Pakistan calling for the expulsion of the Dutch ambassador and for diplomatic ties with the Netherlands to be severed. The Pakistani government, trying to take credit for the cancellation of the event, called it a “great moral victory for the Muslim Ummah” and a that “major crisis” had been averted.
Wilders is a known vocal critic of Islam He has been quoted in an interview as saying “I don’t hate Muslims, I hate Islam.” He said in the same interview, “Islam is not a religion, it’s an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture.”
Union Home Minister Amit Shah speaking at the Rajya Sabha today said that the NRC (National Register of Citizens) will be implemented across India. He said that no one should be worried about NRC as it is just a process of getting everyone under the NRC irrespective of their religion.
Kashmir issue:
Union Home Minister Amit Shah addressing Rajya Sabha began by taking on the questions on the Kashmir issue raised by Congress’ Ghulam Nabi Azad and gives a crystal clear picture on the current situation in the Valley by reaffirming that not a single civilian has died in police firing in Kashmir after August 5.
He spoke about the communication blockade in Jammu and Kashmir after the revocation of Article 370. “Section 144 is removed from Jammu and Kashmir. We agree that mobile and internet are important facilities and needs to be restored soon. But we must remember that it was the BJP that had brought mobile to the Valley. But when it comes to the safety of the country, we have to set a priority. As we all know, the situation in Kashmir remains tensed due to threats from across the border. As far as the internet is concerned, its restoration will be carried out at an appropriate time on admin inputs,” he said.
He said that there has been no shortage of medicines, all English language newspapers and TV channels available in Valley. Markets are shut in the afternoons but reopen in the evenings and over 20,000 schools are open, said the Union Minister.
NCR in Assam:
Speaking on the NRC, he said that it was monitored by the Supreme Court and no religion is targeted or isolated in it.
Talking about those names which have been excluded from the final draft of the NRC in Assam, Amit Shah said, “People whose names are not in the NRC have the right to approach the tribunal…Assam government is also ready to foot the expenses of people who can’t afford a legal counsel.”
To clear opposition’s qualms, Shah spelt out the difference between NRC and the Citizenship Amendment Bill. “NRC has no such provision which says that no other religion will be taken under NRC. All citizens of India irrespective of religion will figure in the NRC list. The NRC is different from Citizenship Amendment Bill.”
“Citizenship Amendment Bill is needed so that refugees get Indian citizenship. Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Christian, Parsi refugees should get citizenship, that is why Citizenship Amendment Bill is needed so that these refugees who are being discriminated on basis of religion in Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan, get Indian citizenship”, specified Shah.
HM Amit Shah: Hindu, Buddhist,Sikh,Jain, Christian, Parsi refugees should get citizenship,that is why Citizenship Amendment Bill is needed so that these refugees who are being discriminated on basis of religion in Pakistan,Bangladesh or Afghanistan, get Indian citizenship pic.twitter.com/5Bu56ZRxOQ
Finally, putting all the speculation to rest, Amit Shah took this opportunity to declare Modi Government’s plan on NRC. Making a huge declaration that NRC would be eventually carried out on a nationwide basis, Shah spelt out that no one needs to worry as no faith will be excluded in the process.
The nearly month-long winter session of Parliament beginning Nov 18 will see over 35 legislations taken up, including the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019. The session, which will end on Dec 13, will see a total of 20 sittings.
