Home Blog Page 5890

Decision up to Sunni Waqf Board, but we will not accept alternate land for Mosque: Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind on Ayodhya verdict

The Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (JuH), a key Muslim litigant in the Ayodhya title suit, stated that they will not be accepting the 5-acre alternative land for building a mosque as mandated by the Supreme Court.

Reportedly, the decision by Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind comes two days before the crucial meeting of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board to discuss the future course of action following the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya.

Read: Give us 5 acres within 67 acres of Ram Janmabhoomi only, our kabristan and dargah are there: Muslim litigants demand

The working committee Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind met in Delhi on Thursday, stated that nothing would be acceptable as an “alternative” to a mosque, be it money or land. In another big decision, Jamiat did not rule out the possibility of going for a review of the Supreme Court verdict.

A five-member fact-finding committee to be headed by its president, Arshad Madani, would seek legal opinion on the issue.

Calling the Supreme Court verdict ‘baffling’, Jamiat president Maulana Arshad Madani said it was the prerogative of the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Wakf Board to decide on whether to accept 5 acres that the court ordered to build a mosque, but, he added that the Jamiat working committee has decided to reject the offer since there was no need for such “charity”.

Read: Evidences prove that Hindus have always believed Ram Janmasthan is the place where Babri Mosque was built: Addendum to Ayodhya Verdict

“Once a mosque is built, it remains a mosque till the end of time. So Babri Masjid is, was, and will remain a mosque. However, if the Supreme Court had said that Babri Masjid had been built after demolishing a temple, we would have forfeited our claim. Also, if we do not have a claim, why give us land at all? That is why this is a baffling verdict from the Supreme Court,” added Madani.

Uttar Pradesh JuH president Ashhad Rashidi, who was present in the meeting, said two crucial decisions were taken in the working committee meeting. “One was related to the five-acre alternative land for a mosque and the other was the possibility of filing a review plea,” said Rashidi.

Read: We don’t want a donation, we don’t need 5 acres land: AIMIM chief Owaisi whines after SC verdict on Ram Janmabhoomi

He added, “The working committee unanimously decided there can be no ‘badal’ (alternative) of a mosque for anything in the world, neither money nor land. It will not be right for any Muslim outfit to accept barter,” said Rashidi.

Founded in 1919, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind is one of the most influential and financially sustainable Muslim organisations in the country. Recently, it had created a massive controversy after it had extended legal and financial aid to the Islamists accused in the Kamlesh Tiwari murder.

The Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, which roughly translates to Council of Indian Muslim Theologians belonging to the Deobandi school of thought, had said that it was willing to bear all the legal costs and also offered the held of their legal cell to defend the 5 Islamists, who were accused in the Kamlesh Tiwari murder.

Congress, NCP, Shiv Sena work on CMP: Sena drops Hindutva like a hot potato? Makes minorities and farmers the focus

Maharashtra has been in limbo post-Assembly elections. While BJP and Shiv Sena, the ideological allies had a fall out over Uddhav Thackeray led Shiv Sena demanding the Chief Minister position, the erstwhile Hindutva party has now allied with Sonia Gandhi led Congress and Sharad Pawar led NCP. According to media reports, the three parties have reached a broad consensus on a Common Minimum Program (CMP) where Hindutva has been dropped like a hot potato and the cause of minorities, farmers have taken the spotlight.

According to a report in the Times of India, a 40 point Common Minimum Program has been reached by the three parties. The CMP is now expected to be circulated to the party chiefs who will discuss the finer points over the weekend. A final word on CMP is expected to be reached on 19th November 2019. Interestingly, there were 3 meetings that took place to decide the CMP. In two of the meetings, Shiv Sena, Congress and NCP were all present, however, in one meeting, only Congress and NCP were present. According to TOI, Shiv Sena is likely to get 16 cabinet members, NCP 14 and Congress 12. The Speaker is likely to be from Congress and will get a deputy from Sena, while the legislative council chairman’s post will go to NCP, with the deputy’s chair, again, for Sena.

Read: Six things that follow from the new Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress govt and what the Hindus of India should learn from this

However, a report in India Today claims that Shiv Sena is going to get a full term Chief Minister with Congress and NCP electing one Deputy CM each. The report also says that Shiv Sena and NCP will get 14 Cabinet Ministers each while Congress is likely to get 12.

However, on the post of CM, TOI quotes a senior Congress leader as saying: “Shiv Sena has staked a claim for the CM’s post. It is not yet clear if it will be for five years or it will be by rotation for two and half years, or it should be for an equal period among Congress, Shiv Sena and NCP.”

Media reports have also given broad indicators as to what the agenda for CMP between the three parties is. Broadly, it appears that in their thirst for power, Shiv Sena seems to have given up on the Hindutva cause. In fact, if reports are to be believed, Congress and NCP want an assurance from Shiv Sena that their Hindutva agenda is going to take a back-seat once the government is formed. The demands are that Shiv Sena too needs to agree to be a part of a secular government, reported Jagran.

The reports indicate that the central focus of the CMP is going to be minorities and farmers. The CMP mentions the welfare of minorities, loan waiver for farmers, tracking of wet droughts, the revival of closed and sick industries, action plan for employment generation etc.

Read: 5% reservations to Muslims to be part of Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress govt in Maharashtra, journalist claims

Interestingly, a journalist had recently claimed that 5% reservation for Muslims was to be a part of the Common Minimum Program reached by the three parties.

Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan has reportedly said, “We took note of Shiv Sena’s manifesto as well as our own manifesto and drafted the CMP. It is not an election manifesto, but an action plan for providing clean and transparent administration. Contentious issues have been dropped”.

Recently, several Shiv Sena MLAs had revolted saying that the entire party is suffering because Uddhav Thackeray is hankering for the Chief Minister position. The revolting MLAs had reportedly left the resort they were being holed up in due to fear of poaching by BJP.

The drama is back: Trupti Desai says she plans to enter Sabarimala soon, urges Kerala police to escort her inside sanctum sanctorum

Controversial ‘activist’ Trupti Desai on Thursday said that women should be allowed entry into the Sabarimala temple till a seven-judge Supreme Court bench delivers the verdict on the issue.

According to the reports, Trupti Desai, who was stopped from entering Sabarimala shrine last year, and was turned back from Kochi airport, had ‘vowed’ to offer prayers at the shrine when it opens for worship this year.

“What I understand is that till the court order comes, entry is open for women and no one should protest against it. People who say that there is no discrimination at all are wrong because women of specific ages are not allowed there. I am going to offer prayers on November 16,” the Pune-based Desai said to the media after the SC verdict.

Read: SC order on Sabarimala is ‘complex’, will not provide assistance to women entering the shrine: Kerala Minister

Desai urged the Kerala government to ensure that police escort women right inside the temple, near the sanctum sanctorum, as per a report in The Hindu. Welcoming the Supreme Court decision, Desai said she was planning to visit Sabarimala in the next few days and added that mere police protection by the Kerala government was insufficient to ensure that women could worship at the Ayyapa shrine in peace.

“The judges today have referred the Sabarimala case to a larger Supreme Court Bench of seven judges by saying that Sabarimala was only part of a larger issue which included the question of entry of Muslim women in mosques and Parsi women in their fire temples. While we were expecting a final decision on Sabarimala today, we are nevertheless happy that the judges have not stayed the order,” said Desai.

Last year, after the Kerala police had stopped her from entering the shrine, Trupti Desai had announced that she will visit the Sabarimala temple “unannounced” in the future using “Guerilla tactics”. Desai, the founder of the ‘Bhumata Brigade’ had faced severe protest by Hindu groups last year after she attempted to enter the shrine in an attempt to violate and desecrate the age-old customs in the Sabarimala shrine.

The Supreme Court of India led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi on Thursday did not arrive at a conclusive decision in Sabarimala review petitions and referred the case to a larger bench by a 3:2 majority.

Hearing a batch of petitions seeking review of its September 2018 judgement on the Sabarimala issue, the Supreme Court on Thursday said restrictions on women in religious places were not limited to Sabarimala alone and was prevalent in other religions as well as it referred all review pleas to a larger seven-judge bench.

CJI Gogoi said the question of whether women of all ages should be allowed into Sabarimala is part of a larger debate that includes issues like allowing Muslim and Parsi women to enter religious practice and female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.

SC order on Sabarimala is ‘complex’, will not provide assistance to women entering the shrine: Kerala Minister

On Thursday, following the Supreme Court verdict on Sabarimala, the Communist-led Kerala government LDF government described the verdict of the top court as “very complex” and refused to provide any assistance to women wishing to enter the Sabarimala shrine.

Reportedly, Kerala Law Minister AK Balan, speaking to the media on Thursday, said that the state is yet to decide whether it will provide assistance to a woman between the age group of 10-50 if they attempt to enter the Sabarimala shrine. The Kerala government also refused to spell out on the arrangements made to handle the situation if women attempt to enter the hill shrine in the coming days.

“The state government won’t provide any assistance for women in the 10-50 age group to enter the Holy shrine if they try to do so. We are yet to decide on what has to be done if any women in the 10-50 age group show interest. The order is highly complicated and needs to be studied further,” he said.

Read: Today’s judgement by Supreme Court has effectively dislodged the 2018 verdict in Sabarimala case: Advocate J Sai Deepak

Even Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who had received a lot of flak for his support for the desecration of Sabarimala shrine and the government’s atrocities last year, seems to have toned down his enthusiasm after Thursday’s SC verdict. Though Vijayan avoided direct questions on whether his government will escort women into the shrine, like it did last year, law minister Balan’s statement was indicative that the LDF government may not.

“There is ambiguity. The verdict has created more confusion and its implications need to be understood in depth. We will consult legal experts and formulate a stand. Whatever the verdict, the government is bound to implement that,” Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan said to the media on Thursday.

The Kerala Congress, which had been against the LDF government’s atrocities on devotees and attempts to desecrate the temple, reacted soon after the SC verdict yesterday. Congress’ Ramesh Chennithala urged the LDF not to send any more ‘atheists’ into the temple claiming to be devotees.

Read: CPM admits Sabarimala row proved detrimental to party’s fortunes in the Lok Sabha elections: Report

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi could not come to a conclusive decision in Sabarimala review petitions and referred the case to a larger bench by a 3:2 majority. The Supreme Court had reserved its judgment in the Sabarimala verdict after hearing the review petitions in September this year, challenging the court’s verdict of lifting the ban on women of menstrual age to enter the shrine of Sabarimala.

Hearing the review petitions challenging the 2018 verdict, the Supreme Court had said that the issue of women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple is not just limited to Sabarimala, but to the entry of women into Mosques as well.

The apparent shift in the stand of the Kerala government on the issue of entry of women into Sabarimala shrine comes after the communists suffered a humiliating defeat in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. Following the election rout, the Pinarayi Vijayan government seems to have learnt the hard way that interfering and desecrating the age-old religious customs and traditions of the Hindus could prove costly in the elections.

In the garb of devotees, the Kerala government was seen escorting non-Hindu and atheist women, mostly communist workers, into the shrine last year.

In the guise of implementing Supreme Court judgement, the Kerala government, with the help of state police force had turned the area near Sabarimala into a war zone after some devotees had clashed with the police. The Kerala police had also unleashed violence against thousands of Hindu devotees by pelting stones and lathi charging as the situation went out of control.

As Kerala government forcefully attempted to enforce the controversial Supreme Court judgement, the state of Kerala saw huge protests organised by Hindu devotees. The massive protests had come as a result of the Kerala government trying to stop genuine devotees while allowing activists and non-Hindus to enter the Sabarimala shrine, even escorting them.

Interview with Sachin Tendulkar’s mother Rajni Tendulkar: Of his childhood, her life, dreams, the devout family and working women

Ms Meenatai Naik, the interviewer, recalls her memories with the family:

It was a great pleasure meeting Rajanitai after ages. I remember the first time I saw Sachin when he came from the hospital, about 8 days old, directly to Sahitya Sahawas. Before that, the Tendulkars were living in Dadar. So when Rajanitai and Sir (Ramesh Tendulkar, Sachin’s father) came to Sahitya Sahawas they forgot the keys at Dadar and Rajanitai was waiting in the corridor holding the baby in her arms. We were staying next to Tendulkars. I heard some noise in the corridor and saw Rajanitai lingering in the corridor. I called them into my house, held Sachin in my lap. Sir then got the keys from Dadar after some time. Till then Rajanitai and the baby were with us. So Sachin entered our house first before his own. Sir always used to remember this incident. In fact today also our chat began with this sweet memory. When Sachin was 4 or 5 years old, he would hold children older than him. He was a very healthy, chubby and strong boy. Rajanitai had allowed his curly hair to grow for a long time. Once I asked Sachin who he was with this long hair. He answered, ‘I am Sardarjee’s son’. (Me Sardarjicha por ahe.) Sachin was about 15 or 16 years old when we had already returned to our Kalanagar house. There was a Kalavihar club only for the Kalanagar’s kids. But Sachin used to come to Kalavihar club to play carom or chess or sometimes table tennis. In 1998, I had produced one children’s play in which we required one cricket bat. Children’s theatre always runs on shoestring budgets. So I asked Sachin to give his old bat. The next day Sir came with three bats saying that Sachin had signed these bats, I could pick anyone. We took one appropriate for our play and returned the two. That bat is still with us in a showcase. The sweet memory of Bharat Ratna Sachin.

Interview by Ms Meenatai Naik

Q. When were you in LIC? In which branch?

Reply:-  I was in the Foreign Department in our Santacruz Branch. I served right up to my retirement. I had difficulty in walking for three years during 1992, 1993 and 1994. I was on leave during this period. Shri V. W. Patki had offered to transfer me to Yogakshema. I said no. It was possible to reach Santacruz by rickshaw. But I would do that only if I was late.

Q. Are your colleagues still in touch with you?

Reply:-  Of course, they come to meet me. I cannot go out and they know that. So instead they come to meet me. When I was working with LIC, Sachin would often say: ‘Ayee, leave your job.’ He did not like me working. But our doctor convinced him. He said, ‘How would you like your mother to be? Would you like her to be bed-ridden at home or limping to work? Does your mother go out otherwise? No. Is it not better that she goes to the office?’ Sachin said, ‘Ayee should keep a cook at least.’ The doctor said,‘ Is it not better that she kneads flour at home. Sachin was convinced.

Q. Did you ever take Sachin to your LIC office?

Reply:-  Many times. On Saturdays, his nanny would visit her son. So where could I leave Sachin? I would then take him to my office. He would play there. Runabout. Then he started playing Test matches. He started breaking and making records. My retirement became due. Then my colleagues insisted that I should bring him to the office once. They wanted to meet him. They had seen him as a child. I asked Sachin, ‘Will you come to my office one day?’ So, on my last day, Sachin and Anjali came to my office. They said this should not be publicized. But, I don’t know how the peon saw Sachin’s car and everyone – LIC employees from the adjoining buildings, employees from the nearby telephone exchange, residents from LIC quarters – gathered. Photographs were taken. It was all chaos.

Q. When did you first realize Sachin’s talents?

Reply:-  Sachin was very naughty as a child. He would forever be playing in Sahitya Sahawas. There was a mango tree in the compound. All children, including Sachin, would pluck raw mangoes. Sachin would climb the tree and the other children would stand below to catch the mangoes. One day when Sachin had climbed the tree the watchman came and started shouting. All the children ran away. Sachin was on the tree. As the watchman turned his back, Sachin jumped down. Priyolkar Ajji was watching all this from the opposite balcony and she told me saying, ‘Take care of this boy.’ That night we were all worried. We wondered what to do with such a child. All the family members discussed this and Ajit said, Sachin plays good cricket, his cricketing talent should not go waste in the four walls of the compound ‘Let us send him to play cricket’ I said, ‘All boys handle a bat and ball and girls handle dolls. I don’t think this boy has any special liking for cricket.’ Ajit said, ‘No, he really plays very well.’ So I said OK. At least the two summer months would be peaceful. And Ajit then started taking him for cricket training and practice. Then Ramakant Achrekar, Sachin’s coach and teacher, realized Sachin’s talents and made him change his school. Sachin’s training began as a child.

Q. Did you have any special dreams in those days? Did you want Sachin to be a professor like his father?

Reply:-  Every mother feels that her child should reach the top in any field that he chooses. I too felt that way.

Q. Now Sachin has got the highest Indian award of Bharat Ratna. Did you ever feel that he would get this award?

Reply:- Last year, Lata Mangeshkar had said that Sachin should get the Bharat Ratna. Hopes kindled in my heart then. This year in an interview on some channel she said it again. Later, the award was announced. I was very happy.

Q. Sachin has immense respect for you. He has dedicated his award to you. Tell us about any incident which shows his respect for you.

Reply:-  Sachin was in the first or second class and there was a parents’ meeting in school. I went. A girl in his class, Shefali, commented on me saying, ‘Sachin’s mother looks so funny. Then the next day I got a message from the school calling me to meet the teacher. I went and the teacher complained saying, ‘Sachin hit Shefali in the chest and Shefali was crying.’ Shefali’s mother had also come to school with her. I said I will find out, ask Sachin. I asked him. Sachin told me what Shefali had said about how I looked. And he said that is why he had hit her. Shefali wouldn’t say a word. She kept quiet. I told the teacher that I did not mind what Shefali said about how I looked. But Sachin got very angry. And he hit her. Then we convinced both of them. That is how Sachin was as a child. After many years when both had grown up, Shefali stopped Sachin on the stairs once and asked him whether he recognized her saying that he had once hit her in the chest. Sachin said ‘No’, and Shefali, in turn, told him the entire story. Both laughed. By the way, Shefali is the daughter of the famous journalist and novelist, Arun Sadhu. Now Shefali is also well placed, working for ABP Maza.

Q. Sachin is very considerate, mature in thought. How did you train him to be so? No one ever criticizes him for his behaviour. His success has not gone to his head. How is it so?

Reply:-  No mother knows what her child is going to be when he grows up. She behaves in the same manner with all her children. Sachin also grew up in the same way as his siblings. And he loves his entire family. Sachin changed his school and went to Sharadashram Vidya Mandir at Dadar. He had to change buses. But he was prepared for that. Sachin’s uncle lives at Dadar. As changing buses started becoming difficult his uncle invited Sachin to live with him at Dadar. Sachin agreed. But he had a proviso. He wanted all of us to visit him every day. So Nitin, Savita, and Ajit would go to meet him after college. His father taught in Kirti College and so he too could go every day. My office was at Santacruz, I had to go back to Dadar. But I would go daily. Sachin still goes to meet his uncle and aunt. He demands that his aunt should make his favourite dishes for him. Sachin loves all his siblings. He would sleep between Nitin and Savita when he was small.

Q. I remember that Prof. Tendulkar’s friends and his family had stayed with you for a year. So there were two families staying in your flat for a year.

Reply:-  Yes, A friend was told that his flat would get ready by May in Sahitya Sahawas. So he changed the schools of his children. The school of two girls was in the morning and of two in the afternoon. So the friend’s wife would be out with her daughters for the whole day and return home at Goregaon late every evening. The girls would be sitting on the steps for the whole day until the other girls had finished their classes. Sachin’s father realized that one day. He told me, ‘See, these girls sit on the steps for the whole day. Their home is far away from the railway station. Their new house is getting ready. Shall we call them to stay with us till then?’ I said, ‘Yes’. He said, ‘Ten men can happily live in a 10’ x 12’ room. But two women cannot live in one house.’ I said, ‘Call them and watch.’ Then one day the friend, his wife and the four daughters came home to live with us. I told the friend’s wife on the very first day: ‘Look when our children quarrel with each other we shall not quarrel. They shall quarrel and make up. We should ignore that.’ She conformed and so did I. Her four and our four children would all sleep on the floor in the drawing-room. The family was with us for almost one year. Then their flat got ready and they went to live there. The children had become such good friends that they felt very bad at the parting. Sachin grew up in such circumstances. All this had its effect on him.

Q. Sachin’s nanny, Laxmibai, was with you for 10-12 years. Sachin loved her.

Reply:-  Oh! Yes! when Sachin grew up, she started working elsewhere. She would come to see Sachin. The women of Sahitya Sahawas would tell me, ‘Sachin gives her thousand rupees. Advise him.’ I would say, ‘He earns. He wants to give money. So let him. Why should I stop him? She has done a lot for Sachin.’

Q. Is Sachin very devout?

Reply:-  I will tell you a story. I was operated upon on the abdomen. I was getting admitted into the hospital and was going up in the lift. There was a photograph of Sai Baba in the lift. I casually said, ‘If I survive the operation I shall visit to you.’ I came out of the lift and there was a Ganapati picture there. I said the same thing again. Then I was operated upon. The next day early morning Sachin went to Siddhi Vinayak temple. He also visited a Sai Baba temple nearby. He had once taken me to Shirdi in a helicopter.

Q. You did not watch a single match during Sachin’s entire career. Then you saw the 200th test match. The crowd was huge. What did you feel then?

Reply:-  I had never been to any match. I used to be very tense. We used to watch it on television. This time Sachin said, ‘Ayee, you must come this time. I have asked them to have this match in Mumbai for you. What will they feel if you don’t come?’ This time I had a physical problem. I cannot climb steps. Then Sachin got a ramp made especially for me. But because of the huge crowd which was expected, Sachin also got a wheelchair for me. I remember another incident. That was in the early days. It was the 4th test match. It was in Pakistan. He was hit on the nose, and he fell down. I was very scared. He was very young then. But his colleagues reassured us. They said that Sachin got up in two minutes and wanted to play. And he played quite well.

Q. The mother retires, the father retires. Now Sachin is retiring at a young age. What do you feel? Do you feel worried? How would he spend his time now? How do you feel?

Reply:-  Now he is touring. He went to Delhi, then Kolkata. I asked him to visit our family deity. So he went to Goa. He is travelling.

Q. Anjali, Sachin’s wife. How do you get along with her?

Reply:-  Anjali comes from an educated, noted family. She is the only child. But she is modest, good-natured and devout. She takes very good care of all of us, also her parents. She does a lot for her children as well.

Q. Tell us something about Sara and Arjun, your grandchildren.

Reply:-  Sara is very quiet and well behaved. Arjun is always active. When they were small and Sachin and Anjali would be out, Sara would take care of Arjun, reassure him. When she was in the 10th class she would be always studying. My cousin would ask her, ‘Why do you study so much?’ She would say, ‘Everyone knows my father. If I get bad marks everyone would comment. What would they say to Mamma? Shouldn’t I get good marks?’ Arjun is very lovable. He loves people. When he was young, his friends would come home to play. He would not allow them to come near my room. He would say, ‘This is Ajji’s room. Do not play here.’ Then his friends would say, ‘So what? Even we have grandmothers. Arjun would say, ‘But my Ajji is different. Her legs ache. If she is pushed she will fall. Her bones will break. So let us not play here.

Q. Do you feel that Arjun will also make a notable cricket career?

Reply:-  He loves the game now. I don’t know what will happen later.

Q. These are the children of the world-conquering cricketer Sachin Tendulkar. There has been a halo around them from birth. Yet they are as well balanced as Sachin. What have you done to nurture them?

Reply:-  One should do this when they are young. I used to tell Arjun that he should share his meals with his friends in school. Mix with everyone. Others will then do the same with him. Anjali’s mother also works for poor children. She goes to slums also. Our children see that.

Q. I remember that you left Sahitya Sahawas and went to live in Le Mer. But Sara and Arjun would still come here to play. I think the idea was that they should grow with normal children, that they should not get ideas.

Reply:-  Yes, they would love to play in Sahitya Sahawas. So Anjali would send them there.

Q. I have heard that you cook very well. What does Sachin like?

Reply:- Sachin likes non-vegetarian food. He likes my dishes. Arjun and Sara also like our kind of food. Sara likes fish. Sara and Arjun were visiting Anjali’s uncle in London when they were young. Anjali’s aunt is British. She made food very quickly from tins. Sara said that ‘Ajji does not do this. She uses coconut, onions.’ Sachin felt awkward. But Anjali managed to save the situation. Children are so innocent.

Q. Did the top dignitaries of LIC come to meet you after learning about Sachin’s Bharat Ratna?

Reply:- Yes, Sachin was at home that day. They said to him, ‘Sachin, your mother was in LIC with us. LIC is a family. You are also a part of our family.’ Then they got themselves photographed with Sachin. I was very happy.

Q. What would you say to working women?

Reply:-  Sachin’s father would say that women should go out and work. Do not confine your self to your home. Expand your horizons. I worked until my retirement. So I feel, even if you have a job, you should keep some time aside for your children. You owe that to them.

(This interview was first published in March 2014).

Tom Lantos HR Commission hearing: Sunanda Vashisht shines, calls out ISIS level Islamic terror in Kashmir, plight of Hindus et al

On 14th November, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission congregated for a hearing to examine the human rights situation in the former state of Jammu and Kashmir in India in a historical and national context. The Commission acknowledged in its official brief that though India’s move to abrogate Article 370 was sudden, Kashmir has always been a troubled state. Mentioning the communication restriction and the preventive detention of leaders, the commission sought to examine the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir in the context of the region’s history and larger patterns of rights violations in India and Pakistan, and also offer recommendations for action by Congress. The hearing was open to Members of Congress, congressional staff, the interested public, and the media. One of the witnesses testifying in the commission was columnist Sunanda Vashisht.

Vashisht started off by talking about Tom Lantos himself, after whom the commission is named. She said that the late Congressman was a Holocaust survivor and had said that Indians and Jews share a passionate commitment for the rule of law and the mindless, vicious Islamic terrorism (indicating how Jews and Hindus are both persecuted by Islamic terrorism).

Invoking the late journalist Daniel Pearl who was beheaded by Islamic terrorists, Sunanda Vashisht tweaked his last words and said, ‘My mother is a Kashmiri Hindu, my father is a Kashmiri Hindu, I am a Kashmiri Hindu. Our homes are lives in Kashmir were destroyed by radical Islamic terrorism”.

Read: US House Hearing Committee: An exercise in genocide denial and how ‘Kashmiri Hindus’ contributed to the disgrace

Sunanda went on to say that as she speaks at the Commission, she is choked by the memory of those she represents as they voice was brutally extinguished in the most brutal fashion. She said she is a member of the minority Hindu community from Kashmir and the community is the victim of the most brutal ethnic cleansing in independent India. She said is a survivor, but the young lab assistant from Kashmir was not so lucky. She recalls a brutal murder of Girija Tickoo, a lab assistant who was abducted, gang-raped and cut in two halves on a chain saw while she was still alive by Islamic terrorists in Kashmir.

In a booming voice, Sunanda Vashisht, while recalling the brutal murder of Girija Tickoo said that her only crime was her faith.

She then remembers BK Ganjoo. Another Kashmiri Hindu who was murdered brutally at the hands of Islamic terrorists in Kashmir. He was an engineer who hid inside a rice container and would have still been alive had his neighbours, who he trusted, Hindus trusted, did not give up his location. He was shot through the container and his wife was made to eat the blood-soaked rice, remembered Sunanda.

In a booming voice yet again, Sunanda Vashisht says that BK Ganjoo’s crime was his faith.

Sunanda Vashisht then says that the Kashmiri Hindu community of Kashmir has seen ISIS level of brutality 30 years before the US was even introduced to the concept of radical Islamic terror.

She then said that she is glad that these hearings are happening today because when she and her family lost everything to Radical Islamic terror, the world remains silent. She painfully asks where the Human Rights Commissions were when her rights were being taken away. Where they were on the night of 19th January 1990 when there were voices blaring from the mosques that they wanted Kashmir with Hindu women but without Hindu men. She goes on to question the Human Rights protectors and asks where were they when her feeble grandfather stood with two kitchen knives ready to kill her and her mother to save them from the much worse fate that awaited them had they landed in the hands of the terrorists.

Sunanda then said that Kashmiri Hindus were given three choices – flee, convert or die and around 400,000 Kashmiri Hindus fled.

Read: Read 10 bizarre anti-Hindu, anti-India comments made in written submissions by ‘Hindus’ to US House Foreign Affairs’ Committee

Talking about how she is still not welcome in Kashmir and not allowed to practise her faith without fear, she says her home is occupied illegally like those of countless others and those who haven’t been occupied have been burned down. She spoke about the Hindus temples of Kashmir that were broken, desecrated and lay in ruins in Kashmir.

She said that every attempt has been made the eradicate Hinduism from the valley and today, Kashmir is home to only one religion (Islam) and that this is by design. Sunanda then speaks about how it is not just the Hindus but also Sikhs and Christians who have been cleansed from Kashmir.

“The Islamist State of Kashmir where other religions are not welcome & tolerance of any other viewpoint is absent is no citadel of Human Rights. Terrorism is the ultimate opponent of Human Rights. Human Rights cannot & should not take precedence over Human Life”, Sunanda said.

She then spoke about how apple traders and shop keepers are shot by terrorists in Kashmir and the simple act of earning their livelihood is threatened. She attributed this brutality to the fact that if traders and businessmen earn their livelihood, it would show that Kashmir is moving towards normalcy and hence, they are not allowed to do so by terrorists.

“Today I’m delighted that Kashmiris have the same rights as Indian citizens. If something as serious as Women’s right to own property and granting LGBTQ rights amongst many others has been accomplished by abrogation of Article 370, internet restoration isn’t far”, she said.

Countering a Sikh witness who furthered the same agenda of demonising India, Sunanda said that it breaks her heart that her Sikh colleague spoke about the rights of Sikhs but failed the mention the Chattisinghpura Massacre of Kashmir. She said that the massacre happened when Clinton visited India and he didn’t mention that because it would go against his agenda. She said there is no proof that Sikhs are looking for their right to self-determination.

She further said, “Path forward we have to help India in eradicating radical Islamist terror in Kashmir. We’ve to be cognisant of this fact. Why is it that nobody on this panel except me talked about Islamist terror? Is Islamist terror a figment of my imagination? No, it isn’t”.

She said that all deaths have happened in Kashmir since 5th August by Islamic terrorists and not one person has been killed by Indian security personnel.

The full Commission hearing can be watched below:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPSDc_X3GYM?start=4293]

Trouble mounts for Azam Khan as Rampur Court issues non-bailable warrant against him over violation of MCC

The Rampur court has issued a non-bailable warrant against Samajwadi Party leader and Lok Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) Azam Khan for an alleged violation of model code of conduct. The court issued the warrant after the MP failed to appear before a district court judge November 13 (Wednesday), even after its order.

The next hearing date, in this case, has been set for November 26.

Case registered against Azam Khan during 2019 Lok Sabha polls:

Rampur Police had registered a case against Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan and party chief Akhilesh Yadav during the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, for holding a roadshow in Swar Tanda Assembly on April 4 for more than the permitted time. Police said the case was registered against the duo for violation of the Model Code of Conduct.

Later, the police filed the charge sheet and the matter was heard in a Rampur court which issued a warrant against both leaders. The SP chief was granted bail but Azam Khan did not appear in the court.

Read: After buffaloes, Samajwadi Party leader and land mafia Azam Khan now booked for stealing goats

The SP leader is already in neck-deep trouble as almost 80 cases are pending in his name. It was first land-grabbing, then lion statues, followed by books and valuable manuscripts, then buffaloes and electricity and then something as petty as stealing goats. Adding salt to his injuries, Azam Khan’s bail application in as many as 34 cases has already been rejected which mostly includes land grabbing cases and also the case registered against him for his sexist jibe against BJP leader Jaya Prada.

Interestingly, the Uttar Pradesh Police has also registered an FIR against the wife of senior Samajwadi Party leader and Rampur MP Azam Khan, Tajeen Fatima. Azam Khan’s wife has been accused of electricity theft.

Liberals write to PM Modi, want him to give Aatish Taseer an OCI card because he is as privileged as them

0

‘Eminent’ writers, journalists, creative artists, academics, and activists have urged the Indian government to review its decision to revoke the OCI card of hatemonger Aatish Taseer. The names include Salman Rushdie, Christiane Amanpour, Amitav Ghosh and Margaret Atwood.

They say, “We are extremely concerned that Taseer appears to have been targeted for an extremely personal form of retaliation due to his writing and reporting that has been critical of the Indian government.” The statement continues, “We urge that the spirit of the OCI regulations, which are designed to provide status and connection to their roots and family to citizens of other countries with Indian heritage, are upheld, and do not discriminate against single mothers.”

Consistent with their approach towards issues of legality by propagating doomsday theories, the statement asserts, “Denying access to the country to writers of both foreign and Indian origin casts a chill on public discourse; it flies in the face of India’s traditions of free and open debate and respect for a diversity of views, and weakens its credentials as a strong and thriving democracy.”

Read: Aatish Taseer and his cheerleaders go loco: Here is how they are lying and deceiving about him losing his OCI

First of all, Taseer’s OCI card has been revoked because his father is a Pakistani. It makes him ineligible for an OCI card. This is an indisputable fact. Furthermore, he has chosen to keep his father’s surname which flies in the face of the argument that his father hasn’t had a bearing mark upon his personality and his life. Furthermore, he has himself said in public discourse that for a time, he and his father did share a semblance of a relationship for some time. It eventually did break down but it would be disgracing the memories of his late father, whether by his absence or his temporary presence, by disassociating Aatish Taseer from his father completely.

The letter claims, “In his application for the OCI status, Taseer listed his father’s name and never tried to hide his identity”. One wonders how the writers learnt of this despite the Home Ministry’s clear message that Aatish Taseer had failed to mention his father’s name. Furthermore, Aatish Taseer has himself not claimed any such thing. In an article that he wrote following the incident, he didn’t ‘dispute’ the government’s assertion.

Read: NYTimes columnist Aatish Taseer displays Hinduphobia in full glory, speaks the language of the very Islamists who killed his father

Aatish Taseer wrote, “While the government did not initially reveal their motivations behind this action, they have now stated their reasons for removing my OCI: “concealed the fact that his late father was of Pakistani origin.” But it is hard not to feel, given the timing, that I was being punished for what I had written.” Facts are no substitute for feelings. Aatish Taseer’s ‘feelings’ cannot be interpreted as him disputing the government’s statement.

The argument, essentially, appears to be simple. The ’eminent intellectuals’ have reached the conclusion based on their narcissism that Aatish Taseer is only being targeted because he wrote against Narendra Modi. Here’s a reality check: Plenty of people say plenty of abusive words against the Prime Minister all the time. Some people sitting abroad even peddle complete slander against the Prime Minister. And yet, the government has not ever taken any action against them. Aatish Taseer was targeted for a reason. And the reason is simple, he violated Indian laws.

‘Eminent intellectuals’, who invariably happen to be liberal, want India to ignore its laws simply because it adversely impacts one of them. It is a crass display of narcissism and liberal privilege. An individual can be an ’eminent intellectual’ and violate the law. These are not mutually exclusive. And yet, whenever one of them happens to violate one, they always claim that the person has been targeted for his or her political views.

Read: All you need to know about the assassination of Salman Taseer and what Aatish Taseer’s response to it says about ‘Liberal’ worldview

Will these ’eminent intellectuals’ argue that Jeffery Epstein was ‘targeted’ because he was entrenched to the political establishment? Would these people argue that Harvey Weinstein was ‘targeted’ because of his political opinions? Would these people argue that Michael Avenatti aka Creepy Porn Lawyer is being ‘targeted’ because of his opposition to Donald Trump? Obviously not, because all these men committed serious crimes (Creepy Porn Lawyer did not commit a sex crime) that violated laws of the country they resided in, not because of their liberal political opinions. Similarly, Aatish Taseer, too, violated India laws, although he did not commit any serious crimes like the other men mentioned here.

The elitist mentality as demonstrated by the ’eminent intellectuals’ is the same reason why they were so shocked when Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. Every attack against Hillary was reduced to her gender. Hillary lost because she was one of the worst candidates to have ever run for Presidency. Compared to her, even Donald Trump seems like an angel. That is why she lost.

‘Eminent Intellectuals’ such as the people here who are urging the Indian government to reconsider their decision are entitled brats who believe they are above the laws of the land. They also have such a fancy opinion of themselves that they can’t think of any other reason than their political opinions for governments acting against them. Second reality-check: They are humans and the people from their class often violate laws. Acting against people for violating laws has nothing to do with their political beliefs.

The only controversy amidst all of this is how did Aatish Taseer acquire the OCI card in the first place. Aatish Taseer is not above the law of the land. Liberals keep shouting ‘Not even the President is above the law’ when it’s convenient for them but when one of their own violates any law, they attempt to shield him from the consequences. Aatish Taseer is not above the law either and the Indian government must stand by its decision or else risk setting a very bad precedent.

Read how Rahul Gandhi and Congress continue to lie and misrepresent even after SC throws out Rafale review petitions

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the review petitions against the December 14th judgement of the SC which declined to order a probe into the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets by the Modi government from Dassault Aviation.

The Supreme Court bench had held that the review petitions filed by Prashant Bhushan, Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha lacked merits. With Supreme Court ruling to not order a probe on the so-called irregularities in the Rafale deal, a major embarrassment has struck Congress party and its leader Rahul Gandhi.

Read: Rafale Saga: A sinister attempt to undermine Democracy by the liberal media-political establishment has been crushed

However, the Congress party seems to be in no mood to accept the Supreme Court judgement as it has now unleashed a fresh wave of attacks on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government, stating the Supreme Court order has “paved way for a comprehensive criminal probe” in the Rafale deal.

Speaking to the media after the apex court passed the judgement, Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala stated that Supreme Court judgment is not a clean chit, but paves way for a full investigation on the issue.


“BJP is in habit of celebrating without going into details of verdict. The Supreme Court order has paved the way for a probe into the Rafale deal. The verdict has opened a window for a detailed enquiry into the matter, it has said that 14 Dec 2018 or today’s verdict is not an obstacle in way of the CBI from taking action in the case in future,” Randeep Surjewala said at a press conference.

Former Congress President Rahul Gandhi, who is on a lying spree to target Prime Minister Modi over the issue of Rafale deal, took to Twitter to launch his tirade against the Modi government.

Read: Here is a compilation of the lies spread by Rahul Gandhi about the Rafale Deal in the run-up to 2019 Lok Sabha Elections

In a tweet, Rahul Gandhi stated that the Supreme Court’s Justice KM Joseph has left open a “huge door” for an investigation into the Rafale deal and demanded that a probe must begin in full earnest. He also called for a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probe into the fighter jet contract.


However, in doing so, Congress party including Rahul Gandhi resorted to their usual propaganda and the peddling half-truths when they claimed that the statements made by Justice Joseph left a huge door to investigation in the Rafale deal.

Contrary to the claims of Congress party, the Supreme Court has actually passed a unanimous judgement on the Rafale issue, observing that the Court has elaborately discussed all the issues to find that there is no need to register FIR.

Justice KM Joseph wrote a “separate but concurring judgment” stating that scope of judicial review on such matters is very limited making the judgement on the review petition unanimous. 

Read: SC verdict on Rafale deal: Read scathing comments made by Court while dismissing petitions for inquiry

The ‘separate opinion’ written Justice KM Joseph, as mentioned by the Congress party, states that the dismissal did not preclude the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from looking into any complaints received. However, the opinion is seen as a technical observation for certainty in the event that the verdict is seen as a bar on investigations of any kind.

Citing Justice Joseph’s remarks, Rahul Gandhi attempted to mislead the public on the issue of future investigation on the issue of Rafale deal. According to lawyer Nikhil Mehra, Rahul Gandhi has made a ‘pitiable interpretation’ of a crystal clear order of the top court.

According to Mehra, the Supreme Court of India, for the purposes of the CrPC exercised their magisterial powers. In exercising such powers the Court held that they see no fit case for registration of an FIR under Section 156(3). Under Section 156(3) of CrPC, a magistrate has the power to order an investigation into a matter.


An investigation officer can take up an investigation on any such issues even if the magistrate has dismissed an application for an investigation under Section 156(3). However, the investigation has to take a prior sanction under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which has been clearly stated by Justice Joseph’s order.

Hence, the question of the Supreme Court allowing or not allowing to investigate further on the ‘irregularities’ in the Rafale deal does not arise as there is no bar for any such future investigation even though SC has clarified that there are no irregularities in the multi-crore jet deal.


So according to Mehra, Justice Joseph’s order clarifies two things. One, the review petition filed by the petitioners has failed to prove any irregularities prima facie in the Rafale deal and hence they are not ordering an investigation pertaining to Rafale deal. Secondly, the order states that an investigation can be still launched but prior permission is needed to do so.

Today’s judgement by Supreme Court has effectively dislodged the 2018 verdict in Sabarimala case: Advocate J Sai Deepak

The Supreme Court on Thursday pronounced its verdict on the much anticipated Sabarimala issue. In 2018, the Supreme Court had allowed to the entry of women of menstruating age into Sabarimala Temple. This is strictly against the traditions of Sabarimala since Lord Ayyappa is considered to be a ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’. The 5-judge bench referred the review petitions to a larger 7-judge bench and clubbed a host of issues together.

Reading out the majority judgment, CJI Gogoi mentioned that issues such as the legality of Female Genital Mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community, Muslim women mosque entry, right of Parsi women who married outside the community to access towers of silence etc, have been referred to a larger bench. The Sabarimala issue has been tagged along with these other issues and referred to a larger bench. The Supreme Court has decided that Sabarimala review petitions to remain pending until the issue is decided by larger Bench.

Read: Sabarimala is NOT about ‘impurity’ being associated with menstruation, stop repeating that lie

Justices Rohinton Nariman and Chandrachud dissented and said that compliance with Supreme Court judgments is not optional.

Justice Nariman, who read out the dissenting opinion, said that the issues of Parsi women and Muslim women were not before the Sabarimala bench and hence the matter could not be tagged with them. The original judgment was based on a bona fide PIL which raised the issue of women being denied entry on the basis of their physiological features, said Justice Nariman.

OpIndia.com spoke to J Sai Deepak, the advocate representing the Pandalam Royal Family and the group People for Dharma who had initiated the ‘Ready to Wait’ campaign to get more clarity on the judgement delivered by the 5-judge Supreme Court bench and what it means for the Sabarimala traditions.

Following are the questions OpIndia posed to J Sai Deepak and his responses.

The Supreme Court has clubbed the Sabarimala issue along with other issues such as Female Genital Mutilation and the entry of women into Mosques. Since the Supreme Court said that the Sabarimala matter will remain pending until a larger bench determines questions related to essential religious practices? Are you worried about the Supreme Court judging practices related to Hinduism with Abrahamic lenses? 

It is not a setback that the matter has been clubbed with the issue of entry of Muslim women into Mosques and the issue of FGM since I don’t believe the Court seeks to draw parallels between these entirely different issues. I think the Court wants to understand broadly to what extent can secular Court wade into issues of religion and theology and decide for any community what is the essential religious practice of the community.

That, I believe, is the spirit behind the reference to a larger Bench for these issues to be taken up together. I am confident that in light of the specific ground raised in the Review Petitions filed on behalf of the Pandalam Royal Family, People for Dharma and Chetna that the Judgement of September 28, 2018, ends up Abrahamising the Hindu faith, a larger Bench of the Supreme Court will be conscious of this ground and not apply the yardsticks of one faith to another.

The court said that Sabarimala matter will be on hold till the 7 judge bench decides on the question of “essential practice to religion”. What does that mean for the current status? Does 2018 verdict allowing women entry into Sabarimala stay in effect or is that judgement put on hold as well? 

A clear reading of today’s majority opinion from Paragraphs 4-8, according to us, makes it abundantly clear that the questions identified by the majority view directly affect and take away the fundamental factual and legal underpinnings and assumptions of the verdict of September 28, 2018. That coupled with the fact that the Court has referred all review petitions and writ petitions to a larger Bench lead to the clear and reasonable conclusion that the Judgement of September 28, 2018, cannot be enforced pending adjudication of all issues by a larger Bench. Consequently, the judgement that currently holds the field on the issue is the 1991 judgement of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in S. Mahendran vs The Secretary, Travancore wherein it was held that the practice of the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple of not permitting the entry of women of a procreative age group was constitutional and directly relatable to the nature of the Presiding Deity. Following were the operative conclusions of the Kerala High Court which, according to us, bind the State Government of Kerala:

“44. Our conclusions are as follows:

(1) The restriction imposed on women aged above 10 and below 50 from trekking the holy hills of Sabarimala and offering worship at Sabarimala Shrine is in accordance with the usage prevalent from time immemorial.

(2) Such restriction imposed by the Devaswom Board is not violative of Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

(3) Such restriction is also not violative of the provisions of Hindu Place of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 since there is no restriction between one section and another section or between one class and another class among the Hindus in the matter of entry to a temple whereas the prohibition is only in respect of women of a particular age group and not women as a class.

45. In the light of the aforesaid conclusions we direct the first respondent, the Travancore Devaswom Board, not to permit women above the age of 10 and below the age of 50 to trek the holy hills of Sabarimala in connection with the pilgrimage to the Sabarimala temple and from offering worship at Sabarimala Shrine during any period of the year. We also direct the 3rd respondent, Government of Kerala, to render all necessary assistance inclusive of police and to see that the direction which we have issued to the Devaswom Board is implemented and complied with.”

Sabarimala issue has now been referred to a larger 7-bench. What do you think would be the time frame now?

I am not sure of the time it would take for the next CJI to constitute a seven Judge Bench. These things cannot be predicted. However, in light of the fact that multiple such issues are before the Supreme Court, it may be in public interest to do so expeditiously so that the religious communities and their traditions are accorded the protection guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

An interesting dissenting note was presented. Justices Chandrachud and Nariman said, “Let every person remember that the “holy book” is the Constitution of India. “It is with this book in hand that the citizens of India march together as a nation, so that they may move forward in all spheres of human endeavour to achieve the great goals set out by this “Magna Carta” or Great Charter of India”. Your thoughts? 

To my mind, the minority dissenting opinion in today’s verdict fails to address any of the infirmities pointed out in our Review Petitions. What is concerning is that the minority dissenting opinion appears less detached than it perhaps ought to have been and could have attempted to specifically meet the arguments and grounds raised in the Review Petition as opposed to being dismissive of the legitimate concerns and rights of Ayyappa Devotees in particular, and religious practices in general. Be that as it may, the minority view helps us understand what to expect when we address arguments before a larger Bench.

All said and done, we are of the view diversity of opinions, religious and judicial, must be respected. We do not deny at all the Constitution is what we must all measure up to and we believe that the views represented by us are squarely within the four corners of the Constitution, which we believe were not done justice to in accordance with the Constitution by the verdict of September 28, 2018. In short, our position is not unconstitutional or extra-constitutional. We are protected by the Constitution, which the minority dissenting opinion has referred to as “the Holy Book”.

What is your future course of action? 

Our future course of action will depend on the conduct of the State Government of Kerala. If the State Government interprets today’s verdict mischievously and attempts to circumvent it by citing any technicality instead of complying with its substance and spirit, we will explore all remedies available under the law and leave no stone unturned to ensure that today’s verdict is respected in letter and spirit.

In 2018, representing People For Dharma, J Sai Deepak had argued before the bench that if the deity of the Sabarimala shrine can be taxed as a juristic person, he also has rights under articles 21, 25 and 26. He added that the deity’s right to remain a ‘Naisthika Bramhachari’ comes under article 25. Deepak further added that the case is not men vs women, but it is men vs men and women vs women. Sai Deepak asserted that if they allow dismissal of age-restrictions for women, tomorrow even men can seek exemptions from the 41-day ritual.