On Monday, US President Donald Trump had laid out his new strategy regarding Afghanistan and had urged India to contribute more in the region while acknowledging its important contribution in stabilising Afghanistan. Trump while calling India a key security and economic partner said that:
We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development
In the same speech, Trump looked like taking Pakistan to task by stating that while America had been giving Pakistan ‘billions and billions of dollars’, it was returning the favour by housing the very terrorists the US was fighting. A day after Trump’s speech, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Pakistan that its support for the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network would have consequences.
Now it seems that Pakistan is rattled by Trump’s request for India’s help in Afghanistan and its officials have warned that this approach would risk jolting their already shaky relationship. As part of their defence, the Pakistan officials have incredulously alleged that Indian influence was the prime reason for the instability and insecurity in Afghanistan. They further alleged that a hostile political regime in Kabul, supported by India was funding militants who in-turn launched attacks in Pakistan.
An opposition Senator in Pakistan claimed that the speech would isolate Washington’s friends in Islamabad. Some foreign policy analysts in Pakistan made lofted allegations that the speech of Trump had confirmed the worst fears of Pakistan’s Generals, that America was in cahoots with India against Pakistan. Pakistan though decided not to provide any official response to Trump’s speech but its foreign minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif is scheduled to leave for the US in the near future for talks with the American officials.
This isn’t the only time the US administration has signalled its intent to try and steer off Pakistan from the wrong track. In May Donald Trump has proposed to convert the US grant to Pakistan, for the purchase of military hardware, into a loan. Pakistan was somewhat singled out in this regard as the aid was to continue normally for countries like Egypt and Israel. Also in July the US house of Representatives brought in amendments to make sure that Pakistan would received their defence aid only if it showed sufficient progress in fighting terrorism.
Earlier this month, over 60 children had died due to disruption in oxygen supply over alleged nonpayment of dues in Gorakhpur’s BRD Hospital. Soon, one Dr. Kafeel Khan was hailed as a hero for his quick thinking to save lives of children. However, there was more to it than what met the eyes in Dr. Khan’s story. Even as investigation progressed, it left us with more questions than answers.
The high power committee that was set up to probe the tragedy has submitted the report to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The UP CM on Tuesday removed additional chief secretary (Medical Education) Anita Bhatnagar Jain and ordered that FIR be lodged against over half a dozen persons, including former hospital principal Rajeev Mishra, who has been suspended. The charges in FIR to include negligence and culpable homicide (not amounting to murder).
The report says that the children died due to disruption in oxygen supply while the state government has maintained that the reason for death was not lack of oxygen supply but different illnesses including Japanese Encephalitis (JE).
A case of bribery is also filed against Pushpa Sales Agency, the agency which supplied oxygen to the hospital, former principal, Dr. Rajeev Misra and his wife Purnima Shukla. A case is also registered against Dr. Kafeel Khan for running a private practice alongside his duties at the government hospital.
Today in a monumental judgement, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of instant Triple Talaq. The reasoning given behind the court order was that the triple talaq was against the basic tenets of Quran and thus violated Sharia. The verdict further stated that it also wasn’t an integral part of the religion. So going by that logic, the Islamic clerics should not have had an issue with the verdict as it didn’t bring in points like fundamental rights but merely implemented what the Quran stated.
But even after this, some of the clerics became unhappy with the verdict because it supposedly interfered with the Shariat law. Here are a few instances:
Moradabad’s district Imam Maulana Raees has stated that if the central government frames a law regarding Triple Talaq, they (Imams) won’t accept it. This is because in their religion the laws made by Allah are in practice, which cannot be changed by anyone. He also claimed that triple talaq was Allah’s law. He also made a very controversial statement that, normally talaqs only happen when a woman is in the wrong. He also stated that women who get triple talaq are not the victims but are the ones responsible for it.
Maulana Syed Arshad Madani, the current president of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind claimed that they would move to the courts against this ‘anti-shariat verdict’ by the Supreme Court. He also looked like not honouring the verdict by claiming that if a verdict comes against Quran and Hadis, he would still follow the religious texts.
Maulana Kasim of the Muslim education institute Darul Uloom Deoband UP has claimed that the issue of triple talaq was related to the Quran and Shariat. He also warned that no interference would be tolerated in them. He also asked the Supreme Court and the government to not interfere in the matter.
The Qazi of Meerut Sajiddin Siddiqui made another big statement that there shouldn’t be any law not related to Quran and Hadis. He referred to the Supreme Court’s instruction to the central government for making a law regarding the matter and stated that all the Ulamas in the country should ensure that the Central government doesn’t make any such law which ran afoul of their religious scriptures.
Ala Hazrat of Bareilly too wasn’t pleased with the verdict. He also stated that the verdict which interfered in shariat couldn’t be tolerated. He is now supposedly pondering on the Supreme Court verdict and his Dargah’s position on the verdict would be made clear after a meeting.
Even though the above clerics opposed the verdict possibly before understanding it fully, there were some who openly supported it.
Shia cleric, Maulana Yasoob Abbas stated that the Shia Law Board has been fighting against the practice since 2007 and welcome this. He also called it a great first step in order to signal that many other reforms are still remaining. Various other Muslim clerics also welcomed this verdict. A certain Moulana Ahmed Barkati praised it by calling it unique and unparalleled.
Today the Supreme Court in a landmark judgement outlawed the practice of talaq-e-biddat or Instant Triple Talaq. This practice had till its abolition divided opinion by pitting various women organisations, the Modi government on one side and the All India Muslim Personal Law board on the other.
The division of opinion about this draconian practice was so severe that even the Supreme Court delivered a 3:2 split verdict with the CJI Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer opposing its abolition by calling it an age old practice and an integral part of the Muslim religion.
Now that it has finally been done away with, lets look at one of the key persons whose efforts were instrumental in the abolition of this practice.
36 year old Shayara Bano was divorced by her husband Rizwan Ahmed by giving triple talaq via a letter 15th October 2015 when she was visiting her parents. If this wasn’t enough, her husband who is property dealer in Allahabad even took away her two kids aged 13 and 11.
These weren’t the only tortures which were heaped on Shayara who hails from Uttarakhand’s Hempur Daya in Kashipur. According to the report, she was also tormented for dowry after her marriage in 2002. She also alleged that her in-laws also forced her to undergo 6 abortions with the alleged intention of killing her.
After hearing the news about her talaq she consulted with a local cleric for help but he deemed it completely valid. He husband then decided to inflict further pain by taking away all her jewellery and also filed a case in the Allahabad High Court claiming that his wife hadn’t returned back from her in-laws. He further rubbed salt in her wound after sending a token sum of Rs 15,000. The family refused to accept it.
A local court even sent notices to her husband who remarried in 2016, to ask him as to why he was denying her access to her children but he failed to honour the summons.
This whole affair put a lot of emotional strain on Shayara and according to her parents, she suffered a nervous breakdown and had to be treated for depression. But rather than being bogged down by it all, she and her family decided to fight against the injustice.
On 26 February, 2016 she filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the practice of triple talaq, halala and polygamy. This prompted the Modi government to file a petition against triple talaq based on her petition. Her petition wanted the court to strike down those Islamic practices on the premise that they violated the Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the constitution.
Article 14 pertains to right to equality, article 15 states that there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, article 21 deals with the protection of life, personal liberty and article 25 deals with freedom of practice and propagation of religion.
Shayara’s petition wasn’t welcomed by the Islamic lawmakers and All India Muslim Personal Board (AIMPLB), some clerics reportedly asked her to withdraw her petition. She also left her native place Kashipur and went on the move to avoid undue pressure on her.
Today after all the efforts by her and countless other activists she achieved a noted victory with the abolition of instant triple talaq. She was also quoted by the media welcoming court’s verdict:
The Supreme Court today struck down the practice of instant triple talaq by calling it arbitrary and against the tenets of Islam. This incidentally was achieved by a 3:2 split verdict with the CJI Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer opposing its abolition by calling it an age old practice and an integral part of the Muslim religion.
This statement by the CJI (who spoke first) sent our media on a wild goose chase and it concluded that the CJI’s opinion would be final and proclaimed that the court had upheld the draconian practice:
Breaking: Supreme Court upholds #TripleTalaq practice, asks Union Government to bring legislation
This as revealed moments later was inaccurate and the final verdict was to be based on what the total of 5 judges in the bench thought. The 3 judges in the panel named Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Uday Umesh Lalit disagreed with the CJI by stating that triple talaq was against the Quran which meant that a constitutional protection of the practice was not permissible.
The verdict delivered by the Supreme Court was a whopping 395 page long [PDF] and it might be entirely possible that the media is still misinterpreting it due to most probably not having gone through the whole thing yet.
Some people were also not happy about the split verdict and questioned as to why the court could not provide a unilateral verdict on the issue:
Worse than this half-hearted verdict is that 2 men, at the top of the judiciary of world’s largest democracy, feel #TripleTalaq should stay.
A brief summary of Justice Joseph’s verdict, who was among the majority, stated that triple talaq was against the basic tenets of Quran and violated Sharia. The verdict further stated that it also wasn’t an integral part of the religion. The purpose of 1937 Muslim personal law act was to declare Shariat as the only law governing Muslims, thus as triple talaq is bad in Shariat it is also bad in law.
This modus operandi of the court to base its judgement on the religious doctrines and laws did alarm a few people but it may still not be the main issue here. Based on whatever information the media put out in the public domain, various commentators gave a lukewarm response to the verdict.
The major issue behind such a response was, that since just the practice of talaq-e-bidat (Instant triple talaq in one go) was banned, it may not result in better conditions for the Muslim women. The practice of giving proper triple talaq where a husband gives his wife talaq over a period of 3 months will still remain perfectly legal. So instead of getting instantly divorced, women would get divorced over months and may not be able to overtly challenge it.
Nonetheless, the verdict should be welcomed as a first step in the right direction.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, via a majority verdict of a 5 member bench, held the Muslim practice of instant triple talaq unconstitutional. The SC said that the triple talaq in one sitting violates the fundamental rights of Muslim women, as it irrevocably ends marriage without any chance of reconciliation.
While most people hailed the verdict as empowering, some so-called “seculars” of India were quick to drag Hinduism into this. Sagarika Ghose, who is also known for spreading communal discord on Twitter, was quick to bring Hindu inheritance law into this:
SC upholds rights of Muslim women, similar reformism needed for all personal laws, incl Hindu inheritance https://t.co/H4EBHQt0nL
Can’t point out any fact, throws in name of some activist group when probed.
But then, Sagarika wasn’t alone.
Yogendra Yadav, a former AAP core team member who was kicked out by Delhi Chief Minister and AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal, was also not far behind.
Can we now hope that millions of parityakta (women left/thrown out by husbands without divorce) Hindu women will also get justice? https://t.co/FIJhcXGJsG
And amidst all this, can the abusive, foul mouthed troll Swati Chaturvedi also showed off her complete ignorance about Hindu inheritance law by making a claim similar to that of Sagarika Ghose:
For the record, these ‘secular’ people chose to talk about Hindu inheritance law, even though the law gives equal share to women in ancestral property, but did not touch the Muslim inheritance law where a woman is entitled to receive only half of what her male counterpart gets. This practice has next to no chance of getting changed, even by the Supreme Court, as it has got sanction from the Holy Quran itself.
And if so-called journalists and activists could make the triple talaq verdict communal by bringing in Hinduism, could politicians be far behind?
Alka Lamba, who was recently under scanner for publishing fake poll about upcoming bypolls in Bawana in Delhi, also chimed in by raising dowry problem among Hindus, without explaining that the laws already exist for the crimes she talks about. Triple talaq had no legal discourse:
उम्मीद, हिन्दू महिलाओं को भी न्याय मिलेगा,देशभर की अदालतों में लाखों महिलायें न्याय के लिये धक्के खा रही हैं।
दहेज़ की आग में जल रही हैं। https://t.co/H775hCHUWx
An FIR has been registered against unknown persons under IPC’s section 429. The villagers say these attacks have been taking place since last 4-5 days.
There are reports that the acid attacks have resulted in tension in the area, with some Hindu organisations suspecting ‘minority community’ members behind the attack.
Police suspect that the chemicals that are used to separate fat from the milk has been poured on the cattle. Some suspect that the villagers might have attacked the cows when they spotted them in the fields.
This is not the first time acid has been thrown on the cows. In May this year, acid was thrown on several cows, calves and bulls in Porbandar, Gujarat. In same month, villagers had poured acid on the cattle, mostly bulls, to shoo them away from their fields in Haryana. Similarly in June last year, in Indore, unidentified persons threw acid on a calf. In July last year, acid was thrown on calfs in Mathura, where one calf had died.
A pamphlet asking Muslim residents living in the Bawana assembly constituency of Delhi to vote for Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the upcoming by-polls created sensation earlier today. The pamphlet was shared on social media by some media outlets, and it showed an ‘appeal to Muslim brothers’ by Imran Hussain, who is a cabinet minister in the Kejriwal government:
The controversial pamphlet
The pamphlet made a communal appeal to Muslims to vote for AAP, as any division in the votes of the Muslim community could mean a result like that in Uttar Pradesh assembly elections, which were swept by the BJP. The pamphlet also said that Muslims can’t be defeated if they voted together.
The pamphlet further made blatantly communal remarks like Muslims traditionally ruling over Delhi for thousands of years and that the community still held the ‘key to power’ in the city. It asked the Muslim community to be way of enemies and vote only for Arvind Kejriwal i.e. for the AAP candidate in the elections that will take place day after tomorrow.
The pamphlet was shown as being issued by the minority wing of the Delhi unit of AAP.
The overtly and unashamedly communal tone of the pamphlet is clearly a violation of Supreme Court order that bans canvassing of votes in the name of any community. The court had ruled that any such appeal will lead to disqualification of the candidate.
Delhi BJP spokesperson Tajinder Bagga demanded a case to be filed against AAP supremo and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for issuing such communal appeal:
Incidentally, this is not the for the first time when AAP has been embroiled in a communal controversy. In July 2014, posters making appeal to Muslims to support AAP were put up in Delhi. The party then had disassociated itself from the posters and had blamed one Amanatullah Khan for putting up the posters, who had confessed to have done that and was reported as a volunteer of the party.
AAP is trying its best to win the Bawana by-polls as it will give confidence to the party that lost badly in the assembly elections held in Goa and Punjab earlier this year, and later they lost the MCD elections as well in Delhi. The party had also lost a by-poll for the Rajouri Garden seat.
Recently Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was seen almost ‘threatening’ the voters of Bawana, that they must vote for AAP, because an MLA from any other party will not be able to get the state government to work for the people of the constituency:
Where CM Kejriwal threatens voters in a by-election that AAP Govt will do no work for the constituency if BJP/Cong MLA elected. Thugs! pic.twitter.com/UYpwLK7Ayb
AAP leader and MLA Alka Lamba too was caught spreading a fake survey that predicted the party winning in Bawana. Now this poster has added another controversy to the party’s kitty ahead of the by-polls.
AAP had not officially reacted to the controversy or clarified about the communal poster at the time of filing this report.
UPDATE: Imram Hussain, the AAP MLA who was shown as making the appeal in the poster has denied having made such an appeal. He has termed the poster ‘fake’ and demanded police action. His tweets clarifying and demanding the same were shared by the official Twitter account of Delhi unit of AAP:
The minister Imran Hussain has denied issuing any such poster
Meanwhile Delhi BJP has already filed complaint with the Election Commission against Arvind Kejriwal for the posters.
Earlier today, Gujarat Congress MLAs (whichever remain in Congress after the high drama Rajya Sabha elections earlier this month) went to meet the Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi in Delhi:
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsRahul Gandhi posted the photographs of him meeting the MLAs, which showed that MLAs were standing behind a barricade while meeting him:
MLAs behind a metal barricade
Soon, social media reacted to this and compared Sonia and Rahul to a “queen” and a “prince”:
A typical Queen and Prince like behave!Is it a dignified manner to meet the MLAs and State leaders? They’re asked to stand behind rallying! https://t.co/11mfjsBrlV
Shezaada and Sultana graciously accepting the grovelling salaams of the unwashed natives of Gujarat. Wah! Kya Inter- party Democracy hai! https://t.co/jMghuoeeEg
Others even pointed out the disrespect shown towards the elected representatives.
Dear @OfficeOfRG, we all know that u have no respect for our own MLA’s but atleast show some respect to people of gujarat who elected them. https://t.co/Y4eKZzFHSl
When the photograph got a lot of flak, Gujarat Congress President Bharat Solanki came to rescue and accused the BJP of spreading selective pictures, forgetting that the pictures were actually tweeted by Rahul Gandhi himself.
.@BJP4Gujarat is doing what it does best, Weaving lies& using selective pics to mislead ppl. Gujarat will give them beffiting reply in polls https://t.co/QKhga5736m
India is a diverse country of many people, many languages, many ethnicity, many races and many religions. The beauty of this country is in its pluralism and inclusiveness. For a country like India, its government should and is duty bound to uphold this composite culture. It is for this reason that constitution has made specific provisions related to religious freedom, languages, ethnicity, and so on.
Languages especially are an eccentric part of this diverse culture and thus an entire part XVII is dedicated to role of the Union and the states as far as language is concerned.
The argument on language is not new in India. Early from the day of Periyar opposing Rajagopalachari’s Hindi education in TN schools to constituent assembly debates on Hindi to the very recent anti-Hindi protests by Karnataka Rakshana Vedike on Namma Metro signings, we have seen numerous examples of language activism.
Latest to join this bandwagon is a BJD MP from the Dhenkanal constituency of Odisha, Shri Tathagata Satpathy. He has stirred the hornet’s nest on Twitter by bringing back this debate.
It all started on 11th August, with Panchayati Raj minister Shri Narendra Singh Tomar, who is also a BJP MP from Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh, sent a letter to Shri Satpathy on “New India Manthan” programme being undertaken by the ministry. The letter outlined about the programme details to be held between 21st Aug to 25th Aug, 2017 at all district as well as panchayat levels. It also requested Shri Satpathy, being an MP, to attend one of the district level programme. Here is a copy of the letter:
The original letter written by the union minister, which led to the ‘controversy’.
As a response to the above letter, Shri Satpathy tweeted the following:
Replied in Oriya to Hon’ble Union Minister Sri Narendra S Tomar expressing inability to comprehend his Hindi letter.
-TS pic.twitter.com/gRVfgUrOln
What has particularly caught the eye of the national media and tweeples is Shri Satpathy’s reply to Shri Tomar in Odia.
For our non Odia readers, a translation of the letter is as follows:
“Respected Shri Tomar mahodaya
I have received your letter and I am thankful to you for that.
I regret in conveying you that because your letter was written in Hindi, I could not understand it.
I would like to note here that, because our state is a category C state, please exchange communications in either English or Odia with us.
May Lord Jagannath bless you”
Sounds fair, right? If someone sends a letter in his native language, the recipient has a ‘right’ to reply in his own native language. Shri Satpathy is being lauded for this act too.
Now, let’s look at the matter in its entirety, beyond what meets the eye.
Here is the constitution on communication between states and union – there is Article 346 titled “Official language for communication between one state and another or between State and the Union”. In very clear and unambiguous term, the article states that the official language of the Union shall be the official language of communication between Union and states. Article 343 confers Hindi as the official language of the Union along with English. Further, Article 346 suggests that the communication between states can be in Hindi, provided both states agree to it.
A fine reading of article 343 will suggest that Hindi was originally planned to be the only official language of India, with English being the other official language for period of 15 years from the date of commencement of Constitution. However, as agitation against Hindi intensified, the union govt passed Official languages act – 1963, which made English a permanent official language along with Hindi.
Further to Article 346 on communication between union and states, the act clarified that English to be used for communication between union and a state which has not adopted Hindi as its official language. It is this provision, which Shri Satpathy cites in his letter.
Now, if Shri Tomar has violated the provisions of the act by sending a letter in Hindi to Shri Satpathy, he could have pointed that out in a dignified way instead of playing it to gallery and replying in Odia, which also violates the same act, which Shri Satpathy points out and draws allegiance to.
You can’t use Odia to communicate between the state and union – neither by the constitution nor by the said act. It has to be either Hindi or English. This is besides the point that Shri Tomar can argue that his letter was not a communication from Union to state, but from a union minister to a fellow MP.
It’s not only the legality of the matter — seemingly both Shri Satpahy and Shri Tomar might have violated that — which is of importance here. Shri Satpathy has gone one step ahead and attributed some undignified racial slur against Hindi speaking people.
As per the BJD MP, Hindi speaking people are best suited for being a car park attendant or a lift operator only:
Hindi = at best, car park attendant or lift operator. English = access across social and national borders. TS
So was it violation of an act or a constitutional provision by Shri Tomar which he was protesting against, or was it an agenda against Hindi and Hindi speaking people? Not just that, dignity of labour should be respected and should not be attributed to racial slurs, something which Shri Satpathy, born with a silver spoon, who draws his political influence from his mother who was the Chief Minister of Odisha, will never understand.
When called out for this unsavoury comments a certain class of people, he claimed that he was doing it to fight for his mother tongue:
Fighting for my mother tongue sounds disgusting and undignified to you, is it? TS
It may be worthwhile to note here that BJD party president — a party to which Shri Satpathy belongs — who also happens to be the CM of Odisha, Shri Naveen Patnaik, is not able to read, write and speak Odia, the official language of Odisha.
Will Shri Satpathy take his fight for his mother tongue to his chief’s door if he is actually fighting for it and not mere posturing to earn brownie points on social media?
And coming back to the legality and constitutionality, to which Shri Satpathy seems to draw allegiance to (and he should), he on time and again has refused to abide by the 113th amendment of constitution, which renames “Orissa” to “Odisha” and “Oriya” to “Odia”.
This is what he said when pointed out about the same:
In fact, an English daily published from Odisha, of which Shri Satpathy is the editor, has retained the name “The Orissa Post” and deliberately prints “Orissa” and “Oria” in all its text.
So, Shri Satpathy, you can’t invoke constitution and acts selectively suiting your own convenience while proudly proclaiming to refuse to abide by the same on other occasions. Remember, if you don’t care about 113th amendment, then Shri Tomar can say the same to your objection based on Official languages act.
The issue of language is close to heart of many, but please behave like an MP and show some dignity to the post you hold, if not to yourself. Having a rebellious attitude is fine, but breaking law publicly to show that you are a maverick is very unbecoming of a public representative.
Let all language flourish and let us all play a part in uplifting our language without demeaning other languages. It’s possible. Try it.
