Upholding religious freedom in india

U.S. President Barack Obama’s statement on the need to uphold religious freedom has far-reaching implications The BJP government’s programmes such as ‘Make in India’, ‘Smart Cities’ and ‘Clean India’ can succeed only with the participation of Indian as well as foreign investors. Mr. Obama’s pertinent advice could not have come at a more appropriate time. With right-wing elements bent on dividing the country in the name of religion, and other telltale signs of an agenda that cannot be dismissed as mere oversight, the BJP government needs to come clean on this issue.

The speech should be seen as a slap in the face of the government, which is trying to introduce an element of religion into almost every field using even the slightest opportunity. Right-wing groups are clearly attempting to incite communal hatred in the country. Mr. Obama’s words of caution show that the world is watching.In his final speech in India, Mr. Obama effectively punctured the euphoria of Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the visit. It is also a passive reminder to Mr. Modi that religious intolerance was the reason why he was denied a visa. The U.S. President has done well in exposing to the world the sectarian attitude and philosophy of the BJP and the right wing.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/uphold-religious-freedom-obama-urges-india/article6827377.ece



कुछ चिट्ठियाँ बूंदों की , तुमने लिखी है ...

हवा का वो झोंका कल रात दे गया मुझे....








बहुत पुरानी कहावत है,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
अब याद नहीं आ रही।

The Visit and After

As Indians, let us sit back and think for a while about what we got from the high-profile visit of President Barack Obama. The Visit and After

by
Dr. Mohammad Manzoor Alam

प्रधानमंत्री श्री नरेन्द्र मोदी और अमेरिका के राष्ट्रपति श्री बराक ओबामा 25 जनवरी, 2015 को नई दिल्ली में संयुक्त प्रेस वार्ता को संबोधित करते हुए।
The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi with the US President, Mr. Barack Obama, during the Joint Press Interaction, in New Delhi on January 25, 2015.

As Indians, let us sit back and think for a while about what we got from the high-profile visit of President Barack Obama. Two tangible and one intangible outcomes are visible at this moment, about 72 hours after the visit ended.

The first and foremost seems to be the reassurance coming from a common Indo-US stance on china’s rise and how to deal with the fearsome dragon. That this point is number one becomes clear from the first 45 minutes of Modi-Obama parleys dedicated to this subject. Naturally, China took note and made appropriate noises.

This means we will have US backing for a more assertive Indian posture at the Line of Actual Control (LOAC) with China like strong patrolling, border-road building in advance areas, ferrying of military hardware to the forward areas, and larger deployment of our forces. It also means greater military cooperation with China’s immediate neighbours like Japan, South Korea and Vietnam, countries that have border dispute with China.

Whether it is Spratly Islands or Parcel Islands, or South China Sea, India’s interests are more firmly aligned now to the opposite sides of China to the disputes. India is now on the same side as America is. We have to keep in mind that being on the side of America is not always, and in every situation, advantageous. America was on our side in the 1962 war with China: it sent us military advisers and weapons during the war, but we could not make any great use of it.

On the other hand, it sent in its 7th Fleet during the Indo-Pak war on the side of its ally, Pakistan, but we prevailed in the war. It is not America who will win our war for us, but we ourselves will have to do it. We can’t, and shouldn’t, depend too much on anyone and rely primarily on our own resources. Others have their own agenda to push before thinking of our interests.

The second most important point is our quiescence in American position on the nuclear liability issue. We have agreed that the liability for accidents in America-provided reactors will be our own. Just imagine, God forbid, if something like Three Mile Island (US) or Chernobyl (former USSR) happens in India, can we afford to foot the bill without the manufacturer sharing the burden at all? The worst, and most painful side of it is the BJP’s summersault on the issue.

This party, which wasted years opposing the Nuclear Liability Bill has suddenly changed stance and embraced it, just like Baba Ramdev who promised to bring home all the black money stashed abroad within a week of NDA’s coming to power, and has now forgotten that pre-poll promise.

The third outcome is of an intangible, moral nature. On the morning of January 27, a little before leaving, President Obama told the country that it would succeed only if it did not get splintered on religious lines. That should have been good advice for Sangh provocateurs, who have been busy splintering the country on religions lines. President Obama referred to our Constitution to make his point, but the Sangh has no respect for it as shown by NDA’s insistence on “debate” over the “secular” and “socialist” clause of the Preamble, in order to finally delete them as they have already done in their advertisement. Already newspapers are carrying reports of new “ghar wapsi” conversions and poisonous speeches of men like Togadia.

In our country, 11 million girlchildren “disappear” every year, which shows our misogyny as a society. Mr. Obama also talked about the need for gender sensitivity. Like religious tolerance, this too is not likely to come easy, not as long as the Sangh and its political front are in power.












As Indians, let us sit back and think for a while about what we got from the high-profile visit of President Barack Obama. The Visit and After

by
Dr. Mohammad Manzoor Alam
http://jameelblr.blogspot.in/2015/01/the-visit-and-after.html

Politics at the cost of others’ lives

by

Dr. Mohammad Manzoor Alam

In a burst of anti-Muslim violence in a village of Bihar’s Muzaffarpur district, hundreds of homes have been torched and the occupants made to flee for safety in the biting January cold.

There are varying accounts of the dead. Officially, the figure stands at six, the unofficial figure being several times higher. The apparent “cause” of the violence is said to be a “love affair” between a Hindu boy and Muslim girl.

Normally, in a civilised society such affairs are left to the discretion of the two adults concerned, who have the option of formalising their love in a civil marriage in a magistrate’s court, without hindrance from any side.

However, in this story the young man was found murdered and buried near the home of the girl. This provoked the boy’s community to launch a full-fledged attack on the Muslim village. Hardly anyone ever cared to think for a moment that nobody would bury his murder victim in front of his own house.

Thus, there is more to it than meets the eye. The BJP has been busy trying to stage communal violence in Bihar since it was kicked out of office. Communal violence mobilises people, which ultimately translates into vote for it.

Riot organisers have been active in this particular area for quite some time. In the last few weeks such activities had grown. The police should have been watchful, but as usual it was caught napping.

However, the government acted soon after the large-scale violence and arson. After that the government machinery acted more quickly and efficiently, preventing the violence from spreading further, arresting suspected offenders and reaching relief to the victims. Relief operations were launched in full measure.

The present chief minister, Manjhi and former chief ministers Nitish Kumar and Lalu Yadav reached the spot sending a strong signal to mischief makers that they would not allow further communal mischief. In fact, these leaders are a solid bulwark against the communalisation of the state.

In all criminal cases, investigators ask the question: “who benefits?” To know the criminal, this is an important question. We all know who benefits from murder and mayhem, who benefits from communal mobilisation after such violence.

It is the duty of the people of the state and its leadership to ensure that no such incident is allowed to happen in future.

http://www.iosworld.org/short_takes/Politics_at_the_cost_of_others_lives.htm

IOS Seminar on "Application of Equality before Law in India: The Constitutional Mandate and Present Trend"

New Delhi, Jan. 17: A Seminar on “Application of Equality Before Law in India: The Constitutional Mandate and Present Trend” was jointly organised by the Institute of Objective Studies, Democratic People’s Lawyers Association and Citizens’ Forum for Rule of Law at the Indian Law Institute, here today.

Former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and a noted public figure, Justice Rajinder Sachar in his address held that the country was currently passing through a difficult phase of its history. However, there was no cause for despondency as we had not weakened yet, he said.

Referring to secularism, he noted that it found mention in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution and was thus the key to the Constitution. Secularism, he said, was the basic structure of the Constitution. Secularism did not signify anti-religion as the state would have no religion of its own, according to a ruling of the Supreme Court of India.

He contended that this vindicated the Hadith of the Prophet of Islam (SW) that a white skinned person had no supremacy over a black skinned one. He said that the American struggle for equality centuries after the Prophet (PBH) upheld the same concept. Holding the Muslims and the Christian “not outsiders”, he observed that inclusive development was a must for the progress of the country. No die-hard Hindu could claim that he had exclusive sovereignty over his religion. He said Vivekanand believed that without Islam, Vedanta philosophy was valueless as Islam was the only hope for the country.

Assailing caste-system as a fetter on Hinduism, Justice Sachar said that Eklavya, a tribal, offered his right thumb by cutting it out, to Dronacharya, a high-caste teacher of archery, as guru dakshina as a mark of respect to him. Defending the rights to the minorities guaranteed under the Constitution, he said that even the UN Human Rights Council held in 2010 called for no discrimination against minorities in matters of employment.

Pleading for “targeted approaches” for inclusive development of the minorities, he insisted that the data on the diversity of their living must be honestly collected. Referring to the findings of the team of the Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties (PUCC) sent to Muzaffarnagar in the wake of communal riots in 2013, he favoured Muslim Inspectors of Police in Muslim-dominated areas to inspire confidence among them. He quoted excerpts from a speech of the first Union Minister for Education, Maulana Azad in which he felt proud to be a Muslim and described Hindus and Muslims as rivers Ganga and Yamuna without saying anything against Hinduism.

He said that both Hindus and Muslims shared a common heritage and common nationality. This gave the message of democracy and equality, he said. He termed it as heretic to say that India belonged to a particular religion. He concluded by saying that what Sir Syed Ahmed Khan said about the commonness of Indians in 1877 was repeated by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920.




Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, advocate, Supreme Court, defined equality as water which changed shape wherever it went. He said that the equality was defined by its meaning. While in Fascism, it meant something, it had a totally different meaning under laissez-faire and market economy. Explaining the concept of welfare state, he said that one’s right was an individual claim which protected individual right. He held that the meaning of equality under Article 38 was different from what was generally understood.

He submitted that the Constituent Assembly debated the issue of political, social and economic equality as a goal and devised a methodology to achieve it. In this connection, he quoted the eminent jurist, H.M. Seervai, who in his monumental work Constitutional Law of India, observed that welfare state had been downgraded by laissez-faire or the market economy. He held that the framers of the Constitution devised a system of balance between capitalism and socialism with a mixed economy, adding that the concept of welfare state had been changing according to the circumstances. Blasting the theory of “Sarva Dharma Sambhav” (equal respect for all religions), he said that it was not true, or else the “pogrom” of 1984 and the “genocide” in 2002 would not have taken place.

Calling the present state as a theocratic one, he agreed with Mr. Sharad Yadav who termed the present Indian state as a “liberal Hindu state”. He remarked that there was a fight between liberal Hinduism and Fascism. While observing that the equality between two corporate houses was discernible, he said that in order to achieve equality, we would have to fight the growing influence of corporate business groups.

Former Chief Justice of India, Justice A.M. Ahmadi, in his presidential remarks observed that the Preamble to the Constitution gave a mature idea of equality. Though graded equality in society existed before Independence, the concept of equality found expression in the Constitution. Describing equality as the basic value of our Constitution, he said that it was one of the values of a social order. The main question today was how to bring up those above the poverty line under which they had been living for a long time. Bringing them up was not discrimination, but an “affirmative action” which was stipulated in Article 14,15 and 16 of the Constitution.

Commenting on the Indian politics today that the game of one-upmanship was played to deliberately commit mistakes only to apologise later, he warned that it could not be replicated every time as the nation was not a child to be fooled again and again. He deplored that the previous government did not implement the recommendations of the Sachar Committee report which was conscientiously and diligently prepared by Justice Rajinder Sachar. Especially lauding the recommendation to set up the equality commission, he believed that it would have helped to do something tangible for the community.

Advising Muslims not to get disheartened, he counseled them to cultivate a strong determination for achieving their goal. He cited the examples of Barak Obama, a black man, and Kapil Dev who got success in their respective fields against heavy odds. In this connection, he read out the famous couplet of Allama Dr. Mohd. Iqbal: “Khudi ko kar buland itna ki har taqdeer se pahle Khuda bande se khud poochhhe bataa teri raza kya hai” to drive home his point.

He emphatically said people need not fear the government, but it was the government that should fear people, adding that if this was not so, it was a failure of democracy.

Illustrating his point further, he said that the Maharashtra government had recently removed the chairman of the state minority panel due to his decision to seek information on the number of Muslims languishing in different jails of the state. Certainly, this was a failure of democracy, he noted. He called Hindus as elder brother of Muslims and added that if the former returned the respect given to them by the latter with disrespect, it would not be equality. Referring to the ruling of late Justice J S Verma in a case relating to the election of Manohar Joshi that “Hinduism is a way of life”, he said that it was used by ultra-Hindus when it suited their interest.

Justice Ahmadi asked the larger minority to bring under its umbrella other minorities with a view to making a bigger minority. We have to fight for the concept of equality with determination, he concluded.

Chairman of the IOS, Dr. M. Manzoor Alam, explained the rationale behind organising the lecture. He said that the current political situation warranted deliberations on the Constitution and its application with regard to equality as the present political set up was taking resort to such steps that could undermine the majesty of law and the Constitution. He informed that the IOS was alive to its duties to bring experts on the Constitution together to share their views and arrive at a consensus.

These deliberations would continue to be held in future too, he pointed out. Former Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, Jamia Millia Islamia and Secretary General IOS, Prof. Z. M. Khan welcomed the speakers and the participants. He also introduced the subject. Associate Prof. of Law, J.M.I., Dr. Eqbal Husain held that the state was responsible for marginalising the minorities. He said that while the Dalits were being comforted, Muslims were oppressed. He asked the government to focus on progress in the light of the Constitution with the slogan “Sab Ka Sath, Sab Ka Vikas”.

Those who spoke on the occasion included the Dean, School of Law and Legal Studies, GG Singh Indraprastha University, Prof. M. Afzal Wani, Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Advocate, Supreme Court, and Mr. Harsh Kumar Gautam from Democratic People’s Lawyers Association. Mr. Arun Kumar Maji, Advocate, Supreme Court and convener, Democratic People’s Lawyers Association proposed a vote of thanks.

Earlier, the lecture began with the recitation of a verse from the holy Quran by Hafiz Athar Husain. Advocate-on-record, Supreme Court of India, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad conducted the proceedings.

http://www.iosworld.org/Equality_Before_Law.php

“The evil you do, remains with you: The good you do, comes back to you!”

Do Read and Do Share !!! Worth spending YOUR 5 minutes!!

A woman baked chapatti for members of her family and an extra one for a hungry passerby.

She kept the extra chapatti on the window sill, for whosoever would take it away. Every day, a hunchback came and took away the chapatti.

Instead of expressing gratitude, he muttered the following words as he went his way:

“The evil you do, remains with you:

The good you do, comes back to you!”

This went on, day after day.

Every day, the hunchback came, picked up the chapatti and uttered the words:

“The evil you do, remains with you:

The good you do, comes back to you!”

The woman felt irritated.

“Not a word of gratitude,” she said to herself…

“Everyday this hunchback utters this jingle! What does he mean?”

One day, exasperated, she decided to do away with him.

“I shall get rid of this hunchback,” she said.And what did she do?

She added poison to the chapatti she prepared for him!

As she was about to keep it on the window sill, her hands trembled. “What is this I am doing?” she said.

Immediately, she threw the chapatti into the fire, prepared another one and kept it on the window sill.

As usual, the hunchback came, picked up the chapatti and muttered the words:

“The evil you do, remains with you: The good you do, comes back to you!”

The hunchback proceeded on his way, blissfully unaware of the war raging in the mind of the woman. Every day, as the woman placed the chapatti on the window sill, she offered a prayer for her son who had gone to a distant place to seek his fortune.

For many months, she had no news of him.. She prayed for his safe return.

That evening, there was a knock on the door. As she opened it, she was surprised to find her son standing in the doorway. He had grown thin and lean. His garments were tattered and torn. He was hungry, starved and weak.

As he saw his mother, he said, “Mom, it’s a miracle I’m here. While I was but a mile away,

I was so famished that I collapsed. I would have died, but just then an old hunchback passed by.

I begged of him for a morsel of food, and he was kind enough to give me a whole chapatti.

As he gave it to me, he said,

“This is what I eat everyday : today, I shall give it to you, for your need is greater than mine!”

” As the mother heard those words, her face turned pale.

She leaned against the door for support.

She remembered the poisoned chapatti that she had made that morning.

Had she not burnt it in the fire,

it would have been eaten by her own son, and he would have lost his life!

It was then that she realized the significance of the words:

“The evil you do, remains with you:

The good you do, comes back to you!”

‪Moral‬:

Do good and Don’t ever stop doing good, even if it is not appreciated at that time.

If you like this, share it with others and I bet so many lives would be touched .

Share it and inspire others.

Wonderful story….

with POWERFUL lesson...

Between Sarpnath and Nagnath

By

Dr. Mohammad Manzoor Alam

Whom would you prefer to be with, if given a chance: Sarpnath, or Nagnath? Will you prefer one over the other, or would you avoid their company in any case? After all, both are cobras, unfriendly creatures.

However, there are Muslims who think there is a choice between the two. In this case, they are called BJP and RSS. There are Muslims who think BJP stands for development, and RSS with its front organisations stands for Hindutva.

In this view, BJP is there to build railways, roads, airports, shipyards, office complexes, residential blocks and industrial cities, while RSS is there to build a Ram temple over Babri Masjid, start a violent campaign against a phantom called Love Jehad, ban meat eating and convert Christians and Muslims to Hinduism.

Naturally, everybody will prefer BJP. But the point is that there is no choice between developmentwallah BJP andHindutvawallah RSS. Behind the victory of BJP in parliamentary polls there was the organisational might of the RSS.

The development champion Mr Modi was a Hindutva champion in Gujarat 2002 pogrom. In fact, he is still the old knicker-wearing RSS pracharak that he ever was. His stand that he is “not against ghar-wapsi” (conversion of Muslims and Christians) is probably ignored by such Muslims, even though it means “Mr Modi is for ghar-wapsi”.

If we don’t want to see something, we will not notice it even if we look at it for an hour. Or, we can straight away bury our heads in sand, beak and all, like the ostrich to avoid looking at the hunter aiming his gun at us. This reminds us of the farce of Advani-Vajpayee duo’s hard and soft politics of Ayodhya campaign days.

Many Muslims argued that Vajpayee was a liberal and Advani a hardliner. The fact was both were knicker-wearing RSS activists with the same training and the same political beliefs. Their supposed difference was well-considered tactics. When Advani was going to Ayodhya from Somnath, Vajpayee remarked that Advaniji should remember that Ayodhya was in India, not in Srilanka.

This came to some Muslims as a straw comes to a drowning man, who clutches the straw desperately to save himself from drowning. “See, I had told you so. Vajpayeeji is a liberal. He has told Advaniji clearly not to make India the battleground between Shri Ramji’s army and that of Ravana”. Well.

In 2002, after the historic massacre of Muslims in Gujarat, Vajpayee as the Prime Minister of India told chief minister Modi to observe “rajdharma”, which requires impartiality. This was good advice as the chief minister had been partial. But Vajpayee did not sack the Gujarat government, which was his “rajdharma”. Soon after that, Vajpayee took his familiar about turn and declared that Muslims did not want to live in peace anywhere.

He also said that had Muslim leaders condemned the Godhra train burning, the Gujarat pogrom would not have happened. This was a lie, as all known Muslim leaders had condemned it. Years before that, the Nellie massacre in Assam happened after Vajpayee’s visit there, during which he had provoked the Assamese chauvinists saying “if so many outsiders” had come into Punjab, the Punjabis would have cut them to pieces. So much for Mr Vajpayee’s liberalism.

I am reminded of all this after reading an editorial in an Urdu daily which celebrates Prime Minister Modi’s “victory” over RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat. The editorial says that RSS organisations were disturbing the Prime Minister’s development effort by distracting him with programmes like “ghar-wapsi”. The Prime Minister protested strongly and the RSS had to step back. Rabble rousers like Pravin Togadia have been cut to size and UP governer Ram Nayak’s “tetua daba diya gaya hai” (Ram Nayak’s mouth has been forced to shut). Nayak, who had been talking about Ayodhya temple, is now talking about development, the editorial says. Self-deception comes easy to our editors. They see difference in things where no real difference exists.

We would be better served by Russian leader Khrushchev’s stance on such distinctions. Khrushchev liked to talk with the help of his shoes. Once attending a UN meeting, he took out one of his shoes and banged the desk with it in order to make a point.

When Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy were running for the US presidency, a reporter asked Khrushchev as to whom he would prefer. Khrushchev, pointing towards his shoes, shot back a counter-question: “Which one do you prefer, the shoe on the left foot or that on the right?”

In today’s scenario, there is no choice, my friend. There is no choice, whatsoever.

source : http://www.iosworld.org/short_takes/Sarpnath_and_Nagnath.htm

Deccan Printers

Now No Need Going
around looking for printing PRESS!
All ur Printing Needs taken care at your Door step
Call 9845498354
DECCAN Printers 
Bangalore.
Avail services for your Printing Needs of
Visiting Cards
Rubber Stamps
Envelopes
Letter Heads
Project Report Binding
Brouchers
Handbills
DIGITAL ID CARDS
Printing stationeries
Brass & acrylic Name plates
Paper Hand Bags
Glow sign Boards and much more
Service at your Door Step
call 9845498354 for Details
We are specialists in
Wedding cards & Cards of Every Occasion !











ABHI MAREEZ MEI'N THODI SI JAAN BAQI HAI
KHUDA KA SHUKR HAI URDU ZUBAN BAQI HAI


MIRE KHILAF KOI FAISLA NAHI'N DENA
ABHI SAFAAYI MEI'N MERA BAYAAN BAQI HAI




Right now, Arvind Kejriwal is busy putting a facial, in a bid to get Justice Katju's vote.

Calender 2015