Monday, October 31, 2011

Towards Tamil Eelam: Via Wall Street

by Sandhya Jain

Two events over the last fortnight have uncovered the role of the Catholic Church in fostering Tamil separatism in Sri Lanka, with the aim of carving a separate Christian country out of India’s Tamil Nadu and the Tamil areas of the island-nation. The first was India’s deporting the Sri Lankan Tamil Catholic priest, Fr. S.J. Emmanuel, back to Dubai, when he arrived at Chennai hoping to meet chief minister Jayalalithaa, and to attend some events at Chennai University and later, at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.

Fr. Emmanuel is president of the UK-based Global Tamil Forum (GTF), a leading LTTE front and umbrella organisation for Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora groups. The Sunday Observer from Canada reported that Emmanuel had recently visited Canada and Europe to raise funds and mobilise pro-LTTE groups to stoke anti-Colombo propaganda in the West. But now, moderate sections of the diaspora are questioning Emmanuel’s role in radicalising Tamil youth while not utilising the millions of dollars collected through donations to help resettle and rehabilitate former LTTE cadres.

The second incident relates to the Oct 13, 2011 sentencing of Sri Lankan hedge fund billionaire Raj Rajarathnam to eleven years imprisonment for insider trading on Wall Street, by the US Federal district court, Manhattan.

Rajarathnam was actually investigated for his links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. According to an ex-Tamil Tiger turned FBI informant, codenamed Rudra, Raj’s father, Jesuthasan Rajarathnam, himself a wealthy financial manager, was a lavish donor. The father-son duo set up the Rajarathnam Family Foundation to support charitable causes in Sri Lanka and elsewhere; it was also a front to channel funds to the Tamil Tigers.

Vanity Fair
reports that in November 2002 (the US State Department listed LTTE as a terrorist organisation in 1997), a Tamil cultural organisation, Ilankai Tamil Sangam, hosted a 25th anniversary celebration at Doubletree Hotel in Somerset, New Jersey. LTTE flags and videos were displayed throughout the hall. It may be recalled that LTTE had assassinated former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in May 1991 and Sri Lanka President Ranasinghe Premadasa in 1993, besides wreaking mayhem in the island nation with suicide attacks on buses, temples, shopping malls, and village massacres.

At Doubletree Hotel, Raj Rajaratnam (secretly taped by the FBI) said, ‘Everyone must support the Tigers’ cause.’ He had, in 2000, given $1 million after the victory over the Sri Lankan army at Elephant Pass, gateway to the northern peninsula.

Rudra infiltrated the LTTE network abroad by meeting Tiger operatives at such events. Rumours were spread that Rudra had contacts with top Mafia figures in prison and could access corrupt American officials and ‘get things done’ for the Tigers – such as smuggling Tamils without proper visas into the United States. FBI built his credibility by helping smuggle nine persons at Newark airport in 2001. In April 2004, Rudra saved Fr. Gaspar Raj, a Catholic priest and key Tamil Tiger member, from being deported by federal agents at Newark.

Prabhakaran ran the Tamil Tigers abroad on classic, cellular lines, with each group unaware of the others. But Rudra soon emerged as a trusted go-between for many cells trying to raise money and procure weapons, including surface-to-air missiles. In August 2003, Rudra travelled with LTTE’s top international financier, Vijayshanthar Patpanathan (Chandru), to the Tigers’ Vanni fortress. It had underground bunkers for advanced computers and communications equipment and two fully equipped subterranean hospitals. He met most of the senior LTTE leadership here, and recorded their conversations.

By 2005, Rudra had helped the FBI get a comprehensive picture of LTTE’s fund-raising capability. Raj Rajaratnam’s name cropped up often; LTTE gave Raj huge money to invest in his Galleon Group fund. The Tigers raised $1 million every time they held a function, and extorted thousands of dollars from diaspora professionals for ‘the next wave of operations’.

In 2001, when FBI wiretaps detected an executive from Intel Corporation giving Raj insider tips, the link between terrorism and insider trading was exposed. And just as the legendary gangster Al Capone was actually convicted for tax evasion, so Rajarathnam was investigated for terrorist funding, and convicted for insider trading!

FBI uncovered LTTE’s main “front” charities in America and Britain, which were shut down. This impacted LTTE’s capacity to fight. The Tigers’ last stand came in April 2009, when the Sri Lankan army overran Vanni, killing Prabhakaran.

One important front group, the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO), was active in 17 countries before the US Treasury froze its assets in November 2007. Rajaratnam played a key role in transferring money from TRO to the LTTE. An April 2007 affidavit by an FBI special agent regarding Rajarathnam’s banking records showed that he wrote three checks totalling $1,000,000 between July and September 2000, which made its way to a TRO account in London (paradise of the arms merchants). Most of the money was later withdrawn in cash.

TRO received maximum donations from America, where the Rajarathnam family was the largest private donor. The US Treasury said the TRO had “facilitated LTTE procurement operations, including purchase of munitions, equipment, communication devices, and other technology.” Through 2003, Raj gave $5.05 million to his family foundation, which passed on $5 million to the TRO. In June 2004, he gave $1 million directly to the TRO. After the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, Rajaratnam set up Tsunami Relief, Inc., which was administered by staff at the Galleon Group headquarters in New York. It collected over $7 million and gave nearly half the money to the TRO in America and in Sri Lanka.

These huge monies have prompted victims of LTTE violence to file for damages in New Jersey, for crimes financed by Rajaratnam. His lawyers assert that there is “no connection” between Rajaratnam’s donations to the TRO and the harm suffered by the claimants, as there is no evidence that he ever sponsored acts of violence.

Yet, in US law, one need not prove that money a person gave to an entity that funded terrorism was actually spent on armaments; it’s enough to show that the recipient body used some of its funds for terrorist purposes. The New Jersey federal court has already accepted jurisdiction and upheld the suit as a claim for crimes against humanity.

As India debates clemency for the murderers of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the New Jersey verdict will be interesting.


The author is Editor,

Voice of the People and State Response in Hindu Tradition of Rajdharma

When Mahendra Singh Tikait and thousands of farmers and their cattle laid siege to Delhi in 1988, their demands were straight-forward and simple – higher procurement price for sugar-cane and lower water and power tariff. As UP’s farmers and their cattle took over Delhi’s snotty Boat Club lawns, their choolas and camp fires and piles of cattle dung reflected the nation and national ethos more accurately than the yuppie, high-salaried I-am-Anna ‘civil society’ thronging Ramlila Maidan.

Anna Hazare and Kejriwal’s media-fuelled anti-corruption campaign lacked the sense of powerless urgency and desperation of the farmers which was so palpable in 1988.

The crowds that took to the streets in various cities in the country for Anna Hazare proved that this newly minted, self proclaimed ‘civil society’ only meant the English-educated professional class – Academia, IITs, IIMs, IT workers, media persons, Bollywood, Kollywood, Otherwoods, and jeans-clad wannabe civil society in fashionable pony-tails and earrings from universities, colleges and urban English-medium schools. If you added them all up, they would not exceed five million and that would be a generous overestimation.

Even more bizarre was the spectacle of Indians in Scotland (they did not tell us where precisely in Scotland) and New York standing in some remote street-corner wagging their fingers at corruption in India. This is the crowd that has been brought up on a staple diet of politics is dirty, all politicians are corrupt, India is a poor country and being Hindu is communal.

Tikait and cattle dung were not half as glamorous as corruption riding piggyback on Gandhigiri was made fashionable by Anna Hazare’s yuppie civil society.

India-is-Anna civil society does not deign to speak for or represent Mahendra Singh Tikait and the nation’s ganwar and anpadh unless they are Mumbai’s newly patronised (by Bollywood) and romanticised dhobighat and dhabawallahs. Kiran Bedi in 1988 would almost certainly not have declared India is Tikat, Tikait is India and Mumbai’s dhabbawallahs did not step forward then to express solidarity with Mahendra Singh Tikait as they stepped forward now for Anna Hazare.

Tikait’s siege of Delhi was a tragic commentary on how successive Congress governments beginning with Nehru and continuing to this day, have dealt with farmers, farmer issues, agriculture and agriculture land. But the media, such as it was even in 1988, did not make common cause with Tikait and did not fuel the farmers’ agitation with non-stop coverage of the event (for fear of more dung?) and did not hold up Tikait as the nation’s icon of Gandhian fast and democratic protest; and this notwithstanding the fact that Anna Hazare and his gang posed a bigger threat to democracy than Mahendra Singh Tikait.

The country’s activist film industry did not bend solicitously over Tikait and his farmers; Kiran Bedi was not called in to entertain the crowds with her gawky, school-girl imitation of Yasser Arafat nor did Tikait invite Om Puri to abuse India’s elected representatives in choice Hindi of being ‘ganwar’ and anpadh’.

Tikait led the agitation and sustained the siege of Lutyens’ Delhi on the strength of his cause and did not need the media to legitimise him or his people. Tikait, unlike Sonia Gandhi, Team Anna and their civil society also had no illegitimate ambitions to rule the country riding on the back of the Church, the Ford Foundation, Magsaysay or Nobel.

The violence which erupted across North India in the wake of Mandal Commission Report, the violent Gujjar agitation in Rajasthan in 2008, the protracted violent agitation in Nandigram, violence in the name of Belgaum and for Telangana and the on-going protests by farmers against government acquisition of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes – these were peoples’ protests intended to make the government listen and force the nation to pay attention.

Except for the pro and anti-Mandal Commission recommendations, these violent protests were by and large localised and at the worst posed grave law and order problems. These movements challenged the government and administration to find solutions, to negotiate and to end the protests but these did not challenge or threaten the country’s democratic edifice.

Anna Hazare’s campaign against corruption, in the face of it non-violent, was nevertheless more dangerous than the rest because this threatened national sovereignty not only because it was spearheaded by individuals feted and funded previously by foreign agencies with political objectives but also because it threatened to diminish and override the powers and authority vested in our parliament and judiciary, which were warts and all, to quote a popular jingle, ‘theda hai par mera hai’.

As the writer pointed out in the first column on Anna Hazare’s supposed anti-corruption movement in April 2011, the Lokpal Bill was less about corruption and more about creating a supra body with draconian powers; an unelected body accountable to no elected or constitutional authority. ( ). One bizarre fall-out of Team Anna’s draft of the Lokpal Bill is that the Lokpal would be accountable to the judiciary and the judiciary would be accountable to the Lokpal. Talk about mutually beneficial partnerships!

Two phrases constantly bandied around in newsroom discussions on Anna Hazare and Co. were ‘Gandhian method’ and ‘democratic protest’. Describing the protest as being democratic derived from love-is-blind, god-is-love, so god-is-blind false logic. One popular definition of democracy is - of the people by the people for the people; so when people take to the streets it is labelled democratic protest even when the protests defy and threaten democratic institutions.

We can deduce just how bogus and motivated was mainstream Hindi and English news channels’ definition of labels like civil society, democratic and Gandhian from the fact that Baba Ramdev and his bhaktas were never referred to as ‘civil society’ nor was their peaceful gathering at Ramlila Maidan described as being Gandhian or democratic protest. What was left unsaid and conspicuously ignored and what would be the Hindu perspective in polity was that -

  • Democratic protest and so-called Gandhian protest are not one and the same

  • Violent protests are not necessarily less legitimate

  • Protests can be deemed to be righteous or otherwise only and only by the desired objective

  • A state governed by wisdom and dharma would know when to submit to peoples’ protests and when to stand firm

Going beyond the cacophony and bluster that marked most intellectual reactions to the event, it bears mention that as expected, there has been no Hindu nationalist perspective yet on state and citizen responsibility or on peoples’ protests and state response.

Traditional Hindu understanding of state and statecraft expand from the kernel - dharma as the ultimate objective of all functions of state and society; and the Ramayana and Mahabharata provide the most definitive but wholly contrasting methods of dealing with adharma.

  • The fundamental and non-negotiable duty of the King (or the state) in Hindu dharmic traditions was to uphold and protect dharma; the King’s dharma was the most important component of rajdharma

  • Not only was the King expected to know samanya dharma (the principal universal dharma which except on rarest of rare occasions was unchanging) but he was expected to adhere to and fulfil his kingly svadharma

  • The King’s svadharma was two-fold: towards the territory of his kingdom and towards the people he ruled

  • The King, according to Kautiliya Arthasastra, must protect his rajya (throne, government) and the rashtra (territory and the people inhabiting the territory); implicit in protecting the rajya and rashtra is protecting the honour of the throne, the nation and the people

  • The King must strive only to ensure yogakshemam or the well-being of his praja or citizens; praja means not simply citizen but also child/children (Kausalya Supraja...) while pati means he who protects like a father

  • The King must strive to be prajapati

  • The King must be a knower of dharma and if required, must seek wise counsel from others

  • A king who does not protect and uphold dharma, does not protect the state or the nation, the king who is not righteous and who refuses to seek or heed wise counsel, a king who has earned the displeasure of his people and is unresponsive to their grievances, according to Anushasana Parva of the Mahabharata, may and should be killed

The Ramayana and Mahabharata are historical narratives of how the King or state and the people of Ayodhya and Hastinapura dealt with adharma. Much is made of ‘peoples’ will’ in academic discussions to explain away Srirama’s decision to banish Sita from Ayodhya although some scholars rooted in Hindu thought explain it otherwise.

Peoples’ will can be a legitimate argument as mentioned earlier only when the will is righteous or dharmic and when the people are forced to publicly express their opinion - either because the King is unrighteous and has refused to heed their views or because the King’s view or action for other reasons does not converge with that of his people. The honour and steadfastness to dharma of the Ikshvaku dynasty and Ayodhya were tested by three extraordinary crises in the lifetime of Srirama –

  • When Srirama, dearly loved by the people of Ayodhya, became victim of a grand palace intrigue and voluntarily gave up his claim to the throne in favour of Bharata

  • When Sita, daughter of a King, daughter-in-law of a King and the consort of a future King was abducted by Ravana and held captive in Lanka, and

  • When Srirama banished pregnant Sita from Ayodhya

The Mahabharata is a chronicle of a series of crises coming upon the kingdom of Hastinapura, the Pandavas and Kauravas –

  • Dhritrashtra’s seething rage that, in spite of being the first-born his blindness denied him the throne; rage which became the root cause for everything that followed his younger brother Pandu’s ascension to the throne

  • Duryodhana’s illegitimate claim to the throne of Hastinapura

  • Vivisection of the kingdom between Duryodhana and Yudhistira

  • Yudhistira staking Indraprastha in the game of dice and losing the kingdom to Duryodhana

  • Yudishtira staking his brothers and his wife in the game and losing to Shakuni’s crafty roll of the dice

  • The Kauravas disrobing Draupadi in court

  • The inaction and impotence of the elders in Hastinapura when the kingdom was vivisected, when the game of dice was played, when Yudhistira staked his kingdom in the game, and when Draupadi was dishonoured

As the series of crises unfolded in Ayodhya, Hastinapura and Indraprastha, the most striking feature in the narration is that in the Ramayana, the ordinary people of Ayodhya are heard and seen during the crises; and all action before, during and after the crises takes place equally in the courts, on the streets and on the battlefield; in the Mahabharata however, we do not see or hear the ordinary people of Hastinapura and Indraprastha and all action takes place only in the court and on the battlefield.

In the Ramayana the praja is heard and is seen because both Dasaratha and Srirama submitted to dharma; while in the Mahabharata, unrestrained greed for the throne and the fatal penchant for gambling rendered Dhritrashtra, Duryodhana and Yudhishtira impervious not only to public opinion but also to the well-being of their citizens. The people of Hastinapura and Indraprastha are therefore invisible and voiceless.

In Hindu tradition of rajdharma mere numbers on the street or its absence do not influence the actions of the state; the Hindu state by definition is dharmic.

Persons who dominated the public discourse on Anna Hazare’s fast and on the phenomenon of thousands of people who came to the streets to express solidarity with Anna Hazare failed to look back at our own history; the voice of the people, as the Ramayana proved, is not always righteous; in the Mahabharata, while Dhritrashtra and Duryodhana are overtly unrighteous in thought and action, just as unrighteous was the overarching arrogance of Yudhistira that he could even think he had the right to stake the kingdom, its people and wealth with scant regard for the honour of the throne, the wishes of his praja and the elders in his court and even Srikrishna.

The dangers of adharmic or unrighteous peoples’ power and state power could not have been better chronicled than in the Ramayana and Mahabharata. Within the narrative of the Ramayana, Srirama on two different occasions deals differently with the pressure of public opinion or voice of the people.

Notwithstanding the fact that every citizen of Ayodhya without exception was angered when King Dasaratha was forced to consent to Bharata succeeding to the throne instead of Srirama, he rejected the voice of the people who followed him in his exile and proceeded to the forests. The numbers were undoubtedly on Srirama’s side.

But Ayodhya was not a Westminister Parliamentary democracy and Srirama therefore did not use ‘voice of the people’ fig-leaf to overrule his father; instead he chided the people of Ayodhya for threatening revolt and urged them to remain loyal to the King and to serve Bharata the heir-apparent with the same affection and loyalty that they were professing for Srirama.

Much later in the historical narrative when Srirama was informed that there were muted whispers against his decision to have by his side a woman who had been held captive in another man’s home, notwithstanding the fact that the numbers were on the side of Sita, Srirama submitted to what he considered was the ideal in rajdharma, and banished pregnant Sita to the forests.

Such was the faith of the people of Ayodhya in Srirama’s adherence to dharma that in the first instance, in absolute obedience to Srirama’s exhortation, they did not rise up in revolt against Dasaratha or Bharata and in the second instance the vast majority of the people of Ayodhya who were deeply pained and even angered by Sita’s exile, did not rise up in revolt against Srirama nor did they pick up arms against those elements in society which had brought these crises upon Ayodhya.

Anna Hazare and Co., particularly the Co., emerged from within the five million generous estimation of India’s professional class which, if we do not include the wannabes, may be as low as five lakhs; the campaign descended rapidly from a movement against corruption to a movement for the Kejriwal-Bhushan draft of the Lokpal Bill, and is a campaign of, for and by this segment of the country’s populace. Not that this makes it less legitimate in itself but did its legitimacy derive from being righteous?

The legitimacy of coercive measures by the state or by the people will be determined by its righteousness and in Hindu understanding of rajdharma, righteousness is determined by the end objective, not by the method, whether violent or the mythical Gandhian fast or democratic protest by Anna Hazare.

National self-identity is all; and it is the responsibility of the state and the people to protect the territory and ethos of the Hindu nation. Our ithihasas prove that use of force against adharma is the last resort and unavoidable when evil is not amenable to reason. If the state fails to rein in the Abrahamic cults; when de-Hinduising forces are strengthened by state patronage then the methods adopted by the people must be commensurate with the threat. That is the Hindu way.

Radha Rajan is Editor
This column was written for the special Deepavalli edition of Organiser

Are we moving towards a separate criminal law for minorities?

By Sandhya Jain

In recent times, some clemency petitions concerning death row convicts have given rise to apprehensions that we may be subtly edging towards a de facto separate criminal law for minority communities, or persons covertly supported by minorities with a vested agenda. This bodes ill for a Republic already suffering from the consequences of an ill-conceived concession that allowed different groups to bypass the uniform civil code in favour of communal Personal Laws; now the use of political clout to wrestle special consideration in criminal matters could disastrously queer the pitch for our nationhood.

The issue is grave indeed, and merits dispassionate scrutiny. Of all the criminal cases currently rousing passions in India today, the ongoing case of Ajmal Kasab possibly tops the list. The Supreme Court was right in upholding the majesty of law when, on October 10, 2011, it decided to hear Kasab’s plea against the capital punishment awarded to him. As is well known, Kasab was the sole Pakistani terrorist arrested for his role in the sensational Mumbai 2008 attack, wherein he was caught on camera at Chhatrapati Shivaji railway terminus before being captured alive en route to Cama Hospital by brave heart constable Tukaram Omble.

Justices Aftab Alam and CK Prasad said they were aware that many in the country feel the appeal should be rejected outright. But the learned special bench permitted the terrorist to amend his Special Leave Petition and furnish additional grounds to challenge the sentence awarded to him by the special trial court on May 6, 2010, which was subsequently confirmed by the Mumbai High Court on February 21, 2011.

One has no doubt the Supreme Court will eventually uphold the death sentence for Kasab, as there are no extenuating circumstances for his crimes. Hence, the writer rejects the clamour to hang Kasab at the earliest, just to end the massive expenditure incurred on his security in prison.
In other cases, however, there is legitimate disquiet over the manner in which minority politics has been brought to play in high voltage murder trials, and convictions. There is in fact a growing connivance between our secular elite and minority leaders to ensure ‘special consideration’ for minority convicts, an issue that is fraught with dangerous consequences.

Currently, politics is again being played in the case of Afzal Guru, convicted for his role in the attack on Parliament House on December 13, 2001, which took 12 lives. Readers may recall that this trial was troublesome from the start, with human rights activists protesting against a trial that acquitted some and found others guilty. There was much hair-splitting about the nature of legal assistance available to various accused, though the accused and their NGO activist-friends always had the freedom to recruit appropriate counsel.

Now, when the entire judicial due process has been exhausted and the matter has reached the President (UPA-I shamelessly sat on the clemency petition), the matter has acquired a new twist.

It began innocuously when – tweeting over the Tamil Nadu Assembly’s resolution for commuting the death sentence of three convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, after the President rejected their pleas – Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah wondered if the national response would be as muted if the J&K Assembly passed a similar resolution urging commutation of death sentence for Afzal Guru.

This set the cat among the pigeons. On September 2, independent MLA Sheikh Abdur Rashid submitted a resolution demanding clemency for Afzal. It was listed for discussion on September 28, but orchestrated disruptions of the House caused it to lapse on the technical ground that it was not discussed on the day for which it was listed. While the major political parties in the State avoided taking a clear stand on the resolution, National Panther’s Party leader Bhim Singh said, “Acts done outside the State of J&K do not fall within the competence of the Legislative Assembly of J&K”. He said as the matter is pending before the President, the Legislative Assembly should not interfere with the process of law.

But what triggered the J&K-Afzal Guru episode was the unfortunate decision by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa to allow the Assembly to pass a resolution urging the President to reconsider the mercy petition of three death row convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case, on August 30, 2011.
A disgraceful precedent in this case was set by Congress Party president Sonia Gandhi (widow of late Rajiv Gandhi), who intervened in the criminal case some years ago to demand clemency for convict Nalini, on grounds of sentiment. The fact that Nalini was the mother of a child born inside the jail during her incarceration was a matter for the Indian judiciary to decide, and was not at all a matter for the family of a victim.

Yet the Gandhi family has not hesitated to prance about in this case. Few years ago, late Rajiv Gandhi’s daughter Priyanka Vadra made a mysterious visit to Vellore to meet Nalini. The matter became public after a lawyer filed an RTI to bring the visit on record, and though Priyanka had to admit she met Nalini, she refused to explain if this was connected with reports that Nalini’s husband Murugan Sriharan was writing his autobiography. Worse, there was no record of Priyanka entering the jail to meet Nalini, which triggered speculation that the meeting actually took place at Vellore’s famous Golden Temple. Priyanka admitted visiting this temple.

At that time, there was intense speculation that the Gandhi family would seek mercy for the remaining LTTE activists in the murder case; the furore over Priyanka’s secret mission to Vellore may have dissuaded them. As LTTE is known to be a Christian terrorist organisation, backed by overseas missionary groups and Tamil Diaspora with deep Christian connections, Sonia Gandhi’s intervention in the Nalini mercy petition and Priyanka Vadra’s secret meeting with Nalini, must be seen as an instance of religion using politics to intrude into criminal law. (It is pertinent that Nalini’s daughter was whisked away by Christian activists and raised in London, the Mecca of all controversial aliens).
Tamil Dravidian parties have links with missionary groups since the pre-independence period; hence it is safe to assume a connection with the Tamil Nadu Assembly resolution seeking mercy for the convicts even after the President of India rejected their mercy petitions.

Now, with the President’s decision, the entire chain of due process has come to an end. The State should move to hang Perarivalan, Santhan and Murugan without further ado. The Centre, and also the Supreme Court, should have reprimanded the Tamil Nadu Assembly for passing a resolution that makes a mockery of law and justice in the country, and Sonia Gandhi and her family must be rebuked for treating murder as a matter of political and personal aggrandizement.
Ironically, Omar Abdullah raised a very pertinent issue when he asked why the country’s reaction to this dangerous resolution was so muted. And despite the awkward position in which this tweet landed him, it goes to his credit that he had the resolution scuttled – and not passed.
Mercifully, in Punjab, Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal ultimately desisted from moving a resolution in the State Assembly for clemency for Devinderpal Singh Bhullar, an activist of the Khalistan Liberation Force.

Bhullar was found guilty of killing nine bystanders in a September 11, 1993 car bomb explosion at Raisina Road, Delhi, intended to kill Youth Congress leader Maninder Singh Bitta, vocal critic of Khalistani separatists. Bitta was seriously wounded in the attack, but survived. He had previously lost one leg in a 1992 bombing in Amritsar, in which 13 persons died.

Bhullar initially fled to Germany, but was extradited to India in 1995; he was found guilty by the trial court and sentenced to death by hanging on August 25, 2001. The Supreme Court dismissed his plea against the conviction on December 27, 2006, and the President rejected his clemency petition in May 2011.
In this case too, Omar Abdullah pertinently queried why there was no outcry against the Punjab Chief Minister for seeking clemency for a secessionist and mass murderer. In fairness, we cannot disregard the J&K Chief Minister’s uncomfortable questions.

Now, the nation stands at an unprecedented pathway – a combination of Religion and Politics in intruding into matters of Criminal Law, and the Judiciary had not uttered a murmur of protest. Nor, for that matter, have other branches of Government, much less the media.

The issue has the potential to derail the Indian Constitution’s carefully crafted separation of powers which is a basic feature of the Constitution. It negates the separation of religion and politics. It voids the constitutional guarantee of non-discrimination on grounds of religion by giving weightage to criminals from minority communities in the award of punishment.

In essence, it would seem that the pigeons of Nehruvian politics are coming home to roost.


Saturday, October 29, 2011

Communal violence Bill draws ire

B. S. Raghavan

I am not one of those who look upon the National Advisory Council (NAC), functioning under the UPA Chairperson, Ms Sonia Gandhi, as an extra-Constitutional authority, enjoying power without responsibility, and meddling with matters falling within the legitimate functions of the Government.

I think it is performing the useful role of taking up for advance policy planning issues and contingencies which the Government, because of the day-to-day pressures, has been unable to address, or may have overlooked.

The risk of stirring up hornets' nests is inherent in such proactive efforts. The NAC finds itself in one such predicament for coming up with the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill. In sheer scope and volume, it is a remarkable piece of work, extending to 66 pages, containing 138 sections, four schedules and four appendices, and leaving nothing to chance.

It is under attack principally on two fronts. The first is on the ground of violation of the federal structure of the Constitution and vesting the Centre with a wide range of powers to exercise control over States in the domain of law and order which squarely falls within their ambit.

The second objection originally raised by the BJP, and now supported by the likes of the Bihar Chief Minister, Mr Nitish Kumar, and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Ms Jayalalithaa, is that it is likely to foment distrust between the majority and minority religious communities and create among the people at large an impression that it is the majority community that is invariably responsible for outbreaks of communal violence.


In Ms Jayalalithaa's opinion, Central and State authorities may exploit it “to vent frustrations on vulnerable persons, or wreak vengeance against any group that is outspoken or critical” and that the Bill will not “even remotely achieve its desired objective”.

A close reading of the NAC's draft Bill is certain to confirm these apprehensions which are based on sound reasoning. It doubtless upsets the delicate balance in the powers of the Centre and the States, by giving sweeping authority to the former in certain situations to over-ride the latter, virtually obliterating the States as Constitutional entities.

For instance, the occurrence of organised communal and targeted violence (a new concept introduced in the Bill) within a State shall constitute “internal disturbance” within the meaning of Article 355 of the Constitution and the Central Government can then practically take over the State administration for as long as the “internal disturbance” continues in its subjective judgment.

Likewise, the Bill makes it “the duty” of the Centre, the States and the Union Territories to carry out the directives of the National Authority for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation proposed to be established.


The Bill has also put in problematic definitions with a whole host of subjective elements liable to subjective or biased interpretation and vitiating relations between communities. Take the definition of “hostile environment against a group”: The word ‘group' has been given the connotation of “a religious or linguistic minority, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes” and ‘hostile environment' is said to mean creation of an intimidating or coercive environment when a person belonging to the group is subjected to humiliation and harassment, denial of livelihood, deprivation of fundamental rights, or eviction from place of residence.

Going a step further, the Bill has also conceived of “hate propaganda” as a new offence in the nature of acts inciting hatred, causing clear and present danger of violence against a group or persons belonging to that group. The expressions used are so very nebulous that a person can be hauled up for almost anything done or said by way of criticism of a religious minority or members of SC or ST and made to face severe punishment.

The Bill bristles with many such examples. The Government will be doing itself and the people a great service by shelving the Bill or at the most, placing it before the Inter-State Council for advice after it is given an intensive scrutiny by a team of dispassionate Constitutional experts..

Saturday, October 22, 2011

We need a loyal Hindutwa based party, Hindus should vote united: Dr. Swamy

We need a loyal Hindutwa based party, Hindus should vote united: Dr. Swamy

Formar union minister Dr. Subramanian Swamy stressed the need of `loyal’ and `commited’ Hindutwa based formation in the center for the next Loksabha. In an interview to Vishwa Samvada Kendra during his visit to Bangalore, he told Integral Humanism of Dindayal Upadhyaya is the way to go. He talked on wide topics from Hindutva, economy to politics and corruption. Here is the transcript of the interview:

VSK: Sir, you have worked as an economist, as a politician and as an academic personality for a long time. In this period, have you seen any noticeable change in the Hindu consciousness, firstly among the general public, political arena and in the intellectual field?

Dr. Swamy: There are two areas of change. The first is a vast change in the attitude amongst youth, when it comes to visiting temples, ashrams, celebrating festivals learning in depth about the scriptures etc. For example, the Siddhivinayaka Temple, where I have observed members of the younger generation stand in the queue for long, exhaustive hours, for obtaining darshan. The same is the case at KumbhMela, Sabarimala, etc. This is a welcome move, as it stands in stark contrast to the trend during the days of Jawharlal Nehru, when people dissociated themselves from Hinduism, in an attempt to project themselves as modern. They wanted to be modern, saying I don’t believe in all this hocus pocus. Now I find people going to Ashramas, to Swamijis, doing Yoga and everything associated with religion. People have even started doing Padyatras to Sabarimala.

Another change I have observed with regard to the Indian scenario is the vast acceptance and respectability of religious seers of Hinduism. People are shedding their reservation in approaching the spiritual seers for specific and general advice. Numerous magazines related to Hinduism, have also mushroomed up, which have invoked the Hindu interest by and large.

However, the area where Hindu society has to change is with regard to the mindset- the “Hindu-mind set”, which has not yet set in, for which I am campaigning vociferously. With regard to the Hindu mindset, there are two comparisons that can depict it best. When it comes to being the majority in society, the Hindus are gentle and timid like goats that serve no purpose. You can have 1000 goats. But when a tiger makes its appearance, the goats run helter skelter, whatever majority they enjoy.

Another comparison I would make regarding Hindus is with the “king of the forest”. Even if the Hindus have the potential and strength, they are like lions in a circus group- caged, under the mercy and control of wiry, whip cracking ring masters. They obey the minutest of commands, at the crack of a whip, even though they have the potential to kill him. This can be attributed to the human mind or mental set up and to rectify this hazardous condition, a Hindu Mental Revolution is vital.

An aspect about Sanatana culture is the spiritual arena, on which our ancestors focused. Contrary to the western leaders who decked themselves in silken robes and studded jewellery, our spiritual leaders have been clad in simple attires, mostly the Bhagwa. However globalization has made people materialistic, with the sole outlook in life being the garnering of wealth.

Do you think we can bring the Gurukula system back?

Gurukula system of education is a feasible one, but it will take time to implement this. The West has already started this, but not with the name Gurukula. They have introduced the system of a single tutor for a group of students. It is possible, but it will take time. We do not have teachers.

In your recent article published in DNA, you told Muslims of India should acknowledge their Hindu ancestry, and only then they can be accommodated in our society. Have you thought of any particular methodology to implement this?

I cannot implement this, unless I am in power. To implement this, you need to have a Parliamentary board. There is no absolute fundamental right to vote. Even today, if you don’t have a place of residence, you cannot vote. So there are restrictions. I would call for another restriction- that you accept your Hindustani identity. There is nothing unconstitutional in that. But this has to be passed as a law and for this; you need to be in power.

Another important factor is the collective vote of Hindus. If not the 83%, if at least 40% of the votes can be cast in favour of an all Hindu Party that remains loyal to the Hindu cause, there will be a change. If there is a loyal, committed Hindutva based formation is in Parliament tomorrow, it can be adopted.

In the last century, We have seen that social form of economy is collapsing down; Russia and China going away from that. We are also seeing protest against capitalism and corporate centered economy in US. As an economist, what reason you give to this and what alternative you suggest?

My alternative is again integral humanism. What is happening in the West is greed. The cause of the fall of western economy was due to their materialistic pursuits. What is happening in the West is due to greed. Everyone searches for shortcuts to earn money- the investors, bankers etc. For a materialistic society, like the West, into which we are being dragged into, money is everything. If they had given a little less importance to money, and gone in quest of knowledge, none of these people would have been unhappy. If you have made money more than what is required, make donations. Be a philanthropist. You earn respect that way.

The ideal society had a perfect blend of both spiritual and materialistic sides. The JanSangh thinker Deen Dayal Upadhyay, who was also the President of the party, had developed a thesis titled “Integral Humanism”, which emphasized on the progress of both material and spiritual sides on a balanced plane. Therefore conferring respect on a person solely on the basis of wealth was wrong.

So what the West has to learn is that it is not the Wall Street that is bad or Socialism that is good, but the very truth that money is not an end in itself. The craze for money has to go. This is the reason why foreigners flock to ashrams in India. Sai Baba Ashram at Puttaparthy, Ashram of Sri. Sri. Ravishankar teem with foreigners, because they have realized that money alone does not lead to happiness. ..Look what is happening in the west- Julia Roberts has converted to Hinduism. So did Steve Jobs. Have you thought why Yoga is being taught in the west? Why Sanskrit is being taught in America? Looking at all these, there is the need to educate our own people.

You have talked and written a lot about Sonias background and he collection with anti-nationals. With all this, the general public seems to be non-responsive...

Why should they be responsive? Is the opposition responsive? I have challenged Sonia Gandhi’s affidavits as a candidate, stating that she has a degree in English from the University of Cambridge. I gave the opposition a letter, sent to me by the University of Cambridge saying there was no such student. Did anyone raise it?

So why blame the general public? Your Parliamentarians are not ready to raise it. Then why should the general public raise the issue? Newspapers are also afraid to publish the news.

What is the reason you attribute to this general apprehension?

Blackmail. Sonia Gandhi black mails people. She is a ruthless woman. And you blackmail only when you have something to hide. She can’t blackmail me.

So is there hope for the citizens?

Absolutely! I will not let go. Don’t worry(laughs). I know technology very well – Advantages of being a professor.

Coming to the 2G scam, what motivated you to take the case up?

The private secretary of PM, a senior IAS officer once came to see me at night. He was heartbroken and said he felt like committing suicide,over waht he witnessed in the telecom sector. That is how I began taking an interest. I sent the PM 5 letters. But the PM, a friend of mine never replied. Then I knew that something was seriously wrong and went to court.

In the meantime, I gathered that rupees 60,000 crore were distributed as bribe. Raja, Kannimozhi, Karunanidhi and Chidambaram have taken a share, but Sonia Gandhi has taken 36,000Cr. This way, if the country’s money is in the hands of private individuals, we will be ruined.

I also found out that 2 companies that paid bribe-Etisalat and Telenor are blacklisted companies. Etisalat is an ISI company and Telenor is a Chinese military company-which means the equipment is from Chinese military. The Home Ministry had made it clear that no business should be done with them.

Also the person who distributed the money, Sadiq Batcha has been killed. This is what has motivated me. This is the biggest corruption in the history of India- even in the history of the world.

And is there a way we can get back the money?

Sure! Attach their properties. Once she gets convicted, I’ll file another suit and get her property attached. Her property all over the world will be attached. But then she will say she is an Italian. (laughs)

But what when enemies are formidable? You use to tell that Sonia Gandhi is backed strongly by Christian organizations. Your campaign against her is being termed by them as “personal vendetta”. They have started playing the victim, especially with your letter recently to the Muthoot group.

I was once called to address a meeting in Malappuram, to install a statue of Ezhuthachan, the great Malayalam poet, who translated Ramayana into Malayalam. The Hindus who wanted to install the statue, were denied permission, saying it mounts up to Moorthy PoojaSince 20 years, Hindus have not been allowed to hold public meetings in Malappuram, as they are not granted permission. In our own land, we now have Dar Ul Islam. Hence I was called to address the meeting, because they knew that if i was denied permission, I would go to court. I held the public meeting too. I have not seen so much of fear, in our own country, where Muslims are in majority, even if it is a pocket, minorities there have no future.

However, you see that the Mulims are very clear in what they want. I don’t blame them. But the Hindu is confused, including BJP. They all want to be super secular. This is the reason I work with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Viswa Hindu Parishad. Secularism exists because the Hindu has agreed to it. Tomorrow if the Hindu decides, there shall be no secularism, it shall not be there. Islamic terrorism has to be answered.

There are many things the Hindu does not know, the Muslims do not know. Masjid is not a religious place- It is a building for saying Namaz. But the Namaz can be said anywhere. So if there is a Masjid is on top of a temple, you must move the Masjid from there.

It is important that the Hindus become ‘Viraat Hindus’. When I say Viraat, it does not mean going against anyone or anything. It means defending your faith. Learn Sanskrit, know the true history of your country. If you are attacked, you must attack back. You must not hesitate. And the retaliation should be 10 times more.

I cite the instance of Swami Vivekananda who said that a suffering Hindu, because of his identity, anywhere, should receive all support from his brethren. If you see any other Hindu suffering, because he is a Hindu, in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, anywhere, you must get together and say “No! This will not be permitted.” Once the strength is displayed, there will be nothing to deter you from the path. For example the Communal Violence Bill- it is obviously directed against the Hindus. It is the most scandalous bill possible. But the opposition against it is not strong yet. The attitude is “let it be, as long as I am not affected”. The right kind of mindset- “Pravrithi/ Chetana/ Sanghya”- that remains absent.

Enemies are not formidable at all. Our mind is weak, which is why they look formidable. If the Hindus unite tomorrow, the Christians will come to us with folded hands. Take the example of the Christian Professor, whose hands were chopped off by Muslim groups in Kerala. Why did they not show how formidable they were, at that moment? They did not. They just succumbed. Even with regard to the Muthoot Corporation, nothing happened, inspite of protests by Hindu groups in Kerala. So I wrote a letter and they backed off.

Anna Hazare, who is heading one of the anti-corruption movements in the country, was first branded as an “RSS Agent” by Digvijay Singh. Later he withdrew his statement. Again he has come up with the same statement. Why do you think there are these double standards?

Anna Hazare wanted to claim that he is secular, a mass leader. Digvijay Singh wanted to sensitize the issue because all of Anna Hazare’s followers are Naxalites, Maoists and Leftists- Prashanth Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal. Swami Agnivesh is now out of the team. The only person who is efficient is Kiran Bedi. Digvijay Singh’s statement about RSS is a warning to the members of Anna’s team to be careful. Not that Digvijay does not know that RSS is not controlling Anna.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Someone blundered: Ours to reason why

S K Sinha

George Tanham, the American security analyst, stated that Indians had no strategic doctrine and formulated strategy on ad hoc basis. I regretfully accept that he was not far wrong. However, recent events show that despite all its security think tanks and vast resources, the United States has not done much better in dealing with Islamic fundamentalism. I recall that during the Second World War, there used to be a joke that the Americans are slow on the uptake. They joined the First World War three years late and the Second World War two years late. Today it seems to have taken them many years to fully realise the dimensions of jihadi terrorism and Pakistan’s duplicity.

Unfortunately, Jawaharlal Nehru, despite his great contribution during the freedom movement and in establishing Indian democracy, showed a lamentable lack of strategic vision. He handled Kashmir’s accession badly, leaving a running sore. There was no requirement to commit in 1947 that the people will finally decide after peace was restored. He compounded this in taking the Kashmir issue to the UN in January 1948. We claim that Gilgit-Baltistan is legally Indian territory. Yet we did not give even moral support to the people’s uprisings there against anti-Shia policy, colonial status and changing demography by settling people from mainland Pakistan. In an agreement signed at Delhi on August 4, 1947 by Mountbatten, Jinnah and the Khan of Kalat Baluchistan was to revert to its 1876 independent status on Pakistan coming into being. In January 1948 Jinnah forced the Khan, then on a visit to Karachi, to sign the Instrument of Accession. No referendum was stipulated nor special status. The Baluchistan Assembly unanimously rejected this and Baluch insurgency has continued since January 1948. Pakistan has been carrying out artillery shelling and air strikes against the insurgents. The veteran Baluch leader, Nawab Akbar Bugti, was killed in a air strike against his hideout in 2007.

In 1950 King Tribhuvan of Nepal came to Delhi and offered to merge Nepal with India. Despite Sardar Patel’s advice, Nehru refused the offer. His daughter showed sagacity in 1975 by merging Sikkim with India, otherwise Sikkim would also have become a running sore. Nehru ignored Patel’s letter of November 17, 1950 warning him about the threat posed by China’s occupation of Tibet. We lost a buffer in the Himalayas. He did not accept the US offer of India getting a permanent seat in the Security Council and urged that the People’s Republic of China be given the seat. At that time the Communist regime in China had not been recognised by most countries, including the US.

The British imposed the Durand Line, arbitrarily dividing the Pashtuns on either side of the then Indo-Afghan (now Pakistan-Afghan) border. Afghanistan refused to recognise this line. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the tallest Pashtun leader, had been closely associated with the Congress Party and Nehru. India did not show any interest in the Pashtun problem and decided to remain aloof from the internal affairs of a neighbouring country. Idealism does not have a place in real politik. Pakistan aligned with the US to obtain military hardware for use against India. Similarly, with worsening Sino-India relations from the late Fifties, it befriended China. This relationship is now said to be higher than the Himalayas and deeper than the ocean. India had to contend with a two-front defence strategy. In 1975, on an official visit to Kabul, I was told by a senior Afghan general that if India and Pakistan had worked together in 1971, their armies could have shaken hands across the Indus. We have never tried to impose a two-front strategy on Pakistan.

Samuel Huttington, an eminent political analyst, lectured on the clash of civilisations and also wrote a widely read book on the subject. There was an attack on the World Trade Centre in New York and growing Islamist violence in Asia. The US ignored all this. The CIA provided funds and weapons to Pakistan for launching jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Taliban was helped to power in Afghanistan. This barbarity included the destruction of the famous Bamiyan Buddha statues while the lone superpower and the UN issued meaningless verbal condemnation. Further, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan clandestinely acquiring nuclear weapons. On 9/11, the twin towers came crashing down. The civilised world was outraged. The US launched a successful attack within a month, clearing the Taliban from Afghanistan but allowing the defeated elements to take refuge in Pakistan which clandestinely helped them reorganise and re-equip. Without fully consolidating its success in Afghanistan, the US got misled and diverted to wasteful operations in Iraq. And when it got back to pursuing operations in Afghanistan, it had a full-blown insurgency on its hands reminiscent of the war in Vietnam. The Taliban, with ISI complicity, began attacking from havens in Pakistan.

The US is dependent on Pakistan for moving supplies by road to Afghanistan across Pakistani territory. Its convoys and personnel have been frequently attacked in the Pakistan territory and have suffered casualties. On the plea of economy air supply was not used to remove dependence on Pakistan nor was any alternative land route developed with the cooperation of Russia and the Central Asian republics. During World War II, the 14th Army was put on air maintenance for several months when air transport capability was comparitively primitive.

Pakistan exploited the US dependence for surface communications. The US gave Pakistan aid amounting to $20 billion. Yet the US remained the most hated country in Pakistan and the latter had no compunction in assisting the Taliban in killing US soldiers.

The operation against Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, where he had been sheltered by Pakistan, fully exposed Pakistan’s blatant duplicity. Yet US aid to Pakistan continued as an unavoidable imperative. Apart from dependence on Pakistan for land communication, the US is now also dependent on Pakistan for an honourable exit from Afghanistan. The recent attacks by the Haqqani group, with the complicity of the ISI, has now completely blown the lid off. Adm. Mike Mullen, the retiring Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff who had all along been fully supportive of Pakistan, has now come out strongly against it, saying that the Haqqani group is an arm of the ISI. The US and Pakistan are engaged in a war of words.

Against this backdrop, we signed a strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan on October 4, 2011 during President Hamid Karzai’s visit to Delhi. No doubt this is a commendable achievement. However, the implications of this agreement must be carefully analysed and necessary follow-up action taken most expeditiously to ensure national security.

The author, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as
governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir

About the author

After retiring from the army as retired Lieutenant General, S K Sinha served as Governor of the states of Jammu and Kashmir and Assam. He had also worked as India's Ambassador to Nepal.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

554 సంస్థానాలను భారత్ లో విలీనం చేసిన పటేల్

సర్దార్ వల్లభ్ భాయ్ పటేల్ 1875 అక్టోబర్ 31 న గుజరాత్ లోని నాడియాడ్ లో జన్మించారు. భారతదేశానికి స్వాతంత్ర్యం వచ్చిన తరువాత ఆ రోజుల్లో దేశంలో ఉన్న 554 సంస్థానాలను స్వల్ప వ్యవధిలో దేశంలో విలీనం చేసిన ఖ్యాతి పటేల్ దే. పటేల్ అనాడు అలా చేసి ఉండకపోతే భారతదేశం ఇంత సమైక్యంగా ఉండేది కాదు.

1947 లో బ్రిటిష్ వాళ్ళు దేశ విభజన అనివార్యం చేశారు. ఆ సమయంలో దేశ విభజననుద్దేశించి సర్దార్ వల్లభ్ భాయ్ పటేల్ ఇలా అన్నారు. -"శరీరమంతా బాధ పడకుండా కుళ్ళిపోయిన అవయవాన్ని ఖండించి, మిగిలిన శరీరాన్ని కాపాడుకోవటం మన కర్తవ్యం. ఇప్పుడు దేశ విభజనకు ఒప్పుకోకపోతే ఇప్పట్లో స్వాతంత్ర్యం వచ్చే అవకాశమే లేదు. మొత్తాన్ని కోల్పోయే ప్రమాదముంది. దానికంటే కొంత వదులుకోవడానికి నేను ఇష్టపడతాను".

హైదరాబాద్ సంస్థానం విలీనానికి ముందు రాజాకార్ నాయకుడు కాశీం రజ్వీతో సంభాషించారు. "హైదరాబాద్ ను స్వతంత్రంగా ఉంచడానికి మీరెందుకు అంగీకరించరు?" అంటే సమాధానంగా పటేల్ "నాకున్న అన్ని పరిమితులూ అతిక్రమించి వ్యవహరించాను. ఓ సంస్థానానికి ఇవ్వని సౌకర్యాలు హైదరాబాద్ కు ఇచ్చాను" అన్నారు. "మీరు మా కష్టాలను గుర్తించకపోతే మేం లొంగము. హైదరాబాద్ లోని చివరి మనిషి చనిపోయేంత వరకు మేం పోరాడుతాం" ఆవేశంగా అరిచాడు రజ్వీ. పటేల్ నింపాదిగా జవాబిస్తూ "మీరు కావాలని ఆత్మహత్య చేసుకుంటే నేనేమి చేయగలను" అన్నారు. దండోపాయం తప్పలేదు. 1948 ఆగస్టు 13 న సైన్యాలు హైదరాబాద్ ను ముట్టడించాయి. 198 గంటల్లో భాగ్యనగరం భారత్ లో విలీనం చేయబడింది. అదీ పటేల్ కార్యదక్షత !

Source :

మన చరిత్రను తెలుసుకొందాం - 10వ భాగం

మొగల్ పరిపాలన

క్రీ.శ. 1526 లో బాబర్ తో డిల్లీలో మొఘల్ చక్రవర్తుల పాలన ఆరంభమైంది. ఇతని తరువాత ఈ వంశపు చక్రవర్తులలో హుమాయున్, అక్బర్, జహంగీర్, షాజహాన్, ఔరంగజేబు ముఖ్యులు. వీరిలో అక్బర్ హిందువుల పట్ల మతపరమైన సహనంతో వ్యవహరించాడని చెబుతారు. రాజపుత్ర రాజుల కుమార్తెలను వివాహం చేసుకున్నాడు. కాని ఇతని కాలంలో చాలా హిందూ రాజ్యాలు స్వతంత్రం కోల్పోయాయి. హిందూ మతం పట్ల అక్బర్ చూపించిన సహన శీలతపై అహద్ సర్ హిందీ అనే సూఫీ తీవ్రంగా మండిపడ్డాడు. "షరియత్ ను (ఇస్లామిక్ చట్టాన్ని) ఖడ్గంతో వ్యాప్తి చేయాలి. ఇస్లాం యొక్క గౌరవం కాఫిర్లను అవమానిచాడంలోనే ఉంది. హిందువులు విలువైన వస్త్రాలు ధరించలేక, వైభవంగా జీవించలేక అవమానాల పాలయ్యేలా చూడాలి" అని బోధిస్తూ ఆనాటి ఆస్థాన ప్రముఖులలో చాలామందికి లేఖలు వ్రాశాడు. జహంగీర్ చక్రవర్తి సిక్కుల గురువైన అర్జున్ సింగును చంపించాడు. ఔరంగజేబు హిందూ మతంపై విషం కక్కాడు. హిందువులపై జీజియా పన్ను విధించాడు. కాశీ విశ్వనాధాలయం, మధురలోని శ్రీ కృష్ణాలయం, గుజరాత్ లో పునర్నిర్మాణమైన సోమ
నాధాలయం మొదలైన అనేక హిందూ దేవాలయాలను కూలగొట్టించాడు. సిక్కుల తొమ్మిదవ గురువైన తేగ్ బహదూర్ ను చంపించాడు.

ఛత్రపతి శివాజీ - హిందూ పద్ పాదుషాహి

ఈ కాలంలో మహారాష్ట్ర ప్రాంతంలో శివాజీ అనే హిందూ వీరుడు జన్మించాడు. అతనికి తల్లి జిజియా బాయి చిన్నతనంలోనే హిందూ పురాణ గాధలు, రాముడు, అర్జునుడు మొదలైన భారత వీరుల కథలు చెప్పి, హిందూ ధర్మ రక్షణ చేయాల్సిందిగా బోధించింది. శివాజీ చిన్న వయసులోనే హిందూ స్వరాజ్యాన్ని స్థాపించాడు. నిశితమైన మేథస్సుతో, కాలానుగుణమైన యుద్ధ తంత్రంతో మొగల్ సామ్రాజ్యం పైనా, బీజాపూర్ రాజ్యం పైనా దాడులు జరిపి తన రాజ్యాన్ని విస్తరించాడు.
"శివాజీ కనుక జన్మించి ఉండకపోతే కాశీకి కళ పోయి ఉండేది, మధుర మసీదుగా మారి ఉండేది, హిందువులకు సున్నతి జరిగి ఉండేది" అని భూషణ కవి గానం చేశాడు.

దేశవ్యాప్త మొగల్ వ్యతిరేకత - సామ్రాజ్య పతనం

తన తండ్రిని ఔరంగజేబు చంపించడంతో ఆగ్రహించిన గురు గోవింద్ సింగ్ సిక్కులలో ఖాల్సా సంప్రదాయాన్ని ఆరంభించి, వారికి కటోరమైన ఆయుధ శిక్షణనిచ్చి, వీర జాతిగా తీర్చిదిద్దాడు. సంత్ ప్రాణ నాథ్ మార్గదర్శనంలో చత్రసాల్ అనే రాజపుత్ర వీరుడు బుందేల్ ఖండ్ ప్రాంతాన్ని మొగలుల ఆధిపత్యం నుంచి విముక్తి చేశాడు. లాచిత్ బడ ఫుకాన్ అనే హిందూ వీరుడు ఔరంగజేబు సైన్యాలను అస్సాంలోకి రాకుండా అడ్డుకుని, ఓడించి, తరిమివేశాడు. నేడు పాకిస్తాన్, పంజాబ్, కాశ్మీర్, హర్యానాలుగా ఉన్న ప్రాంతమంతటి పైనా సిక్కుల రాజు రంజిత్ సింగ్ సామ్రాజ్యాధిపత్యం స్థాపించాడు. బాజీరావు మొదలైన మహారాష్త్ర పీష్వాలు మొగలు సామ్రాజ్యాన్ని క్షీణ దశకు తీసుకు వచ్చారు. చివరికి దిక్కుమాలిన మొగలు చక్రవర్తి మహారాష్ట్ర సైనిక దళాల రక్షణలో కాలం గడిపే స్థితి వచ్చింది. ఇలా ఆరు శతాబ్దాల సంఘర్షణ తరువాత హిందువులది పై చేయి అయ్యింది.

పునరాహ్వాన దృష్టి లేని హిందుత్వ వాదులు

కానీ మతమార్పిడులలో ముస్లింలు సాధించిన ఫలితాలు మాత్రం వారికే స్థిరపడి పోయాయి. మతం మార్చబడిన కోట్లాది హిందువులను హిందూ రాజులు, మతాచార్యులు ప్రేమతో ఆహ్వానించి ఉంటే వారు సంతోషంగా తమ పూర్వపు మతంలోకి వచ్చేసి ఉండేవారు. కానీ ఆ హిందూ రాజులకు, హిందూ మతాధిపతులకు ఆ సంకల్పం, దూరదృష్టి లేకపోయాయి.

అహ్మద్ షా అబ్దాలీ దండయాత్ర

మొగల్ పాలనా అంతమై పోతోందని, మహారాష్ట్రులు భారత చక్రవర్తులు కాబోతున్నారని అనిపించే పరిస్థితి ఏర్పడింది. ఇది ఇస్లాం మతాచార్యులకు సహించరానిదైనది. షా వరియుల్లా అనే సూఫీ తన కాలపు ముస్లిం రాజులకు, సేనాధిపతులకు "హిందువులను వధించండి. వాళ్ళను మతం మార్చండి. ఖురాన్లోని ఆదేశాలకు అనుగుణంగా ఇక్కడ ఇస్లామిక్ రాజ్యాన్ని స్థాపించండి" అని ప్రబోధిస్తూ వందల కొద్దీ లేఖలు వ్రాశాడు. ఆఫ్ఘనిస్తాన్ పాలకుడైన అహ్మద్ షా అబ్దాలీ ని భారతదేశంపై దండెత్తి రమ్మని ఆహ్వానిస్తూ "పూర్వ కాలంలో ఇస్లాం రాజులు ఈ దేశాన్ని జయించడానికి చాలా కష్ట పడ్డారు. ప్రస్తుతం దేశంలో అధికారం హిందువుల చేతుల్లోకి వెళ్ళిపోయింది. ఈ పరిస్థితుల్లో హిందూస్తాన్ పైకి దండెత్తి వచ్చి మరాఠాల శక్తిని నాశనం చెయ్యడం మీ పవిత్ర కర్తవ్యం. మీకు లెక్క లేనంత దోపిడీ సొత్తు లభించును గాక" అని లేఖ వ్రాశాడు.

కలిసిరాని పానిపట్టు యుద్ధం - మరాఠాల పతనం - ఆంగ్లేయులకు ద్వారం

భారత్ పైకి దండెత్తి వచ్చిన అహ్మద్ షా అబ్దాలీతో మహారాష్ట్రులకు పానిపట్టు వద్ద యుద్ధం జరిగింది. ఈ మూడవ పానిపట్టు యుద్ధం తీవ్రంగా సాగుతుండగా మహారాష్ట్ర సైన్యంలోని ముస్లిం సైనికులు ద్రోహానికి పాల్పడ్డారు. దానితో మహారాష్ట్రులు దారుణమైన ఓటమిని పొందారు. మరాఠా యోధులు అత్యధిక సంఖ్యలో మరణించడంతో మహారాష్త్ర ప్రాభవం కోలుకోలేని దెబ్బతిన్నది. ఈ పరిణామం భారతదేశంపై ఆధిపత్యం మహారాష్ట్రులకు కాక ఆంగ్లేయులకు చిక్కడానికి, తద్వారా ఈ దేశంలో క్రైస్తవమత ప్రాబల్యానికి దారి తీసింది.

Source :

Thursday, October 13, 2011

After what Prashant Bhushan said, Do you still consider him to be a Patriot?

Is there any difference between what Arundhati Roy said and Prashant Bhushan said.

Is there any difference between what Kashmiri Terrorists demand and Prashant Bhushan's Views?

Should we still allow him to represent us as Civil Society Member?

In response to a question, Prashant Bhushan, said that they were mulling to file a petition in Indian Supreme Court to seek punishment for the troops and police personnel involved in the killing of 118 Kashmiris in 2010. He said that the petition would also seek release of the President of High Court Bar Association of Kashmir, Mian Qayoom and General Secretary, Ghulam Nabi Shaheen.

“The cases of persons killed in custody and those who have disappeared need to be investigated and the guilty personnel must be punished,” Bhushan said. He added that they would urge the Indian government to set up a high-level judicial committee headed by Chief justice of India to probe into the arrests and killings of innocent people in Kashmir.

Prashant had reportedly said that the Kashmiri people should be given 'azadi' if they don't want to live with India. He had also reportedly recommended that withdrawl of Indian army from Kashmir.

Why should we allow such people with Patriotic Mask in the Real Patriotic Movement led By Anna Hazare???

It is the time for all the patriotic Indians to raise voice against those so called intellectuals who are voicing anti-India views taking advantage of our constitutional right "Freedom of Expression".

We all know Punjab's situation before normalcy restored and also know how peaceful Kashmir was before 80s. If it is not for external divisive forces Kashmir would still have been Paradise rather than a lost one.

Instead of concentrating on how to tackle such divisive forces these intellectuals are spending their energies on splitting this nation once again. Some of these intellectuals are taking the advantage they gained due to their presence in the patriotic movement led by Anna Hazare to voice these Anti-Indian Views and Demands.

Considering his aides view, Anna Hazare should also clarify his stand on Kashmir.

One wonders why either these intellectuals and Media never bother to even remember the plight of those Kashmiri Pundits who are suffering still in those unhygienic camps out side Kashmir.

It is sad to see the silent majority in India who never ever raise their voice against such evil forces who take advantage of this silence.

It is time to rise or it will be too late. These divisive forces are influencing Congress led UPA government, which is already spineless, to accept these demands of Kashmir division and weakening our own security forces by removing their powers.

Save Kashmir or India will be headless.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Ayodhya judgement: Justice in parts - A mosque has to be either Shia or Sunni. It cannot be both.

OP Gupta, IFS (Retd.)

An important point which has not been given proper weight by the Hindu litigants as well as by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court is: how come the UP Sunni Waqf Board and other Sunni Muslims are litigating on behalf of a mosque which was constructed by Mir Baqi Tashkandi, a Shia Muslim?A legal debate has started whether the bench was competent to award a portion of disputed area to a party even after having dismissed his suit claiming title over that property. Initially the Ayodhya judgement appeared satisfying everybody but now questions and disquiet are appearing to surface.

Kalima of Sunnis and Shias are different, text of their namaz, manners of offering namaz, timing of namaz are different, 'Ali un waliullah' is added by Shias to Sunni kalima of 'la-ila-il-lallah muhammed rasulallah'. A Sunni cannot claim to be an aggrieved party by demolition of a Shia mosque as a Sunni does not and cannot go to a Shia mosque for offering namaz and vice

A mosque has to be either Shia or Sunni, it cannot be both, it cannot be waqf-e-aam. Indian courts must take cognizance of this simple fact. The Lucknow bench observed that the Waqf Board did not follow correct procedure in 1936 in declaring it to be a Sunni Waqf property and in any case it was bad in law as Hindu litigants were not made a party by the Waqf Chief
Commissioner which he ought to have done as litigation had commenced in 1885.

NO doubt the Ayodhya judgment has paved the way for the construction of a new Sri Ram temple. It has also saved the 'makeshift' temple. But the judgment confers only part justice on Hindus. The post-independence judiciary of India cannot and should not go to legitimise what was illegally done before 1950 on the strength of swords because judiciary derives its
authority from the 1950 Constitution.

On September 30, 2010 a three-judge bench of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Sibghat Ullah Khan, Sudhir Agrawal and Dharma Veer Sharma unanimously held that the area under the central dome of the destroyed disputed structure where Bhagwan Ram's idol is located since 1949 will remain with Hindus.

It is a historic decision as Hindus after many years of struggle got back what was illegally taken away from them on strength of Islamic swords in 1528 AD. In the process about 300,000 lakh Rambhakt Hindus have sacrificed their lives in about 78 armed conflicts to regain the Sri Ramjanambhoomi.

Last en mass killings of Ram Bhaktas took place when Mulayam Singh Yadav was the UP Chief Minister.

Justice Khan ruled: "At the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present makeshift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus".

Justice Sudhir Agrawal ruled: "It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janmasthan and place of birth of Sri Ram as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Bhagwan Ram: Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants".

Justice Sharma ruled: "The disputed site is the birth place of Sri Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Sri Ram as a child.

Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for anyone to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also".

Since two judges out of three have held that the area covered by disputed structure was deity of Bhagwan Ram Janmasthan, it becomes civic right as well as religious duty of every Hindu to offer karseva to renovate (jirnodhar) the disputed structure. Seen in this light the FIRs registered
against Ashok Singhal, LK Advani, MM Joshi, Uma Bharati and others for 1992 demolition have become infructuous. It is not a crime for a Hindu to do karseva for jirnodhar at a deity's place.

All the three judges also agreed that a Hindu religious structure did exist where the disputed structure (Babri mosque) stood.

The bench had asked the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate the site which it did during March 12 to August 7, 2003 under the direct supervision of the High Court and in presence of representatives of all the litigants.

The ASI reported existence of massive Hindu temple underneath the disputed structure.

Perusal of judgment delivered by Justice Agrawal shows that experts and eminent historians paraded by the Sunni Board had very little knowledge of the subject and often contradicted each other.

Justice Khan held that Muslim parties could not prove their title over land and ruled: "the disputed structure was constructed as a mosque by or under orders of Babur but it was not proved (by Muslims) by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babur or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed".

Justice Khan further held: "No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque".

Majority view of Justices Agrawal and Justice Sharma is that disputed structure was built by destroying a Hindu temple. Justice Sharma: "The disputed building was constructed by Babur, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure".

Justices Agrawal and Sharma dismissed suit No 4 of the Sunni Central Waqf Board claiming title over land and title suit no.3 of the Nirmohi Akhara seeking possession of the disputed site. Both judges held that O.O. suit No. 4 filed by the Sunni Board was time barred and not maintainable.

The Lucknow bench recognised Ram lalla idol as a juristic person who can own properties and can sue or be sued in a court of law through his next or best friend(s). In fact in suit number 5 the Ram lalla idol is the main party. It is not an innovation of this Lucknow bench but a well settled law of Indian jurisprudence. Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Code recognises a 'sitting
deity' as an individual. Legal experts point to various instances where Hindu deity has been considered as juristic person:

The Privy Council, which was considering Vidya Varuthi Thirthia Swamigal Versus Baluswami Aiyar, had in 1922 said that a Hindu deity can be juristic person. This view found acceptance as deity is vested with the capacity to hold property. Courts have recognised that this entity can sue or be sued.

In 1981, the Supreme Court recognised Hindu deity as a juristic person in the Radha Kanta Dev Versus Commissioner of Religious Endowments case. In the Sri Adi Vishweshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple Versus the State of Uttar Pradesh, the court had recognised the right of a deity to move court. In the petition that challenged the Kashi temple Act of 1983, the court had ruled that properties of endowment vest in the deity, Lord Vishwanath.

Dr Subramanian Swamy, President, Janata Party informs that the British House of Lords in a litigation [(1991) 4 AII ER 638] ruled that as a Hindu temple is owned by the deity any Hindu can litigate on behalf of deity as a de facto trustee. Thus even if a temple is in ruins, or destroyed any Hindu can sue on behalf of Sri Ram for recovery.

In the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar v. Som Nath Dass and others (AIR 2000 SC 1421) delivered on March 29, 2000, the Supreme Court of India held that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person.

In case of mosques the mutawalli is the legally recognised person to look after interests of mosque. Similar is the case in respect of properties and interests of Hindu deities which are attended by next or best friend or trustees etc.

Justice Sharma dismissed en toto property claims of the Sunni Board and that of Nirmohi Akhara over the disputed site and ruled that the entire property was exclusively owned by Sri Ram idol.

Justice Khan held the view that no party could prove commencement of his title so Hindus, Muslims and Nirmohi Akhara were joint owners of the disputed property so should be equally divided among them with condition that area under the erstwhile central dome shall vest in deity. Justice Agrawal also ruled in favour of partition of disputed area into three parts.

Both Judges thus erred in so far as they allowed Sunni Waqf Board to get land of a 'mosque' which was admittedly got constructed by a Shia Muslim, Mir Baqi.

A legal debate has started whether the bench was competent to award a portion of disputed area to a party even after having dismissed his suit claiming title over that property. Initially the Ayodhya judgment appeared satisfying everybody but now questions and disquiet are appearing to surface.

Allowing mosque and mandir to come up side by side, administratively speaking, is not a good decision as it could occasionally explode into violence and perpetually maintaining a security force there at site would cost a lot of expenditure running into crores of rupees. For this reason the British did not allow any temple to come up at Ram Chabutara in 1885.Therefore it would be wise to let a mosque come up at a few kilometers away from the janambhumi temple. Further it is learnt that there are eight mosques lying unused in Ayodhya so what is the point to raise another mosque in Ayodhya.

An important point which has not been given proper weight by the Hindu litigants as well as by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court is: how come the UP Sunni Waqf Board and other Sunni Muslims are litigating on behalf of a mosque which was constructed by Mir Baqi Tashkandi, a shi'a Muslim?

The three-Judge Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has unanimously held in Issue No. 20(b) of the Suit No. 4 filed by the Sunni Waqf Board that since the Muthwali of the Babri Masjid is the only authority or party that can file the suit, the Sunni Waqf Board representing the Sunni Muslims has no locus standi in the dispute. The Muthwali has always been a Shia Muslim
and the religious leader of Shias have expressed a willingness to build their mosque far away leaving the entire Ramjanmaboomi for constructing a Ram temple.

A protestant Christian cannot claim to be aggrieved by demolition of a Roman Catholic Church because he does not attend mass at the Catholic Church.

In UP as well as in many other states there are separate Waqf boards for Shias and Sunni; and, one Board cannot take over waqf property of another.

This statutory fact cannot be overlooked or wished away. The waqf properties are to be categorised under Sunni waqf or Shia Waqf, and, there has been many litigations between Sunni Waqf Board and Shia Waqf Board about correct classification of a property under Shia or Sunni waqf such as CA 1805 of 1989 decided by the Supreme Court on March 2, 2000;

Doshipura case of Varanasi, writ petition No 4675 of 1979 rendered on November 3, 1981, in a dispute between the members of the Shia and Sunni sects of Muslims of Varanasi, pertaining to the performance of religious rites, practices and observances by members of Shia sect on certain plots and properties situated in Mohalla, Doshipura, Varanasi, State of Uttar Pradesh, (1984) 1 SCC 81.

As we know violent clashes between Shias and Sunnis take place every year on eve of Muharram.

At one time the UP Sunni Waqf Board had declared Taj Mahal of Agra to be a Sunni Waqf property and the Shia Waqf Board claimed it to be a Shia Waqf property as Mumtaj Mahal was a Shia.

Kalima of Sunnis and Shias are different, text of their namaz, manners of offering namaz, timing of namaz are different, 'Ali un waliullah' is added by Shias to Sunni kalima of 'la-ila-il-lallah muhammed rasulallah'. A Sunni cannot claim to be an aggrieved party by demolition of a shia mosque as a Sunni does not and cannot go to a Shia mosque for offering namaz and vice
versa. Therefore the Sunni organisations have no lawful locus standi to litigate on the matter of the so called 'Babri mosque'.

In the written statements (WS) and cross-examination Sunni Waqf Board and Sunni Muslims had tried to hide the fact that the so called 'mosque' was built by a Shi'a.

Paras 12, 13 and 18 of the Justice Agrawal judgment read as under: "12. Written statement dated 21.2.1950 filed on behalf of defendants no. 1 to 5 [Jahoor, Feku, Mohmd Phayak, Mohmd Shami and Mohmd Achche Miya] states that the disputed site is not a birth place. A mosque was constructed thereat by Emperor Babur Shah. The suit has been filed by giving wrong facts
with an intention to mislead the Court and to obtain an order against the defendants which would be contrary to law. All the averments made in the plaint are denied. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The additional pleas are that in the year 1528 Emperor Babur visited Ayodhya after conquering Hindustan and through its Minister/Commander Mir Baqi got a
mosque constructed called 'Baburi Masjid' and made it open to all Muslims for offering prayer through a general Waqf (Waqf-e-Aam).

The written statement further says that pursuant to UP Waqf Act no. 13 of 1936 (hereinafter referred to as "1936 Act"), a Chief Commissioner of Waqf was appointed who made a spot inspection and on verification held that the place in dispute is 'Baburi Masjid' constructed by Emperor Babur who was a Sunni. The mosque in question was held a "Sunni Waqf" and accordingly issued notification".

After impleadment, defendant no. 10, UP Sunni Central Waqf Board also filed a separate written statement dated February 24, 1989. The pleadings are similar as those in the written statement of defendants no. 1 to 5, and thus, are not being detailed herein but may be referred as and when occasion arises. Page 30. Under UP Muslims Waqf Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as
"UP Act, 1936"), a Chief Waqf Commissioner was appointed who made spot inspection and concluded that the building in question was Baburi Masjid.

Since Babur was a Sunni, therefore, it was held to be a "Masjid" belonging to Sunni Waqf Board.

A mosque has to be either Shia or Sunni, it cannot be both, it cannot be waqf-e-aam. Indian courts must take cognizance of this simple fact.

The Lucknow bench observed that the Waqf Board did not follow correct procedure in 1936 in declaring it to be a Sunni Waqf property and in any case it was bad in law as Hindu litigants were not made a party by the Waqf Chief Commissioner which he ought to have done as litigation had commenced in 1885.

Maulana Ateeq Ahmad, a witness of the Sunni Board told the Lucknow bench: "Babarnama does not have any mention of building the disputed structure, that is, Babri mosque." [Para 1376, J. Agrawal].

Aine-Akbari mentions about Ayodhya being birth place of Sri Ram but does not mention any Babri mosque [Vol II page 182]. "Ajodhya, commonly called 'Awadh' this distance of forty kos to the east, and twenty to the north is regarded as sacred ground. On the ninth of the light half of the month of Chaitra a great religious festival is held" (A-in-I Akbari Vol-III p.334). Thus Babarnama and Aine-Akbari do not support Sunni Muslims claim of Baburi mosque being there in 1528.

Mohammad Hashim [PW-1] informed the Lucknow bench: "this mosque was built in 1528 by Mir Baqi under instructions of Babur and that Babur was a sunni Muslim and Mir Baqi was a shia Muslim". [Para 1369, J. Agrawal]

In the Dawn, a Pakistani newspaper of December 9, 2002, Syeed Hasan Khan has written: "The mosque, which is called Babri mosque, was in fact a Shia mosque, built by a Shia general, Baqi".

Dr. Rafiq Zakaria (2002), Communal Rage in Secular India, Popular Prakashan, ISBN 8179910709, has written "... The mosque was built by one of his generals, Mir Baqi, who was a Shia; Babur was a Sunni. Mir Baqi had built it for the exclusive use of Shias; Sunnis, as a rule don't pray in Shia mosques and vice-versa ..."

But strangely the Indian courts have not taken note of these material Shia-Sunni distinctions and liberally issued stay orders on prayers of Sunni Muslim organisations (UP Sunni Waqf Board, etc.) which have no locus standi and no jurisdiction over Shia properties. Therefore it is total miscarriage of justice on part of courts to have allowed interventions by Sunni Muslims and issue stay orders as Sunni Muslims cannot claim to be aggrieved parties in this case because Sunnis do not and cannot offer namaz in Shia mosques. Therefore all interventions and prayers of Sunni Muslims or Sunni associations in the Ayodhya case should be declared by courts to be not
maintainable abinitio and dismissed without further delay paving the way for construction of a grand temple.

To summarise, for the sake of discussion and without conceding Hindu's claim on the entire property, the disputed structure at best could be said to have been a Shia mosque which the UP Shia Waqf Board has already allowed to pass onto Hindus by not filing any petition/objection. Riding on warm shoulders of secularist or jaichandi Hindus objections were filed by Sunni Muslims who have no lawful claim on Shia Waqfs. If this line is pressed as additional
argument in the Supreme Court I am sure the entire area will be restored to Bhagwan Ram Lalla, the rightful owner of the entire property.