Monday, February 28, 2011
यह फतवा गुरुवार दिनांक -23 दिसंबर 2010 को 'फतवा अल जन्नाह अल दायमा 'ने जारी किया है ,जिसे ई मेल से भारत भेजा गया था .
111877 -Thu 17/1/1432 - 23/12/2010 Basic Tenets of Faith
Respect for the national anthem or flag' احترام النشيد الوطني او العلم'
What is the ruling on standing when the national anthem is played, or when the flag is saluted?.
Praise be to Allaah.- الحمد لله .
पहिली बात यह है कि ,राष्ट्र गान को गाना और सुनना हराम है !
Playing or listening to national anthems is haraam.
This has been discussed in the answer to question no. 5000 and 20406. It makes no difference whether what is played is songs or the national anthem or anything else.
सवाल संख्या 5000 और 20406 पर विमर्श के बाद तय किया कि चाहे राष्ट्र गान हो ,या कोई और उस से कोई फर्क नहीं होता .
दूसरी बात यह है कि , विनम्रता से खड़ा होना है ,जो सर्फ अल्लाह के लिए ही होना चाहिए
Standing by way of humility and veneration is not befitting unless it is done for Allaah.
الدائمة عن طريق التواضع والتعظيم لا يليق إلا إذا تم القيام به من أجل الله
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And stand before Allaah with obedience”
इस आयत में स्पष्ट किया गया है कि ,'अल्लाह के आगे पूरे भक्ति और विनय भाव से खड़े हो' .सूरा -बकरा 2 :238
والوقوف بين يدي الله مع طاعة
और जिस दिन रूह और फ़रिश्ते पंक्तिबद्ध होकर खड़े होंगे ,वे बोलेंगे नहीं ,सिवाय उस व्यक्ति के ,जिसे रहमान अनुज्ञा दे दे .
Allaah has said that because of His greatness and majesty, the greatest of creation (the angels) will stand for Him on the Day of Resurrection and no one will speak until after Allaah has given him permission. He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“The Day that Ar‑Rooh [Jibreel (Gabriel)
يَوْمَ يَقُومُ الرُّوحُ وَالْمَلَائِكَةُ صَفًّا لَّايَتَكَلَّمُونَ إِلَّا مَنْ أَذِنَ لَهُ الرحْمَنُ وَقَالَ صَوَابًا
जो कोई किसी अल्लाह के द्वारा पैदा की गयी किसी भी चीज के आगे खड़े होकर वैसा आदर प्रकट करे ,जिसका हक़ सिर्फ अल्लाह को है ,तो रसूल ने कहा जो भी किसी मनष्य के आगे खड़ा होगा तो उसका स्थान जहन्नम में होगा .
The one who claims that there is any created being for whom one should stand out of respect have given that created being one of the rights of Allaah.
Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“Whoever likes men to stand up for him, let him take his place in Hell.”
'من يحب الرجال على الوقوف له ، فليتبوأ مقعده من النار
Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2755);
classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi. That is because this is part of the might and pride that belongs only to Allaah.
وذلك لأن هذا هو جزء من القوة والعزة التي ينتمي فقط إلى الله تعالى
See: Tafseer al-Tahreer wa’l-Tanweer by al-Taahir ibn ‘Ashoor (15/51).
जब खलीफा अल महदी रसूल की मस्जिद में दाखिल हुए तो उनके आदर में सब खड़े हो गए ,सिवाय इमरान इब्न अबी जई के .लोगों ने कहा खड़े हो जाओ यह अमीरुल मोमिनीन हैं ,उन्होंने कहा लोगों को सिर्फ दुनिया के मालिक के आगे खड़ा होना चाहिए .तुम चाहे मेरे बाल पकड कर मुझे खड़ा कर लो .
The caliph al-Mahdi entered the Mosque of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the people all stood up for him except Imam Ibn Abi Dhi’b. It was said to him: Stand up; this is the Ameer al-Mu’mineen. He said: The people should only stand up for the Lord of the Worlds.
Al-Mahdi said: Let him be, for all the hairs of my head have stood on end.
Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’ (7/144).
The scholars of the Standing Committee were asked: Is it permissible to stand to show respect to any national anthem or flag?
They replied: فلا يجوز للمسلم أن يقف احتراما لأي النشيد الوطني أو العلم
सलमानों को यह इजाजत नहीं है कि राष्ट्र ध्वज के आगे खड़े होकर उसका आदर करें और राष्ट्रगान गायें ,चाहे उस समारोह में राष्ट्रपति भी क्यों न हो .
It is not permissible for the Muslim to stand out of respect for any national anthem or flag, rather this is a reprehensible innovation which was not known at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or at the time of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (may Allaah be pleased with them), and it is contrary to perfect Tawheed and sincere veneration of Allaah alone. It is also a means that leads to shirk and is an imitation of the kuffaar in their reprehensible customs, and following them in their exaggeration about their presidents and in their ceremonies. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade imitating them.
فلا يجوز للمسلم أن يقف احتراما لأي النشيد الوطني أو العلم، بل هو من البدع المنكرة التي لم تكن معروفة في عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وعليه وسلم) أو في زمن الخلفاء الراشدين رضي الله عنهم)، وأنها منافية لكمال التوحيد والتبجيل خالص لله وحده. وهي أيضا وسيلة تؤدي إلى الشرك وتشبها بالكفار في عادتهم القبيحة ، ومجاراة لهم في غلوهم نظرهم حول رؤسائهم واحتفالات. وقد نهى النبي صلى الله عليه وس '
And Allaah is the Source of strength; may Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions. End quote.
Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah فتاوى اللجنة الدائمة آل
And Allaah knows best.
यही कारण है कि ,मुसलमानमें राष्ट्र भक्ति का आभाव है ,और वे राष्ट्रगान और तिरंगा का आदर नहीं करते .मुसलमानों का रिमोट मुल्लों के हाथों
में होता है .यह खुराफाती मुल्ले चुपचाप फतवों से उनको भड़काते रहते हैं .लेकिन जब चाहे अपने अधिकारों कि बात करते रहते हैं .और हमारी सरकारें वोट कि खातिर उनके लिए खजाने खोल देती है .
सही बात है ,मुसलमान जिसका खाते हैं ,उसी को खा जाते हैं !
HYDERABAD: Former chief of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) K S Sudarshan on Sunday made a vitriolic attack on former Prime Minister late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru stating that he was a “foreign agent” who worked against the interest of the nation.Addressing a meeting after releasing a book ‘Om Rashtriya Swaha’, a translation from Marathi to Telugu, Sudarshan blamed Jawaharlal Nehru for the problems that India is facing today particularly in Kashmir.“Today, majority of Kashmir is under the control of Pakistan and it is the result of Nehru’s unilateral decision of ceasefire on Lord Mountbatten’s advice. Mountbatten was a supporter of Pakistan and wanted to see Kashmir become a part of it, he claimed. We are paying the price for the mistake committed by Nehru, he added.Sudarshan also blamed Gandhi for allowing Nehru to become the prime minister. Kurtalam Pontiff Siddheswarananda Bharathi Swamy and Rambhav Haldekar, who translated ‘Om Rashtriya Swaha’ from Marathi to Telugu were among those who spoke.
“साम्प्रदायिक” तो था ही, अब NDTV द्वारा न्यायपालिका पर भी सवाल… NDTV Communal TV Channel, Anti-Judiciary, Anti-Hindu NDTV
दूसरी महत्वपूर्ण न्यायिक घटना थी गोधरा ट्रेन “नरसंहार” (Godhra Massacre Judgement) के बारे में आया हुआ फ़ैसला… लालू जैसे जोकरों और यूसी बैनर्जी (U.C. Banerjee Commission on Godhra) जैसे भ्रष्ट जजों की नापाक पुरज़ोर कोशिशों के बावजूद जो “सच” था आखिरकार सामने आ ही गया। सच यही था कि “जेहादी मानसिकता” वाले एक बड़े गैंग ने 56 ट्रेन यात्रियों को पेट्रोल डालकर जिन्दा जलाया। गोधरा को शुरु से सेकुलर प्रेस और मीडिया द्वारा “हादसा” कहा गया… “गोधरा हादसा”… जबकि “हादसे” और “नरसंहार” में अन्तर होता है यह बात कोई गधा भी बता सकता है। इसी NDTV टाइप के सेकुलर मीडिया ने गोधरा के बाद अहमदाबाद और गुजरात के अन्य हिस्सों में हुए दंगों को “नरसंहार” घोषित करने में कोई कोर-कसर बाकी नहीं रखी। तीस्ता सीतलवाड द्वारा सुप्रीम कोर्ट में फ़र्जी केस लगाये गये, नकली शपथ-पत्र (Fake Affidavit by Teesta Setalvad) दाखिल करवाये गये, तहलका, NDTV से लेकर सरकार के टुकड़ों पर पलने वाले सभी चैनलों ने पत्रकारिता को “वेश्या-बाजार” बनाकर बार-बार गुजरात दंगे को “नरसंहार” घोषित किया। पत्रकारिता को “दल्लेबाजी” का धंधा बनाने वाले इन चैनलों से पूछना चाहिये कि यदि गुजरात दंगे “नरसंहार” हैं तो कश्मीर से हिन्दुओं का सफ़ाया क्या है?, मराड में हुआ संहार क्या है? दिल्ली में कांग्रेसियों ने जो सिखों (Anti-Sikh Riots in Delhi) के साथ किया वह क्या था? भोपाल का गैस काण्ड और बेशर्मी से एण्डरसन को छोड़ना (Anderson Freed by Rajiv Gandhi) नरसंहार नहीं हैं क्या? इससे पहले भी भागलपुर, मेरठ, बरेली, मालेगाँव, मुज़फ़्फ़रपुर के दंगे क्या “नरसंहार” नहीं थे? लेकिन सेकुलर प्रेस को ऐसे सवाल पूछने वाले लोग “साम्प्रदायिक” लगते हैं, क्योंकि आज तक किसी ने इनके गले में “बम्बू ठाँसकर” यही नहीं पूछा कि यदि गोधरा न हुआ होता, तो क्या गुजरात के दंगे होते? लेकिन जब भी न्यायपालिका ऐसा कोई निर्णय सुनाती है जो हिन्दुओं के पक्ष या मुस्लिमों के विरोध में हो (चाहे वह बाबरी मस्जिद केस हो, रामसेतु हो या शाहबानो तलाक केस) NDTV जैसे “भाड़े के टट्टू” चिल्लाचोट करने में सबसे आगे रहते हैं…। गोधरा फ़ैसला आने के बाद सारे सेकुलरों को साँप सूँघ गया है, उन्हें समझ नहीं आ रहा कि अब इसकी व्याख्या कैसे करें? हालांकि तीस्ता सीतलवाड और बुरका दत्त जैसी “मंथरा” और “पूतना”, गोधरा नरसंहार और गुजरात दंगों को “अलग-अलग मामले” बताने में जुटी हुई हैं।
गोधरा काण्ड के फ़ैसले के बाद भी NDTV अपनी नीचता से बाज नहीं आया, विनोद दुआ साहब अपनी रिपोर्ट में (वीडियो देखिये) 63 “बेगुनाह”(?) (जो सिर्फ़ सबूतों के अभाव में बरी हुए हैं) मुसलमानों के लिये चिंता में दुबले हुए जा रहे हैं, लेकिन विनोद दुआ साहब ने कभी भी उन 56 परिवारों के लिये अपना “सेकुलर सुर” नहीं निकाला जो S-6 कोच में भून दिये गये, जिसमें महिलाएं और बच्चे भी शामिल थे। शायद जलकर मरने वाले 56 परिवारों का दुख कम है और इन नौ साल जेल में रहे इन 63 लोगों के परिवारों का दुख ज्यादा है। यह ठीक वैसा ही है, जैसे कश्मीर से खदेड़े गये लाखों हिन्दुओं का दुख-दर्द उतना बड़ा नहीं है, जितना फ़िलीस्तीन में इज़राइल के हाथों मारे गये मुसलमानों का…, यही NDTV की “साम्प्रदायिक मानसिकता” है। (Atrocities and Genocide of Kashmmiri Hindus)
The Union Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee has ear marked 100 Crore for Aligarh Muslim University for their upcoming Centres in Murshidabad in West Bengal and Malappuram in Kerala and a whopping 200 Crore for Maulana Azad Education foundation.
While Aligarh University got 50 crore each for it’s two centres to promote Arabic and Islamic studies there were no mention about any funds to popularize Sanskrit. The discrimination is more visible when Pranab da earmarks only 10 crore for setting up Kolkata and Allahabad centres of Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Wardha.
Egypt's Ikhwan wants Indian EVMs; paks already asked for it: totalitarians love them. Of course they would
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Kanshiramnagar (Uttar Pradesh):"A temple was demolished during an anti-encroachment drive ahead of Chief Minister Mayawati's visit here, sparking tension in this town. (we have never heard that any Mosque or Church is demolished by calling it illegal. Hindus should think that why only Temples are targeted ?)"
People undermine the evilness of Muslims. It is unbelievable. These people are devil incarnate -Ali Sina
Politically correct main stream news media did not give details of the rape and just called it sexual assault for the fear that details may offend Muslims. The fools do not know that the Egyptian Muslims were doing what our prophet did after every Jihadi raid and reading the details is like reading Sahih Bukhari Hadiths . Here are the actual details of the incident as reported by Muslim media based on videos taken on cell phones.
- A bearded Muslim was the first one who got the ball rolling . He ripped the top off the (well endowed) reporter to expose her breasts and began clawing them with both his hands. He then pinned her to the ground, removed her pants pulled out his (circumcised) penis and raped her vaginally (what Allah allowed Muslims in ayas 4.3, 4.24, 23.6, 33.50 and 70.30 and what our Prohet did to Safia, Juavaria, Rehana and hundreds of other Kafiras after capturing them)
-After he was done , at least six more Muslims followed him and raped her vaginally while a number of other men raped her anally ( anal sex is allowed in Islam ; Quran says Muslim men an approach their women in any way they desired).
-Some men fondled her breasts while other were raping her ( to gain Allah’s blessings).
-Many men watching the action masterbated on her . (we pray that Allah give them partial credits )
- Some men urinated on her.
- The men were shouting “jew jew” and “Allah u Akbar”..
- The onlookers included women and policemen.
-. Reporter’s breasts were bitten and one of the nipple was bitten off (left)
- One report claims that upto 50 men were involved in the rape/fondling ..
LAURA LOGAN COMPARED WITH VICTIMS OF OUR PROPHET
Although Mo’mins (Muslim Believers) of Egypt tried to do to a reporter what our prophet did to his captured women, their actions fell way short of the standards our Prophet set for all Muslim ( 33.21:prophet is your role model).
- Mo’mins (Muslim Believer) raped Laura for an hour and then let her be freed while Prophet claimed the owner ship of all his captured women.
- Mo’mins (Muslim Believer) did not kill any relative of Laura. Prophet Mohammad often killed all male relatives of his victims .
-Laura was 39 year old. In his hey days Prophet would not touch a 39 year old captured woman with a ten foot pole let alone with his six-incher. Prophet was very selective in his choice of captured women. He liked very young meat. Judging from his fondness of sexual activities with 6 year old Aisha , one can safely say that he always chose very young girls as part of his booty.
FFI Editors addendum
Our hearts go out to this young lady. We feel her pains. We wish her best, and hope her journey of recovery will be kind and fast. Make no doubt about it readers: Islam is the culprit. It is the system of belief that produces monsters out of otherwise human beings. Ali Sina got it right when he said: “People undermine the evilness of Muslims. It is unbelievable. These people are devil incarnate.”
From: Savarkar.org Team
Op-ed daily pioneer.com May 28th 2008
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar would have been 125 today. In life, he was a demonised, marginalised 'political Hindu'. Yet, in contemporary India, Savarkar stands vindicated and Savarkarism is more accepted than ever before
In 2004, when the historian Ron Chernow wrote his eponymous biography of Alexander Hamilton, he was partly impelled by the sense that his subject had not been given his due. Hamilton was an American nationalist, a votary of federal institutions, a Republican, an advocate of limited Government and a patron of the industrial society before these terms were coined or at least entirely understood. He was also the first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States and a widely influential figure in the early years of the new republic.
Yet, over the decades, memories of Hamilton's contemporaries overwhelmed his legacy. He was America's forgotten Founding Father, lost in the crevices between George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. Hamilton had opposed slavery even while his great rival Thomas Jefferson had kept slaves; yet, it wasn't Hamilton who was remembered by human rights chroniclers.
What Hamilton lost in life, Hamiltonism won in history. By the 20th century, Hamilton's ideas had triumphed. His initial postulates continue to define American strategic thinking, foreign policy and economic philosophy. Every White House resident in the past 20 years has paid homage to Ronald Reagan; Reagan himself often evoked Hamilton.
It is tempting to see Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who would have been 125 this morning, as an Indian Alexander Hamilton. By the time he died in 1966, he had shrunk to a limited presence. Surrounded only by a few devoted adherents and members of the Hindu Mahasabha, his writings read mainly by his fellow Maharastrians, his heroic role in the freedom movement had been effaced by official historians.
Savarkar was the intellectual equal of Jawaharlal Nehru. Revisit the writings of the stalwarts of the pre-1947 period and you will encounter few besides these two with a grasp and informed assessment of contemporary world affairs. Yet, in the hard, harsh world of politics and political ideas, Savarkar, by the 1960s, had lost to Nehru's cult and charisma.
There were many reasons why the Left-liberal intelligentsia, most of whom are, in some form or the other, pensioners of the Nehruvian state structure, despised Savarkar. For a start, he was flesh-and-blood refutation of the charge that Hindu nationalism lacked an intellectual tradition. Second, he represented a cogent and coherent position that believed the political choices India and the Congress had made in 1947 (or 1950 or 1952, after the first election) were not necessarily correct.
These were inconvenient truths for Nehruvian fellow travellers, Savarkar the inconvenient man. There was astonishing virulence towards Savarkar. Some, like the perverse and bigoted Mr Mani Shankar Aiyar, even mocked the 10 years that Savarkar spent in Cellular Jail, Port Blair, in horrific conditions, alone in a tiny cell.
The antipathy to Savarkar has to be seen in a larger context. Post-independence, the Congress establishment sought to rewrite history in its own image. It determinedly underplayed the role of the early Indian elites -- the Poona Brahmins, Bombay's Parsi constitutionalists, Calcutta's Bengali and Brahmo activists -- who had dominated public life prior to the Mahatma's mass politics.
As the Congress set out to establish that there was no history and no freedom struggle before Gandhi, and no politics and no consciousness of modern India before Nehru, these pioneer groups became expendable. The Marxist historians who actually wrote the textbooks had their own theories. For instance, not just was Savarkar demonised, even the venerable Bal Gangadhar Tilak was painted in sectarian colours.
Even so, history has a strange way of getting back. Savarkar's idea of the political Hindu, of a polity and of political parties that would be sensitive to the Hindu cultural mainstay of Indian nationhood, that would, while eschewing ritualism and dogma, incorporate robust nationalism into policy-making, is more relevant than it has ever been. Nehruvianism is in retreat and, even though Savarkar has been dead 42 years, Savarkarism has never been more alive.
Written in 1923, Savarkar's slim tract, Hindutva, remains a remarkably contemporary articulation of organic nationalism. Indeed, it anticipates some of the ideas expanded upon by Samuel Huntington in Who Are We? (2004).
Leftist historians often divide Savarkar's life into two -- the supposedly "acceptable" first part, till the mid-1920s; and, his espousal of Hindutva after that. Actually, this division is bogus.
Admittedly, Savarkar's early life was one of a romantic revolutionary. As a student in London, he was in touch with Irish, Turkish and Chinese dissidents and rebels. In 1907, he wrote The War of Independence of 1857. The book was deeply researched and provided an interpretation of documents and events from the Indian perspective.
Admittedly, it is not the last word on the Indian Uprising. In hindsight, Savarkar could be accused of glossing over the differing motivations of the participants of the 1857 war and of being simplistic in believing that there was overwhelming consensus in re-establishing the Delhi throne as a Maratha protectorate -- as had been the case till 1803.
Nevertheless, this was a passionate young man of 24 writing the first non-imperial account of a dramatic struggle. It was passionate and pulsating, being smuggled to India wrapped in dust jackets saying Don Quixote and Pickwick Papers. The British Government arrested Savarkar and sought to send him to India to stand trial. At Marseilles, in a dramatic move, he squeezed out of the porthole and swam to the shore, claiming asylum from the French Government.
It was refused and he was re-arrested on French soil and handed over to the British. This was in breach of international law and among those who protested at Savarkar being denied asylum was Jean Longuet, French lawyer-editor and grandson of Karl Marx.
Savarkar was heavily influenced by Italian thinkers such as Mazzini. He saw Hindutva as an Indian Risorgimeto, conceptualising it as a reawakening of the national spirit and of a pride in, and understanding of, the territorial frontiers of India. He was not a religious sort and did not interpret 'Hindu' solely in terms of worship. He was an early opponent of Dalit exclusion, seeing a Hindu harmonisation process as essential to national unity.
Savarkar was often impatient with the RSS and it is piquant to compare him with MS Golwalkar, 'Guruji' as he is called and the man who made the Sangh the all-India institution that it is today. Savarkar was a thinker, Golwalkar a do-er; Savarkar was the rare Hindu mind who understood statecraft and the importance of state power, Golwalkar sought to change society by working bottom-up from grassroots communities. For Golwalkar (as for Gandhi), the Hindu was ascetic-exemplar; for Savarkar, he was warrior-ideal.
The two streams were not antithetical but clearly complementary. When they finally merged, consciously or otherwise, in the late-1980s, it changed Indian politics and moved the polity irrevocably to the Right. At its best, the BJP is a confluence of Savarkar and Golwalkar.
Savarkar had known it all along. Just before his death, in an emotional piece called "This, My Legacy", he had written: "If we are to live with honour and dignity as a Hindu nation -- and we have the right to do so -- that nation must emerge under the Hindu flag. This, my dream, shall come true -- if not in this generation at least in the next. If it remains an empty dream, I shall prove a fool. If it comes true, I shall prove a prophet. This, my legacy, I bequeath to you."
Savarkar is gone. Let us cherish his legacy, salute the prophet.
Kozhikode : Five Islamic Jihadis were killed and as many injured when a bomb being manufactured illegally exploded nearby Nadapuram on Saturday night.
Three persons died last night and two persons succumbed to injuries this morning, police said, adding that the injured had been hospitalised.
Those killed were identified as Popular Front (Muslim League) activists from Nadapuram area.
Top district police officials rushed to the spot and were investigating the incident.
मुहम्मद चाहता था कि कोई ऐसा उपाय किया जाये जिस से नियमित कमी होती रहे .इसलिए उसने अपने शातिर दिमाग से 'जजिया 'का अविष्कार कर लिया ,और कुरान में लिख दिया 'जो इस्लाम को अपना धर्म नहीं मानते ,उन से इतना लड़ो ,के वह अपमानित होकर जजिया देने पर विवश हो जाएँ '
सूरा -तौबा 9 :29 .
जजियाجزية का अर्थ फिरौती Extortion Money .रंगदारी ,हफ्ता या poll tax है .जो गैर मुस्लिमों से लिया जाता है .और जिन लोगों पर जजिया का नियम लागू होता है उनको 'ذِمّي जिम्मी 'कहा जाता है .अर्थात सभी गैर मुस्लिम जिम्मी है .मुहम्मद इतना धूर्त था क़ि उसने जजिया की कोई दर निश्चित नहीं की थी .ताकि मुसलमान मनमाना जजिया वसूल कर सकें .मुहम्मद जजिया से अपना घर भरना ,और लोगों को मुसलमान बननेपर मजबूर करना चाहता था .फिर मुहम्मद की मौत के बाद भी मुस्लिम बादशाहों ने यही नीति अपनाई थी मुहम्मद गैर मुस्लिमों से झूठ कहता था कि हम जजिया के धन से तुम्हें सुरक्षा प्रदान करेंगे ,लेकिन मुहम्मद उस धन को अपने निजी कामों ,जैसे अपनी शादियों ,हथियार खरीदने ,और दावतें करने में खर्च कर देता था .उसके लोग बीमार ,गरीब ,और स्त्रियों को भी नहीं छोड़ते थे .और जो जजिया नहीं दे सकता था उसकी औरतें उठा लेते थे .यहांतक क़त्ल भी कर देते थे .जजिया तो एक बहाना था .मुहम्मद लोगों को इस्लाम कबूल करने पर मजबूर करना चाहता था .जैसा मुसलमानों ने भारत में किया था .
जजिया के बारे में हदीसों और इतिहास में यह लिखा है -
1 -जजिया क्यों
'उम्मर खत्ताब ने कहा कि,जिम्मियों से जोभी जजिया लिया जाता है ,वह उनकी भलाई में खर्च किया जाता है '
बुखारी -जिल्द 2 किताब 23 हदीस 475
'उमरने कहा कि जजिया गैर मुस्लिमों की हिफाजत के लिए लिया जाता है 'अबू दाऊद-किताब 19 हदीस 2955
'अबू आफाक ने कहा की ,रसूल ने कहा कि,जजिया मूर्ख जिम्मियों को सबक सिखाने के लिए वसूला जाता है ,ताकि वस् समझ जाएँ कि अब उनकी जान हमारे हाथों में है 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 52 हदीस 256
2 -फिरौती के लिए जजिया
'रसूल ने दूबह के शाहजादे उकैगिर को पकड़वा लिया और कैद कर लिया .रसूल ने उसे तभी छोड़ा ,जब उसके लोगों ने जजिया की पूरी रकम चूका दी थी 'अबू दाउद-किताब 11 हदीस 1301
'रसूल ने उमर इब्न अब्दुल अजीज को को तभी छोड़ा था ,जब उसने जजिया की रकम चूका दी थी ,और इस्लाम कबूल किया था '
मुवत्ता-जिल्द 17 किताब 24 हदीस 46
'एक सीरियन किसान हिशाम बिन हाकिम रस्ते से जा रहा था ,तभी रसूल ने उसे पड़ाव लिया .और उस से जजिया की मांग की .जब उसने इंकार किया तो रसूल ने उसे तपती हुई गर्म रेत पर खड़ा कर दिया .शाम को जब एक ईसाई ने उसके बदले जजिया चूका दिया तो रसूल ने हिश्शाम को छोड़ दिया .'
सही मुस्लिम -किताब 30 हदीस 6328 और 6330
3 -निजी लाभ के लिए जजिया
'उमर खत्ताब जजिया के तौर पर एक जवान ऊंट लेकर आये ,और उसे काट कर गोश्त पकाया .फिर रसूल और उनकी औरतों ने फलों के साथ गोश्त को प्लेट में रखकर खाया .इसके बाद रसूल के साथियों ने खाया 'मुवत्ता-जिल्द 17 किताब 24 हदीस 45
'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि जब रसूल ने आयशा के साथ शादी की थी ,तो शादी खर्चा निकालने के लिए ,मदीना और आसपास के यहूदियों और ईसाइयों से जबरन जजिया वसूल किया था 'बुखारी -जिल्द 5 किताब 58 हदीस 234
4 -लोगों को दबाने के लिए
'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि रसूल का आदेश था कि ,तुम जिम्मियों से इतना अधिक जजिया वसूल करो ,जिस से वह जैसे तैसे जिन्दा रह सकें ,और उनकी संख्या न बढ़ सके 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 52 हदीस 288
'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि ,रसूल ने खा ,तुम जिम्मियों से इतना अधिक जजिया वसूल करो कि,वह हमेशा कर्ज से दबे रहें ,कहीं ऐसा न हो कि वह इतने सरकश हो जाये कि ,जजिया देना ही बंद कर दें 'बुखारी -जिल्द ४ किताब 53 हदीस 404
5 -इस्लाम फ़ैलाने के लिए
'अबू मूसा ने कहा कि रसूल ने कहा कि, अल्लाह ने मुझे विजय प्राप्त की है ,और सारे जिम्मियों को मेरे अधीन कर दिया है .इस लिए मुझे अधिकार है कि मैं जिम्मियों से जजिया वसूल कर सकूँ .और इस्लाम को मजबूती प्रदान करूँ 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 85 हदीस 220
'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि ,रसूल नेअपने सैनिकों से कहा कि अगर गैर मुस्लिम इस्लाम कबूल करते ,या जजिया नहीं देते तो ,उनसे युद्ध करके उनको इसके लिए विवश कर दो 'सही मुस्लिम -किताब 19 हदीस 4294
6 -हथियार खरीदने के लिए
'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि ,रसूल को हथियारों के लिए धन कि जरुरत थी .इसलिए वह बहरैन पर हमला करके हमें जजिया वसूल करने के लिए ले गए .और हमने वहां के जिम्मियों से जबरन जजिया वसूला ,और हथियार ख़रीदे 'सही मुस्लिम -किताब 42 हदीस 7065
7 -वसूली का तरीका
'रसूल ने मुहमद अल मुगीरा से कहा ,जाओ जहाँ भी गैर मुसिम मिलें उससे जजिया मांगो ,यदि वह जजिया नहीं दें तो उनसे युद्ध करो .और यहाँ तक लड़ो के वह जजिया देने और अलह कि इबादत करने पर मजबूर हो जाएँ 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 53 हदीस 386
'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि ,रसूल ने अबू उबैदा बिन अब्दुल्लाह को जजिया वसूल करने को भेजा ,उसने लोगों से कहा कि ,सब अपने घरों से बहार आ जाएँ ,और जिस के पास जो कुछ हो वह रसूल के लिए दे दें .डर के मारे लोगों ने बर्तन भी दे दिए 'बुखारी जिल्द 7 किताब 76 हदीस 437
8 -मृतकों से भी जजिया
'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि ,रसूल ने कहा कि ,अगर की जिम्मी बिना जजिया चुकाए ही मर जाये ,तो उसके घर के लोगों से दोगुना जजिया वसूल करो .'बुखारी -जिल्द 9 किताब 83 हदीस 17 .और बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 52 हदीस 268
9 -बलात्कार से जजिया वसूलो
'एक गरीब औरत ने रसूल से निवेदन किया कि ,उसका पति बीमार है ,इसलिए असूल करने वाले से जजिया कुछ कम करने को कहें .लें उस अधकारी ने उस औरत से बलात्कार कर दिया .रसूल ने कहा तुमने उचित ढंग से जजिया वसूल किया है 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 52 हदीस 46
'उमरने कहा कि रसूल ने कहा है ,कि जिम्मी चाहे मौत के बिस्तर पर पड़ा हो ,उससे इतना जजिया वसूल करो कि वह बिस्तर से कभी उठ नहीं सके 'बुखारी -जिल्द 2 किताब 23 हदीस 475
10 -जिम्मी कि हत्या गुनाह नहीं
'अबू मूसा ने कहा कि ,रसूल ने कहा कि ,यदि जजिया वसूल करते समय किसी जिमी कि हत्या भी कर दी जाये तो ,वसूल करने वाला अपराधी नहीं माना जायेगा .कुसूर सिर्फ जिमी का माना जायेगा 'बुखारी -जिल्द 1 किताब 3 हदीस 111
11 -जजिया कब हटेगा
'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि ,रसूल ने कहा कि ,जजिया की बदौलत एक ऐसा समय आयेगा की ,सरे धर्म नष्ट हो जायेंगे ,और सिर्फ इस्लाम ही बाक़ी रहेगा .इसके बाद जजिया की कोई जरुरत नहीं रहेगी 'अबू दाऊद-किताब 37 हदीस 4310
12 -जजिया की दरें
'उमर खत्ताब उन जगहों से प्रति व्यक्ति चार दीनार जजिया लेते थे जहाँ सोने के सिक्के चलते थे .और जहाँ चंडी के सिक्के चलते थे वहां से 40 दिरहम वसूल करते थे 'मुवत्ता-जिल्द 17 किताब 24 हदीस 44
'रसूल ने कहा कि,जिम्मी के पास सिक्के नहीं हों ,औए वस् सलाम करके कुछ और देना चाहे तो उसके बर्तन और खाने का अनाज लेलो ,चाहे उसके पास खाने को कुछ नहीं बचे 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 53 हदीस 388
13 -धमकी भरे पत्र भेजो
'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि रसूल ने लोगों को पत्र भेजे थे ,जिनमे जजिया कि मांग की गयी थी .रसूल ने एक अमीर एला( aila )पत्रको भेजकर धमकाया था कि ,अगर वह नियमित जजिया नहीं देगा तो उसके लोग सुरक्षित नहीं रहेंगे 'बुखारी -जिल्द 2 किताब 24 हदीस 559
14 -जजिया किन से लिया जाये
'उमर खत्ताब पाहिले तो पारसियों से जजिया नहीं लेता था .लेकिन जब रसूल को पता चला तो वह बोले कि ,जो भी अल्लाह के आलावा और किसी कि इबादत करते हैं , और रसूल पर ईमान नहीं रखते उन सब से जजिया जरुर लिया करो 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 53 हदीस 384
भारत में जितने भी मुस्लिम शासक हुए हैं सभी ने हिन्दुओं का खून चूसा है .और मनमाने टेक्स वसूल किये है .जब दिल्ली की गद्दी पर खिलजियों की हुकूमत हुई तो अला उद्दीन खिलजीعلاوؤالدّين خلجي (1296 -1316 ) ने अपने काजी अता उल मुल्क से पूछा कि मैं हिन्दुओं से कैसा व्यवहार करूँ .काजी बोला तुम हिन्दुओं को सिर्फ नजराना और शुकराना देने वाला समझो .यानि जब कोई हिन्दू किसी मुस्लिम पदाधिकारी के सामने जाये तो उसे नजराना के रूप में कुछ धन दे .और जब और जब अधिकारी जाने लगे तब भी शुकराना के तौर पर कुछ धन फिर से दे .अगर मुस्लिम अधिकारी हिन्दू से चांदी का सिक्का मांगे तो हिन्दू उसे सोने का सिक्का देकर उसे खुश करे .यदि अधिकारी थूकना चाहे ,तो हिन्दू अपना मुंह खोल दे ,और उसे मुंह में थूकने दे खिलजी बोला काजी तुझे इस्लाम का पूरा ज्ञान है
(तारीखे फिरोजशाही -जिया उद्दीन बरनी )
इसी तरह शेख हमदानी ने अपनी किताब 'जखिरतुल मुल्क 'में लिखा है औरंगजेब ने जब 1679 में जजिया लागु किया तो ,आदेश दिया कि हिन्दू कोई नया बुतखाना नहीं बना सकते और न उसकी मरम्मत कर सकतेहैं .अगर हिन्दू किसी सम्बन्धी कि मौत पर जोर जोर से रोयेंगे तो जुरमाना लगेगा .शंख बजने ,घंटा बजने पर भी टेक्स लगेगा .अगर हिन्दू जजिया नहीं दे सकें तो उनके मंदिरों को तोड़कर जजिया वसूला जायेगा ,या उनकी लड़कियों को कनीज बना लिया जायेगा .मुसलमान इसी लिए औरंगजेब की तारीफ करते हैं .वह मुसल्लामानों का आदर्श है.
मुसलमानों ने इसी जजिया की ताकत से कई देश मुसलमान बना दिए है .इरान में सन 1884 और ट्युनिसिया और अल्जीरिया में सन 1855 तक जजिया लिया जाता था .इसके कारण वहां के गर मुस्लिम यातो पलायन कर गए या विवश होकर मुसलमान बन गए .यही मुहम्मद चाहता .जिहाद की तरह जजिया भी मुसलमानों का एक आतंक ही है .तालिबानों ने सिक्खों से सन 16 अप्रेल 2009 को 2 करोड़ और 28 जून 2010 सीखो और हिन्दुओं से 6 करोड़ रूपया जजिया वसूल किया था .और सिखों ने चूका दिया था
अगर पंजाब के हिन्दू सिख मिलकर केवल पांच सौ प्रमुख मुले मौलवियों को पकड़ लेते और तालिबानों से कहते या तो अफागानितन के सिखों का जजिया माफ़ करो ,या फिर हम दूसरी तरह से जजिया चूका देंगे .अफसोस कि सिखों कि तलवार म्यान से बाहर नहीं निकली .
सिक्खों को पता होना चाहियेथा कि अगर तालिबानों के पास हजारों सिक्ख हैं ,तो पंजाब में लाखों मुसलमान मौजूद है
इसी तरह हमें कश्मीरियों से झंडा चढाने की इजाजत मांगने क्या जरूरत है .अगर हम कश्मीर के सामान को पजाब के आगे नहीं जाने दें तो ,कश्मीरी अलगाववादी भूखे मर जायेंगे .
Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:44 AM
Subject: Hindus must learn to cultivate similar Chutzpah ("astounding hubris")
The key to understanding organized Islamic behavior—not the actions of every Muslim by any means, but the groups that represent them and the individuals most formed by Islamic cultural attitudes—is, ironically, chutzpah. In Hebrew, that term means something like 'astounding hubris,' although as it came into Yiddish it took on some more positive connotations. Leo Rosten, author of The Joy of Yiddish, defines chutzpah as "that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan." There is no other way to characterize the way professional Muslims begin to act when they scent weakness in their rivals; conversely, when they meet a show of strength that exceeds their own, they turn almost instantly into craven, self-pitying victims. Just think of how Palestinian activists alternate between empty boastfulness about their power to "drive the Zionists into the sea," and puling complaints about the indignities imposed on them by Israel's greater power.
This should be no surprise to us. As I've written before, Islam is a religion of power, which worships a god whose first and foremost attribute is power, absolute and arbitrary power so boundless by definition that no one and nothing can "chain Allah's hand," not even his previous promises. In the single-minded quest to depict their god as limitless, Muslim theologians have managed to portray Allah as something actually less impressive than any human being who does keep his word; recall that in ancient cultures, oath-keeping was the virtue held in highest esteem. Without it, human action is impossible to predict, trust relationships cannot be formed, and lasting love is impossible. Allah cannot be said to love his creatures, because they can never trust him. Their love for him at best can only ever be servile, the trembling devotion of a whipped dog hoping for mercy.
While that may be the Muslim attitude toward their god, activist Muslims adopt quite the opposite posture toward non-Muslims, whenever they feel sufficiently powerful to get away with it. Robert Spencer told me a story he'd heard of an American convert to Islam (dressed like any other American) who sat down at a cafe, only to be greeted from a neighboring table with "Assalaamu 'alaykum!' The American was stunned, and he turned to the Arab immigrant at the neighboring table to ask, 'How did you know I was a Muslim?' His newfound friend replied, 'You hold and carry yourself like a Muslim. You hold your head high, as if you bow before no man, but only before Allah.'
From: Ram Narayanan
This is an important article and I hope GOI and RBI will quickly act upon its recommendations.
Have mobile, will travel
Ashok Jhunjhunwala , Feb 22, 2011,
Dictators in Tunisia and Egypt have fallen. Internet technologies played their small part in this. India is not like Tunisia and Egypt. Its economy has belied expectations and grows at 8 to 9% year after year. As large sections do not benefit adequately from this growth, there has been considerable focus on government programmes to make it inclusive. At the same time, our press has demonstrated its independence. The RTI Act enables citizens to demand and get information. Our CAG stands tall, just as our Election Commission and courts do. Yet India is in a crisis. Its citizens are tired of governance deficit, corruption, black money and an inspector-raj.
Everyday we see scams (sometimes even when they are not there) being exposed in the media, demonstrations, Parliament jams and court orders. But there is little positive action. What is needed is action against black money, the driver of all corruption. Are we citizens ready to move beyond protests and take a small step that could hit at the heart of black money?
Black money thrives in the cash economy. If we introduce traceability in financial transactions, it will be difficult to hide. We can do this using some simple available technologies. It is possible to carry out all transactions in electronic form, where money is transferred from the payer's bank account to the payee's. The back-end core banking system of almost all banks allows that. ATM withdrawals, any-branch banking and internet banking thrive on it. The internet, however, is used by a small section. Credit card (and debit card) based payments and transaction could be another way, but have not caught on much (except for use of debit cards for cash withdrawals).
But India has over 750 million mobile phone connections, and growing at 15 million per month. Over 500 million invididuals are believed to have mobiles. In a few years, mobile telephony could touch most of India's adult population. It is now possible to link one's mobile phone to a bank account. So, it is possible to carry out most transactions including money transfer, bill payments, balance enquiry and checks on past transactions. A bank's computer uses the caller line identification (CLI) and a customer's PIN to authenticate her, following which any transaction can be carried out using an application loaded on her phone. End-to-end encryption makes transactions secure. Transactions are instantaneous: for example, any payment is notified by sending an SMS to the payer as well as payee.
The Mobile Payment Forum of India, RBI and National Payment Corporation of India worked with banks, telecom operators and technology providers to make money transfer possible between customers of any two banks, any two operators and any two technology providers. One does not even need the bank account number to make payments, as the payee's mobile number and a mobile money ID (MMID) uniquely map to her bank account.
Mobile payments would make cash redundant. One could pay a vegetable vendor who displays a mobile number and MMID at the shop. Similarly, auto fare or kirana shop payments can be made instantaneously. Money can be transferred whether the recipient is near or far. Doing so from Mumbai to an Orissa village would now be a simple matter. A single day amount could be small, say Rs 50, or as much as Rs 50,000.
Safe, secure, simple, instantaneous, and with a complete list of payments and receipts in one's passbook, there is no reason why anyone would not use this method. Using mobile payments instead of cash could be our way to bring in traceability and say no to the black money economy.
Do all banks provide mobile-to-mobile payments? About 10 banks do and another 15 will by the end of next month. Will there be teething troubles? Sure, but nothing that can't be handled. Will transaction charges be too much? Banks and telecom operators can make transactions below Rs 1,000 free and charge one or two rupees for transactions up to Rs 10,000. Will SMS come in real time? Telcos can ensure that.
One may argue that many in rural India and some in urban India do not have bank accounts. With financial inclusion initiatives, no-frill accounts can be opened quickly. In fact, mobile payments would incentivise people to open such accounts. Further, telecom operators are tying up with banks to come up with phone-based pre-paid cards (mobile wallets) for making payments and transferring money as in mobile banking. Will illiteracy be a bottleneck? Several banks and technology providers use mobile voice banking: one just has to speak to carry out a transaction. So, there may be some hiccups, but there are technological answers.
Many of us will remember that computerisation of railway reservations in the 1980s dealt a blow to rampant corruption. As an example of technology being used to bring in transparency, mobile payments give us a much bigger opportunity. In due course, we would demand that government recalls 500 and 1,000 rupee notes and makes it mandatory for all shops and vendors to accept only electronic payments. But let us take the initiative. Let us get our MMID and start making mobile payments instead of using cash. Let shops start displaying their mobile numbers and MMID. That would be a big statement against black money.
The writer teaches electrical engineering at IIT Madras and is on the PM's Scientific Advisory Committee.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
One thing that constantly astonishes me is my ignorance of Indian history. I admit that freely and feel sorry for myself — and for the hundreds of millions of Indians who are ignorant like me. I am partly to blame but we should remember that the Indian government — what I should really call the British Government 2.0 which started off with faux Britisher Jawaharlal Nehru at the helm — did much to misrepresent Indian history. Thanks to the interwebs (and thanks to Al Gore for inventing them internets), slowly I am learning a bit of history.
The other day I was thinking that even though I am ignorant of history, I figured out that Nehru was a clueless retard even though his name is plastered all over the country and they all say what a great man he was. I figured out that MK Gandhi must have been a self-obsessed authoritarian with an inflated ego.
The thing is, as Yogi Berra pointed out, you’d be astonished what you observe if you care to see. (I don’t know if Yogi Berra actually said it but it sounds like something that he may have said.) I saw without distorting glasses and I observed that India is a disaster zone. There were people who directed it since its political independence in 1947. They were in control. They — what’s the word I am looking for — yes, fucked up. Pardon my French.
My reasoning was syllogistic:
Major premise: India is evidently in dire distress.
Minor premise: India was led by Cha-cha and friends.
Conclusion: Cha-cha and friends were retards.
Those worthies — Cha-cha Nehru and his gang of retards — are definitely to blame. Cha-cha. Don’t you just feel like getting up and doing a bit of a dance. One-two-cha-cha-cha. Let’s do the cha-cha-cha.
The other day I was thinking. (A different other day than the other day mentioned previously.) In his book, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution“, Richard Dawkins makes a point that I had not pondered before. He argued that circumstantial evidence is not the poor county cousin of eyewitness evidence, but rather circumstantial evidence can be more solid than eyewitness evidence.
Did you see that man enter the house at 7 PM? Yes, says the witness. But memories can be very unreliable at times. People make mistakes in identifying people. Circumstantial evidence, if available, can be quite foolproof. The finger prints on the knife, the shirt of the accused with the bloodstains that DNA shows to be the victim’s blood, the motive that the accused had, etc.
I pondered that matter at some length. I realized that the history we are taught in school about how great a person Cha-cha Nehru was is like an eye-witness account which has been retold a few thousand times. Someone somewhere made the assertion that Nehru was smart — and then it got repeated uncritically by others.
The circumstantial evidence says otherwise. Nehru was clueless about economic policy. Fabian socialism was known to be a disaster. Nehru was clueless about military policy. Thousands of Indian soldiers died in the disastrous war with China, thanks to Cha-cha. He was clueless about industrial policy. Import substitution industrialization (ISI, not to be confused with the Pakistani organization that DiggyVijay Singh moonlights for) chained India’s growth to what is now rightly called the “Nehru rate of growth.” Nehru was clueless about military strategy. He told the Indian army to halt their campaign to throw out the Pakistanis from Kashmir and took the matter to the UN. Tens of thousands of military and civilians have died as a consequence, and a few million Kashmiri Hindus are languishing in refugee camps in their own country.
I’d love to continue on the subject of the Nabob of Cluelessness, Mr Nehru. But I am sure you have better things to do and I don’t have the time to list all the cluelessness of Mr Nehru. India’s pathetic education system is his doing. The IITs are a prime example of that. But I will go into why the IITs have been a curse to India later.
Anyway, if you need convincing that Nehru, Gandhi and the rest of the unholy bunch were crazily mistaken, take a look at India — and weep.
So here’s what I learned today. India owes a debt to Savarkar. Taken from The Daily Pioneer. Reproduced in full since it is hard to find the piece when you need it in a hurry. If they come after me for copyright violations, I will take this down.
India’s debt to Savarkar"
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Second opinion: Priyadarsi Dutta
His Irish admirers fondly misspelt him as ‘Sawarkar’, and politely declined to make amends when Shyamji Krishna Verma, his sponsor in England, clarified the point. It was difficult for his readers to imagine him without invoking imageries of war. His pen, dipped in blood, breathed so much fire that it was a wonder that “why the paper did not burn”. In those days, India’s freedom movement was not stricken with the phthisis of non-violence and obsessive compulsive disorder of Hindu-Muslim unity introduced by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose 125th birth anniversary was marked on May 28, was 14 years junior to Gandhi. But he was years ahead of him on many counts. He set the goal of absolute independence for India in 1900; Gandhi asked for it in 1929. He performed a bonfire of foreign clothes in 1905, during the movement against Bengal’s partition, an idea emulated by Gandhi for his noncooperation movement.
India could have been spared of its emasculation had it abided by Savarkarite clarity rather than Gandhian absurdities. To Savarkar, as he succinctly put down in his last book, Six Glorious Chapters of Indian History, no nation could aspire for civilisational greatness without acquiring military strength.
Savarkar lived to see the vindication of his proposition in contemporary India. Gandhi’s policy of pacifism failed to buy peace with Muslims, leading to carnages and expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan. Jawaharlal Nehru’s dream of “talking his way to leadership of the world”, and forging Hindi-Chini brotherhood through slogans failed badly. Slapped hard by China, he was exposed for what he was — a meek leader of a Third World country.
Independent India scarcely realises the greatest debt it owes to Savarkar; turning a Muslim dominated Indian Army into a predominantly Hindu-Sikh Army with his whirlwind recruitment drive during World War II. If it were otherwise, Pakistan, even after partition, would have 60 per cent to 70 per cent of soldiers, enough to overwhelm West Bengal, East Punjab, threatening Delhi, let alone much talked about Jammu & Kashmir.
Post partition, the opportunism and foregoing of secularity by Political Parties and their patronage and alliance had helped history come full circle- in the return of the Razakrs redressed in parties like MIM. Above the current leader and son of the grand patriarch of MIM who exploited this weakness of nationalist Congress leaders like Indira Gandhi who actively wooed and sponsored its ideologically separatist movement to take roots. The MIM is a remnant of the dreaded Razakars of Hyderabad State that started butchering Hindus and sought separation and annexation with Pakistan. The ideology, leadership and the roots of this so called Political Party functioning under the Indian Constitution are merely to take advantage of its benefits that could be passed on to the Radicals in the field. The mushrooming of such Islamist ‘democratic Parties' are not without its own Jihad rationale
Friday, February 25, 2011
By Swapan Dasgupta
There was something eerily predictable about the reactions to last Tuesday's Special Court verdict on the gruesome Godhra killings of February 26, 2002—the incident that triggered the equally horrible communal riots in Gujarat.
For a few days before Justice P.R. Patil delivered his 815-page judgment that led to the conviction of 31 of the 134 Muslims charged with either conspiracy or participation in the arson attack on the S6 coach of the Sabarmati Express, the less restrained section of the media had been speculating on the possible implications of a 'guilty' verdict. Would it inflame communal passions? Was justice at all possible in 'Narendra Modi's Gujarat'? The implications were obvious: the cause of communal harmony and justice would be best served if the entire case was thrown out.
If the questions were predictably tendentious—the Special Court had been set up in April 2009 on a Supreme Court directive and had no relation with the state government's administration of justice—the post-verdict reactions followed the 'activist' template. Father Cedric Prakash, an activist clergyman who runs an NGO, was quick to denounce Justice Patel's judgment as a 'miscarriage of justice'; Prashant Bhushan, who was briefly amicus curie in the Gulbarga Housing Society case, called the verdict a 'travesty of justice'; lawyer Mukul Sinha who had contested the 2007 Assembly election and lost his deposit, described the conviction of 31 people as based on 'concocted evidence' and 'falsehood'; and Teesta Setalvad, herself under scrutiny by the Special Investigation Team for allegedly presenting dodgy affidavits, debunked any 'conspiracy' to attack the train.
True, BJP's Jaynarain Vyas, the Gujarat Government spokesperson, did proffer a pugnacious reply to the sceptics. He gloated that 'the verdict comes as a slap on the face of all those so-called NGOs who were busy maligning Gujarat.' But his seemed an odd, contrarian voice amid the multiplicity of well-heeled 'activists' feigning outrage. Any citizen unaware of the backgrounds of the sceptics or the convoluted course of the inquiry and legal proceedings would be forgiven for harbouring the suspicion that the Special Court in Ahmedabad had been driven by an underlying political agenda.
It is understandable that there will be litigants and activists dissatisfied by a court verdict on the ground of either evidence or interpretation of the law. They have an inalienable right to approach a higher court for relief and, presumably, the Godhra case will go to the High Court. What is disturbing, however, is not the exercise of the right of appeal but the readiness with which any judgment with political overtones is rubbished in the public domain. Indian democracy offers litigants, activists and commentators a generous space to dissect judgments and court proceedings. Indeed, more often than not, lawyers and others tend to treat TV studios and newspapers columns as a substitute for arguments in the appellate courts.
On the face of it, this may appear to be a worthless and even self-defeating exercise since judges are expected to be swayed by arguments in the courtroom and not by spirited exchanges in TV studios. The judiciary, however, is not detached from society and judges don't live in ivory towers. Like any other citizen, they too are prone to being influenced by their immediate environment. The purpose behind activists using the media to argue points of law and evidence (without having to bother about the opposing counsel) is simple: create a climate of opinion favourable to the cause they are espousing and portray other perspectives (including court judgments) as a travesty.
In the past six months, the no-holds-barred attacks on court orders have become an epidemic. In September last year, there were the shrill denunciations of the Allahabad High Court judgment on the Ayodhya dispute, including suggestions of communal bias. Ironically, the loudest protests came from those who were in the forefront of demanding a judicial resolution of a very complex religio-political dispute that has defied resolution for centuries.
This was followed three months ago by the breast-beating that followed the conviction of Dr Binayak Sen on a sedition charge by a Sessions Court in Chhattisgarh. The spectacle was repeated some weeks ago when the Chhattisgarh High Court turned down Sen's bail application.
The Binayak Sen case is an eye-opener for all those concerned about the larger civic culture surrounding judicial proceedings. In an article written after Sen's conviction, an outraged Amartya Sen wrote that 'If the High Court has its thinking straight and unbiased it will overturn the decision.' Anything else, he argued, would imply that 'as happened in Gujarat—justice is difficult to get in the state which is under the control of a political regime that is keen on justifying its policies, some of which are very deeply problematic, rather than bringing justice to a people living in Chhattisgarh…' This was followed by an appeal signed by scores of Nobel Prize winners, with little familiarity of either India or the specific circumstances of the case, pressing for Sen's release.
Actually, it is Amartya Sen's pronouncement that is deeply problematic. If the integrity of the judiciary is made hostage to politically correct, rather than judicially tenable, judgments, India will lose its status as a democracy where the rule of law prevails.
In establishing pre-meditation, the Special Court in Ahmedabad relied on forensic evidence; the Allahabad High Court relied on archaeological evidence to suggest that a grand temple predated the Babri mosque in Ayodhya; and the Chhattisgarh Government relied on witness testimony and seizure records to suggest Binayak Sen's Maoist links. The conclusions of the judges were governed by evidence—a reason why 63 of the accused were acquitted in the Godhta case—and their refutation has to be based on technicalities, not on the strength of rhetoric.
A battle is either fought in the political arena or in the courts. The two can't happen simultaneously.
This post has been generated by Page2RSS
Appeal to devout Hindus
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar popularly known as Swatantryaveer Savarkar was a fearless freedom fighter, Hindu nationalist, social reformer, great orator, prolific writer, historian and philosopher. His thoughts touched upon practically every aspects of nation-building. He was a victim of hatred and misinformation and hence his thoughts and achievements in many spheres are largely unknown outside Maharashtra.
Savarkar was the first political leader who set Absolute Political Independence as India's goal and was the first to organize a revolutionary movement for independence on an international level. He was the only Indian leader whose arrest in London caused legal difficulties for the British Courts. He was also the first Indian historian whose book titled Indian War of Independence 1857 was proscribed by British authorities in India before its publication. The book inspired revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh and Subash Chandra Bose. He was the first political prisoner whose daring escape and arrest on French soil became a cause celebre in the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
Savarkar composed his first poem 'Swadeshicha phatka' at the tender age of eleven. At the age of 16, he formed a secret Patriots’ Group to fight the British. He was the first poet in the world who, deprived of pen and paper, composed his poems and then wrote them on the prison walls with thorns and nails. He memorized thousand lines of his poetry and later transmitted them to the outside world through his fellow-prisoners. Besides composing poetry in conventional meters, he introduced new meters called vainayak and also composed blank verses. He was the first to compose powadas (ballads) using modern imagery and in his efforts to purify Marathi language, he has introduced many new words. He wrote two novels Kaalepani and Malaa kaay tyache; three plays Usshaap, Sanyastakhadga and Uttarkriya; and three books on history The First Indian War of Independence-1857, Hindupadpaadshaahi and Six Glorious Epochs. Though he wrote the History of the Sikhs, it is not is available now.
Savarkar was the first Indian leader who successfully started a Ganeshotsava open to all Hindus including ex-untouchables. He commenced the inter-dining ceremonies of all Hindus and opened Patitpavan Mandir as well as a cafe to all Hindus. He was the first political prisoner in the world who was sentenced to Transportation for Life twice, a sentence unparalleled in the history of the British Empire. He was also the first leader to embrace death voluntarily through Atma Samarpan in the highest yogic tradition.
Vinayak was born to Damodarpant Savarkar and Radhabai in Bhagpur village near Nasik on May 28, 1883 into a family of jagirdars (landlords). When Vinayak was nine years old, his mother died of cholera and Damodarpant himself looked after his four children. He later joined Bal Gangadhar Tilak's Swaraj Party. He lost his father during the 1899 plague. In March 1901, he married Yamunabai, daughter of Ramchandra Triambak Chiplunkar. After marriage, he joined Fergusson College in Pune in 1902 to study further. As a student, Vinayak was involved in the Swadeshi movement. When in college, he instigated his fellowmen to boycott British goods and in 1905 he organised a bonfire of clothes made in England. In June 1906, he received a scholarship and left for London to study law. In London, he stayed at the India House established by Pandit Shyamji, a patriot and social reformer. When in London, he founded the Free India Society which celebrated major Indian festivals and landmarks of the freedom movement. He also vowed not to take up service under the British Government and never to accept payment from them. He was the first Indian law student who was not called to the English Bar despite having passed his examination and observed the necessary formalities.
In 1909, Madanlal Dhingra, an ardent follower of Savarkar shot Sir Wyllie after a failed assassination attempt on Lord Curzon, the then Viceroy. When A.M.T. Jackson, the then British Collector of Nasik, was shot by a youth, Savarkar fell under the net of the British authorities and was implicated in the murder citing his connections with India House. He was jailed and later extradited from England. On the way back to India, he made a heroic attempt to escape when the ship halted at Marseilles. He was recaptured in Paris on March 13, 1910 and brought to Mumbai and imprisoned at the Yervada jail. He was tried and sentenced to 50 years of imprisonment at the age of 27! On July 4, 1911, he was exiled to the Cellular Jail in the Andamans. There he was successful in getting permission to start a jail library and with patience and perseverance, he taught the illiterate convicts to read and write.
In 1920, many prominent freedom fighters including Vithalbhai Patel, Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak demanded the release of Savarkar in the Central Legislative Assembly. On May 2, 1921, he was shifted to Ratnagiri jail, and later to Yeravada jail. It was in Ratnagiri jail that he wrote the book titled Hindutva which deals with the Hindu nationalistic approach to the idea of the Indian nation and Hinduism. In January 6, 1924 he was released under stringent restrictions on his travel and activities.
On his release, Savarkar founded the Ratnagiri Hindu Sabha on January 23, 1924 which was aimed at preserving India's cultural legacy and work for social welfare. He later accepted the presidency of the Hindu Mahasabha, and served for seven consecutive years. The Hindu Mahasabha, under his presidency, did not support the Quit India movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi in August 1942. Through the Sabha, he worked hard to protect minority rights. During the celebration of Hindu festivals, Savarkar visited Muslim and Christian homes to promote goodwill. He also encouraged inter-caste marriages and assisted Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his efforts to liberate the ‘untouchables’. He visited slums and engaged in social service. He called for a purification of Marathi and Hindi from Urdu influence and appealed for a wider use of Hindi. He suggested reforms to the Devanagiri script to make it easy for printing.
Savarkar's patriotic spirit found an outlet through an organization called the Mitra Mela which he formed. It served the city of Nasik in many ways, especially during the plague when the group carried victims for cremation. Later, he renamed Mitra Mela as Abhinav Bharat. He strived for pan-Hindu nation that would engulf Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, and converts from Hinduism back into its fold. He wanted to establish a Hindu Raj and bring within its boundaries Afganistan as well. He died on February 26, 1966. While many regard Savarkar as one of the greatest revolutionaries in the Indian freedom struggle, others consider him a communalist but he will be remembered as a fearless patriot.
(Author is a freelance journalist and a social activist. He can be contacted on firstname.lastname@example.org).