Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 >OFBJP Admin <BJP-News >vaidika1008 >[bJP News]: The absurd depths of 'secularism' >Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:31:52 -0500 > >Title: The absurd depths of 'secularism' >Author: Arvind Lavakare >Source: Rediff >January 4, 2001 > > Parliament has made some > shams of 'secularism' > raise their ugly heads > yet again. Syed Ahmed > Bukhari, the Imam of the Jama Masjid, Vincent Concessao, > the Archbishop of Delhi, and Rajeev Dhavan have quickly > denounced the 'communalism' of Vajpayee & Co while > baying for the 'secular' word mentioned in our > Constitution's Preamble. > > Bukhari abhors the very idea of a temple being > constructed on the site in Ayodhya where Mir Baqi built > the mosque in 1528. Any attempt to build that temple, > warns Bukhari, will compel him to appeal for hard > sanctions against India from the Organisation of Islamic > Conference, OIC. 'I will be forced to tell them (the > OIC) that the foreign exchange they are handing over to > the government is being used against the Muslims in the > country,' he has threatened. (The Asian Age, December > 23, 2000) > > Don't you smell sedition in that warning? But the entire > 'secular' clan of India is struck by the nasal atrophy > that always overcomes them when a hard core Muslim or a > Christian speaks the fundamentalist lingo. > > Anyway, what is that foreign exchange which Bukhari miya > says the OIC countries are 'handing over to the > government' and 'is being used against the Muslims'? > > The Government of India's 'Receipts Budget' for > 2000-2001 (distributed at the time of the annual Budget) > shows that the entire assistance from the Islamic > sources to India till March 31, 1999 in US dollars was: > > a. Kuwait fund -- 302.68 million; > b. Abu Dhabi fund -- 15.00 million; > c. OPEC fund -- 218. 00 million and; > d. Saudi fund -- 212.68 million. > > The cumulative Islamic assistance from India's > Independence till a year ago thus totals the "grand" sum > of US $749.18 million. Compare that figure with US $ > 7,125 million received from the US government in that > same period, with US $ 1,500 million received from the > European Community since 1976, and with US $ 25,614 > million from the International Development Association > since June 1961. What bull is then Bukhari blabbering > about? > > Further, is that Islamic assistance being "handed " to > India? Not at all. While all the above assistance from > the USA, the EC and the IDA has been totally as grants, > the OPEC Fund's $ 114 million has been given at a > service charge of 0.75 per cent per annum, while all > other Islamic assistance has been in the form of > interest-bearing loans -- not grants doled out. > > Nor is that Islamic assistance being used against the > Muslims in India. For Bukhari miya's information, > excepting US $ 21 million given by the OPEC Fund for > India's balance of payments support, all the other US $ > 728.18 million of Islamic assistance has been for a wide > spectrum of specific development projects --- power > plans, hospitals, railways, port development, sewerage, > agricultural bank, farming, fertilisers and fisheries. > > While the above proves Bukhari miya as a fabricator of > facts, none of our 'secular' fraternity has nailed him. > English edit writers and television newsanchors have > simply kept mum. The collective letter writers like > 'Anand Patwardhan, Dr Asghar Ali, Ram Puniyani and 23 > others' are similarly either scared of criticising any > Muslim or are simply ignorant about the 'grand' Islamic > assistance to India that the imam of Delhi has prattled > about. > > Then there's the archbishop of Delhi. Splashed next to > Bukhari's threat in the Muslim-oriented The Asian Age > was that reverend's 'big question' as to whether the > 'secular' concept is practised in India at all. He was > complaining in the context of what he dubbed as '400 > cases of attack on Christians across the country since > 1997.' > > One doesn't know what the archbishop considers as an > 'attack,' but if he is so sure of his data, there's one > thing he should do straight away. He should ask for more > financial grants from the Vatican's myriad arms and > publish a multi-language booklet listing the essential > details of each of those '400 cases.' Simultaneously, he > should take the country's minorities commission to court > for its failure to fulfil its statutory obligations. > While he ponders over picking up this gauntlet thrown at > him, he should also think of those 975 million or so > non-Catholics in India whom the pope humiliated recently > in just one attack when he asserted that the Vatican > brand of Christianity alone is man's path to salvation. > Is that indeed the rev archbishop's concept of > "secularism"? > > Next in the 'secular' queue is Rajeev Dhavan -- whom The > Hindu of Chennai so often patronises to expand on its > own blatantly anti-Hindutva propaganda. The latest > Ayodhya episode made Dhavan write an edit-page article > (December 15, 2000) in the paper. In it he gave a sermon > to Vajpayee on secularism while interspersing it with > the accusation that the efforts of Rajiv Gandhi and > Narasimha Rao to bring about a negotiated settlement of > the Ayodhya dispute 'failed due to the intransigence of > the VHP.' Note how fake "secularism" so blinds an > ex-judge as to make him forget that it was really then > prime minister Chandra Shekhar's effort that was aborted > by the obstinate obscurants of the All India Babri > Masjid Committee (See Ayodhya's Original Sinners). > > It's no use finding fault with ex-high court judges when > Supreme Court judges are on record for their conflicting > concept of secularism. > > Conspicuously enough, that occurred in the Ayodhya > context. It happened in 1994 when the apex court heard > the bunch of four petitions challenging the Narasimha > Rao government's Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya > Act, 1993 and was also required to answer the reference > made to it by the President of India on January 7, 1993 > under Article 143 (1) of our Constitution as to 'Whether > a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed > prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri > Masjid* in the area in which the structure stood?' (All > India Reporter, 1995, Vol. 82, Supreme Court section, > page 617). > > While the Ayodhya Act above was meant to enable the > Government of India to acquire 67.703 acres of land > covering the structure site as well as certain areas > around it, its Section 7(2) required the central > government to ensure that the position existing in the > area on which the structure stood should be maintained > until later decided by a government notification as per > Section 6 of the act following, obviously, the Supreme > Court's answer to the Presidential reference. > > The effect of Section 7(2) was that the a. worship by > Hindus of the idols installed on the Ram chabutra > (standing within the courtyard of the disputed > structure) would continue as before (unopposed by > Muslims) and b. the right of worship of the Muslim > community would not be curtailed (although Muslims were > not offering worship at any place in the disputed > structure since December 1949). > > The pronouncement of two Supreme Court judges was: > > * "Section 7(2) perpetuates the performance of puja > on the disputed site* No account is taken that > until the night of December 22-23, 1949, when the > idols were placed in the disputed structure, it was > used as a mosque and that the Muslim community has > a claim to offer namaz thereon* The provision of > section 7 supports the finding that the act is > skewed to favour one religion against another. The > state is bound to honour and to hold the scales > even between all religions. It may not advance the > cause of one religion to the detriment of another* > the act itself cannot stand."(ibid-pp.654-655) > > * "The act and the reference* favour one religious > community and disfavour another; the purpose of the > reference is, therefore, opposed to secularism and > is unconstitutional."(ibid pg. 657) > > The three other judges on that bench did not concur with > their two brother judges that the entire Acquisition Act > was unconstitutional. In their majority view that > prevailed, only section 4(3) that abated all pending > suits and proceedings on the disputed site without > providing for an alternative dispute resolving mechanism > amounted to negation of rule of law and, therefore, was > unconstitutional. > > Since their judgment would revive the judicial remedy, > they held that the Presidential reference was rendered > superfluous and one that did not require to be answered. > The majority view was of Justices M N Venkatachaliah, J > S Verma and G N Ray. The minority comprised Justice A M > Ahmadi, who went on to become the Chief Justice of > India, and Justice S P Bharucha, who is tipped to be the > next Chief Justice. > > It is clear that we need a pucca definition of > "secularism" so that we are not left to wonder why Nehru > -- patron saint of India's-brand of "secularism" -- rode > roughshod over all, including the President of India to > get the Hindu Code Bill of 1954 put on the statute book > but never cared to introduce a uniform civil code for > all religions although the Constitution bound him to do > that under Article 44. >---- > http://www.ofbjp.org >---- >A worldwide community of BJP's friends, supporters and activists: >Friends of the BJP - Worldwide: http://www.ofbjp.org/fob >---- > > _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.