After 18 years of investigation the Allahabad high court has delivered its verdict on the so called Ram Janmabhoomi. According to the verdict they have decided to divide the plot into three parts with all three parties( Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara.) getting their share. They have also cleared the way for the construction of Ram temple at the site in the Hindu part.
Here they have actually acted wise with out making a one sided decision and dividing the site equally between the three parties. Even then the Hindu outfit and the Wakf committee have already announced that they are going to take the matter to Supreme Court. But cant they close the matter here itself as there is a limit for everything when you go past that then it is nothing but madness as fighting for some which happened 500 yrs ago and on that nobody know what exactly happened so its better to leave the matter here and move on. If they further pursue the issue they it make create unnecessary mess just like it did in 1992.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
India's impressive stance in Pakistan and J and K
External affairs Minister S M Krishna recently asked pakistan to think of its own survival than cracking their head on J&K. This is the second time that Extremal affair minister has impressed with its direct language. I completely support the stance taken by India towards this issue as Pakistan has got nothing to do with J and K as their own country is ravaged by floods and increasing influence of Taliban.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
What does Pakistan have to do with Kashmir?
For the first time i was impressed with external ministry's stand on Pakistan poking its nose into the Kashmir issue.
I feel the major problems between is that including the World war happened because of third party involvement. When Balkan states had problem with Islamic empire of Turkey the Austria intervened and with Austria, Russia and Germany also got involved and they were joined by their allies. So one problem gave birth to many reasons for other countries to fight amongst themselves.
Kashmir is an internal issue of India and Pakistan has no business there what so ever and the very cause of Kashmir independence is questionable. I dont understand on what basis they are asking for their freedom. If i see in India every state is very different from each other, in this basis they cant say they are culturally and traditionally very different from India as every other state is different.
Politically they are were not left behind even at the time of creation of Union of India and Pakistan like all other princely states they were also asked to choose to join either of the unions but their Maharaja Hari Singh delayed his decision. Meanwhile there was a pretty serious matter of infiltration and riots across the State at this moment The Maharaja had to sign the treaty of accession with India as it was an open secret that the infiltration of tribes from Pakistan was funded by the Pakistani army. At this point of time India had to send in the army as par of the treaty to check the advancing tribes. The tribes claimed that Maharaja had no right to decide for the people of Kashmir as he was a Hindu and majority of the population was Muslim so they said Kashmir was the part of Pakistan because of the Muslim majority and some wanted to be independent. The Indian army had checked the infiltration but it was too late for them as the tribes had reached the outskirts of Srinagar and they had almost half of the Kashmir. The Indian Army had no chance to recapture the occupied part as a ceasefire was called by the UN and the same cease has taken hundreds of lives and it has divided the very state of Kashmir. If they had recaptured the occupied part there was no problem a all, once it is integral part of India then there is no chance of anybody occupying it and there would be no question of free state as it would have been a part of India as all other states. Here the problem is mainly because the issue was left unsettled the people are made to believe even now that they will be free by false promises by so called patriot who have been doing things like bomb blasts which has taken innumerable lives.
The people of Kashmir have been blinded with a belief of their so called state hood but the it has hit the livelihoods of thousands if people as who have nothing to do but agitate.
The whole problem of Kashmir has only one solution and that is they should look at economic development through tourism and other means. The only way that the region can be peaceful is by this when the people get engaged in their work they will not have time to things like state hood which has no meaning without economic development. They should follow the example of Kerala and Himachal Pradesh where they have created a peaceful atmosphere though they are distinct from other regions of India. They have to manage themselves to see that elements like Pakistan shouldnt distract from their goals. When there is no economic development then what is the meaning of a free state even if it become independent its going to sabotaged by Pakistan as half of the Kashmir is literally controlled by it which is very poor economically though it is a hills station has a very high potential for tourism like Manali or Massuri.
Its only the Kashmiris who can save their land by committing themselves to the constructive work and not getting distracted by the ideas like statehood propagated by the anti national elements.
I feel the major problems between is that including the World war happened because of third party involvement. When Balkan states had problem with Islamic empire of Turkey the Austria intervened and with Austria, Russia and Germany also got involved and they were joined by their allies. So one problem gave birth to many reasons for other countries to fight amongst themselves.
Kashmir is an internal issue of India and Pakistan has no business there what so ever and the very cause of Kashmir independence is questionable. I dont understand on what basis they are asking for their freedom. If i see in India every state is very different from each other, in this basis they cant say they are culturally and traditionally very different from India as every other state is different.
Politically they are were not left behind even at the time of creation of Union of India and Pakistan like all other princely states they were also asked to choose to join either of the unions but their Maharaja Hari Singh delayed his decision. Meanwhile there was a pretty serious matter of infiltration and riots across the State at this moment The Maharaja had to sign the treaty of accession with India as it was an open secret that the infiltration of tribes from Pakistan was funded by the Pakistani army. At this point of time India had to send in the army as par of the treaty to check the advancing tribes. The tribes claimed that Maharaja had no right to decide for the people of Kashmir as he was a Hindu and majority of the population was Muslim so they said Kashmir was the part of Pakistan because of the Muslim majority and some wanted to be independent. The Indian army had checked the infiltration but it was too late for them as the tribes had reached the outskirts of Srinagar and they had almost half of the Kashmir. The Indian Army had no chance to recapture the occupied part as a ceasefire was called by the UN and the same cease has taken hundreds of lives and it has divided the very state of Kashmir. If they had recaptured the occupied part there was no problem a all, once it is integral part of India then there is no chance of anybody occupying it and there would be no question of free state as it would have been a part of India as all other states. Here the problem is mainly because the issue was left unsettled the people are made to believe even now that they will be free by false promises by so called patriot who have been doing things like bomb blasts which has taken innumerable lives.
The people of Kashmir have been blinded with a belief of their so called state hood but the it has hit the livelihoods of thousands if people as who have nothing to do but agitate.
The whole problem of Kashmir has only one solution and that is they should look at economic development through tourism and other means. The only way that the region can be peaceful is by this when the people get engaged in their work they will not have time to things like state hood which has no meaning without economic development. They should follow the example of Kerala and Himachal Pradesh where they have created a peaceful atmosphere though they are distinct from other regions of India. They have to manage themselves to see that elements like Pakistan shouldnt distract from their goals. When there is no economic development then what is the meaning of a free state even if it become independent its going to sabotaged by Pakistan as half of the Kashmir is literally controlled by it which is very poor economically though it is a hills station has a very high potential for tourism like Manali or Massuri.
Its only the Kashmiris who can save their land by committing themselves to the constructive work and not getting distracted by the ideas like statehood propagated by the anti national elements.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Is Ayodhya geting more attention than required.
In 1993 a mosque was demolished in Ayodhya. The mosque was Babri masjid which was 500 years old and as claimed by the Hindu radical elements it was built by Mir Baqi, the general of the mughal emperor Babur, after demolishing the grand temple of Rama which as they claim was at the site of the mosque.
Here my question is why did they take 500 years to demolish the mosque which was on the so called Rama janma bhoomi? What were they doing for 500 years and if they were so devout they could have demolished as soon as it was built, why did they wait for 500 years?
I am raising these question because what followed after the demolition was so brutal and uncalled for and it left a really big black spot on India's secularist image as a whole.
How does it matter in the present day that there was a temple in that spot and some general demolished it and built a mosque 500 years ago? Was it more important than the lives of those thousands of people who were killed in the following riots all over the subcontinent.
The people who demolished it should have thought of the kind of repercussion their actions would have.
Was the protection of so called Rama Janmabhoomi worth so many lives which were lost in those riots?
India not only faced international condemn but also had to deal with the big divide the event had created between the two communities. The worst communal violence took place in Gujarat as the after math of the demolition.
A couch was set on fire at godhra which was full of the Hindu pilgrims who were returning from Ayodhya. The pilgrims were burnt alive and a widespread riot took place almost in all places of Gujarat in which thousands of both Hindus and Muslims were killed and thousands of other people were displaced.
The communal violence was not only in this place but all over India and even in Bangladesh Hindus were prosecuted and so many temples were burnt.
These things are because of the lack of foresightedness of those radical Hindu element who had no concern of the those who did for meaningless radical thought of securing so called Rama janmabhoomi. If they were so devout why did they even let their beloved temple be demolished.
Here my question is why did they take 500 years to demolish the mosque which was on the so called Rama janma bhoomi? What were they doing for 500 years and if they were so devout they could have demolished as soon as it was built, why did they wait for 500 years?
I am raising these question because what followed after the demolition was so brutal and uncalled for and it left a really big black spot on India's secularist image as a whole.
How does it matter in the present day that there was a temple in that spot and some general demolished it and built a mosque 500 years ago? Was it more important than the lives of those thousands of people who were killed in the following riots all over the subcontinent.
The people who demolished it should have thought of the kind of repercussion their actions would have.
Was the protection of so called Rama Janmabhoomi worth so many lives which were lost in those riots?
India not only faced international condemn but also had to deal with the big divide the event had created between the two communities. The worst communal violence took place in Gujarat as the after math of the demolition.
A couch was set on fire at godhra which was full of the Hindu pilgrims who were returning from Ayodhya. The pilgrims were burnt alive and a widespread riot took place almost in all places of Gujarat in which thousands of both Hindus and Muslims were killed and thousands of other people were displaced.
The communal violence was not only in this place but all over India and even in Bangladesh Hindus were prosecuted and so many temples were burnt.
These things are because of the lack of foresightedness of those radical Hindu element who had no concern of the those who did for meaningless radical thought of securing so called Rama janmabhoomi. If they were so devout why did they even let their beloved temple be demolished.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Burning of Koran
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11223457
This is the link to the main article by BBC on the burning of the Koran by a small church in Florida,USA of the anniversary 911.
These are the kind of actions which seriously threaten the harmony between the communities.
I strongly feel that these are the kind of actions which lead to the increase in the radical views.
First of all the 9/11 was the blunder committed by a bunch of hooligans who dint have a slightest idea of the repercussions of their action on the people of their own community living the west. They dint have the slightest idea what the whole Muslim community would face after their senseless act which led to the disturbance of the harmonious relations between Muslim and other communities. Because of this act of terrorism the muslim community in west had to face a very severe social ostracism which was completely uncalled for as they were targeted for somethings they had nothing do with.
Why is that something done by a senseless people of a community is seen as the attack of whole religion or a whole community. These are the result of the extreme, irrational and radical actions of a group which acts without even thinking of the repercussions of their actions.
It is actually a human tendency or in other words stereo typical views which gets formed after coming across two or more similar things of a group or a community and form a opinion that anything similar to what they have some across will the carbon copy of the one they have com across.
This one is also one of those things which they have announced with out even thinking what will be the effect of their action on the Christians. themselves. They are commuting the same mistake as those hooligans from the middle east who had rammed two aeroplanes in to WTO.
I have no apprehensions to say that these idiots are making the things worse for the people across the world again and they threatening the lives of the Christians living the islamic countries just like those hooligans who caries out 9/11.
No body has any kind of right to disrespect any religion followed by million of the people around the world and they are threatening the relation between two biggest communities of the world.
They say they want to teach radical element a lesson but what they are doing is going to hurt the whole muslim community. They had thought when the 9/11 happened the whole muslim community is responsible now they are doing something which will make the muslim community feel the whole Christian community is responsible for the idiotic thing done by a small church.
A church is supposed to spread the message of unity , peace, harmony but not aggravate the already torn relation between two communities.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Indira Gandhi
I am reading the biography of Indira Gandhi. I seriously have a very deep respect for the great lady.
Especially because if she had not been strong in 1971 and if she hadnt acted as tough as she had acted back then, there would would be no Bangladesh.
The kind of determination she showed is really inspiring and she had the guts to literally confront he President of America who was totally tilted towards Pakistan just because it had acted as a central pivot in their talks with China. I cant believe even in the time of crisis he acted so lame and after the war he ordered his seventh fleet to Bay of Bengal. Every other so called big country was doing nothing but asking India to wait for a peaceful solution to come up just on its own with its increasing refugee problem and they mere description of the situation was heart thumping. That was the time when Indira Gandhi with her General Manekshaw stood strong and moved into east Pakistan and Bangladesh is the result of it.
How can a country with increasing economic problems stand a draining refugee problem.
She was not siting somewhere and talking some non sense but she was out there at the refugee camps to see for herself. I really admire the guts she had to take over the world power and move in with the army. I cant believe that so called great diplomats of those great countries can be so lame and 'wait for the peaceful solution to come'.
The situation in east Pakistan was so pathetic that not even a single lady could be seen as they had all fled to Indian as refugees or they were al put in the trenches and made slaves. Such cruelty in mass was taking place right after the Jewish prosecution by the Hitler and these so called world power dint 'wait' for a peaceful solution to come up back then as of i remember.
Only she could have such guts and act swiftly and she is actually the real Iron Lady of the nation not only for India but also for Bangladesh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)