So extraordinarily ‘Special’ is the status of the Muslims in our Country that when a Presidential reference was made to the Supreme Court to give a finding on whether a Ram Mandir predated the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya, the Honourable Supreme Court simply returned even the Presidential reference. The pendency of the Ayodhya Temple dispute for the last 44 years is the biggest feather in the cap of the Muslims. How much humiliation it is causing to the Hindu Pilgrims at Ayodhya has to be seen to be believed. But the tragedy of pendency still continues.
What is shocking is the way the Honourable Supreme Court has been processing a case relating to Minority Institutions. The Financial Express reported on 3 April, 2002 under the caption ?Chequered History? that in October 1993, a single Judge Bench had framed three questions relating to the cases of Minority Institutions. The questions were:
A) What is the meaning and content of the word ?Minority? in Article 30 of the Constitution?
B) How do we determine the ?Minority Status? of an educational institution? Can we say categorically that all the so called Minority Institutions brooked no interference whatsoever from the State or the University to which they were affiliated?
C) Whether the Minority Institutions can reserve 50% of the seats for the said ?Minority??
After framing the above three issues, an Honourable Judge recommended the case to be referred to a 7 Judge Bench. On 18 March, 1994, the 7 Judge Bench added four (4) more questions to the earlier above three (3) questions. On 7 January, 1997, another 7 Judge Bench again reframed the questions and felt that only an eleven (11) Judge Bench would do justice to this case. On 2 April, 2002 the Financial Express reported ?An eleven (11) Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court began hearing the following questions: 1 (a), 1 (b), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. (For further details please log on to the website of Financial Express of 3/4/2002) B P Singhal concludes with anguish tempered by finesse: ?This shows the awe with which the Muslims of this country are being viewed by the Supreme Court of India all the time?. I am of the view that the Supreme Court of India cheerfully takes ?Communal Commands? from the Muslims of India all issues ? no matter, big or small ? affecting the destiny or survival of our Nation.
B P Singhal establishes the fact that this special consideration and sympathy for Muslims at the highest level of the Supreme Court is nothing new. He gives a detailed background of the now famous leading suit filed in 1961 by the Sunni Waqf Board pending in the Lucknow Branch of the Allahabad High Court which clearly brings out the fact of the generous and sympathetic attitude of the Courts of Law in India for the Muslims vis-à-vis the Hindus.
After the Sunni Waqf Board filed its suit on 18.12.1961, objection was raised as to the maintainability of that suit on the following two powerful grounds:
1. That the Gazette Notification issued by the Sunni Waqf Board declaring the ?Disputed structure? at Ayodhya as Waqf property was infirm and void in Law. This fact was confirmed in another suit by the Faizabad Civil Court and that finding stands valid to this day. Thus, not being Waqf property, the Sunni Waqf Board had no locus-standi to file a suit in respect of that property.
2. That a suit for the possession of the disputed property could not be agitated as it was time-barred under Section 28 of the Limitation Act of 1908 which was applicable in 1961, and which prescribed a limitation period of 6 years only.
Despite this clear position regarding point of Law, the Lucknow High Court ruled that the question of maintainability shall be decided after recording of evidence regarding the title suit and the judgement shall take care of the question of maintainability of the suit also after that point of time.
Aggrieved by this High Court Order, the Hindus went up on appeal to the Honourable Supreme Court, but the Apex Court declined to intervene, ruling that the High Court at Lucknow will decide this issue on merits. It has been noted earlier that the Lucknow High Court had already ruled that the question of maintainability will be decided only at the time of the final decision of the leading suit. The proceedings were therefore started and the objections regarding the basic maintainability of the suit remained unheeded because they were deliberately overruled. IT IS AGAINST THIS TRAGIC BACKGROUND THAT THE NOW FAMOUS AYODHYA DISPUTE HAS BEEN PENDING TRIAL FOR THE LAST 44 YEARS. What does this all show? The Muslims are held in Medieval awe, not only by the Government but also by the Supreme Court of India.
B.P. Singhal then discusses the deliberately anti-Hindu, pro-Islamic, and pro-Christian stance adopted day in and day out by the pseudo?secular Mafia of Mass Media in India, with the full support and patronage?both financial and political?of the Government of India and the State Governments. To quote the exact words of B P Singhal in this context: ?Facts show that regarding events involving Hindus and Muslims, the coverage by the National Media has always been vastly more than charitable to the Muslims and remarkably harsh to the Hindus? Many senior journalists belonging to the earlier age of objective, fearless classical national journalism have expressed their sadness at the increasing tendency in the National Media to sacrifice truth, honesty, objectivity and impartiality at the altar of sensationalism and speed in news reporting, particularly during the last 20 years. This criticism becomes absolutely relevant and true when it relates to events from time to time involving Hindu-Muslim interface. A sample of this nature is narrated below.
After the demolition of Babri Masjid on 6 December, 1992, the Prime Minister Narasimha Rao addressed the Nation on the National Television and announced that: ?The Babri Masjid has been destroyed?. This announcement was avidly lapped up with known anti-Hindu ferocity by the National media and this was echoed by screaming banner headlines in all the newspapers of the country. Not one journalist cared to recall that in 1986, none other than Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, had himself been instrumental in getting the locked gates Of THIS SAME BUILDING thrown open for Hindu worshippers. Thus, what was actually a Ram Temple in 1986 suddenly became a Babri Masjid in December 1992 just because Narasimha Rao called it ?BABRI MASJID?. Not one journalist checked out with the Prime Minister HOW AND WHEN a functioning temple in 1986 SUDDENLY BECAME A MOSQUE in December 1992. Not only this, subsequently when the Central Government brought out its own WHITE PAPER, the ?disputed structure? or ?RJB-BM’ complex?, but the word ?Babri Masjid? or even the word ?Mosque? was conspicuous by its absence in the Government White Paper. Yet, no journalist cared to confront Narasimha Rao as to why he spoke a lie and called it a Masjid when it was no Masjid at the time it was destroyed on 6 December, 1992. The Media (which is supposed to be the watch-dog in a democracy for advancing and protecting truth) instead of nailing the lie of Narasimha Rao, simply perpetuated it. THIS MYTH IS BEING ASSIDUOUSLY SUSTAINED EVEN TILL THIS DATE.
B P Singhal sums up beautifully the hopeless and sad predicament of the impotent Hindus of India. I am just paraphrasing his words. Truth is thus being brazenly sacrificed by the entire press of the country without even a twinge of conscience. The way in which it is distorted in an orchestrated and organized way on a daily and hourly basis, only brings out the exceptionally sympathetic treatment that the combined pseudo-secular mafia of mass media gives to the Religious Minority Community in general and to the Muslims in particular. This mafia of mass media and the international mafia controlling the UPA Government in New Delhi are two sides of the same coin of pseudo-secularism. What is worse for the country is that these anti-Hindu tycoons in the mafia of mass media are united in their belief, doctrine and political ideology that even if it hurts the feelings and sentiments of majority Hindus, the truth is well worth being sacrificed for ensuring the triumph of the larger cause of anti-Hindu pseudo-secularism.
(To be contd...)
(The writer is a retired IAS officer)
e-mail the writer at vsundaram@newstodaynet.com
No comments:
Post a Comment