01-31-2007, 07:32 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One nation, two laws
Why is the 'equitable' Prime Minister sitting on the Uniform Civil Code necessitated by Article 44 of 1950, asks Prafull Goradia
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sounded confused last month while addressing a meeting at the FICCI auditorium to celebrate the birth anniversary of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. As the Finance Minister in PV Narasimha Rao's Government, he proved his mettle in economics by beginning the process of liberalisation. Therefore, when he pronounces the word "equity", his audience is reminded of common stock in a corporation, stocks and shares that carry no fixed dividend or those shares which earn an equal dividend based on the company's performance.
All this in contrast to preference shares, which attract fixed dividend but preferentially. Or deferred shares which are rewarded with high dividend in a successful year. Now as Prime Minister, his statements must be taken seriously when he asserts that Muslims must get the first share of the economic cake and other citizens of India wait for the remainder. In the very nature of the declaration, there is discrimination against non-Muslims. A preference for Muslims clearly meant a prejudice towards the others.
My physician speaks fluent Urdu and is generally an admirer of all things Islamic. On January 23, he happened to compliment me on my petition being admitted by the Supreme Court. My plea is that the haj subsidy is iniquitous. Either it should be abolished or, if not, I should be exempted from the payment of tax. He went on to add that it is the first time that he has agreed with me on my Hindu-Muslim views. I reacted by saying: Doctor Saheb, if you like Muslims so much why did you cross over from Lahore to Hindustan during the Partition? If, incidentally, it was your parents' decision, you are still free to go back.
Economics and history are not always congenial bedfellows. The former is concerned with only today's reality whereas the latter deals with only the past. That apart, Mr Manmohan Singh cannot be excused for forgetting that the country was divided solely on the criterion of Muslims and non-Muslims. He must even be aware that Qaid-e-Azam, while proposing partition, had asserted that there is little in common between Hindus and Muslims.
Their food, clothes, designs of their houses and their heroes were very different. They cannot therefore live together. Qaid-e-Azam, therefore, went on to insist on an exchange of population whereby all non-Muslims would vacate Pakistan in exchange with Muslims of the sub-continent concentrated in Hindustan.
Approximately, one-third of the territory of India was handed over as a separate homeland for the sub-continental ummah. Never before or since 1947, has any religious minority in the world been given a homeland. The very word minority attracts safeguards for equal treatment with the majority. In 1974, Turkey occupied a part of Cyprus. Although still under occupation, no country has recognised the separation. East Timor was also forcibly occupied in 1975 by President Sukarno's Indonesia but did not become free as a result of the partition.
So much for the partition at the national level. In individual terms, the fact that Mr Manmohan Singh's family was driven out of his village and forced to migrate to Hindustan, surely cannot be termed a piece of justice. Articles 29 and 30 represent discrimination against Hindus as they give preferential treatment to minority institutions. They also lead to additional finances being allocated to them. Would Mr Singh then call these articles a charter of equity or that of counter equity.
The fact that imams and muazzins of a large number of mosques in India are paid from state funds is again a preferential treatment. Madarsas are, in the nature of things, minority institutions that enjoy subsidies but teach little beyond religion.
The flip side of this discrimination against Hindus is monumentalised in hundreds and hundreds of mandirs, which have been converted into masjids. Ironically, many of them are looked after by the Archaeological Survey of India as protected monuments and yet are open for ibadat on most days. A large number of them house madarsas; an example of a large madarsa is that housed in the Jami Masjid at Etawah.
One country should have one law. Muslims are allowed to practice their separate personal law. On the other hand, the criminal face of the shari'ah is not imposed on Muslim criminals who take shelter under the Indian Penal Code. Muslim women cannot have four husbands but the men can have four wives. A Uniform Civil Code was exhorted by Article 44 of the Constitution way back in January 1950. To this day no attempt has been made to draft any law. Are these all symptoms of equity in Mr Singh's tarazoo?
The zamindari system was abolished on the morrow of Independence and the zamindars were sent packing without any real compensation. The princely states were also taken over on the promise of privy purses. The Government of Indira Gandhi violated the promise and took away the privy purses. On the other hand, the wakfs or Muslim trusts remained untouched and above the laws of the land such as the Urban Land Ceiling Act and property tax.
According to the Sachar Committee, the wakfs own 6 lakh acres of land worth thousands of crores of rupees. It should be recalled that wakfs were formed by conquerors after confiscating lands and properties, which belonged to Hindus. In effect, wakfs comprise of ill-gotten booty. Yet no thought has ever been given to their abolition unlike the zamindari and the princely states.
In Caliph's own Turkey, the wakfs were nationalised way back in 1916. A number of Islamic countries like Egypt and Tunisia have also abolished wakfs on the ground that they were economic deadwood. In fact, the word wakf means the dead hand. Would Dr Singh call this act of omission as equity?
Most streets named after British viceroys like Curzon Road have been changed but the likes of Aurangzeb Road adorn the centre of India's capital. Is this tantamount to equity? Calcutta has been renamed Kolkata, Madras as Chennai but Ahmedabad has not become Kamavati because it offends the Muslim sentiment. What Mr Singh's Government is doing is nothing but appeasement.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=2<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is the 'equitable' Prime Minister sitting on the Uniform Civil Code necessitated by Article 44 of 1950, asks Prafull Goradia
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sounded confused last month while addressing a meeting at the FICCI auditorium to celebrate the birth anniversary of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. As the Finance Minister in PV Narasimha Rao's Government, he proved his mettle in economics by beginning the process of liberalisation. Therefore, when he pronounces the word "equity", his audience is reminded of common stock in a corporation, stocks and shares that carry no fixed dividend or those shares which earn an equal dividend based on the company's performance.
All this in contrast to preference shares, which attract fixed dividend but preferentially. Or deferred shares which are rewarded with high dividend in a successful year. Now as Prime Minister, his statements must be taken seriously when he asserts that Muslims must get the first share of the economic cake and other citizens of India wait for the remainder. In the very nature of the declaration, there is discrimination against non-Muslims. A preference for Muslims clearly meant a prejudice towards the others.
My physician speaks fluent Urdu and is generally an admirer of all things Islamic. On January 23, he happened to compliment me on my petition being admitted by the Supreme Court. My plea is that the haj subsidy is iniquitous. Either it should be abolished or, if not, I should be exempted from the payment of tax. He went on to add that it is the first time that he has agreed with me on my Hindu-Muslim views. I reacted by saying: Doctor Saheb, if you like Muslims so much why did you cross over from Lahore to Hindustan during the Partition? If, incidentally, it was your parents' decision, you are still free to go back.
Economics and history are not always congenial bedfellows. The former is concerned with only today's reality whereas the latter deals with only the past. That apart, Mr Manmohan Singh cannot be excused for forgetting that the country was divided solely on the criterion of Muslims and non-Muslims. He must even be aware that Qaid-e-Azam, while proposing partition, had asserted that there is little in common between Hindus and Muslims.
Their food, clothes, designs of their houses and their heroes were very different. They cannot therefore live together. Qaid-e-Azam, therefore, went on to insist on an exchange of population whereby all non-Muslims would vacate Pakistan in exchange with Muslims of the sub-continent concentrated in Hindustan.
Approximately, one-third of the territory of India was handed over as a separate homeland for the sub-continental ummah. Never before or since 1947, has any religious minority in the world been given a homeland. The very word minority attracts safeguards for equal treatment with the majority. In 1974, Turkey occupied a part of Cyprus. Although still under occupation, no country has recognised the separation. East Timor was also forcibly occupied in 1975 by President Sukarno's Indonesia but did not become free as a result of the partition.
So much for the partition at the national level. In individual terms, the fact that Mr Manmohan Singh's family was driven out of his village and forced to migrate to Hindustan, surely cannot be termed a piece of justice. Articles 29 and 30 represent discrimination against Hindus as they give preferential treatment to minority institutions. They also lead to additional finances being allocated to them. Would Mr Singh then call these articles a charter of equity or that of counter equity.
The fact that imams and muazzins of a large number of mosques in India are paid from state funds is again a preferential treatment. Madarsas are, in the nature of things, minority institutions that enjoy subsidies but teach little beyond religion.
The flip side of this discrimination against Hindus is monumentalised in hundreds and hundreds of mandirs, which have been converted into masjids. Ironically, many of them are looked after by the Archaeological Survey of India as protected monuments and yet are open for ibadat on most days. A large number of them house madarsas; an example of a large madarsa is that housed in the Jami Masjid at Etawah.
One country should have one law. Muslims are allowed to practice their separate personal law. On the other hand, the criminal face of the shari'ah is not imposed on Muslim criminals who take shelter under the Indian Penal Code. Muslim women cannot have four husbands but the men can have four wives. A Uniform Civil Code was exhorted by Article 44 of the Constitution way back in January 1950. To this day no attempt has been made to draft any law. Are these all symptoms of equity in Mr Singh's tarazoo?
The zamindari system was abolished on the morrow of Independence and the zamindars were sent packing without any real compensation. The princely states were also taken over on the promise of privy purses. The Government of Indira Gandhi violated the promise and took away the privy purses. On the other hand, the wakfs or Muslim trusts remained untouched and above the laws of the land such as the Urban Land Ceiling Act and property tax.
According to the Sachar Committee, the wakfs own 6 lakh acres of land worth thousands of crores of rupees. It should be recalled that wakfs were formed by conquerors after confiscating lands and properties, which belonged to Hindus. In effect, wakfs comprise of ill-gotten booty. Yet no thought has ever been given to their abolition unlike the zamindari and the princely states.
In Caliph's own Turkey, the wakfs were nationalised way back in 1916. A number of Islamic countries like Egypt and Tunisia have also abolished wakfs on the ground that they were economic deadwood. In fact, the word wakf means the dead hand. Would Dr Singh call this act of omission as equity?
Most streets named after British viceroys like Curzon Road have been changed but the likes of Aurangzeb Road adorn the centre of India's capital. Is this tantamount to equity? Calcutta has been renamed Kolkata, Madras as Chennai but Ahmedabad has not become Kamavati because it offends the Muslim sentiment. What Mr Singh's Government is doing is nothing but appeasement.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=2<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->