Facebook Updates

Twitter Updates

Youtube Updates

Page 2 of 27

Speaker on recent judgements of SC and exposing the NGOs and their Hate India Brigade in Delhi today at Chanakya Youth Conclave.

Speaker on recent judgments of SC and exposing the NGOs and their Hate India Brigade in Delhi today at Chanakya Youth Conclave.

Proud to be Speaker at YUVA CONCLAVE on 3rd Nov in IIMC

Proud to be Speaker at YUVA CONCLAVE on
3rd Nov in IIMC, JNU analyzing the ‘Triple Talaq Judgement’. Supreme Court suspended Triple Talaq but when will it hear the pain of Muslim women facing cruelty of husband with four wives & Halala? Right to Equality, freedom and dignity should be enjoyed by all women irrespective of Religion.

Speaker at Seminar in Poona on 26 October.

Speaker at Seminar in Poona on 26 October. Topic: Empowerment of women & their legal rights. Women should be involved in decision making at home, in jobs, in politics, in ngos and wherever they are. Need to help them manage house & children related responsibilities. Need to educate men to share responsibilities at home, respect women & involve them in decision making process.

National Anthem should be kept above politics,regional,linguistic and religious divide.

National Anthem should be kept above politics, regional, linguistic and religious divide. The nation is above religion which is a matter of private observance. Those who say we will not speak Bharat Mata ki Jai, Vande Mataram, will not stand for Jan-Gan-man, are also seen supporting Bharat tere tukde honge brigade in the name of freedom of expression.

When Arnab debated ‘Are Hindus a soft target?’ Eyebrows are bound to be raised

When Arnab Goswami informed us the panelists on his show that the topic of Debate was “Are Hindus a soft target?”the panelists on the Left side of Arnab(symbolizing left of the Centre )protested & reacted violently. “Why on earth did u choose this topic Arnab. I as a Hindu strongly disagree with it. Hindus are in majority & we as Hindus have never ever been discriminated against. Why do u want to spread falsehood & hatred Arnab?” was the first reaction from a senior journalist on the panel. And immediately after his violent protest he proudly stated that though a Hindu, he was a Hindu by accident of birth but agnostic by choice & liberal by commitment. Murmurs from others on the left side were continuous. Those of us on the right side of Arnab (symbolizing the right of the Centre narrative) was strangely quiet. REASON Firstly this topic had sent us into thinking inwards. Secondly, this topic was a strict ‘no-no’ especially if u wanted to portray yourself even peripherally as a liberal & that too in the English Media. In fact, anyone even remotely mentioning this topic would be labeled as a Sanghi or a Bajrangi & not fit to be in the intellectual discourse.
Hence prime time debate on an english news channel on this topic was unthinkable, liberally suicidal and if I can say blasphemous.
But we all know Arnab is who he is. People see him as loud, dominant anchor who is prosecuter & judge on his own show. Others see him as a welcome change from boring over sophisticated TV debates with Pakistanis, Hurriyat, Anti Army, pro Yakub activists regularly called as panelists & debating among themselves on an already consensual topic with no place for an alternative narrative.
Debate started with this ‘I am an accidental Hindu’ remark of this senior journalist with seemingly contemptuous attitude for Arnab & his topic. My thinking cells already set in motion, prompted me to raise my hand to respond. I as a legal person has always had a grievance (which is shared by various observations of the Honble Supreme Court also) that in 1956 when law relating to marriage, divorce, succession, inheritance & maintenance of 80% Hindus was reformed and codified as Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Guardianship and Wards Act and Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act. Why was the Muslim law neither reformed nor codified. In Hindu religion, marriage was always a sanskar & not a contract wherein you could enter but could not come out and hence the provision for divorce was not provided in hinduism but due to this reform in 1956, even divorce was provided under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. Hindu man could marry more than once in erstwhile Hindu law, but now this ‘privilege’ was taken away and Hindu man could marry only once or else he would be prosecuted under section 494 of Indian Penal Code and punished for bigamy.
When Ambedkar ji was persistent that whole country should have one law,Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru vetoed by saying that ‘time was not right’. How come time was right to reform the religious Laws of 80% population but not 20% population? Difference was religion. Hence the question “Are Hindus a soft target” was pertinent. Rulers could change Hindu laws but had ‘touch me not’ policy towards Muslim laws. ‘Dare u touch us’ was the attitude of the clerics of this minority of over 14 crore population who were the only vote bank in the country worth noticing.

Judiciary dared to touch them and do justice in Shah Bano case where a 64 yr old woman with children was granted maintenance per month by the highest court. But the said judgement seen as ‘adventurism’ by the then Rajiv Gandhi Govt who used his brute majority in Parliament to set aside the judgement as he could not dare to antagonize the muslim votes .Hence Question raised was pertinent. Are Hindus a soft target?
Before and after the terrorist attack of 9/11 in USA, the whole world blared after every successful, brutal terrorist attack that Terrorism has no religion. But 1990s saw the soft spoken PM Manmohan Singh ‘who could do no wrong’ declaring that Muslims have the first right over Country’s resources. His Home Minister & Finance Minister coining & lending credence to the term ‘Hindu terror’ & ‘Saffron terror’. Police, CBI, NIA, ATS being pressurized to implicate Hindu saints, Sadhvis in terror attacks in Mecca Masjid, Malegaon, Samjhauta Express to substantiate their claim that Hindu terror was a reality. All this to consolidate Muslim vote bank as also to incarcerate Hindu social & political leaders. Prevention of communal violence bill was being enacted which was so dangerous that if any minority accused that a Hindu has not given him room on rent just because of his religion, that Hindu could be put in jail. All this could happen because Hindus are supposedly a soft target.
Panellists on the Left had no answers. But still they feebly asked “Why this debate today?”
Actually the recent Judgement of Honble Supreme Court banning sale of fire crackers just 10 days before Diwali has stirred a debate in media, social media, public places, and even at homes. Opinion was divided. While many welcomed it as a respite for environment but others saw it as an unreasonable interference in celebration of Hindu festivals. People like me felt that it was ill timed, a knee jerk reaction and wrong to have a blanket ban on all crackers. It would have been better if this judgement came in March-April giving ample time to people to think over it and also that instead of blanket ban, it should have been regulated. More noisy, more smokey crackers should have been a strict no-no and small, less smoky crackers could have been allowed. Anyway this judgement again raised the pertinent question “Are Hindus a soft target?” Twitter was bullish. People cited that if height of pyramids in Dahi Handi could be regulated & minors below 18 not allowed to participate, then why similar regulation was not towards processions in Muharram where adults & kids alike lashed themselves with nailed whips in a cruel, bloody display of a century old custom? Why no NGO went to Court asking for a ban on such processions or why Courts did not take suo motto cognizance of this annual ritual.
If Animal Welfare Board could approach the highest court of land for stopping of cruelty to bulls in Jallikattu, how on earth animal welfare board could not see slaughter of millions of animals on public streets, lanes & by lanes on Bakar Eid. Tax on Kailash Mansarovar Yatra and subsidy to Haj was also hotly debated. Palatial Haj house in UP built with crores of rupees from taxpayers money but protests over an idol of Ram in Ayodhya were equally contentious. Question also raised regarding illegal control of temples by the government.
Thus the panelists kept on debating endlessly, more & more examples being cited from the right side of the panel which was met with ridicules & mockery from the Left side casually dismissing these allegations of discrimination against Hindus, but having few answers to this very pertinent question debated by an English News Channel at Prime time ‘Are Hindus a soft target?’

Older posts → ← Newer posts