one verdict-many questions

Ayodhya verdict: Death of secularism

Preamble of India quotes “We the people of India, having solemnly resolve to constitute India into a sovereign socialist SECULAR democratic republic” and to secure to all its citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. Even though the whole constitution was written with a high degree of precision, still people needed various changes as India passed decades by decades, in the form of various amendments. Coming to our preamble, its every bit is still secure and has been basis for judiciary, for every political party’s common election agenda and for all national social activists irrespective of cast and community. Talking about our judiciary it has always been committed to protect the rights of every community especially minority community.

But in the case of Ayodhya issue it failed to protect its commitment. There are various legal points that were kept aside during the pronouncement of the verdict. The Allahabad judgement of the high court makes no note of the vandalism of December 6, 1992. It also violated the principle of secularism and the protection of minority rights. Coming to demolition part, the thing that was demolished was not merely an ancient structure but the faith of minority in the sense of justice and fair play of the majority. It shocks their faith in the rule of law and constitutional process.

The high court directed that disputed site should be divided, two third to the Hindu plaintiffs and one third to the Muslim plaintiffs by metes and bounds and the place where the mosque’s central dome once stood should be given to the hindu plaintiffs. This judgement therefore legalise and legitimise the 1992 demolition as the decrees of the court proceeds on the basis that there is no masjid on the disputed site. This judgement left many questions unanswered behind it.

The first question is that if the masjid has not been demolished and had remained on the site, would the court have ordered a division and partitioning of the disputed site in the manner it has directed?

So secondly can the court take advantage of the illegal of demolition of the masjid and order a division of the disputed site in the manner it has done?

Thirdly did India’s Hindu’s, all 80 million of them believe that the lord Ram was born at the same precise spot where the mosque’s central dome once stood?

. Every citizen of India is an Indian first and committed to value of constitution, these values includes protection of minority rights, cannot but come in question when justice delivered in a court of law , tilts visibility towards the  majority. The court spoke reassuringly of maintaining the status quo. But the status quo has always been altered and always in favour of Hindu. In 1949 the installation of idols became status quo. In 1986 the opening of locks became status quo. In 1989 the shilanyas ceremony became the status quo and finally 1992 the demolition of the masjid became eternal status quo.  The congress which led the government during this period was committed to “secularism” in principle but the party realised that it was not possible to survive without the electoral support of hindus. As a consequence, party indulged in secular rhetoric, but followed communal politics in practice. In persuaded what has now come to be termed “soft Hindutva ” through this means it hoped to outsmart the Hindu communal forces.

But it is not our area of concern as it well known that political parties have always adopted policies which secured their vote banks. But judiciary has nothing to do with these rubbishes. It has always concern with the values of constitution and to protect the rights of minority community.

The intention of the judgement is well clear, ment to be a measure of compromise and national reconciliation. So the question arise in the mind of common people  that has our judiciary has gone so handicapped that it is not able to pronounce a verdict that does not soothes the majority? If the same act would have been done by political party then we could have accepted it as an act of vote bank policy. But how can we accept this act by such body on which a single responsibility, to protect the value of constitution is given?    

The structure was unauthorisedly demolished and therefore the culprits and planners of this demolition must have to be brought to book to uphold the rule of law. So at least now, as the Sunni central wakf board, the main litigant on behalf of Muslims announced its decision to move to supreme court, the state can rectify its mistake by charting out a “bold an innovative step” in line with the principle of secularism. Otherwise it will leave simmering resentment in Muslim community. 
                                                                                                     AMIT(SUNNY)

                                                                                        amit845449@gmail.com

rise live march win...

India’s election as a non-permanent member of the UNSC with the support of 187 of UN bodies 192 member states should not be considered as a surprise win after losing to japan by 100 votes differences. India has always been one of the top contributor to UN’s peacekeeping efforts around the world. Whether it be the Afghanistan economy,  infrastructural ,  social and economic development  or eradicating poverty in Sub Saharan Africa or helping in fighting with LTTE in Sri Lanka and post infrastructure development or helping UNOCI by military personnel . India has always been forefront in achieving various UN resolution. But any decision will likely depend on our own assessment of the extent to which India to play a responsible as a permanent member.

 Permanent membership provides an opportunity for the member countries to establish its credentials and credibility in handling burning issues which comes up with degree of responsibility. As  the principle empowered organ of the UN system, The Security council deals with questions of international security that are often intensely political. United states as P-5 member has become synonym for the UN. US is able to mobilise all permanent behind its ill initiatives. UNSC has been a mute powerless spectator during illegal invading of Iraq , imposing new sanctions on Tehran , illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory. UNSC has become singularly unsuccessful in dealing with new and emerging crisis like terrorism and piracy.

It is on these sorts of question that  India’s performance as a “responsible stake holder ” in the international system  will likely to be tested. In June 2010 Brazil and Turkey both non-permanent member of security council voted against a resolution imposing new sanction on Tehran. Both countries have just helped broke a crucial agreement under which Iran would have sent out a considerable part of its low enriched  uranium stock in exchange for the eventual supply of medical grade enriched uranium for  use in a research reactor. In the eyes of many , if not most countries Brazil and Turkey  acted highly responsibly by voting against the sanctions resolution.

How might India have voted had it been on the security council on this summer ?   

India criticised sanctions but sent a file to New York by voting with the US at IAEA in 2005 -06 regarding Iraq file. Criticising is one thing and voting against is another thing. If the same situation arises again, as  it surely will in the next two year there will be no shortage of senior officials who will argue that New Delhi has more to gain  by siding with US than sticking to its independent position.

The rest of world values India precisely because of its reason for itself and sticks to its position. Before aspiring for UN permanent seat India should succeed In following an independent foreign policy and should shed the tag of “soft- power ” and its voice must be heard across the globe. When has India taken a firm stand on a international issue contrary to that of a super power after Mrs Indira Gandhi oppose the Russian invasion of Afghanistan on her second winning in the early 80’s?Vital interests of India in global market especially in service sector and its growing appetite for military hardware and nuclear technology from abroad would make it difficult for it to trade and follow independent in foreign relation.

But whatever the future may hold, India should act responsibly and creditably without any prejudice. India should resolve its outstanding disputes with its stakeholder on its own and in way whole world looking for India as a key player in the peace and stability building process. UPA government will have to focus less on convincing the US about how responsible we are. India should instead work hard to demonstrate how a restructured security council build around the inclusion of rising power like itself.    

                                                                                    AMIT(SUNNY)

                                                                                    amit845449@gmail.com