Adultery not a crime, Supreme Court strikes down Section 497

Adultery not a crime, Supreme Court strikes down Section 497 | 10 highlights
The court declared that Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code -- the adultery law -- was unconstitutional.
ADVERTISEMENT


IndiaToday.in
New Delhi
September 27, 2018UPDATED: September 27, 2018 16:58 IST
Adultery no longer a crime, Supreme Court strikes down Section 497
While adultery is no longer a crime, it will continue to be grounds for divorce.
HIGHLIGHTS
Adultery may not be cause of an unhappy marriage, but the result of one: CJI Misra
It's time to say the husband is not the master of the woman: Misra
Manifest arbitrariness is writ large in Section 497: DY Chandrachud
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a 158-year-old law that considers adultery to be an offence committed by one man against another, and has been criticised for treating women as possessions rather than human beings.

The court declared that Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code -- the adultery law -- was unconstitutional (See factbox below). The section reads: "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery."

Adultery is no longer a crime, but it will continue to be grounds for divorce.

Chief Justice Dipak Misra said adultery may not be the cause of an unhappy marriage, but the result of one.

Misra, who wrote a judgment for himself and Justice AM Khanwilkar, said the unequal treatment of women invites the wrath of the Constitution, and that any provision treating women unequally isn't constitutional.

HIGHLIGHTS | What the Supreme Court said about adultery

The other judges on the bench were Justice RF Nariman, Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justice Indu Malhotra.



Adultery law deprives women of dignity, has to go: Supreme Court in unanimous verdict
New Delhi | September 27, 2018
Batting for gender equality, the Supreme Court today struck down Indian Penal Code Section 497, which criminalised adultery. The Supreme Court said the law making adultery an offence was archaic, discriminated against women and a clear violation of the fundamental rights. Five judges of the Supreme Court were unanimous in ruling that the adultery law was unconstitutional and deserved to go.
Check Latest Updates
KEY UPDATES
12:02 IST
Supreme Court strikes down Section 497: Recap
11:18 IST
Justice DY Chandrachud concurs
11:09 IST
Adultery remains a ground for divorce
11:05 IST
Supreme Court strikes down adultery law
10:51 IST
2 judges of 5-judge bench strike down adultery law
10:47 IST
'Unequal treatment of women invites wrath of Constitution'
10:37 IST
Previous Supreme Court judgments on adultery
10:30 IST
No recourse for women
10:22 IST
Who heard the case?
10:18 IST
Woman an object?
10:08 IST
What is at stake today?
Adultery not a crime, says Supreme Court | Live Updates
12:04 PM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
We have ended our live coverage of the Supreme Court's verdict on the challenge to Section 497, which made adultery a criminal offence.

12:02 PM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Supreme Court strikes down Section 497: Recap
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court today struck down Indian Penal Code Section 497. The bench, which included Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, held that Section 497 unconstitutional.

The judges held that Section 497 was an archaic law that violates of the right to equality and destroys and deprives women of dignity.

Unequal treatment of women invites the wrath of the Constitution
- CJI Misra for himself and J. Khanwilkar
Adultery might not be cause of unhappy marriage, it could be result of an unhappy marriage, the CJI Misra said in his judgment, which he wrote for himself and Justice AM Khanwilkar.

FULL REPORT | Adultery no longer a crime, Supreme Court strikes down Section 497

Justice DY Chandrachud said that autonomy is intrinsic in dignified human existence and Section 497 denudes women from making choices and held adultery as a relic of past.

Adultery is a relic of the past
- Justice DY Chandrachud
Section 497 of the 158-year-old IPC essentially made it a crime for a man to have sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without the other man's consent.

Adultery might not be cause of unhappy marriage, it could be result of an unhappy marriage
- CJI Misra for himself and J. Khanwilkar
The law gave no recourse to women -- a woman could not be the perpetrator or the victim of the crime of adultery, for example. It was seen as anti-woman, an observation that the Supreme Court today agreed with.

READ | Adultery verdict: Supreme Court overturns 3 past judgments

11:30 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
With today's verdict, the Supreme Court has overturned three of its own previous judgments. On three separate occasions in the past, the Supreme Court had held the law criminalising adultery as constitutionally valid. Today's ruling voids all those rulings.

READ MORE | Section 497: 3 past Supreme Court judgments on adultery law

ADVERTISEMENT

11:27 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
There is no justification for the continuation of Section 497 that makes adultery a criminal offence, Justice Indu Malhotra has said, concurring with all the four other judges on her bench.

11:21 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Breaking... the five-judge Supreme Court bench is unanimous in ruling that Section 497 of the IPC that makes adultery a criminal offence is unconstitutional.

11:18 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Justice DY Chandrachud concurs
Justice DY Chandrachud has held the adultery as a relic of the past and has struck down the law, concurring with three other judges. With this Justice DY Chandrachud has overturned his father Justice YV Chandrachud's 1985 ruling that held the adultery law to be a constitutionally valid.

Legislature has imposed a condition on sexuality of women by making adultery as offence
- Justice DY Chandrachud
11:12 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Section 497 offends sexual freedom of women, Justice Chandrachud is saying. He seems to be concurring with CJI Dipkak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Rohinton Nariman who have all held the law the makes adultery a criminal offence unconstitutional.

11:09 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Adultery remains a ground for divorce
While striking down the law that makes adultery a criminal offence, the Supreme Court has held that adultery will remain a ground for divorce.

11:07 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Section 497 destroys and deprives women of dignity, Justice DY Chandrachud, who is also on the bench, has said.

11:05 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Supreme Court strikes down adultery law
Justice Rohinton Nariman, who authored his own judgment, has concurred with CJI Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar. So now a majority opinion on the five-judge bench has held Section 497, which makes adultery a criminal offence, to be unconstitutional and violative of right to equality.

11:01 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Breaking... Section 497, which makes adultery a criminal offence, struck down by the Supreme Court

10:57 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Chief Justice Dipa Misra and Justice Khanwilkar have declared Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. However, we still are waiting for the judgments of the other three judges.

10:51 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
2 judges of 5-judge bench strike down adultery law
CJI Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar have struck the law that makes adultery an offence under Section 497 of IPC. However, these are just two judges on a five-judge bench. We still do not know what the verdicts of the other three judges are.

Section 497 of the IPC is manifestly arbitrary the way it deals with women
- CJI Misra for himself and J. Khanwilkar
10:47 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
'Unequal treatment of women invites wrath of Constitution'
Unequal treatment of women invites wrath of Constitution, CJI Misra continues. And, we also now know that CJI Dipak Misra has authored a judgment on behalf of himself and Justice AM Khanwilkar. That is two out of the five judges who are on the bench that heard the adultery case.

Women must be treated with equality with men. Any discrimination shall invite wrath of Constitution. A woman can't be asked to think the way society desires
- CJI Misra for himself and J. Khanwilkar
10:45 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Husband is not the master of the wife, CJI Misra says.

10:44 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
The magnificent beauty of the democracy is I, you and we, CJI Dipak Misra says as he reads his judgment on the plea challenging the adultery law.

10:42 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
CJI Misra has begun by talking about inequality. Any provision in a law that treats a woman with inequality is not Constitutional, the chief justice has said.


Bar & Bench
@barandbench
 · Sep 27, 2018
 Adultery: Bench Assembles, pronouncement of Judgment commences. #Section497 #SupremeCourt pic.twitter.com/qz0Dhh9lIH

View image on Twitter

Bar & Bench
@barandbench
#Adultery: Any provision treating woman with inequality is not Constitutional, CJI Dipak Misra. #Section497 #SupremeCourt

10:39 AM - Sep 27, 2018
34
28 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
10:40 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
The five-judge bench has assembled and has begun reading its verdict. CJI Dipak Misra is currently reading the judgment. But we don't know currently if this is his own opinion or if it is the bench's judgment.

10:37 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Previous Supreme Court judgments on adultery
The Supreme Court has heard matters related to the adultery law three times in the past. In 1954, the Supreme Court rejected a plea that contended that the adultery law violated the fundamental right of equality. In a case from 1985, the Supreme Court held that held that women need not be included as an aggrieved party under the adultery law. And, in a 1988 case, the Supreme Court observed that adultery law was a "shield rather than a sword".

READ MORE | Section 497: 3 past Supreme Court judgments on adultery law

10:30 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
No recourse for women
Under the adultery law, a woman has no recourse. For example, a woman whose husband has sexual intercourse with another woman cannot file a complaint against her husband because the law gives her no standing. Similarly, under the adultery law a woman cannot be punished for having sexual intercourse with a married man.

10:22 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Who heard the case?
The plea challenging the adultery law was heard by a five-judge special bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The other judges on the bench are Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

10:18 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
Woman an object?
One of the examples used to argue that Section 497 is anti-women is that the law does not make it a crime for a man to have sexual intercourse with the wife of another man if he takes the consent of the other man.

10:08 AM IST Posted by Dev Goswami
What is at stake today?
The Supreme Court will today decide if adultery can remain a criminal offence in India. The Indian Penal Code Section 497 essentially says that it is a crime for a man to have sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without the consent of the other man. Simply put, under the current adultery law the perpetrator of the crime is a man and the victim is a man as well. And so, rights advocates have argued, the law is discriminatory and anti-women as it essentially considers a woman as an "object".




What is adultery law? How IPC Section 497 is anti-women

Prabhash K Dutta
New Delhi
September 19, 2018
UPDATED: September 19, 2018 10:10 IST

FOLLOW
  EMAIL AUTHOR
READ LATER
HIGHLIGHTS
Chief Justice Dipak Misra has called the adultery law "anti-women"
Adultery law in India is defined by the Indian Penal Code Section 497
The law has been criticised for treating women as property owned by men
Picture for representation
Picture for representation
Adultery law in India is defined by the Indian Penal Code Section 497. The adultery law has come under the scanner of the judiciary several times in the past but the courts including the Supreme Court held Section 497 valid. But in the latest case, the Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra called the adultery law "anti-women" while hearing a petition that challenged Section 497 for being anti-men and giving leverage to women.

The petition was filed by non-resident Keralite, Joseph Shine, who challenged the constitutionality of IPC Section 497 read with Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc). The CrPc Section 182(2) deals with prosecution for offences against marriages.

IPC Section 497 states, "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery."

The Supreme Court on August 2, said, "The law seems to be pro-women but is anti-women in a grave ostensible way. As if with the consent of the husband, wife can be subjected to someone else's desire. That's not Indian morality."

"Each partner of the marriage has equal responsibility. Why should the woman take more load than the man? That is the reason we call it archaic," the Supreme Court said.

The Supreme Court's observation followed an affidavit by the Centre, which said, "Adultery should remain an offence. Diluting adultery law will impact the sanctity of marriages. Making adultery legal will hurt marriage bonds."

Section 497 also states that a man found guilty of adultery "shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both."

In cases of adultery, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.

Similarly, an unmarried woman can not be prosecuted for adultery. The offence of adultery is, according to Section 497, committed by a man against a married man.

The adultery law has been criticised for treating women as property owned by men.

In the event of a man committing adultery by means of sexual intercourse with a married woman or an unmarried woman, this law does not confer any right on the man's wife o prosecute the adulterous husband or the woman with whom the husband has indulged in sexual intercourse with.

Simply put, only a man can be a victim or accused/culprit under the existing reading of Section 497 of the IPC.

But the Union home ministry defended Section 497 by referring to a judgment passed in 1985 Sowmithri Vishnu vs Union of India case. Quoting from the Supreme Court judgment, the home ministry said, It is better, from the point of view of the interests of the society, that at least a limited class of adulterous relationship is punishable by law. Stability of marriages is not an ideal to be scorned.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by the then Chief Justice YV Chandrachud had upheld the constitutionality of Section 497 of the IPC.

The existing adultery law under Section 497 gets complicated further in the view of an Amendment Act of 1976. This was the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act. It makes an act of adultery valid ground for divorce. Either spouse can seek divorce on the ground of adultery.

It states that even a single act of voluntary sexual act by either party to the marriage with any person other than his or her spouse constitutes a ground for divorce for the other spouse. But, Section 497 of the IPC doesn't recognise a woman as an aggrieved party in the case of adultery.

Not Ayodhya, Mecca Is Holy Site For Muslims, Says Minister Uma Bharti

Not Ayodhya, Mecca Is Holy Site For Muslims, Says Minister Uma Bharti

Uma Bharti was among the BJP leaders who were accused of making incendiary speeches in the hours before thousands of "kar sevaks" or Hindu right-wing volunteers tore down the 16th century Babri mosque.
All India | Reported by Alok Pandey, Edited by Deepshikha Ghosh | Updated: September 27, 2018 19:36 IST
by TaboolaSponsored LinksSponsored
11-Year-Old's Cancer Is Slowly Killing Him, He May Succumb To It Without Urgent Treatment (Milaap)
A simple SIP of Rs. 10000 can make you a Crorepati ! Read more here, What is SIP and How to Inve… (Oro Wealth)

SHARE
EMAIL
PRINT
0
COMMENTS

Uma Bharti was reacting to questions on Ayodhya dispute after Supreme Court ruling in a sidebar case

NEW DELHI: Union Minister Uma Bharti said today that Ayodhya is an important holy site for Hindus, not for Muslims, for whom that place is Mecca.
Uma Bharti was reacting to questions on the Ayodhya dispute after the Supreme Court ruling in a sidebar case.

A majority decision of the top court today meant that the Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute case will be heard from October 29. For the ruling BJP, which has promised supporters a temple at the disputed site, it could mean a big break before the 2019 national elections and perhaps even before that, during state polls.

"This isn't a matter of religious dispute as Ayodhya is an important religious place for Hindus because it is the Ram Janmabhoomi (the birthplace of Lord Ram) but for Muslims, it isn't a religious place. For them it is Mecca," said the 59-year-old minister, who has always been a vocal champion of a Ram temple at Ayodhya.


Uma Bharti was among the BJP leaders who were accused of making incendiary speeches in the hours before thousands of "kar sevaks" or Hindu right-wing volunteers tore down the 16th century Babri mosque, believing it was built on the ruins of an ancient temple marking the birthplace of Lord Ram. In the aftermath of the mosque-razing, there were nationwide riots.

COMMENT
"The matter was created and it finally got transformed into a land dispute," said Uma Bharti.

NDTV Beeps - your daily newsle

తక్షణ ‘తలాక్‌’కు చెల్లు!

తక్షణ ‘తలాక్‌’కు చెల్లు!
20-09-2018 01:08:14

వెంట వెంటనే 3 సార్లు తలాక్‌ చెబితే మూడేళ్ల జైలు..
కేంద్ర సర్కారు కేంద్రం ఆర్డినెన్స్‌
పాత ప్రతిపాదనలకు సవరణ
పోలీసులు తమంత తాముగా కేసు పెట్టలేరు
భార్య, కుటుంబ సభ్యులు ఫిర్యాదు చేయాల్సిందే
పరిహారమిస్తేనే బెయిలు!
న్యూఢిల్లీ, సెప్టెంబరు 19: తక్షణ తలాక్‌పై పార్లమెంటులో సాధించలేని కేంద్రం.. ఆర్డినెన్స్‌ ద్వారా సాధించింది. వెంటవెంటనే మూడుసార్లు తలాక్‌ చెప్పేసి ‘నీ దారి నీదే’ అని చెప్పడాన్ని నిషేధిస్తూ ఆర్డినెన్స్‌ జారీ చేసింది. బుధవారం కేంద్ర మంత్రివర్గం దీనిని ఆమోదించింది. ఇదే రోజు పొద్దుపోయాక రాష్ట్రపతి కోవింద్‌ ఆర్డినెన్స్‌పై సంతకం చేశారు. అంతకుముందు ఆర్డినెన్స్‌పై కేంద్ర న్యాయశాఖ మంత్రి రవిశంకర్‌ ప్రసాద్‌ మాట్లాడారు. ఆర్డినెన్స్‌ ప్రకారం... భార్యకు తక్షణం ముమ్మార్లు తలాక్‌ (తలాక్‌-ఎ-బిద్దత్‌) చెప్పడం నేరం! అలా చెప్పినా చెల్లదు. చట్ట విరుద్ధంగా తక్షణ తలాక్‌ చెబితే భర్తకు మూడేళ్ల వరకు జైలు శిక్ష విధించవచ్చు. అయితే, ఈ చట్టాన్ని దుర్వినియోగం చేసే అవకాశమున్న నేపథ్యంలో కేంద్రం కొన్ని ప్రత్యేక చర్యలు తీసుకుంది. విచారణ ప్రారంభానికి ముందే నిందితుడికి బెయిలు ఇచ్చే అవకాశం కల్పించింది. నిందితులపై నాన్‌ బెయిలబుల్‌ కేసు నమోదైనప్పటికీ పోలీసు స్టేషన్‌లో కాకుండా, కోర్టు ద్వారా బెయిలు పొందవచ్చు. అయితే, బాధితురాలి (భార్య) వాదన విన్న తర్వాతే జడ్జి దీనిపై నిర్ణయం తీసుకోవాల్సి ఉంటుంది. అంతేకాదు బిల్లులో పేర్కొన్న నిబంధనల మేరకు భార్యకు పరిహారం చెల్లించేందుకు అంగీకరిస్తేనే బెయిలు లభిస్తుంది. పరిహారం ఎంత అన్నది నిబంధనల ప్రకారం మేజిస్ట్రేట్‌ నిర్ణయిస్తారు. అదే సమయంలో... ఈ అంశంపై పోలీసులు తమంతట తాము ఎఫ్‌ఐఆర్‌ నమోదు చేయలేరు. భార్య, కుటుంబ సభ్యులు లేదా పెళ్లి వల్ల ఆమెకు బంధువులుగా మారినవారి ఫిర్యాదు మేరకే కేసు పెట్టాల్సి ఉంటుంది.

ఆ ముగ్గురు సహకరించాలి...
‘‘తక్షణ తలాక్‌ చెల్లదని సుప్రీంకోర్టు ఏడాది కిందటే తీర్పు చెప్పింది. అయినా ఈ పద్ధతి కొనసాగుతూనే ఉంది. అందువల్లే, ఆర్డినెన్స్‌ జారీ చేయడం తప్పనిసరి అత్యవసరంగా మారింది’’ అని రవిశంకర్‌ ప్రసాద్‌ తెలిపారు. లోక్‌సభలో గట్టెక్కిన ఈ బిల్లును రాజ్యసభలో అడ్డుకున్నారంటూ కాంగ్రె్‌సపై విమర్శలు గుప్పించారు. ‘‘ఇది సోనియాగాంధీపై నేను మోపుతున్న అభియోగం. ఓటుబ్యాంకు రాజకీయాల ఒత్తిడి వల్లే ఆమె మౌనం వహించారు. రాజ్యసభలో ఈ బిల్లు ఆమోదానికి సహకరించలేదు.’’ అని అన్నారు.

ఇది చరిత్రాత్మకం: బీజేపీ
తక్షణ తలాక్‌పై ఆర్డినెన్స్‌ జారీ చేయడం చరిత్రాత్మకమని బీజేపీ జాతీయ అధ్యక్షుడు అమిత్‌షా అభివర్ణించారు. ఓటు బ్యాంకు రాజకీయాల కోసం ముస్లిం మహిళలను ఇబ్బందులు పెడుతున్న పార్టీలు ఆత్మపరిశీలన చేసుకోవాలని సూచించారు. తక్షణ తలాక్‌పై సుప్రీంకోర్టును ఆశ్రయించిన ఇష్రత్‌ జహాన్‌ ఆర్డినెన్స్‌ జారీపై హర్షం వ్యక్తం చేశారు. ఇక ముస్లిం పురుషులు, మత పెద్దలు తమ పద్ధతి మార్చుకోక తప్పదన్నారు. కాగా, ఆర్డినెన్స్‌ను వ్యతిరేకించిన జేడీయూ.. ఇలాంటి సున్నితమైన అంశాలపై హడావుడి నిర్ణయాలు తీసుకోవడం తగదని పేర్కొంది.

ఆ 24 లక్షల మంది సంగతి చూడండి: ఒవైసీ
హైదరాబాద్‌, సెప్టెంబరు 19 (ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి): తక్షణ తలాక్‌ను ‘శిక్షార్హ నేరం’గా పరిగణిస్తూ జారీ చేసిన ఆర్డినెన్స్‌ రాజ్యాంగ విరుద్ధమని ఎంఐఎం నేత, ఎంపీ అసదుద్దీన్‌ ఒవైసీ పేర్కొన్నారు. ఇది ముస్లిం మహిళల ప్రయోజనాలకు వ్యతిరేకంగా ఉందన్నారు. ‘‘ఇస్లాంలో పెళ్లి అనేది ఇద్దరు వ్యక్తుల మధ్య ఒప్పందం. దీనిని శిక్షాస్మృతిలోకి తీసుకురావడం చెల్లదు’’ అని అన్నారు. పైగా, కేవలం ముస్లింలను ఉద్దేశించి చేసిన ఈ చట్టం రాజ్యాంగంలోని సమానత్వ హక్కును ఉల్లంఘించినట్లేనన్నారు. దీనిపై అఖిలభారత ముస్లిం పర్సనల్‌ లాబోర్డు, మహిళా సంస్థలు సుప్రీంకోర్టులో పోరాడాలని పిలుపునిచ్చారు. ‘‘పెళ్లి అయినప్పటికీ భర్త వదిలేయడంతో ఒంటరిగా ఉన్న 24లక్షల మంది మహిళలకు మేలు జరిగేలా చట్టం చేయాలి’’ అని డిమాండ్‌ చేశారు.
ఆమెకే అధికారం...
ఈ కేసుల్లో పరస్పర రాజీకి (కాంపౌండబుల్‌) కూడా వీలుంటుంది. భార్యా భర్తల మధ్య వివాదాన్ని మేజిస్ట్రేట్‌ పరిష్కరించవచ్చు. తలాక్‌-ఎ-బిద్దత్‌ను ఇరుపక్షాలు ఉపసంహరించుకోవచ్చు. అయితే, ఇది భార్య కోరినప్పుడు మాత్రమే వీలుపడుతుంది. అలాగే... తనకు, మైనర్లయిన పిల్లలకు అవసరమైన భరణం ఇప్పించాల్సిందిగా బాధితురాలే కోర్టును ఆశ్రయించవచ్చు. మైనర్‌ పిల్లలను తనకే అప్పగించాలని అభ్యర్థించవచ్చు. గతనెల 29వ తేదీన జరిగిన కేబినెట్‌లోనే దీనికి సంబంధించిన సవరణలను ఆమోదించారు.

22 దేశాల్లో నిషేధం
న్యూఢిల్లీ, సెప్టెంబరు 19: పాకిస్థాన్‌, బంగ్లాదేశ్‌, శ్రీలంక సహా ప్రపంచవ్యాప్తంగా 22 దేశాలు ఇప్పటికే తక్షణ ట్రిపుల్‌ తలాక్‌ను నిషేధించాయి. పాక్‌, బంగ్లాదేశ్‌లలోనైతే విడాకులివ్వాలనుకుంటున్న వ్యక్తి ‘మధ్యవర్తిత్వ కౌన్సిల్‌’కు లిఖితపూర్వకంగా తెలియజేసి, ఆ కాపీని భార్యకు కూడా ఇవ్వాలి. జియో న్యూస్‌ కథనం ప్రకారం పాక్‌లో 1961లో జారీ అయిన ముస్లిం కుటుంబ చట్టం ఆర్డినెన్స్‌ తక్షణ ట్రిపుల్‌ తలాక్‌ను రద్దుచేసింది. అఫ్ఘానిస్థాన్‌లో ఒకే భేటీలో 3సార్లు ‘తలాక్‌’ చెబితే చెల్లదు. శ్రీలంకలో ముస్లిం వివాహాలు, విడాకుల చట్టం- 1951ను 2006లో సవరించినప్పటి నుంచి తక్షణ తలాక్‌పై నిషేధం కొనసాగుతోంది. టర్కీ, సైప్రస్‌, ట్యునీషియా, అల్గేరియా, మలేసియా, జోర్డాన్‌, ఈజిప్ట్‌, ఇరాన్‌, ఇరాక్‌, బ్రూనై, యూఏఈ, ఇండోనేసియా, లిబియా, సూడాన్‌, లెబనాన్‌, సౌదీ, మొరాకో, కువైట్‌లూ తక్షణ తలాక్‌ను నిషేధించాయి. కాగా, 22 దేశాలు ట్రిపుల్‌ తలాక్‌ను నియంత్రించినప్పటికీ, భారత్‌లో మాత్రం ఓటు బ్యాంకు రాజకీయాల వల్ల ఇప్పటి వరకు సాధ్యం కాలేదని కేంద్రమంత్రి రవిశంకర్‌ ప్రసాద్‌ పేర్కొన్నారు.

The leadership of Dalits and Muslims

కులోన్మాద వ్యతిరేక పోరాటాలకు  దళితులు నాయకత్వం వహించాలి.
మిగిలిన అణగారిన సమూహాలు తోడుగా నిలబడాలి.

మతతత్వ వ్యతిరేక పోరాటాలకు ముస్లింలు నాయకత్వం వహించాలి.
మిగిలిన అణగారిన సమూహాలు తోడుగా నిలబడాలి. 

Triple Talaq To Be An Offence, Cabinet Clears Executive Order

Triple Talaq To Be An Offence, Cabinet Clears Executive Order : 10 Points

Triple talaq ordinance: The triple talaq law, officially called Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill 2017, dilutes three contentious provisions

 Reported by Akhilesh Sharma, Sunil Prabhu, Edited by Deepshikha Ghosh |
Updated: September 19, 2018 12:50 IST
 
Triple talaq: The amended drat bill failed to clear the Rajya Sabha in the last parliament session

HIGHLIGHTS
1
Draft law was deferred in Rajya Sabha in monsoon session

2
Proposed law makes "triple talaq" an offence with 3-year jail term

3
The proposed law also addresses "nikah halala"

NEW DELHI:  Triple talaq or instant divorce will be an offence with the government today clearing an ordinance or executive order to enforce the proposed law that could not be passed in parliament in August. The draft law was deferred as government brought the official amendments on the last day of the Rajya Sabha in the monsoon session where the government is in a minority.

Here's your 10-point cheat-sheet to this big story:

1.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill 2017 has been passed in the Lok Sabha but has been stalled in the Rajya Sabha over protests by the opposition.
2.
The bill was watered down to win the support of the Congress and other opposition parties.

3.
"Triple talaq" is the practice of Muslim men getting an instant divorce by saying the word "talaq" thrice.

4.
The proposed law makes "triple talaq" an offence with a jail term of up to three years and a fine. The woman will be entitled to maintenance.

5.
In the reworked version, the complaint can be filed only by the woman or her family. The government has addressed concerns that anyone, even neighbours, could file complaints.

6.
The woman can also drop charges if her husband is open to a compromise.

7.
The possibility of bail has been brought in; a judge can decide whether to grant bail after hearing the wife.

8.
The police still can't grant bail but a magistrate can, after hearing the woman. The non-bailable provision has been retained as a deterrent.

9.
The proposed law also addresses "nikah halala", which requires the divorced woman to marry someone else and consummate the marriage if she wants to remarry her husband.

10
The significant changes, long demanded by the opposition, come ahead of the state elections due by December and the 2019 national polls.

Outreach and reach out

Outreach is a noun. The associated verb is To reach out. Reaching out is not the same thing as reaching. Outreach is a concerted and targeted effort to get a message to a certain group, whereas reach simply describes how widespread or accessible your message is in general.

Rahul Gandhi Says RSS Like Muslim Brotherhood, BJP Calls Him "Immature"

Rahul Gandhi Says RSS Like Muslim Brotherhood, BJP Calls Him "Immature"


Rahul Gandhi at IISS, London: The Congress Chief alleged "the BJP-RSS people are dividing our own people".
Edited by Deepshikha Ghosh | 
Updated: August 25, 2018 08:05 IST


Rahul Gandhi in London said the RSS was trying to change the nature of India.


Rahul Gandhi spoke of his critique of the RSS at length
He addressed the Indian community in Germany on Friday
The BJP, in its response, called the Congress chief "immature"

Rahul Gandhi's comparison of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to the Muslim brotherhood on Friday provoked an acrimonious rejoinder from a furious BJP, which demanded an immediate apology.

"The RSS is trying to change the nature of India. There is no other organisation in India that wants to capture India's institutions... What we are dealing with is a completely new idea. It's an old idea being reborn. It is similar to the idea that exists in the Arab world of the Muslim Brotherhood. The idea is that one ideology should run through every institution and one idea should crush all other ideas," the Congress president had said at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London.

Cue a trenchant reply from the BJP's spokesperson Sambit Patra: "Do you even know what the Muslim brotherhood is? It is declared a terrorist organisation in a number of countries. You are comparing it with the RSS and BJP."

The Congress president, dwelling at length on his critique of the RSS - the BJP's ideological mentor - also told a gathering of the Indian diaspora in Germany that while his party binds the people of India, the BJP-RSS divides them and spreads hatred.

"The BJP-RSS people are dividing our own people. They are spreading hatred in our own country. Our job is to bring the people together and take the country forward and we have shown how to do it," he said.

"We want India to go forward and you will never hear of any Indian spreading hatred or anger anywhere. This is our culture, this is your culture," added the 47-year-old.

The BJP spokesperson's takedown of these statements was brutal.

"Rahul, you have no maturity, no understanding of India. You have no leadership quality. You have no facet. All that you have is hatred towards PM Modi. You hate PM Modi, BJP and RSS. And out of this hatred, you make irresponsible, immature statements. Have you heard yourself ever," railed the ruling party spokesperson, demanding that the Congress chief "apologise from London".

Not Hindutva If We Don't Accept Muslims, Says RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat

Not Hindutva If We Don't Accept Muslims, Says RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat

Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS chief, was speaking at its "Bhavishya ka Bharat - an RSS perspective" conclave - seen by many as a rare outreach.

Reported by Akhilesh Sharma, 
Edited by Divyanshu Dutta Roy | 
Updated: September 19, 2018 00:11 IST

Mohan Bhagwat also said the aim of the Sangh was to unite the entire society

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat speaks at Day 2 of outreach conclave
Says Hindutva means inclusivity and Indianness
He also tackled Rahul Gandhi's comparison of RSS with Muslim Brotherhood

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat said today that "Hindutva" means inclusivity and accepting Muslims is a part of it. "Hindu Rashtra doesn't mean there's no place for Muslims. If we don't accept Muslims, it's not Hindutva. Hindutva is Indianness and inclusivity," he said, speaking at a three-day conclave.
Mohan Bhagwat also tackled Rahul Gandhi's recent comparison of the RSS with the Muslim Brotherhood. "The Sangh talks of a global brotherhood. This brotherhood envisages unity in diversity. This is the tradition of Hindutva. That's why we call it a Hindu Rashtra," he said, without referring to the Congress president.

Mr Bhagwat also said the aim of the Sangh was to unite the entire society. "Since the birth of the Sangh, it has decided to stay away from politics. It will neither contest elections, nor participate in electoral politics. RSS functionaries cannot be office bearers of a political party," he said.

The RSS of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is the ideological mentor of the ruling BJP.

Its  "Bhavishya ka Bharat - an RSS perspective" conclave is being seen by many as a rare outreach by its chief Mohan Bhagwat, who surprised his audience on Day 1 by praising the role of the Congress in the freedom movement. "Congress played a big role in the freedom struggle and gave India many great personalities. Some of those people are still our guiding force," he said.

The RSS chief also said yesterday: "Hindutva binds us together and our vision of Hindutva is not to oppose or demean anyone."

Today, Mr Bhagwat also sought to distance the organisation from any political role saying the Sangh has views on national issues but does not interfere in the government's functioning.

"Often people make this speculation that a call from Nagpur (RSS headquarters) must be behind a particular decision (of the government). This is all baseless. All those working (in the government) are seniors and they are far more experienced in politics than us," said the RSS chief, asserting that "They are our Swayamsevaks, but are capable of doing their job."

52 COMMENTS
He also spoke about the constitution and said that RSS respects it. He said the RSS never worked against the constitution or law.a

Mohan Bhagwat and Muslims

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat says: "If we don't accept Muslims, it's not Hindutva. Hindutva is Indianness and inclusion."

Mohan Bhagwat Opens RSS Outreach Event With Rare Praise For Congress

Mohan Bhagwat Opens RSS Outreach Event With Rare Praise For Congress
Mohan Bhagwat spoke at an event that the RSS, the ideological mentor of the ruling BJP, said it has organised to make the organisation better understood.
All India | Reported by Sunetra Choudhury, Edited by Divyanshu Dutta Roy (with inputs from PTI) | Updated: September 17, 2018 21:42 IST
  by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored
8 Months Blockchain Certification Program - Admissions Open! (Amity Online)
This Snake Does Something That No Human Should Ever Have To Witness (The Travel Lane)

SHARE
EMAIL
PRINT
29
COMMENTS

Mohan Bhagwat was speaking at an RSS event in Delhi's Vigyan Bhavan.

NEW DELHI: 
HIGHLIGHTS
Mohan Bhagwat spoke at Day 1 of RSS outreach conclave in Delhi
Prasied Congress for Independence movement, "icons who still inspire"
Says India's diversity must be respected and celebrated
PROMOTED

JBL Go Portable Wireless Bluetooth Speaker with Mic
₹ 1,799* Amazon
Get 10% Cashback**
If an outreach was the aim, reach out it did. Mohan Bhagwat, chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, opened a three-day conclave in Delhi on Monday with a rare conciliatory tone for one of its harshest critics. "In the form of the Congress, a huge freedom movement fledged in the nation. It too gave birth to a number of all-sacrificing great personalities who continue to inspire us today. That movement managed to inspire ordinary people to join the freedom struggle. It had a huge hand in us achieving Independence," he said.
That the words came from the head of an organisation which has been the bull's-eye for most Congress darts on the ruling party (which in turn has not missed many opportunities to return the favour) made it the kind of political spectacle perhaps last seen only in Congress chief Rahul Gandhi's famous hug for Prime Minister Narendra Modi in parliament two months ago.

Mr Bhagwat, 68, was speaking at an event that the RSS, the ideological mentor of the ruling BJP, said it has organised to make the right-wing organisation better understood.

fmlv1ioo
Almost all opposition parties skipped the RSS event where Mohan Bhagwat spoke.

And from diversity to women, the RSS chief in an 80-minute address seemed keen to re-mould its image on more than one issue.

"India is a country full of diversity and it must be respected and celebrated," he said, adding that it should not become a reason for "discord" in the society.

Addressing a frequent criticism about the lack of women participation in the RSS, Mr Bhagwat said there was room to change that and added there are other groups within its umbrella where they do take part.

The RSS, which was an organisation unlike any other, is targeted by many people in the country out of "fear" of its increasing power which is natural, he said.

Though many leaders of the ruling BJP, a number of Bollywood actors, artists and academicians were present for the event in Delhi's Vigyan Bhavan, usually the venue for major government events, almost all major opposition parties gave the conclave a miss though the RSS had invited them.

With two more days to go, Mr Bhagwat appeared to count on drawing more people as he gave out a teaser for Tuesday's subject: Why the RSS is seen as an organisation that seems to court only Hindus.

29 COMMENTS
(With inputs from PTI)

Five times when RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat left BJP red-faced
From rebuking BJP leaders for dining with Dalit families ahead of Karnataka elections to seeking a review of the reservation policy that probably cost the BJP in Bihar, Bhagwat has several times hinted that all might not be well between the saffron party and its ideological mentor.
109
SHARES
SHARE



Written by Abhishek De | New Delhi | Updated: September 18, 2018 6:52:05 pm
 Mohan Bhagwat, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, Sister Nivedita, Sachar committee, Nivedita and Indian nationalism, nationalism, bengal, kerala, indian express

X
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat. (File Photo)
In an unusual admiration, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Monday praised the Congress for its role in the freedom movement said that sangh does not endorse the ‘mukt’ phraseology, striking a divergent note from BJP’s ‘Congress-mukt Bharat’ refrain. This is, however, not the first time that Bhagwat has made comments much to the dislike of the BJP. From rebuking BJP leaders for dining with Dalit families ahead of Karnataka elections to seeking a review of the reservation policy that probably cost the BJP in Bihar, Bhagwat has several times hinted that all might not be well between the saffron party and its ideological mentor.

Here are five instances where the RSS chief differed from the BJP:

* On the first day of a three-day RSS conclave, Bhagwat opened the event with a rare conciliatory praise for one of its harshest critics — the Congress. Crediting the Grand Old Party for its role in the freedom movement, Bhagwat said, “A huge movement began in the form of the Congress. There were many great souls who sacrificed a lot and continue to inspire us today. That ideology placed the nation on the road to freedom.”

Former President Pranab Mukherjee with RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat at the event in Nagpur. Former President Pranab Mukherjee with RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat at an event in Nagpur. (File)
* Before the Karnataka Assembly elections in May, Bhagwat had criticised BJP’s attempt at Dalit outreach by dining with families from the community. Bhagwat reportedly told a gathering of RSS and VHP leaders in Delhi to desist from the “drama” and instead indulge in regular interactions with the members of the weaker sections to get rid of the caste system.

“Taking food at Dalits’ homes, inviting the media or for publicity stunts, is not a good practice… Leaders should interact with dalit people routinely and regularly. Only taking food at Dalits’ houses is not sufficient, send family members too to their homes and invite them at your home,” he had said. The RSS, however, had called the reports baseless and misleading.

READ | Those who oppose us also ours… we are for yukt Bharat, not mukt: RSS chief

* At a book launch in Pune on April this year, Bhagwat had hit out at PM Narendra Modi’s slogan of “Congress-mukt Bharat”. The RSS chief had said phrases like ‘Congress-mukt’ were political slogans and not part of the Sangh’s lexicon. “The RSS doesn’t use the language of excluding anyone. We have to include everyone in the process of nation-building. Nation-building cannot be the work of one man. It has to be inclusive, requiring the contributions of both the ruling and the Opposition parties,” he had said.

* Bhagwat stirred a hornet’s nest just ahead of the 2015 Bihar elections by saying there was a need to review the reservation system. The remarks were perceived to have damaged BJP’s prospects in the caste-ridden states and gave the then Grand Alliance parties ammunition to target the BJP during campaigning.

In an interview to the Organiser, Bhagwat said, “Reservation for socially backward classes is the right example in this regard. If we would have implemented this policy as envisaged by the Constitution makers instead of doing politics over it, then present situation would not have arrived. Since inception, it has been politicised.” He suggested that a “non-political committee” be set up to examine who required the benefit of reservation and for how long.

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat at the Rastroday event in Meerut. (File)
* Just after the BJP government came to power at the Centre following a landslide victory in 2014, Bhagwat struck a discordant note with the party’s suggestion that win was solely due to Narendra Modi’s personal image. Bhagwat said an individual could not have ensured the BJP’s victory.

“Some people say the success was due to the party. Some people say it was due to some individuals. Fact is that common man wanted change. The same individuals and party existed earlier also. Why were they not voted to power?” Bhagwat said at an event.

When the Nizam lost in a battle of cables

When the Nizam lost in a battle of cables

Serish Nanisetti HYDERABAD,  SEPTEMBER 16, 
UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 16, 2018 04:33 IST


https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/when-the-nizam-lost-in-a-battle-of-cables/article24959181.ece


Jawaharlal Nehru with Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan and Major General J. N. Chaudhuri after the police action.The HINDU ARCHIVES  

India’s diplomatic efforts succeeded in choking the supply of arms to Hyderabad, resulting in the September 17, 1948 surrender
Seventy years ago, on September 17, 1948, at noon, Hyderabad ceased to exist as a princely state after a war that lasted all of 109 hours. It would have gone on for longer had India not been able to stymie the former kingdom’s attempts to procure weapons for a protracted conflict.

Hyderabad became part of India more than a year after the latter’s existence as an independent nation. Ruled by the hereditary ruler Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan, the 2,12,000 sq km kingdom fancied its chance as an independent country.

Standstill Agreement

Unlike the Instrument of Accession with India signed by other princely states at the time of Independence, the Nizam nominated a three-member team to negotiate a Standstill Agreement. The Agreement, signed on November 29, 1947 by Governor General Lord Mountbatten and Nizam Osman Ali Khan, specified that it would be valid for one year and that foreign affairs, defence and communications would be in India’s control while the Nizam had control over domestic affairs.

Declassified diplomatic cables between India War Office Staff, the Commonwealth Relations Office (CRO) and the U.K. Foreign Office, archived in the British Library, reveal that immediately after Independence, India played a high-stakes diplomatic game in London to stem the flow of arms to Hyderabad in November 1947. This shortage of weapons ultimately forced the Hyderabad army to surrender within four days with limited Indian casualties.

The Nizam scouted for arms across the board — trying to buy them from France, tapping Pakistan for supplies and finally turning to gun-runners — the role of Australia-born aviator Sidney Cotton’s role in the transport of weapons from Karachi to Hyderabad is the stuff of legend.

But the role of Indian diplomats in stalling the flow at the source is less known, carried out by hidden channels.

The British government played along with India by persuading France against selling German weapons to Pakistan which, in turn, wanted to funnel them to Hyderabad.

The first of the series in the diplomatic cables sent to Donaldson at the CRO by R.H.S. Allen of the Foreign Office (FO) begins innocuously enough. “French Embassy informed Foreign Office on 1st November that Pakistan Trade Commissioner in London recently represented to French Authorities in Paris that his government urgently desired 600,000 rifles, same number of revolvers and 300,000 light and heavy machine guns from former German weapons in France. It added that, if France could not supply, his govt had other offers from Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands,” says the cable marked Important/Top Secret by CRO.

These low bore, small arms on Pakistan’s shopping list were meant for Hyderabad. But India moved the diplomatic game a notch higher, with the persuasive but often abrasive V.K. Krishna Menon, Indian High Commissioner in London, swinging into action.

“As regards Hyderabad, it was decided that we should tell Mr. Krishna Menon, who has been bothering us on the subject, that it is not our intention, as things stand at present, to supply arms on any abnormal scale to Hyderabad, but that Hyderabad is entitled to limited quantities of arms for the legitimate purposes of their state forces and police…” says a cable sent again to Donaldson of CRO by FO on November 14, 1947.

An exchange of nine diplomatic cables in November 1947, and multiple jottings by officials on them, show how India managed to literally starve Hyderabad of weapons.

Another cable, sent to Gordon Walker, Under-Secretary of State (the initials are illegible) dated November 11, 1947 reads: “This shows that we must have a full and frank discussion with Mr. Krishna Menon and Rahimtoolah (Habib Imran Rahimtoolah, Pakistan’s High Commissioner) on the subject. Mr. Menon constantly assumes that the U.K. should stop Pakistan from getting arms anywhere... But I confess that 600,000 rifles, 300,000 machines seems to be a lot…”

Pakistan was not just shopping for arms — it was passing around the bowl. And a rather large one at that. A cable from Washington to FO on November 26, 1947, reads: “Pakistan is now trying to get a loan of 2 billion dollars from the U.S.A. of which 200 million is for military supplies. This follows their attempt to get arms from France.” On the margin is the scribbled note: “USA have told us that they are cold-shouldering this.”

By the end of 1947 — the last cable in the series is dated December 4 — India had successfully closed the official arms pipeline to Hyderabad, hampering the Nizam’s efforts to stay independent for long.

Airborne supply

Then Sidney Cotton stepped in. He was the legendary flying ace who flew the last plane out of Berlin in 1939 and pioneered aerial reconnaissance by photographing German war efforts.

However, by the time Cotton flew in to help Hyderabad, it was too late. Hyderabad could not get any fresh weapons for 11 months from the time India and Pakistan came into existence. The armed forces of Hyderabad didn’t have arms or ammunition for training.

Cotton flew to Hyderabad in the first quarter of 1948 to meet the Nizam and got a shopping list of weapons. He quoted an amount of £20 million in cash for running the weapons. Back in London, he hired a 24-member team and bought five used Avro Lancastrians for £5,000 each. Cotton’s first run of arms began from Heathrow airport on May 11, 1948, with the first Lancastrian that halted in Basle, Switzerland, to pick up an unspecified number of Oerlikon cannons. The first shipment of weapons landed on July 10, 1948 in Warangal.

In the course of the next two months, Hyderabad received about 25,000 mortars, 1,000 anti-tank mines, 1,200 sub-machine guns from Beretta, another 3,000 sub-machine guns, 10,000 rifles, one ack-ack and six low-calibre anti-tank guns and ammunition, delivered by Cotton.

The Nizam’s Commander-in-Chief at the time of Indian pincer movement on Hyderabad was Major General Syed Ahmed El-Edroos. He writes in his biography about the 20,000 .303 rifles and other small arms and ammunition brought in by Cotton, which had Rawalpindi Pakistan Arsenal markings on them.

But the Hyderabad army, which had a strength of 17,000 soldiers, 9,000 irregulars and 362 officers, didn’t get to train on the weapons or use them on the field. Indian forces entered from the west in Sholapur and from the east near Suryapet. The war that began at 4 a.m. on September 13, lasted 109 hours and by September 17, Hyderabad surrendered.

Cotton’s last flight out of Hyderabad’s Hakimpet airstrip was on September 16, at 3 a.m. — just hours before the surrender. This time the plane was loaded with cash of about £4 million in rupees.

Cotton was also supposed to have picked up the private militia leader Kasim Razvi, who headed the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, and created the Razakars (volunteers) force to defend Hyderabad and the Nizam. This private militia created terror throughout the kingdom and triggered an exodus of Hindus from Hyderabad and other urban centres.

But Razvi’s escape ended in a theatrical fiasco due to a misunderstanding about the flight timing. As Cotton thundered away in his Lancastrian thinking Razvi had boarded, the militia leader desperately ran behind the plane, too late to flee. Razvi was placed under house arrest and tried for sedition. He was freed in 1957 and he emigrated to Pakistan, where he died penniless in 1970.


Britain played along with India by persuading France against selling weapons to Pakistan, which wanted to send them to Hyderabad

At Bohra meet, PM Modi invokes Imam Hussain

NATION, CURRENT AFFAIRS
At Bohra meet, PM Modi invokes Imam Hussain
DECCAN CHRONICLE WITH AGENCY INPUTS | RABINDRA NATH CHOUDHURY
Published Sep 15, 2018, 1:28 am ISTUpdated Sep 15, 2018, 1:28 am IST

He added that these teachings of Imam Hussain are more important today than those times.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi was speaking at a function held at the Saifee Mosque. (Photo: Twitter | ANI)
 Prime Minister Narendra Modi was speaking at a function held at the Saifee Mosque. (Photo: Twitter | ANI)
Bhopal: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday invoked Imam Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Mohammad, to emphasise the need for peace and justice, as he visited a mosque in Indore to attend an event organised by the Bohra Muslims. Mr Modi shared the dais with the religious head of Dawoodi Bohras, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, at the Saifee Nagar at the Ashara Mubarak event which commemorates the martyrdom of Imam Husain and is held annually during the first 10 days of the Shia calendar, coinciding with the Moharram.

Addressing a gathering at the Saifee Mosque, Mr Modi said, “Imam Hussain had sacrificed his life for the sake of peace and justice. He had raised his voice against injustice and arrogance.” He added that these teachings of Imam Hussain are more important today than those times. 

The Prime Minister, who was felicitated by Mr Saifuddin on his arrival at the mosque, showered praise on the Bohra Muslim community for globally spreading the message of co-existence. “The concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is a great strength of India, making it distinct from others. The Bohra community is making the world aware of this concept through its work,” Mr Modi said.

Missing Student, Missing File!

Missing Student, Missing File!

Press release: September 14, 2018

The criminal defamation case file of Fatima Nafees, mother of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed,  goes missing from Metropolitan Magistrate Ambika Singh's registry in Patiala House Court! In a most shocking and brazen manner, the file itself has been removed from the court premises.

Fatima Nafees has filed this complaint against prominent media houses like Times Group and India Today Group as well as individuals such as ABVP activist Saurabh Sharma for defaming her son by maliciously alleging that he had joined an international terrorist organization despite no evidence and denial issued by the Delhi Police. In the second part of her statement which was to be recorded today, Fatima was to bring on record the role of India Today, Dilli Aaj Tak and of Saurabh Sharma. It is no coincidence that the file has gone "missing".

The Times of India began the most malicious, derogatory, and defamatory campaign against Najeeb Ahmed on 21st March 2017 claiming that Najeeb was "watching inflammatory material on his laptop" and linked him with an international terrorist organisation. This communal and hate-filled propaganda was picked up by other news agencies, and widely circulated on social media. 

The matter was listed for today after more than 3 months. When Fatima Nafees last recorded a part of her statement on 26th May 2018, she was narrating the background to this case about the disappearance of her son, and by the time she began to name the first accused, that is, Times of India, the judge abruptly asked her to stop. Only one of the 10 accused were named till then.

Even as the Delhi police was partisan and shielded the ABVP members who assaulted Najeeb, the CBI has surrendered to their political masters in the central government. To aid their efforts, certain sections of the media has run a malicious and communal propaganda. The only hope was to knock on the doors of the court. Tragically, seeking justice for Najeeb through legal means has also seen the brazen interference from the corridors of power.

The right-wing BJP government has interfered in this case from the first day to protect its ABVP members. Now it is in their interest to stop this defamation case from going to trial. It helps to perpetuate their polarising agenda as long as Najeeb and Fatima's names are tainted with malicious and false suspicions. 

When Mr Arun Jaitley  filed a defamation case, the court wanted to finish the hearing in 3 months and the matter was listed every week. In the case of a marginalised person, somehow courts are not able to find dates to conduct the hearing on an urgent basis. Now even the file goes missing. Why such double standards for justice for the citizens of this country?

-- Issued by Fatima Nafees

Senior Adv. VK Ohri -- +91-9811093298

Jailing of Reuters journalists 'nothing to do with freedom of expression', says Aung San Suu Kyi

Jailing of Reuters journalists 'nothing to do with freedom of expression', says Aung San Suu Kyi
Updated 39 minutes ago

 Aung San Suu Kyi sitting in a white chair at a microphone with the World Economic Forum logo behind her.
PHOTO: Aung San Suu Kyi said the trial of the two jailed Reuters journalists had been held in open court. (Reuters/Kham)
RELATED STORY: Myanmar judge jails Reuters reporters in landmark secrets caseRELATED STORY: Reuters journalists charged under state secrets act in Myanmar
Myanmar's State Counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, says two jailed Reuters journalists can appeal their seven-year sentence, and that their jailing had nothing to do with freedom of expression.

Key points:
Aung San Suu Kyi says journalists 'jailed because the court decided they broke Official Secrets Act'
The guilty verdicts, and seven-year sentence on September 3, have brought international condemnation
The journalists were investigating the killing of Rohingya villagers by security forces at the time of their arrest 

Asked how she felt about jailing journalists as a democratic leader, Suu Kyi said: "They were not jailed because they were journalists, they were jailed because … the court has decided that they have broken the Official Secrets Act."

She made her comments at the World Economic Forum on ASEAN in Hanoi on Thursday, in response to a question from the forum moderator who asked whether she felt comfortable about the reporters being jailed.

Journalists Wa Lone, 32, and Kyaw Soe Oo, 28, were found guilty on official secrets charges and sentenced earlier this month in a landmark case seen as a test of progress towards democracy in Myanmar.

 Composite image shows Reuters journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo
PHOTO: Jailed Reuters journalists Wa Lone (L) and Kyaw Soe Oo (R) were investigating the killing of Rohingya villages by security forces. (Reuters: Myat Thu Kyaw/Ann Wang)
Their imprisonment has prompted an international outpouring of support, including a call for their release by US Vice President Mike Pence.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet has called the trial a "travesty of justice".

The journalists were investigating the killing of Rohingya villagers by security forces at the time of their arrest last December, and had pleaded not guilty.

"I wonder whether very many people have actually read the summary of the judgement, which had nothing to do with freedom of expression at all, it had to do with an Official Secrets Act," Suu Kyi said.

"If we believe in the rule of law, they have every right to appeal the judgment and to point out why the judgement was wrong."

When asked to comment on Mr Pence's call to release the journalists, Suu Kyi responded by asking if the critics felt there had been a miscarriage of justice.

"The case has been held in open court and all the hearings have been open to everybody who wished to go and attend them, and if anybody feels there has been a miscarriage of justice, I would like them to point it out," she said.

The guilty verdicts of the two Reuters reporters on September 3 has sharply divided public opinion in Myanmar.

On Wednesday, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were honoured by a foundation set up by the late Win Tin, one of the country's most prominent political prisoners and a close ally of Suu Kyi.

In granting the prestigious award, the foundation said it would oppose their convictions and demand their release.

Zaw Htay, spokesman for the office of Myanmar's president, was not immediately available to comment on Suu Kyi's remarks.

Suu Kyi 'hindsight' on Rakhine situation
Earlier on Thursday, Suu Kyi at the same WEF session said in hindsight her government could have handled the situation in Rakhine state better.

"There are of course ways in which we, with hindsight, might think that the situation could have been handled better," Suu Kyi said.

"But we believe that for the sake of long-term stability and security we have to be fair to all sides … We cannot choose and pick who should be protected by the rule of law."

Some 700,000 Rohingya Muslims fled Rakhine after government troops led a brutal crackdown in Myanmar's Rakhine state in response to attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army on 30 Myanmar police posts and a military base in August 2017.

UN investigators last month said Myanmar's military carried out mass killings and gang rapes of Rohingya with "genocidal intent", and that the commander-in-chief and five generals should be prosecuted for the gravest crimes under international law.

Myanmar has denied allegations of atrocities, saying its military carried out justifiable actions against militants.

Our Flag: What Saadat Hasan Manto Wrote After Muhammad Ali Jinnah's Death

Our Flag: What Saadat Hasan Manto Wrote After Muhammad Ali Jinnah's Death
The unexpected demise of Quaid-e-Azam was being mentioned silently. Every person had become this question-incarnate: “Who do we have now?”

Our Flag: What Saadat Hasan Manto Wrote After Muhammad Ali Jinnah's Death
Pakistan founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Saadat Hasan Manto
Saadat Hasan Manto
400
interactions
CULTURE
11/SEP/2018
Translator’s note: On Muhammad Ali Jinnah 70th death anniversary today, here is a little-known piece by Urdu writer Saadat Hasan Manto in English translation. Written for the daily ‘Imroze’ just three days after Jinnah’s death, it fully captures the moment and pathos of the national tragedy, as Manto cuts through the emotions of a nation with his typical cynicism tempered with optimism. Compared to his more well-known and frequently anthologised and translated piece on Jinnah, ‘Mera Sahib’ – a story of Jinnah’s driver narrated to Manto in the first-person – this piece is much rawer and even speaks to us today, what with the plethora of assassinations of politicians in the subcontinent and the crystallisation of crude jingoistic opportunism around them. And just a little more than a week before the official release of Nandita Das’s biopic on Manto, this powerful piece will open a unique window for Indian readers on Manto’s thought and his not uncritical reverence for Pakistan’s founder. 

—Raza Naeem

“This is no time to vanquish flags but to glorify them.” These are the plain words which I heard from the mouth of a passerby and I began to think.

Not a long time had passed now since the news of the passing away of Quaid-e-Azam spread in the city. The screams of newspaper hawkers were still resounding in the sad space of the afflicted streets. Sorrow and grief was spread on the face of every person. People were walking about as if walking behind an invisible funerary procession; they were whispering slowly. The unexpected demise of Quaid-e-Azam was being mentioned silently. Every person had become this question-incarnate: “Who do we have now?”

I too thought. “Who do we have now?” But these words of that passerby resounded in my ears: “This is no time to vanquish flags, but to glorify them.” I straightened my neck bent with excessive sorrow and attempted to see the other side beyond this mist which had overcome my heart and mind. But like the complete strike by the shops, the thoughts in the mind too were on complete strike.

Men were crying. Women were sobbing. Every eye was wet. Who do we have now – Who do we have now?

One said, “This mourning will last for forty days.”

But what had that person said? “This is no time to vanquish flags but to glorify them.”

I thought, no, no, this is the time to vanquish flags. This is the time to shed tears and mourn. The time for not just forty days but forty years of mourning. But I was in the office of Imroz. Despite working all night, the whole staff was present. Nobody greeted me nor exchanged views with me regarding the death of Quaid-e-Azam. Everyone was busy with their own work. Their faces were yellow. Hands were trembling. Voices were shaking. But they continued working. Pens were flowing smoothly over paper. I thought, this then is real mourning, real grief.

When I left the office, I saw most of the people wearing black mourning badges on their arms. These black tatters repulsed me. I thought, why are they advertising their grief. Why are they, with their yellow faces, trembling hands and shaking voices, not doing the work they should be doing– why are they not in real mourning? Why did they not hear the voice of that passerby? “This is no time to vanquish flags but to glorify them.”

I was in the office of Radio Pakistan. The entire staff was there despite it being a Sunday. The tongas were on strike, but the newscaster, Syed Muzaffar Hussain, who is disabled (and cannot walk), was also present in the office. But his lips were bereft of that forever playful smile.

There was Hafeez Hoshiarpuri. He had contrived verses at 2 am on the death of Quaid-e-Azam. He was sitting on a chair. His cheeks had shrivelled further inside, and he was nearly empty-minded. But the business of making and receiving calls here and there carried on. Fareed sahib was the station director. His colour completely yellow, with dark wheatish circles beneath the eyes, he was sitting on a chair. He was giving directives about the attached program, with one hand in a state of extreme hopelessness and with a broad forehead.

Everyone’s colour was yellow. But the spirit was like red rubies, glittering and simmering. I thought, Who do they have? I did not get a response. But the response was in what they were doing.

I thought, Who do they have?  “Who are they to themselves?” came the reply. And once more, the words of that passerby resounded in my ears. “This is no time to vanquish flags but to glorify them.”

My heart leapt with joyous excitement. Quaid-e-Azam has passed away. The entire nation – the nation which includes those millions of Muhajirs who are wandering helplessly – is wailing, beating its chest, but there is also a challenge of resistance in this mourning, a silent cry of control and discipline, which could be present in a mourning but living nation, and should be.

Quaid-e-Azam has passed away and been buried. But this is the will of God. The answer to a difficult question such as “Who do we have now?” is: “Who are we to ourselves?” The Creator of Quaid-e-Azam is the Omnipotent who has also created us.

A mourning of forty days or one day is complete nonsense and useless – to shed tears at the unexpected death of an individual (however dear he maybe to us) in the battlefield while fighting the battle between blood and iron, or while laying the bricks of a newly structured state, is to vanquish one’s flags.

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not our flag. He was just a leader of the white community, who had created this flag and waved it for the first time. Pakistan is our flag. Not even Pakistan, for it is too limited. Our flag is Islam, which also means justice.

“This is no time to vanquish the flags but to glorify them.”       

Raza Naeem is a Pakistani social scientist, book critic and translator. He received a Charles Wallace Trust fellowship in 2014-2015 for his translation and interpretive work on Manto’s nonfiction. He is currently translating Manto’s progressive writings, tentatively titled Comrade Manto. He can be reached at razanaeem@hotmail.com.

‘సలీం లంగ్డే పే మత్ రో’

‘సలీం లంగ్డే పే మత్ రో’
ఇంకొకసారి ఈ సినిమా గురించి
Image may contain: 8 people, people smiling, text
Rama Sundari is with Mohan Babu.
September 4, 2017
సినిమా రివ్యూలు రాయటం నాకు రాదు కానీ, రాయకుండా ఉండలేని పరిస్థితిని కల్పిస్తాయి కొన్ని సినిమాలు. చెత్త సినిమా ఒకటి చూశాక మంచి సినిమా చూడాలని తపించి పోయే రకానికి చెందినదాన్ని కాబట్టి భారతీయ సినిమాల్లో మంచి సినిమాలు వెదికి వెదికి చూస్తున్నాను. అందుకు సహాయపడుతున్న మోహన్ బాబుగారికి థాంక్స్ చెప్పకుండా ఉండలేను.
అందులో ఒకటి ‘సలీం లంగ్డే పే మత్ రో’ (సలీం కుంటితనానికి కన్నీరు కార్చవద్దు. లంగ్డే పదాన్ని తెలుగులో కరక్ట్ గా ఏమంటారో తెలియదు) ఈ సినిమా సయీద్ అక్తర్ మిర్జా బ్రైన్ చైల్డ్(1989). అప్పటికి ఇంకా బాబ్రీ మజీద్ ఘటన కూడా జరగలేదు. బొంబాయ్ లో 1970 భివాల్ది ప్రాంతంలో జరిగిన మత కల్లోలాల ప్రస్తావన ఉంటుంది. ఈ గొడవల్లో 143 మంది ముస్లిములు, 20 మంది హిందువులు చనిపోయారు. అనేక మంది మహిళలు, బాలికల మీద అత్యాచారాలు జరిగాయి. కాబట్టి వీటిని శివసేన ప్రేరిత మత దాడులు అనవచ్చు.
ఈ సినిమాలో ప్రధాన విషయం పేద మహమ్మదీయులు ఈ దేశానికి ఎలా పరాయి వారు అవుతున్నారనే. దిగువ మధ్య తరగతి ముస్లిం కుటుంబాలలో నేర జీవితం ఎంత అనివార్యం అవుతుందో టీకా తాత్పర్యంతో సహా అర్ధం అవుతుంది. పేదరికం ముస్లిం పిల్లలకు చదువులు ఇవ్వనివ్వదు. మతం సరైన ఉద్యోగాలనివ్వనివ్వదు. అలాంటి వాతావరణంలో పుట్టిన సలీం నేర జీవితం ఈ కథ. పోలీసులు చేసే అవమానాలను యువకులు కోపాన్ని దిగమింగుకొని భరించాల్సిన పరిస్థితులు కనిపిస్తాయి సినిమా అంతా. ఈ సినిమాలో దాదాపు అన్ని పాత్రలు ముస్లిములవే. గొప్ప ఫిలసాఫకల్, రియలిస్టిక్ సీనులు, డైలాగ్స్ ఉంటాయి ఈ సినిమాలో. ఒక పాశ్చాత్య పాత్ర అంటుంది ‘చనిపోవటానికి సిద్దపడిన వారికి భారతదేశం కంటే అనువైన దేశం ఇంకొకటి ఉండదని’. ‘కలిసి ఉండటం అంటే మతాలు కలిసి ఉండటం కాదు, సాహిత్యం సంగీతం, జీవన విధానం కలిసి ఉండటం’ అని కూడా అంటాడు. మూర్ఖంగా, మూఢంగా ఉండే ముస్లిములను ఈ సినిమాలో ఒక అభ్యుదయ ముస్లిం పాత్ర ఈసడించుకొంటాడు. అప్పుడు సలీం అంటాడు ‘ఇక్కడ పేద ముస్లిములు అంతకంటే ఎలా ఎదగగలరని’.
నేరప్రపంచంలో భాగంగా ఉన్న వ్యభిచారం (ఈ సినిమాలో దాన్ని వ్యభిచారం అనలేదు. నృత్యాలు అని మర్యాదగా అన్నారు.) వృత్తిగా ఉన్న ప్రేమికురాలు ముంతాజ్. సలీం ‘చెల్లి పెళ్లి అవగానే మన పెళ్లి అవుతుంది’ అంటాడు. ముంతాజ్ ‘అది అంత సులభం కాదు’ అని వాడిపోయిన ముఖంతో అంటుంది. “అవుతుంది అను” అని బలవంతం పెడతాడు సలీం. ‘అవుతుందిలే’ అంటుంది ఆమె అదే ముఖంతో. “అలా కాదు. నవ్వుతూ అను” అని మళ్ళీ బలవంతం పెడతాడు. అప్పుడు ముంతాజ్ నవ్వు మర్చిపోలేము. నీలిమ అజీమ్ ఆ పాత్ర వేసింది.
అక్తర్ మీర్జా ‘ఇండియన్ ఇన్ స్టిట్యూట్ ఆఫ్ ఫిల్మ్ అండ్ టెలివిజన్’ విద్యార్ధి. ఈయన తీసిన చాలా సినిమాలకు అవార్డులు వచ్చాయి. ముస్లిం జీవితాల మీద డాక్యుమెంటరీస్ కూడా తీశారు. నుక్కడ్ లాంటి టీవీ సీరియళ్ళు కూడా తీశారు. నిజ చరిత్రను రికార్డు చేసే ఇలాంటి సినిమాలను ఓపికా, ఆసక్తి ఉన్న వాళ్ళు చూడవచ్చు. చివరిగా ‘ఇలాంటి సినిమాకు నేషనల్ అవార్డు ఇచ్చిన అలాంటి ప్రజాస్వామిక కాలం మనకిక ఉందా?’ అనే ప్రశ్న తప్పక వస్తుంది విజ్నుడైన ప్రేక్షకుడికి.

We Will Win Despite Dadri Mob Killing, Award Wapsi": Amit Shah

We Will Win Despite Dadri Mob Killing, Award Wapsi": Amit Shah

"Whenever elections come up, they rake up the issue of Akhlaq's killing, award wapasi (return of award)... But we won even then and we will win now as well," he told BJP workers at a meeting in Jaipur.

All India | Reported by Harsha Kumari Singh, Edited by Anindita Sanyal | Updated: September 11, 2018 23:16 IST
Amit Shah spoke to party workers in Rajasthan capital Jaipur.



JAIPUR: 

HIGHLIGHTS

Rajasthan has witnessed a string of attacks by cow vigilantes in the past

Amit Shah expressed confidence that BJP will win Rajasthan elections

""We had won then, we will win now" said Amit Shah on lynching incidents

BJP chief Amit Shah today expressed confidence that the party will win the coming elections in Rajasthan, which has witnessed a string of attacks by cow vigilantes over more than a year. Pointing to the lynching in Dadri -- the first of many across the country --- he said the party won that time too.

"Whenever elections come up, they rake up the issue of Akhlaq's killing, award wapasi (return of award)... But we won even then and we will win now as well," he told BJP workers at a meeting in Jaipur.

In September 2015, 52-year-old Mohammad Akhlaq was killed by a mob at his village in Dadri on suspicions of cow slaughter. Despite huge protests by the opposition and the civil society, which included a spate of returned awards from a section of intelligentsia, the BJP had swept the elections last year.

Rajasthan has witnessed a series of similar attacks, the last of which -- the killing Rakbar Khan, a young man from Haryana -- took place at Alwar in July. The man was taking home cattle bought at a fair.

Before that, a 55-year-old dairy farmer, Pehlu Khan, was killed by a mob in Alwar. A video of a mob raining blows on him had triggered outrage across the country.

In December last year, a man was burnt alive in Rajasamand  on accusations of love jihad - a term used by rightwing groups who accuse Muslim men of drawing Hindu women into relationships and converting them. The accused in the case, Shambhu Lal, had shot a video of the gruesome act, keeping up a communal rant.

Following the incidents, Vasundhara Raje's government has faced criticism from the opposition, which accused it of doing too little. Pointing to Uttar Pradesh, Mr Shah, however, said, "we had won then, we will win now".

Mr Shah had expressed similar confidence at the party's two-day national executive that ended yesterday.  "No one will be able to eradicate the BJP for the next 50 years," Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had quoted him as saying after the meeting.