Madabhushi Sridhar article on the CBI court judgement on Babri conspiracy case.

 ఒక్కరికీ నిజం చెప్పే ధైర్యం లేదా?

Oct  2  2020 

యూపీ ముఖ్యమంత్రి లక్నోను వదిలేసి అయోధ్యకు ఎందుకు వచ్చారు? అంతకుముందు ఆయన బాబ్రీ నిర్మాణానికి ఏ హానీ కలగదని సుప్రీంకోర్టుకు హామీ ఇచ్చి రాలేదా? ఆడ్వాణీ వంటి పరిపూర్ణ నేతకు, మురళీ మనోహర్ జోషి వంటి ప్రొఫెసర్‌కు తెలియదా? అయినా ఎందుకు వచ్చారు? ఏం చేయడానికి వచ్చారు? బాబరీని కొందరు సంఘవ్యతిరేక శక్తులు కూల్చడానికి వెళుతూ ఉంటే భారత రాజ్యాంగం పట్ల అవిరళ శ్రద్ధతో సంఘ్‌పరివార్‌ సభ్యులుగా ఆపడానికి వచ్చారా? ఒక్కరంటే ఒక్కరు కోర్టుకు వచ్చి తాము రామజన్మభూమిలో బాబరీ మసీదు ఉండకూడదనే ఉద్దేశంతో దాన్ని కూల్చేయడానికి వెళ్లామని, అక్కడ రామమందిరం కట్టడం కోసం దాన్ని కూల్చేయక తప్పలేదని  కోర్టులో సత్యం ఎందుకు చెప్పలేదు.

‘‘అవును మేమే కూల్చాం, మందిరం కట్టడానికి’’ అనే నిజం చెప్పే ధైర్యం ఒక్కరికీ లేదా? అయోధ్య రామజన్మభూమి అని కోటానుకోట్ల హిందువులు నమ్మే చోట ఒకమసీదు ఎలా వచ్చిందో ఎవరూ న్యాయస్థానం నమ్మే రుజువులతో సహా చెప్పలేరు. బాబ్రీ కట్టడం 1992 డిసెంబర్ 6 నాడు ఎందుకు కూలిందో అందరికీ తెలిసిన బహిరంగ రహస్యమే అయినా ఎవరు కొట్టిన గునపపు దెబ్బకు ఎక్కడ పగిలిందో రుజువులతో సహా చెప్పలేదు. కూల్చింది నిజమే, కాని కూల్చింది ఎవరో రుజువులు లేవు. ఎవరో కూలగొట్టకుండానే ఏదీ కూలదు. కాని సిబిఐ నిందితులని పేర్కొన్న పెద్దలు చిన్నలు ఎవరూ కూల్చినట్టు రుజువులు లేవని సిబిఐ కోర్టు కేసు ముగించింది. వారు కూల్చలేదనలేదు. సాక్ష్యాలు తెచ్చే పని కోర్టుది కాదు. ఉన్న సాక్ష్యం సరిపోతే నేరస్థులనడం, లేకపోతే సాక్ష్యం లేదని వదిలేయడం తప్ప కోర్టుకు ఏ పాపమూ తెలియదు. అయితే పాపులెవరు?

సాక్ష్యాలు సేకరించి కోర్టులో రుజువు చేసే పని పోలీసులది. సాక్ష్యాలు లేవా, దొరకలేదా, దొరికినా కోర్టులో పెట్టలేదా? ఆనాటి టివీలు వీడియోలు తీయలేదా? అవి చూపలేదా? ఎవరూ చూడలేదా? ఈ పేర్లు ఎక్కడి నుంచి వచ్చాయి, సిబిఐ దర్యాప్తు అధికారులకు కలలో కనిపించాయా? ఏ ఆధారాలు లేకుండానే పెద్దపెద్ద వారి పేర్లను వారు అందులో ఇరికించారందామా? అట్లా అయితే వారి మీద చర్యలు తీసుకోవాలని నిందితులు అడుగుతున్నారా? ఇవన్నీ న్యాయపరమైన ప్రశ్నలు. ప్రజలకు తెలుసు. ఎవరి అంచనాలు వారికుంటాయి.

అక్కడ జరిగిన సంఘటనల గురించి మాట్లాడుకుందాం. సంఘటనలను ఇంగ్లీషులో FACTS అంటారు. చట్టపరిభాషలో fact అంటే నిజమూ కాదు వాస్తవమూ కాదు. ఒక సంగతి అని అర్థం. అంతే. బాబ్రీ మసీదు కూలింది అనేది ఒక సంగతి. బిజెపి, విహెచ్‌పి, బజరంగదళ్, విశ్వహిందూపరిషత్, సంఘ్ పరివార్‌కు సంబంధించిన వారు, కరసేవకులుగా దేశం నలుమూలల నుంచి తరలివచ్చినవారు అక్కడ అదే రోజు సమావేశమయ్యారు. వారిలో కొందరు మంచి వారు. మరికొందరు, కోర్టువారు చెప్పినట్టు వారిలోనే ఉన్న సంఘవ్యతిరేక శక్తులు. సంఘ్‌ శక్తులు కూల్చలేదనీ, సంఘ్‌లోనే లేదా కరసేవకులలోనే ఉన్న సంఘ వ్యతిరేక శక్తులు కూల్చిఉంటాయని 2300 పేజీల తీర్పు సారాంశం.

వారంతా ఆరోజు అక్కడికి ఎందుకు వచ్చారు? బాబ్రీ కట్టడం చుట్టూ షామియానాలు వేసుకుని, అందులో కుర్చీలు వేసుకుని కూర్చోవడానికి వచ్చారా? వారిలో దాదాపు 90శాతం మంది బిజెపి నాయకులు, వేలాది చురుకైన కార్యకర్తలు, అక్కడ మసీదు ఉన్న చోట రామాలయం కట్టాలనే దృఢసంకల్పం ఉన్నవారే నని నేను అనుకుంటున్నాను. కరసేవకులు కూడా నుదుట కాషాయ వస్త్రం కట్టుకుని కరసేవకులమని దుస్తుల మీద రాసుకుని, కుంకుమబొట్లు పెట్టుకుని, కొందరు త్రిశూలలు పట్టుకుని, గునపాలు, పారలు, తట్టలు, బుట్టలు పట్టుకుని ఎందుకు వచ్చారు? అది స్టేడియం కాదు. అక్కడ క్రికెట్ మ్యాచ్ జరగడం లేదు కదా?

వెళ్లిన వారి ఎజెండా ఏమిటి? ప్రకటిత ఎజెండా. మానిఫెస్టో, రామ్‌లల్లా మీద భక్తితో, అదే రామజన్మభూమి అన్న ప్రగాఢ విశ్వాసంతో, అక్కడ భవ్యమైన రామాలయం ఉండేది, ఇకముందు ఉండాలి అన్న దృఢసంకల్పంతో చేసిన ప్రకటనలు లేవా? ఏ ప్లాన్ లేకుండానే అక్కడికి గునపాలతో ఎందుకు వచ్చారు? బాబ్రీ కట్టడాన్ని కూల్చిన తరువాత ఆ శిథిలాలన్నీ ఎవరు ఎత్తిపోశారు? ఎలా ఎత్తిపోశారు? ఎక్కడ ఎత్తిపోశారు? మళ్లీ తాత్కాలిక కప్పు కింద రామ్‌లల్లాను ఎలా నెలకొల్పారు. అంతా యాదృచ్ఛికంగా ముందుగా అనుకోకుండానే జరిగిపోయిందా? ఇవన్నీ సాధారణ బుద్ధి ఉన్న మానవులకు, ఇంగితజ్ఞానం (బహుశా దీన్నే కామనసెన్స్ అంటారేమో) ఉన్నవారికి వచ్చే ప్రశ్నలు. రావలసిన ప్రశ్నలు. అక్కడ ఆరోజు చేరిన ప్రతి వ్యక్తికీ ఆ ప్రాంతంలో రామాలయం రావాలనే ప్రగాఢ కోరిక ఉందని అందరికీ తెలుసు. అక్కడికి వెళ్లి వచ్చినవారిలో ఒక్కరైనా ‘లేదు, అది కాదు’ అని అనగలరా? బాబ్రీ కట్టడాన్ని కూల్చడానికి వారు అక్కడికి వెళ్లలేదని ఒక్కరైనా చెప్పగలరా? లేదా కూల్చుతుంటే చూడడానికి, కూల్చనివ్వడానికి వెళ్లలేదని కుర్చీలు వేసుకుని కూర్చున్న పెద్దలలో ఒక్కరైనా చెప్పగలరా? అక్కడున్నవారెవరికీ అది నాలుగువందల ఏళ్ల నాటి పాత కట్టడమని, చట్టంప్రకారం పురాతన నిర్మాణమని నిర్వచించిన లేదా నిర్వచించవలసిన కట్టడమని, దాన్ని కూల్చడం చట్టప్రకారం నేరమని తెలియదా? హిందూముస్లింల మధ్య మతఘర్షణలకు దారితీసే వివాదాస్పద అగ్గిరవ్వలు అక్కడ చెలరేగే అవకాశం ఉందని తెలియదా? అక్కడున్న యుపి ముఖ్యమంత్రి లక్నోను వదిలేసి అయోధ్యకు ఎందుకు వచ్చారు? అంతకుముందు ఆయన బాబ్రీ నిర్మాణానికి ఏ హానీ కలగదని సుప్రీంకోర్టుకు హామీ ఇచ్చి రాలేదా? ఆడ్వాణీ వంటి పరిపూర్ణ నేతకు, మురళీ మనోహర్ జోషి వంటి ప్రొఫెసర్‌కు తెలియదా? అయినా ఎందుకు వచ్చారు? ఏం చేయడానికి వచ్చారు? బాబరీని కొందరు సంఘవ్యతిరేక శక్తులు కూల్చడానికి వెళుతూ ఉంటే భారత రాజ్యాంగం పట్ల అవిరళ శ్రద్ధతో సంఘ్‌పరివార్‌ సభ్యులుగా ఆపడానికి వచ్చారా? సమాధానాలు వారికీ తెలుసు, మనందరికీ తెలుసు.

నాకు ఆశ్చర్యం బాధ కూడా కలిగిస్తున్న అంశం ఏమిటంటే, వీరిలో ఒక్కరంటే ఒక్కరు కోర్టుకు వచ్చి తాము రామజన్మభూమిలో బాబరీ మసీదు ఉండకూడదనే ఉద్దేశంతో దాన్ని కూల్చేయడానికి వెళ్లామని, అక్కడ రామమందిరం కట్టడం కోసం దాన్ని కూల్చేయక తప్పలేదని కోర్టులో సత్యం ఎందుకు చెప్పలేదు. అంతటి ధైర్యం సాహసం, అంకితభావం, చిత్తశుద్ధి లేవా? 

ఈ పనులను ఏమనాలి? ఆందోళన అనాలా? ప్రభుత్వం అధ్వర్యంలో రాజకీయ పార్టీ నిర్వహించిన భక్తి ఉద్యమం అనాలా? లేక ఇప్పుడు వారంతా నెత్తిన పెట్టుకుని గౌరవిస్తున్న గాంధీ సత్యాగ్రహం అనాలా? (నేడు గాంధీ జయంతి)తనకు ఉరిశిక్ష వేసినా సరే తాను రాముడి గుడికట్టే యజ్ఞంలో భాగస్వామ్యమినైనందుకు సంతోషంతో ఆ శిక్షను స్వీకరిస్తానని నిందితులలో ఒకరైనా ఉమా భారతి అన్నారు. చాలా గొప్పమాట. ఇంకెవ్వరయినా ఆమాట అన్నారో లేదో నాకు తెలియదు. నేరం చేయలేదని ఆమె అనలేదు. బాబ్రీ నిర్మాణం కూల్చలేదనీ అనలేదు. రామమందిర నిర్మాణం తమ లక్ష్యం కాదనీ అనలేదు. అయితే ఆమెకు కూడా ఒక ప్రశ్న. సిబిఐ స్పెషల్ కోర్టు ముందుకు వెళ్లి, తమ లక్ష్యం రామమందిర నిర్మాణమేనని, అందుకు అడ్డుగా ఉన్న బాబ్రీ మసీదును తొలగించుకుంటామని, దానికోసమే తాను వచ్చానని నేరాన్ని ఎందుకు ఒప్పుకోలేదు?

అదే ప్రశ్న ఆడ్వాణీకి కూడా. అందరకీ పేరుపేరునా అదే ప్రశ్న. తీర్పు తరువాత సత్యమే జయించింది అనే అర్హత బిజెపి విహెచ్‌పి, వగైరా వగైరాకు చెందిన వ్యక్తులకు ఉందా? నిజంగా సత్యం జయించిందా? సత్యమేవజయతే అనే భారతదేశ లక్ష్య వాక్యానికి ఇదేనా అర్థం. వీరంతా హైందవ ధర్మాన్ని, రామతత్వాన్ని, భారతీయ సంస్కృతికి వేద సంస్కారానికి మూలసూత్రమైన సత్యవ్రతాన్ని నిలబెట్టిన వారా? ఇదేనా వీరి దేశభక్తి, ఇదేనా వీరి రామభక్తి? రామ్‌లల్లా ఇదే చేయమని చెప్పాడా?

తానూ బాబ్రీ మసీదు కూల్చానని కోర్టుకు వచ్చి చెప్పి జైళ్లన్నీ నింపేస్తాం అనే ధైర్య, ఉద్యమ సాహసాలు ఎవరికీ లేవా? ఇదేనా చిత్తశుధ్ది? రామభక్తికి నిబద్ధం కాకుండా, రాజ్యాంగానికి నిబద్ధం కాకుండా, సత్యానికి నిబద్ధం కాకుండా, పోనీ ఇన్నాళ్లూ చెప్పుకుని రాజకీయంగా ఎదిగిన రామాలయ నిర్మాణ సంకల్పానికి కూడా నిబద్ధం కాకుండా, దేనికి భయపడి బాబ్రీని కూల్చడానికి రాలేదని చెప్పారు? లేదా కూల్చడానికి వచ్చామని ఎందుకు చెప్పలేదు? సిబిఐ కోర్టు వారిని బాయిజ్జత్ నిర్దోషులని చెప్పలేదు. సాక్ష్యం లేక వదిలేసామని చెప్పింది. వారి సత్యం జయించలేదు. సత్యాలకు రుజువులు ఇవ్వక, ఇవ్వనీయకపోవడం వల్ల అసత్యం ఆధారంగా విడుదలయ్యారంతే. 

భారత సాక్ష్య చట్టం (ప్రపంచంలో ఏ సాక్ష్య చట్టమైనా) మూడు అంశాలు వివరిస్తుంది. 1. charge proved– నేరం రుజువైంది, శిక్ష పడుతుంది. 2. charge not proved– నేరం రుజువు కాలేదు, కారణం సాక్ష్యాలు లేవు. లేదా సరిపోయేన్ని లేవు. 3. charge disproved– అంటే ఆరోపించబడిన వారు నేరం చేయలేదని రుజువు కావడం, ఆరోపణలు తప్పని రుజువైనాయి అని. రెండో వర్గపు విడుదల నిన్నటి తీర్పు. మిఠాయిలు ఎందుకు పంచుకుంటున్నారు? పూలహారాలు ఎందుకు వేస్తున్నారు, వేసుకుంటున్నారు వేయించుకుంటున్నారు? వాటిని ఎందుకు వద్దనడం లేదు?. సబ్ కో సన్మతి దే భగవాన్, జై శ్రీరాం అని ఎందుకు అంటున్నారు? నిందితులందరికీ సన్మతి అక్కరలేదా?

నిందితులు విడుదల కావడానికి కారణం నిజం కాదు. సిబిఐ అసమర్థత. ఈ మాట కోర్టే అన్నది, నేను కాదు. సత్యం కాదు జయించింది. అసమర్థత జయించింది. ఇక్కడ సత్యం ఓడిపోయింది. సత్యం చెప్సే సాహసం లేని అనైతికత వల్ల నేరం రుజువు కాలేదు. అంతే. వీరంతా అంతరాంతరాల్లో ఉండే అంతరాత్మలను ప్రశ్నించుకోవడం పశ్చాత్తాపం చెందడం ఒక్కటే మార్గం. భారతీయ జాతీయతను, నైతికవిలువలను, నిజాయితీని, నిజాన్ని, సంస్కృతిని, సంస్కారాన్ని రక్షించండి.

మాడభూషి శ్రీధర్

Timeline of Babri Masid Controversy

 All 32 accused, including Advani, Joshi, acquitted in Babri Masjid demolition case: A timeline

The special CBI court observed that the people who demolished the mosque were “anti-national elements” and that the accused people were, in fact, trying to control the crowd

FP Staff September 30, 2020 16:33:35 IST

All 32 accused, including Advani, Joshi, acquitted in Babri Masjid demolition case: A timeline

Editor's note: This article was originally published on 10 November, 2019, after the Supreme Court allowed the construction of a temple at the site where the Babri Masjid once stood in Ayodhya. The article is being republished after a special CBI court acquitted all the 32 accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case, saying that the demolition was not pre-planned.

A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Lucknow on Wednesday acquitted all the 32 accused in the Babri Masjid Demolition case nearly 28 years after the mosque was razed by a mob in Uttar Pradesh.

The court acquitted the accused, which  included BJP veterans LK Advani and MM Joshi, Union minister Uma Bharati and then UP chief minister Kalyan Singh, among others, as the evidence against them was not strong enough. It also observed that the Babri Mosque demolition incident "was not pre-planned".

The court observed that the people who demolished the mosque were “anti-national elements”. The accused people were, in fact, trying to control the crowd, the judgement added, reported News18.

The CBI, which went into the case, produced 351 witnesses and 600 documents as evidence before the court. Charges were framed against 48 people, but 16 had died during the course of the trial.

Twenty-six out of the 32 accused were present in the special court when the judgment was pronounced. Advani (92), Joshi (86), Bharti (61), Singh (88), Nritya Gopal Das, and Satish Pradhan were not present in court and attended proceedings via video conferencing on Wednesday.

The CBI court verdict has come just months after Prime Minister Narendra Modi took part in the groundbreaking ceremony for a Ram temple after the November 2019  Supreme Court verdict which paved the way for the construction of the Ram Temple at the site of the Babri Masjid.

The Supreme Court on November, 2019, settled the seven-decade-long Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute with the historic verdict of awarding a Hindu group the ownership of a centuries-old religious site. It ordered the allotment of an alternative piece of five acres of land to the Muslims for a mosque.

 

All 32 accused including Advani Joshi acquitted in Babri Masjid demolition case A timeline

The core of Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute lies in the belief that Lord Ram was born in a room located under what was the central dome of the Babri Masjid. The masjid was built on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur in the 16th century before its demolition by kar sevaks on 6 December, 1992.

Following is the timeline of events leading up to the special CBI court acquitting all the 32 accused in the planning the demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992.

30 September, 2020: Special Judge S K Yadav delivers judgment in the mosque demolition case, all accused acquitted.

22 August, 2020: Supreme Court extends by a month the deadline for completion of trial in the Babri Masjid demolition case.

5 August, 2020: Prime Minister Narendra Modi takes part in 'Bhoomi Poojan' ceremony for the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.

4 August, 2020: Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath on Monday said that the COVID-19 protocol will be strictly followed during the bhoomi pujan ceremony for Ram temple and only those invited should come.

4 August, 2020: Iqbal Ansari, who was a litigant in the Ayodhya land dispute case, has decided to gift a ‘Ram nami’ stole and a copy of the Ramcharitmanas to Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he attends the bhoomi pujan ceremony for the Ram temple in Ayodhya on Wednesday.

3 August, 2020: Ayodhya District Magistrate Anuj Kumar Jha formally handed over the certified copy of five-acre land to the Sunni Waqf Board, as mandated by the Supreme Court for the construction of Babri mosque.

A delegation of the newly formed Masjid Trust – Indo-Islamic Cultural Foundation led by its president Zufar Faruqi and the Board's Chief Executive Officer Sayyad Mohammad Shoib met Ayodhya DM Anuj Kumar Jha at the latter's residence.

30 July, 2020: The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board formed a 15-member-trust to look after the construction of a mosque on five acres of land allotted by the Supreme Court.

Zufar Ahmed Faruqi, chairman the board – which was the main Muslim litigant in the title suit – said the trust was named as Indo Islamic Cultural Foundation, which will ensure the development of the allocated land in Dhannipur village in Ayodhya.

26 July, 2020: More than five months after its announcement, the trust meant to construct a mosque in Ayodhya following the Supreme Court verdict in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title suit, is yet to be constituted.

24 February, 2020:  The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board decided to accept the five acres allotted to it by the state government for building a mosque in Dhannipur village in Sohawal tehsil of Ayodhya, around 25 km from the site where the Babri Masjid had stood.

The board, which was the main litigant in the case, also announced the formation of a trust to look after the construction of the mosque as well as an Indo-Islamic Centre, a grand hospital and a public library on the land.

12 December, 2019: The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of petitions seeking review of its Ayodhya land dispute case verdict. The top court, which took these review pleas for consideration in-chamber, rejected them after finding no merit.

There were 18 review petitions, out of which nine have been filed by parties who were part of the earlier litigation and the other nine were filed by “third parties”.

6 December, 2019: Four review petitions supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) was filed on 6 December, 2019, against the Supreme Court's Ram-Janmabhoombh-Babri-Masjid land title dispute verdict.

The review petitions were filed by Maulana Mufti Hasbullah, Mohd Umar, Maulana Mahfoozur Rehman and Mishbahuddin.

Challenging the ruling, the petitioners argued that Hindus never had exclusive possession of the entire site. They added that the apex court's judgement had, in fact, given directions to clear the existing structure that remains after the Babri Masjid was demolished at the site in December, 1992.

3 December, 2019: Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who appeared for Muslim petitioners in the landmark Ayodhya temple-mosque case, posted on Facebook that he had been sacked unceremoniously by the group Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind over reasons he described as "total nonsense".

Reflecting a rift within, however, other Muslim petitioners asserted that Rajeev Dhavan remained their lawyer and had been removed only by the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind.

2 December, 2019: Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, a legal heir of original Ayodhya land dispute litigant, had filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against its ruling in favour of the Ram temple at the disputed site. This was the first review petition filed by a Muslim party against the verdict.

Rashidi said the judgment by the five-judge bench had acknowledged "few of the several illegalities" committed by the Hindu Parties but "proceeded to condone the said illegal acts and awarded the disputed site to the very party which based its claims on nothing but a series of illegal acts".

November 2019: On 9 November, the Supreme Court granted the entire 2.77 acre of disputed land in Ayodhya to deity Ram Lalla. The possession of land will remain with the Central government receiver until a trust, as mandated by the court, is formed. The Supreme Court also directed the Centre and Uttar Pradesh govt to allot 5 acre land to the Muslims at a prominent place for building mosque.

August 2019: The mediation panel failed to reach an amicable settlement. The top court began hearing the case on 6 August.

2018: In February, Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board questioned the court about the hurry and requested that the hearing to be put off till July 2019. In September, the Supreme Court declined to refer the case to a five-judge bench. In March, SC appointed a mediation panel headed by Judge (Retd.) FMI Kallifulla for an out-of-court settlement.

2017: The Supreme Court said that the matter is sensitive and the rival parties should settle it out of court.

2011: In May, the Supreme Court stays the High Court order to split the land, stating that the status quo will remain.

2010: The Allahabad High Court ruled that the disputed land be divided into three parts—where one third will belong to Ram Lalla, represented by the Hindu Mahasabha; one third to the Islamic Waqf Board; and the remaining third to the Nirmohi Akhara. In December, the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha and the Sunni Waqf Board move the Supreme Court, challenging the HC ruling.

2002: In an attack on a train from Godhra in Gujarat, believed to be carrying karsevaks to Ayodhya, at least 58 people were killed. Riots erupted across the state and about a thousand people were said to have been killed during it.

The High Court ordered the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate the site and to determine if it was earlier a temple. In April, three HC judges started the hearing to determine who the site belongs to.

1992: The disputed Babri Mosque was razed to the ground by karsevaks on 6 December. This led to some of the most deadliest riots across the country which led to the deaths of more than 2,000 people. The central government, headed by PV Narasimha Rao, formed a commission of inquiry under Justice MS Liberhan.

1989: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) laid the foundation of a Ram temple on the land next to the Babri Masjid. Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwal, former VHP Vice-President, filed a fresh suit asking for the mosque to be shifted elsewhere.

In October, the four suits that have been pending at the Faizabad court are transferred to a special bench of the High Court.

1986: A district court ordered that the gates of the mosque be opened and Hindus be allowed to worship there, on a plea by Hari Shankar Dubey. As Muslims protested the move to allow Hindus to pray in the mosque, a Babri Mosque Action Committee is formed.

1961: The Sunni Central Board of Waqf filed a case against the placing of idols inside the mosque and claimed that the mosque and surrounding land was a graveyard.

1959: The Nirmohi Akhara filed a third suit seeking possession of the site and claimed to be the custodians of the Ram Janmabhoomi.

1950: Gopal Singh Visharad and Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das filed suits at the Faizabad court seeking permission to offer prayers to the idols in the janamsthan. While the inner courtyard remained locked, prayers were allowed.

1949: Lord Ram's idol appeared inside the mosque. Muslims claimed that the idol was placed by Hindu groups. Both sides file civil suits following which the government declared the area as disputed and locked the gates to the premises.

1885: Mahant Raghubir Das filed the first case, seeking permission to build a canopy on the Ramchabutra (a raised platform) outside the mosque. The plea was rejected by the Faizabad district court a year later.

1859: The officials from British colonial administration erected a fence at the site to separate the places of worships. While the Muslims were allowed to use the inner court, the Hindus were allowed the outer court.

1853: The first recorded incident of violence between Hindus and Muslims over the holy site took place during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Awadh. Nirmohis, a Hindu sect, claimed that a Hindu temple had been destroyed during Babur's times to build the mosque.

1528: Mughal emperor Babur's commander Mir Bagi came to Ayodhya, and is believed to have destroyed the pre-existing temple dedicated to Lord Ram  to build Babri Masjid.

With inputs from PTI

 

ముస్లిం చైతన్య ఎజెండా - 7 పాయింట్ ఫార్ములా - ముస్లిం సోషల్ మూవ్మెంట్

ముస్లిం చైతన్య ఎజెండా  - 7 పాయింట్ ఫార్ములా

September 1, 2020

 

నేడు ముస్లింలు ఎదుర్కొంటున్న దారుణ పరిస్థితుల దృష్ట్యా వారి ప్రగతికి కొన్ని నిర్ణయాలతో సెవెన్ పాయింట్ ఫార్ములాను ప్రకటిస్తున్నాము. ముస్లిం చైతన్య ఎజెండాగా ప్రకటిస్తున్న ఈ ఏడు అంశాలను ఆచరించడం ద్వారా ముస్లిం సామాజిక ఉద్యమం నిర్మించడమే ముస్లింలకు మేలు చేస్తుందని బలంగా విశ్వసిస్తున్నాం.

 

1.   1. ముస్లింలు ఈ దేశ మూలవాసులు

 

ముస్లింలు ఈ దేశ మూలవాసులనే స్పృహను అందరం కలిగి ఉండాలి. ఈ విషయాన్ని ముస్లింలలోకి, ముస్లిమేతరులలోకి విస్తృతంగా తీసుకెళ్ళాలి. 90 శాతం ముస్లింలు ఎస్సీ బీసీ ఎస్టీల నుంచే ఇస్లాం స్వీకరించారనే వాస్తవాన్ని జీర్ణం చేసుకోవాలి. ఆంత్రోపాలజీ, DNA పరీక్షల ప్రకారం నిర్ధారించబడుతున్న ఈ విషయాన్ని గ్రహించి ప్రచారం చేయాలి.

 

2. భారత రాజ్యాంగం, జాతీయ పతాకం చేతబూని పురోగమించాలి.

 

మనది ప్రజాస్వామిక వ్యవస్థ, ఈ వ్యవస్థ వల్లే మైనారిటీలకు హక్కులుంటాయని గుర్తించాలి. రాజ్యాంగ, ప్రజాస్వామ్య చట్టాలపై గౌరవంతో రాజ్యాంగ పరిరక్షణకై, రాజ్యాంగ హక్కులకై నిలబడాలి. పోరాడాలి.

 

1.   3. ఏడుగురు సామాజిక మార్గదర్శులు

 

ఫాతిమా_షేక్, మౌలానా అబుల్ కలామ్ ఆజాద్, సర్ సయ్యద్ అహ్మద్ ఖాన్,  అజ్ఘర్ అలీ ఇంజినీర్,  (సయ్యద్) ఆమీర్ అలీ, డా. బాబా సాహెబ్ అంబేద్కర్, మహాత్మా జ్యోతిబా ఫూలే లను సామాజిక మార్గదర్శులుగా స్వీకరించి పురోగమించాలి. వారు ముస్లింలకు అందించిన జ్ఞాన మార్గంలో పయనించాలి.

 

2.   4 దునియాదారికి ప్రాముఖ్యత ఇవ్వాలి.

 

దీన్ కే సాత్ దునియా కో లేకే చలేంగే!

 

ఆధునికతను అందిపుచ్చుకోవాలి. ఆధునిక ఆలోచనల అభివృద్ధికి పాటుపడాలి. మనలోని అప్రజాస్వామిక_ధోరణులు వేటినైనా సంస్కరించుకోవాలి.

 

భారతీయ ముస్లింలు భారత సమాజంలో భాగం. ఈ విషయాన్ని గర్వంగా చాటుకోవాలి. అందులోని ప్రత్యేకతలను గుర్తించాలి. తాము వేరే, తాము చాలా ప్రత్యేకం అనే నెగెటివ్ పోకడలు సరైనవి కావు. నేల విడిచి సాము చేయడం లాంటి అలాంటి విషయాల పట్ల స్పృహతో వ్యవహరించాలి. సమూహంగా సంఘటితమవుతూ ప్రజాస్వామిక, అస్తిత్వ ఉద్యమాలు నిర్వహించడం, భావసారూపమున్న ఉద్యమాలతో కలిసి నడవడం తప్పనిసరి.

 

మతం వ్యక్తిగతం అనే స్పృహ కలిగి ఉండాలి. ఆ విషయాన్ని ప్రచారం చేసుకోవాలి.

 

ముస్లింలంతా సమానం అని ఇస్లాం చెబుతుంది. కానీ ముస్లింలలోనే కొన్ని ఉపజాతుల పట్ల చిన్నచూపును తొలగించుకోవాలి. భాష, సంస్కృతులు, ఆచారాల రీత్యా ఈ చిన్నచూపు సరైంది కాదు. అందరమూ సమానమన్న భావనను పెంపొందించుకోవాలి. మిగతా సమాజంతో, ముఖ్యంగా బహుజనులతో ఐకమత్యంగా మెలగాలి. అందుకు పెద్ద ఎత్తున పాటుపడాలి.

 

5. ప్రాపంచిక విద్యకు ప్రాధాన్యం ఇవ్వాలి.

 

ఇంగ్లీషు మీడియం చదువు ఫస్ట్ ప్రయారిటీ. ఈ విషయంలో సర్ సయ్యద్ మనకు ఐకాన్. ముస్లింలు ఐదు భాషల మధ్య చీలిపోతున్నారు. ఉర్దూ, అరబ్బీ, హిందీ, ఇంగ్లీషు, తెలుగు (తదితర ప్రాంతీయ భాష). అది కూడా గందరగోళానికి గురిచేస్తున్నది. ముస్లింల మధ్య ఐక్యతను దెబ్బ తీస్తున్నది.

 

ఇంగ్లీషుకు ప్రాధాన్యం ఇస్తూ సెకండ్ లాంగ్వేజ్ మనకు ఇష్టమయ్యింది తీసుకోవచ్చు. ఇక్కడ మళ్ళీ ప్రాంతీయ భాష రాకపోవడం ఇబ్బందేనన్న విషయం గ్రహింపులో ఉండాలి.

 

అలాగే ముస్లింలు ప్రాపంచిక, సామాజిక విషయాల అధ్యయనం విస్తృతంగా కొనసాగించాలి.

 

6. ముస్లిం పురుషులతో సమానంగా స్త్రీలను చూడాలి.

 

ముస్లిం అమ్మాయిలకు అబ్బాయిలతో సమానంగా ఇంగ్లీషు మీడియం విద్య చెప్పించాలి. ఈ విషయంలో ఫాతిమా షేక్ మన ఐకాన్ స్వీకరించాలి.

 

మన ముస్లిం జనాభాలో సగభాగమైన ముస్లిం స్త్రీలు చదువులో, ఇతర రంగాలలో పురోగమించాలి. స్త్రీలలో అక్షరాస్యత అతి తక్కువగా ఉంది. అబ్బాయిలను ఇంగ్లీషు మీడియం చదివిస్తూ అమ్మాయిలను ఉర్దూ మీడియం, అరబ్బీ చదివించడం కూడా జరుగుతున్నది. స్త్రీలు వెనుకబడి ఉండడమన్నది మొత్తంగా ముస్లిం సమాజ పురోభివృద్ధికి పెద్ద అడ్డంకిగా ఉన్నదన్న విషయం గమనంలోకి తీసుకోవాలి.

 

7. ముస్లింలు ప్రత్యేక ఐడెంటిటీని నిలబెట్టుకుంటూనే బహుజన  ఐడియాలజీతో ముందుకుసాగాలి.

 

బహుజన రాజకీయాలతో, ఇతర లైక్ మైండెడ్ ఉద్యమాలతో కలిసి నడవాలి. భవిష్యత్తు బహుజన ఉద్యమాలదే అన్న స్పృహలోంచి ముందుకు నడవాలి. రాజకీయ, సామాజిక ఉద్యమాల్లో పాల్గొనాలి.

 

ముస్లిం రిజర్వేషన్ ను, అన్ని రంగాల్లో జనాభా దామాషా ప్రాతినిధ్యాన్ని డిమాండ్ చేయాలి.

 

యూసుఫ్ షేక్ (స్కైబాబ)

 

కన్వీనర్

ముస్లిం సోషల్ మూవ్మెంట్

 

డా.షాజహానా,

ఎస్ ఎం డి ఇనయతుల్లా

నబి కరీమ్ ఖాన్

వహీద్ మహమ్మద్

సయ్యద్ ఖుర్షీద్

షేక్ పీర్ల మహమూద్

తదితర ముస్లిం విద్యావంతులు, రచయితలు

Danny

కష్టాల్లో వున్నవాళ్ళు బాధితులుగా ఒకచోట చేరుతారు. ఐక్యత అంత వరకే.  విభిన్న బాధిత సమూహాల సమస్యలు, ఆకాంక్షలు ఒకటికావు. 

ఫత్వా: టీవీ చూసిన పాటలు విన్నా శిక్ష తప్పదు

 ఫత్వా: టీవీ చూసిన పాటలు విన్నా శిక్ష తప్పదు

Aug 21, 2020, 15:05 IST

New Fatwa Issued in Murshidabad - Sakshi

కోల్‌కతా: ముర్షిదాబాద్ జిల్లాలోని మైనారిటీ ఆధిపత్య గ్రామానికి చెందిన అధిపతులు టెలివిజన్ చూడటం, క్యారమ్ ఆడటం, మద్యం లేదా లాటరీ టిక్కెట్లు కొనడం, అమ్మడం, సెల్‌ఫోన్లు, కంప్యూటర్ల ద్వారా సంగీతం వినడం వంటి ఇతర కార్యకలాపాలపై నిషేధం విధించారు. సామాజిక సంస్కరణల కమిటీ రూపొందించిన ఈ ఫత్వా ఆగస్టు 9న జారీ చేసినట్లు తెలుస్తోంది. ఈ నిబంధనలు అతిక్రమించిన వారికి చెవులు పట్టుకొని క్షమాపణలు చెప్పడం, గుండు చేయించడం, గుంజిళ్లు తీయించడం వంటి శిక్షలతో పాటు రూ .500 నుంచి రూ .7000 వరకు జరిమానాలు విధించనున్నట్లు ఆ ఫత్వాలో పేర్కొన్నారు.

ఈ కమిటీ సూచించిన శిక్షల జాబితా: 

టీవీ చూడటం, సంగీతం వినడానికి మొబైల్ ఫోన్లు లేదా కంప్యూటర్ ఉపయోగించడం: రూ. 1,000 జరిమానా

క్యారమ్‌ బోర్డు ఆడటం: రూ. 500 జరిమానా

లాటరీ కొనుగోలు: రూ. 2,000 జరిమానా

మద్యం అమ్మకం: రూ. 7,000తో పాటు గుండు చేసి గ్రామంలో ఊరేగిస్తారు. 

లాటరీ టికెట్లను అమ్మడం: రూ. 7,000 జరిమానా

మద్యం సేవించడం:  రూ. 2,000 జరిమానా, 10 గుంజిళ్లు

గంజాయి కొనుగోలు: రూ. 7,000 జరిమానా

అంతేకాకుండా నిబంధనలు ఉల్లంఘించిన వారి గురించి తెలియజేసేవారికి నేరం స్వభావాన్ని బట్టి 200 నుంచి 2,000 రూపాయల వరకు రివార్డును కూడా కమిటీ ప్రకటించింది. యువ తరం నైతిక, సాంస్కృతిక పద్దతులను తప్పి చెడు మార్గాలలో వెళ్లకుండా ఆపడానికి  వీటిపై నిషేధం విధించినట్లు కమిటీ పేర్కొంది. 

Centre’s economic package amounts to only Rs 1.86 lakh crore, claims P Chidambaram

Centre’s economic package amounts to only Rs 1.86 lakh crore, claims P Chidambaram

The Congress leader said the package has left many ‘high and dry’, including migrant families, farmers and shopkeepers.
Covid-19: Centre’s economic package amounts to only Rs 1.86 lakh crore, claims P Chidambaram

A file photo of Congress leader and former Defence Minister P Chidambaram. | P Chidambaram-The Legend/Facebook

Former Finance Minister P Chidamabaram on Monday expressed disappointment at the Centre’s economic package of Rs 20-lakh crore, claiming that it actually amounted to only Rs 1.86 lakh crore, or 0.91% of the Gross Domestic Product, PTI reported. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman provided the contours of the package in five tranches last week.

Chidambaram claimed that the package, brought in to combat the adverse economic effects of a lockdown imposed to restrict the spread of the coronavirus, has left several sections of the society “high and dry”. This includes migrant families, farmers, small shopkeepers etc, he said. The senior Congress leader said the fiscal stimulus package is “totally inadequate” considering the effect of the coronavirus pandemic on the economy.


Prime Minister Narendra Modi had announced the economic package on May 12 in a television address to the country.

“We express our thorough disappointment and request the government to reconsider the stimulus package and announce a revised and comprehensive fiscal stimulus package of not less than Rs 10 lakh crore of real additional expenditure equivalent to 10% of the GDP,” the Congress leader said. “Most analysts, rating agencies and banks have placed the size of the fiscal stimulus at between 0.8 to 1.5%.”

Chidambaram said Sitharaman had acknowledged that additional expenditure should be financed by additional borrowing, the Hindustan Times reported. “The true value of the fiscal stimulus package will be known when we know what is the additional borrowing in 2020-21 to finance the additional expenditure over and above the expenditure budget of Rs 30,42,230 crore,” he added. “The truth cannot be hidden for long.”

Chidambaram also accused the Centre of deliberately sidelining the Parliament, and being opportunistic by pushing reforms. “I think the government is deliberately sidelining Parliament,” he said. “A meeting of the Parliamentary Committee should at least be held to discuss the fiscal stimulus package.”

Last week, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi asked Modi to reconsider the package and emphasised the need to directly transfer money to the people’s accounts. Gandhi said the Centre should stop acting like a “money lender” by giving the poor credit instead of cash.

The five tranches focus on the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises sector, alleviating the plight of migrant workers, improving agricultural infrastructure and allied industries, coal mining and defence manufacturing and allocations under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.

On Monday, United States multinational investment bank Goldman Sachs predicted that the Indian economy will experience the worst recession ever, due to the nationwide lockdown. On April 28, Moody’s Investors Service had cut India’s growth forecast for the year 2020 from 2.5% to 0.2%. The agency also projected that all advanced economies of the G20 group would shrink by 5.8% during the year.

Meanwhile, the migrant crisis continues to worsen in the country as the Centre has now extended the lockdown till May 31. With no work and lack of resources, many migrant workers have been walking back to their hometowns.

The Centre started running ‘Shramik Special’ trains from May 1. However, many still continue their gruelling journeys on foot, cycles, or any other means of transport they can find. Some have died on their way, while a few others died in accidents.

India has so far recorded 96,169 cases of coronavirus, according to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Over 3,029 people have died.

Uighur Muslims across China are living in fear

We’re a people destroyed’: why Uighur Muslims across China are living in fear
 Uighur men at a teahouse in Kashgar in July 2017. Photograph: Kevin Frayer/Getty
Gene A Bunin has spent the past 18 months talking to Uighur restaurant workers all over China. These conversations reveal how this Muslim minority feel the daily threat of arrest, detention and ‘re-education’

Tue 7 Aug 2018 06.00 BSTLast modified on Fri 5 Apr 2019 06.30 BST
Shares
2,846
It was about a year ago that I first walked into Karim’s restaurant, intending to write about it as part of the food guide I was putting together about ethnic Uighur restaurants in the traditionally Chinese “inner China” of the country’s east and south. Having already spent a decade researching the Uighurs – a largely Muslim ethnic minority group based mainly in the westernmost Xinjiang region, outside inner China – this food-guide project was intended as a fun spin-off from my usual linguistic studies. Or even a “treasure hunt”, you might say, given the rarity of Uighur restaurants in such major inner-China cities as Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou, where the Uighurs are migrants and where the Han Chinese, the dominant ethnic group that account for more than 90% of China’s population, are the great majority.


Lose yourself in a great story: Sign up for the long read email
 Read more
While my travels for the guide would involve visiting almost 200 restaurants in more than 50 cities, Karim’s was particularly memorable. I found the usual pilau rice and hand-pulled laghmen noodles – central-Asian dishes that are staples of Uighur cuisine, and which Karim’s kitchen did very well. More important, though, were the sense of warmth and feeling of community, which made sitting there for an additional hour or two a real pleasure. Karim was a great host, and his diners would often chat with each other across the tables, touching upon serious issues while maintaining a certain levity and humour.

During one of my visits, the conversation turned to the discrimination that Uighurs faced in this large, Han-majority city. Several diners mentioned the difficulty of finding accommodation, as local hotels frequently rejected Uighur visitors by claiming there were no rooms available. Even a Uighur policeman had been denied a room, someone pointed out with a laugh. Karim, a worldly polyglot who could have easily passed for a Middle Easterner, mentioned how he would sometimes go to a hotel and speak to the front-desk staff in English. Mistaking him for a foreigner, they would tell him that there were rooms available, and then backtrack after asking him for his documents and seeing the word Uighur on his Chinese identification card.

A rally of suport for the Uighurs in Istanbul, Turkey.
FacebookTwitterPinterest A rally of suport for the Uighurs in Istanbul, Turkey. Photograph: Kemal Aslan/Rex/Shutterstock
As would soon become clear, however, such “mild” discrimination was to be the least of the Uighurs’ problems. While the regulars at Karim’s were having this discussion in the spring of 2017, their home region of Xinjiang – home to more than 10 million ethnic Uighurs – was already being subjected to what the Chinese state described as an “all-out offensive” against religious extremism and terrorism. The hard-line policies started shortly after the appointment of Chen Quanguo as Xinjiang’s party secretary, a strongman who had previously pursued similar policies in Tibet. While the government has justified its use of force as a response to a number of violent incidents, critics have claimed the measures are aimed at destroying Uighur identity.

Advertisement

Things would worsen considerably over the coming year, as Xinjiang was turned into an Orwellian police state and hundreds of thousands of Uighurs were gradually locked away in concentration camps for what the state calls “transformation through education”. Others have been thrown in prison or “disappeared”. Witness reports of life inside the camps and detention centres have told not only of unhealthy living conditions, but also of regular violence, torture and brainwashing. Writing in the New York Times in February, James A Millward, a scholar who has researched Xinjiang for three decades, argued that the “state repression in Xinjiang has never been as severe as it has become since early 2017”.

For many, last spring would mark the start of a period of great loss – the loss of rights, livelihoods and identities. Some would also lose their lives. Karim was particularly vulnerable, as Uighurs like him, who have lived abroad in Muslim-majority countries, have been especially targeted in the government crackdown. When I returned to the neighbourhood earlier this year, I was told that Karim had been handcuffed, taken away and jailed – and that he had “died after prolonged heavy labour”.

At least, that’s the politically proper way of putting it. You could also say that he was murdered by the state.

Advertisement
The state, for its part, has shut down all criticism of its actions in Xinjiang. Earlier this year, the foreign ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, declared that concerns about the mistreatment of the Uighurs were “unjustified” and criticism amounted to “interference in China’s internal affairs”. In a memorable statement last summer, Xinjiang’s deputy foreign publicity director, Ailiti Saliyev, went so far as to suggest that “the happiest Muslims in the world live in Xinjiang”.

While it is probably best to let the Uighurs speak for themselves regarding their happiness, hearing their voices has been difficult, given the state’s determined efforts to turn Xinjiang into an information vacuum. Journalists, in particular, have been under very heavy scrutiny, with anyone they have managed to interview often too scared to speak honestly. The risks and retributions have been significantly higher for Uighur journalists abroad. In February, four Uighurs working for Radio Free Asia in the US learned that some of their close relatives in Xinjiang had been detained. It was, wrote the Washington Post, “an apparent attempt to intimidate or punish them for their coverage”.

Many foreign tourists I have spoken to in Xinjiang this year have reported being interrogated on the train into the region, as well as at checkpoints between cities. Two academic scholars told me stories of being denied entry or transportation to towns that have traditionally been accessible, without being provided with any real reason. While residing in Xinjiang’s westernmost city of Kashgar, an oasis town not far from the borders with Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Pakistan, I was effectively chased out: the hostel where I was staying was suddenly closed for “fire safety” reasons, and I found myself blacklisted at every other place that could have offered me accommodation. After leaving Xinjiang, I spent a month in Yiwu, an international trade hub about 5,000km to the east, not far from Shanghai, but even here, my daily contact with the city’s Uighur population attracted special attention. On two occasions, the local police warned me to “obey Chinese law” and to “not go hanging out with any bad Xinjiang people” – a euphemism for Uighurs.

Advertisement

But nevertheless, between my linguistic research and the food guide, I spent the best part of 18 months precisely among those “bad Xinjiang people”, both in Xinjiang itself, and in inner China. During that time, I spoke to hundreds of Uighurs, the majority of them male restaurant workers, businessmen, small-time traders and street-food cooks, as well as their families. In the vast majority of cases, we did not talk about politics. Even so, almost everyone I talked to was affected by the repression in Xinjiang, and sometimes the only alternative to talking about it would have been not talking at all – and so we talked.

In synthesising what I have observed, I realise that I ultimately cannot speak for the Uighurs – that task should of course be left to the Uighurs themselves, in an environment that is free of fear. Still, I hope the image I present will allow the reader a glimpse of how the Uighurs in Xinjiang and the rest of China are reacting to the present situation.

On a certain alley in Xinjiang stands a diner I particularly like, popular for its pigeon shish kebab and milk tea. I would always try to stop there when I was in the neighbourhood. The last time I did, I came with apologies, having not visited for a long time. But, far from being angry, the owner was just surprised that I was still in the region. “I was sure that you had gone back to your country,” he told me.

Almost a year had passed since our previous meeting, and a lot had changed. Most of his staff, about 10 of them in all, had been forced to return to their hometowns in southern Xinjiang, either for “re-education” or for “hometown arrest”. Gone were the shish kebabs and the tea, together with most of the clientele. Uighur kitchen staff were extremely scarce now, the owner said, and it was almost impossible to find substitutes.

I asked him about his nephew – another old friend – but was told that he was in jail for having previously spent a year in a Middle Eastern country. “Our mood is shattered,” the owner admitted to me.

This sense of gloom was also evident in the frank negativity I started to notice in many Uighur business-owners. While Uighurs generally consider it bad etiquette to complain when asked how they are doing, more and more often in recent times, I heard people telling me that things were “not that great” because “business was horrible”. When I ran into a tour guide acquaintance last year, I remarked to him that he had got really thin since I had last seen him. “We’ve all got really thin this past year,” he told me.

Uighur children taunt a local police officer in Kashgar.
 Uighur children taunt a local police officer in Kashgar. Photograph: Kevin Frayer/Getty
Advertisement

Equally pervasive was the constant sense of fear. On one evening in Kashgar, I watched five or six police snatch a drunken man off the streets just for waving his arms, without asking any questions, and even though he was with his wife and son. In inner China, young restaurant workers could seem relaxed one day and then visibly worried the next: it would emerge that the police had given them orders to go back to their hometowns in Xinjiang immediately – a three- or four-day train journey for most.

There was also the fear of always being watched. Once I sat down with a manager of a restaurant in eastern China and, unable to avoid the topic, spoke to him about how oppressive things had become in Xinjiang, telling him about a friend who had been sentenced to a decade in jail for owning the “wrong” books. No sooner did I say the word “jail” than the manager’s head began to twitch in the direction of the table behind ours. “There’s a policeman here!” he whispered, before standing up and walking away.

Concerned for their safety, many Uighurs have deleted all foreign contacts on China’s (highly monitored) WeChat app. At one point last year, I made an effort to see a friend in Xinjiang who had deleted me, by first getting in touch through a proxy, and then meeting in person. In retrospect, I almost wish I hadn’t. Our lunch together was silent and awkward. There was so much to say, but everything felt taboo, and there were whole minutes when we just sat there in silence. It didn’t seem like anyone was monitoring us, but my friend looked worried all the same. When I passed him samples of a book I was working on, he cast them a glance but didn’t flip through the pages. When I asked him if a mutual acquaintance of ours was still around, he told me that he “didn’t know” that person anymore, before adding: “Right now, I don’t even know you.”

When talking about the situation in Xinjiang, it is standard to use euphemisms. The most common by far is the word yoq, which means “gone” or “not around”. “Do you get what I’m saying?” a friend asked me once, as I tried to figure out what had happened to a person he was telling me about. “That guy is yoq. He’s got another home now.”

The phrase adem yoq (“everybody’s gone”) is the one I’ve heard the most this past year. It has been used to describe the absence of staff, clients and people in general. When referring to people who have been forced to return to their hometowns (for hometown arrest, camp or worse), it is typical to say that they “went back home”.

The concentration camps are not referred to as “concentration camps”, naturally. Instead, the people there are said to be occupied with “studying” (oqushta/öginishte) or “education” (terbiyileshte), or sometimes may be said to be “at school” (mektepte).

Advertisement

Likewise, people do not use words like “oppression” when talking about the overall situation in Xinjiang. Rather, they tend to say “weziyet yaxshi emes” (“the situation isn’t good”), or describe Xinjiang as being very “ching” (“strict”, “tight”).

Despite the euphemisms, there is no getting away from what is actually happening. It hit me just how unavoidable the topic was when, while chatting with an old friend in inner China, I made a genuine effort to avoid politics and talk about more normal or even mundane things. It proved impossible. When I asked him what he had done earlier that day, he brought up a political meeting that all the Uighurs in that city had to attend. When I asked him if he still tried to read books in his spare time, he told me that the police had cracked down on that, too, and that reading any book would invite unwanted attention. When I asked him about his aspirations for the future, he told me that, ideally, he would love to become a chef of Turkish food and open up his own restaurant, but, unfortunately, that act alone would get him jailed in Xinjiang, as the state continues to discourage and destroy all contact between the Uighurs and other Turkic and Muslim peoples abroad.

A paramilitary guard in Xinjiang capital Urumqi.
 A paramilitary guard in Xinjiang capital Urumqi. Photograph: AP
On a few occasions, I encountered people who seemed to have reached a degree of desperation, and just wanted to let everything out. The first such time was in Kashgar, in autumn last year, when a uniformed public-security worker – the mostly Uighur, lowest-rank uniformed authority in southern Xinjiang – invited me to sit across from him at a table in a teahouse. He was off duty that afternoon, having just returned from a medical checkup.

Advertisement

The conversation that followed was tense. He asked me what I knew of Uighur history, and then asked me what I thought of the Uighurs as a people. The latter question is one I have been asked several times during my years in Xinjiang, and has often struck me as a way of searching for some sort of outside verification of Uighurs’ identity. Unsure of how to reply, I tried to be noncommittal: “The Uighurs are a people like any other, with their good and bad.”

“You’re hiding what you really think,” he confronted me. “Just look all around you. You’ve seen it yourself [here in Kashgar]. We’re a people destroyed.”

Given my general distrust of uniformed people in China, I wasn’t ready to share any political views at the time, but have since come to see our conversation as a true moment of desperation. His words, I believe, were genuine. His post was close to Kashgar’s night market, but as of a few days after our meeting, I never saw him there, or anywhere else, ever again.

The other conversation that will always stay with me took place in inner China, while visiting a restaurant I had been to a few times before. With the exception of a single waiter, all of the old staff were gone. As soon as that waiter saw me, he dropped everything to sit down and chat. My telling him that I had been kicked out of Kashgar seemed to trigger him, and he would go on to say many things about the situation there, virtually all of them taboo.

“Millions of Uighurs” were being held in camps, he told me, where they were being fed 15-year-old leftover rice and subjected to beatings. (Precise numbers are hard to verify, but witness testimonies have confirmed both poor nutrition and violence in the camps.) He said that the Uighurs in this inner-China city now had to attend political meetings, and that they might soon have to take a test on political subjects such as the 19th party congress. Those who didn’t pass would be sent back to Xinjiang.

“When the police talk to us,” he said, “they are suspicious about everything: ‘Do you smoke? Do you drink?’ If you don’t, they’ll ask you why not. They’ll ask you if you pray. They’ll ask you if you want to go abroad, or if you’ve previously applied for or had a passport. If you look at the policeman, he’ll ask you what you’re looking at him for; if you look down at the floor, he’ll ask you why you’re looking down at the floor. Whenever we take a train, there’s always a separate room that we have to go through before we’re allowed to leave the station, where they check our documents and question us.”

I worried about him talking to me so openly, but it seemed he understood the risks, or perhaps had already concluded that he was going to be taken soon anyway. When another crackdown came a week later, sweeping a good chunk of the city’s Uighur youth with it, he would be among those forced to leave. “Back to his hometown.”

Occasionally, I did encounter people who had more positive things to say about the situation. At the risk of passing off my subjectivity as fact, the vast majority of these comments struck me as marked by a mix of cognitive dissonance, Stockholm syndrome and self-delusion – often evidenced by self-contradiction and an apparent lack of conviction behind the words.

At a time when I was still absorbing Xinjiang’s new reality, one of the hardest “rude awakening” moments came while catching up with a Uighur friend who worked in Xinjiang’s tourism industry. After chatting for a bit, I remarked on the city’s increasingly intense security procedures, in a manner that suggested that I found it all over the top. He, too, had his complaints about the new system, saying how he would be forced to stop and have his ID checked seven times while travelling just 2-3km on his electric scooter. Still, he was quick to add: “But the people all feel really safe now. Before, I used to worry about letting my daughter go to school alone, but now I don’t have to worry.”

Those words – which almost sounded prepared – stunned me, given that we were just speaking one-on-one. He then went on to say that this was all to protect the people from terrorism, and that as soon as Russia and the US hurried up and defeated Isis, all of this would be over. However, when I said that I didn’t think that terrorism could be defeated with force like this, he was quick to agree with that as well.

Another friend in another city complained to me about the arbitrary inspections that the local police carried out with regard to the Uighurs. I still remember how angry he got as he talked – saying that the individual policemen acted like they were the law – but nevertheless added that the upper layers of the government were good.

Uighur bakers in Kashgar, under a poster of Chinese leaders including Mao Zedong and Xi Jinping.
 Uighur bakers in Kashgar, under a poster of Chinese leaders including Mao Zedong and Xi Jinping. Photograph: Kevin Frayer/Getty
Advertisement

A curious phenomenon took place online at the time of the 19th party congress last October, when Uighur friends who hardly spoke any Mandarin suddenly started posting long messages in fluent Mandarin praising Xi Jinping and the congress. A few months later, I heard about a WeChat app that allowed users to “fasheng liangjian” (“to clearly demonstrate one’s stance” or, literally, “to speak forth and flash one’s sword”), by plugging their name into a prepared Mandarin- or Uighur-language statement. The statement pledged their loyalty to the Communist party and its leaders, and expressed, among other things, their determination in upholding “ethnic harmony” and standing opposed to terrorism. The generated image file could then be readily posted on their social network of choice as a show of loyalty.

In many of the inner-China restaurants I visited, this loyalty was much more visual than verbal. As a rule, Uighur restaurants would be the only ones on their street covered with Chinese flags and, occasionally, red banners proclaiming a determined struggle against terrorism. Sometimes, the interiors too would have little flags, as well as photos of Xi or plates bearing his image, or “ethnic harmony” slogans such as those calling for all of China’s ethnic groups to be “as tight as seeds in a pomegranate”. Some restaurants even had Uighur-language books about Xi and the party at the front counter. I never asked if such demonstrations were voluntary or mandated by the law, but suspect that, like China’s censorship in general, they were a mix of the two – some being anticipatory, some being forced.

Obedience and appeasement appear to have saved some people from the camps and prisons. Other factors – money, connections, Han-Chinese spouses and a formal Chinese education – although never an ironclad guarantee, appear to help also. Beyond that, bribing police or officials to avoid having one’s passport confiscated or being sent back to one’s hometown is an option that several people I spoke to had taken – a crack in a system that often feels hopelessly inescapable.

For the majority, however, the detentions and the fear of detention have become an unavoidable fact of daily life. Most, I would say, cope by simply enduring and “plodding along”. Despite the missing relatives, the financial losses and the fear that one day soon it could be their turn to go, many of my friends and acquaintances have done their best to focus on how they earn their livelihood, and to continue doing just that. For many, what seems most important now is their children’s future. Those without children are focusing on simpler and more concrete goals, such as graduating from university, finding a job or buying an apartment.

One friend manages a small shop in inner China where local police have recently confiscated entire shelves of import products for “not having Chinese labels”. He was able to stop them from confiscating more, he says, by telling them that he wasn’t feeling well and had to close the shop. With half the shelves empty and business having seen a sharp decline, he believes that it won’t be long now before the store is closed.

But, even as he describes how the state has started to target young Uighur men indiscriminately, he says he is not afraid. “I’ve already experienced a lot in life. So if they come and arrest me – fine. Whatever happens, happens.”

When talking of the situation in general, he takes a broader, grander view. “This is a trial for the Muslim world right now,” he says. “If you look at what’s happening in Syria, or in other places, the Muslim world as a whole is undergoing a test. But Allah knows everything that’s happening. We just have to get through this.” With praying all but forbidden for the Uighurs, he has found ways that the authorities won’t notice, such as praying covertly while sitting in a chair, or praying under one of the trees that line the sidewalk.


The great firewall of China: Xi Jinping’s internet shutdown
 Read more
For others, hope exists simply by necessity, and many Uighurs have told me that “things will get better soon” without offering any reason for believing this. Some seem to think that a friend or relative will be released in the near future “because they’ve been held for so many months already”. Others seem to think that the situation will revert to normal “once terrorism is defeated”. In some of the conversations I have had in inner China’s Uighur restaurants – which, again, have lost huge portions of their staff – I have been told that the staff would “come back soon after finishing their education”.

But time has been cruel to these optimistic voices. As the months have turned into a year, and more, the people interned are still interned, the restaurants are losing ever more staff and clients, and the situation only continues to worsen.

A longer version of this article first appeared on the website The Art of Life in Chinese Central Asia. Names and other identifying details have been changed to protect the people mentioned.

Darul Uloom Deoband issues fatwa, asks Muslims to offer Eid prayers at home

PTI

SAHARANPUR, MAY 19, 2020 11:06 IST

UPDATED: MAY 19, 2020 11:31 IST

SHARE ARTICLE
•  0
• PRINT
• A A A

The fatwa said the Eid namaz can be offered in the same manner that the Friday prayers are now being read at home.   | Photo Credit: Getty Images

The directive comes amid a nationwide lockdown to slow down the spread of coronavirus.

Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband has issued a fatwa asking Muslims to offer their Eid prayers this time at home, instead of congregating at mosques.

The directive comes amid a nationwide lockdown to slow down the spread of coronavirus.

Despite the relaxations announced in the lockdown, religious and other large gatherings are still banned.

The fatwa was issued in response to a query put to the seminary, its spokesman Ashraf Usmani told PTI.

The fatwa said the Eid namaz can be offered in the same manner that the Friday prayers are now being read at home.

It said, not holding the namaz in the usual manner is pardonable in circumstances such as these.

Eid falls on May 24 or 25 this year.