Naming roads should be motivated by history not by political beliefs or chauvinism...

New Delhi Municipal Corporation has changed the name of a prominent thoroughfare in the city from "Aurangzeb Road" to "APJ Abdul Kalam Road". The road which was named decades ago after the Mughal emperor has now been renamed after India's "Missile Man".

No doubt, our current majestic masters would rejoice at our enthusiasm in naming streets or roads after great people. But with this un-solicitous rush, we have also added a degree of silliness to the process. The people who are euphoric with the replacement of the name have obviously missed the big point that New Delhi's geography had been motivated by history and not on political beliefs or chauvinism.

I mean Mahatma Gandhi certainly would have been on an eternal hunger strike if he knew that Delhi's congested Ring Road - which denotes everything about modernity that the Mahatma Gandhi ostracized - bore his name. Similarly, I fail to understand how Park Street of Kolkata which is famous for pubs & bars reflects the legacy of Mother Teresa or for that matter Marine Drive in Mumbai reflects the ideas & ideals of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.

Apart from it many historians have pointed out that it is difficult to single out Aurangzeb as a particularly ferocious or brutal ruler, or even a rabidly anti-Hindu emperor. It is undeniable, he clamped down on certain Hindu religious practices, destroyed some temples and killed some people, but it was more to suppress rivals which was in no way connected to his personal religious belief. He destroyed some temples either for hidden treasures or to discourage their use for planning rebellion against him. All above can be verified by the fact, he did not abandon the Mughal graciousness of Hindu mansabdars.


He helped build, renovate and patronized many Hindu temples like the Chitrakut or Balaghat where the Emperor himself granted 300 bighas of land for the Mandir or Umananda, the oldest temple of Bhagwan Bhosle Shankar situated on the banks of river Brahmaputra in Guwahati or offered annual grants to Maa Kamakhya Mandir- another famous temple situated on the hills of Nilachaal near Guwahati. In Hindu holy city of Ayodhya he donated 1000 bighas of land to a Hindu trust to build a grand temple and also to build resting places for Hindu pilgrims- Yugal Kishore Sharan Shastri, head of Sarayukunj Ramjanaki Mandir in Ayodhya confirmed this in a social media post the other day.

Perhaps, it's imperative to understand that Aurangzeb was not democratically elected or inherited the empire peacefully; he had to fight hard to attain what he achieved, sustained and later ruled. Therefore it is understandable that the occurrences during such course was neither exclusive nor an exception or in anyway limited to Aurangzeb only, as it was the norm to ascend thrones during the period. It is impractical to jump to an opinion on Aurangzeb, as he was not a short-lived experience defined by a single event. He lived and shaped Indian history through nearly seven decades- first as Shah Jahan's son, then as his viceroy down south, followed by as "Shahenshah e Hind" or India's ruler.

Apart from it, if he had been so rabidly anti-Hindu - and hostile toward the large section of his subject - then it would have been impossible for him to continue on the Mughal throne for such long period.

Coming back to point, changing names of Roads are fine if it gives people the feeling of pride and self-respect. APJ Kalam was certainly a great scholar, a statesman and a former President of the country; there is nothing wrong on naming a street, town or a city after him, but why was he chosen for this particular Delhi road? Delhi is one of the greatest cities in the world with rich history of over 1,000 years. It would be unfortunate if residents fail to appreciate it and focus their energy on inconsequential things like naming of streets.

On the contrary, I wonder why nobody is seeking to rename Ashoka, Tughlaq, or Akbar roads. Unsurprisingly, it's no secret that Ashoka launched a bloody massacre against the state of Kalinga. It is believed that the sheer extent of that gory war led Ashoka to embrace Buddhism, although some historians contradict this and state that Ashoka continued his invasion against other states even after his conversion. The Tughlaqs were no less bloody either, particularly; Muhammad bin Tughlaq spared neither Hindus nor Muslims when he illogically decided to shift the entire population of Delhi to his new capital Daulatabad. And finally, it cannot be forgotten that the most celebrated Mughal King Akbar too had blood on his hands. Remember that Bahram Khan, the man who raised Akbar from his childhood, was
ultimately killed on the emperor's order.

But irrespective of all facts above, if killing innocents or razing religious structures is still a sort of a benchmark to judge someone, then I am sure historians some decades or centuries later will equate some of today's rulers in India to some Mughal rulers (tyrannical to some) because they too have led mobs to massacre of innocents and razed religious structures, sometime following the action-reaction theory and others in the name of beautification, broadening of roads, laying routes for metro rails and other development work.


http://www.indiatomorrow.net/eng/naming-roads-should-be-motivated-by-history-not-by-political-beliefs-or-chauvinism-


http://www.milligazette.com/news/12978-re-naming-should-be-motivated-by-history-not-chauvinism

NO POLITICS WITH OUR FEELINGS PLEASE ...

AS everybody else has an opinion on Yakub Memon's death by decree of law, irrespective of the fact that it is unlikely to change anything for him now, I still feel the urge to put things across in a simple, impartial and logical way. So, without wasting words on immaterial issue like whether he should have been extended leniency and compassion, the attention at the moment should be on another more pertinent question. Was he eligible for such an "act of gracious kindness" for the crime he committed or was forced to be an accomplice in it?

Mr B Raman (IPS), the then head of Pakistan's desk at Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) in his article in 2007 (http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/dead-raw-officer-raman-returns-to-question-death-sentence-to-1993-bombay-blasts-convict-yakub-memon-1024952.html) wrote: "There is not an iota of doubt about the involvement of Yakub and other members of the family in the conspiracy and their cooperation with the ISI till July 1994". It makes the rest of the argument unwarranted.

Many offer logic that Babri mosque was demolished 20 years ago with much oppression of the Muslims; have we gotten any justice? Gujarat genocide of Muslims occurred 10 years ago; have we gotten any justice? The horrendous Bombay communal riots happened 20 years ago; have we received any justice? Batla House false encounter and oppression of many Muslim youth from Azamgarh occurred five years ago and is continuing; have we received any justice? Sachar Committee report on gross Muslim deprivations was released six years ago; have we received any justice? All we have received in 65 years is a few bread crumbs thrown at us and we have been told to keep quiet.

But my question to all such people including​ Mr. Owaisi, (a lawyer himself) and the politically active millionaire Imam - who led the Namaaz e Janaza for Yakub in Kolkata - is why they did not take keen interest to fight all above cases, including that of Yakub, himself (Mr Owaisi). Why did they not hire lawyers to pursue all above cases, including that of Yakub again?

I feel it was more of a lip service to the community to give them a "feel good feeling" than anything else, because as a layman if I can understand that seeking clemency from capital punishment in itself was an acceptance of his crime, I wonder how a foreign-returned barrister like Owaisi could not understand that and demanded relief on communal lines. Does counting others' sins make one saint?
The argument should have been on the basis of the disclosure that Mr Raman made again in his article,​ where he wrote "But if one also takes into consideration his (Yakub's) conduct and role after he was informally picked up in Kathmandu, there is a strong case for having second thoughts about the suitability of the death penalty in the subsequent stages of the case".

And on that Imam of Kolkata, his mass prayers seem limited for dreaded terrorists, be it Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussain or controversial figures like Yakub Memon. Why did he not offer prayer for APJ Abdul Kalam who died recently? Why did he not offer any Namaaz e Janaza for Kargil Martyrs, Ehsan Jaffery and all those who were butchered in Gujarat, Mumbai or Muzaffarnagar? Weren't they Muslims? Aren't they martyrs? But creating confusion in the minds of innocent Muslims the Imam seems hell-bent on committing political hara-kiri, pushing the community in another deep abyss. Unfortunately for some Muslims love for their political parties is more pertinent than the love for the community. Otherwise, they could have limited their actions.

The community would have appreciated it if there were some logical and peaceful means of protest in the case of hanging of Yakub. Such Namaaz e Janaza sends wrong signal or depicts incorrect pictures of the community and ends up antagonising fellow citizens instead of letting them know of our concerns.

Such prayer is nothing but a big blunder ​​that makes the community more vulnerable and isolated. Such dim-witted show of strength of the community is just hollow and meaningless- and should be avoided ​at all cost.


http://www.indiatomorrow.net/eng/no-politics-with-our-feelings-please

THE WORLD MUST STOP MISINTERPRETING TERRORISTS AS MESSIAHS OF ISLAM...

If by any means spilling Muslim blood is the deciding factor for Muslims to decide who the community should take vengeance against, then these dissemblers i.e., ISIS, Al Qaeda or geographically more closer, the Talibans, should immediately go into hiding as these organizations have been butchering Muslims for years now.

They wish to mentally take possession of Muslims, but faces a wall of neutrality, resentment even opposition from the community. And so by indulging into cruel activities (like beheading captives, burning them alive, a 9/11 or even a 26/11) they crave to get non-Muslims to be unkind towards Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims. It can start creating a common political identity around accusation against discrimination that may not only make their recruitment drive easier, but may also help accumulate funds more smoothly.


And If we study the actions of these horrendous organizations closely, we shall know that the people killed by Al Qaeda, ISIS and Taliban had only 12% non-Muslims as victims! That majorly suggests, these felonious have killed seven times more Muslims (be it Shia or Sunni) than non-Muslims. Therefore the fact is that neither of these “Beelzebub” is fighting for the cause of Islam or Muslims as they proclaim and publicize it to be; Frankly speaking they are not about the concept of "submit to Islam or die," but “Submit to ISIS/al Qaeda/Taliban or die”, and in the process they hardly care how many lives they take and it hardly matter if the victims are Muslims. Yet they claim they are carrying out their actions in the name of Islam!

In fact soon after Charlie Hebdo’s Attack in Paris one Al-Ansi through a video message claimed that the terrorist brothers who carried out the attack on the officers were "two heroes of Islam." He couldn't be more wrong! But that isn't to say there weren't heroes of Islam in Paris that day; it's just that they are two quite different people. Ahmed Merabet the French police officer who exchanged fire, later shot in cold blood and Lassana Bathily, the Muslim employee at the kosher deli in Paris who saved the lives of seven Jews were certainly the “Two Heroes of Islam”. In fact Bathily’s actions illustrate the famous verse no 32nd of chapter 5 (Sūrat l-Māidah) from Holy Quran, “that whoever kills a soul it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.”

But merely calling out the two-facedness of such malicious crooks won't change these organizations' goals, as they shall continue to mention Islam as cover for their covetous ambitions, as it helps them inveigle new recruits and raise funds which are essential for their unrelenting survival and Lucullan life-style.

Perhaps, if their duplicity & insincerity is consistently laid exposed, then it might help all understand the true impetus of these terrorist outfits ,which have absolutely nothing to do with Islam, they are more of an extortionists vying for power & riches.



http://twocircles.net/2015feb15/1423982742.html#.VOH4LeaUdVR

COPY OF OUR LETTER TO HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT OF INDIA.

His Excellency
Janab. Mohammed Hamid Ansari
Hon’ble Vice President
“Vice President’s House”
6, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi 110011


5th February 2015



Kind Janab,
The Sawaab Foundation of India (SFoI) strongly bemoans the police actions against the unarmed peaceful demonstration organized outside the sacred Heart Church to peacefully register the bitterness and disapproval on the attacks on Christian churches in Delhi. The nonviolent protest which included the participation of nuns and priests was forcibly dispersed by the police with lathis and most of the protestors were arrested.

The SFoI condemns this inhuman attitude of the police which is refusing to acknowledge that the vandalism of five churches in Delhi in the recent period is communally motivated and are abhorrent crimes against a minority community. This is certainly painful that the government at the centre, under whom the law & order machinery functions in Delhi did not act accordingly and efficiently enough to deal a situation like above.

We hand foldedly appeal & supports the stand that a “Special Investigation Team (SIT)’ under a sitting High Court Judge be constituted to investigate these attacks so that the culprits can be brought to justice.

JAI HIND



Aziz A Mubaraki
Founder & Chairman
Sawaab Foundation of India

Why are Muslims expected to wear their patriotism on their sleeves?

A big controversy, perhaps intentionally propagated by imbeciles who fancy Vice President Hamid Ansari be sacked for "non salutation" to the National flag during the passing of Republic Day Parade this Monday.

But the more instant question here is what does the protocol says? And on inquest I found, according to Section VI of the Flag Code of India, which deals with the protocols for saluting the flag it says "During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag, or when the flag is passing in a parade or in a review, all persons present should face the Flag and stand at attention. Those present in uniform should render the appropriate salute. The President of India serves as the de jure Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Armed Forces, may be considered to be in uniform and hence is allowed the salute.

And as the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Vice President Hamid Ansari, US President Barack Obama and Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar were not in uniform and were therefore not required to salute the flag.

Hence it can be said that PM Modi and DM Parrikar actually made a mistake by saluting the flag, it can be either out of inexperience or enthusiasm. While Hamid Ansari did the right thing....!!!

Apart from that it is worth mentions that Mr. Mohammed Hamid Ansari is no layman as some of his colleagues (read politicians) are, he secured the 4th rank in UPSC and joined the Indian Foreign Service as a diplomat in 1961. He served the country as an IFS officer in various countries. He has represented the country as an ambassador to United Arab Emirates , Afghanistan, Iran & Saudia Arabia and as Chief of Protocol, Government of India from 1980-1985. So it can be said, the controversy is not about the salutation, respect or disrespect to the "National Flag", as its made out to be, and is more deep rooted and murkier than what it looks like. Factually the country's internal politics has turned real rotten these days, and the Muslims are presumed to be anti BJP hence anti-national, thus are facing toughest time ever in the history of this country. There are people who intentionally stoke the flames of hate against other communities. And it's something truly despicable. Some do it because they simply detest and abhor anyone who doesn't accept their political supremacy. But for a few others, Muslim bashing is their career and only source for attaining publicity & power. They make a living writing books and giving lectures about how Muslims destroyed this country 600 years ago and how they conspire to do it now, pathetic!
Whereas the fact is, Muslims have voted like any other electorate considering the pros and cons of the candidates irrespective of their political affiliations. And a huge chunk of Muslims flocking around BJP's office in Kolkata these days, only endorses my contention.

But it hardly matter how many times a Muslim swears his adherence to the Indian nation and proves his "DESH BHAKTI", no matter how successful one becomes in the country, there will always be doubt over his patriotism, regrettably same is the case with Vice-President of India. The underlying truth for a Muslim; one must prove his love for the country on a daily basis (weekly, monthly or annual endorsement of the same is not allowed) as Muslim is expected to wear his patriotism on his sleeves, isn't it Sic....!!!!

And coming back to the primary issue, here are some of the facts from the life of Hamid Ansari for his detractors kind perusal.

Timeline
1937 - Was born in Kolkata, India
1959 - M.A. (Political Science) from Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
1959-61 - Worked as a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, AMU.
1961 - Joined the Indian Foreign Service, by securing 4th rank.
1976-80 - Worked as an Ambassador in United Arab Emirates (UAE).
1980-85 - Worked as the Chief of Protocol Officer, Government of India.
1984 - Was awarded the Padma Shri
1985-1989 - Worked as the High Commissioner to Australia.
1989-1990 - Worked as an Ambassador to Afghanistan.
1990-1992 - Worked as an Ambassador to Iran.
1993-1995 - Was a Permanent Representative to the UN, New York.
1995-1999 - Served as an Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
1999-2000 - Served as a visiting professor, Centre for West Asian and African Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
2000-2002 - Served as the Vice-Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh
2002-2006 - Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
2003-2005 - Served as the visiting professor, Academy for Third World Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
2004-2006 - Was made Co-Chairman, India-U.K, Round Table Conference
2004-2006 - Member, National Security Advisory Board
2004-2005 - Was made Chairman, Advisory Committee for Oil Diplomacy, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
2006 - Chairman, Working Group on "Confidence building measures across segments of society in the State", established by the second Round Table Conference with the Prime Minister, Jammu and Kashmir issue, held at Srinagar.
2007-Present - Becomes the Vice-President of India and ex officio Chairman, Rajya Sabha

http://www.indiatomorrow.net/eng/why-are-muslims-expected-to-wear-their-patriotism-on-their-sleeves

---

A bigoted expectation from Muslims...

It is although strange but a fact, almost a ritual that after every incident of violence involving a Muslim perpetrator each and every one of the world’s billion-plus Muslims, especially those living in Asian sub-continent (read India) is expected to issue a public condemnation denouncing it in strongest terms.

Perhaps here is what Muslims and Muslim organizations are expected to say: “As a Muslim, I condemn this attack and terrorism in any form.” This expectation placed on Muslims, to be absolutely clear, is Islamophobic and bigoted!

The denunciation is a form of apology: an apology for Islam and for Muslims. Although pathetic but the implication is that every Muslim is under suspicion of being “sympathetic to terrorism” unless he or she explicitly and boldly says otherwise! The assumption is thus that any crime committed by a Muslim is the responsibility of Muslims as a community simply by virtue of their shared religion.

This sort of thinking — blaming an entire “ummah” for the actions of a few individuals, assuming the worst about a person just because of their belief and religious identity — is certainly the very definition of bigotry.

It is time for the world to grow up that may help this ritual to end: it is evidently important for non-Muslims in all countries to realize especially in Indian sub-continent, and finally take on the correct guesstimate that Muslims hate terrorism just as much as they do, and cease expecting Muslims to prove their innocence or patriotism towards the nation (read India) just because of their faith.

These obstinate and chauvinistic conjectures are the only plausible reason for this ritual communion to exist, which means that maintaining the ritual is maintaining malapropism. Otherwise, we wouldn't expect Muslims to condemn Dawood Ibrahim — who is clearly a history sheeter, a smuggler, an underworld don who has no affiliations with formal religious groups — any more than we would expect Hindus to condemn the people behind Samjhauta Express, Mecca Masjid, Ajmer Dargah or even Malegaon blasts. Or Christians for ill-activities of Timothy McVeigh. Similarly, if someone blames all Jews for the act of, say, extremist Israeli settlers in the West Bank, we immediately and correctly reject that position as impractical and biased. We understand that such an accusation is abhorrent and wrong — but not when it is applied to Muslims!!!

This is, quite literally, a different set of standards that the world applies only to Muslims; whereas we tend to forget that the people who helped allied forces in Afghanistan, Iraq or other war torn nations are Muslims as well. It’s time for the world to wake up and mend their biased opinion towards the most peace loving people on earth.

http://www.indiatomorrow.net/eng/a-bigoted-expectation-from-muslims

http://www.preciouskashmir.com/will-muslims-rise-up-from-deep-slumber/