Thursday, April 14, 2011

Will India Face a Burqa Ban?

By Nikita Garia

France’s ban on the burqa came into effect earlier this week. The law, which the French parliament approved last year, forbids people from concealing  their faces in public. While it does not explicitly mention the full-body robe, the burqa is widely recognized as the ban’s main target. France, which is home to Europe’s largest Muslim community, is the first country to push through this controversial ban.
Tauseef Mustafa/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Can a ban on burqa be imposed in India?
What implications does this have for India – a country which has one of the largest Muslim population in the world?
India’s 175 million Muslims make them the country’s largest minority.  Around 60% are under 25 years of age, meaning this figure is likely to increase in coming years.
In India too tensions have occasionally flared up over the use of the burqa in public spaces. But Meraj A. Khan, a legal consultant with National Commission for Minorities told India Real Time that these were “isolated incidents.”  He said the commission, which evaluates the progress of development of minorities and looks into complaints of discrimination, “rarely receives complaints on episodes involving … burqa-clad women.”
On France’s ban, Mr. Khan said that India is unlikely to follow suit. “In India, it is up to the individual when it comes to religion. Nobody can enforce such things here.”
In recent years there have been several incidents involving the burqa.
In 2009, a state college in Karnataka, told a student she was not allowed to attend classes wearing a burqa.  It was later reported that the young girl reached a “compromise arrangement” with the college but did not continue in the same college.
Days later, violent protests sparked in Hyderabad after a college principal allegedly told students not to wear a burqa.
But opposite episodes have also occurred.  In July 2010, a teacher at Kolkata’s Aliah University, which has a focus on Islamic studies, was not allowed to teach without a burqa. The report followed an official notice released in April 2010, in which the university dismissed suggestions it enforced a dress code, mentioning specifically the use of the burqa within its campus.
Noorjehan Safia Niaz, a founding member of Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, a movement which works to improve the status of Muslim women in India, said security concerns have not been a major issue when it comes to dress.  “Muslim women in India comply with all the laws. They are active participants when it comes to elections and have their photos on their passports. So identification and security have never been an issue as such,” she said.
Discrimination, however, has sometimes caused problems, said Ms. Niaz. “There are cases when women are not considered for a particular job because they wear a burqa. In such cases, women have negotiated. They do not wear burqa while at work but before and after it they put it on.” Overall, Ms. Niaz said that women themselves – not the law – should decide what to wear.  “Let each woman decide what she wants to wear. Neither can you enforce a ban on burqa nor can you force women to wear it.”
Some political forces in India, including the right-wing Hindu nationalist party Shiv Sena,  would favor a ban. Citing security concerns,  Neelam Gorhe, spokesperson for Shiva Sena, said that the party “welcomes the ban by the French government.” Although the party has not  demanded an outright ban, it suggested there should be some restrictions on where people would be allowed to wear the burqa. She mentioned poll booths as an example of where it should not be allowed.

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Ayodhya verdict: Dismay among Friday worshippers but sermons call for calm

Ayodhya verdict: Dismay among Friday worshippers but sermons call for calm






Read more: Ayodhya verdict: Dismay among Friday worshippers but sermons call for calm - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ayodhya-verdict-Dismay-among-Friday-worshippers-but-sermons-call-for-calm-/articleshow/6667975.cms#ixzz11C7Yqs3b

How Urdu dailies covered Ayodhya verdict

How Urdu dailies covered Ayodhya verdict


Submitted by admin on 2 October 2010 - 2:02am

Posted in Articles Indian Muslim

By Mumtaz Alam Falahi, TwoCircles.net,



Patna: Unlike Hindi newspapers which had upbeat tone while covering the Ayodhya verdict in today’s edition, the tone of Urdu dailies was expectedly down. While Hindi papers focused on the portion of verdict that says Ram Lalla idol will not be removed, Urdu papers highlighted distribution of the disputed land – another part of the verdict – and Muslims’ intention to go to Supreme Court.













Qaumi Tanzeem, published from Patna and Ranchi with the claim it is the leading Urdu daily of Eastern India, has a banner headline in dark color, the subheading is also in dark background, symbolically expressing sorrow. Its lead front page story says the claim of Sunni Wakf Board was rejected. The subheading covers all three operational part of the order including distribution of the land besides Zafaryab Jilani’s announcement that Supreme Court will be approached. The paper on the front page covers two other items indicating Muslims’ intention to move SC. One is Ameer Shariat Maulana Nizamuddin’s statement and the news about Muslim Personal Law Board’s special meeting on Oct 9.



Roznama Rashtriya Sahara, Patna edition, also highlights distribution of the land among three parties. In separate color special box, the paper published three comments – one each of Ameer Shariat Maulana Nizamuddin, Maualan Wali Rahmani and Maulana Aneesur Rahman Qasmi, all expressing disappointment and vow to move SC.













Sahara’s Delhi edition shows the distribution of the land through a map in the lead story on front page.



Sahafat, an Urdu daily from Delhi, highlights both Hindu favoring verdict part and distribution of the land. It also says Muslim will go to SC.



A Patna daily Pindar had banner headline about Ram Lalla, saying the idol will not be removed. The front page covers statements of Mohan Bhagwat, Narendra Modi and Praveen Togadia – all about their future temple plan and upbeat mood. The paper also covers below the Sangh leaders the statement of Sunni Wakf Board and Shahi Imam Ahmed Bukhari about move to Supreme Court













What is a shocking point and gives Hindi papers an edge at least on the comprehensive coverage of the Ayodhya verdict is: No Urdu papers mentioned above had editorial or any edit page story that could be remotely related to Ayodhya issue.



The Patna edition of Roznama Sahara today carried the editorial on the coming Sep 30 verdict. Yes, on Oct 1 the editorial says today is Sep 30 and at 3:30 pm Lucknow Bench will pronounce verdict. The editorial is running a day late.



This exposes the preparedness of Urdu papers and their editors to cover the verdict whose final date was fixed on September 28 by the Supreme Court.

http://twocircles.net/?q=2010oct02/how_urdu_dailies_covered_ayodhya_verdict.html

Link: for hind news paper



http://twocircles.net/?q=2010oct01/ayodhya_verdict_analysis_hindi_newspa... : Analysis of Hindi newspapers

Verdict on Babri Masjid extra-legal, exceeds mandate of SC: Mushawarat

Verdict on Babri Masjid extra-legal, exceeds mandate of SC: Mushawarat


Submitted by admin4 on 1 October 2010 - 3:29pm

Posted in Indian Muslim

By TCN News,



New Delhi: Syed Shahabuddin, President of All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, has termed the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Babri Masjid as extra-legal based on myths and legends and not on evidence on record, and one that has exceeded the mandate of the Supreme Court.



“The AIMMM is surprised by the verdict on the title to the disputed site by the Allahabad High Court,” he said and placed the essential points before the people for information.



1. The Judgment is inextricably confusing because it is not a straight two-to-one judgment. There are in fact 3 judgments and they go on shifting their verdict on vital issues. Therefore essentially the judgment does not settle or resolve the issues.













2. The Judgment is extra-legal based on myths & legends, ‘faith’ & superstitions, and not on the evidence on record. It essentially highlights the argument of ‘faith’ which did not exist until recently and was manufactured with political motives some years before 1949 and subsequently played up by the Sangh Parivar since the 80’s.



3. The Judgment also ignores the fact that the Supreme Court Order of 1994 treated the disputed site as one entity and did not envisage any division and had laid down a road map for the Government in respect of the acquired land, once the title over the disputed land which said that either a Masjid or a Mandir would be built on the disputed site and the other shrine will be built within the disputed area at some distance from the first.



4. The Judgment allots the area under the central dome to Ram lala, recognizing it as a deity but does not take into the account the facts that Ram lala was first placed in the inner courtyard of the Masjid by human hands and later shifted to the ‘minbar’ under the ‘mehrab’ (the central dome). What is more important is that there is no evidence that the idol of Ram lala was ever sanctified through Pran Pratistha Puja which makes an idol a deity, or a legal person.



5. The Judgment repeats wrongly in several places that both Muslim & Hindu worshipped in the Babri Masjid. The records establish that the Muslims always and exclusively used the hall under the three domes and the adjoining inner courtyard for worship, and the Hindus worshiped Ram at the Ram Chabutra located in the outer courtyard, since late 19th Century.



6. The Judgment exceeds its authority as it goes beyond the 1994 directive of the Supreme Court for determining the title to the disputed site. Indeed, it does whether the Supreme Court had itself refused to do; declare whether it is Ram Janambhumi.



7. The Judgment also goes beyond the pleadings of the parties because no party asked for a division of the disputed site. In dividing it the Judgment does not take into account that fact that the Babri Masjid existed on the spot from 1528 and was built by Mir Baqui on the orders of Emperor Babar and that until 22 December 1949 Muslim prayed there with occasional breaks due to exceptional circumstances.



8. The Judgment is simply impracticable because with the total area of the Babri Masjid being only about 1200 square feet, distributed among 3, it will only mean a mini-Masjid & a mini-Mandir!, next to each other giving rise to constant friction



9. Even if the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a standing Mandir, then the Judgment ignores the universal law of Adverse Possession which creates a right in favour of the Muslims while no right is created in favour of the Hindus by the ‘illegal and surreptitious’ introduction of Ram lala in the inner courtyard on 22-23 December 1949 because it was immediately challenged by the authorities. The Judgment ignored the vital affidavit of the DM, Faizabad, on this point, which binds the Government & the Judiciary.



Syed Shahabuddin said that the Muslim community is dissatisfied and shocked by the Judgment and is determined to exercise its right of appeal to the Supreme Court with a view to reverse the judicial stand from the mythological to the legal, from next say frame to verifiable evidence.



The Supreme Court is expected to admit the appeal by the Muslim Community and may direct that the status quo may be extended till the appeal is disposed of, he hoped.



“The Muslim community is ready to accept the final judicial verdict of the Supreme Court as it is committed to the Constitution and the rule of law. It does not see any scope for negotiations among the parties until the final judicial verdict establishes the rights and status of parties concerned,” said Shahabuddin who is an authority on the Ayodhya dispute, and has played key role in Babri Masjid movement.

http://twocircles.net/?q=2010oct01/verdict_babri_masjid_extralegal_exceeds_mandate_sc_mushawarat.html

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Ayodhya verdict: NBA issues guidelines to broadcasters

ASAK,


Allah is great. mediacell of Jamaat-e-Islami hind raise this issue time and agian and run a campaign against showing babri masjid demolition visuals and finally NBA has issued an order against it. We are really thankful to the NBA.

Rehan



Ayodhya verdict: NBA issues guidelines to broadcasters

As the Ayodhya title suit verdict date nears, the News Broadcasters Association has set guidelines for electronic media asking them not to speculate about the judgement and not to show the footage of 1992 Babri Masjid demolition.



The guidelines say that the Ayodhya issue is a matter in which "extra care" is necessary to ensure that the telecast of any news relating to it should not be sensational, provocative or inflammatory.



"The basic guideline to be adhered to is that all such news should conform strictly to sub-serving the public interest of maintaining communal harmony and preservation of the secular ethos of our plural society and it should influence the formation of the correct public opinion," the guidelines said.



It said there should be no broadcast of any speculation of the judgement before it is pronounced and of its likely consequence thereafter which may be sensational, inflammatory or provocative.



"No footage of the demolition of the Babri Masjid is to be shown in any new item relating to the judgement," it said, adding no visuals need be shown depicting celebration or protest of the judgement.



The judgement in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute will be delivered on September 24 with the Allahabad High Court yesterday rejecting a petition for mediation on the ground that it was aimed at "creating obstruction" in the final disposal of the matter.



The Uttar Pradesh Government is also beefing up security across the state to deal with any law and order problem that may arise after the court verdict.



The NBA Guidelines said in view of the "ultra sensitive nature" of the Ayodhya issue, the reporting of the judgement in this case requires adherence to the Code of Ethics and certain specific guidelines issued from time to time.



In view of the sensitivity of news reporting on this issue extra care should be taken to ensure accuracy by vetting and clearance at the highest editorial level," it said.



The NBA said it expects strict adherence to these guidelines to avoid any violation which may attract strict action.


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nba-guidlines/683528/

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

'Is sporting a beard in Mumbai a crime?' Mateen Hafeez

MUMBAI: A 42-year-old Muslim civil engineer was bundled off to a police station, where he was detained and grilled about his identity for over four hours and then let off with an advice not to sport "such a long beard", after he was picked up for his "suspicious movement" in front of the Israeli consulate on Monday afternoon. 
Mohammad Saleem not only had to spend more than four hours at the police station and take two hawaldars to his residence by taxi—to get his identity proof documents—and treat them to soft drinks and tea but also had to undergo "extremely humiliating" questions. 
Saleem, working for a private construction firm, had gone to the Earnest House I-T office to submit some files on his employer's behalf. He finished his work and came out of the building and was looking up some numbers on his new cellphone when his troubles started. Saleem did not know that the neighbouring building housed the Israeli consulate. "I was checking my new phone when a person came up to me and asked me who I was. He was joined by others who took me back to the I-T office to check if what I had said was true," he added. It was only later that he realised that the persons who had got hold of him were from the Israeli consulate. "An Israeli, too, was there and security staff took my cellphone to check if I had taken any picture," Saleem told TOI. 
But, despite nothing amiss being found, the security staff called up the Marine Drive police and Saleem was taken to the police station. It was here that Saleem learnt that sporting "such a long beard" in the vicinity of the Israeli consulate was something that could land an Indian citizen in trouble. 
"I requested the policemen repeatedly to allow me to make a call but they did not allow me. They recorded my statement, took my residential address, my office address and then allowed me to make one call to my employer who spoke to the cops on my behalf," Saleem added. "What was more offensive was that a person from the Israeli consulate and a consulate security person abused me in front of the police officers," he said. Israeli consulate-general Orna Sagiv was in Bangalore and said she did not know of the case. "The cops will possibly be able to give you more details," she added. 
Two cops then took Saleem to his residence in a cab to check if he really stayed in Mumbai and it was only after they returned to the police station and gave him a clean chit that he was allowed to leave. 
Additional police commissioner R K Padmanabhan said, "If required, I will ask for an inquiry into it."