After CAA, Centre might bring population control law: Niranjan Jyoti

Mumbai, Mar 7: Maharashtra Chief Minister and Shiv Sena president Uddhav Thackeray visited Ayodhya on Saturday to commemorate 100 days in office and pledged Rs 1 crore towards the building of the Ram Temple.

Taking a dig at BJP, Uddhav said his party had separated from its erstwhile ally but not Hindutva.

Recollecting the contribution of his father Balasaheb Thackeray, uddhav said he was forced to skip the Sarayu River 'aarti' due to Coronavirus fears but he would continue visiting Ayodhya.

Earlier in the day, the Sena, which heads the tripartite dispensation in the state, said there was no change in its ideology.

Launching a veiled attack on BJP, an editorial in the Sena mouthpiece 'Saamana' also said that Lord Ram and Hindutva is not the sole property of any single political party.

The Sena also said the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government — which also comprises the NCP and the Congress — has completed 100 days, much to the chagrin of those who were claiming that the new dispensation will not survive more than 100 hours.

“Those whose government lasted for 80 hours were claiming that the Thackeray regime will not last for even 100 hours. But this MVA government not only thrived but has instilled trust in the minds of people during this period with its performance,” the editorial said.

The Sena was apparently referring to the second inning of the erstwhile Devendra Fadnavis government which lasted for only 80 hours in November last year.

"Hence, CM Thackeray's visit to Ayodhya has to be welcomed as he is offering the flowers of works (done by the government) at the feet of Lord Shriram," it said.

The Sena said Thackeray's visit to the temple town is out of devotion for Lord Shriram. "The government in Maharashtra comprising three ideologically different parties is working as per Constitution and Thackeray is leading such government," it said.

The edit said on this background various questions were raised over Thackeray's visit to Ayodhya by his political opponents. "The government maybe backed by anyone, but Uddhav Thackeray and the Shiv Sena remain the same from within and outside. There is no change in the ideology. Lord Shriram and Hindutva is not the property of any single party," it stated.

Referring to senior RSS leader Suresh 'Bhaiyyaji' Joshi's remark that the Hindu community is not synonymous with the BJP and that opposing the BJP does not amount to opposing Hindus, the Sena said similarly Ayodhya belongs to all.

"The political and cultural battle in Ayodhya is now over. The Supreme Court cannot be thanked enough for this (for its verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute case that allowed construction of the Ram temple)," it said.

Hailing the Supreme Court's November, 2019 verdict, the Sena said the country had to fight a big battle to prove that Ayodhya belonged to Lord Shriram.

"In that battle, several (people) were unmasked. But only (late) Shiv Sena president Balasaheb Thackeray stood behind the Ayodhya (temple) campaigners like a mountain," it said.

Bal Thackeray created trust among Hindus from across the world about the creation of the temple, the Sena said. The party further said late Thackeray's assertion that he was proud if the Babri mosque was razed by Sena workers and that the temple of Lord Ram would come up in Ayodhya was akin to the thunder of "thousands of lightnings" in the sky.

"The Hindu culture got lit up in the glow of that lightning. The resplendent rays showed the path of power to the Hindu community. Hence, no one can deny the contribution of the 'Hinduhridaysamrat' (Bal Thackeray) as good as that of Lord Shriram, in creating the current political order in the country," the Sena said.

"We have experienced several times that Balasaheb lives in the mind of Ayodhya. Now Uddhav Thackeray himself is going there with the same faith. He had gone there when not in power. He is going there now after becoming chief minister with the same humility. Lord Shriram is of everyone," the Sena said.

The party said Maharashtra is being run on the path shown by Lord Shriram and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. "A Ram Rajya entails fulfilling promises made to the people. This is precisely what Mahatma Gandhi wanted, and the government following this ideology is in place in Maharashtra. It will continue work on that line. Ultimately, Lord Shriram is there to support it," the Sena said.

Thackeray completed 100 days in the office on Friday. He had assumed office as the chief minister of the Sena-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government on November 28 last year, after the Sena joined hands with the NCP and the Congress.

Senior Sena leader Sanjay Raut had said that Thackeray will not take part in the 'aarti' programme on the banks of river Sarayu in the temple town.

Jaipur, Jan 27: Senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor said that if the Citizenship Amendment Act leads to the implementation of the NPR and the NRC, it would be a complete victory for Pakistan's founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

He said that Jinnah's idea of a country was already winning in India with the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) coming into effect, but asserted that there was still a choice available.

"I would not say Jinnah has completely won, but I would say Jinnah is winning. There is still a choice available to the nation between Jinnah's idea of a country and Gandhiji's idea of a country," he said on the sidelines of the Jaipur Literature Festival on Sunday.

The CAA came into force in India in December amid protests across the country and around the world.

The MP from Thiruvananthapuram said that the amended Citizenship Act took Jinnah's logic by declaring that religion shall be the basis of nationhood, reaffirming that Gandhi's idea is that all religions are equal .

"The CAA is, if you are talking Tennis, you would say one set up or big first set lead for Jinnah. But the next step would be if the CAA would lead to the National Population Register (NPR) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). If that happens, then you would consider that Jinnah's victory is complete," he said.

The CAA seeks to grant citizenship to migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014.

On the BJP's defence that the NPR was carried out during the UPA regime, Tharoor said that the Congress government had utilised a decision of the NDA government led by former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

"It never asked where were your parents born. It never authorised the enumerators to note on the margin 'dubious citizenship', a term used in the NPR rules crafted by this government. That is purely BJP's invention," he said.

If we go around this country authorising people to interview all the citizens, or identify some who have 'dubious citizenship', you can be pretty sure which Indians are going to be found on the 'dubious citizenship', he said.

"That will principally be one community that is not mentioned in the CAA. And if that happens, then it is indeed Jinnah's victory.

"From wherever he is, he can point to this place and say, 'see I was right in the 1940. We are separate nations and Muslims deserved their own country because Hindus cannot be just'," Tharoor said.

Speaking about the Delhi election, the three-time MP said that the maximum development in the national capital happened under the Congress government.

"What Sheila Dikshit did in her 15 years as Chief Minister of Delhi, no other leader could do it before or after her," he said.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.