BJP justifies Sangeet Som, says Muslim rule in India was barbaric

Agencies
October 16, 2017

New Delhi, Oct 16: The BJP today described the Muslim rule in India as "barbaric and a period of incomparable intolerance", while asserting that its members can hold any opinion they want on specific monuments.

The BJP's reaction came after Sangeet Som, its MLA from Uttar Pradesh, questioned the Taj Mahal's place in history and said the presence of Mughals in India's history is "unfortunate".

Asked about the BJP's stand on Som's comments on the Taj Mahal, built by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in the memory of his wife, party spokesperson G V L Narasimha Rao said the party does not have any view on specific monuments and its members can hold whatever opinion they have.

"But as far as the Muslim, Mughal rule in this country is concerned, that period can only be described as exploitative, barbaric and a period of incomparable intolerance which harmed Indian civilisation and traditions immensely," he told PTI.

Rao also lashed out at All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader and Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi after the latter attacked the BJP over Som's comments. Responding to Som's comments, Owaisi asked if the government would tell tourists not to visit the Taj Mahal.

"Even in the present times, Mulim leaders such as Owaisi exhibit the same level of intolerance as Muslim rulers once displayed," Rao said, in response to Owaisi's remarks.

Comments

Abdullah
 - 
Tuesday, 17 Oct 2017

Hahahah... What a joke!!!

 

What these RSS Terrorists contributed for India? They supported British. If you search in history Muslims taught them everything. Even they were not knowing how to bath, how to wear clothes, how to cook, how to build buildings. All the food recipe they learnt from Muslims. These aryans run away from Iran and now looting our India. All the Buildings and culture they are using were built by Muslims. What did they build??? Toilets????

 

KHAN
 - 
Tuesday, 17 Oct 2017

AS PER WIKIPEDIA,

 

The Mughal Empire (Urdu: مغلیہ سلطنت‎‎, translit. Mughliyah Salṭanat)[7] or Mogul Empire,[8] self-designated as Gurkani (Persian: گورکانیان‎‎, Gūrkāniyān, meaning "son-in-law"),[9] was an empire in the Indian subcontinent, founded in 1526. It was established and ruled by a Muslim dynasty with Turco-Mongol Chagatai roots from Central Asia,[10][11][12] but with significant Indian Rajput and Persian ancestry through marriage alliances;[13][14] only the first two Mughal emperors were fully Central Asian, while successive emperors were of predominantly Rajput and Persian ancestry.[15] The dynasty was Indo-Persian in culture,[16] combining Persianateculture[8][17] with local Indian cultural influences[16] visible in its traits and customs.[18]

The Mughal Empire at its peak extended over nearly all of the Indian subcontinent[5] and large parts of Afghanistan. It was the second largest empire to have existed in the Indian subcontinent, spanning four million square kilometres at its zenith,[4] after only the Maurya Empire, which spanned five million square kilometres. The Mughal Empire began a period of proto-industrialization,[19]and Mughal India became the world's largest economic power, with 24.4% of world GDP,[20] and the world leader in manufacturing,[21] producing 25% of global industrial output up until the 18th century.[22] The Mughal Empire is considered "India's last golden age"[23] and one of the three Islamic Gunpowder Empires (along with the Ottoman Empire and Safavid Persia).[24]

The beginning of the empire is conventionally dated to the victory by its founder Babur over Ibrahim Lodi, the last ruler of the Delhi Sultanate, in the First Battle of Panipat (1526). The Mughal emperors had roots in the Turco-Mongol Timurid dynasty of Central Asia, claiming direct descent from both Genghis Khan (founder of the Mongol Empire, through his son Chagatai Khan) and Timur (Turco-Mongol conqueror who founded the Timurid Empire). During the reign of Humayun, the successor of Babur, the empire was briefly interrupted by the Sur Empire. The "classic period" of the Mughal Empire started in 1556 with the ascension of Akbar the Great to the throne. Under the rule of Akbar and his son Jahangir, the region enjoyed economic progress as well as religious harmony, and the monarchs were interested in local religious and cultural traditions. Akbar was a successful warrior who also forged alliances with several Hindu Rajput kingdoms. Some Rajput kingdoms continued to pose a significant threat to the Mughal dominance of northwestern India, but most of them were subdued by Akbar. All Mughal emperors were Muslims; Akbar, however, propounded a syncretic religion in the latter part of his life called Dīn-i Ilāhī, as recorded in historical books like Ain-i-Akbari and Dabistān-i Mazāhib.[25]

The Mughal Empire did not try to intervene in the local societies during most of its existence, but rather balanced and pacified them through new administrative practices[26][27] and diverse and inclusive ruling elites,[28] leading to more systematic, centralised, and uniform rule.[29] Traditional and newly coherent social groups in northern and western India, such as the Marathas, the Rajputs, the Pashtuns, the Hindu Jats and the Sikhs, gained military and governing ambitions during Mughal rule, which, through collaboration or adversity, gave them both recognition and military experience.[30][31][32][33]

The reign of Shah Jahan, the fifth emperor, between 1628 and 1658 was the golden age of Mughal architecture. He erected several large monuments, the best known of which is the Taj Mahal at Agra, as well as the Moti Masjid, Agra, the Red Fort, the Jama Masjid, Delhi, and the Lahore Fort. The Mughal Empire reached the zenith of its territorial expanse during the reign of Aurangzeb and also started its terminal decline in his reign due to Maratha military resurgence under Shivaji Bhosale. During his lifetime, victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to its greatest extent, ruling over more than 150 million subjects, nearly one quarter of the world's population at the time, with a GDP of over $90 billion.[34][35]

By the mid-18th century, the Marathas had routed Mughal armies and won over several Mughal provinces from the Punjab to Bengal.[36] Internal dissatisfaction arose due to the weakness of the empire's administrative and economic systems, leading to its break-up and declarations of independence of its former provinces by the Nawab of Bengal, the Nawab of Awadh, the Nizam of Hyderabad and other small states. In 1739, the Mughals were crushingly defeated in the Battle of Karnal by the forces of Nader Shah, the founder of the Afsharid dynasty in Persia, and Delhi was sacked and looted, drastically accelerating their decline. During the following century Mughal power had become severely limited, and the last emperor, Bahadur Shah II, had authority over only the city of Shahjahanabad. He issued a firman supporting the Indian Rebellion of 1857 and following the defeat was therefore tried by the British East India Company for treason, imprisoned and exiled to Rangoon.[37] The last remnants of the empire were formally taken over by the British, and the Government of India Act 1858 let the British Crown formally assume direct control of India in the form of the new British Raj.

Abu Muhammad
 - 
Monday, 16 Oct 2017

Aryan cowboys who invaded India, enslved the original inhabitants destroying their culture, imposed Vedic divisive foreign inhuman cast system. India is still suffering from their terror mindset. They are the people who supported the British and responsible for death of millions of Indian freedom fighters. These traitors who licked the British boots, now lecuring us about patriotism. When Mughals came to this land, there was no India, they built India and contributed richly to its history. If these anti-human gang cant digest the truth, let them NOT use any of the Mughal or Muslims  contribution and jump into Sarayu or Ganga enmasse.

Sharief
 - 
Monday, 16 Oct 2017

If Owais is committing intolerance,  Oh Blind, deaf, dumb  BJP  chelas, puffets, what the hell is happening specially in UP, is it tolerance? Killing in the name of gow rakshaks, killing small children, is it tolerance?

 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 7,2020

Bengaluru, April 7: Karnataka government on Monday allowed bakeries and related product food units in the state to open and function with minimum staff amid a coronavirus nation-wide lockdown.

A circular issued by Rajendar Kumar Kataria, Secretary to the government said, "The Central government has permitted the functioning of food units engaged in bakery and biscuit, condiments, confectionery and sweet for manufacturing, supply and operating retail outlets with minimum staff/labour."

The circular said these units shall strictly follow the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Department of Health and Family Welfare, Karnataka government with regard to the preventive measures to be ensured for combating COVID-19.

"It is stated that all employers shall ensure that these units maintain high standard of health, hygiene, sanitation and social distancing. The units shall not permit serving/dining in the premises and only parcel/takeaways are permitted," the circular added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 9,2020

Panaji, Feb 9: RSS general secretary Suresh Bhaiyyaji Joshi on Saturday said that anybody who wants to work (in India) will have to do so with the Hindu community and for their empowerment.

Addressing a lecture on the topic "Vishwaguru Bharat, an RSS perspective" at Dona Paula in Panaji, Mr Joshi referred to his communication with an intellectual who had said that India should become a "supre-rashtra" in the year 2020.

"Anybody who wants to work (in India) will have to work with the Hindu commumnity by taking them along and for their empowerment. Hindus have witnessed the rise and fall of India since the time immemorial. India cannot be separated from (the) Hindu (community). Hindus have always been at the centre of this nation," Mr Joshi said in Marathi.

He also added that since Hindus are not communal or antagonist, "nobody should be reluctant to work for the Hindu community".

The RSS leader further said, "The world says India will become a superpower in 2020, but I remember my conversation with an intellectual who had said that India should become a super-rashtra (super nation) in 2020".

Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant was among those who attended the lecture.

"To create awareness and unity amongst Hindus does not amount to (taking) an action against others (community). No one should feel it that way. We can say with utter self confidence before the entire world that Hindus becoming strong won't result in destructive activities, but (such proposition) will work for the society and humanity," he added.

Invoking history, Mr Joshi said Hindus never invaded other countries. "Whatever wars (they had fought) were for self defence. Everyone has the right to self defence," he said.

"It is India's duty to teach the world to walk on the path of ''samanvay'' (coordination). Nobody else other than India and Hindus can do this," Mr Joshi said.

He said some communities in the world keep preaching that only their path is "great".

"But we are from the (Hindu) community which says that we have our own path so as you. When the world will accept this ideology, then all the issues would get solved. It is the duty of India to take the world on that path," he added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.