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
March 12,2020

New Delhi, Mar 12: The Supreme Court told the Uttar Pradesh government on Thursday that as of now, there was no law that could back their action of putting up roadside posters of those accused of vandalism during anti-CAA protests in Lucknow.

An apex court bench refused to stay the March 9 Allahabad High Court order directing the Yogi Adityanath administration to remove the posters.

The top court, which grilled the Uttar Pradesh government for putting up such posters in public, described the plea as a matter that needed "further elaboration and consideration".

A vacation bench of justices U U Lalit and Aniruddha Bose said a "bench of sufficient strength" would consider next week the Uttar Pradesh government's appeal against the Allahabad High Court order directing the state administration to remove the posters of those accused of vandalism during anti-CAA protests.

It directed the apex court registry to put up the case file before Chief Justice of India (CJI) S A Bobde so that a "bench of sufficient strength can be constituted at the earliest to hear and consider" the case next week.

During the hearing, the bench told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, that it was a matter of "great importance".

It asked Mehta whether the state government had the power to put up such posters.

The top court, however, said there was no doubt that action should be taken against rioters and they should be punished.

Mehta told the court that the posters were put up as a "deterrent" and the hoardings only said that these persons were liable to pay for their alleged acts during the violence.

Senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for former IPS officer S R Darapuri whose poster has also been affixed in Lucknow, told the bench that the state was duty-bound to show the authority of law backing its action.

He said the action of the Uttar Pradesh government amounted to a "mega blanket" approach of naming and shaming these persons without final adjudication and it was an open invitation to common men to lynch them as the posters also had their addresses and photographs.

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
July 2,2020

Moscow, Jul 2: Russian voters approved changes to the constitution that will allow President Vladimir Putin to hold power until 2036, but the weeklong plebiscite that concluded Wednesday was tarnished by widespread reports of pressure on voters and other irregularities.

With most of the nation's polls closed and 20% of precincts counted, 72% voted for the constitutional amendments, according to election officials.

For the first time in Russia, polls were kept open for a week to bolster turnout without increasing crowds casting ballots amid the coronavirus pandemic a provision that Kremlin critics denounced as an extra tool to manipulate the outcome.

A massive propaganda campaign and the opposition's failure to mount a coordinated challenge helped Putin get the result he wanted, but the plebiscite could end up eroding his position because of the unconventional methods used to boost participation and the dubious legal basis for the balloting.

By the time polls closed in Moscow and most other parts of Western Russia, the overall turnout was at 65%, according to election officials. In some regions, almost 90% of eligible voters cast ballots.

On Russia's easternmost Chukchi Peninsula, nine hours ahead of Moscow, officials quickly announced full preliminary results showing 80% of voters supported the amendments, and in other parts of the Far East, they said over 70% of voters backed the changes.

Kremlin critics and independent election observers questioned the turnout figures.

We look at neighboring regions, and anomalies are obvious there are regions where the turnout is artificially (boosted), there are regions where it is more or less real, Grigory Melkonyants, co-chair of the independent election monitoring group Golos, told The Associated Press.

Putin voted at a Moscow polling station, dutifully showing his passport to the election worker. His face was uncovered, unlike most of the other voters who were offered free masks at the entrance.

The vote completes a convoluted saga that began in January, when Putin first proposed the constitutional changes.

He offered to broaden the powers of parliament and redistribute authority among the branches of government, stoking speculation he might seek to become parliamentary speaker or chairman of the State Council when his presidential term ends in 2024.

His intentions became clear only hours before a vote in parliament, when legislator Valentina Tereshkova, a Soviet-era cosmonaut who was the first woman in space in 1963, proposed letting him run two more times.

The amendments, which also emphasize the primacy of Russian law over international norms, outlaw same-sex marriages and mention a belief in God as a core value, were quickly passed by the Kremlin-controlled legislature.

Putin, who has been in power for more than two decades longer than any other Kremlin leader since Soviet dictator Josef Stalin said he would decide later whether to run again in 2024.

He argued that resetting the term count was necessary to keep his lieutenants focused on their work instead of darting their eyes in search for possible successors.

Analyst Gleb Pavlovsky, a former Kremlin political consultant, said Putin's push to hold the vote despite the fact that Russia has thousands of new coronavirus infections each day reflected his potential vulnerabilities.

Putin lacks confidence in his inner circle and he's worried about the future, Pavlovsky said.

He wants an irrefutable proof of public support.

Even though the parliament's approval was enough to make it law, the 67-year-old Russian president put his constitutional plan to voters to showcase his broad support and add a democratic veneer to the changes.

But then the coronavirus pandemic engulfed Russia, forcing him to postpone the April 22 plebiscite.

The delay made Putin's campaign blitz lose momentum and left his constitutional reform plan hanging as the damage from the virus mounted and public discontent grew.

Plummeting incomes and rising unemployment during the outbreak have dented his approval ratings, which sank to 59%, the lowest level since he came to power, according to the Levada Center, Russia's top independent pollster.

Moscow-based political analyst Ekaterina Schulmann said the Kremlin had faced a difficult dilemma: Holding the vote sooner would have brought accusations of jeopardizing public health for political ends, while delaying it raised the risks of defeat.

Holding it in the autumn would have been too risky, she said.

In Moscow, several activists briefly lay on Red Square, forming the number 2036 with their bodies in protest before police stopped them.

Some others in Moscow and St. Petersburg staged one-person pickets and police didn't intervene.

Several hundred opposition supporters rallied in central Moscow to protest the changes, defying a ban on public gatherings imposed for the coronavirus outbreak. Police didn't intervene and even handed masks to the participants.

Authorities mounted a sweeping effort to persuade teachers, doctors, workers at public sector enterprises and others who are paid by the state to cast ballots. Reports surfaced from across the vast country of managers coercing people to vote.

The Kremlin has used other tactics to boost turnout and support for the amendments.

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
April 26,2020

New Delhi, Apr 26: The Centre will bring back the Indian citizens stranded abroad due to the ban on arrival of international passenger aircraft, only if the respective states they belong to agree to allow them to come back home and make necessary arrangements to quarantine them after their return.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has started consultations with the State Governments on bringing back the Indians, who got stranded in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada and many other foreign countries due to the ban on arrival of international passenger aircraft to any airport in the country. The decision on facilitating their return to the country would be taken after getting feedback on preparedness of the States and the Union Territory to receive them following all required health precautions, Cabinet Secretary Rajiv Gauba said.

Gauba on Saturday had a video-conference with the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to review the implementation of the restrictions on travel and transport as well as the lockdown imposed across the country to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

Though the Government earlier either evacuated or facilitated the return of nearly 28000 Indians from a number of foreign countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, it almost stopped doing so after the ban on arrival of international passenger aircraft was enforced on March 23 in the wake of the spurt in the number of COVID-19 cases in India.

Thousands of Indian students, tourists, professionals and others are stranded around the world, including in the countries, where respective governments had imposed lockdowns to contain the pandemic. They have been desperately requesting the government on social media to evacuate them.

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.