Karnataka polls: Apex court dismisses Pramod Muthalik’s plea against Congress manifesto

May 10: Azaan is an integral part of the faith, not the gadget, says veteran writer-lyricist Javed Akhtar, asking that the Islamic call to prayer on loudspeakers should be stopped as it causes "discomfort" to others.

In a tweet on Saturday, Akhtar wondered why the practice was 'halaal' (allowed) when it was, for nearly half a century in the country, considered 'haraam' or forbidden.

"In India for almost 50 years Azaan on the loud speak was Haraam. Then it became Halaal and so halaal that there is no end to it, but there should be an end to it. Azaan is fine but loud speaker does cause of discomfort for others. I hope that atleast this time they will do it themselves (sic)," Akhtar tweeted.

When a user asked his opinion on loudspeakers being used in temples, the 75-year-old writer said everyday use of speakers is a cause of concern.

"Whether it's a temple or a mosque, if you're using loudspeakers during a festival, it's fine. But it shouldn't be used everyday in either temples or mosques.

"For more than thousand years Azaan was given without the loud speaker. Azaan is the integral part of your faith, not this gadget," he replied.

Earlier in March, Akhtar had supported the demand to shut mosques amid the coronavirus outbreak in the country, saying even Kaaba and Medina have been closed due to the pandemic.

He had also appealed to the Muslim community to offer prayers from home in the holy month of Ramzan, which began on April 24.

"I request all the Muslim brothers that now that Ramzan is coming, please say your prayers but make sure that this doesn't cause problems to anyone else. The prayers that you do in the mosque, you can do that at home. According to you, the house, the ground, this all has been made by Him. Then you can do your prayers anywhere," he had said.

New Delhi, Jan 27: Non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan will have to provide proofs of their religious beliefs while applying for Indian citizenship under the controversial Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAA), officials said on Monday.

The applicants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, Jain or Parsi faiths will also have to furnish documents to prove that they entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

Those who will seek Indian citizenship under the CAA will have to provide proofs of their religious beliefs and this will be mentioned in the rules to be issued under the CAA, a government official said.

According to the CAA, members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities who have come from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan till December 31, 2014, due to religious persecution there will not be treated as illegal immigrants and will be given Indian citizenship.

The central government is also likely to give a relatively smaller window of just three months to those who want to apply for Indian citizenship in Assam under the CAA, another official said.

Some Assam-specific provisions are expected to be incorporated in the rules to be issued for the implementation of the CAA.

Assam chief minister Sarbananda Sonowal and his finance minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had made a request about a fortnight ago to keep a limited period window for applying under the CAA and also incorporate some other Assam-specific provisions in the CAA rules.

The move comes in view of continuing protests against the CAA in Assam that have been going on since the legislation was passed by Parliament in December last year.

There has been a growing feeling among the indigenous people of Assam that the newly enacted legislation will hurt their interests politically, culturally as well as socially.

The Assam Accord provides for detection and deportation of all illegal immigrants who have entered the country after 1971 and are living in the state, irrespective of their religion.

The protesters in Assam say that the CAA violates the provisions of the Assam Accord.

Like most of the political phenomenon, even the practice of Nationalism is not a static one. It changes with the changing political equations of the political forces and assumes the expressions which are very diverse. As such the phenomenon of Nationalism has a long journey and various state policies in particular have used it for purposes which relate more to the power of the state ‘vis a vis’ its people, power of the state ‘vis a vis’ the neighboring countries among others.

In India there has been a certain change in the practices of the state which have transformed the meaning of Nationalism during last few years. Particularly with BJP, the Hindu Nationalist outfit gaining simple majority, it has unfolded the policies where one can discern the drastic change in the meaning and application of Nationalism in regard to its citizens, particularly those belonging to minority community, with regard to those who are liberal, and with those who stand with the concept of Human rights.

Our former Prime Minister of Dr. Manmohan Singh hit the nail on the head when he said that “Nationalism and the "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" slogan are being misused to construct a "militant and purely emotional" idea of India that excludes millions of residents and citizens. Former Prime Minister recently stated this in an apparent attack on the BJP.” The occasion was the release of a book, ‘Who is Bharat Mata’, edited by Purushottam Agarwal and Radhakrishna. This is a compilation of significant extracts from writings of Nehru, and important assessments of and contributions of Nehru by prominent personalities.

Dr. Singh went on to add "With an inimitable style…Nehru laid the foundation of the universities, academies and cultural institutions of Modern India. But for Nehru's leadership, independent India would not have become what it is today," This statement of Dr. Singh has great importance in contemporary times, as Nehru is being denigrated by Hindu nationalists for all the problems which India is facing today and attempts are on to undermine his role and glorifying Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. This is also significant as it gives us the glimpses of what Nationalism meant for Nehru.

As Singh’s statement captures the present nationalism being practiced by BJP and company, the Hindu nationalists, immediately shot back saying that Dr. Singh is supporting the anti India activities at JNU and Jamia and his party is supporting the anti India nationalists. They asked whether Singh likes the nationalism of the likes of Shashi Tharoor or Manishankar Ayer who are provoking the Shaheen Bagh protest rather than making the protestors quiet. Whether he likes the anti national protests which go on at JNU or Jamia? As per them there is no Nationalism in Congress. One more example being cited is the private visit of Shatrughan Sinha who talked to Pakistani President during his visit there recently!

Most of the arguments being used to oppose Dr. Singh are very superficial. What is being referred to; is not opposition to Indian nationalism and its central values which were the core of anti colonial struggles. While ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ may not be acceptable to a section of population, even the book he was releasing has the title ‘Who is Bharat Mata’. What is being stated by Singh is the twist which slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ has been used by Hindu nationalists to frighten the religious minorities.

Indian nation came into being on the values, which later were the foundation of Indian Constitution. Indian Constitution carefully picked up the terminology which was away from the concepts of Hindu or Muslim nationalism. That’s how the country came to be called as ‘India that is Bharat’. The freedom of expression which was the hallmark of freedom movement and it was given a pride of place in our Constitution. It respected the diversity and formulated rules where the nation was not based on particular culture, as Hindu nationalists will like us to believe, but cultural diversity was centrally recognized in the Constitution. In addition promoting good relations with neighbors and other countries of the World was also part of our principles.

JNU, Jamia and AMU are being demonized as most institutions so far regard the freedom of expression as a core part of Indian democracy. These institutions have been thriving on discussions and debates which have base in liberalism. Deliberately some slogans have been constructed to defame these institutions. While Constitution mandates good relations with neighbors, creation of ‘Anti Pakistan hysteria’ is the prime motive of many a channels and sections of other media, which are servile to the ideology of ruling Government. They also violate most of the norms of ethical journalism, where the criticism of the ruling party is an important factor to keep the ruling dispensation in toes.

A stifling atmosphere has been created during last six years. In this the Prime Minster can take a detour, land in Pakistan to have a cup of tea with Pakistan PM, but a Congress leader talking to Pakistani President is a sign of being anti National. Students taking out a march while reading the preamble of Indian Constitution are labeled as anti-national; and are stopped while those openly wielding guns near Jamia or Shaheen Bagh roam freely.

Nationalism should promote amity and love of the people; it should pave the way for growth and development. Currently the nationalism which is dominant and stalking the streets has weakened the very fraternity, which is one of the pillars of our democracy. Nehru did explain that Bharat Mata is not just our mountains, rivers and land but primarily the people who inhabit the land. Which nationalism to follow was settled during the freedom movement when Muslim nationalism and Hindu nationalism were rejected by the majority of people of India in favor of the Nationalism of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Maulana Azad, where minorities are equal citizens, deserving affirmative action. In today’s scenario the Hindu nationalists cannot accept any criticism of their policies.