Shiv Sena calls for ban on burqa across India

Agencies
May 1, 2019

Mumbai, May 1: Citing a ban on the burqa in Sri Lanka after the deadly Easter Sunday attacks, Shiv Sena mouthpiece 'Saamna' on Wednesday demanded the imposition of a similar ban in India.

The Sena's proposal, however, was rejected by another NDA ally, Union Minister Ramdas Athawale of the Republican Party of India, who said that burqa should not be banned as it forms part of the country's tradition.

The Shiv Sena editorial states "It has happened in Ravan's Lanka. When will it happen in Ram's Ayodhya? We ask this question to the PM as he is scheduled to visit Ayodhya on Wednesday".

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to address a political rally near Ayodhya today.

"The present government has made a law against Triple Talaq to stop the exploitation of Muslim women. After the ghastly bomb attacks, Sri Lanka has imposed a ban on the burqa and all types of face covers. President Maithripala Sirisena also announced that the decision has been taken for national security," Saamna said in a write-up published on Wednesday.

"We welcome this decision and in the national interest, we demand Prime Minister Modi to also follow the footsteps of Sri Lankan President and ban burqa and face covers in India as well," the Shiv Sena mouthpiece said.

In an editorial titled "Question to Prime Minister Modi, it happened in Ravan's Lanka, when will it happen in Ram's Ayodhya?", Samna has also cited the death count of Colombo's Easter Sunday attack to assert that the country which freed from itself of LTTE's terrorism is now under the grip of Islamic terrorism.

Sanjay Raut, Shiv Sena leader said, " Burqa and niqab are not religious attires for India, they are being banned all over the world. If some people relate it to religion and Islam in India then they must not have read the Quran, they should read it properly."

RPI leader Ramdas Athwale, however, disagreed with the Sena's proposal to ban the burqa in public places and said it is a tradition in India and there should be no ban on it.

"Not all women who wear the burqa are terrorists if they are terrorists their burqa should be removed. It is a tradition and they have the right to wear it, there shouldn't be a ban on the burqa in India," Athwale told ANI.

Meanwhile, BJP's national spokesperson GVL Narasimha Rao said there was no need for imposition of any kind of ban in the country.

"We have zero tolerance towards terrorism but I don't think there is a need to impose any kind of ban as the country is already in safe hands of Prime Minister Modi. Everyone is free to make suggestions but the whole world knows that the Central government has effectively dealt with terrorism and I don't think any new steps are required for this."

In its editorial, the Shiv Sena mouthpiece has pointed to countries namely France, New Zealand, Australia and Britain who have put a ban on the burqa.

Shiv Sena also claimed that the practice of burqa has nothing to do with Islam and is actually, a practice that was adopted in the Arabian countries due to their climatic condition.

"Basically, the burqa is not at all concerned with Islam, and Indian Muslims are following an arrangement of the Arab nation. At one time, to avoid desert heat and sunlight in the Arab nation, women used to cover their face and get out of the house.

"In Maharashtra also when the temperature rises at many places, the women travelling through cycle and scooters cover their face with a cloth or handkerchief, but this usage is limited to that. But in this delusion or blind faith, that wearing a face cover or burqa is the order of Koran, Muslims continue to use it," an excerpt of the Samna editorial reads.

The Sri Lankan government on Sunday adopted measures to impose a complete ban on all types of burqas and face covers in the wake of the horrific terror bombings that rattled the entire country on Easter Sunday, claiming lives of more than 250 people and injuring hundreds.

Comments

Peacelover
 - 
Wednesday, 1 May 2019

The fellow talks like - a fellow belongs to  different father and  mmissusing his tonge by point Ram Land.

And shows bad image on  Hindu Ahimsa policy.  Better to pack him to Taliban land. Burka is the not used cover from climate Burlka is used to cover and keep safe the woman from these type of Unhuman creatures.

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
January 15,2020

Jan 15: Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said on Tuesday that the Muslim population in India increased manifold since the partition because they were given special rights and facilities, according to a report by The Indian Express.

"The Muslim population in India has increased manifold since 1947, it has gone up by seven to eight times. No one has any objection. If they, as citizens of the country, work for development, they are welcome. Their population has increased because they have been given special rights and facilities. All possible steps were taken to ensure their growth," Adityanath said while addressing a rally in Gaya organised by the BJP in support of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

He asked the audience, "But what happened in Pakistan?" Claiming that the Hindu population in Pakistan had decreased since 1947, he asked why it was so.

Yogi said that the countrywide anti-CAA protests are a "conspiracy" hatched from afar by those resentful of a united and grand India and these are being aided by a "crooked" opposition. He further charged that those opposing the legislation were committing the "paap" (sin) of working against national interests.

"For taking such a step, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah deserve acclaim. Instead, they are being attacked", Yogi lamented.

Comments

India
 - 
Wednesday, 15 Jan 2020

He himself contradicts his statements. He claims the Muslim population rose 8-9 (according to him) times since 1947. If he was educated its simple 73 years have passed the population grows. Still, the Muslim population is only a minority against the majority. He talks about special rights and facilities given yes agreed but not by him it's by the Constitution of India and for all the minorities. So it's not you its Constitution of India.  The majority of the people are against the act CAA is against the very fundamental of the Constitution of India which PM & HM are taking away from the people. If you disagree, disrespect, go against it then you are against the country itself in Hindi deshdruhi. 

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 26,2020

Feb 26: In a midnight hearing, the Delhi High Court directed police to ensure safe passage to government hospitals and emergency treatment for those injured in the communal violence erupted in northeast Delhi over the amended citizenship law.

The court held a special hearing, which started at 12:30 am, at the residence of Justice S Muralidhar after receiving a call from an advocate explaining the dire circumstances under which the victims were unable to be removed from a small hospital to the GTB Hospital.

A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Anup J Bhambhani directed the Delhi Police to ensure safe passage of the injured victims by deploying all resources at its command and on the strength of this order as well as to make sure they receive immediate emergency treatment if not at the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital then at the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital (LNJP) or Maulana Azad or any other hospital.

The bench also called for a status report of compliance, including information about the injured victims and the treatment offered to them, and the matter will be heard during the day at 2:15 pm.

It said the order be communicated to the medical superintendents of the GTB and the LNJP Hospitals.

The urgent hearing was conducted after advocate Suroor Mander called the judge and sought urgent orders for safe passage of ambulances for the injured.

The Delhi Police and the government were represented through additional standing counsel Sanjoy Ghose.

During the hearing, the bench spoke over phone to doctor Anwar of the Al-hind Hospital in New Mustafabad who told the court that there were two bodies and 22 injured persons there and he had been trying to seek police assistance since 4 pm on Tuesday without success.

The court then directed the senior officials to reach to the hospital forthwith, following which they started the process of evacuating the injured to the nearest hospitals.

It also said this order be brought to the knowledge of the Delhi Police Commissioner.

Communal violence over the amended citizenship law in northeast Delhi claimed at least 18 lives till Wednesday.

On Tuesday, the violence escalated in northeast Delhi as police struggled to check the rioters who ran amok on streets, burning and looting shops, pelting stones and thrashing people.

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
January 14,2020

New Delhi, Jan 14: The curative petitions of Vinay Sharma and Mukesh, who were sentenced to death in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, was on Tuesday rejected by a five-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana.

In a three-page order, the Bench concluded, after an in chamber consideration that began about 1.45 p.m., that there was no merit in their pleas to spare them from the gallows.

“We have gone through the curative petitions and relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra versus Ashok Hurra. Hence, the curative petitions are dismissed,” the court held.

Curative is a rare remedy devised by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Rupa Ashok Hurra case in 2002. A party can take only two limited grounds in a curative petition - one, he was not heard by the court before the adverse judgment was passed, and two, the judge was biased. A curative plea, which follows the dismissal of review petition, is the last legal avenue open for convicts in the Supreme Court. Sharma was the first among the four convicts to file a curative.

The Bench also rejected their pleas to stay the execution of their death sentence and for oral hearing in open court.

Besides Justice Ramana, the Bench comprised Arun Mishra, Rohinton Nariman, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan.

Curative petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by both convicts on January 9. The petitions had come just days after a Delhi sessions court schedulled the execution of all the four convicts in Tihar jail on January 22.

Sharma and Mukesh, in separate curative petitions, argued that there was a “sea change” in the death penalty jurisprudence since their convictions. Carrying out the death sentence on such changed circumstances would be a “gross miscarriage of justice”.

In his plea, Sharma said the Court had commuted the death penalty in several rape and murder cases since 2017, when it first confirmed the death penalty to the Nirbhaya convicts.

“fter the pronouncement of judgment in 2017, there have been as many as 17 cases involving rape and murder in which various three-judge Benches of the Supreme Court have commuted the sentence of death,” the petition contended.

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a review petition filed by Akshay Singh, another of the four four condemned men, to review its May 5, 2017 judgment confirming the death penalty. It also refused his plea to grant him three weeks' time to file a mercy petition before the President of India.

A Bench led by Justice R. Banumathi had said it was open for the Nirbhaya case convicts to avail whatever time the law prescribes for the purpose of filing a mercy plea.

Akshay (33), Mukesh (30), Pawan Gupta (23) and Sharma (24) had brutally gang-raped a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012. She died of her injuries a few days later.

The case shocked the nation and led to the tightening of anti-rape laws. Rape, especially gang rape, is now a capital crime.

One of the accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar jail. A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board. He was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.

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.