Larger opinion getting shaped against Modi govt for ignoring flood survivors: Deve Gowda

The Bharatiya Janata Party workers belonging to Muslim community are bewildered over the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act. A considerable number of BJP’s Muslim workers have distanced themselves from the pro-CAA meetings being organised by the party in different parts of India.

There is a deep divide within members of the BJP minority wing, with many upset and angry with the party. During its membership drive in 2018 for the minority wing, BJP had enrolled lakhs of Muslims across India.

A senior Muslim member of the saffron party in Hyderabad explained, “We are very upset. There is no one listening to us within the party. Majority of the members are introspecting on their future role in the party. Few are vocal about it. Those, who believe they still have a future in the party, have decided to keep quiet on this issue.”

This is the reason why they are not attending the pro-CAA rallies or interacting with people. If anybody approaches and questions them about CAA, they maintain they have no idea, just like the common man. A member of the BJP belonging to the minority community says they have been hurt by the decision of the government on CAA.

“Shia Muslims in Pakistan are suffering. They have been targeted in that country from time to time. The BJP patronised a large number of Shia Muslims. The Shia community in Uttar Pradesh even sided with the BJP. But what has the community got in the end? The persecuted Shia minorities in Pakistan have not got justice,” the party member from minority community lamented.

There are 400 families belonging to the Shia community in Hyderabad, who have relatives in Karachi and Quetta in Pakistan. These Shias had migrated to Pakistan from the Nizam state after its accession to India. These families were hopeful that after aligning with BJP, there would be a reprieve for them. But the stand taken by BJP has left them in lurch. The CAA provides for granting Indian citizenship only to non-Muslim minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

“We have been left with nothing. Shias have not been politically active in all the three countries of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and have suffered due to this reason. There was some hope in India, but even that has been lost now,” the minority wing leader remarked.

National vice president of BJP minority cell Farid Sheikh Liaquat Ali says, “Party workers and common people are asking the same question.”

I have told them what union home minister Amit Shah has said in Parliament, that CAA is not against Indian Muslims. But people are not convinced. Every meeting or social function that I attend, I find that people are angry and upset. I have been with the BJP for 33 years and whatever I hear from the people is being conveyed to the party.”

The incident that occurred at the madarasa in Uttar Pradesh has led to a pointed question: “If this can happen to Muslims in UP, will it not repeat elsewhere?”

Bengaluru, Feb 27: Famous music composer from Kannada film industry, Arjun Janya suffered a minor heart attack. The music composer was immediately taken to Apollo hospital in Mysore where he is currently undergoing treatment.

According to the doctor, Arjun Janya developed chest pain and was admitted to the hospital. The doctor revealed that he is out of danger now and will be kept under observation for a couple of days.

The 39-year-old composer-singer has scored music for successful Kannada films like Birugaali, Kempegowda, Varadanayaka and others.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.