Cow protection mooted by Ambedkar, not BJP, claims Jaitley

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.

Udupi, May 20: All the six fishermen were rescued from a deep-sea fishing boat, which capsized after hitting a rock near Malpe here yesterday. 

The boat was owned by Reshma Kharvi. The incident occurred while the boat was returning after fishing to Malpe harbor. 

The helmsman lost control over the boat after steering got damaged and hit the rock and damaged. 

The crew of another boat which was near to the sinking boat immediately rushed and rescued six fishermen.

Attempts to rescue the sinking boat using the yet another boat could not materialise. 

The loss is said to be about Rs 80 lakh, including Rs. 5 lakh worth items, including fish, net, and other accessories. The boat ventured from Malpe port on May 14.

Chennai, Feb 5: In order to ensure housing for all, the Madras High Court has proposed ban on non-resident Indians from purchasing houses in India, prohibit speculative sale, and impose 100 per cent extra stamp duty on purchase of second house.

The court on its own impleaded the Union housing and finance ministries as party respondents.

It has directed them to answer a series of questions including as to how many families have basic amenity of housing in India as well as in Tamil Nadu, population and housing ratio in the country and in the state, when 'Housing for All' mission of the central government would be achieved.

"Why the government does not consider imposing such restrictions to control escalation of house prices and to provide a house to every family in the country, a division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose wondered.

Directing the authorities to inform as to whether the central and state have got special schemes to provide housing for the marginalized and economically weaker sections including SC/ST communities, the bench has also sought the details of the number of families that possess more than one house.

"Why the governments do not restrict families/individuals from purchasing/possessing more than one housing unit/flat/plot till "Housing for all" is achieved?

Why not the government charge 100 per cent more or extra stamp duty to discourage buying more than one house by a family while purchasing second house?

Why not the government conditionally allow the families to purchase more than one house provided the said family pays 100 per cent extra statutory dues like property tax, electricity charges, water and sewerage charges on the second property?" the bench said.

This apart, the court also wanted the authorities to know as to why it should not prohibit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India to bring down the cost of housing.

Justifying its directions, the court said "Lakhs and lakhs of people are living on platforms, roads, and cement pipes, slums, under the trees and on banks of water bodies without proper shelter and basic amenities and safety."

It is true that the Centre had taken a policy decision to provide housing unit to every family.

It should be achieved at the earliest, the court said, adding it could become fruitful when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

The court passed the order while hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against acquisition of about 369 acres of private land in Thudiyalur and Vellakinar areas of Coimbatore for a housing scheme.