Hindustan a country of Hindus but it doesn't exclude others: RSS chief

Agencies
October 28, 2017

Indore, Oct 28: Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat on Friday reasserted that 'Hindustan' is a country of Hindus. However, he added that it does not mean that it doesn't belong to the "others".

"Whose country is Germany?...It's a country of Germans, Britain is a country of Britishers, America is a country of Americans, and in the same way, Hindustan is a country of Hindus. It does not mean that Hindustan is not the country of other people," Bhagwat said while addressing a gathering of college-going RSS volunteers.

Clarifying his statement, he added that the term Hindu covers all those who are the "sons of Bharat Mata, descendants of Indian ancestors and who live in accordance with the Indian culture."

Encouraging people to work towards bringing change in the society, he said the government alone cannot bring development without the help of the society. "No one leader or party can make the country great but it needs a change and we will have to prepare the society for it," he said.

He added that the changes brought by the society itself, it reflects on the government and the system. "The society is the father of the government. The government can serve the society, but it cannot bring changes in the society," he said.

"In ancient times, people used to look to God for development, but in 'Kalyuga' people look to the government... But the fact is, the government can go only as far as the society goes," Bhagwat added.

To make India powerful, prosperous and "vishwa guru", the countrymen will have to rid their hearts of the thought of "discrimination on any grounds", he added.

Comments

Indian
 - 
Sunday, 29 Oct 2017

HIndustan is country of Indians!!!. First be Indian. Useless*****

Abdul Khadar M…
 - 
Sunday, 29 Oct 2017

As he quoted Germany is country of German's, Britain is country of Britisher's, America is country of American's

 

 

Same way India is country of Indians and not Savarna's, Arya's and sangha parivar's who are real enemies of this country

 

 

The name Hindutshan is given by foreigners and credit goes to them by uniting this broken country under one name.

 

 

 

Ashraf Baba
 - 
Saturday, 28 Oct 2017

He said correct.

Hindustan word came from river INDUS (Sindhu Nadi).

He also gives examples. It means he agrees clearly Hindustan is by Geographically.

Therefore he makes a mistake, when Hindustan belongs to all Indians then where is the question of

OTHERS AND EXCLUSION

Wellwisher
 - 
Saturday, 28 Oct 2017

Useless and nonsense comment's.  Intention is to omit different but no guts to say. Hindustanis no agree or allow him to stay in this land.

 

No improvement still with old mend set again from pant to cheddi era.

All to pray to get him good knowledge.

 

Wake UP
 - 
Saturday, 28 Oct 2017

A new topic to keep masses out from real issues... does this matter for the development of our country.

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 4,2020

Bengaluru, Apr 4: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa has appealed to employers not to cut salaries of their maids, servants and drivers who are unable to attend work due to the current lockdown situation in the country.

He said compassionate gesture of employers will support the poor and needy.

"I request all the employers not to cut salaries of their maids, servants, drivers etc., who are not able to work due to social distancing. Your compassionate gesture will support the poor and needy to overcome this hard time. FightBackKarnataka CoronavirusPandemic," the Chief Minister said in a tweet.

Comments

MSME Industralist
 - 
Saturday, 4 Apr 2020

What benefit govt is giving us so that we can transfer the same goodness to our workers? Or are the funds only to buy and sell MLA? 

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
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

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
March 23,2020

Bengaluru, Mar 23: Karnataka Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai had warned those who chose to defy the lockdown order clamped in nine districts, to prevent the spread of the dreaded COVID-19 virus in the state. 

Speaking to newsmen, he said, "We have ordered for a lockdown in nine districts in the state to prevent the spread of the coronavirus and issued guidelines to follow it."

The nine COVID-19-affected districts are Bengaluru, Bengaluru Rural, Mysuru, Kodagu, Dakshina Kannada (Mangaluru), Dharwad, Belagavi, Kalaburgi and Chikkablapur.

According to Mr. Bommai, the State government will put in place further measures next week depending on how the situation will unfold in the State and the neighbouring States.

"Government offices will be operational in the State, including in the nine COVID 19-affected districts. As per the current schedule, the legislature sessions will also continue. Pourakarmikas will be working at 50% strength," he added.

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.