Majority of Muslims in India are descendants of Hindus, says BJP MP

Agencies
July 31, 2017

New Delhi, Jul 31: Majority of Muslims in India are descendants of Hindus, a BJP member claimed in the Lok Sabha today while asking both the communities to respect each other's sentiment.

Participating in a debate on lynchings, Hukumdev Narayan Yadav slammed the opposition for targeting the central government over incidents of lynchings, saying Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly come out strongly against such acts.

He raised the issue of killing of RSS workers in Kerala, which is ruled by the Left Front government. Yadav asserted that the responsibility of containing mob violence is that of the state governments. He said "certain demons" have put on "holy garb" to defame the government, likening it to an episode in the Ramayana.

"Some people are indulging in terror (atankvadi) activities to defame the government," the BJP member said and slammed the Congress for questioning the intention of the Modi government.

Yadav, the MP from Madhubani in Bihar, said a fight between two ideologies has been going on for several decades and asserted those who follow the path of "economic development and nationalism" will come out victorious.

During his speech, he extensively quoted Deen Dayal Upadhyaya and said the BJP ideologue had stated that "Muslims in India are descendants of Hindus."

He said every Muslim must respect Hindu sentiment and at the same time, Hindus must respect the Muslims.

The MP was also severely critical of the policies of Congress and said "I will prefer to die than bowing before the Congress...Some politicians sit with the Congress and have biryani and then indulge in artificial fight outside."

Yadav said he will prefer to die than abadonning the ideology he is fighting for.

Talking about nationalism, Yadav said freedom fighters Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan had sung the poem 'Vande Mataram' but there is an environment now in which singing it is considered a crime.

He also cited a recent case in which a political leader had sought support from the Naxals. "There cannot be bigger lynching than this," the BJP member said.

Yadav also alleged that Deen Dayal Upadhyaya and Ram Manohar Lohia were killed in late 1960s as both were planning to join hands.

The BJP MP drew the attention of the House towards the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and raised the issue of killing of RSS workers in Kerala.

Comments

Abdul Khadar M…
 - 
Wednesday, 2 Aug 2017

Islam is the religion since the creation of human beings on earth. Later people misleaded and started to woship idols and others.

But allah s.w.t. sent  more than 1 lac messangers to guide and warn the people when they mislead.. 

Our prophet S.A.W. is the last messamger to th entire mankind.

Study and analyse definitely you will find the truth and true religion.. 

worship allah the creator, May allah give you hidayah.

 

 

 

Sharief
 - 
Monday, 31 Jul 2017

Not only majority of Muslims, it could be all Muslims. Remember they were not Hindus. They were Indians.

We respect everyone including all Hindus. Hinduism can be called as a cultural group rather than religion.

Hinduism is identity of Hindus and  now changed in the name of religion. This is their faith.

 

Your true analyzer.

Remember the relgion is set of commands how to lead the life to be successful in now  and after the death.

Therefore it should be by the real God. Because it should not clash and contradict the SCIENCE.

 

If there is any such religion that can be compared to the SCIENCE, then that is the true religion.

It has come from the real GOD, so there can not be more than 1religion.

Therefore only 1 is the true religion and others are man made culture.

 

Ahmed
 - 
Monday, 31 Jul 2017

Yes but Vedas says Worship one God and there is no image of God (Na tasya pratima Asti) Our grandfathers understood this and started to worship one God ALLAH. instead of worshiping the created things ...

 

We request U to worship the CREATOR not his CREATION..,

 

If Your intention is honest ... ALLAH will Guide you.

True-talker
 - 
Monday, 31 Jul 2017

He does not what he talks. Unwarranted things.

Admit fairly instead of dragging and talking nonsense.

Mob Lynching was there, and now it exceeded the height because of BJP in power in UP and in centre.

They dont have fear of the law where they are given safe heavens.

 

What is the fuss if all Indians were Hindus. It could be true. It has irrelecance with the subject. 

Is it a license to commit  whatever they like to do.

 

God give them wisdom and save from the clutches of these illiterates.

 

 

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
June 19,2020

New Delhi, Jun 19: India on Friday added 13,586 new COVID-19 cases for the first time in a single day, pushing the tally to 3,80,532, while the death toll rose to 12,573 with 336 new fatalities, according to the Union Health Ministry data.

In some positive news, the number of recoveries crossed the two lakh-mark and stands at 2,04,710, while there are 1,63,248 total COVID-19 active cases, according to the updated official figure at 8 am.

One patient had migrated.

"Thus, around 53.79 percent patients have recovered so far," an official said.

The total number of confirmed cases include foreigners. 

India registered over 10,000 cases for the eighth day in a row.

Of the 336 new deaths reported till Friday morning, 100 were in Maharashtra, 65 in Delhi, 49 in Tamil Nadu, 31 in Gujarat, 30 in Uttar Pradesh, 12 each in Karnataka and West Bengal, 10 in Rajasthan, six in Jammu and Kashmir, five in Punjab, four each in Haryana and Madhya Pradesh, three in Telangana, two in Andhra Pradesh and one each in Assam, Jharkhand and Kerala.

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.
Agencies
July 23,2020

Expressing concern over the ban imposed on TikTok by the government of India, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has reportedly called the development in the south Asian country “worrisome”.

TikTok was amongst the 59 Chinese apps that were banned in India but why it hogs the maximum limelight because TikTok had the second-largest user base in India with over 200 million users.

As per The Verge writer Casey Newton, Zuckerberg was worried about TikTok’s India ban. Although it soon cashed into the opportunity and released a TikTok clone “Reels”, the government’s reason behind banning the app in India wasn’t received well by Mark Zuckerberg. 

He had said that if India can ban a platform with over 200 million users in India without citing concrete reasons, it can also ban Facebook if something goes amiss on the security and privacy front.

Why Mark finds it particularly worrisome because Facebook is already involved in a lot tussle with the governments across the world involving national security concerns. 

“Facebook already faces fights around the world from governments on both the left and the right related to issues that fit under the broad umbrella of national security: election interference, influence campaigns, hate speech, and even just plain-old democratic speech. Zuckerberg knows that the leap from banning TikTok on national security grounds to banning Facebook on national security grounds is more of a short hop,” the report by Casey read.

Facebook till now has not faced any kind of issue in India but considering the debacle with the other governments, it is not entirely wrong to worry about its future in India if any national security issue arises. Back in 2016, Facebook’s Free Basics service, which means a free but restricted internet service, was banned in India by the telecom regulators. 

The TRAI had said that the Free Basic services were banned in India because it violated the principles of net neutrality. With Free Basics services, Facebook had planned to bring more unconnected users online. But since 2016, there has been no major tussle between the Indian government and Zuckerberg due to national security issues.

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.