‘Only love, no jihad’: NIA concludes probe into conversion cases of Kerala women

News Network
October 18, 2018

Newsroom, Oct 18: The prolonged investigation by the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) into interfaith marriages in Kerala has ultimately debunked theory of ‘Love Jihad’ propagated by Muslim haters. The powerful investigation agency which is under the control of union government has admitted that there has been no evidence of a larger criminal design behind the conversion of Hindu and Christian women into Islam and their decision to marry Muslim men.

“The NIA is not supposed to file any further report in this regard in the Supreme Court. As far as the NIA is concerned, the matter stands closed as the agency has not found any evidence to suggest that in any of these cases either the man or the woman was coerced to convert,” said a senior agency official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The agency picked 11 cases of interfaith marriages in Kerala for examination as part of its probe into so-called cases of “love jihad” at the instance of the Supreme Court.

These 11 cases were picked up from a list of 89 interfaith marriages that were already before law enforcement authorities (usually because of complaints by parents) and which were referred to the federal anti-terrorism agency by the Kerala police.

The investigation happened in the context of the celebrated Hadiya case. Hadiya converted to Islam and married Shafin Jahan, but her marriage was annulled by the Kerala high court on the basis of a petition filed by her father; the Supreme Court set aside the high court order.

“At least one among the 11 marriages under examination was purely a matter of relationship gone sour. In most of the other cases we found that a similar set of people and organisations associated with Popular Front of India (PFI) were involved in helping either the man or the woman involved in a relationship to convert to Islam, but we didn’t find any prosecutable evidence to bring formal charges against these persons under any of the scheduled offences of the NIA, like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,” added the official.

The official said the Constitution of India had provided freedom to practice and promote religion in a peaceful manner to all citizens as a fundamental right. “Conversion is not a crime in Kerala and also helping these men and women convert is also within the ambit of the Constitution of the country.”

PFI’s legal advisor KP Muhammer Shareef labelled the concept of love jihad a “sinister design cooked up by right wing forces” to “target the Muslim community at large” and claimed the effort was aimed at portraying the Front and (its political arm), the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), as conduit pipes for love jihad.

“Umpteen investigations and enquiries conducted by various agencies have now found the allegation of love jihad is obnoxious, fictitious and without any scintilla of evidence,” said Shareef. 

Comments

AbuShaheer
 - 
Thursday, 18 Oct 2018

“Truth stance the test of time, but lies are soon exposed”.

 

 We can remind that never, ever surrender to oppression and injustice and to always defend the truth.

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 Kerala government has challenged the new Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court, becoming the first state to do so amid nationwide protests against the religion-based citizenship law. The Supreme Court is already hearing over 60 petitions against the law.

Kerala's Left-led government in its petition calls the CAA a violation of several articles of the constitution including the right to equality and says the law goes against the basic principle of secularism in the constitution.

The Kerala government has also challenged the validity of changes made in 2015 to the Passport law and the Foreigners (Amendment) Order, regularising the stay of non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who had entered India before 2015.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), eases the path for non-Muslims in the neighbouring Muslim-majority nations of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh to become Indian citizens. Critics fear that the CAA, along with a proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), will discriminate against Muslims.

The Kerala petition says the CAA violates Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the constitution.

While Article 14 is about the right to equality, Article 21 says "no person will be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law". Under Article 25, "all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience."

Several non-BJP governments have refused to carry out the NRC in an attempt to stave off the enforcement of the citizenship law.

Over 60 writ petitions have been filed in Supreme Court so far against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. Various political parties, NGOs and also MPs have challenged the law.

The Supreme Court will hear the petitions on January 22.

During the last hearing, petitioners didn't ask that the law be put on hold as the CAA was not in force. The Act has, however, come into force from January 10 through a home ministry notification.

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 6,2020

Bengaluru, Jan 6: Activist Irom Chanu Sharmila took part in a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC) and National Population Register (NPR) at Sir Puttanna Chetty Town Hall here on Sunday.

Sharmila, who came in the protest along with her child, took part in a 'burqa and bindi' protest marking the birth anniversary of social reformer Savitribai Phule.

Protests have erupted across the country over the CAA which grants citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Buddhist, and Christian refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

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
January 19,2020

New Delhi, Jan 19: Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal on Sunday asserted that every state assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek the amended Citizenship Act's withdrawal, but if the law is declared constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it.

His remarks came a day after he had said there is no way a state can deny the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) when it is already passed by the Parliament.

"I believe the CAA is unconstitutional. Every State Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek its withdrawal. When and if the law is declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it. The fight must go on!" Sibal said in a tweet.

His remarks on the CAA at the Kerala Literature Festival (KLF) on Saturday had caused a flutter as several non-BJP governments, including Kerala, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Maharashtra, have voiced their disagreement with the CAA as well as National Register of Citizens (NRC) and National Population Register (NPR).

"If the CAA is passed no state can say 'I will not implement it'. It is not possible and is unconstitutional. You can oppose it, you can pass a resolution in the Assembly and ask the central government to withdraw it.

"But constitutionally saying that I won't implement, it is going to be problematic and going to create more difficulties," said the former minister of law and justice.

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.