Resolution in Kerala Assembly is against unconstitutional Act passed by Centre: CM

Bengaluru, June 10: A court in Bengaluru has ejected the bail plea of Amulya Leona Noronha, a college student who has been accused of sedition for saying “Pakistan Zindabad” at the beginning of a speech during a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in the city on February 20.

The court claimed that if granted bail, the 19-year-old student of journalism and English at a Bengaluru college “may involve (herself) in similar offence which affects peace at large”.

Rejecting her bail plea, 60th additional city civil and sessions judge Vidyadhar Shirahatti said in his order, “If the petitioner is granted bail, she may abscond. Therefore, the bail petition of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.”

The police had booked Amulya under charges of sedition and promoting enmity between groups, although her friends claimed she was trying to convey a message of universal humanity by chanting zindabad in the name of all nations, including Pakistan and India.

Amulya, known for her oratory, and often invited at protests against the CAA, NRC and NPR, was arrested on the evening of February 20.

Video clips of the speech showed her chanting “Hindustan Zindabad” soon after saying “Pakistan Zindabad” and trying to tell the audience — her microphone had been taken away by then — that all nations are one in the end. She could not complete the speech; the protest was being held at Bengaluru’s Freedom Park.

Amulya’s bail plea was delayed on account of the lockdown, which came into force on March 25 — around the time hearings were due to begin in a lower court. Bengaluru police did not file a chargesheet against the student during the lockdown.

In the course of bail hearings, which began after lockdown restrictions were eased, the public prosecutor argued that Amulya was trying to incite people to create a law and order problem. The prosecutor also argued that she had earlier been accused of causing hatred and disaffection towards religion and the government established by law in India by holding a placard that stated “F##k Hindutva” during a student protest.

The prosecution argued that the student, if released, may commit similar offences since cases were already registered against her.

Defending Amulya, a friend who was part of the February 20 protest said, “Before she could complete what she wanted to say they surrounded her and grabbed the microphone. She was later placed under arrest on charges of sedition. What she was trying to say was, if we love one country it does not mean we should hate another.” Another friend said, “Please see her Facebook post of February 16, around 8 pm. Loving another country does not mean you are going against your own — this is exactly what she was trying to say (at the protest). She is promoting unity among nations…”

This January 2020, it is thirty years since the Kashmiri Pundits’ exodus from the Kashmir valley took place. They had suffered grave injustices, violence and humiliation prior to the migration away from the place of their social and cultural roots in Kashmir Valley. The phenomenon of this exodus had been due to the communalization of militancy in Kashmir in the decade of 1980s. While no ruling Government has applied itself enough to ‘solve’ this uprooting of pundits from their roots, there are communal elements who have been aggressively using ‘what about Kashmiri Pundits?’, every time liberal, human rights defenders talk about the plight of Muslim minority in India. This minority is now facing an overall erosion of their citizenship rights.

Time and over again in the aftermath of communal violence in particular, the human rights groups have been trying to put forward the demands for justice and rehabilitation of the victim minority. Instead of being listened to those particularly from Hindu nationalist combine, as a matter of routine shout back, where were you when Kashmiri Pundits were driven away from the Valley? In a way the tragedy being heaped on one minority is being justified in the name of suffering of Pundits and in the process violence is being normalized. This sounds as if two wrongs make a right, as if the suffering Muslim minority or those who are trying to talk in defense of minority rights have been responsible for the pain of Kashmiri Pundits.

During these three, many political formations have come to power, including BJP, Congress, third front and what have you. To begin with when the exodus took place Kashmir was under President’s rule and V. P. Singh Government was in power at the center. This Government had the external support of BJP at that time. Later BJP led NDA came to power for close to six years from 1998, under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Then from 2014 it is BJP, with Narerda Modi as PM, with BJP brute majority is in power. Other components of NDA are there to enjoy some spoils of power without any say in the policies being pursued by the Government. Modi is having absolute power with Amit Shah occasionally presenting Modi’s viewpoints.

Those blurting, ‘what about Kashmiri Pundits?’ are using it as a mere rhetoric to hide their communal color. The matters of Kashmir are very disturbing and cannot be attributed to be the making of Indian Muslims as it is being projected in an overt and subtle manner. Today, of course the steps taken by the Modi Government, that of abrogation of Article 370, abolition of clause 35 A, downgrading the status of Kashmir from a state to union territory have created a situation where the return of Kashmiri Pundits may have become more difficult, as the local atmosphere is more stifling and the leaders with democratic potential have been slapped with Public Safety Act, where they can be interned for long time without any answerability to the Courts. The internet had been suspended, communication being stifled in an atmosphere where democratic freedoms are curtailed which makes solution of any problem more difficult.

Kashmir has been a vexed issue where the suppression of the clause of autonomy, leading to alienation led to rise of militancy. This was duly supported by Pakistan. The entry of Al Qaeda elements, who having played their role against Russian army in 1980s entered into Kashmir and communalized the situation in Kashmir. The initial Kashmir militancy was on the grounds of Kashmiriyat. Kashmiriyat is not Islam, it is synthesis of teachings of Buddha, values of Vedant and preaching’s of Sufi Islam. The tormenting of Kashmiri Pundits begins with these elements entering Kashmir.

Also the pundits, who have been the integral part of Kashmir Valley, were urged upon by Goodwill mission to stay on, with local Muslims promising to counter the anti Pundit atmosphere. Jagmohan, the Governor, who later became a minister in NDA Government, instead of providing security to the Pundits thought, is fit to provide facilities for their mass migration. He could have intensified counter militancy and protected the vulnerable Pundit community. Why this was not done?

Today, ‘What about Kashmiri Pundits?’ needs to be given a serious thought away from the blame game or using it as a hammer to beat the ‘Muslims of India’ or human rights defenders? The previous NDA regime (2014) had thought of setting up enclosures of Pundits in the Valley. Is that a solution? Solution lies in giving justice to them. There is a need for judicial commission to identify the culprits and legal measures to reassure the Pundit community. Will they like to return if the high handed stifling atmosphere, with large number of military being present in the area? The cultural and religious spaces of Pundits need to be revived and Kashmiryat has to be made the base of any reconciliation process.

Surely, the Al Qaeda type elements do not represent the alienation of local Kashmiris, who need to be drawn into the process of dialogue for a peaceful Kashmir, which is the best guarantee for progress in this ex-state, now a Union territory. Communal amity, the hallmark of Kashmir cannot be brought in by changing the demographic composition by settling outsiders in the Valley. A true introspection is needed for this troubled area. Democracy is the only path for solving the emigration of Pundits and also of large numbers of Muslims, who also had to leave the valley due to the intimidating militancy and presence of armed forces in large numbers. One recalls Times of India report of 5th February 1992 which states that militants killed 1585 people from January 1990 to October 1992 out of which 982 were Muslims and 218 Hindus.

We have been taking a path where democratic norms are being stifled, and the promises of autonomy which were part of treaty of accession being ignored. Can it solve the problem of Pundits?

Riyadh, Jun 17: Saudi Arabia is expected to scale back or call off this year's hajj pilgrimage for the first time in its modern history, observers say, a perilous decision as coronavirus cases spike.

Muslim nations are pressing Riyadh to give its much-delayed decision on whether the annual ritual will go ahead as scheduled in late July.

But as the kingdom negotiates a call fraught with political and economic risks in a tinderbox region, time is running out to organise logistics for one of the world's largest mass gatherings.

A full-scale hajj, which last year drew about 2.5 million pilgrims, appears increasingly unlikely after authorities advised Muslims in late March to defer preparations due to the fast-spreading disease.

"It's a toss-up between holding a nominal hajj and scrapping it entirely," a South Asian official in contact with Saudi hajj authorities said.

A Saudi official said: "The decision will soon be made and announced."

Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, withdrew from the pilgrimage this month after pressing Riyadh for clarity, with a minister calling it a "very bitter and difficult decision".

Malaysia, Senegal and Singapore followed suit with similar announcements.

Many other countries with Muslim populations -- from Egypt and Morocco to Turkey, Lebanon and Bulgaria -- have said they are still awaiting Riyadh's decision.

In countries like France, faith leaders have urged Muslims to "postpone" their pilgrimage plans until next year due to the prevailing risks.

The hajj, a must for able-bodied Muslims at least once in their lifetime, represents a major potential source of contagion as it packs millions of pilgrims into congested religious sites.

But any decision to limit or cancel the event risks annoying Muslim hardliners for whom religion trumps health concerns.

It could also trigger renewed scrutiny of the Saudi custodianship of Islam's holiest sites -- the kingdom's most powerful source of political legitimacy.

A series of deadly disasters over the years, including a 2015 stampede that killed up to 2,300 worshippers, has prompted criticism of the kingdom's management of the hajj.

"Saudi Arabia is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea," Umar Karim, a visiting fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London, told AFP.

"The delay in announcing its decision shows it understands the political consequences of cancelling the hajj or reducing its scale."

"Buying time"

The kingdom is "buying time" as it treads cautiously, the South Asian official said.

"At the last minute if Saudi says 'we are ready to do a full hajj', (logistically) many countries will not be in a position" to participate, he said.

Amid an ongoing suspension of international flights, a reduced hajj with only local residents is a likely scenario, the official added.

A decision to cancel the hajj would be a first since the kingdom was founded in 1932.

Saudi Arabia managed to hold the pilgrimage during previous outbreaks of Ebola and MERS.

But it is struggling to contain the virus amid a serious spike in daily cases and deaths since authorities began easing a nationwide lockdown in late May.

In Saudi hospitals, sources say intensive care beds are fast filling up and a growing number of health workers are contracting the virus as the total number of cases has topped 130,000. Deaths surpassed 1,000 on Monday.

To counter the spike, authorities this month tightened lockdown restrictions in the city of Jeddah, gateway to the pilgrimage city of Mecca.

"Heartbroken"

"The hajj is the most important spiritual journey in the life of any Muslim, but if Saudi Arabia proceeds in this scenario it will not only exert pressure on its own health system," said Yasmine Farouk from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"It could also be widely held responsible for fanning the pandemic."

A cancelled or watered-down hajj would represent a major loss of revenue for the kingdom, which is already reeling from the twin shocks of the virus-induced slowdown and a plunge in oil prices.

The smaller year-round umrah pilgrimage was already suspended in March.

Together, they add $12 billion to the Saudi economy every year, according to government figures.

A negative decision would likely disappoint millions of Muslim pilgrims around the world who often invest their life savings and endure long waiting lists to make the trip.

"I can't help but be heartbroken -- I've been waiting for years," Indonesian civil servant Ria Taurisnawati, 37, told AFP as she sobbed.

"All my preparations were done, the clothes were ready and I got the necessary vaccination. But God has another plan."