[GreenYouth] Ayodhya Verdict: A Different View
[As quite a few have already pointed out that the (majority) judgement is a move towards a (pragmatic and political) deal. Though Justice Khan's judgement does not constitute the median, his opinion perhaps captures that spirit best. Strict legalities have been given a go by keeping in view the possible consequences. Evidently strict/radical secularism cannot be implemented in a country where civil society is largely (and quite intensely) non-secular, just because the constitution swears by secular principles. That could be highly counterproductive and even disastrous. Any attempt to remove the idol of Ram from where it is currently lodged could very well again spark off reenactment of the macabre drama of the eighties and nineties. One can hardly afford to ignore that. At least not those who remain in touch with the ground realities even while nurturing their own secular aspirations. It is time to move on. One has got to seek a shift in the terrain (of confrontations).] *Statement of Editorial Board of Other Aspect on Ayodhya Verdict* The editorial board of journal the Other Aspect welcomes the verdict given by the Allahabad High Court on 30th of September 2010. There could have been no better solution to this dispute. The judgemnt by providing 1/3rd portion of the disputed land to the three contending parties has tried to amicably solve this ongoing contentious issue which is more related to the sentiments of both the communities rather than confirming to any legal status. Unfortunately some Left leaning and Leftist intellectuals and parties are terming the judgement as one that /“smacks of the consensus formula”/, this is irresponsible statement as there could have been no judgment without taking all the parties in confidence, let us remember that the Ayodhya issue was more of a religious sentimental issue rather than something more earthly or logical. Till majority of the people are enmeshed in religiosity there could have been no other way but to divide the place and solve the problem once for all. It is to be remembered that a judgement cannot only take place based on the legal aspect of evidence and statutes but has to take wider aspect of people’s wishes, else the judgement would be nothing but mere collection of words. In this case the judges have taken in consideration the ancient Indian culture of Sarva Dharam sambhav, and in this manner it should be accepted Our friends who are opposing the verdict on basis of the fact the Babri mosque was demolished in 1992 and the guilty of 1992 must be punished should remember that there is another court case pending for the same and the verdict is still to come. The present verdict has come on the ownership of the land at the disputed site and the first litigation was filed way back in 1885, when Mahant Raghubar Ram moved to the courts for permission to erect a temple just outside the Babri Mosque premises. Further the Archaeological Survey of India had found evidence of temple beneath the mosque but had not found any evidence of its destruction, the area has the same sentimental value for vast number Hindus as the Mecca has for Muslims and Vatican for the Catholics. The left leaders and intellectuals by their opposition to the judgement are only playing in hands of the communal forces that are bent on taking the country back to the times of communal carnage that happened in 1992. They want to divert the attention of the masses from the more gripping issue of price rise, economic exploitation and hunger so that their shops can do business. The Left, unfortunately, history is witness whenever has sided with the communal (both majority and minority) forces have bore a massive brunt for its folly. Unfortunately it seems they have forgotten this. It is high time that the country should move forward and confront the real issue being faced by it than being bogged down on an issue like mandir-mosque controversy. Let us bury Ayodhya dispute once for all and move forward. This is the call of the 21st century. This is the call of worker's and peasants of the country! Editorial board The Other Aspect web: http://otheraspect.tk - Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Green Youth Movement group. To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
[GreenYouth] AIIMS 'flouting' Reservation Rule
Savita Verma New Delhi, October 2, 2010 , Updated *11:53 IST* A doctors' forum has sought the Prime Minister's intervention to stop the ongoing flouting of reservation norms at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). A doctors' forum has shot a letter to the PM protesting against the flouting of reservation of norms. The Forum for Rights and Equality, which has about 100 faculty members on its rolls, has accused the premier institute of subverting government policy of reservation either by claiming non-availability of reserved category candidates or by adjusting meritorious candidates in the reserved quota. The forum presented a letter of protest to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday, demanding action. We demand that all those responsible for omission or commission be brought to justice, the forum stated in the letter. It also demanded setting up of a watchdog that would oversee implementation of all policies for SC/ ST/ OBCs, including reservation. The reservation for SC/ST/OBC in undergraduate MBBS admission is the latest casualty where reserved category candidates who secured more marks in the entrance test have been adjusted in the quota, the forum pointed out in the letter. Divya Agarwal with 67.1 per cent marks, Vitish Singla with 66.6 per cent marks, Rosemary Poulose with 66.3 per cent marks and Bhrigu Jain with 66.3 per cent marks have been selected in the general category while the first four students in the OBC category have scored more marks - Abhijeet Beniwal with 70.8 per cent, Dipin Sudhakaran with 68.6 per cent, Sreerag P Rajan with 67.5 per cent and Jyoti Kumari with 67.5 per cent - but they have been adjusted in the reservation quota. Reservation for postgraduate admission has also been compromised, the letter alleged. The letter claims that the reservation policy is being compromised even at the level of appointment of faculty. Many reserved category candidates have been declared unsuitable for being appointed as faculty members despite having relevant degrees and experience. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/114803/India/aiims-flouting-reservation-rule.html Sanjeev Kumar NCDHR-DAAA 09958797409 -- Dr Parmod Kumar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups IGNOU SC/ST Teachers group. To post to this group, send an email to ignou-scst-teach...@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ignou-scst-teachers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comignou-scst-teachers%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ignou-scst-teachers?hl=en-GB. -- Ranjit -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Green Youth Movement group. To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
[GreenYouth] Ayodhya dispute: youth perspective
*Ayodhya dispute: youth perspective * ** *By Mahtab Alam, TwoCircles.net,* ** http://www.twocircles.net/?q=2010oct05/ayodhya_dispute_what_educated_youths_have_say.html While a survey by a leading English daily claims “Mandir, Masjid: Young Don’t care”, there are youths who do not look at the dispute as a matter of Mandir-Masjid or Hindu vs. Muslim, rather a question of justice, democracy and future of secularism in a plural society like India. Ask Sumati Pakkinar, a young Delhiite in her mid twenties, what she thinks of the dispute? “Taking a realistic position in the view of the social situation of the country, one will have to consider that this is not just a case of a conflict between two religious communities. It is rather a question of majoritarianism and the rights and freedoms of a religious minority,” she asserts. Akhlaq Ahmad, a student of Bachelor of Education (B. Ed) at Noida Institute of Education at Noida (UP) echoes her concern and considers it, “the issue is of protection of constitutional religious freedom and fundamental rights.” When asked, what she has to say on the verdict? “The recent judgment which has come on the issue is shameful to say the least,” says Sumati. “Though I, like most people, have not read the entire text of the judgment yet, but the main points of it are known now to everybody. It is indeed a shameful example for any citizen of this country, because here justice is completely trampled upon in the name of faith and belief of majority community”, she was quick to mention. “Faith and belief might have place in the society and each community has its own set of beliefs, myths based on their religious outlooks. But when that begins to dictate the process of law, delivery of justice and functioning of the institutions of the country, it is really appalling,” she clarifies. Like Sumati, Rehab Hafeez Siddiqui, a student of Business administration originally belonging to the district of Kishanganj of Bihar, is disappointed by the verdict. “For the first time Indian law takes a decision that goes against the spirit of its secular constitution probably due to fear of public welfare in case riots occur,” says Rehab. She smells a big message in it: “If you are creators of riots, we have to surrender justice for your pleasure.” Devasees Prasoon, a research student of gender studies at Mahatma Gandhi International Hindi University, Vardha, Maharashtra says, “I do not have any respect either for Ram Janma Bhoomi or Babari Masjid, but the contested property belongs to the Babari Masjid is an unchallenged fact. The Indian state is trying to misappropriate with this fact. This is shameful for a so-called secular state”. Ashish Gupta, a student in his early twenties at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Chennai says, “Some aspects of the judgments are obviously appalling”. “I don’t understand what business has a court of law to do with Ram Lalla. It also seems to be a judgement devised to avoid any repercussions, such as mob violence. What that means is that in future, an organisation will be able to hold the court to ransom by the threat of violence,” he asks. Tafheem Rahman, who studied medieval history at Jamia Millia Islamia points, “If, I accept this judgment then I need to acknowledge that the beginning of Mughal period is actually the end of religious tolerance, which is untrue with ample example available irrespective of different school of history”. However, he is in favour of land distribution formula. “I am in favour of dividing land formula but the basis on which it has been done is unfortunate,” he adds. Yasir Ahmad, a young Mechincal Engineer in his late twenties from Jamshedpur, Jharkhad has an important point to make about the verdict, “It (the verdict) will never strengthen the democracy but will also widen the gap between the two communities.” “With such judgments Muslims will lose faith in Indian judiciary and will also get the feeling of being a second class citizen,” he worries. Yasir’s worries are shared by Sadiq Naqvi, a student of Development studies at Ambedker University, Delhi. “As far as faith in judiciary is concerned, there is a sense of feeling that Minorities are being considered second class citizens even by the judiciary,” he asserts while considering the verdict a blot on democracy. “The way whole issue has unfolded over a period spanning several decades is in itself a blot on democracy”, he adds. One can dismiss these concerns saying this represents only a small section of youth not the ‘popular’ and ‘mainstream’ sentiments of Indian youth. But the fact of the matter is that, the youth are disappointed by the verdict and consider it a ‘victory’ of faith over rationality. As Seema Duhan, a youth from Hisar of Haryana put it like this— “When faith triumphs over logic and rationality, it should be understood clearly that the dooms day has rolled in and it will sway you away.” One can only hope and wish, Seema will not have to say something
Re: [GreenYouth] Ayodhya Verdict: A Different View
Is this a different view? Or is this a Hindu view articulated in plenty everywhere? When Muslim rights are violated it is better to think and discuss about more gripping issue of price rise, economic exploitation and hunger so that their shops can do business as country should move forward and confront the real issue being faced by it than being bogged down on an issue like mandir-mosque controversy.. Good... Afthab Ellath On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Sukla Sen sukla@gmail.com wrote: [As quite a few have already pointed out that the (majority) judgement is a move towards a (pragmatic and political) deal. Though Justice Khan's judgement does not constitute the median, his opinion perhaps captures that spirit best. Strict legalities have been given a go by keeping in view the possible consequences. Evidently strict/radical secularism cannot be implemented in a country where civil society is largely (and quite intensely) non-secular, just because the constitution swears by secular principles. That could be highly counterproductive and even disastrous. Any attempt to remove the idol of Ram from where it is currently lodged could very well again spark off reenactment of the macabre drama of the eighties and nineties. One can hardly afford to ignore that. At least not those who remain in touch with the ground realities even while nurturing their own secular aspirations. It is time to move on. One has got to seek a shift in the terrain (of confrontations).] *Statement of Editorial Board of Other Aspect on Ayodhya Verdict* The editorial board of journal the Other Aspect welcomes the verdict given by the Allahabad High Court on 30th of September 2010. There could have been no better solution to this dispute. The judgemnt by providing 1/3rd portion of the disputed land to the three contending parties has tried to amicably solve this ongoing contentious issue which is more related to the sentiments of both the communities rather than confirming to any legal status. Unfortunately some Left leaning and Leftist intellectuals and parties are terming the judgement as one that /“smacks of the consensus formula”/, this is irresponsible statement as there could have been no judgment without taking all the parties in confidence, let us remember that the Ayodhya issue was more of a religious sentimental issue rather than something more earthly or logical. Till majority of the people are enmeshed in religiosity there could have been no other way but to divide the place and solve the problem once for all. It is to be remembered that a judgement cannot only take place based on the legal aspect of evidence and statutes but has to take wider aspect of people’s wishes, else the judgement would be nothing but mere collection of words. In this case the judges have taken in consideration the ancient Indian culture of Sarva Dharam sambhav, and in this manner it should be accepted Our friends who are opposing the verdict on basis of the fact the Babri mosque was demolished in 1992 and the guilty of 1992 must be punished should remember that there is another court case pending for the same and the verdict is still to come. The present verdict has come on the ownership of the land at the disputed site and the first litigation was filed way back in 1885, when Mahant Raghubar Ram moved to the courts for permission to erect a temple just outside the Babri Mosque premises. Further the Archaeological Survey of India had found evidence of temple beneath the mosque but had not found any evidence of its destruction, the area has the same sentimental value for vast number Hindus as the Mecca has for Muslims and Vatican for the Catholics. The left leaders and intellectuals by their opposition to the judgement are only playing in hands of the communal forces that are bent on taking the country back to the times of communal carnage that happened in 1992. They want to divert the attention of the masses from the more gripping issue of price rise, economic exploitation and hunger so that their shops can do business. The Left, unfortunately, history is witness whenever has sided with the communal (both majority and minority) forces have bore a massive brunt for its folly. Unfortunately it seems they have forgotten this. It is high time that the country should move forward and confront the real issue being faced by it than being bogged down on an issue like mandir-mosque controversy. Let us bury Ayodhya dispute once for all and move forward. This is the call of the 21st century. This is the call of worker's and peasants of the country! Editorial board The Other Aspect web: http://otheraspect.tk - Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Green Youth Movement group. To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[GreenYouth] UID Scrapped! NASCUM calls for Bharath Bandh
UID Scrapped! NASCUM calls for Bharath Bandh The Fish Pond http://thefishpond.in/edwin/2010/uid-scrapped-nascum-calls-for-bharath-bandh/ RNI, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, 2 October 2030 Prime Minister Mayawathi today scrapped the Sonia Manmohan UID Tracking System (SMUT) today, just over two decades after it was introduced, to almost universal acclaim. Gandhians hailed it as a tribute to the Father of the Nation on his birth anniversary and recalled that the first direct action of Gandhi was against carrying ID cards in South Africa. The move was supported by the association of school teachers—the designated data collectors—who were getting beaten up every year by those who did not get loans despite having SMUT numbers. Moreover, every vacation of theirs was spent updating the database. Also welcoming the move were the IAS officers’ association. SMUT exposed IAS officers flying to China without departmental permission through Kolkatta. They maintained that their interest had nothing to do with the order of the Supreme Court that all official papers be signed with the individual SMUT of the person concerned. The SC had held that since SMUT was accessible to private parties, it has to be given under RTI. The last ditch attempt by the IAS lobby to amend the law during then Prime Minister Rahul Gandhi’s only term was struck down by the court. Read More goo.gl/9jFE Anivar -- [It is not] possible to distinguish between 'numerical' and 'nonnumerical' algorithms, as if numbers were somehow different from other kinds of precise information. - Donald Knuth -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Green Youth Movement group. To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
Re: [GreenYouth] Ayodhya Verdict: A Different View
Yes. Time to move on Move forward to Supreme Court On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Afthab Ellath aftha...@gmail.com wrote: Is this a different view? Or is this a Hindu view articulated in plenty everywhere? When Muslim rights are violated it is better to think and discuss about more gripping issue of price rise, economic exploitation and hunger so that their shops can do business as country should move forward and confront the real issue being faced by it than being bogged down on an issue like mandir-mosque controversy.. Good... Afthab Ellath On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Sukla Sen sukla@gmail.com wrote: [As quite a few have already pointed out that the (majority) judgement is a move towards a (pragmatic and political) deal. Though Justice Khan's judgement does not constitute the median, his opinion perhaps captures that spirit best. Strict legalities have been given a go by keeping in view the possible consequences. Evidently strict/radical secularism cannot be implemented in a country where civil society is largely (and quite intensely) non-secular, just because the constitution swears by secular principles. That could be highly counterproductive and even disastrous. Any attempt to remove the idol of Ram from where it is currently lodged could very well again spark off reenactment of the macabre drama of the eighties and nineties. One can hardly afford to ignore that. At least not those who remain in touch with the ground realities even while nurturing their own secular aspirations. It is time to move on. One has got to seek a shift in the terrain (of confrontations).] *Statement of Editorial Board of Other Aspect on Ayodhya Verdict* The editorial board of journal the Other Aspect welcomes the verdict given by the Allahabad High Court on 30th of September 2010. There could have been no better solution to this dispute. The judgemnt by providing 1/3rd portion of the disputed land to the three contending parties has tried to amicably solve this ongoing contentious issue which is more related to the sentiments of both the communities rather than confirming to any legal status. Unfortunately some Left leaning and Leftist intellectuals and parties are terming the judgement as one that /“smacks of the consensus formula”/, this is irresponsible statement as there could have been no judgment without taking all the parties in confidence, let us remember that the Ayodhya issue was more of a religious sentimental issue rather than something more earthly or logical. Till majority of the people are enmeshed in religiosity there could have been no other way but to divide the place and solve the problem once for all. It is to be remembered that a judgement cannot only take place based on the legal aspect of evidence and statutes but has to take wider aspect of people’s wishes, else the judgement would be nothing but mere collection of words. In this case the judges have taken in consideration the ancient Indian culture of Sarva Dharam sambhav, and in this manner it should be accepted Our friends who are opposing the verdict on basis of the fact the Babri mosque was demolished in 1992 and the guilty of 1992 must be punished should remember that there is another court case pending for the same and the verdict is still to come. The present verdict has come on the ownership of the land at the disputed site and the first litigation was filed way back in 1885, when Mahant Raghubar Ram moved to the courts for permission to erect a temple just outside the Babri Mosque premises. Further the Archaeological Survey of India had found evidence of temple beneath the mosque but had not found any evidence of its destruction, the area has the same sentimental value for vast number Hindus as the Mecca has for Muslims and Vatican for the Catholics. The left leaders and intellectuals by their opposition to the judgement are only playing in hands of the communal forces that are bent on taking the country back to the times of communal carnage that happened in 1992. They want to divert the attention of the masses from the more gripping issue of price rise, economic exploitation and hunger so that their shops can do business. The Left, unfortunately, history is witness whenever has sided with the communal (both majority and minority) forces have bore a massive brunt for its folly. Unfortunately it seems they have forgotten this. It is high time that the country should move forward and confront the real issue being faced by it than being bogged down on an issue like mandir-mosque controversy. Let us bury Ayodhya dispute once for all and move forward. This is the call of the 21st century. This is the call of worker's and peasants of the country! Editorial board The Other Aspect web: http://otheraspect.tk - Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Green Youth Movement group. To
