DISCARD THE HYPOCRITIC MASK OF ‘SECULARISM’!

Hyderabad: William Jenkyn in a sermon in 1652 said that blood is thicker than water, thereby meaning the familial relationship is always more solid. Now, this sermon is considered as a proverb having a larger connotation that the symmetrical communities are more harmonious than heterogeneous ones.

The world today has been fragmented into over 200 nations mostly on the basis of religions in particular, 57 Islamic countries. For such a fundamentalism no civilised country has any objection. Even the so-called liberal, democratic or communist countries have shown no anguish towards such 'communal' and violence-promoting countries. On the other hand, all these countries woo such highly primitive societies, some because of their wealth and others because of their 'unity' in pursuit of their faith.

Indeed, there is nothing wrong in having an official State religion for a country for the homogeneity and equity among its majority people. It is absolutely utter nonsense to say that a State should not have any allegiance to a particular religion. Absolutely, heavens have not fallen on the countries having a State religion as its officially recognised faith. The democratic principles enshrined in our Constitution also vehemently support such a narrative. In fact, the official original copy of the Constitution of India was beautifully decorated with the caricatures from Hindu religious books such as Gita, Ramayan, Mahabharat. The partition of India in 1947, creating Pakistan was also on the basis of religion and as many as 95 per cent of Muslims residing in India then had supported it. Therefore, the argument of some Muslim leaders that they had opposed the partition of India on a basis of religion holds no water. True, some 5 per cent had either remained neutral or opposed the idea of Pakistan, but this fact alone cannot deprive the vast majority of Hindus living in India to determine as to whether India should remain a pseudo-secular country or boldly declare India as the Hindu Rashtra.

Further, the very fact that despite passing of more than seven decades since the partition, the acrimony between Hindus on the one side and Muslims-led Opposition on the other has increased enormously. Though there may be a miniscule minority supporting the idea of co-existence and peaceful living, by and large there is a clear-cut division on this issue. Some hardcore Muslims have shown the audacity to refuse to utter ‘Vande Mataram’ or ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ and instead hail Palestine, the country which is a home for the terrorist Hamas group.

The recent utterances of the newly elected Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, virtually indulging in the blasphemous language towards Hindus at a go reveals the extent of his utter contempt for the Hindu religion. Other splinter groups also forming the part of I.N.D.I.A have shown their true colours by applauding Rahul Gandhi for his irresponsible and contemptuous statements.

Unfortunately, the BJP-led government at the Centre has done nothing concrete except the verbal condemnation of Rahul Gandhi and his bandwagon. The BJP ought to have pondered over the near debacle in the recent hustings as compared to the previous general elections little more pragmatically. It is crystal clear that the Hindu voters after returning the BJP-led NDA in 2014 were hoping that in 2019 if we give the BJP an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha, it would be able to take bold decisions like declaring the country as a Hindu Rashtra easily. However, the voters were left high and dry even though a bumper crop of 303 Members of Parliament in 2019 general elections was harvested by the BJP. As the voters were disillusioned with the BJP, many did not favour it during the recently concluded general elections. In short, it is high time that the BJP shades its hypocrisy of being secular for whatever compulsions and takes its predecessor, Jan Sangh's route towards official declaration of India as a Hindu Rashtra. Remember, L K Advani also had to rectify his myopic view and conduct the historic Rath Yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya, thereby promising the Hindu electorate the Ram temple in Ayodhya.

COLONIAL THREE LAWS GIVE WAY TO NEW DESI LAWS!

July 1, 2024 will be written in Indian history with red letters because on this day, three laws enacted and enforced since over 150 years were scrapped and replaced by the ' Bharatiyata ' flavoured laws.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has given way to the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita while the Indian Evidence Act has become the Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam in its new avatar.

The new laws have an enhanced orbit as it also deals with offences like mob lynching, cyber crimes, terrorism, Love Jihad and puts the time limits for completing investigation, trial and pronouncement of judgment. The new law relating to evidence includes electronic evidence also.

SOME 157 ADVOCATES

WRITE TO SC

During the age of monarchy, the king or the queen usually had a sort of advisory committee to render advice on important issues, including judicial matters. Later, in the British judicial system, the concept of jury was in vogue. Under this system, the judge conducting a trial had the discretion to seek the opinion of a jury consisting of respectable people, on the aspects such as convicting or acquitting an accused and the quantum of punishment. However, in both the above mentioned system the advisers or jury members were to be appointed by the presiding judge after using his discretion. Further, such advisers were given a predefined role and were not expected to cross their brief. Unsolicited advice, particularly with reference to a sub judice matter was not only accepted but the same was also considered as unlawful interference with the administration of justice. In such a situation, the self-appointed advisers to the court were not only chastised, but also were warned of action under the contempt of law.

Seen in this context, the act of writing a lengthy letter by 157 self-styled Bar leaders to the Supreme Court of India deserves to be consigned to the dustbin as it reflects the vicious mindset of its signatories. The apex court should take a serious view of this act that tantamounts interference in the administration of justice. It is obvious that if anybody has some suggestions to make, he should address the communication either to the Law Commission of India or the Ministry of Law.

P&H HC: SHOW LIBERAL ATTITUDE TOWARD FIRST TIME OFFENDERS OF MINOR CRIMES

The single judge bench of Justice Manisha Batra of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a recent judgment held that trial courts should adopt a liberal approach towards the first time offenders of minor offences instead of dumping such first time offenders of minor offences. The court held that while considering the question of punishment under Section 360 and 361 of Criminal Procedure Code, the trial courts should always consider Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act and award punishment other than jail term. The court also observed that the Probation of Offenders Act is a beneficial legislation that provides the first time offenders of minor crimes for reformation.