In the land of Raman, Rahim and Raymond…

The water was calm, placid and still,time moved slowly, all was tranquil
her radiant smile reflected below, her small sighs remained so
The deep eyes set in serenity, time traversed nonchalantly
Her beauty appeared transfixed with fate that never vexed

Her youth beckoned all, she towered proud and tall
Men of honor married , looted and plundered
With no whimper, no tears, she reserved her temper
Her spirit unwavering, her courage enduring

Alas then there was a ripple, her beauty no longer supple
the brows arched, a frown when the troops marched
troubles birthed, they grew, they trebled
the water broke with every stroke

Pebbles hurled, with shielding hands, her body scarred
the shoulders stooped, the scavengers swooped
salty waters broke their banks, filling her enemy tanks
her coffers dry, her resolve high

decades of agony, willed to strife with no acrimony
’tis but a ripple, that could not entirely cripple
her new skin blended, her eyes now widened
high on defense, without a fence , six decades hence

her heart wields, her fingers caress our heads
she forgives their trespasses, she encompasses
she never did forget, she never did lament
she remains a Mother, she never did wither

I can see my face on the water, I proudly remain her daughter
the chest is heaving, the world is moving
serendipity lies beneath, My mother did bequeath
on her lap I close my eyes, in slumber I hear no cries.

If India were a walking, talking living person, she would be the most graceful human being in this entire world. Despite her once raven tresses now caressed by streaks of grey, she remains elegant and charming. Her hands are no longer tender and supple, they are pale and knotty with zigzagging lines of trials and tribulations. Her strong legs carry her weight without a hint of angst or retribution. Her dark eyes remain child like as they look into the twinkling sky and continually yearn for the stars. She has opened her heart to her children from different faiths, customs, cultures and traditions. As a Mother she appeases one and all, she does not differentiate one from the other. Which Mother would? In her bright warm eyes, she sees Raman, Rahim and Raymond as one and the same.

I am proud to be an Indian and albeit I have my continual complaints about a myriad social and political issues that we continue to face in this country .But the bombastic generosity of our nation and it’s people at times overrides this completely.Yesterday’s opening ceremony at the Commonwealth games went off remarkably well despite a plethora of criticisms, speculations and jokes being aimed at the organizers. I have been a will full participant in all these forms of heckling, and I would like to think that all this much-needed attention got the organizers to pull their socks up at the right time. Of course coupled with the grace of God the opening ceremony seems to have had a spectacular start . Rightfully so, the crowd at the Nehru stadium booed the vainglorious Suresh Kalmadi who could not even get the honorable APJ Abdul Kalam’s name right and called him Abdul Kalam Azad. Our largess was displayed when we came out in strong numbers to support the Indian contingent and gave the second largest vociferous support for the Pakistan contingent. An extremely commendable show of grace and bonhomie. Without sounding like a doubting Thomas or a mean punter there is a good chance that this form of reception would not have been on the same scale from the other side of the fence had Pakistan been hosting the games.

Our innate nature is to forgive and forget. We remain a peace-loving nation and enjoy laughing at ourselves the most. For those who were not happy with the Ayodhya verdict and scorned on the judgement largely based on “faith”, I ask them to first of all appreciate the generosity of the pronounced verdict.The court’s decision on the birthplace of the Lord stems from faith and religious belief. Centuries of belief, practice, customs and traditions cannot be swept under the mat. Whether it is Ayodhya, Jerusalem, Mecca or Bethlehem, traditions have to be respected and accepted. Dividing the land amongst the three parties is also once again a remarkable decision in according respect to each of the individual faiths. More so, I believe that this landmark judgement has been accepted with grace and dignity by all faiths judging by the peaceful situation so far. Yes, this issue will be taken to the supreme court and both sides will fight for a larger chunk or the entire chunk. A contentious religious place has been demarcated between three different parties and two different faiths. Would something like this ever be possible in other religious conflicts in other parts of the world? Probably not. India has led by example. After a very long time I have full faith in our justice system.This judgement is one that promotes secularism even if many like to believe it is a politically correct verdict. Unfortunately there are men and women in the media and so-called reputed newspapers who are trying hard to bring a divide. The nation stood together and was not party to any of their taunts. India has come a long way, she continues to hold her head high.

A secular state must and on all accounts should accommodate belief and dogmas that come with various religions. There is no empirical formula in any religion which proves the existence of God as somebody who is tangible and his origin as completely verifiable. Therefore, beliefs and dogmas can never be verified not just in a secular state but also in a one religion state. If there is a history attached to Ayodhya it is one which has evolved over the centuries, the scriptures have cited the importance of Ayodhya to Hindus, the judges have based their judgement on the belief in the “janmasthan” as they very clearly state Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also. Places of worship in India have not sprung up from thin air, there is a story behind every one of them backed by utmost reverence and complete faith by millions of devotees. From Tirumala devasthanam in Tirupati to the Church of the Virgin Mary in Nagercoil to the Jama Masjid in Delhi. Nobody can prove the origin of the deity in Tirumala, nobody can prove the wonder behind the healing powers of Mother Mary in Nagercoil or the drawing powers of the Masjid in Delhi that pulls devotees by the millions. Now, just because none of these are verifiable it does not mean that a secular state shuns it’s importance or disallows it’s functioning or questions it for that matter. A similar land issue at any of these sites would draw a similar reaction from the judicial machinery which will take into account the all important “faith”.A secular state must allow voices for different religions to flourish whether it is through blind faith or verifiable faith, the bottom line is “faith” and one that cannot be dismissed by a secular state or it’s judiciary. The judicial system has to toe the line of a secular state which entertains faiths of various kinds. The system has rightfully done so by identifying the birth place ( based on faith )and sharing the land between two faiths. Even the President of America, one who is completely secular pledges his allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The God here may be ceremonial and may or may not constitute a particular religion, but the President and the state believe in him even if he is not a verifiable one and their judicial system have let God remain in the pledge.

Advertisements

38 Responses to “In the land of Raman, Rahim and Raymond…”

  1. Anand Khare Says:

    Reader,

    Bapu kee chitthi aaj padhee. Heard this song several times on occasions like Gandi jayanti earlier.India has not changed much from 1975 to 2010. Hoping for better.

    Sharmila-

    It is very bold of you giving point blank responses to Satyam on AB’s blog (Hope AB will take it positively). Congrats. Keep it up. Now I can see that lioness in you that you often roar about. Keep being honest and upright in all your opinions.

    Anand

    • Anand – Thanks. But, honestly there is nothing bold to be able to speak one’s mind. I would be ashamed of myself if I were to say one thing which I don’t mean . I am sure AB will take it positively, he has seen a more lengthy one on his blog between Satyam and I on the Modi and Gujrat issue. I enjoy debating with Satyam, he is civil and comes up with great arguments. Likewise there are times I have had disagreements with you too 🙂

  2. Very well written Sharmila ! (Hugs )

  3. @sharmila Thanks for the post. Thanks a lot.

  4. While your post is well-meaning – and full of seemingly syrupy Amar-Akbhar-Antony secular sentiments – it is a classic example of what happens when unrefined thinking masquerades as high-minded reasonableness.

    In societies governed by rule of law (which India claims to be), it is downright dangerous for courts to resort to jurisprudence on the basis of “faith” (although you appear to think it is right). This is particularly true in developing societies like India, where levels of education (and political maturity – as manifested in communal riots and election of communalists to power) are low, “faith” can be easily engineered and manipulated. And when courts deliver their judgements, they become precedents that can be cited in future judgements. Let me illustrate for you what that means.

    I don’t know if you remember the BJP-VHP-Bajrang Dal’s campaign slogan soon after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. It was: “Ye to keval Jhanki hai; Mathura kashi baki hai” (Translation: “This is just the trailer: Mathura and Kashi still remain.”) The BJP-VHP-Bajrang Dal claim (on behalf of “all Hindus”) that the mosques at Mathura and Kashi were also constructed after demolishing temples, and so must be demolished.

    Now, in your faith-based jurisprudence system (which you think is fair), Mathura and Kashi mosques must also be demolished (because it is a matter of ‘faith’ that they were built on demolished temples). In any case, there is now a legal precedent in the Ayodhya case (that faith conquers all), which has effectively validated the barbaric demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992.

    If you want to know more about the dangers of this court verdict, please make the effort to read up on it from people who are informed (and who have compelling reasons to oppose it). Read, for instance, this article ( http://goo.gl/oC8D ) by eminent Supreme Court lawyer Rajeev Dhavan on why he thinks the verdict is “clumsy” and of “doubtful legality”.

    One last word on the dangers of going by popular ‘faith’: fully 30 per cent of Americans believe – foolishly and despite enough evidence that has been offered to the contrary – that Obama is a Muslim. It’s founded in their “faith” and “belief”. Does that make their claim a fact? And if that’s the situation in a developed society like the US, how much worse can it get in India, where the vast majority of the people have only attained far lower educational levels? Should we be swayed by their “faith” – to the extent that we overlook well-established principles of the rule of law?

    (My apologies if I sound harsh: my intention is not to criticise or demoralise but to make you reflect on the fact that anyone who puts out words in the public domain must realise the weight of those words – and their gravity. Armchair pontificating – without giving adequate mindspace to the seriousness of the case and the repercussions that can arise – will only end up justifying illegal acts and other serious abuses of the law.)

    • Vedant – My post does not speak of demolition of the mosque and I am not stating that the act of demolition by itself is right. Nobody has the right to destroy another’s property, even if there was a temple that was demolished first and a mosque thereafter, they are both irresponsible acts. Therefore your demolition theory for Mathura and Kashi is not relevant to my post and what I am trying to convey. Also, the judgement is with relevance to the land dispute, there is a separate case for the demolition. And I have already read Dhavan’s viewpoint a long time before you were kind enough to point it out to me and I do not subscribe to it. The AAA bonhomie is only possible amongst high minded, reasonable thinkers , quite unlike yourself. A pity you have not understood even a fraction of the gist of this well meaning post. I would not ask you to waste your time to either.

    • And instead of Dhavan, try reading this post which was sent to me.

      HAS THE COUNTRY MOVED ON?
      In reply to a tweet on September 29, this writer replied that he was a firm believer and hoped that a grand temple for Bhagavan Sri Ram would be built at His birth place. He added that the issue was very complex, likely to extend the sagacity of the Honourable judges to the very limits. But in the end everyone hoped for a judgement that would make all parties exclaim “A Daniel come to judgment…” as both Shylock and Portia did in different scenes of “The Merchant of Venice.” Incidentally the central theme of the Shakespeare play, according to literary critics, was a plea for toleration!

      MSM: ‘REWIND, FREEZE FRAME’

      Till 4 P.M. on September 30 our main stream media – the Pravdas and Izvestias of the print medium and the electronic equivalents of Radio Moscow of the USSR days – educated us that

      1. The higher judiciary is seized of the Janmastahn – Masjid a. k. a Sri Rama Janma Bhumi – Babri Masjid dispute.

      2. The issue concerns merely the title of the land on which the disputed structure stood.

      3. Courts can not resolve issues based on matters of faith.

      4. What concerns courts is evidence and only evidence.

      5. “The country has moved on”. What was left unsaid was in its view ‘the pro-temple movement has no case’, and hence the exhortation to the intransigent pro-temple movement.

      6. Everyone should respect the verdict of the Honourable High Court.

      7. The losing side, which they have already determined was the pro-temple movement should understand that the hearing by / verdict of the Honourable High Court is only another step in the judicial process to resolve the issue.

      Although they have been exhorting the wining side not to gloat about victory, it was merely for form. Champagne bottles were ready as were proclamations to be issued of their eternal faith in the Indian judicial system.

      Remember, in its view ‘the pro-temple movement has no case’.

      8. Even after adjudication by the Supreme Court, the pro-temple movement should understand that the country has moved on. Remember, in its view ‘the pro-temple movement has no case’.

      9. As the country has moved on what concerns the youth of this country are more mundane matters than Mandir & Masjid.

      The chivalrous concession of mentioning Mandir first was because in our MSM’s view, ‘the pro-temple movement had no case’. Remember Winston Churchill’s famous quote, “Magnanimity in victory; courage in defeat and balance in adversity…”

      The English electronic media crowed ad nauseum on and on that ‘the country has moved on’ till the newscasters’ voices became hoarse and throats ached.

      It is reliably learnt that NPIL, the company that makes Strepsils throat lozenges sold out all stocks of the brand in the last two weeks. When last heard, in order to meet the unprecedented demand, the company commissioned running extra batches paying its workers overtime wages.

      At about 4.0 P.M. all hell broke lose on the electronic media. The country stopped moving on, rewound to December 6, 1992 and the frame froze.

      The print progressives had to wait for the morrow. To be fair the two newspapers that this writer reads, The New Indian Express and the Deccan Chronicle had balanced coverage and editorials on the next day.

      If for secular historians India’s history began after Mohd. Ghaznavi’s first “visit” to Somnath, for the modern pall-bearers of secularism, India’s history began on December 6, 1992.

      If a panellist tried to point out that the issue before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court was not December 6, 1992 but “merely the title of the land on which the disputed structure stood”, he was shouted down. The fact that all the three judges unanimously threw out the “title suit” was submerged in an avalanche of denunciations of the judgement.

      The earlier edict, “everyone should respect the verdict of the Honourable High Court” was discarded. Those who cried “India has moved on” till just thirty minutes before now cried a halt and reversed the engine like time-travellers zeroing in on a moment in time. Like the proverbial four blind men describing an elephant the dissection began without any of the dissectors reading the eight thousand page verdict. The three judges comprising the bench chose to deliver their own judgments and the smallest delivered by Justice S. U. Khan ran into 285 pages.

      DISMISSAL OF TITLE SUIT CONCLUSIVE

      Before we proceed any further, since the original dispute was about “merely the title of the land” let us try to understand what a “title” means to the layman. If one understands correctly, title means ownership. Thus when a property is sold or purchased the ownership or title is transferred, by executing a title deed. A title can thus be sold or purchased but also bequeathed or gifted by executing a title deed.

      There appear to be many litigants claiming title in the instant case but let us confine ourselves to the three principal litigants. They are the Hindu Mahasabha representing if one understands correctly the “Ram Lalla Virajman”, the Nirmohi Akhara, which some believe is a proxy for the Congress party and the Sunni Wakq Board which have been fighting for a title for the 1500 square yard piece of land on which the mosque was presumably constructed in 1528, by Babar’s commander Mir Baki, a Shia – after destroying the pre-existing temple. This is the reason why it was always referred to as the Janmasthan-Mosque, till the pseudo-secular historians and their fellow-travellers in the media began calling it the Babri – Masjid or more charitably the Rama Janma Bhumi – Babri – Masjid.

      Now the question arises as to how Mir Baki came into the title or to simplify the language who gave him the title? Did he simply plant a few flags in the four corners of the land and staked his claim as the Anglo-Saxons did when they moved to America in droves after Columbus set out to discover India but stumbled upon the West Indies instead. If Columbus hadn’t lost his way the Anglo-Saxons would have had done their staking here in India and history would have been different. But the question remains, “who gave Mir Baki the title to the land?” Or are simple legal principles not applicable to invaders and conquerors and they can usurp any land anywhere?

      It is not that the Hindus have given up hope or title. They have been claiming / fighting for title to the site of the destroyed temple, whenever they had some strength although they were fighting a far superior enemy. The original suit or suits in the RJB-BM dispute concerning the title or ownership of the land were filed in the Faizabad District Civil Court. The modern litigation began as far back as in 1885 during the reign of the British administration. However it appears the British-India Civil courts which adjudicated the matter in 1936 a full fifty one years since the litigation began and awarded the title to the Sunni Wakq Board.

      Now the second question arises, ‘how come the Sunni Wakq Board came into the title?’ Who gave the SWB the title to the land? If Mir Baki did, why did he give to Sunnis rather than Shias which was naturally to be expected?

      Now the third question, how did the British simply adjudicate the matter and award the title to the SWB? Did they too stake claim as did the earlier conqueror, Babar / Mir Baki or did they think they had come into the title by simply usurping all land and therefore were eligible to gift it to the more favourite claimant? Why did they not ask, “How did the SWB come into the title?” They simply seem to have proceeded on the “possession is title” principle and awarded it to the SWB, thus creating another legal landmine.

      Now in 2010, the three Honourable judges too applied the same principle “possession is title” in magnanimously awarding the three claimants equal share of the disputed land having first dismissed the title suits on the principle of ‘limitation of time’ in filing the suits.

      ISN’T IT TIME TO MOVE ON

      One should understand that once the title claims of two of the three litigants were dismissed on the principle of ‘limitation of time’, the third party, in this case “Ram Lalla Virajman” ipso facto becomes the automatic winner of the title. The learned judges therefore could have declared “Ram Lalla Virajman” the winner of the title but in their infinite wisdom have gone beyond that. They wanted India to win by bridging the deep chasm between Hindus and Muslims that is likely to tear civil society asunder.

      There is no need to go into the ample archaeological evidence that bespoke of the existence of a massive temple under the mosque. The archaeological evidence points to a grand Vishnu Hari temple that was in existence much prior to the Sunga Dynasty which Babar himself proclaimed to have defeated. In fact the evidence gathered dates back to the Gupta Dynasty. This evidence of a pre-existing temple was clinching enough for the majority judgement to conclude that the mosque was built on the ruins of a destroyed temple.

      This is the time for India’s two major religions to bury their differences and historical baggage and to move forward in a spirit of mutual trust and goodwill. The Shias, to which sect the original protagonist of the mosque saga Mir Baki belonged, offered an olive branch to the Hindus. They even offered a donation of Rs 15, 00,000 for the construction of the ‘Bhavya Mandir’.

      It is now for the country to decide whether it intends to ‘move on’ or remain hostage to the machinations of a bigoted media which abjured all moral values in pursuit of social snobbery!

      TAILPIECE

      The panel discussions on most English language television channels were more or less on expected lines, the only difference being the degree of rabidity of views expressed. Some friends point out that the Hindi news channels STAR and ZEE had more balanced coverage. The star on the Hindu side was undoubtedly Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad (also a lawyer representing “Ram Lalla”), who roundly ticked off the puffed-up Divas.

      But the debates on NDTV were more rabid than others. The prima donna of these debates is of course Ms. Barkha Dutt and the more notable panellists were the Lawyer of the Sunni Wakq Board, Mr. Assaduddin Owaisi and Ms. Farah Naqi. The first two featured on all channels. Another feature which NDTV shares with all others was that it did not have any lawyer representing the other litigants, something which has parallels with TV debates on the M. F. Hussain case.

      In one of Barkha’s panel discussions, after Ravi Shankar Prasad roundly ticked her off, Mr. Javed Akthar pointed out that only Hindus could be accused of pseudo-secularism but not Muslims, who can only be ‘fundamentalist’. He was only trying to be jocular but unwittingly stumbled upon some element of truth. This is not to say that all Muslims are fundamentalist as all Hindus are pseudo-secular. It is not too difficult to understand why this should be so.

      Firstly for Barkha, Mr. Soli Sarabjee who must be twice her age was just Soli but Owaisi was always ‘sab’. Aren’t we reminded of Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ commandments? And at least in one debate she prefaced her question to Owaisi, with ‘Insha Allah’.

      Secondly, every one knows the provenance of MIM, which Owaisi represents, as the successor to the Razakars. It still follows some ‘Razakar’ methods. In the 2009 general election, Owaisi himself was caught on camera chasing and thrashing an election agent of the TDP. His brother Akabaruddin was in the group that thrashed Tasleema Nasreen and at least one MIM MLA ( the same, who headed the group that thrashed Tasleema Nasreen) brandished a gun and fired in the air when GHMC employees went to demolish an unauthorised building (not a mosque) in Abids. Akabaruddin openly professed, on record on camera, that if Tasleema ever set foot again on the soil of Hyderabad, she would be beheaded. That’s right, ‘beheaded’. Mr. Kasu Krishna Reddy, the Civil Supplies minister in the erstwhile YSR government was booted out when he went to inspect government-run fair price shops in the old city. The old city of Hyderabad is MIM bailiwick and nobody should doubt it.

      This then is the secular Muslim face that is often seen on Barkha’s debates. That the methods adopted by MIM work, no one need doubt. Begum Barkha and her cohorts in other news channels are only too aware that the party or for that matter any Muslim organisation is not to be trifled with. Hence the deference, nay reverence to them. On the other hand the merest of protest earns the Hindus the endearing epithet, ‘goons’.

      One occasionally sees Farah Naqi as an articulate, fluent-English-speaking female Muslim face on TV. But she should be remembered more for an article she wrote in Deccan Chronicle some time ago. In it, she rather breezily advanced the theory that the issue of Kashmiri Pandits has been ‘highly romanticised’. According to her, the Pandits have been doing rather well – in the camps or out of them – having assimilated into civilian life during the last twenty years.

      Both Owaisi and Naqi dispel the popular misconception that only bearded Mullahs and impoverished Muslims take to militant religious activism. For, Owaisi belongs to the upper crust of the society being a part of the ruling establishment of the erstwhile Nizam State. He studied law in London. And from all appearances Naqi must belong to at least the upper-middle class if not above.

    • I somehow agree with Vedant. Secularism is meant to be the separation of state and religion. In India however, secularism seems to mean trying to please people of all religions. Religion plays a very important role in Indian society so I guess it’s tough for our sycophant government to please the masses while trying to be secular at the same time.

  5. Muraliraja Says:

    As usual, well written post. I particularly like the “Faith” part. Btw, Still waiting for Meeting in Macau post.

  6. My Dear Sharmila
    I loved your poem and write up on Mother India!
    Very brilliantly written!

    Looking forward to hear your excellent comment on ‘Robot’…enjoy the movie!

    Have a great day/night!

    Love always
    Saroj

  7. Lakshmi Jag Says:

    Dear Sharmila….was meaning to read it for past two days but got busy. Very well written and I like the poem. Thanks for putting it on the blog for lazy people like me. Very well done on a very complicated issue, an issue that has no RIGHT solution unless THE PEOPLE involved decide to overlook issues keeping the bigger picture in mind.
    I will give an example why this is a difficult issue to resolve….in my line of work I see people suffering from emotional problems. The problem becomes bigger as neither their partners nor parents are unable to comprehend the extent of the problem because the pain they are undergoing is not visible. Something that is not visible but present is difficult to be resolved in courts (where legalese is needed) specially when people keep harping on legal issues. I do understand the importance for scientific reasons (here legal reasons) to be precise in language but try asking a person suffering from emotional wound to show evidence of their wound. It is the same here…we need another Gandhi and people who will believe in Gandhi.

    • Well said Lakshmi and you have provided a perfect example in a practical world. Emotions are and area which cannot be defined in scientific or legal terms, akin to faith. It needs “understanding” and “respect” of the other person’s point of view and unless and until you are in his / her shoes, it can again never be understood. The problem is most people want a text book solution for matters of the heart and cannot accept anything less. If we are willing to let go of such stringent expectations, the world will be a better place. The judgement in the case of Ayodhya imho continues to be an exceptional one for the very same reason. This is a trend setter of sorts and other countries with similar religious conflicts should appreciate it if not adopt it.!

  8. Sharmila,

    Your reply to Vedant hasn’t done justice to your post. For the sake of this comment I am going to assume the masculine gender for Vedant. I am a male. So that should sound fair.

    Here is a line-by-line dissection:

    Vedant says:

    While your post is well-meaning – and full of seemingly syrupy Amar-Akbhar-Antony secular sentiments – it is a classic example of what happens when unrefined thinking masquerades as high-minded reasonableness.

    Well, at least your (Sharmila’s) unrefined thinking does not masquerade your (her) sentiments. “High-minded reasonableness” is just a bluff.

    Perhaps Vedant could have explained in his refined way what almighty purpose is served by a refined thinking that leads to denial of sentiments? What a fake! Even a child ignores a person whose high-mindedness reasonableness denies real feelings!

    Vedant says:

    In societies governed by rule of law (which India claims to be), it is downright dangerous for courts to resort to jurisprudence on the basis of “faith” (although you appear to think it is right). This is particularly true in developing societies like India, where levels of education (and political maturity – as manifested in communal riots and election of communalists to power) are low, “faith” can be easily engineered and manipulated.

    Read the first line again which is naivity masquerading as intelligence.

    In societies governed by rule of law (which India claims to be), it is downright dangerous for courts to resort to jurisprudence on the basis of “faith” (although you appear to think it is right).

    In a democratic society, the lawmaker writes the law in a parliament by majority support. The lawmaker represents the faith of the people. The court merely enforces the laws.

    Or does Vedant feel that the court should still rule by appointment of the Queen of England when the law excluded justice required for social harmony, when the law did not represent home rule?

    What is more dangerous? A court that considers and deliberates on civil rights or a court that classifies all natives as criminals?

    I have got better weapons in my house than the local policeman. I would be glad if voices like those of Vedant are heard by the parliament. After all, according to Vedant, it is all about my faith. And I am stronger. I can enforce my will on anyone within my range and the government shall have no legal right to rule against my call for a Jehad.

    But that’s a rhetoric. The reason why people like Vedant are commenting on blogs, and do not have a voice among the ruling community, is precisely because their emotional range swings between comfort zones and absolute panic.

    Vedant Says:

    I don’t know if you remember the BJP-VHP-Bajrang Dal’s campaign slogan soon after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. It was: “Ye to keval Jhanki hai; Mathura kashi baki hai” (Translation: “This is just the trailer: Mathura and Kashi still remain.”) The BJP-VHP-Bajrang Dal claim (on behalf of “all Hindus”) that the mosques at Mathura and Kashi were also constructed after demolishing temples, and so must be demolished.

    Now, in your faith-based jurisprudence system (which you think is fair), Mathura and Kashi mosques must also be demolished (because it is a matter of ‘faith’ that they were built on demolished temples). In any case, there is now a legal precedent in the Ayodhya case (that faith conquers all), which has effectively validated the barbaric demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992.

    Ofcourse we remember Babri Masjid demolition. Who can forget that!

    However, Vedant forgets or has not heard of the Muslim Law Board’s declarations both in 1992 and last week after the Ayodhya Judgement – that they shall submit to the Indian Law only to the extent that it agrees with the Islamic Shariah! Anything outside the Shariah is haram!

    Only unfortunately for the board, the construction of this mosque itself was against the tenets of Islam so they are not supported by the Nation of Islam or the OIC.

    But ofcourse let me support Vedant. These are matters of faith and the Indian government should keep out of these. We’ll settle this issue on the streets. I am better armed than the local extremists.

    Kashi and Mathura are legitimate violations even as per the Shariah. The Ayotollah would glady sponsor my battle if Mulayam agrees. I support Vedant. These are matters of Faith and the Indian court has not jurispudence to interfere. We’ll settle Kashi and Mathura outside the courts. The government can provide the necessary land for cremations and burials. I don’t want my beautiful garden to become a cemetry.

    Vedant Says:

    One last word on the dangers of going by popular ‘faith’: fully 30 per cent of Americans believe – foolishly and despite enough evidence that has been offered to the contrary – that Obama is a Muslim. It’s founded in their “faith” and “belief”. Does that make their claim a fact? And if that’s the situation in a developed society like the US, how much worse can it get in India, where the vast majority of the people have only attained far lower educational levels? Should we be swayed by their “faith” – to the extent that we overlook well-established principles of the rule of law?

    I am sorry I cannot support Vedant here. I do not consider that Rule of Faith is against the Rule of Law. That is stupid baby. There is no law on earth that does not come out of faith in one form or another. It only needs one to dwell into the root causes of a law and one will discover that it springs out of some actions (good or bad) that were caused by Faith!

    Secondly, the term “Developed” does not apply to the society of America. America is a developed nation, not Americans. 2% of the American population brings 90% of the wealth through technology and innovation. The rest of the 98% are either obese, maniacs or addicts with IQ between 40 and 80. It’s not a secret. “Developed” is not an adjiective attached to an American human being by any sane person outside the US.

    And lastly, while we are on Obama’s Islam-hood or Christian-hood, that guy, Obama Can Do It whenever he wants.. at least he claims.. so no harm in believing what he can.

    Comparing Indian culture to a heterogenous cocktail called American is like comparing a himalayan river to a salt water ocean. One is smaller and life giving, the other is large and toxic!

    And lastly Vedant says:

    (My apologies if I sound harsh: my intention is not to criticise or demoralise but to make you reflect on the fact that anyone who puts out words in the public domain must realise the weight of those words – and their gravity. Armchair pontificating – without giving adequate mindspace to the seriousness of the case and the repercussions that can arise – will only end up justifying illegal acts and other serious abuses of the law.)

    Sharmila, you forgot to apologise. You are so not-refined!

    Notice what Vedant has implied. That Vedant’s comments are fine for the “public domain” because they do not have “weight or gravity”.

    “Armchair pontification” is allowed by Vedant for himself in comments – without giving adequate mindspace to even detect that the source of a Law is the Faith that parliamentarians represent, not the court – and Vedant’s gives himself the privilege of abusing a judgement passed by a court in favor of a religious tenet called Islamic Shariah or the Hindu Dharmasutra! And on a public blog!

    Sharmila, I have not done any grammar check or spell check on the above. It’s not worth it.

  9. Thanks a ton Reader. PERFECT on all counts. I must say I was not interested in commenting at length to Vedant, you have done it incredibly well.

  10. This is really cool

  11. very well written.

  12. […] RT Loved this. @supershamz For your read https://sharmilasays.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/in-the-land-of-raman-rahim-and-raymond/ This entry was posted in politicians. Bookmark the permalink. ← southscope: […]

  13. really loved your article,but would like to add something ;every law has provisions for religious views,faiths,beliefs even in some cases superstitions.everywhere you see every religion has a grand monument in honour of their supreme gods(although i hv always wondered is their any supreme being or if he is,can their be multiple supremes,i mean their can be only one supreme,anyways its a large topic in itself),muslims has mecca ,medina,christians hv the vatican church.for hindus is’nt it natural to have a temple at his incarnation’s birthplace,but when due to unavoidable circumstances when a mosque was built on the site believed to be birthplace of ram,it was possible to built another temple in ayodhya only,a temple anywhere is a grand culmination of belief an faith,location does’nt matter.so,i think that where the politicians erred.indians were not too concerned with ayodhya till the rath yatra by advani, so its really unfortunate that india has never been same since that time.i can’t believe that innocent lives have been lost in the neme of religion,its so sad and mind numbing .i really some day we will overcome these thinking and contribut to our bharat’s growth in a e3positive way

  14. Saurabh – Thank you for your comment here. Whilst your thoughts are well founded I think there is a lot of importance accorded to location based on centuries of belief as well. It would be impossible to ask the Vatican or Mecca or even Ayodhya ( where the deity is right now ) to move anywehere else. Yes, you are right when you say the law does make provisions for belief and sometimes even the superstitious beliefs. Bloodshed in the name of violence on all counts is treachery to the faith that people swear by. A good saying on Twitter said ” We have built enough of mosques, temples and churches, let us start building the nation”.

  15. Very trurly put. India is an example to the world. Just few years back, we had a Leader born Christian (Sonia Gandhi) step aside to have a Sikh (Dr. Manmohan Singh) take the post of Prime Minister, the oath administered by our President (a Muslim, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam), to lead a country that is 80% Hindu.

    What better example of unity and diversity we need. The media and mediocre politicians with no vision just play the masses to their advantage, be it TPR or vote banks.

  16. Sharmila,

    I noticed an exceptional, rather typical Indian sentiment during the opening ceremony of the games.

    We are taught to treat our guests with respect and grace. That we do with pleasure and serve them with all we have.

    But the test is when the guest is our worst oppressor! One who killed thousands of people in our house, looted all our treasures and still sits discourteously and proudly enjoying our hospitality. A snobbish, bootlegging Englishman who calls us his common-wealth!

    The mind recoils in aversion but the heart forces deference to cultural values.

    Better to score a victory over vengence and live in peace than allow vengeance to prevail and later regret the loss of cultural values.

    A guest is a guest even if he is the devil incarnate.

    Had the English done the same to China or Russia that they did to Indians for 200 years, forget about common-wealth, they would be begging for supplies to preserve their venomous scorpion in buck-in-ham.

    • Reader – Oh yes. I agree. That is why I said India is the most graceful woman in this entire world. despite all those who have plundered and looted her, she extends her hospitality like no other nation could dream of. About time we get our Kohinoor back and about time the English apologize to India for their years of oppression over us. The Aussies did it with the aboriginals too quite recently.

      • Sharmila,

        I’d say keep that Kohinoor and get the hell out of here!

        Personally I feel the English is the most treacherous and deceptive creature on this planet. I have found that even the Scots and Irish agree about that.

        The rest of the world knows it too but is tempered by their own goodness.

        England is bankrupt in terms of any goodwill that was accidently accumulated by their settlers.

        They never had a moral or cultural account so a bankruptcy on the grounds of moral values doesn’t exist.

        Within it’s own boundaries England has always been an aristocratic welfare state stealing from the rest of the world and feeding it’s disadvantaged cripples free of cost.

        It’s high time Indians dissociated themselves from the English influence.

      • I aye that. The mentality of the English has seeped into most parts of Australia and New Zealand as well. The furore over Dixit is a good example now. But, I think we are largely not influenced by them anymore. We have adopted the better things that they had to offer and have forgotten about them with the exception of course being part of this commonwealth nonsense.

      • Sharmila,

        The Kohinoor is now one of the last symbols of the empire’s medieval vanity. Like what the Knight’s brought home after a hunting exercise.

        If the English agree to leave us to our own means, they can keep the Kohinoor and bury it with the Queen’s remains. She can show it off to her patron the Satan during her eternal stay in Hell.

      • They will never bury the Kohinoor with the Queen. The Kohinoor sits in pretty in the Queen Mother’s crown in an exhibit vault in the Tower of London looking a hundred times more majestic than the Queen. But, how can the Queen go to hell when she represents ” God” as the head of the Protestant church?

      • Hmmm.. I can understand Lucifer’s hesitation in allowing an English citizen in his territory. She might throw him out of his own house!

        Lucifer is no match for the evil that an English woman from the Wind-sore palace can unleash!

      • Wind Sore and Buck in Ham indeed!

      • 🙂

        The wind is actually sour, not sore… and probably because of poor eating habits!!!

        🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: