Ayodhya controversy: No verdict is best verdict
The Ayodhya controversy is a two edged sword for the country. It is evident to almost everyone that no matter what the verdict is going to be, it will never be good enough for the country. And they even know why BJP and Sangh Parivar is all enthused about this with elections approaching. Hence it is perceived as the best decision when the Supreme Court does not deliver any verdict on this issue yet. With all this the whole country’s attention was trained towards the highest court on Monday. Supreme Court’s decision on not pronouncing any verdict is the best decision so far on this issue. A bench would decide on the matter of hearing of this case. The Judge said the case would be heard in January.
Though this has disappointed the BJP and RSS, no one can predict what the court would decide by January. The government may even ensure a decision is taken by the court on this matter by the court. Whatever be the verdict, the government for sure can use it for its full benefit and in its favour. Widespread criticism was heard about the verdict Allahabad High Court had given about Ayodhya in 2010. Political parties and Sangh Parivar can say whatever they need to about Ayodhya, but this is a clear land dispute case which was turned into a religion-sensitive issue. The court follows its own framework before giving a verdict on such cases. It should not be under any pressure on this. The earlier HC verdict was more like a Panchayat decision, which could have favoured all parties.
The court said everybody has equal right on the land and they should have access to it. The constitutional experts have their own doubts about how this could be considered constitutionally valid. The court didn’t focus on justice, but more on pacifying all the three warring parties. Court shouldn’t be adapting such stance. Hence, one party among the aggrieved, approached the Supreme Court. Most constitutional experts feel Allahabad High Court’s verdict may not hold good here. If the verdict by the Supreme Court is given in a way that it would favour the Sangh Parivar, it would be celebrated as a victory. The next step would be to seek votes to enable the new government to build Ram Mandir. If it is against the Sangh Parivar interests, the Parivar would cry a victim and seek votes to instigate the Hindus to come together to form a Hindu nation.
Modi administration has disillusioned the very bhakts that praised him to heavens and beyond. Hence BJP is planning to use the SC verdict to win the next election. Hence the court’s decision on Monday came as a disappointment to BJP. The party is rehearsing in Kerala, as to what would be its approach should the SC verdict be against its interest. The central government had turned its back on people when they were affected by massive deluge some time ago in Kerala. The same government is all very interested in stopping women from entering Sabarimala though the SC has allowed it. A massive team of strategists and trouble makers has camped in Kerala to enable this. They are protesting against this ruling of the Supreme Court. In some ways, this is a clear case of contempt of court.
If the ruling of the court is unsatisfactory, it has to be addressed again instead of taking it to streets. Many Dalits took to streets when the Supreme Court tried amending laws relating to atrocities act. But the government silenced them by using force. But then later, it was addressed in the precincts of the parliament. Now, the protest or the signs of that are being exhibited by the ruling dispensation itself. The Supreme Court cannot withdraw its verdict owing to this. The central leaders need to understand this point. They have to only implement the ruling and not protest against this. If the government protests, it would be protesting against its own self. The ruling of women being allowed to visit Sabarimala was not something that was pronounced by the state government of Kerala.
The BJP that is protesting against the entry of Hindu women into their own temples seems to have forgotten that they need womens’ votes too to win elections. Don’t Hindu women come under the purview of ‘hindu’ tag? BJP wants to divide people before the next elections based on their religious identity. They plan to do the same thing when the Ayodhya verdict gets out. Considering all this, the court may have to defer its verdict on the case till the elections are done so that the country can vote in peace and return to some solace within its environs.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Speaker rules out discussion on Guv''s conduct amid K''taka Assembly standoff
Bengaluru (PTI): In an effort to end the logjam over the Governor's address that has stalled proceedings for the past week, Karnataka Assembly Speaker U T Khader on Wednesday ruled that legislators should not discuss Thaawarchand Gehlot or his conduct in the house, saying such debates send the wrong message to the public.
The House has witnessed repeated disruptions and adjournments since the session began on January 22 over the issue of the governor's conduct.
During his address to the joint sitting of the Karnataka legislature on January 22, Gehlot read out only three sentences from the 122-paragraph speech prepared by the state government.
The speech included criticism of the Centre for replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajivika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G), portions of which the governor declined to read.
Concluding his address in about two minutes, the governor left the house, triggering a commotion as Congress legislators attempted to gherao him and raised slogans.
While the opposition BJP accused the ruling Congress and its ministers of "insulting" the governor and demanded action, the treasury benches countered by claiming the governor had "insulted the National Anthem by leaving before it was played."
The house again witnessed heated arguments on the issue earlier in the day, leading to adjournment.
During the interruption, Khader held a meeting with ministers and opposition members to resolve the impasse.
When proceedings resumed, the speaker delivered his ruling.
Referring to the events of January 22 and the subsequent debate, Khader said the conduct and discussions had conveyed the wrong message to the public.
"Our conduct as members of this House and the opinions expressed must be in good taste and in accordance with constitutional provisions. They must uphold the dignity of the House and its members. We must introspect in this direction," he said.
He stressed the need for caution to ensure that such incidents are not repeated in the future.
"Let us end this matter here, continue the discussion on the motion of thanks to the governor, and refrain from discussing the governor or his conduct in this house," the speaker said.
Leader of the Opposition R Ashoka said the house should express regret over what he termed an "insult" to the governor.
Responding, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said the situation would not have arisen had the governor read out the entire address.
"Asking the house to express regret is not appropriate. Why did the governor leave even before the National Anthem was played," Siddaramaiah asked.
BJP MLA S Suresh Kumar reminded Siddaramaiah that as Leader of the Opposition in 2011, he had asked then Governor Hansraj Bhardwaj to curtail his address.
Bhardwaj had subsequently placed the address on the table of the house, requesting members to treat it as read.
Siddaramaiah said the situation in January 2011 was different from the present one.
The debate grew intense, leading to another adjournment of the house.
