Ayodhya: We need constitution there, not compromise
Having pushed the country back into few years during the rule economically, financially, and socially, Modi government has now set aside the agenda of development and is engaging people with emotional aspects. The Pulwama incident and aftermath were part of this game plan of BJP.
Initially, people were provoked using the images of the soldiers’ dead bodies. Later false claims were made that the deaths were avenged, to the people. But this effort of BJP fell flat with IAF pilot Abhinandan turning getting captured by the Pakistan military after he crash landed in their area. Pakistan made a very seasoned diplomatic move and showed the world that they were willing to take first step towards peace. This set the India back by many steps.
Even the claim of having killed 300 soldiers is also understood to be an untrue thing now. If someone had hoped that the Rafale ghost would be gone forever amidst all this, it has come right back through the window.
The inevitable and embarrassing situation of documents relating to Rafale deal going missing and the government being forced to admit that in the court, has come up. The government is creating highly embarrassing situation for the government. The last weapon for the government to capture the votes would be the Ayodhya verdict. For this reason, the whole country is awaiting the verdict with bated breath. No matter what the verdict would be, BJP is all set to use it for its benefit and make it a part of election manifesto.
If the verdict comes against the interest of BJP, Sangh Parivar activists would take to streets all over the country. Court is bent upon compromise owing to high emotions running in this case. The court feels ownership confusions can be sorted here. But what the court has not specified is the way in which the wound to heart and minds can be healed.
More than anything else, when did this wound occur? Who sustained it? These are the main issues. Will the court admit that Babur demolished the temple and constructed a masjid? Does the court have all the evidences to prove this claim? Or is the court saying the process of collapse of Babri masjid is the wound that is hurting the communities?
The court is not too clear on these fronts. They are somewhat very confusing statements. The only option left for the court is to heal the wounds that have hurt the heart of constitution.
Compromise is a rather tricky solution. But it can never be justice served. This is not something that the highest court in the country does not know.
Even if we assume we can take the approach of compromise as stated by the court, can it be a solution for everything? Now if the muslims allow a temple to be constructed on the site, will this solve the problem as per the court?
Sangh Parivar has presented this argument that a masjid was built over a temple not just in the matter of Babri, but also about masjids in Kashi, Mathura and other places too. Even if Ayodhya case is wrapped up, they have another list of masjids which they’d bring up to create more communal unrest.
Hence if the court opts to silence the justice in the name of compromise, this would lead to more gruesome mishaps in the future. A compromise is something like a defense of Babri being razed. It would mean the court is encouraging more masjids to be razed to ground.
More than anything else, this is not an emotional issue. Those who want to build Ram Mandir are not followers of Ram’s ideals. They represent the ideology that was followed by Lord Ram’s ardent devotee Gandhiji. This isn’t an unknown thing for the court. But it need not give the verdict under duress of a looming communal clash outside.
It would be best if the verdict does not come before elections. The only way left for the Supreme Court is to decide based on the constitution as the rule book. If the constitution is suspended over the fear of miscreants, we may even be forced to dismiss it completely in the future by the very people.
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.
Inappropriate for MLAs seeking free IPL tickets, says D.K. Suresh
Bengaluru: Bengaluru Milk Union Ltd President D.K. Suresh on Monday said it is inappropriate for MLAs to seek free IPL tickets, adding that those interested in watching matches should pay for them personally.
Speaking to reporters near his residence in Sadashivanagar, he said, “IPL is a commercial tournament and does not represent the country. It is not right for public representatives to focus too much on such matters.”
Referring to the recent controversy during the RCB celebrations, he said, “let us find out who benefited the most from the statements made during the incident.” He also pointed out that BJP MLAs had received IPL tickets as well.
Responding to discussions about relocating the Chinnaswamy Stadium, Suresh said the government has already approved the construction of a new stadium at a location he had proposed.
“I had suggested building a stadium in Surya City and submitted a proposal for it. Bengaluru needs four stadiums in four directions to cater to its growing population and encourage youth participation in sports,” he said.
He noted that apart from Kanteerava Stadium, KSCA, and the Football Stadium, there are limited facilities in the city.
“When I was a Lok Sabha member, I had proposed allocating 100 acres in my constituency at Surya City. The land was later earmarked and the plan approved,” he added.
Suresh said he has discussed the project with Minister Zameer Ahmed Khan, Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Chairman Shivalingegowda, and Anekal MLA Shivanna.
“The Cabinet has now approved the project, and a stadium will be developed on around 50–60 acres,” he said.
He further added that he has requested the Deputy Chief Minister to build another stadium at Shivarama Karanth Layout through the BDA, where 40 acres have been allocated. Plans are also being discussed to develop a well-equipped stadium in Bidadi.
Commending state government's recent bilingual policy move, Suresh said forcing children to learn three languages could affect their comprehension.
“It is a good decision to make two languages compulsory. Learning a third language should be left to the choice of students and parents,” he said.
Responding to criticism from BJP leaders, he said their tendency is to oppose every decision of the government.
“To please their central leadership, they take a pro-Hindi stance. Instead, they should advocate for the adoption of Kannada in all states,” he said.
When asked about the earlier three-language policy under Congress, he said, “the situation is different now. Today, the focus should be on quality learning. Kannada should remain the primary language, while students and parents can choose an additional language.”
