Seizure of Properties in UP: Who paid for the destruction of property in Gujarat Riots?
If anyone thought that the order of the recovery of the value of the property destroyed in violence in UP from the perpetrators was a decision of Chief Minister Yogi alone, PM Modi proved it wrong by his addresses in Lucknow on the eve of Late Vajpayee’s birthday where he supported Yogi’s actions in clear words. According to reports, the Rampur administration has issued notices to 28 people "identified for violence" during last week's anti-citizenship law protests, asking them to explain their position or pay for damage caused to public and private property. Meerut admin has sent notices to 517 arms license-holders. In Muzaffarnagar, around three dozen shops have been sealed with the intention of recovering the loss of public property by selling the goods stored in these shops and shops themselves if needed. In Kanpur, 28 persons have been identified as the perpetrators.
India has a long history of the destruction of property, both public and private, in the various kinds of violence associated with protests and communal riots. But it is for the first time that there is an open declaration of “revenge” against the perpetrators. Is it because, this is perhaps one of the rare occasions where the majority of perpetrators of violence are being identified by the police as Muslims?
What about the perpetrators of Gujarat riots? Here are excerpts from Wikipedia article on Gujarat violence in the reign of Mr. Narendra Modi:
“Property worth 42 million rupees was destroyed during the riots, with Muslims losing 32 million worth of property….There was widespread destruction of property. 273 dargahs, 241 mosques, 19 temples, and 3 churches were either destroyed or damaged….. It is estimated that Muslim property losses were "100,000 houses, 1,100 hotels, 15,000 businesses, 3,000 handcarts and 5,000 vehicles."
Who paid for this huge loss? Were perpetrators forced to pay the losses? The same article adds:
“Overall, 27,780 people were arrested. Of them, 11,167 were arrested for criminal behavior (3,269 Muslim, 7,896 Hindu) and 16,615 were arrested as a preventative measure (2,811 Muslim, 13,804 Hindu). The CCT tribunal reported that 90 percent of those arrested were almost immediately granted bail, even if they had been arrested on suspicion of murder or arson. There were also media reports that political leaders gave those being released public welcomes.”
According to other reports, more than 200,000 Muslims were displaced and even after more than 15 years, a large number of them are living in ghettoes.
So, if the victims are Muslims and perpetrators Hindus, they are welcome in the BJP regimes as the “braves” who have done the commendable work. But if the perpetrators happen to be Muslims, they need to face the “revenge” in style. 24 Muslims have died since 2014 in Mob Lynching incidences. Were Hindu perpetrators forced to pay the compensation to the families of the dead? Again, many such perpetrators have been openly felicitated by the political leaders. In response to CAA and NRC, there has been widespread violence and destruction of public property in Assam. Why should the PM not ask his party CM there to recover the loss of property from the perpetrators?
It appears that the ruling dispensation, instead of trying to pacify the agitators and removing their fears by taking corrective constitutional measures, plans to use this for further division of the masses on the communal lines. This of course is what suits their vote bank politics.
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.
SC to hear pleas for reviewing wages of priests, temple staff
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a plea to constitute a judicial commission or an expert committee to review the wages and other benefits given to priests, 'sevadars' and temple staff in state-controlled temples.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta is likely to hear the PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.
The plea, filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey, seeks directions to the Centre and states to constitute a judicial commission or an expert committee to review the remuneration and other benefits given to the priests and temple staff in state-controlled temples.
"Petitioner also seeks a declaration that priests and temple staff are employee' under Section 2(k) of the Code on Wages, 2019. Petitioner submits that once the State assumes the administrative, economic and financial control over temples, an employer-employee relationship arises and denial of dignified wages to priests and temple staff violates the right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21," it said.
Upadhyay said the cause of action accrued on April 4, when he went to Varanasi to attend a public programme and after performing 'Rudrabhishek' in the Kashi Vishwanath temple, which is controlled by the state, he came to know that even the minimum wages to live with dignity are not given to the priests and temple staff.
"Recently, in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, priests and temple staff organised a large-scale protest demanding the minimum wages. Priests and temple staff are not getting even the minimum wage prescribed by the State for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. This is a systemic exploitation. State is acting as a model employer through the endowments department, but violating the minimum wages Act and the directive principles of state policy (Article 43)," it said.
The plea further said the continued refusal to meet the minimum wages with the 2026 inflation-adjusted cost of living index has forced the petitioner to seek judicial intervention to prevent the further marginalisation of priests and temple staff.
Upadhyay further said the precarious nature of livelihood was starkly exposed on February 7, 2025, when a Tamil Nadu department issued a circular at the 'Dandayuthapani Swami Temple' in Madurai, strictly prohibiting priests from accepting 'dakshina' in 'aarti plates'.
"It is necessary to state that priests in such temples often receive no formal salary from the State and rely entirely on 'Dakshina'; the State's administrative order directly threatened them with starvation. Although withdrawn due to public outrage, the incident highlights the State's arbitrary power over the survival of the priests. This is also a bitter truth that States are controlling lakhs of temples but not a single mosque or church," the PIL claimed.
The petition, alternatively, sought direction to the Centre and states to take appropriate steps for the welfare of priests, sevadars and other temple staff in the spirit of the Allahabad High Court's earlier judgments.
