Bihar: Jitan Ram Manjhi threatens to give up cabinet berth, causes flutter
Patna (PTI): Union minister Jitan Ram Manjhi caused a flutter after he threatened to give up his cabinet berth, alleging that his Hindustani Awam Morcha was not getting a square deal in the NDA ahead of the Bihar assembly polls due later this year.
The former Bihar chief minister made the statement on Tuesday at a public meeting in Munger district, where he voiced anguish over his party not being taken into account by the BJP-led coalition in seat-sharing arrangements.
"We got nothing in Jharkhand and Delhi. It may be said that I did not make any demand. But is it justice? I was overlooked because I had no standing in these states. So we must prove our worth in Bihar,” Manjhi said.
Quoting a verse from the Ramayana which implies that often fear begets respect, the 80-year-old leader remarked "it seems I will have to resign from the cabinet".
The temperamental leader also added in the same breath "some may say I am fighting with the NDA. But, the leadership of Narendra Modi has been such that there is no question of a revolt. I am making a plea, not indulging in a confrontation".
Manjhi, who is the lone MP of his party that has four MLAs in the 243-strong assembly, also disclosed that he wanted "40 seats" for the Hindustani Awam Morcha in the Bihar assembly polls.
"If our party returns with a tally of even 20, we will be able to get our demands fulfilled," said the former CM, who insisted that he was not pursuing any personal ambitions but eyeing a better deal for ‘Bhuiyan-Musahar’, a Dalit community to which he belongs.
He also said that the Nitish Kumar government in the state, in which his son Santosh Suman is a minister, "has done many good things" but promises he made to the depressed classes during his less-than-a-year-long tenure as CM were yet to be fulfilled.
This is the second occasion, in the recent past, when Manjhi has made public his dissatisfaction with the NDA. On Sunday, he had said in Jehanabad that his party was "cheated" in Delhi and Jharkhand.
Sources in the NDA made light of the remarks of Manjhi, who had quit the coalition in 2018 and joined the ‘Mahagathbandhan’ helmed by the RJD, only to return a couple of years later.
The sources were also of the view that Manjhi's outbursts stemmed from a feeling that his cabinet colleague Chirag Paswan, another Dalit leader from Bihar who heads the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas), was stealing the limelight.
Meanwhile, RJD spokesperson Mrityunay Tiwari asked Manjhi to "give up the perks of power" if he seriously felt that Dalits should get a better deal than what the BJP was willing to give them.
"He should join the fight for social justice, which is being spearheaded by our leaders Lalu Prasad and Tejashwi Yadav. But, for this churning of which the BJP is always wary, Manjhi would never have been considered for a berth in the Union cabinet,” said Tiwari.
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.
Questioning religious practices will break religion, civilisation: SC in Dawoodi Bohras case
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday remarked that if individuals start questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court then there will be hundreds of petitions questioning different rituals, leading to the breaking of religions and the civilisation.
The nine-judge Constitution bench is hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, and on the ambit and scope of the religious freedom practised by multiple faiths, including Dawoodi Bohras.
The bench comprises Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
The Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community filed a PIL in 1986 seeking the setting aside of a 1962 judgment, which had struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949 -- this law made excommunication of any community member illegal.
The 1962 Constitution bench judgment said, "It is evident from the religious faith and tenets of the Dawoodi Bohra community that the exercise of the power of excommunication by its religious head on religious grounds formed part of the management of its affairs in matters of religion and the 1949 Act in making even such excommunication invalid, infringed the right of the community under Article 26(b) of the Constitution."
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing a group of reformist Dawoodi Bohras, submitted that a practice which is conducted in response to secular and social actions of an individual cannot be the subject of Constitutional protection under Article 25 of the Constitution and consequently cannot be a ‘matter of religion’ under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Ramachandran told the court that a practice which may have a religious aspect but also significantly and adversely impacts fundamental rights is not immune to restriction under Article 25 of the Constitution or Article 26 of the Constitution.
Responding to the submission, Justice Nagarathna said that if everybody starts questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court, then "what happens to this civilisation where religion is so intimately connected with the Indian society".
"There will be hundreds of petitions questioning this right that right, opening of the temple, and the closure of the temple. We are conscious of this," she said.
Adding to the response, Justice Sundresh said, "Every religion will break and every constitutional court will have to be closed.
"If the dispute between two entities are allowed then everybody will question everything. In your case there may be a civil wrong committed to you but in another case, another member will say I don't agree. It is regressive. To what extent can we go in a country like ours which is progressive and on the move is the question," he said.
Justice Nagarathna went on that what sets apart India from any other region is that "we are a civilisation" despite having so many pluralities and diversities?
Asserting that diversity is the country's strength, she added, "One of the constants in our Indian society is the relationship of human beings -- man, woman and child -- with the religion."
"Now, how a religious practice or a matter of religion is questioned, where it is questioned, whether it can be questioned, whether it has to be a question within a denomination for a reform or whether the state will have to do or you want the court to adjudicate upon all these aspects. This is troubling us.
"What we lay down, is for a civilisation that is India. India must progress despite all its economy, everything there is a constant in us. We can’t break that constant. That is what is troubling us ," she said.
Ramachandran replied that India is a civilisation under the Constitution and therefore nothing which goes against the grain of constitution can be continued in a civilised society.
He said that's where court's task come in and "it can't throw hands" and say there will be so many petitions.
