|
Political Notes |
 |
The Ayodhya issue
There are quite a few portents in the current political course that sound particularly ominous for the impending electoral process, to the point of threatening to undermine the very basics of India’s democratic polity. And these have to do, first with the hawkish rhetoric indulged in by the powers that be at the Centre after the December 13 attack and second, with the systematic and calibrated build-up by the VHP and others of its sangh parivar for the construction of the temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya , which is slated to commence any time after March 12 this year. Given the brazen defiant way in which they are pursuing the temple agenda and with their campaign I the run-up to the D-Day all set to reach a decisive stage in February, the threat to the core values of a democracy, especially in UP, is very real. The Hindu rightly commented that the unfortunate part of it all is that the BJP leadership at the Centre has been singularly soft in its responses to the VHP’s provocative acts on the Ayodhya front.
Why not museum for Ram instead of temple?
The Government has decided to allot land in Delhi for the construction of a museum depicting the journeys of Lord Ram across the country “on the lines of the grand temple” proposed at Ayodhya, Union Urban Development Minister Ananth Kumar has stated.
“While Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate reflect a century or so of our history, the museum would bring to life 10,000 years of the country’s heritage and inspire people to visit all the places visited by Lord Ram,” Kumar opined. He was speaking at a function to felicitate pilgrims who were part of ‘Shri Ram Van Gaman Sthal Yatra’ organised by the Sangh Parivar-backed Dharmayatra Mahasangh. Offering the plot of land to the Mahasangh, Kumar hoped the museum would be as grand as the proposed Ram temple at Ayodhya. The Vishva Hindu Parishad has threatened to go ahead with the construction of the temple at the disputed site any day after March 12, if the Government fails to thrash out an amicable solution. Equating ‘Ram darshan’ with ‘Bharat darshan’, Kumar said the story of Ram’s journey should be incorporated in the curricula to make the younger generation aware of it. The RSS and VHP, the minister said, were the “source and custodian” of religious awareness of the country’s one billion strong population.
Human rights body feels POTO changes not enough
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) chairperson Justice J S Verma has reiterated the commission’s objections to the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO). Justice Verma made it clear that changes in the ordinance were not significant enough. Quoting a UN official, he has pointed out that there was misapplication of UN Resolution 1373 of September 28 to combat terrorism. But terrorism should be tackled under the rule of law. He gave the example of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. ‘’Article 21 guarantees procedural fairness under the law while Article 20 guarantees against testimonial compulsion.’’ Criticising POTO, Justice Verma felt that bail provisions in the Ordinance should be real. ‘’How can the requirement of bail be that the accused is asked to perform an impossible task of proving his innocence even before charge has been made,’’ he asked. He stressed that the principle of necessity and proportionality should be borne in mind before enacting such laws.
|
