Allahabad High Court
I grew up in Lucknow, aware of a Hindi literary icon Shivani who lived in Gulistan Colony, a pristine part of the city which housed bureaucrats and judges among others. Her daughter Mrinal Pande had already begun to make a mark in literary circles. The mother-daughter duo held mirror to everyday life, showing men and matter as they were, without any colour.
The Mrinal Pande of today bears little resemblance to this neutrality. She takes a Congress line which is understandable given the Gandhis afforded her Padma Shri (2006), chair of Prasar Bharati head (2010) and her present position of group editorial advisor, the National Herald Group (Never mind, many of us haven’t seen a copy of its print edition in our lives. The only time we are reminded of its existence is when it’s hauled up in courts for Rs 5000-crore defamation suit by Reliance Group on Rafale lies). The problem occurs when she resorts to lies as in an edit piece today and Indian Express is too happy to lap up to her vomits. That’s how the newspaper and its edit author have chosen to begin the year 2019 with.
Pande is on a bigotry-binge on Yogi Adityanath. She asserts that Yogi is “planning a large statute of Lord Ram as a sort of precursor to building a temple on what is currently disputed land.” If you are not a legal hawk, it would appear that they statue is being planned on the disputed land. That Yogi couldn’t care less about Supreme Court being the sole arbiter of law in this land. The fact is no land in Ayodhya is decided yet on Rama’s statue. In the fantasy world of Pande, the Yogi government would disregard the all-important scientific and technical matter of soil-testing and wind-tunnel testing as long as it could tamper with the disputed land and Supreme Court’s authority.
Pande then rams the lie down the throat of her readers by claiming that Yogi has forbidden “the use of loudspeakers for azaan, citing the disturbance to public peace.” The fact is that it’s Allahabad High Court, and not Yogi acting arbitrarily which has ordered the removal of loudspeakers from religious places in an attempt to curb the noise pollution. In December 2017, state government and UP Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) were hauled up by a High Court bench for its action on alleged misuse of loudspeakers in religious places. (So madam, it’s not just for Azaan. The court intervention is also against the temples, gurudwara and churches. And if you must blame, blame the HC and not the Yogi government.)
Pande is unstoppable now. She says that Yogi has “banned namaz being performed in any public park in the state.” She ought to be told that no less than Supreme Court in a 2009 order has banned the unauthorized use of public places for religious activities by all religions (and not just for Muslims). And why Namaz, the police has also stopped a bhagwat katha being planned by Hindus in Greater Noida this week. (Rest assured Madam unlike you on Namaz, Hindus wouldn’t make much noise and spread ill-will among communities on the matter.)
Pande further alleges that Yogi has banned cattle SALES to butchers, most of them Muslims. She needs be told that it’s been over a year and half since the rule on ban on sale of animals for slaughter (and not just cattle) has been done away with. If Pande’s sleight of words is meant to point out the ban on cow SLAUGHTER in Uttar Pradesh (and not its sales), she can’t pretend that 19 other states of India have banned cow slaughter. And that it also is not un-constitutional. Article 48 of the Constitution mandates the state to prohibit the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the State of Gujarat vs Moti Qureshi Kassab interpreted the article in consonance with Article 51A (g) of the Constitution, thereby justifying a wholesome ban on bovine slaughter.
And if History interests Ms Pande, it was a Congress chief minister in Uttar Pradesh, decades before BJP even existed, which banned cow slaughter in the state. It was Dr. Sarvshri Sampurnanand who banned cow slaughter in Uttar Pradesh in 1955 with the UP Cow Slaughter Prohibition Act. (So madam, please don’t single out Yogi Aditynath and betray your hatred towards him while ignoring what leaders of the party you serve have done in the past).
Pande also has problem about Yogi Aditanath making a “big noise about saving gau mata at all costs.” It would help her to know that a cow indeed is big in Hindu world. She ought to know of Govardhan Puja (a day before Diwali); and a cow being worshipped on the third day of the Pongal. In neighbouring Nepal, a cow is worshipped as Goddess Laxmi during Diwali; Gaijatra in Nepal is dedicated to cows accompanied with a big procession. Gorakhnath (God Shiva) is the protector of cows. He is called Pashupatinath. God Krishna is called Govinda only because of his affection towards cows.
It is not accidental that Mrinal Pande chooses to address Bhagwan Ram as Lord Ram throughout her piece. She chooses a western manifestation on a man who is a “maryada-purshottam” to millions of Hindus. Let her try this trick with other religions and she would know the consequences. In passing, it must be mentioned that Ms Pande in the past had tweeted an image of a donkey to wish PM Narendra Modi on his birthday.
There is another irony which is not lost on readers of Indian Express. The day it chose to make a lead headline of the opposition’s reject of the Triple Talaq Bill in the Rajya Sabha, Ms Pande extols Pt Nehru for the good work he has done in “incremental” changes in the society. Is his party Congress stalling or going for “incremental” change in the status of women in the society? Especially for women of a religion for which Ms Pande’s heart so palpably beats. Was Shah Bano a case of gender justice or gender denial?
So these are you “credible” men and women. The “credible” newspapers. The toxicity which poisons us everyday. With blatant lies and manipulations. Are these so-called men and women of letters worthy of any respect from us?
Before the Supreme Court begins the final hearings on the Ram Janmabhoomi case from December 5, India’s mainstream English media has begun pressing its foot on the propaganda gas pedal to portray the Hindu Right Wing in poor light.
Indian Express, as its front page lead story on Saturday, carried the comment of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat in Bengaluru that “Ram Mandir alone will be built, nothing else will be built.” The newspaper also published the outrage of Muslim law board’s hardliner Asaduddin Owaisi on the remark.
The Leftist media and academicians would look to spread lies and propaganda from now on against the idea of “Ram Mandir” as a violation of India’s secularist spirit and as a disregard to apex judiciary, Supreme Court.
So it’s time we firmly nail the lie of these presstitutes—both Lutyens Media and academicians of JNU kind—before they succeed in vitiating communal harmony and poisoning unsuspecting minds.
The litigation in Supreme Court was filed by parties in contention to the Allahabad High Court’s Ayodhya judgment on September 30, 2010 which ran into 8500 pages. (The entire judgment is available on the website of India’s National Integration Council: rjbm.nic.in).
The three-member High Court bench had then ruled that the “Babri Masjid had indeed been built on a religious Hindu site.“ The bench had further imposed respect for the verified Hindu convention of treating the site as Rama’s birthplace. (As an aside, even the 1989 Encyclopaedia Brittanica had mentioned Ayodhya Ramjanambhoomi as a Hindu temple destroyed in the name of first Mughal Emperor, Babur).
As can be imagined, the High Court bench had arrived at the judgment after years of diligence and painstaking research and cross-examination which validated the claims of Hindu Right Wing groups.
In 2002, High Court asked for Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) to be used to confirm if the long-held tradition of a temple beneath the disputed Babri Masjid site was true. The verdict was overwhelmingly affirmative. High Court then asked the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to verify the GPR claim with its own excavations.
The ASI report (ASI 2003) said: “Excavations at the disputed site of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid was carried out by the ASI from March 12, 2003 to August 7, 2003. 82 trenches were excavated.” The ASI’s verdict was there are “remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India.”
It was a huge setback for “Ram Janmabhoomi” opponents. But more damning was the judicial word on the so-called academicians and experts for the fraud and wool they tried to pull over the eyes of the High Court bench.
The Allahabad High Court reprimanded the JNU “historians and academicians”, for their flawed research and vested opinions. One Professor Mandal, who had written a book against the Hindu claim, was found never to have even visited Ayodhya!!! These independent experts, historians and archaeologists had appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board.
One of the three judges, Justice Sudhir Agarwal, in particular, put these experts under judicial scrutiny. Most of these experts were made to depose twice.
These “historians”, before the ASI excavations, had said there was no temple beneath the mosque. Once the buried structure was under-earthed, they claimed it was a “mosque” or “stupa.”
They were then subjected to a grueling cross-examination by Justice Agarwal and his opinion runs over several pages in the final report. Damningly, these independent “historians and experts” were all shown to have connections. For example, one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book written by a witness.
These “historians” who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, were found by the Honourable Judge to have an “ostrich-like attitude” to facts. The cookie crumbled quickly enough:
One Suvira Jaiswal deposed “whatever knowledge I gained with respect to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others (experts) told !!!”
Supriya Verma, another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not read the GPR survey report that led the court to order an excavation. Verma and Jaya Menon had alleged that the pillar bases at the excavation site had been planted but HC found their claim to be false. Verma had done her PhD under another expert Shereen Ratnagar who had written the “introduction” to the book of another expert Professor Mandal, who as said hadn’t even visited Ayodhya! Shereen Ratngar indeed admitted she had no field experience.
Justice Agarwal noted that opinions had been offered without proper investigation, research or study in the subject. The judge said he was “startled and puzzled” by contradictory statements. He referred to signed statements issued by experts and noted that “instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere, it tends to create more complications, conflict and controversy.”
So mark out reports on Ayodhya issue in Lutyens Media from now on. Note down these reporters and authors who would flood you with reams of columns. Make a scrap of their lies, distortions and propaganda. For it sure is going to dominate your newspapers like Rohingya Muslims did not long ago.