Polite Indian

Sify Reports

The Delhi High Court has awarded death to Santosh Kumar Singh, the man convicted for raping and murdering Priyadarshini Mattoo, a 23-year-old law student 11 years ago.

Earlier, the CBI pressed for death penalty before the Delhi High Court for Singh, convicted for committing rape and murder of Mattoo.

As I have argued before, capital punishment should be abolished. When will we understand that this sort of punishment has no place in a civilized world.

UPDATE : Shivam has more on it.

Ever Since the Supreme Court made the decision about Creamy Layer from SC/ST being excluded from the purview of benefits of reservation, Creamy layer is doing its round of news and analysis. To understand what and who is a creamy layer go here.

Seems like almost all the political parties are united in their stand against the SC order. An Article in Hindu (link via krish) goes in depth trying to explain why Creamy layer concept is an invalid concept

The concept of creamy layer obfuscates the fact of caste discrimination within institutions of education, employment, and justice.

My personal stand is that Creamy Layer should be excluded from the purview of reservation benefits. One of the main reason is as I explained here. There are other reasons why they should be excluded.

Let us understand why we run social justice programmes? We run these programmes to enable the socially backward classes of the society to be able to have opportunities, which would otherwise be inacessible to them. Now every social justice program has to have end goal.

In the case of reservations what is the end goal? In my view, as I have argued elsewhere, reservations help provide the economic justice which in turn may or may not provide the required social justice.I have my doubts but let’s stick to the economic aspect of the reservations programme. So how do you measure whether someone has benefittedfrom the programme or not? … By looking at the economic indicators. As time passes, the people who have benefitted from the programme and have been enabled should make way for the remaining underprivileged. If we do not have a provision to move people out of the underprivileged category once they have benefitted, these benefits will be cornered by them for time eternal. The reason being they would be better placed than their economically weaker counterparts.

And if the social justice programmes does not provide one to get out of the disability that it was trying to address, what good is the programme in the first place? If it did help someone get rid of that disability what good is it to continue providing the benefit?

But what about representation?

I agree this is one of the problems. Even today all the SC/ST seats don’t get filled and if we exclude the Creamy layer even more might remain unfilled. This will be a serious drawback of the supreme court judgement. This problem in my view can be tackled in two steps, independent of each other.

First, we need to provide basic education to the SC/ST/OBC students so that we have more people from the non-creamy layer to fill the seats.

Second we should fill the seats in reserved category in two steps. First the SC/ST/OBCs from the non-creamy layer be given preference. If after that seats are still vacant then we should fill them candidates from the Creamy Layer SC/ST/OBC category.

This arrangement would in my view achieve the desired goal. It would bring more people in the benefit net from the underpriviliged category and if there aren’t enough we solve the representation issue by allowing the priviliged SC/ST/OBCs to fill the seats.

IBN Live reports.

Says a farmer, Munna, “We’ll not celebrate Diwali. No one will light candles or diyas and there is no food. People are dying of hunger here.”

The meagre compensation these farmers have received for the drought situation they have been facing since 2003 has robbed them of all sparkle this festive season.

The Uttar Pradesh government’s relief cheques that are as low as Rs 3 have left these farmers checkmated - literally - for banks don’t encash cheques that are less than Rs 100.

Says Munna, “The government has done nothing for us. Crops have dried up and farmers are dying.”

And it’s not just the compensation amount that’s making a mockery of their plight.

This is what Munna will have to do to encash his cheque of Rs 35. He will have to spend Rs 50 to travel to the district headquarters, where the revenue officer is likely to charge him Rs 200 for accepting the cheque.

He will then have to put in another Rs 250 to open a bank account. Little wonder that Munna prefers to leave the ‘compensation’ cheque untouched.

…

The irony of the entire situation is that some of the Rs 3 cheques that were issued cost Rs 4 to print - which is more than the compensation amount.

One wonders who to pity at this time - the poor farmer who is the recipient of this pittance or the socialist government of the state of Uttar Pradesh which is bursting a two-kilometer long cracker to celebrate this Diwali.

Watch the video here
Link via atlantean

Pathetic state of affairs I must say.

Europe, the center of secularism and multiculturalism, is going through interesting times. Confused has a very interesting post about Europe and Islam.

There is no doubt that Europe is growing increasingly frustrated with its Muslim minorities. This is no longer confined to people on the far right, but the political and intellectual mainstream, the likes of Martin Amis are beginning to wonder if European values can ever be reconciled with the values its increasingly militant Muslim population.

This is the reality today and it is not just Europe but in other places of the world as well. But why in Europe? It has been the center of secularism and multiculturalism. What has brought this change? And how come they don’t care about being politically correct anymore? In fact as Confused notes

Of course, this sense of alienation and animosity grows with every little event. The Pope’s recent comments evoked much fury, so much so that some idiots proved how Islam was a non-violent religion by killing a nun! This also provides a convenient handle to the far-right, they know to provoke a violent backlash all they have do is to publish some cartoons and they are increasingly adopting such tactics.

In fact even the public figures have started saying things which wouldn’t be considered politically correct any other time but seems to be OK now.

Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s recent comment about the veil have created a heated debate in Britain.

Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has caused controversy after revealing he asks Muslim women to remove their veils during meetings with him. Mr Straw said he now invites the women to take their veils off because he feels ‘uncomfortable’ about talking with someone whose face he cannot see.

New even Tony Blair has come out in the open to support Jack Straw’s viewpoint.

“But actually what Jack Straw was saying was perfectly sensible, which is that if we want to break down the barriers between people and between different cultures and religions, then it is important these issues are raised and discussed.

“I see nothing wrong with that and I think it is perfectly sensible if you raise it in a measured and considered way to have a proper public discussion about it

Reacting to the recent controversy on veil Umar Lee claims that it is the center left as compared to the far right that poses the bigger threat to Muslims in Great Britain.

The “center left” in Britain will get the aid and assistance of progressive and liberal Muslims who will feed them the expertise and language they need and the left will do what it does in launching a cultural war against Muslims and that is why, on many levels, the left is more of a threat than the right.

The Islamic world has been debating about the hijab and the niqab(veil) for quite sometime. Now the non-muslims have started debating it openly. I n my view debate is a sign of healthy social interaction. You can see some of the articles here, here, here and here. I am sure you can find many more examples of it in the news.

I made this comment while participating in a debate on veil.

Is the veil worn because the religion demands it? Is it because the tradition demands it? Or is it just cool to wear it?
Whatever be the reason if one wants to willing wear it no problem at all. It is their right after all.

On the other hand is someone justified in getting offended by the veil?
Can a colleague, while maintaing all professional contact, decline to make any social contact because the veil makes him/her uncomfortable?
Can a student refuse to learn from a teacher whose face he cannot see? Is he within his rights to demand the face of his teacher be visible?

If someone willingly wants to wear a mask to work is he within his rights to do so?

How far do we wanna go with this?

If you defend one persons right to wear the dress they want then you should defend the right of other person to feel offended by it.

If one says that wearing the veil is the demand of the religion then one can allow certain behaviour considering the religious sensitivities. Because religious issues call for different debate.

But if you argue that religion or no religion you have a right to wear the veil then you should also defend someone’s right to wear a mask or wear whatever. Forget about any kind of dress code anywhere.

Should one be allowed to wear dhoti kurta and go to work in wall street?

If you look at the questions and debates on the hijab and the niqab in isolation it might look stupid or even bigoted, but I think the problem that Europe is facing is the bigger problem of integration. Europeans feel that somehow the muslims have not integrated with the european society. The moderate europeans are losing faith in Islam says the herald tribune

Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: More people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values.

“You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Goeman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in central Antwerp, half an hour outside Brussels. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point.

While some voice it moderately, the far right even goes to the extent of saying “Embrace our culture or leave”. Tariq Nelson doesn’t find “embrace our culture or leave” stance unreasonable.

I have often wondered why a person would want to migrate to a country that has values that are diametrically opposed to their own. I liken it to being offended by porn, yet going to live in a porn shop and complaining that you are offended.

If, on the other hand, a guest wanted to bring porn into your own home, you could refuse to let him bring it in, or he could leave.

In other words, I don’t think “embrace our culture or leave” is an unreasonable stance for any country to take. In fact, the underlying message in Saudi Arabia, for example, is already that: “Embrace our culture, or leave”

I think it is unreasonable to expect that a minority immigrant community will abandon all their customs to integrate into the host society. On the other hand it is also unreasonable to expect that the host community will absorb/accept/allow anything in their culture that the immigrant community brings. There has to be a middle ground. In this case, the center of multicultarism and Secularism have to make some adjustments and so do the Muslims. The middle path is the answer.
There is another nice article about the Muslims and their integration in Europe by Tariq Ramadan

Western Muslims will play a decisive role in the evolution of Islam worldwide. By reflecting on their faith, their principles and their identity within industrialized, secularized societies, Tariq Ramadan, author of “Western Muslims and the Future of Islam,” argues that they are key in the self-reflection the Muslim world must undertake regarding its relationship with the modern world.

I agree that the Muslims in the west will definitely play the decisive role in the evolution of Islam.

BTW, While Europe deals with such issues some feel that Muslims are better off in America than Europe.

On one hand we are passing laws to ban child labor in India and on the other hand organizations like ULFA are using these kids to throw bombs. All it needs is Rs 100 and they have kid ready to do the dirty job. What does the kid know after all? First it was LTTE with child soldiers now ULFA with child bombers.

The separatist United Liberation Front of Asom is now using children and young students to carry bombs and explode them to evade security net, the Assam police have revealed.

The police caught a 10-year-old boy at Bongaigaon after he threw a grenade at the railway station on Monday night.

A class VII student from Rangia, died the previous day at Kahilipara, when a bomb he was carrying exploded.

“This is most horrifying,” said Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi talking to newsmen. “How can they bring children and students into this violent conflict?” he asked.

The ULFA has always been seen as being insensitive to children. Two years ago, they bombed to death 16 students at Dhemaji in an Independence Day programme.

“Militancy has come to such a pass that they are using 10-year-old kids to throw bombs. Where is the human rights violation now?” asked Assam Governor Lt Gen Ajay Sinha.

The All Asom Students Union is also worried. “It is extremely unfortunate. Students are students. The militants cannot exploit them,” he said.

The Bongagaon police, who caught the 10-year-old from the spot, said that the kid was paid Rs 100 to throw the bomb. The police said these kids and students are least suspected and in case they are arrested or get killed, the damage is next to nothing.

Tinsukia district Deputy Commissioner Absar Hazarika said on Friday that students in his district were ‘bribed with money, cars, motorcycles and cell phones to plant bombs and grenades in public places’.

The Sri Lankan secessionist organisation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, are known to employ child soldiers, which the international community has condemned as a gross violation of human rights.

Is there any possible justification to such acts?

Pakistaniat.com has an article about desecration of a Hindu temple.

We have come to think of Pakistan as a place from where no good can come out but it was heartening to see the pakistanis raising their voices to protect the temple and respect minority snsitivities.

Religious intolerance must never be tolerated. To be silent in the face of intolerance is intolerance itself. It is a blot not only on those who commit the acts of intolerance, it is a scar on the face of societies that allow it.

One of the very first posts we had done here on ATP was about the alleged demolition of a Hindu temple in Rangmahal Lahore (here). We followed it up with a second post demonstrating that by design and by default key forces in the media and amongst politicians tend to distort issues for their own myopic gains, even at the cost of the larger issues at stake (here). A third post on this issue from ATP followed up the story further and tried, as best as we could, to separate the facts from the rhetoric (here).

The comments made on the article are even more interesting. One comment explains how people build mosques to grab public land, a situation very similar in India regarding temples and mosques.

Unfortunaltey rules are not the same for masjid and mandir. Somehow abandoned or old mandirs seem to be a fair game for land grabbers whereas masjids seem to be encroach upon public lands without proper demarcation. Rules should be applied in the same way for both the majority and minority’s places of worship. I know for a fact that many mosques in Federal-B-Area karachi are built on amenity plots (mostly cricket grounds) and they keep expanding over the years by taking more and more space around them but nobody dares to regulate them. Masjid or mandir, they should both be given properly demarcated plots, with consideration for future expansion, and both should be provided govt security against land grabbing.

I guess things are very similar accross the border.

Anyways, it is good to see liberals raising their voices in Pakistan.

Sify News reports

Kuala Lumpur: The head of Malaysia’s Shariat Department has asked Muslims in the country not to greet Hindus a Happy Diwali, a directive the government distanced itself from saying it is a narrow interpretation of Islam.

Fauzi Mustaffar, head of Shariah department, in an email directive to office staff has said that Diwali was a religious festival in which Hindu deities were worshipped and greeting Hindus on the occasion was like practising polytheism to Muslims.

Good at least the government later distanced itself from this

Government distanced itself from the controversial directive. Abdullah Zin, a minister in Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi’s Department, said the email sent by Mustaffar was his “personal view,” according to the daily.

“He (Mustaffar) has no authority to say Muslims shouldn’t wish Hindus because that is like a fatwa (edict). And fatwas can only come from the National Fatwa Council and Jakim,” Zin was quoted as saying.

“Just because you wish someone Happy Diwali does not mean that you have embraced his beliefs and religion. It is not syirik (practising polytheism). In a multi-religious and multi-racial country like ours, it is important to live in harmony and be nice to one another,” the minister said.

When you see things like this it makes you wonder where do these guys get their ideas from? And what is the psychology behind such statements?

I think people do this out of necessity to gain some limelight and show their importance. They end up making fool of themselves instead.

There is no dearth of such stupidity in the world. Krish maintains an interesting Hindutva Hall Of Shame.

Link Via Shivam

Most people won’t believe this unless they see it with their own eyes.

This video made me sad.

If you want to control the terrorists first control the mosquitoes (machchar). BihariBabuKahin has a nice post on it. For those who can read Hindi, it’s a great read.

बहरहाल, हमको तो ई लगता है कि सरकार बेकारे आतंकवाद से लड़ने पर संसाधन लुटा रही है। हमरे खयाल से सरकार को बजाय आतंकवाद से सीधे लड़ने के, पहिले हम पर प्रयोग करना चाहिए। अगर ऊ हम पर कंटरोल कर लेती है, तो यकीन मानिए आतंकवादियों पर भी ऊ कंटरोल कर लेगी। अगर ऊ हम पर कंटरोल नहीं कर पाती, तो आतंकवाद पर कंटरोल करने की बात तो मुंगेरीलाल के हसीन सपनों जैसा है। अरे भइया, जब हम बिना धरम, जाति औरो वोट के हैं, तभियो सरकार से कंटरोल नहीं हो रहे, तो भला आतंकवादी कहां से कंटरोल होंगे, उनको तो इन सबका सहारा है!