The editorial in the Organiser comments on the Samjhauta blast and Ishrat Jahan encounter cases and notes that they “are pointing the needle of suspicion towards many prominent actors during the UPA government, who can be called as ‘political fixers’”. It says that “the revelation” that P. Chidambaram had “signed both the affidavits, claiming Ishrat to be JeM operative and later changing that stand, has just ratified that grand design”.
It asks “who were the unseen hands in hatching this conspiracy, were they limited to Congress” or do “the links go beyond”? The editorial says the NIA’s clarification that there is no evidence against Colonel Purohit in the train blast case is “startling”. About Purohit, it says that an “upright and able officer” has been in jail for more than seven years without trial.
Immediately after the incident, “the government had blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba”, but at a later stage “the names of some members of Hindu nationalist organisation called Abhinav Bharat cropped up”. The US Treasury department “declared Arif Qasmani”, an LeT operative, “to be involved in the attack”, but the UPA government overlooked these developments or deliberately concealed them.
The editorial slams UPA’s home minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde, for coining “terms like ‘Hindu Terror’ or ‘Saffron Terror”. It also criticises Rahul Gandhi, who had “allegedly” told the then US ambassador that “radical Hindu groups may pose bigger threat than LeT in India”.
An article in the Organiser criticises the practice of divorce among Muslims, under which three words can be uttered by a “male chauvinist” to keep “an average Muslim woman enslaved and subjected… to the whims and fancies of her inconsiderate husband for centuries”. It underlines the struggle of Shayara Bano “who was given talaq after 13 years of married life”, after which she has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court. The petition says that “the custom of triple talaq is abominable and abrogates the fundamental rights of the Muslim women as citizens of Bharat”.
The Muslim women “always remain under psychological stress for the fear that they would be divorced on flimsy pretexts”. The article notes that even if the husband relents later, the woman “will have to face the ignoble situation” of “sleeping with someone else before returning to a man”. It criticises former PM Rajiv Gandhi, who “had virtually undone the Supreme Court verdict which could have brought about progressive changes in Muslim society” and “pushed the Muslim male society on the regressive path”.
Bharat & Mata
An article in Panchajanya underlines the custom of chanting “Bharat Mata ki Jai in ancient India” and slams “Muslim leaders”, especially historian Irfan Habib, who said that the idea of considering Bharat as Mata has “come from Europe”. It quotes a couplet of the Atharva Veda in which “a Hindu is asked to be completely dedicated towards Bharat Mata”. “I am the son of the earth, the earth is my mother,” it says. Any person can live in India and worship any god as this free-thinking is based on “progressive Vedic ideology”.
But how could anyone love this country if he rejected its culture, asks the article. “The Sanskrit word rashtra is a political-cultural concept that is different from the Western notion of nation and state,” it says, and quotes Sanskrit texts like the Vishnu Purana that says that “this land, which is created by gods and is spread from Himalaya to the Indian ocean, is Hindustan.”
“Our glorious rashtra is founded on spiritualism since time immemorial,” the article says and quotes Swami Rama Tirtha that “patriotism is practical Vedanta”. He had said, ‘’Bharatbhoomi is my body. Kanyakumari is my legs. Himalaya is my head.”