Commenting on the second phase of judgment by a special TADA Court, on the serial bomb blasts in Mumbai in 1993 convicting the six accused, Roznama Khabrein’s, editorial on June 17, notes “The Mumbai bomb blasts are a black chapter in India’s history; they can never be forgotten. It is also said that these blasts were conducted as a vengeful act against the demolition of Babri Masjid involving Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon who fled the country after this incident…It is a matter of satisfaction that the victims of the blasts are getting justice, even if in instalments. These victims must be happy that the guilty are being brought to justice after a very long wait, even though those responsible for the demotion of Babri Masjid have so far not suffered even a scratch, legally”.
Rashtriya Sahara’s June 17 editorial notes, “Following the demolition of Babri Masjid, there developed an environment of communal violence in the country. Communal riots were taking place in different parts of the country… Terrorism had reached a high point. This was why in Mumbai some extremists and misguided people conducted bomb blasts. We condemn such terrorism in the strongest words. But any condemnation is inadequate for such acts — be they Mumbai bomb blasts, the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the horrible communal riots after it…Those responsible for the demolition of the Babri Masjid and exploiting the communal situation are still free…Cases have been re-opened against some, including a few BJP leaders in the CBI court. We hope that the CBI court will succeed in bringing to justice those guilty of the Babri Masjid’s demolition”.
Eminent journalist-poet, Hasan Kamal, in his column in Inquilab on June 19, writes, “The restlessness among farmers, starting from MP and Maharashtra is now spreading to other parts of the country. It would not be correct to say that the states not governed by BJP are immune from such unrest. The reason for the extreme anger against BJP is because the party’s leaders, particularly its supreme leader, Narendra Modi, had asked for votes of farmers before the parliamentary elections and later before the assembly elections. They had promised waiving off loans, buying the farmers’ produce at one-and-a-half times the cost incurred by them and providing adequate electricity and water to their fields. But after they received the people’s mandate, these promises were forgotten”.
The paper adds, “Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, has said that the state governments waiving loans should not expect help from the Centre. How will these states marshal funds? They will have to stop other development work, giving rise to new problems”.
Sahafat’s June 17 editorial notes, “When the prime minister himself has promised waiving off loans, what is the meaning of Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s statement in this regard? It is the responsibility of the Centre to help the state governments fulfil the promise made by the PM”.
Roznama Khabrein, in an editorial on June 16, writes: “The UP government has decided to make registration of all marriages compulsory in the state… Welcoming this decision , the Muslim Personal Law Board has requested to be involved in the process of consultation in this regard… Undoubtedly, there is a Supreme Court direction about marriage registration. But where are the (constitutional) provisions or clarity about details?… Muslim organisations have been opposing compulsory registration of marriages. Therefore, before the plan is clearly laid out, support for it would not be in consonance with their past stand. Registration of marriages is basically not wrong but the complications that can come up due to the government’s interference in purely personal matters cannot be imagined. Through it there could be an attack on triple talaq… Political use of this issue cannot be ruled out. It is not just about following the Supreme Court’s orders. Its effects will be far reaching”.
Describing this as “a new strategy” (daao) of the U.P. government on triple talaq, Inquilab’s front page comments on June 14, “The Akhilesh Yadav government had tried to make registration of marriages compulsory but the proposal was retracted in the face of strong objections from sections of Muslims”.