Opinion Riot over video

The multi-edition daily Inquilab,in its editorial on September 21,writes: “Islamic history is witness to the fact that its leading lights have never believed in an inflammatory response to a provocative action. A well thought-out response is much better than uncontrolled anger. Goods and manufacturers from those countries where anti-Islam episodes are taking place should be boycotted. Pressure should be exerted on the concerned governments to compel them to take the right diplomatic steps. In response to provocation,Islamic teachings should be disseminated… Efforts should be made to influence people in other communities so they might stand up in defence of Islam even before Muslims.”

Delhi-based daily Jadeed Khabar wrote on September 23: “It is being proved that these conspiracies are hatched to destroy the lives and property of Muslims. It is our responsibility to abort the evil designs of anti-Islam forces. While staging peaceful protests against ill-intentioned activities,we should let the world know that Muslims cannot tolerate any insults or misbehaviour against the Quran or the Prophet. Muslims should protect their life and property because the life of a human being is considered (in Islam) to be more valuable even than Kaaba.”

Mamata’s Decision

Describing Mamata Banerjee’s decision to withdraw her support to the UPA government as “unwise”,Rashtriya Sahara in its September 20 editorial,writes: “If one looks at the ground reality,this is the second defeat of politics based on egoism,stubbornness and an illogical attitude. In the first case,Mamata understood the situation when she realised that she had been left alone and she had agreed to Pranab Mukherjee’s candidature for the office of president. And now she has ignored everyone’s advice. She is out in the cold again. She will realise sooner or later that her decision will benefit neither West Bengal nor herself.”

The daily Inquilab in its editorial on the same day writes: “At a time when political stability is the prime need of the hour,Mamata Banerjee’s step against the Central government simply amounts to benefitting the BJP,which is waiting for an opportunity and quietly enjoying the sad plight of the UPA. The situation demanded for all UPA allies,including the Trinamool Congress,to present their opinions to the government and pressed it to avoid taking anti-people decisions. It is not necessary to withdraw support to

exert pressure.”

Calling Banerjee’s decision a “a hard reply to the Central government’s hard decision,” Daawat says “one cannot expect a positive stance in answer to an arbitrary action. More than the feelings of the allies,the aam aadmi is feeling deceived [by the Centre. In these circumstances,the Centre is depending entirely on the Samajwadi Party. But,as political observers are saying,the Samajwadi Party can blackmail the government.”

Aseem Trivedi Case

Rashtriya Sahara,in its September 2 editorial,writes: “In the past,appropriate action has been taken against many important people for insulting the national flag or national song. But describing it as rebellion against the country and the nation is certainly an exaggeration.” The daily Sahafat writes: “The first prime minister of India,Jawaharlal Nehru,described Section 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code as objectionable in 1951 and said in Parliament that it should be revoked. After that,Nehru remained PM for 14 years but did not take any action against this law for unknown reasons.”

Compiled by Seema Chishti