In a strongly worded commentary, Rashtriya Sahara writes on November 8: “What is the real meaning of the recent talks between the NSAs and foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan in Bangkok (leading to the announcement about a comprehensive bilateral dialogue during External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s visit to Islamabad)? Is there any possibility of a positive change in the present situation? Obviously, the Modi government is stating that there are expectations of a positive change and Indo-Pak relations would move towards betterment. But looking at the ground realities, there doesn’t seem to be any meaning in the Bangkok talks. Nor is there any chance of a big change in the situation. According to indications from Pakistan, neither have intentions changed, nor is there any likelihood of a positive outcome of this policy of talks. The mention of Jammu and Kashmir in the joint declaration is an indication of change in India’s policy… Swaraj had clarified in August that any talks between the two countries would be confined to terrorism. But talks in Bangkok… indicate that India has gone back on its earlier stand. One the one hand, Pakistan speaks of talks without any preconditions but is also insistent, on the other hand, that Kashmir must be discussed. How is this without any “preconditions”? In fact, India is under pressure from several quarters to talk to Pakistan. Pakistan too seems to be under similar pressure. India always bows under international pressure, while Pakistan wriggles out of it quickly.
The editor of Inquilab, Shakeel Shamsi, writes in his signed column, “to stop terrorist activities from the other side, it is necessary that both countries should have continuous dialogue. India’s stature would grow and not diminish by giving a positive response to the Pakistan PM’s willingness to talk without any preconditions. India should extend its present talks with Pakistan, irrespective of what the domestic Opposition says.”
Sahafat, in its editorial on December 5, writes, “RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has said that its real target is construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya and that it will be achieved. He has done well to clarify the real target… It proves that the establishment of a political system in the country based on justice and equality is not included in the objectives of the RSS… the question is how the RSS target will be achieved. For this to happen, it is necessary that there is a BJP government at the Centre and it has a majority in both Houses of Parliament… But the party is not in such a position in the Rajya Sabha. Also, the matter concerning the Ram Mandir is presently in court and nothing can be done before the Supreme Court gives its judgment. As assembly elections are due next year and in 2017 in many states, including UP, the objective of such a statement can only be to raise communal passions and draw political benefits… Unfortunately, the Sangh Parivar has not learnt any lesson from its humiliating defeat in Bihar despite using all kinds of tricks in that election.
The editor of Jadeed Khabar, Masoom Moradabadi, writes in a signed column on December 6, “Because of the order of the court to maintain status quo at the spot where the Babri Masjid stood, puja is being held there day and night and there is a very strong structure constructed after demolishing the Babri Masjid. And, where are the people who had assured on December 6, 1992 that the demolished Babri Masjid would be reconstructed?”
Commenting on the failure of the Tamil Nadu government to heed advance warnings, Roznama Khabrain, in an editorial on December 4, writes, “it is shameful… The department had warned as early as on October 16 that there was an apprehension of rains creating a danger of floods in Chennai… According to experts following the weather office’s forecast, civic authorities should undertake the work of cleaning rainwater outlets on a war-footing. It should be ensured that no carelessness is allowed and plans for any possible danger should be ready.”
- Hamid Ansari responds to farewell barb: ‘Many felt PM Narendra Modi comment not accepted practice’
Hamid Ansari said, “The PM spoke a lot and was fulsome in his praise too. I responded in my speech, including a sher (couplet) at…
- Professor Martha Nussbaum interview: ‘Govts must make it clear that hate crimes are unacceptable… This is not taking place’
The (Indian) Constitution is an admirable document, and (B R) Ambedkar designed it to be the protector of minorities. But the legal profession, the courts,…
- Only 12 of 23 Supreme Court judges have disclosed their assets: Official website
According to the website, all the judges, who have declared their assets, own some land. It shows that the top two judges don’t own a…