Guest guest Posted August 29, 2004 Report Share Posted August 29, 2004 >bjpnews >bjp-l (BJP Discussion Group) >vaidika1008 >[bJP News] Is hoisting the flag a crime? >Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:39:40 -0500 > >Is hoisting the flag a crime? >S Gurumurthy >The New Indian Express, August 24 2004 > >What happened in Hubli between January 26, 1992 and August 15, 1994, is >a shame which the people of India would like to forget. > >Even the most meticulous readers might not remember what happened then. >But the non-bailable warrant against Uma Bharti and her resignation >bring back the shameful memories. > >The Hubli case captured simply is this. The dispute is about a public >ground that originally belonged to the Basil Mission of Switzerland. The >Hubli-Dharwad municipality acquired it for public purposes. This ground >was also known as the Kittur Rani Chennamma Maidan. Anjuman-e-Islam, an >Islamist outfit, had filed a case claiming that the maidan had been >leased to it from 1930 for 999 years for religious worship. It lost the >case all the way from the munsif court to the district court and the >High Court. All three courts dismissed the Anjuman case and held that it >was a public place. The courts permitted the use of the place for >prayers by Muslims twice a year, but ordered the demolition of the >structure put up by Anjuman. Anjuman appealed to the Supreme Court. The >SC first refused to grant leave to appeal. But Anjuman said its >structure would go. So the SC stayed the demolition. However, it left >the High Court's decision that the ground was a public place and that >Anjuman could offer prayers twice, just twice a year, undisturbed. These >legal cases started in 1973 and went on till 1992. The ground is being >used for selling vegetables, for jatras and for holding public meetings. > >On January 26, 1992, the Republic Day, the citizens of Hubli decided to >hoist the national flag. But Bangarappa, Karnataka Chief Minister then, >ordered the police to thwart anyone from hoisting the national flag. >Reason, it would hurt the religious feelings of the minorities! The >police thwarted all attempts. From then on it became an issue. Most >people in the country may not be aware that in 1971 Indira Gandhi had >passed a law to punish anyone preventing the hoisting of the national >flag on Republic and Independence days with imprisonment for three >years. But the government instead of enforcing the right to hoist the >national flag actually prevented the national flag from being hoisted. >From January 26, 1992, on every Republic Day and Independence Day >attempts would be made to hoist the national flag at the maidan, the >Muslims would object and the government would prevent them. It was then >that on August 15, 1994, Uma Bharti sneaked into the maidan at Hubli, >defied prohibitory orders and hoisted the national flag. Afterwards >criminals rioted. There was curfew. Not the criminals, but Uma was >charged with inciting the criminals and murder. > >Subsequent developments proved Uma right. Deendar Anjuman, an off-shoot >of Anjuman-e-Islam, was found to be a violent organisation, linked to >SIMI, a banned Islamist outfit. It was charged with bombing and torching >churches in Andhra and in Karnataka to foment Hindu-Christian clashes >and to defame India at the global level. Also a settlement was reached >at Hubli permitting the State government to hoist the national flag at >the maidan on Republic Day and Independence Day. But the state >government is not hoisting the national flag lest it would hurt the >religious sentiments of minorities. The Karnataka Government also >confessed to the court that it did not have evidence to prove the case >against Uma Bharti and wanted the case closed. As late as June 2004, the >Dharam Singh Government also reiterated this plea. But once the Sibu >Soren and Taslimuddin cases erupted, the Karnataka government withdrew >its application to close the case, a clear political counter blast. This >activated the case against Uma Bharti. > >For hoisting the national flag in a public place, declared as such, Uma >Bharti stands charged with crime. > >But by preventing the national flag from being hoisted the State >Government claims to have served the cause of secularism. > >The Islamic extremists who caused riots are not the offenders. Nor is >the government which prevented the national flag being hoisted. > >But Uma Bharti who hoisted the national flag is the offender. > >This is not just being `pseudo-secular'. It means promoting a dangerous >trend among minorities, a trend that led to partition in 1947. > > > >------------------------------- >This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > _______________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.