"Bharat Mata Ki Jai" A New Badge Of Nationalism?

Sixty nine years ago, Nehru spoke about tryst of destiny, millions of Muslims rejected the two-nation theory and made their choices to stay on the mother land. India was their "madar-e-watan", and it was India where they would live and die.

The row of event triggered when Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh's chief Mohan Bhagwat stated that," Now the time has come when we have to tell new generations to chant Bharat Mata Ki Jai". AIMIM chief leader Asaduddin Owaisi responded by refusing Mohan Bhagwat idea by saying that he would not utter the slogan even if a knife was put on hi throat.

Waris Pathan an MLA of AIMIM in Byculla, Mumbai was suspended from the Maharashtra Assembly for refusing to say "Bharat Mata Ki Jai". It may be appropriate for Waris Pathan to say "Jai Hind". His refusal was toward chanting "Bharat Mata Ki Jai"

Both of the slogans "Jai Hind" and "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" appeared during the Indian Independence Movement. In the first slogan, India is represented as abstract nation, second slogan states that India is both abstract and icon, a mother, a goddess.

RSS Bharat Mata having bhagwa flag in one hand.

When right wing parties from both sides indulge in sloganeering, they try to project themselves as winner in front of their core supporters. Asaduddin Owaisi refusal to chant the "Bharat Mata Ki Jai", as a citizen he is within his right to say that. But the problem arises when he or his party member try to implement his ideas on Indian Muslims. The RSS should also understand that Muslims need not to prove their loyalty towards India every time when they are bullied.

It is an Indian Muslims composer A.R Rahman who composed "Maa Tujhe Salam" that gives goosebumps every time when anyone listens to it.

Nationalism has became a new debate in entire mainstream media, politician use Nationalism to prove their own stance towards country, while the average and lower class Indian's are confused between the exact meaning of nationalism. Its also leads to the political division across the thin layer. Questioning anyone's patriotism is wrong. After all in the Indian Independence movement, Hindu, Muslims, Sikhs sacrificed and spilled their blood  

SHOULD INDIA SUSPEND ITS DIALOGUE WITH PAKISTAN?

Indo-Pak relations have been under observation
of the world with keen eyes.

The suspension of dialogue with Pakistan can not bring permanent solution in Indo-Pak relationship. Comprehensive bilateral talk between India and Pakistan started after seven years which was stopped after Mumbai attacks. India should not loose this opportunity to make pressure on Pakistan in taking strict actions against terrorism and terrorist.

India should continue this dialogue with keeping cross border terrorism on the top of the agenda, maintaining that India has no problem with bi lateral discussions on Kashmir in accordance with Shimla agreement (that gave no place to third party like Hurriyat). India wants assurance from Pakistan to take strict actions against non state actor.

Sushma Swaraj's ice breaking  visit to Pakistan in November 2015 brought a lot of hope and expectation in Indo-Pak relationship. The visit of SEA ministers was so important as NSA level talk between both the countries cancelled last minute due to the involvement of separatist. Both the countries in a joint statement condemned the terrorism and were agreed to resume the bi lateral talk on 10 issues . It includes comprehensive dialogue on peace security economic cooperation and humanitarian issues Jammu Kashmir, Siachen Sir-creek etc.

Narendra Modi's first visit to Pakistan

Prime minister Narendra Modi's surprise visit to Pakistan was seen as a baby step towards improvement in ties. The foreign secretory of Pakistan, Aizaz Chaudhary said that, during the meeting the two PM decided that as a part of comprehensive dialogue, the foreign secretaries of two countries will meet in mid-January.

Terrorist attack on Pathankot airbase by United Jihad Council allegedly backed by ISI in which our seven security personals were killed clearly shows seriousness of Pakistan on terrorism. These non state actors are making a huge loss in building a good relationship between both the countries as Pakistan gives free hand to these terrorist outfits to spread instability and threat in India.

Suspension of dialogue or war with Pakistan doesn't make any sense. We are a democratic country and democracy is all about dialogues. So we have to continue with bi lateral dialogue. We have already fought three wars with Pakistan in 1947, 1965, 1999 but that does not brought peace and stability

Bi lateral trade and economic co-operation is also a major reason for not suspending the dialogue.India's export decreased with a massive level and projected to be worst since 1952-1953. In 2014-2015 the mutual trade was amount of just $2.3 billion which was $4 billion in 2013-2014. It clearly shows the situation has became worst in last few years. Its the need of hour for both the countries to make cordial relationship as it is good for their health of economy.

Trust deficit is a major reason for both the countries in not making a good relationship. India should continue the dialogue with aggressive strategies and send Pakistan into back foot with forcing them to take steps against this so called Jihad and hippocratic Jihadist.

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE

The mere 3 words divides the nation into hysterical jubilation. These 3 words can divide nation into 3 categories politically, socially & religiously. Politically the nation is divided as BJP, 
which propagates the implementation of Uniform Civil Code & non BJP parties like UPA, SP who are against the implementation.
By the 42nd 1976, India was declared as a secular nation. The UPA govt had maintained in Parliament that it would not touch this subject. The BJP on the other hand kept the UCC in its 2014 election manifesto. The BJP & RSS have long demanded it & cited the example of Goa. Since coming to power BJP government has not made any move towards enacting UCC. After the Supreme Court latest statement, Law minister D. V. Sadananda Gowda said that the code is in the national interest but made no specific promises on its enactment.
Article 44 of constitution of India lays down an important directive principle of state policy namely that The state shall endeavor to secure for its citizen, a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.
However as clarified by Article 37, the directive principle are not enforceable by any court, although they are fundamental in the governance of country.
Today citizen of India are governed by different personal law based on religion, caste, community etc. Under the present sets of law, Hindu's are bounded by law to practice monogamy whereas muslim's are not. Similarly Hindu's have a comprehension enactment of adoption, this concept is not recognized by personal laws of Christians and Parsis.
In 1985 the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum popularly known as Shah Bano Case. In this case Shah Bano claimed against her husband for not giving maintenance to her under the section 125 of Code Of Criminal Procedure. After she was given triple Talaaq from him. The court ruled in her favour. Shah Bano was entitled to maintenance from her ex-husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (with an upper limit of Rs. 500 a month) like any other Indian woman. The judgment was not the first granting a divorced Muslim woman maintenance under Section 125. But a voluble orthodoxy deemed the verdict an attack on Islam.
The Congress Government, panicky in an election year, caved in under the pressure of the orthodoxy. It enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The most controversial provision of the Act was that it gave a Muslim woman the right to maintenance for the period of iddat (about three months) after the divorce, and shifted the onus of maintaining her to her relatives or the Wakf Board. The Act was seen as discriminatory as it denied divorced Muslim women the right to basic maintenance which women of other faiths had recourse to under secular law.
The Bharatiya Janata Party saw it as `appeasement' of the minority community and discriminatory to non-Muslim men, because they were still bound to pay maintenance under Section 125, Cr. PC. However, lawyers who have seen the Act in operation say that there is good reason to take another look at the Act. It contains provisions which have left it open to liberal interpretation. Flavia Agnes, a Mumbai-based lawyer, says that liberal interpretation has not been wanting. Clause A in Section 3 (1) of the Act says that a divorced woman shall be entitled to "a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband.'' The injunction that `a reasonable and fair provision is made' and `maintenance paid' leaves enough scope for gender-sensitive judgments.

If a Common Civil Code is enacted and enforced:

It world help and accelerate national integration;

Overlapping provisions of law could be avoided;

Litigation due to personal law world decrease;

Sense of oneness and the national spirit would be roused, and

The country would emerge with new force and power to face any odds finally defeating the communal and the divisionist forces.

Israel, Japan, France and Russia are strong today because of their sense of oneness which we have yet to develop and propagate.

India has set before itself the ideal of a secular society and in that context achievement of a uniform civil code becomes all the more desirable such a code will do away with diversity in matrimonial laws, simplify the Indian legal system and make Indian society more homogeneous. It will de-link law from religion which is a very desirable objective to achieve in a secular and socialist pattern of society. It will create a national identity and will help in containing fissiparous tendencies in the country .The uniform civil code will contain uniform provisions applicable to every one and based on social justice and gender equality in family matters.

According to the Committee on the Status of Women in India : "The continuance of various personal laws which accept discrimination between men and women violate the fundamental rights and the Preamble to the Constitution which promises to secure to all citizens "equality of status, and is against the spirit of natural integration". The Committee recommended expeditious implementation of the constitutional directive in Art 44 by adopting a Uniform Civil Code.

The fundamental problem is that UCC has never been tried in a heterogeneous country like ours which is splitted into 80:20 ratio. All around the world either the society is homogeneous or not the civil law ignored the sensibilities of the minorities & imposed the will of majorities

Uniform civil code is necessary for our development as citizens. And the development of our country as a whole. The best, and the most strong reason to get this up and running should be the fact that we get rid of all gender discriminating laws, and send a blow to the patriarchal nature of our society. This can only be achieved if our politicians commit to uniting our society, and disregard threats by secessionist forces, override hard-liners and implement it with the full backing of our judicial system. I know, it is easier said than done, and these do not guarantee to get rid of the strong discriminatory nature that we are now used to, but its a strong positive step.

So we should implement it because:-
a. The constitution demands it.
b. Laws applicable with respect to religiosity are extremely subjective and prone to be exploited by people who would exploit.
c. Religiously motivated laws are almost all discriminatory to women.
d. Gives other majority religion members one less thing to hate-rant about.
e. Lessens the burden(legal) of being a minority.
f. Streamlines the legal system.
g. The laws of our land are not made to please any specific religion.

EXPANSION OF UN SECURITY COUNCIL

Kofi Annan who served as the seventh Secetary-General of the United Nations said "The council should be reformed, it can not continue as it is. The world has changed & UN should change and adapt" 

The current SECURITY COUNCIL does not reflect the economic reality of 21st century. Countries like India, Japan, Brazil, have lot more relevance & influence in global scene. France & Britain have lost their power & their role was taken by Japan & Germany. These two countries are 2nd & 4th largest UN contributors.

There is no permanent member from Africa and Latin America

It seems like there is a growing dis balance between developing countries and developed countries. 4/5 of the worlds population lives in the developing nation. 4 out of 5 permanent members are industrialized and 4 out of 5 are "European".

Expansion will increase the transparency in council. this will make more democratic as there would be more participant present

Since Asia covers 30% of the geographical area and has 60% of the worlds total population but still Asia has only one super power i.e People's Republic Of China. All permanent members work for their own geographical and neighboring land, talk about their own profit and means. If the UNSC expanded then all members will be added then all regions will be able to short out their problems. This will help to having global problem around the world and also the differences between the developing nation and developed nation will be less.