Rubbing Salt Into the Wound

Slide Tackle:
Couples were attacked by fanatic minds for wearing western model clothes in India on Valentines day

Red Card:
In Afghanistan, the Taliban Had banned western model clothes  

Essential Practice Must Be Practiced 

The authority has been refused entry to school for two reasons; it is being a woman who had emancipated Islam and being a woman who had a hijab on their head. Occasionally being such sectarian policy had penetrated their mind, students invoked agitation against authorities seeking harmonic words from a veteran constitutionalist, B R Ambedkar, who had died once in his teenage by such discriminatory practices from upper classes. His legacy once had said that "the world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not infallible"

Udupi, a province from Karnataka state which is ruled by extreme right-wing political party BJP had added fuel to fire by segregation of women who had hijab on their head from school. Udupi had witnessed remarks from the supreme court under the new constitution on religious cases. In that case, the apex court had made its remark that “what constitutes the essential part of religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference of doctrines of that religion itself. Now, according to the constitution Article 25[1] is coming to light.

Article 25[1] is a focal point of Indian citizens, who are keeping their interest in religion than that of patriotism. It says ‘all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate the religion’. Apex court had made its interpretation for this article as ‘essential practice’ of religion, which is not subjected to be imposed by restrictions and objected by state decision to ensure public morality, order and health.

But some problem is keeping its rank by those questions which are how a court or state observe religious practice as essential. should it rely on tenants? judges researches? or traditional scholars? If they rely on their research and took decisions that are not satisfactory for the traditionalist, the problem would mound its complexity.

The long history of uniform, one of the remnants of British in India, seems its objectives are two. One is a phenomenon that all is equal before education, regardless to poor or wealthy. Later is that to prevent teen blood from indulging fashion-contest that is would impact physically on vulnerable sects. In the case of the hijab, it had long history than the arrival of uniform by seeking its popularity before the arrival of westerns into the shore of India, there is no evidence for it is used as the fashion for a generation or was impacted on vulnerable or other sects.

Hijab is considered mandatory for women. A hijab is what we cover our overhead. Karnataka’s sectarian policy on Muslims makes some sort of poison posed sniggering for they had prioritized uniformity than diversity. In the case of uniformity, Hindus superiorities had made their point of view by making Muslims inferior that Muslim women had to study with peers in government education institutions after they deprived ‘Muslimness’ of their own identity. Also Hindus, Sikhs can study in government institutions with all religious identities and if Muslims are reluctant to be deprived of their identity they have to study in Muslim ‘backed’ institutions. The point of information yet to be rebutted is that Sikhs can wear turbans. Ragis for Hindus but not hijab, why not a hijab? such irony makes astonishment.

For states, it has the duty, where rights existence is depended. Right is something, that is more related to duties to an extent, without rule rights cannot be exercised. Even in ancient India, there is right where the country itself was ruled despotic by character but, the problem lays along with who perform duties. If a person or ruler or slaves or something else has rights, it occasionally translates that this right as imposing some duties upon others. On flimsy duties, rights are no more and visa-versa. In ancient India, which is anarchist by its stem, there was supposed to have a connectional link between rights and duties which remained unbroken. rulers have the right to rule people in a way, that they will. While people have a "duty" to facilitate to the ruler, in this way rights are entailed duties. As we discussed above, if rights are supposed to be implemented without hindrance, duties have remained pivotal. Under this moral logic, Article 25[1], which ensures the right for essential religious practice only can be implemented with duties from states. If states are reluctant for such duties there are no rights be implemented, so defiance for rights is unconstitutional and expected to be offended.

In the case of hijab, in India where couples were attacked on valentine’s day and a woman was attacked in a pub for wearing western modal cloths, a Muslim was attacked on keeping cow’s meal, a Muslim was assassinated brazenly for keeping ‘Muslimness’ and other were killed for their defiance to call Rama is concerning. Hijab is not patriarchal, if we agree it is so, what we will in the case of the first and last ever woman president Pratibha Patil and in the case of Indira Gandhi, who was covering their head will say?

Where the TROOPS Are Without Fear!

In the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit, the decision to give Georgia NATO’s membership compelled Russian authorities to take up the gauntlet. NATO which found in 1929 with 12 members is expanding with 30 members by adding members five times after the unification of Germany in 1990. Now Russia had rolled out with 1,000,000 troops on the border of Ukraine demanding to halt NATO’s further annexation and withdrawal from the Rimland of Russia which is included Baltic countries and all members of the former Soviet-led Warsaw pact.

Russia being provoked by Georgia president Michael Sakshavi’s maladministration in South Ossetia, they intervened in portions of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. Before they had already subjugated Crimea and the Black Sea peninsula and is backing separatists in Luhansk, eastern Ukraine.

Mr Putin is deeply enthralled to invasion by his theory that the break-up of the USSR is a big tragedy for the twentieth century and expansion of NATO as an existential threat. He believed the ‘colour revolution’ as made western countries.

As the situation tensed in Ukraine, in 2013 president Victor Yanukovych had dethroned for his pro-Russia approaches. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 after that, till now situation worsened by a civil war in the eastern province of Luhansk and Donetsk between pro-Russian forces which, is backed by Moscow and Ukraine armed forces, to an extent, it theft 10,000 souls.

 In another sense, some ironic situation is indispensable. Rajab Tayyib Erdogan, Turkey president, is indulging in commerce with Russia for the S-400 missile defensive system in Syria, he sold drones to Ukraine on Russia, which is Russia’s enemy. 

Collective security treaty organization (CST) Which is the Russian innovation in 2002 and includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan andThajikisthan helped for the first time after CST to Mr Tokyov who is president from Kazakhstan in 2019 after Mr Nazarbyev who ruled for over 29 years who remained influential after his resignation, on intelligence police and armed force as national security committee to suppress revolts against the hike of petrol price, Russia send 41 strong military contingents.

 While Sergei Rybokev says that they hadn't any intention to invade Ukraine he reiterated on Ukraine never join NATO. On January 14 Ukraine was prey for cyberattacks with a warning that "BE AFRAID AND EXPECT THE WORST" they alleged it as from Russia. On January 27 Mr Biden had calculated the Russian movement by concluding that Russia would load its gun from February.

 From Russia, it is apparent that they have three theories. First is annexation Dundas and Launch, capturing more territories along the sea of Azov, establishing a bridge from Crimea. The second is that they would provide assistance to rebels who are placed in the Dundas and push the frontline without seeking a major international response. The third is to de-escalate or make a constitutional amendment for autonomy for rebels.

India, on January 28 break its silence, as a standard position. It called for a ‘peaceful treaty through sustainable diplomatic intervention for long term peace’. After the Crimean invasion in 2014, India abstained from its vote against Russia, it was caused a price by Putin March that year. Also, a visit by Crimean republic chief Sergev Askinov in December same year caused criticism from Ukrain on New Delhi.

From this in 2020, November India down voted against motion ‘ Human right violation in Crimea’ proposed by Ukrain in UN. From this whole it is clear India’s stance on this issue is like a sky.