Posts Tagged ‘theology’

Dr B.R. Ambedkar International Conference 2017 – Quest for Equity  – Reclaiming Social Justice, Revisiting Ambedkar – Interpretation of case laws involving reservation to SCs under the Presidential Order 1950 – (4)

August 4, 2017

Dr B.R. Ambedkar International Conference 2017 – Quest for Equity  – Reclaiming Social Justice, Revisiting Ambedkar – Interpretation of case laws involving reservation to SCs under the Presidential Order 1950 – (4)

Prof Chandrama Kanagali

Tanweer Fazal presented a paper on “Caste and conversion Gharwapasi in the Indian Courts”: Tanweer Fazal[1] presented his paper in Room No.B1 on 23rd July [Sunday] morning session held between 9.30 to 11.00 am under the chair of Prof Chandrama Kanagali. The Co-speakers were Bhup Singh Gaur and Balakrishna Hegde. He started his presentation obviously with confusion of “SC” as he started his PPT, without specifically telling as to whether it was “Scheduled Caste” or “Supreme Court” and it was pointed out by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao[2], another speaker from the audience. He corrected himself and proceeded to mention the following cases:

  1. Michael vs Venkateswaran, 1951.
  2. Ganapat vs Returning Officer, 1974.
  3. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan and Ors, 1983,

Without giving citation of the case laws and quoting from the judgments, he was arguing and interpreting that the courts have been following the “Gharvapasi” concept helping the Hindutwa forces for Christians converting back to Hindu religion to get SC-benefits back.  He could not explain properly about the case laws and the exigencies for the amendment of the Presidential Order in 1956 and 1990 include converted Skihs and Neo-Buddhists under SC category. He also referred to K. P. Manu case, but without giving the case law reference and relevant judgment details. He went on repeating the same point that the Court was acting at the behest of the government giving in such judgments helping the “Gharvapasi” programme. Of course, he was confusing this with Muslims also, as if they were also involved in such court cases.

Tanweer Fazal, JNU

Christians by converting back to Hindu religion can claim back SC status: Then, he pointed out as to how in the case of K. P. Manu, the Court held that he could be back to Ezhawa community, provided they accepted him their community-member[3]. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Shri S. Sreekumar Menon invoked the jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee under Section 11(3) of the Act challenging the grant of caste certificate, namely, Hindu Pulaya to the appellant on the ground that the said certificate had been obtained by him on misrepresentation, and that apart the concerned authority had issued the caste certificate in total transgression of law. The Committee conducted an enquiry and eventually by its order dated 4th February, 2006 had returned a finding that the appellant was erroneously issued a caste certificate inasmuch as he was not of Hindu origin and hence, could not have been conferred the benefit of the caste status. It is not in dispute that the great grandfather of the appellant belonged to Hindu Pulaya Community. His son Chothi embraced Christianity and accepted a new name, that is, Varghese who married Mariam who originally belonged to Hindu Ezhava community and later on converted to Christianity. In the wedlock three sons, namely, Varghese, Yohannan and Paulose were born. The father of the appellant, Paulose, got married to Kunjamma who was a Christian. The appellant who was born on 03.01.1960 sometime in the year 1984 at the age of 24 converted himself to Hindu religion and changed his name to that of K.P. Manu. On the basis of the conversion he applied for a caste certificate to Akhila Bharata Ayyappa Seva Sangham. Be it stated, the appellant after conversion had obtained a certificate from the concerned community on 5th February, 1984. Eventually, the Tehsildar who was authorised to issue the caste certificate had issued the necessary caste certificate. The Court had dealt with the three important questions.

  • whether on conversion and at what stage a person born to Christian parents can, after reconversion to the Hindu religion, be eligible to claim the benefit of his original caste;
  • whether after his eligibility is accepted and his original community on a collective basis takes him within its fold, he still can be denied the benefit; and
  • that who should be the authority to opine that he has been following the traditions and customs of a particular caste or not.

Tanweer Fazal, Bhup Sigh, Balakrishna Hegde - The paper presenters

As the Pulaya Community accepted him as their member, he is Hindu only: The Court decided as follows – “In the instant case, the appellant got married to a Christian lady and that has been held against him. It has also been opined that he could not produce any evidence to show that he has been accepted by the community for leading the life of a Hindu. As far as the marriage and leading of Hindu life are concerned, we are of the convinced opinion that, in the instant case, it really cannot be allowed to make any difference. The community which is a recognised organisation by the State Government, has granted the certificate in categorical terms in favour of the appellant. It is the community which has the final say as far as acceptance is concerned, for it accepts the person, on reconversion, and takes him within its fold. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the appellant after reconversion had come within the fold of the community and thereby became a member of the scheduled caste. Had the community expelled him the matter would have been different. The acceptance is in continuum. Ergo, the reasonings ascribed by the Scrutiny Committee which have been concurred with by the High Court are wholly unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court, findings of the Scrutiny Committee and the orders passed by the State Government and the second respondent are set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all the benefits relating to seniority and his caste, and shall also be paid backwages…..”

Tanweer Fazal, Bhup Sigh, Balakrishna Hegde - audience1

Why Tanweer Fazal was suppressing the “Soosai v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 733 judgment”?: During his presentation, there were many factual mistakes in interpreting the court cases. First, he was not mentioning the court case references, but, when K. V. Ramakrishna Rao insisted him to mention the case specifically in the context, he was evidently evading and started making general remarks. He coolly and purposely avoided mentioning “Soosai v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 733 judgment”, where, the Court held that SC under the Constitution (SC) Order, 1950 means only Hindu. This has been practice of many writers and researchers not to mention this judgment, as it is not favourable to them. He was obviously mumbled and fumbled without giving any answer. The Chair person also  pointed out and advised him to be specific. Incidentally, a similar paper is already published in EPW and available in the internet[4]. Now, let us discuss the case laws for understanding.

Tanweer Fazal, Bhup Sigh, Balakrishna Hegde - The paper presenters.close view

Michael vs Venkateswaran, 1951 – AIR 1952 Mad 474, (1952) 1 MLJ 239: The first case[5], where a SC was converted to Christian, thus losing his Hindu status, he was barred from contesting reserved constituency, is as follows: “The petitioner alleges that he is a member of the Paraiyan caste which is item 64 in Part V of the Schedule to the Scheduled Castes Order. Admittedly, he is a convert to Christianity. He therefore would be a person professing a religion different from Hinduism and therefore under paragraph 3 of the Scheduled Castes Order would be deemed not to be a member of a scheduled caste. He desires to stand as a candidate for a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes and he can do so only If he is deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. As the aforesaid provision prevents him from so standing, he has filed the above application for adequate relief from this Court.” But the Court held that “the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order is valid and within the powers of the President, the petition is therefore dismissed”.

Tanweer Fazal, Bhup Sigh, Balakrishna Hegde - audience

Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974 – 1975 AIR 420: The second case[6] is about contesting for a seat in Nagpur by a SC candidate after converting to Buddhism, thus, losing their Hindu status. The Court held that, “We would, therefore, in agreement with the High Court hold that the respondents-2, 6 and 9 are not Buddhists but continue to be members of the Scheduled Castes”, but also pointing out, “The attempt of persons who have changed their religion from Hinduism to Buddhism, who still claim the concessions and facilities intended for Hindus only shows that otherwise these persons might get a vested interest in continuing to be members of the Scheduled Castes. In course of time vested interests are created in continuing to be members of Schduled Castes as in continuing to be members of Backward Classes. It is from the point of view of discouraging that tendency that the provision of the Scheduled Castes Order seems to be a proper one.”

Tanweer Fazal, Bhup Sigh, Balakrishna Hegde - with KVR

Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 December, 1983 – 1984 AIR 411: In the third case[7], one Devarajan was challenged that he was Christian and therefore, he could not claim SC status, but, it was proved that he “……………had long since reverted to Hinduism and to the Adi Dravida caste. There is not a scrap of acceptable evidence to show that he ever professed Christianity after he came of age. On the other hand, every bit of evidence in the case shows that from his childhood, he was always practising Hindism and was treated by everyone concerned as an Adi Dravidh. There is then the outstanding circumstance that the voters of the Rasipuram Parliamentary Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes accepted his candidature for the reserved seat and elected him to the Lok Sabha twice. We have no doubt whatsoever that at all relevant times, he was a Hindu Adi Dravida and professed no religion other than Hinduism. The case was rightly decided by the Election Tribunal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.”

© Vedaprakash

04-08-2017

Balakrishna Hegde presenting his paper

[1] Dr. Tanweer Fazal is Associate Professor at the Nelson Mandela Centre, JMI, New Delhi, Email: fazaltanweer@yahoo.co.in, Phone: 91-9968822925 (M); http://www.jnu.ac.in/sss/csss/images/Tanwer-Fazal/CV Tanweer Fazal.pdf

[2] He has been independent researcher and presented a paper, “Nation” as approached by Jinna, Periyar and Ambedkar during their historical meeting held in 1940,  in another session.

[3] Supreme Court of India – K.P. Manu,Malabar Cements Ltd vs Chairman,Scrutiny Commt … on 26 February, 2015 arising out of CIVIL APPEAL No. 7065 OF 2008; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98912765/

[4]https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Padmanabh_Samarendra/publication/302899845_Religion_Caste_and_Conversion_Membership_of_a_Scheduled_Caste_and_Judicial_Deliberations%27_Economic_and_Political_Weekly_li4_2016_pp_38-48/links/5732d20f08ae9f741b2362c4/Religion-Caste-and-Conversion-Membership-of-a-Scheduled-Caste-and-Judicial-Deliberations-Economic-and-Political-Weekly-li4-2016-pp-38-48.pdf?origin=publication_detail

[5] Madras High Court – G. Michael vs Mr. S. Venkateswaran, Additional … on 6 November, 1951

Equivalent citations: AIR 1952 Mad 474, (1952) 1 MLJ 239; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/496218/

[6] Supreme Court of India – Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974; Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 420, 1975 SCR (2) 923; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83094/

[7]Supreme Court of India – S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 December, 1983; Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 411, 1984 SCR (1) 973;   https://indiankanoon.org/doc/254650/

Advertisements

The Islamic sex-slavery, sensuous-harem and carnal-raping justified even in 21st century (2)!

December 31, 2015

The Islamic sex-slavery, sensuous-harem and carnal-raping justified even in 21st century (2)!

ISIL - women slaves treated, sold and sexploited.3

Harrowing stories of slavery, abuse and rape by the Islamist militants: Some rescued women have told harrowing stories of slavery, abuse and rape by the Islamist militants. They have also started selling them after exploiting[1]. Islamic State theologians have issued an extremely detailed ruling on when “owners” of women enslaved by the extremist group can have sex with them, in an apparent bid to curb what they called violations in the treatment of captured females[2]. The ruling or fatwa has the force of law and appears to go beyond the Islamic State’s previous known utterances on the subject, a leading Islamic State scholar said. It sheds new light on how the group is trying to reinterpret centuries-old teachings to justify the sexual slavery of women in the swaths of Syria and Iraq it controls. The fatwa was among a huge trove of documents captured by US Special Operations Forces during a raid targeting a top Islamic State official in Syria in May. Reuters has reviewed some of the documents, which have not been previously published. Among the religious rulings are bans on a father and son having sex with the same female slave; and the owner of a mother and daughter having sex with both. Joint owners of a female captive are similarly enjoined from intercourse because she is viewed as “part of a joint ownership.”

ISIL - women slave trade - sold

Fatwa No. 64, dated Jan. 29, 2015: Here are 15 points from the fatwa No. 64, dated Jan. 29, 2015[3], and issued by Islamic State’s Committee of Research and Fatwas[4]:

1) It is not permissible for the owner of a female captive to have intercourse with her until after she has had menstrual cycle and becomes clean.

 

2) If she does not menstruate and is pregnant, he is not allowed to have intercourse with her until after she has given birth.

 

3) It is not permissible to cause her to abort if she is pregnant.

 

4) If the owner of a female captive releases her, only he can have intercourse with her and he cannot allow someone else to have intercourse with her.

 

5) If the owner of a female captive, who has a daughter suitable for intercourse, has sexual relations with the latter, he is not permitted to have intercourse with her mother and she is permanently off limits to him. Should he have intercourse with her mother then he is not permitted to have intercourse with her daughter and she is to be off-limits to him.

 

6) The owner of two sisters is not allowed to have intercourse with both of them; rather he may only have intercourse with just one. The other sister is to be had by him, if he were to relinquish ownership of the first sister by selling her, giving her away or releasing her.

 

7) If the female captive is owned by a father, his son cannot have intercourse with her and vice-versa. Moreover, intercourse with his wife’s female captive is also not permissible.

 

8) If a father had intercourse with his female captive then gave her away or sold her to his son, he is no longer permitted to have intercourse with her.

 

9) If the female captive becomes pregnant by her owner, he cannot sell her and she is released after his death.

 

10) If the owner releases his female captive then he is not permitted to have intercourse with her afterwards because she has become free and is no longer his property.

 

11) If two or more individuals are involved in purchasing a female captive, none of them are permitted to have sex with her because she is part of a joint ownership.

 

12) It is not permissible to have intercourse with a female captive during her menstrual cycle.

 

13) It is not permissible top have anal sex with a female captive.

 

14) The owner of a female captive should show compassion towards her, be kind to her, not humiliate her and not assign her work she is unable to perform.

 

15) The owner of a female captive should not sell her to an individual whom he knows will treat her badly or do unto her what Allah has forbidden.

ISIL - women slaves treated, sold and sexploited

Islamic theologian says, the fatwa is unislamic: Professor Abdel Fattah Alawari, dean of Islamic Theology at Al-Azhar University, a 1,000-year-old Egyptian center for Islamic learning, said Islamic State “has nothing to do with Islam” and was deliberately misreading centuries-old verses and sayings that were originally designed to end, rather than encourage, slavery[5]. “Islam preaches freedom to slaves, not slavery. Slavery was the status quo when Islam came around,” he said. “Judaism, Christianity, Greek, Roman, and Persian civilizations all practiced it and took the females of their enemies as sex slaves. So Islam found this abhorrent practice and worked to gradually remove it.” In September 2014 more than 120 Islamic scholars from around the world issued an open letter to IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi refuting the group’s religious arguments to justify many of its actions[6]. The scholars noted that the “reintroduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam.” Though such explanation, interpretation and elucidation are given, in Islam, everybody or group that dominant prevails in imposing their view as accepted law. In Islam, any dominant group declares the other as “kafirs” and start jihad within themselves also. Ultimately, the sufferers have been women of the world, wherever, these fundamentalist jihadis gain control. There have been many suffered women telling about their experience, which cannot be erased with any interpretation of theology.

isis-sells-women-being-sold-in-mosul

Islamic sexploitation modernized as terror also modernized: In Islamic law, muta marriage is prevalent to have any woman under legally wed status for any period. In fact, as that “period” is not defined or fixed, women can be married, had sexual relations and disposed of within minutes or hours according to their requirements. After usage one can legally divorce, so that she is free to get married under muta with another one and so on. Thus, prostitution is legalized. That one can have wives up to four instill sexual urge in every Muslim or even non-Muslim, as very such thinking could rouse man. Here, also they can be divorced and keep new ones maintaining the limit. Thus, psychologically, Muslim men look at women with such mindset, particularly, when they become more knowledgeable about Quran, Hadis and shariat. They could easily find out loopholes to legalize their sexual acts f any nature with interpretation citing precedence. Thus, the sexploitation has been a never-ending process accompanied with trafficking, slavery and harem, in all periods and only varies in the modern context. When this could be the position of ordinary Muslim, the sexual rights of dominant ISIL terrorist cannot be imagined. So when he puts into practice, he excels the “Boko Haram”.

 © Vedaprakash

31-12-2015

[1] https://news.vice.com/article/women-abducted-by-the-islamic-state-feared-trapped-in-sexual-slavery

[2] Hindustan times, 15 ‘rules’ from Islamic State’s fatwa on ‘sex with female slaves’, Reuters, Washington, Updated: Dec 29, 2015 17:46. IST.

[3] http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/doc/slaves_fatwa.pdf

[4] http://www.hindustantimes.com/world/15-rules-from-islamic-state-s-fatwa-on-sex-with-female-slaves/story-miotCtFVchOvCH9VAg7G1J.html

[5] Firstpost, Islamic State issues detailed ‘fatwa’ on when ‘owners’ can have sex with female slaves, Dec 30, 2015 02:40 IST

[6] http://www.firstpost.com/india/exclusive-islamic-state-ruling-aims-to-settle-who-can-have-sex-with-female-slaves-reuters-2564760.html