Before I get into this post, let me make some things clear. This post is not for people with a dichotomous thinking pattern; not for people who believe things based on their own perception without actually knowing the truth and certainly not for the prejudiced. This article is not for or against anyone. This article is for free thinkers who are willing to get the facts right before jumping into conclusions. This post doesn’t contain baseless allegations against any political party nor is it going to discuss the achievements and scandals of the BJP or Congress party. This post will address some misconceptions & possible reasons for the misconceptions and will tread along the thin line of neutral thought in a highly biased and dichotomous political world.
India being the largest democracy in the world has countless political parties in every nook and corner of the country. But on a national scale, only two parties, BJP and Congress exist. They may have some similar economic, foreign and taxation policies but let’s keep that aside for the moment and concentrate on one ‘alleged’ difference between them – BJP is communal and Congress is secular.
What does secular mean anyway?
Secular means not specifically relating to a particular religious body and communal (note that its communalism and not communism, both are entirely different) means of relating to a specific community.The definition seems pretty clear but the basis on which the political parties in India consider them as secular and branding others as communal, well that isn’t as plain as the definition. This article will attempt to rip down that basis to its barest parts and analyze it from the ground up so that you would know how this allegedly communal-secular divide came into existence in the first place.
Let me walk through a set of oft-quoted reasons that contribute to the communal tag of the BJP. Its time for the stereotypes to be broken and get the real facts.
Hindutva – This is the mother of all the reasons. The word ‘Hindu’ in hindutva is more than enough to associate the ‘communal’ tag with the BJP. A little history first. The term Hindutva was coined by V.D.Savarkar, a freedom fighter. Hindu Nationalism is often used interchangably with Hindutva although the essence of Hindutva was “cultural nationalism”. What’s the difference anyway? Well Hindutva doesn’t advocate Hindu superiority and persecution of other faiths – Instead it adresses people of other faiths such as Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and the Parsis as culturally Hindu although they are religiously different. In simple words, though we are all separated by faiths, we are united by culture.
Hindutva doesn’t compromise unity in diversity. Its just a means of rekindling pride among the people for sharing the common heritage of India. Culturally same is just one of the tenets. Just like any of the philosophies like socialism, capitalism or communism, it also looks for evolution of society with the its overall well being the main surmise. Or in other words, it forms a synergy between mankind and society with ’social well being’ as the whole. One of the main proponents of Hindutva, M.S.Golwalkar believed that, quote –
“India’s diversity in terms of customs, traditions and ways of worship was its uniqueness and that this diversity was not without the strong underlying cultural basis which was essentially native. The Hindu natives with all their diversity, shared among other things the same philosophy of life, the same values and the same aspirations which formed a strong cultural and a civilizational basis for a nation”.
And again the term ‘Hindu natives’ is not people belonging to Hinduism but people who made India their home, for whom India is the native place irrespective of any class, creed or religion That’s what Hindutva also propagates, and it signifies gratification for being part of the “unity in diversity” ideology.
Yet, Hindutva hasn’t been accepted by many mainly because of the word ‘Hindu’ in it. What may be called ‘Bharatva’ is being called ‘Hindutva’ because it was the word Hindu that gave India its identity and in this sense, Hindutva is strictly a cultural and civilizational concept and definitely not religious or political. But still there is something in the word ‘Hindutva’ that doesn’t appeal to a large mass of people in our country. Well I would like to shift gears now and (just for the sake of comparison) and talk about ‘Jihad’. The utterance of the very word and you have people associating it with terrorism, bombs and militants. That the essence of the word ‘Jihad’ is completely façaded.
“Jihad is either a personal struggle within oneself to become a better Muslim or a true holy war,a war which is governed by strict rules and declared only by legitimate Koranic authority in defence of Islam”[1].
Association with RSS and Sangh Parivar – Let’s get this straight. The BJP is nothing but the political arm of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). If it wasn’t for the RSS, there would be no BJP. Now these organizations are always in the news for all the wrong reasons. Any attack on places of worship of minorities is attributed mostly to the Sangh Parivar. That leads us to wonder, is it what they do? And many people presumably admit that they have nothing else to do except attacking minority places of worship. Truth cannot be farther away from that because the Sangh Parivar does a host of humanitarian activities[1a] they can brag about. Unfortunately, they don’t brag it and consequently all that goes unnoticed. The RSS is credited with helping relief works as back as 1962, during the Indo-China war for which the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru invited a contingent of the RSS to take part in the Republic Day parade of 1963. RSS also played a crucial role in the accession of Portuguese ruled areas like Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli[1b] in to the Indian union. Any calamity and you can bet RSS will be one the first organisations in helping with relief works. So the question of what job they do is answered but I still can’t figure why the attacks on temples in Mysore (April 2009), Ahmedabad (August 2008) and more recently the attack on Ganesha pandal in Miraj town (September 2009) and many such incidents isn’t reported by the mainstream media. May be it can’t create that sensation that the media loves to create. Fortunately, it can’t control the Internet and a little Googling will get you all the information you want. I don’t support attacks on places of worship but am just contemplating on how biased the media is. I think I’ve found the missing link. A Google search on “who owns the India media” will give you a considerable number of results and if the information is true, then the bias of media is self-explanatory. You don’t need to be rational but common sense would do.
Babri Masjid demolition – Do we need any other reason for branding the Sangh Parivar (including BJP) as communal? They demolished the mosque on the pretext of assuming that a temple dedicated to Ram stood there. Sounds like a pretty good reason but there was no ‘assumption’ – there was ‘evidence’ – not just one but several from reports of the Archaeological Survey of India as recent as 2001 to as old as a book written in the early 19th century by none other than the Grand Daughter of Aurangazeb. A more detailed account can be found in the book Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein(India under Islamic Rule) by Maulana Abdul Hai, a renowned Islam scholar and Historian. But that doesn’t grant the Sangh Parivar any authority to demolish the mosque and it was a political motive by which only BJP was benefitted. Absolutely yes. But on close examination one would know that the BJP wasn’t the only party to politicize this sensitive issue. Almost all political parties pounced on this to declare themselves as secular. You can be sure that vote-gathering in the name of Babri Masjid demolition is still prevalent. The Samajwadhi Party and Bahujan Samajwadhi Party have left no stone unturned in raking up this issue. When Laloo Prasad Yadav arrested Advani in 1990 in Bihar, he not only won the hearts of the Muslims of his state but also formed the famous MY factor (Muslim-Yadav votebank) which helped him till the last assembly elections. Looks like the Congress is the only one to be deserted. Well on short term, yes it was because the Congress was ruling at the centre during the demolition and it could have averted that. The failure of Congress in doing so angered Muslims in UP who switched loyalties to the SP. In the long term however, the Congress made sure that this issue could be used to uphold its secular credentials and it did help them a lot in every election campaign. The recently tabled Sachar committee report tells of various shortcomings of the government and the plight of Muslims remaining backward for 60 years and the Congress party is busy bragging about its so-called secular credentials. You may find this advertisement interesting.
I forgot to tell you. The SP is now demanding that Babri Masjid be reconstructed at the disputed site[2] – Yup they can do that. They are secular, remember? And no you can’t demand a temple to be constructed there because that’s communal.
Maybe Mr. Mulayam Singh forgot that many people want communal harmony there and so that’s why some Muslim Imams have advocated building a Ram temple[2a]. That explains why many Muslim groups ‘slammed’[3] Mulayam’s proposal to build a mosque.
The bottom line is that you can demand a mosque and be secular but if you demand a temple (even if some people feel it will promote communal harmony) then you cannot be secular. Isn’t that hypocrisy?
Gujarat riots – I strongly condemn any act of violence. One cannot deny the fact that Gujarat riots were indeed one of the darkest events in Indian history. Talking of history, as far as I can remember the Gujarat violence started when four coaches of the Sabarmati express was burnt and one of the coaches which was completely burnt was occupied by Kar Sevaks. The burning triggered the violence and everyone knows what happened after that. The issue is sentimental and sentiment gives the media a free hand to sensationalize and that’s exactly what they did. On the day the Godhra incident happened, there were reports of violence in that town. The English news channels were so focused on covering the violence and weaving stories out of it that it trivialized the shoot-on-sight orders handed out by the higher authorities.[4]
The Gujarat riots were always reported to be one-sided. The victims were Muslims and attackers were Hindus and as many as 2000 Muslims alone were killed in the state-sponsored violence which saw the whole of Gujarat burning down. These were all reports worked up by the English media during the time of riots. If the Gujarat riots were really one-sided, then the allegations of the media were also one-sided as even today one cannot find the mention of the Godhra incident but only of the Gujarat riots. All this had come down to things being separated into black and white as discussing Godhra incident is communal but the riots, that’s secular discussion. There were graphic reports that displayed pictures of violence in local Gujarati newspapers that fanned the flames of violence. People need to exercise caution in separating fact from fiction and not give in to emotions and sentiments in the wake of such violence.
Saurashtra and Kutch account for one-third of Gujarat and there were no reports of violence from those areas. We cannot claim the violence was one-sided throughout the riots because the areas such as Naroda Patiya, Gulmarg Society, Naroda Gram, Sadarpar were Hindu dominated while Himmatnagar, Danilimda, and Sindhi Market were minority dominated. These are not allegations but only excerpts from the news article published by India Today in 2002[5] [6]
The Gujarat police force faced the wrath of the public and more accusations came from the media which alleged that the police were giving a free hand to the attackers. On the contrary, the police did their job, though their effectiveness may be disputed. The same contention can be turned on the media because when the Godhra incident happened, the police were put on red alert and as many as 70,000 policemen were deployed across the state.[7] There was deployment of rapid action force, the CRPF on February 27th itself[8] and shoot on sight orders issued, curfew imposed in as many as 26 cities and of course the army was called in on February 28th itself.[9]
All that said, the official death toll tabled by the UPA government was not 2000 Muslims alone but 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus which doesn’t include the Godhra incident but only the Gujarat riots.[10] One has to accept the fact that the unofficial death toll will certainly be higher but terming the incident as a genocide and premeditated action against minorities is a over generalization statement derived from reductionism and not from deductions.
Post violence, the BJP won the Gujarat elections but was accused of using of this sensitive issue as a poll plank, reinforcing its communal tag. In the 2005 assembly elections in Bihar, Jharkhand and Haryana, RJD chief Laloo Prasad Yadav declared that the Godhra report (interim report of Banerjee commission) would form part of his party’s election plank.[11][12] In case you’ve forgotten, the RJD is a ‘secular’ party and discussion of such sensitive issues doesn’t make them ‘communal’. Isn’t that double standard? Looks like that doesn’t have any significance, when secularism is self proclaimed.
Varun Gandhi episode – This was the most hyped, reported, debated and sensationalized news in 2009, second only to the Swine flu outbreak in India. I can still remember the debates in NDTV and CNN-IBN and other TV news channels playing the role of prosecutors rather than journalists. Anyway on March 6th 2009, at a meeting in Dalchand, the BJP candidate from Pilhibit was alleged to have made a speech containing hate verses against the minority community. The Election Commission was quick to serve him a notice. The UP government on its part slapped the National Security Act (NSA) under which a person can be put behind bars up to 1 year, if he is deemed a threat to the nation’s security. Varun alleged that the CD was doctored but some excerpts from his speech has hatred and communal content.
“If any person lifts a hand against Hindus, or thinks they are weak, there is nobody behind them, then I swear on the Bhagavad Gita that I will cut off that hand”
Wasn’t this enough for the media? Well another excerpt from a speech made by D. Srinivas, the President of Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee.
“I’ll sever hands of those who point a finger at the hands of the minorities”[13]
Do you find any hate in his words? I don’t. The congress is secular, remember?
Srinivas claimed he was a “true secularist” and that his speech was meant to discourage communal disharmony, not to instigate communal violence. Congress spoke person Manish Tiwari said -
“Congress stands to safeguarding secularism. If he has used such words, I would say it’s a wrong choice of words” [13].
Wrong choice of words?
To be fair, the election commission did issue a notice to Srinivas and the media reported it, but it wasn’t debated or sensationalized nor did the media play the role of prosecutors in this case.
Then what about this statement by Imraan Kidwai, chairman of the All India Congress Community (Minority Cell), when he said that if he had the power, “[he] would issue a fatwa asking Muslims to abstain from joining the BJP”.[14][15] He didn’t stop there and went on to add that Muslims shouldn’t vote for the BJP for it would amount to ‘kufr’ (infidelity/blasphemy) for which he was issued a notice by the Election Commission.[15a]
Does the wrong choice of words statement appeal here also? Wait a minute; I forgot that the Congress was secular. Problem solved. I don’t find any communal statement here, do you?
Talk about secularism, you can’t forget to mention the communists. But the CPI (M) have an alliance with the party floated by Abdul Nasser Madani, one of the accused in the 1998 Coimbatore serial blasts which killed 60 people[16][17]. He was however acquitted, publicly denied all types of fundamentalist activities, and proclaimed himself to be secular.[18] Yeah you read that right, he proclaimed himself a secular, so what’s wrong if the CPI (M) forge an alliance with him? They are secular too, right!
Reality check – The secular credentials of Congress
1984 Anti Sikh riots – First things first, this was not a riot at all because riots happen (mostly) between two groups. This was a pogrom directed against the Sikh community as a revenge for the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her own body guards. The official death toll in and around Delhi alone was 2733.[19] There were as many as ten investigative commissions, the recent being the Nanavati commission in 2005 that inquired into the incident but many of the prime accused were either acquitted or not even charge-sheeted. Worse, some of the accused went on to become MPs and even ministers, who were from the Congress party. As with any riots, it is normal for leaders to condemn the incidents. But the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was a little different when he said -
“Some riots took place in the country following the murder of Indiraji. We know the people were very angry and for a few days it seemed that India had been shaken. But, when a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little.”[20]
It may be natural if a calamity struck but a planned act of vengeance isn’t natural.
Uniform civil code – Article 44 of our constitution states “the state shall endeavour to secure the citizen a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. But we are not governed by uniform civil code but by personal laws which are in place since the British Raj. The personal laws differ for people of different faith for the same matter of concern. The people who wrote the constitution had a vision of a united India and were of the opinion that a uniform civil code would pave way for unity. The ‘secular’ parties claim that the UCC will deprive the religious freedom of minorities. This is another shallow argument because implementation of the UCC requires some changes in the personal laws of both the majority and the minority communities. There will be always opposition from the conservative sections whenever a change in their personal law is enforced. When the Hindu personal law underwent some changes, the conservative sections did oppose it. However the change was for the better. The reason for opposition of the UCC by the conservationist section of the All India Muslim Board is fear that their religious freedom will be deprived. However the people from the Muslim board fail to recognize that their strong opposition to any changes in the Muslim personal law is being used against them. They consider it as a defeat when they pave way for changes while sections of people who demand UCC consider it as their own victory when UCC is implemented. This has given rise to a deadlock situation. The self proclaimed secularists make maximum use of this dead lock and have caused further divide among people in the name of religion. That doesn’t end there – the secularists used this as a weapon for dividing the almost non-existent communal-secular divide as parties which support Uniform civil code are communal (no wonder BJP is communal) while the ones who oppose it are secular. A law of land laid down for uniting people is being used to feed the communal-secular divide. WTF!?
The implementation of UCC is still difficult because Article 44 is one of the directive principles, meaning they cannot be enforced by the court but by the State as one of the fundamental laws for the governance of the country. Even the apex court can only express regret at the state for not implementing the UCC. Given the various problems at hand, the implementation of UCC is difficult but not impossible. First of all, a change in approach is needed as the implementation of UCC is not a question of victory of the majority over the minority but the triumph of the constitution in bringing people together. Change of approach is to be backed with awareness and agreement between people of different faiths after dialogues.
Implementation of UCC was present in the manifesto of BJP. We all know what a manifesto is for. On a serious note, even if BJP had won the 2009 general election, it couldn’t have implemented UCC just like that because the Janata Dal United (JDU), one of the key partners in the NDA, had strongly asserted that their party won’t allow BJP to make radical changes like this one.[21]
The Congress party has said that a uniform civil code will not be implemented[22] even though the supreme court on numerous occasions has expressed its favour for implementing it.[23]
The ground reality is that there are sections of people and parties who oppose UCC plainly because of two reasons:
- The BJP being communal (in their own definition) is pushing for UCC,so that’s communal too.
- UCC is communal not because of the changes it demands in personal laws but because the BJP demands it.
Sounds stupid, right? But that’s the truth. If implementation of UCC is to materialize then people need to stop buying these stupid reasons and arguments.
The infamous Shah Bano case – This was one of the most controversial lawsuits in our country and it also paved way for the then Congress government headed by Rajiv Gandhi to pass the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. What happened was that, Shah Bano [24] a 62-year old woman was divorced by her husband by ‘talaaq’, meaning a man can divorce his wife by saying the word ‘talaaq’ (divorce) in front of two witnesses (neither of the two need to be the concerned wife). Unable to support herself and her two children, she approached the court and after seven years the Supreme Court invoked section 125 of code of criminal procedure and directed the husband to pay alimony. But this was against the Muslim personal law and the conservationist Muslims opposed it while feminist groups welcomed the judgement. At a time like this the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi nullified the Supreme Court judgement and passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act which empowered the magistrate to order the women’s close relatives to pay for her support or the state waqf board in the absence of close relatives thereby relieving her husband to pay the alimony only for the period of iddat[25] and not forever. The act does sound fair though it seems like Rajiv Gandhi bends slightly in the side of orthodox Muslims but you cannot call that as appeasement because he cited this gesture as an act of secularism. Yeah secularism is a broad framework, it can encompass appeasement of conservative sections of minorities but the appeasement of conservative sections of a majority community is communalism. The secular framework is so broad but still it has no room for appeasement of the people belonging to conservative sections of majority community. But why? Ask the self proclaimed seculars, they will come up with another ridiculous reason.
Article 370 – This section needs a little help from history. I promise I’ll keep it short. What is India today was a collection of princely states and it was Sardar Vallabhai Patel who integrated these princely states with the then British India and cemented the foundations of modern India. At that time, Kashmir was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh and chose to remain independent. But in 1947, Pakistan tried to annex Kashmir by force which prompted the Maharaja to hurriedly accede Kashmir to India[26] and in the process, gave the political authority to Sheikh Abdullah (founder of National Conference, Kashmir’s biggest political party). India came to the rescue of Kashmir and waged a war against Pakistan and ultimately a ceasefire was signed in 1949. Kashmir was to accept the constitution of India and as a method of fastening, the Integration Article 370 was passed in 1950 as a temporary part of transition. Even our first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru had commented that Article 370 will gradually erode and as Kashmir was only a temporary settlement as Kashmir but as time progresses, the integration would be complete. The purpose of Article 370 was to help in smoothing the integration. So what does the article say anyway? Well it summarizes the following.
- Firstly, Jammu & Kashmir state is one of the states of India.
- Secondly, none of the provisions of the Constitution of India including fundamental rights shall apply to the state unless assented to by the constituent Assembly of the state to be formed.
- Thirdly, no law passed by the Parliament even in respect of matters with reference to which only the Parliament can pass laws under the constitution, shall apply to Kashmir unless assented to by the government of the state.
- Fourthly, The President may by order specify that the provisions of Article 370 may cease to apply to the state of J&K but no such order shall be issued without the approval of the constituent assembly of the State.
The implications of Article 370 are very varied. The simplest being the government of India cannot enforce any law in Jammu & Kashmir without the approval of the state government. The union government can have its say only in matters related to defence, external affairs and telecommunications. Heck you cannot hoist the national flag alone in any part of Kashmir without hoisting the state flag. Well that doesn’t seem to bother us. Another implication of the Article 370 is that the people of Kashmir have dual citizenship, one as an Indian citizen and another of that of Kashmir. The property laws of Kashmir prohibit any citizen outside the state to own any land or property in Kashmir. Let’s face it, we are not affected by Article 370 by any means. But the original inhabitants of the Kashmir valley, the Kashmiri pandits were forced to leave their land owing to terrorism and are living as refugees in their own land. Now the act of driving out the Kashmiri Pandits was labelled ‘ethnic cleansing’. Now that brings us to another question – Why are the Kashmiri pandits, comprising mainly of Hindus, are specifically targeted by terrorists. I’m not saying that residents of Kashmir are not affected by terrorists. There are even reports of armed personnel targeting villagers of Kashmir. But my argument is to how can the atrocities against Kashmir pundits be called ethnic cleansing, while other such incidents are termed as riots and pogrom? Ethnic cleansing is euphemism; the real term should be Anti-Kashmir pundits riot or Kashmir pundits massacre. That said, the real reason is that Article 370 is a hurdle preventing the return of Kashmiri pundits to their homeland. The whole point of talking about Article 370 is that the debate over strengthening and abolishing it has been watered down to include the communal-secular divide with the parties lining up against the abolition as secular and the other side as communal. Can you believe it? Article 370 is a sensitive issue and any changes regarding abolition and maintaining it is to be handled carefully and not used as an instrument for debating the secular and communal traits of parties.
I leave the conclusion part to you. But still I would like to say a few words. The plain fact is that the secular-communal divide that you hear almost always in the media, newspapers and of course form self-proclaimed seculars are more of a myth than reality. There is no absolute division as such but an invisible bridge that is reinforced by fallacies and allegations that contain little truth. Every party is secular in their own definitions and creating further divisions by condemning the BJP as the communal by other ‘secular’ parties is unfortunate. I reckon it isn’t enough for people like Edvige Antonia Albina Maino,Raul and Bianca just to change their names to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi to proclaim their secular credentials. And adding Gandhi to their surnames wouldn’t make them or their party any more secular. So is the case with BJP – just because their ideology is based on Hindutva, it doesn’t make them communal as such. True secularism just doesn’t exist in Indian politics and its time people realize that the communal-secular divide is not so ‘great’ after all.
By the way, the comment section is moderated; Free speech – Yes. Hate – No.
References
[1]-The Afghan, Frederick Forsyth, Page 22.
[1a]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Relief_and_Rehabilitation
[1b]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_of_Dadra_and_Nagar_Haveli
[2]- http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sp-renews-call-for-babri-masjid-reconstruction/543034/1
[2a]- http://i45.tinypic.com/120ow95.jpg
[3]-http://www.indianexpress.com/news/muslim-groups-slam-sp-for-raking-up-babri-issue-calls-it- opportunist/543609/
[4]- http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020228/main1.htm
[5]- http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20020415/states.html
[6]- http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2002/03/02/stories/2002030203050100.htm
[7]- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1386341/Hindus-massacred-on-blazing-train.html
[8]- http://www.mid-day.com/news/2002/feb/21232.htm
[9]- http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2002/03/01/stories/2002030103030100.htm
[10]- http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=46538#compstory
[11]- http://news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/controversy-over-rai-8702.html
[12]- http://us.rediff.com/election/2005/jan/20cec.htm
[13]- http://ibnlive.in.com/news/varun-virus-spreads-cong-leader-talks-hate/89659-37.html
[14]- http://www.in.com/news/current-affairs/bjp-files-complaint-against-imran-kidwai-of-congress-minority-cell-8489739-63749-1.html
[15]- http://www.webnewswire.com/node/450189
[15]-http://www.thehindu.com/2009/03/28/stories/2009032861041200.htm
[16]- http://www.indianexpress.com/news/terror-accused-mahdani-most-valuable-ally-for-left-cong/9248/0
[17]- http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/cpi-ms-new-ally-in-kerala-pdps-maudany_100169643.html
[18]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Nasser_Madani
[19]- http://www.massviolence.org/The-1984-Anti-Sikhs-pogroms-in-New-Dehli?cs=print
[20]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_anti-Sikh_riots#Rajiv_Gandhi.27s_remarks_and_later_apology
[21]- http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=354757
[22]- http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-107701780.html
[23]- http://news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/society-supreme-cour-1054.html
[24]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Bano_case
[25]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iddat
[26]- http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/harisingh47.html
No comments:
Post a Comment