03-24-2005, 12:52 AM
Letters to editor in Pioneer. Shri KRPhanda looks like a jedi master.. <!--emo&:rocker--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rocker.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rocker.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Question of sovereignty
The UP Sunni Wakf Boardâs notice to the Government to hand it over the Taj Mahal, raises questions about the countryâs sovereignty. It is definitely an act of treason. After all, every association, regardless of its character, is subject to the authority of the state. During the medieval period, Muslims alone were regarded as citizens and Hindus were treated as dhimmis. When Muslim invaders persecuted Hindus, destroyed their places of worship and extracted jazia from them, were the Hindu traditions and practices given any consideration? None, whatsoever. With the advent of the British, the English law held sway over India. Cases that came up before courts and the Privy Council, were decided according to the laws framed by the British Parliament. In the Sheikh Kudratullah vs Mahani Mohan Shaha, a full bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the Mohammdan Law is not the law of India. Sir Barnes Peacock CJ observed: âThe Mohammadan law is not the law of British India. It is only the law so for as the laws of India have directed it to be observed. We are not bound by all the rules of the Mohammadan laws which are in force under the Mohammadan Government, nor by the law as laid down by the Fatwa Alamgiri prepared under Mughal ruler Aurangzeb Alamgir. We are bound by Regulation four of 1793, except so far as that law has been modified by Regulation seven of 1832.â (Ramzan Momin vs Dasrath Rauth, AIR, 1953, Patna). Earlier, in 1940, the Privy Council, in the case relating to Masjid Shahid Ganj, had emphasised similar sentiments. In the words of the council: âWho, then, immediately prior to the British annexation, was the local sovereign of Lahore? What law was applicable in that state to the present case? Who was recognised by the local sovereign or other authority as owner of the property in dispute? These matters do not appear to their lordships to have received sufficient attention in the present case. The plaintiff would seem to have ignored them. It is idle to call upon the courts to apply Mohammadan law to events taking place between 1762 and 1849 without first establishing that this law was at that time the law of the land recognised and enforced as such. If it be assumed, for example, that the property in dispute was by general law or by special decree, or by revenue free grant, vested in the Sikh gurudwara according to the law prevailing under the Sikh rulers, the case made by the plaintiff becomes irrelevantâ. (Indian Appeals, Vol LXVII, May 2, 1940). The Government needs to take appropriate action, otherwise Muslim Wakf boards can claim the entire country as graves can be found everywhere. The non-assertion of authority would reduce India to the status of a banana republic. Had Mahatma Gandhi agreed to Mohammad Ali Jinnahâs proposal of the exchange of populations in 1947, there would have been no such problem today.
KR Phanda
Janakpuri, New Delhi<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Question of sovereignty
The UP Sunni Wakf Boardâs notice to the Government to hand it over the Taj Mahal, raises questions about the countryâs sovereignty. It is definitely an act of treason. After all, every association, regardless of its character, is subject to the authority of the state. During the medieval period, Muslims alone were regarded as citizens and Hindus were treated as dhimmis. When Muslim invaders persecuted Hindus, destroyed their places of worship and extracted jazia from them, were the Hindu traditions and practices given any consideration? None, whatsoever. With the advent of the British, the English law held sway over India. Cases that came up before courts and the Privy Council, were decided according to the laws framed by the British Parliament. In the Sheikh Kudratullah vs Mahani Mohan Shaha, a full bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the Mohammdan Law is not the law of India. Sir Barnes Peacock CJ observed: âThe Mohammadan law is not the law of British India. It is only the law so for as the laws of India have directed it to be observed. We are not bound by all the rules of the Mohammadan laws which are in force under the Mohammadan Government, nor by the law as laid down by the Fatwa Alamgiri prepared under Mughal ruler Aurangzeb Alamgir. We are bound by Regulation four of 1793, except so far as that law has been modified by Regulation seven of 1832.â (Ramzan Momin vs Dasrath Rauth, AIR, 1953, Patna). Earlier, in 1940, the Privy Council, in the case relating to Masjid Shahid Ganj, had emphasised similar sentiments. In the words of the council: âWho, then, immediately prior to the British annexation, was the local sovereign of Lahore? What law was applicable in that state to the present case? Who was recognised by the local sovereign or other authority as owner of the property in dispute? These matters do not appear to their lordships to have received sufficient attention in the present case. The plaintiff would seem to have ignored them. It is idle to call upon the courts to apply Mohammadan law to events taking place between 1762 and 1849 without first establishing that this law was at that time the law of the land recognised and enforced as such. If it be assumed, for example, that the property in dispute was by general law or by special decree, or by revenue free grant, vested in the Sikh gurudwara according to the law prevailing under the Sikh rulers, the case made by the plaintiff becomes irrelevantâ. (Indian Appeals, Vol LXVII, May 2, 1940). The Government needs to take appropriate action, otherwise Muslim Wakf boards can claim the entire country as graves can be found everywhere. The non-assertion of authority would reduce India to the status of a banana republic. Had Mahatma Gandhi agreed to Mohammad Ali Jinnahâs proposal of the exchange of populations in 1947, there would have been no such problem today.
KR Phanda
Janakpuri, New Delhi<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->