scorecardresearch
Sunday, November 3, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomePlugged InAyodhya: Did SC put 'faith over fact'—Rahul Shivshankar, AIMPLB says no to...

Ayodhya: Did SC put ‘faith over fact’—Rahul Shivshankar, AIMPLB says no to 5 acres—Express

Your daily news capsule.

Follow Us :
Text Size:

Front Page

After a week of “will they, won’t they?” two prominent Muslim bodies — the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH) — said that they will file a review petition against the Supreme Court decision on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title suit. This is the lead on Monday’ front pages.

The other big news of the day comes from India’s island neighbour: Gotabaya Rajapaksa, brother of ex-president Mahindra Rajapaksa and the opposition party’s candidate, won the Sri Lankan presidential elections with approximately 52 per cent of votes.

Ayodhya verdict review: Aside reporting on the review petitions, The Times of India adds that “three Muslim litigants under the aegis of” the AIMPLB will seek a review of the judgment. In a graphic accompanying its report, Hindustan Times elaborates on whether such a review is possible. “Only litigants can seek a review of an SC decision within 30 days if there is a legal error” writes HT.

The Indian Express reports that the AIMPLB and JUH also announced that they would not accept the five acre land awarded by SC. However, it notes that the Sunni Waqf board, one of the litigants, opposes the decision to review the verdict.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa: While Express and Hindu carry reports on the presidential polls by their correspondents from Colombo, HT carries a PTI agency report and strangely, TOIopts for a New York Times copy.

Hindu writes that Gotabaya Rajapaksa won the presidential elections by “securing 52.25% of the mandate” and marked the “return of the Rajapaksa family to power”. The other papers offer interesting perspectives on both the family and the man. TOI’s story notes the win comes “seven months after the terror attacks on Easter left 269 people dead”. It also terms the Rajapaksas as a “divisive family” that “ended the country’s long civil war through brutal means”.

HT calls Gotabaya a “controversial wartime defence secretary” and adds that the dynasty is known for its “pro-China tilt”. Reporting from Colombo, Express highlights that Rajapaksa reached out to India and called it the country’s “closest friend” in its headline.

Farooq Abdullah: “Congress and other opposition parties… demanded that Lok Sabha MP Farooq Abdullah, who is under detention… since the government’s August 5 move to revoke Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, be allowed to attend the Parliament’s winter session,” reports HT.

Express writes that the opposition is “gearing up to take on the government over the economic slowdown, unemployment and farm distress, apart from Kashmir” in the Parliament.

Fall in rural demand: Express reports in an exclusive that “all major indicators of rural demand suggest the situation has only worsened since the beginning of financial year 2019-20 and the economy is yet to see the end of the current slowdown cycle”.

Political detainees in Srinagar: Over 30 mainstream political leaders from Jammu and Kashmir, who have been under detention since the revocation of Article 370, were moved from Sher-e-Kashmir International Conference Centre (SKICC) to the MLA hostel within the city, reports Express. This comes a day after some of the leaders were allegedly manhandled by the police.

Opinion

The Hindu: The “convincing victory” of Rajapaksa was not unsurprising, given southern Sri Lanka’s “anti-incumbency” mood, writes Hindu. The minority largely voted for Sajith Premadasa — be it Tamils, who hold the Rajapaksas responsible for civilian deaths in the 2009 civil war, or Muslims, who fear being targeted by Rajapaksa-backed majoritarian elements. But 70 per cent of Sri Lanka’s population is Sinhalese. Hindu feels that factors that contributed to Rajapaksa’s “impressive performance” include people’s anxieties about the economy, anger with corruption, and fears after the Easter Sunday April 21 bombings.

The Indian Express: The only “remarkable thing” about the BRICS 2019 summit in Brasilia was that it happened at all considering Brazilian President Jair Bolsanaro’s seeming willingness to dissociate from the tradition, writes Express. Russia is responsible for developing and sustaining the forum, with the objective of mounting international opposition against the US. China, too, has found resonance with Russia in this endeavour to limit US world dominance, and as an opportunity to promote its economic agenda as the “world’s biggest exporter”. But India’s gains from BRICS are not so obvious, suggests Express. India is aware of the “profound” power imbalance within BRICS, hence its strategy is to “hedge against the many great global uncertainities” of the moment, it writes.

Prime Time

Prime-time news Sunday was a rather sombre affair. “We The People” (NDTV 24×7) debated children fighting for the right to clean air. India Today’s Gaurav Sawant asked “Is #AIMPLB a litigant in Ayodhya land case? Why move SC again when litigants are happy?” This, after the AIMPLB decided to file a review petition.

Zee News discussed the ‘tukde-tukde’ gang, again, and why it was “afraid of Zee News” reporting the Jawaharlal Nehru University’s protests.

Republic TV went after Union Minister Giriraj Singh — “hothead won’t learn” — who said that instead of just the Karni Sena, the entire Hindu community ought to have led the protests against the film Padmaavat and the “fight for Rani Padmavati’s honour”.

In another controversy over the weekend, retired Major General S.P. Sinha came under fire for remarks on TV9 Bharatvarsh’s debate about Kashmiri Pandits. The ex-Army officer shouted “maut ke badle maut, rape ke badle rape” (death for death, rape for rape). The clip went viral on social media and drew criticism from all quarters, including Army veterans. The channel subsequently removed the video from its YouTube channel.

Aaj Tak: AIMPLB’s decision to file a review petition on the SC ruling was discussed on “Dangal”.

BJP’s Prem Shukla was fine with the petition so long as it was “under constitutional scope”. “… even if the petition is filed, the verdict is going to be in favour of Ram Mandir again”, he believed.

Muslim Political Council of India’s Tasleem Rahmani said there is nothing wrong with a review. “Even Nirmohi Akhada is going for one… why is only AIMPLB in the news?” he asked.

Political analyst Zafar Sareshwala had a different viewpoint: “The five judges who delivered the verdict are likely to be on the bench again, except retired CJI Gogoi. The question is would they change their decision?”

NDTV India: Supreme Court’s decision to refer the Sabarimala issue to a larger bench opened the classic faith versus law debate on “Hum Log”.

Activist Kamla Bhasin said that this was not about faith or religion — it has become all about vote-politics. “People also had faith in ‘Sati Pratha’ (Sati custom) and ‘Bal Vivah’ (child marriage). Does the argument on faith make (it right) to perform those practices again?” she asked.

Senior advocate Geeta Luthra said, “If it is about the celibate God, then he should abstain from seeing both men and women who are in the reproductive age… The logic is flawed and extremely discriminating.”

Political analyst Geeta Bhatt disagreed: “Women who are actually the devotees of Ayyappa do not want to go there, who are we to decide?”

Times Now: On “India Upfront”, anchor Rahul Shivshankar was unusually calm during the debate on the Ayodhya verdict.

“A large number of the litigants believe that perhaps the SC found itself under pressure to put faith over fact and create an untenable situation where the Muslim community feels that they have been robbed off its due entitlement,” he observed.

Advocate Nizam Pasha said, “The reason why people have a sense of disquiet regarding the judgment is because there are internal contradictions within the judgment.”

Senior advocate Harish Salve said, “You can criticise the judgment saying the reasoning is wrong, the conclusion is wrong, they have misread the evidence or misread the law. Judgments are always open to criticism. But if you say that a judge has decided this way because of a personal bias in favour of a community then that is attacking not the judgment but integrity of the court.”

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular