I was reading a report in 'The Hindu' that VP Hamid Ansari may be re-appointed to the post since his conduct has been laudatory. What hit me in the article was that in case he is not appointed, the ruling party will look out for other Muslim candidates from the party.
The nonchalance with which this statement was written amuses me. Should merit and suitability not be the important criteria to determine a candidate for any constitutional body? Is the Congress party secular as it claims it is?
The opposite of love is not hate - it is indifference. If BJP is blatantly pro Hindus, isn't Congress pro Muslims. The right wing parties have always claimed that by advocating that - Sharia holds precedence over Indian Civil law for Muslims, Congress party has always appeased minorities. But somehow this argument never struck a chord with me. If the Judiciary feels that there is sufficient ground for a parallel civil law which does not interfere with proper functioning of the country, then why not.
But, proposing a law like 4.5 percent reservation for Muslims in government institutions is contentious. In an ideal secular scenario, the rights of citizens are independent of the faith they profess. Is it not a disadvantage for citizens of other faiths that their compatriots are being given precedence only because they practice a specific religion?
References -
http://www.archive.org/stream/indiaasaseculars033124mbp/indiaasaseculars033124mbp_djvu.txt
The nonchalance with which this statement was written amuses me. Should merit and suitability not be the important criteria to determine a candidate for any constitutional body? Is the Congress party secular as it claims it is?
The opposite of love is not hate - it is indifference. If BJP is blatantly pro Hindus, isn't Congress pro Muslims. The right wing parties have always claimed that by advocating that - Sharia holds precedence over Indian Civil law for Muslims, Congress party has always appeased minorities. But somehow this argument never struck a chord with me. If the Judiciary feels that there is sufficient ground for a parallel civil law which does not interfere with proper functioning of the country, then why not.
But, proposing a law like 4.5 percent reservation for Muslims in government institutions is contentious. In an ideal secular scenario, the rights of citizens are independent of the faith they profess. Is it not a disadvantage for citizens of other faiths that their compatriots are being given precedence only because they practice a specific religion?
References -
http://www.archive.org/stream/indiaasaseculars033124mbp/indiaasaseculars033124mbp_djvu.txt
