Uncategorized

Babari Masjid demolition was an organized action switched on by Hindu fundamentalists aimed to cater hatred against Muslim minority also to grab electoral gain. So the responsibility of that particular incident (and subsequent riots took place across the county, which led loss of so many lives and victimization) should be given to everyone who even made a word contribution to the chauvinistic behavior and triggered communal polarization before and after the Masjid demolition.

The decision of SC looking for conspiracy behind of the demolition and issue of notice to the BJP leaders including LK Advani and ministerial members of ruling government is appropriate in fact and very much satisfactory.

The Hindu report on 1^st April 2015:

“The Central Bureau of Investigation that investigated the case had accused them all, but a trial court discharged them in a decision upheld by the Allahabad High Court in 2010.

The apex court intervention following a petition by Haji Mahboob Ahmad, a petitioner in the mosque demolition case, could revive the latent but inconclusive questions about the role of the senior leaders of the ruling party in the demolition that triggered violence across the country and polarised it.

A Bench led by Chief Justice H.L. Dattu issued notice to BJP veterans Mr. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Union Minister Uma Bharti and Himachal Pradesh Governor Kalyan Singh.

The Supreme Court also asked the CBI to explain why it unduly delayed the appeal against the HC order.

The agency has been given four weeks to file its reply.

Mr. Ahmad’s petition contends that the trial court bifurcated the actual demolition and instigation into separate cases.“

[Story link: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/babri-case-sc-issues-notices-to-bjp-leaders/article7052514.ece?homepage=true%5D

The case timeline

›1949: Idols of Ram Lalla are placed surreptitiously under the central dome.

› 1950: Gopal Simla Visharad files first suit in Faizabad civil court for rights to perform pooja to Ram Lalla.

› 1950: Paramahansa Ramachandra Das files a suit for continuation of pooja and keeping idols in the structure.

› 1959: Nirmohi Akhara files third suit, seeking direction to hand over charge of the disputed site. U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board files fourth suit in 1961 for declaration and possession and fifth in 1989 in the name of Ram Lalla Virajman for declaration and possession.

› 1986: District judge orders locks be removed. Site opened for Hindu worshippers.

› 1989: The four suits pending were transferred to the High Court.

› 1991: U.P. govt. acquires land around the structure for convenience of devotees who attend Ram Lalla darshan.

› 1992: The mosque is completely demolished by kar sevaks on December 6, resulting in widespread communal riots.

› 1993: Govt. takes over 67 acres of land around the area, seeks SC’s opinion on whether there existed a Hindu place of worship before the structure was built.

› 1994: Case goes back to Lucknow Bench of HC, suits heard again from 1996.

› 2002: High Court orders a survey by the Archaeological Survey of India to find out whether a temple existed below the mosque or not.

› 2010: Court awards two-thirds of Ayodhya site to Hindu parties, one-third to Waqf Board.

Babari Masjid demolition: SC issued notices to BJP leaders and Ministers, who were discharged by Allahabad High Court http://t.co/FinjHlMQjw

— Murali Margassery (@MuraliMRGS) April 1, 2015

Murali Margassery

muralimargassery@hotmail.com

I heard people saying, “cinema is the medium for an entertainment.” Absolutely correct, but what does it mean ‘an entertainment’ – (it is something that amuses, pleases, or diverts especially performance or show – American Heritage Dictionary), apart from the dictionary meaning, I used see the term ‘entertainment’ can even make you cry / hurt / influence / change. But in this particular era, most of us forced to believe that, an entertainment is something, which make us to escape from the social reality. Is it so? Do you really think you will get rid of all your personal or social problems by just watching a show / film in the given 2–3 hours? Wouldn’t it await you outside the cinema hall? Sure, it will. As a person who committed to his society and constantly notices its improper functioning, you must learn to accept the truth. If you do so, you can build society better, of sure. At the same time, a silver-screen media product offers you a kind of social realistic entertainment, why would you smash it away from you rather hesitate to take it. It can always be an entertainment. For eg.,.The popular Malayalam film ‘Neelakkuyil’, a social realistic movie jointly done by P Bhaskaran and Ramu Karyatt in 1954 (Re-released in 1970’s) based on the story of Uroob (PC Kuttikrishnan). Another one was Chemmeen, the most popular romantic drama movie (Directed by Ramu Karyatt) in the same Malayalam film industry, released on 1965 based on the story of a renowned writer ‘Thakazhi Sivasankarappillai.’
When I read the history of Malayalam Cinema, I could not deny the social importance of these two special works. You know the viewers especially women used to cry like anything while watching the movie and still they rushed to the theatres to watch (Writes Kalpeta Narayanan, a film critic). The social conditions of the The state was completely grabbed into such films and that was the entertainment for the viewers even though no fun enrolled into it. Do they ever felt irritated from such a sentimental melodrama? No they didn’t. Much better works came to hit the industry later on, but the population became more and more in-sensitive, the same sentimentalism and melodrama encouraged by the viewers till Padmarajan-Bharatan era strikes. John Abraham, G Aravindan and so many film makers tried to work differently, but many of them did not noticed and accepted due to the in-sensitiveness of society. Padmarajan and Bharatan films received loads of criticism when they attempted for a revolution by denies the worshipped ‘Social Morality’, but they could clutch the attention with different treatments of romance and human-politics – it was far-far better than our so called ‘New generation cinemas’. Somewhere this in-sensitivity crawled and stick on the hearts of the audience (I told only about Malayalam cinemas but this approach stands with every cinema audience). Many film makers exposed themselves in this era and become the fertilisers for in-sensitivity. I believe people scared watching social realities inside the cinema hall and outside as well.

Here I came back to my old statement “a film which would not carry any social values, the viewer should be able to say it’s a bad film.” This ability has gone out of the circle. I will try to pull it back to the circle, hope the readers do the same.

– Murali Margassery

muralimargassery@hotmail.com