Opinion Jaya Mamata

Mumbai-based Inquilab’s headlines read: “Left’s arrogance shattered”. The editorial in the paper is stinging about the outgoing government and advises the CPM — “now it is the prime responsibility of the party to introspect and understand why the peasants who had always been dependent on them and had been loyal voters,became alienated. Why Muslims,who could not even think of being disloyal,were compelled to change their strategy. Why the common citizens who,despite Communist parties’ disappearance from most states,considered CPM their sympathiser and friend,now got annoyed.” Rashtriya Sahara’s editor Aziz Burney says; “none of these state elections were fought on the plank of secularism versus communalism. That is,no one tried to secure Muslim votes on the basis of emotion or polarising anti-Muslim sentiment.”

After Osama

The killing of Osama bin Laden and subsequent US statements have generated an intriguing debate. Jamaat-e-Islami’s Daawat,in a front-page comment on May 10 writes,“nobody can say with certainty whether Osama bin Laden is now alive or dead and,if dead,when he actually died. The whole world is compelled to repeat the lessons taught by the American demons (rakshasas).” The paper asks,“was there no need to interrogate him about his network? Was it wise to kill him,or to eliminate him after arresting him and finding out all about his network?”

Rashtriya Sahara writes in an editorial on May 8: “The US argument on the Abbottabad operation is that it has acted against a person who was a threat to every country. But…viewed from this standpoint,there is no major difference between the terrorists of 26/11 and Osama,except the fact that Osama became a criminal for the world community because he was a criminal for the US. Meanwhile an effort is being made to view the 26/11 terrorism merely as a crime against India.” Veteran journalist and lyricist Hasan Kamal writes in his column in Sahafat on May 9: “Regarding the claim that America conducted the entire Abbottabad operation on its own and did not take any help of the Pakistani army or the ISI… No country can conduct any military operation in another country without its permission or,at least,keeping it informed. It is impossible from the point of view of international laws. Only a few days before this episode,the chief of Pakistan’s ISI,Shuja Pasha reached Washington and left in the evening. What was the message that he so quietly delivered to the US officials? The propaganda that there has been a major crack in the relations between US and Pakistan following the killing of Osama is a huge exaggeration”.

Regarding the possible impact of Osama’s killing on Indian Muslims,Siasat writes in an editorial on May 5 — “the reaction of Muslims shows that the majority did not show any interest or express any denial or sorrow. Though a mischievous effort was made by some to find out what Muslims felt about Osama,they were disappointed by the complete disinterest.” Munsif ,in its editorial on May 3 asks; “now that Osama bin Laden has been killed,will the US call back its forces from Afghanistan? Afghanistan was attacked only over the demand for handing Osama over to the US. If the American war is not against Islam,the US or its allies should not be concerned with the situation in Afghanistan after the death of Osama bin Laden.”

Ayodhya judgement

The Supreme Court’s order staying the judgment of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on the title suit on Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi has been largely welcomed. Munsif writes in an editorial on May 11: “the Allahabad high court had taken six decades to give its judgment on Ayodhya’s controversial title suit issue. The Supreme Court took a few months in rejecting this judgment. At the ground level,it is significant because soon after expression of a sense of satisfaction at the Allahabad judgment,opposition to it had started. The manner in which it had ordered a division of the site violated the principles of justice.”

Siasat,in its editorial on the same day,writes: “the Supreme Court,by ordering status quo on the Ayodhya site and permitting worship has only tried to contain the intensity of the dispute. The ends of justice would have been fully met if it had ordered the stoppage of worship in the makeshift temple while ordering status quo… The Supreme Court has also provided the possibility of a judgment based on sentiments.”