Opinion Muzaffarnagar violence
The editor of Inquilab,Shakeel Shamsi,on September 11 writes: The responsibility for the riot in Muzaffarnagar has to be attributed to political leaders.
Muzaffarnagar violence
The editor of Inquilab,Shakeel Shamsi,on September 11 writes: The responsibility for the riot in Muzaffarnagar has to be attributed to political leaders. Perhaps this is the first riot where cases have been filed against members of the assembly and Parliament belonging to different political parties in such large numbers… most religious leaders did not appear to want the conflict to be prolonged. That politicians are invested in this riot is extremely worrisome,because if this trend continues,no one will try to garner votes via constructive methods,but would find pretexts to engineer a riot.
Rashtriya Sahara,in its editorial,writes: The most regrettable aspect of the riot in Muzaffarnagar is that it is well known the parliamentary elections are fast approaching and much is at stake for many political parties. According to reports,Home Minister [Sushilkumar Shinde had warned at least 11 state governments that riots could not be ruled out there. It is also known that the resonance of victory or defeat in UP is heard in Delhi,and it is believed that the path to power in Delhi goes through the state. If rulers,political leaders and those responsible for the maintenance of law and order did not remember this,it is condemnable.
Sahafat,in its editorial on September 11,is critical of the fact that despite the governors report to the Centre based on intelligence alerts beforehand,no effective action was taken by the state government. Hamara Samaj,in its editorial (Sept 11),writes: After the tragic murder of three young men following an ordinary incident of (eve)teasing,the panchayats held in Deoband… and the violation of Section 144,the local administration did not wake up. The administrations ambivalent attitude confirms the apprehension that,along with communal organisations,the government was also backing the rioters.
Obamas Dilemma
Nai Duniya,edited by former Samajwadi Party leader,Shahid Siddiqui,in its commentary (Sept 9-15) says Syria is on fire,but those trying to extinguish it are worried that they may be burnt in the process … Obama does not want his reputation to be damaged over Syria. That is why he wants the support of the US Congress for a restricted army action. Inquilab,in its editorial on September 11,writes: Undoubtedly,the sooner the dangerous [chemical weapons are destroyed the better. But every peace-loving country,ruler or citizen,supporting such a move,would justifiably raise the question that if Damascus accepts the proposal and acts on it immediately,would all the countries with terrifying stocks of chemical and other weapons also destroy them?
Compiled by Seema Chishti
Share
