 A Palestinian flag that was the subject of heated debate on Monday is part of a display of about 60 international flags along Lincoln Avenue that stretches from Devon to Touhy. (Jessica Tezak, Chicago Tribune)
Assalamu-alaikum,
The flag that was the subject of heated debate is part of a display of about 60 international flags along Lincoln Avenue that stretches from Devon to Touhy. Several residents have recently asked that the Palestinian flag be removed, but village officials say they have no plans to do so. Community members spoke in favor of and against the flag before the village's human relations committee.
Here, famous Chicago
Tribune: "Emotions spill over at Lincolnwood meeting about
Palestinian flag"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Please don't forget
to watch video - Sherry
Friedman
was asked to sit down by Mayor Gerald Turry. She was talking against
Palestinian mothers & children, and then one man leaving meeting
after being chastised by the mayor.
Thanks
Ghani
From: Ghani Desai <ghanidesai@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:32 AM Subject: Verdict: Flag of Palestine Flying in Lincoln Wood, Illinois
ASAK, Ghani Bhai,
The meeting at Lincolnwood Village started sharply at 7.00 pm today.
The whole auditorium was full with majority of Palestinians, Indians
and Pakistani Muslims and of course there were 30 % Jewish people.
Each speaker was given three minutes to express their opinion about the Palestinian Flag. Among Muslim speakers lot of young ones, notably Dr. Anwar Hussain's two sons, Ahmed Khan, lot of Palestinian young boys and girls. A notable speaker was Ms. Rabya Khan, Staff Attorney of CAIR, Chicago. Rabya Khan's speech was very effective and to the point. All the Muslim speakers were very calm and talked about the harmony in between Palestinians and Jews. Answering to one of the Jewish speaker, who said that President Obama did not recognize the Palestinian state, Ms. Rabya Khan from CAIR said that Palestine is recognized by the United Nations, which contains 194 different countries. Two things to be noted.
1) During the speech session,
Mayor of Lincolnwood asked one Jewish speaker to leave the podium,
because she was talking against the mothers and children of Palestine.
2) At the end when Mayor of Lincolnwood was giving closing remarks, one Jewish man started some ugly remarks, Mayor asked him to leave the auditorium and that person left. Anyway, the committee passed the motion in favor of Palestinian Flag with 100% votes in favor. Dr. Khaja Aliuddin From: Ghani Desai <ghanidesai@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:43 PM Subject: Flag of Palestine Flying in Lincoln Wood, Illinois
Flag of
Palestine Flying
IN
Lincoln Wood,
Illinois
    * 
Assalamu-alaikum,
Those don’t know the
Palestinian Flag controversy in Lincoln Wood, Illinois, a next door N-W suburb
of Chicago, please read; “Residents request that
Palestinian flag be taken down from display”.
Police Chief Bob LaMantia said people who call in
to complain are told the Village embraces diversity and that there would be no
plans to remove the flag.
Police
officer Larry Martin is the police liaison for the Human Relations Commission. “Some
people are insulted by it, but the (Commission) promotes diversity,” Martin
said. “Someone paid money for (the flag) to be there.”
Did you read this?
This proving again and again, there are “Beautiful American Folks” who are making “America the Beautiful”, and definitely, “The Greatest Democratic Country” on the planet. (Not counting the
blind support of Israel by President Obama, his administration, US Congress
& Senate).
It
is reported over and over, and especially since 9/11 that
all the problems in the Middle-East and Muslim world are due to Israel,
its
illegal occupation of Palestine land, its inhuman treatment of
Palestinians, since founding the Israel on Arab land and especially the
blind support for Israel by US Presidents, US Congress
& US Senate.
Please call Lincoln Wood Police Dept. @ (847) 673-2167
and thank them.
Also call Village of Lincoln Wood @ (847)
673-1540 and e-mail its President Gerard Turry @ jturry@lwd.org, to thank him and Lincoln Wood.
Tomorrow, Monday, August 11,
2014, 7 PM, there is a Lincoln Wood Human Relations Commission meeting at
Village Hall, 6900 N. Lincoln Ave. Dr. Khaja Aliuddin MD, a
resident of Lincoln Wood, Illinois, a serious & dedicated activist, a past
MCC Board member & Secretary, and a very good friend of years is planning to
attend meeting with his family and friends.
Please contact him and especially residents of Lincoln Wood for the help @
(847)
910-1005
Please take a note; today, Sunday August
10, 2014, 2:30 PM, there is “Chicago March Against World Silence on Gaza Massacre”,
at Michigan and Congress, Chicago downtown.
Thanks
Ghani
PS:
Flag of Palestine in Lincoln Wood is flying at the intersection of
Lincoln Ave. (US Route 41) and Crawford Ave. (Pulaski), a strategic
location. One can see Palestine flag from a block
away, when coming from Chicago or MCC, driving North on Pulaski that
turns Crawford Av. in Lincoln Wood, and same when driving to Chicago
from the North. The folks who raised the flag at this main
intersection in Lincoln Wood that can be seen by all drivers and
passers, and especially at stop lights, also deserve the compliments.
| ||||||||||||||||
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Flag of Palestine Flying IN Lincoln Wood, Illinois
Petition seeks stay on Modi election from Varanasi - By Vinaya Deshpande - THE HINDU, English Daily, Chennai, INDIA
My comments posted on The Hindu website, though still under moderation:
Ghulam Muhammed, MumbaiIf this petition succeeds, practically all members of Lok Sabha could be vulnerable. It seems Late Raj Narain's spirit is still stalking India. Trying times for judiciary, already on ropes. One hopes this scenario does not end in another emergency, or India will never have any election for long time.
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Updated: August 12, 2014 17:10 IST
Petition seeks stay on Modi election from Varanasi
Vinaya Deshpande
PTI
In this April 24, 2014 photo, Narendra Modi waves to supporters during a road show before filing his nomination in Varanasi.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi spent crores as a candidate from Varanasi during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections campaign, thereby violating rules of expenditure, a writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court on Tuesday has claimed.
The petition filed by a Pune-based social activist against Mr. Modi, the Election Commission of India and the Union of India, has sought a stay on the election result from Varanasi till the plea is heard. It has also sought investigation and legal action against Mr. Modi.
Petitioner Hemant Patil has alleged that Mr. Modi took support of “various capitalists including Ambani, Adani, etc., and expended in large with violation of provisions of law.” He has said the expenditure resulted in giving full majority to the BJP and getting Mr. Modi the position of a Prime Minister.
“The Election Commission has allowed only Rs. 70 Lakh for one candidate in Lok Sabha election but Mr. Modi has never considered the same and (has) expended more than Rs. 5 to 10 crores on each and every candidates including himself,” the petition has claimed.
It has accused Mr. Modi of spending crores on the media campaign as well.
‘EC influenced by Mr. Modi’
Mr. Patil has claimed that he had sent a written complaint to the Government of India and to the Election Commission, elaborating the election malpractices of Mr. Modi. But, he said he hasn’t yet heard from any one of them about the action initiated against the Prime Minister.
“I immediately made written complaint on 29/03/14 of offences committed at the instance of Narendra Modi violating provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Representation of People's Act, but till now both of them have neither inquired the said complaint nor they are willing to initiate legal action against Mr Modi under his influence,” the petition alleged.
It has prayed to the court to direct the Government of India and the Election Commission to produce the records of his complaint, and file a report within a stipulated period.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi spent crores as a candidate from Varanasi during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections campaign, thereby violating rules of expenditure, a writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court on Tuesday has claimed.
The petition filed by a Pune-based social activist against Mr. Modi, the Election Commission of India and the Union of India, has sought a stay on the election result from Varanasi till the plea is heard. It has also sought investigation and legal action against Mr. Modi.
Petitioner Hemant Patil has alleged that Mr. Modi took support of “various capitalists including Ambani, Adani, etc., and expended in large with violation of provisions of law.” He has said the expenditure resulted in giving full majority to the BJP and getting Mr. Modi the position of a Prime Minister.
“The Election Commission has allowed only Rs. 70 Lakh for one candidate in Lok Sabha election but Mr. Modi has never considered the same and (has) expended more than Rs. 5 to 10 crores on each and every candidates including himself,” the petition has claimed.
It has accused Mr. Modi of spending crores on the media campaign as well.
‘EC influenced by Mr. Modi’
Mr. Patil has claimed that he had sent a written complaint to the Government of India and to the Election Commission, elaborating the election malpractices of Mr. Modi. But, he said he hasn’t yet heard from any one of them about the action initiated against the Prime Minister.
“I immediately made written complaint on 29/03/14 of offences committed at the instance of Narendra Modi violating provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Representation of People's Act, but till now both of them have neither inquired the said complaint nor they are willing to initiate legal action against Mr Modi under his influence,” the petition alleged.
It has prayed to the court to direct the Government of India and the Election Commission to produce the records of his complaint, and file a report within a stipulated period.
Keywords: Narendra Modi election win, Modi Varanasi victory, 2014 Lok Sabha elections, poll violation accusation, Election Commission
Misunderstanding secularism By Christophe Jaffrelot - The Indian Express
The Indian Express
@IndianExpress
The specificity of Indian secularism transpires clearly in these quoted passages.
These words reflect some of the current misunderstandings about
Indian secularism. It is in consonance with Indian secularism to borrow
“good things from everywhere”, including the Gita and the Mahabharata.
This “ism” does not imply the secularisation of society. On the
contrary, whereas French laïcité involves a clear separation between
public and religious spaces, far from excluding religion from the public
sphere, Indian secularism officially recognises all faiths, as evident
from the Constitution and its implementation in the first decades of the
Indian republic.
Jawaharlal Nehru himself wrote in 1961: “We talk about a secular state in India. It is perhaps not very easy even to find a good word in Hindi for ‘secular’. Some people think it means something opposed to religion. That obviously is not correct. What it means is that it is a state which honours all faiths equally and gives them equal opportunities.” Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, president of India when Nehru was prime minister, expressed a similar vision in these eloquent terms: “When India is said to be a secular state, it does not mean that we as a people reject the reality of an unseen spirit or the relevance of religions to life or that we exalt irreligion. It does not mean that secularism itself becomes a positive religion or that the state assumes divine prerogatives. Though faith in the supreme spirit is the basic principle of the Indian tradition, our state will not identify itself with or be controlled by any particular religion.”
The specificity of Indian secularism transpires clearly in these quoted passages. Far from being areligious, irreligious or anti-religious, this principle is, on the contrary, perfectly compatible with religiosity. But, recognising the importance of religion in the public space, the state intervenes in favour of all religious communities. It thus subsidises all kinds of religious activities, including pilgrimages for Sikhs (to Pakistan) and Hindus (like the one to Amarnath in Jammu and Kashmir). The state also subsidises major religious celebrations such as the Kumbh Melas. The one in 2001, for instance, cost Rs 120 crore. Since 1993, Indian pilgrims to Mecca have been largely state-funded, too.
This multicultural approach has been recently illustrated in the way President Pranab Mukherjee hosted an iftar party towards the end of Ramzan, soon after publicly offering prayers at the Padmanabhaswamy temple.
This rather unique configuration is the product of a long history. Its immediate antecedent can be found in the words and deeds of Mahatma Gandhi, who advocated the recognition of religious communities in the public space and their cohabitation as early as 1919, during the Khilafat Movement in which he joined forces with Muslim leaders. Subsequently, he tried to make the Congress party a “parliament” in which all denominations were represented. In Hind Swaraj (1909), he promoted a conception of the Indian nation that ruled out identifying the nation with any religion: “If the Hindus believe that India should be peopled only by Hindus, they are living in dreamland. The Hindus, the Mahomedans, the Parsis and the Christians who have made India their country are fellow countrymen, and they will have to live in unity, if only for their own interest. In no part of the world are one nationality and one religion synonymous terms; nor has it ever been so in India.”
Beyond Gandhi’s contribution, going further back in time, emperor Akbar practised religious tolerance. During his rule, Islam had a limited place in the state apparatus, in which several communities other than the Muslims participated. This modus operandi was already in existence under the reign of Ashoka. While he worked for the glory of Buddhism with the fervour of a new convert, this emperor also advocated coexistence of religions and mutual respect.
Like Justice Dave, these architects of Indian secularism thought that they had “to get good things from everywhere”, including the Gita, the Quran, the Bible, etc. For them, the question of teaching one religion alone never arose. The fact that it does today is revealing of the way Hindu majoritarianism is gaining momentum. This view clearly contradicts the Constitution because it implies the non-recognition of all religions on an equal footing. Freedom of conscience, speech and worship was written into the Constitution through a number of articles having convergent effects. Article 15 forbids discrimination on religious grounds (among others); Article 16 applies this rule to recruitment in the civil service; Article 29 to admission to a public school or receiving state aid. Most especially, Article 25 states: “Subject to public order, morality and health… all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”
In addition to these individual rights, there are collective rights — the Indian state not only recognises no official religion and protects citizens from having to pay religious taxes, but it also gives each religion equal consideration. Article 26 stipulates: “Subject to public order, morality and health, every religion, religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right: (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law”. Article 30 reads similarly: “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” In awarding aid to educational institutions, the state must in no way discriminate against those administered by a religious or linguistic minority. It is worth noting that the importance given to collective rights by Indian secularism is one of its trademarks, as is its correlative respect for the role of religions in the public space.
If India was to discontinue this tradition and replace it with Hindu majoritarianism, it would embark on the same trajectory as its neighbours — except Nepal, where secularism has recently become the order of the day. The past experience of the other countries of South Asia shows that minorities have been the first casualties of the erosion of secularism, regardless of the majority religion. Hindus, as a minority, have been at the receiving end in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh where religious conflicts have resulted in violence.
The writer is senior research fellow at CERI-Sciences Po/ CNRS, Paris, professor of Indian politics and sociology at King’s India Institute, London, Princeton Global Scholar and non-resident scholar at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
express@expressindia.com
opinion
@IndianExpress
Misunderstanding secularism
Christophe Jaffrelot
|
August 11, 2014 12:01 am
The specificity of Indian secularism transpires clearly in these quoted passages.
Summary
Teaching Gita doesn’t go against Indian secularism. Teaching Gita alone does.
Christophe Jaffrelot
Speaking as the chief guest at a conference at Gujarat University’s convention hall on August 2, Supreme Court judge Justice Anil R. Dave said, “Had I been the dictator of India, I would have introduced Gita and Mahabharata in Class I. That is the way you learn how to live life. I am sorry if somebody says I am secular or I am not secular.But we have to get good things from everywhere.”Jawaharlal Nehru himself wrote in 1961: “We talk about a secular state in India. It is perhaps not very easy even to find a good word in Hindi for ‘secular’. Some people think it means something opposed to religion. That obviously is not correct. What it means is that it is a state which honours all faiths equally and gives them equal opportunities.” Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, president of India when Nehru was prime minister, expressed a similar vision in these eloquent terms: “When India is said to be a secular state, it does not mean that we as a people reject the reality of an unseen spirit or the relevance of religions to life or that we exalt irreligion. It does not mean that secularism itself becomes a positive religion or that the state assumes divine prerogatives. Though faith in the supreme spirit is the basic principle of the Indian tradition, our state will not identify itself with or be controlled by any particular religion.”
The specificity of Indian secularism transpires clearly in these quoted passages. Far from being areligious, irreligious or anti-religious, this principle is, on the contrary, perfectly compatible with religiosity. But, recognising the importance of religion in the public space, the state intervenes in favour of all religious communities. It thus subsidises all kinds of religious activities, including pilgrimages for Sikhs (to Pakistan) and Hindus (like the one to Amarnath in Jammu and Kashmir). The state also subsidises major religious celebrations such as the Kumbh Melas. The one in 2001, for instance, cost Rs 120 crore. Since 1993, Indian pilgrims to Mecca have been largely state-funded, too.
This multicultural approach has been recently illustrated in the way President Pranab Mukherjee hosted an iftar party towards the end of Ramzan, soon after publicly offering prayers at the Padmanabhaswamy temple.
This rather unique configuration is the product of a long history. Its immediate antecedent can be found in the words and deeds of Mahatma Gandhi, who advocated the recognition of religious communities in the public space and their cohabitation as early as 1919, during the Khilafat Movement in which he joined forces with Muslim leaders. Subsequently, he tried to make the Congress party a “parliament” in which all denominations were represented. In Hind Swaraj (1909), he promoted a conception of the Indian nation that ruled out identifying the nation with any religion: “If the Hindus believe that India should be peopled only by Hindus, they are living in dreamland. The Hindus, the Mahomedans, the Parsis and the Christians who have made India their country are fellow countrymen, and they will have to live in unity, if only for their own interest. In no part of the world are one nationality and one religion synonymous terms; nor has it ever been so in India.”
Beyond Gandhi’s contribution, going further back in time, emperor Akbar practised religious tolerance. During his rule, Islam had a limited place in the state apparatus, in which several communities other than the Muslims participated. This modus operandi was already in existence under the reign of Ashoka. While he worked for the glory of Buddhism with the fervour of a new convert, this emperor also advocated coexistence of religions and mutual respect.
Like Justice Dave, these architects of Indian secularism thought that they had “to get good things from everywhere”, including the Gita, the Quran, the Bible, etc. For them, the question of teaching one religion alone never arose. The fact that it does today is revealing of the way Hindu majoritarianism is gaining momentum. This view clearly contradicts the Constitution because it implies the non-recognition of all religions on an equal footing. Freedom of conscience, speech and worship was written into the Constitution through a number of articles having convergent effects. Article 15 forbids discrimination on religious grounds (among others); Article 16 applies this rule to recruitment in the civil service; Article 29 to admission to a public school or receiving state aid. Most especially, Article 25 states: “Subject to public order, morality and health… all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”
In addition to these individual rights, there are collective rights — the Indian state not only recognises no official religion and protects citizens from having to pay religious taxes, but it also gives each religion equal consideration. Article 26 stipulates: “Subject to public order, morality and health, every religion, religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right: (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law”. Article 30 reads similarly: “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” In awarding aid to educational institutions, the state must in no way discriminate against those administered by a religious or linguistic minority. It is worth noting that the importance given to collective rights by Indian secularism is one of its trademarks, as is its correlative respect for the role of religions in the public space.
If India was to discontinue this tradition and replace it with Hindu majoritarianism, it would embark on the same trajectory as its neighbours — except Nepal, where secularism has recently become the order of the day. The past experience of the other countries of South Asia shows that minorities have been the first casualties of the erosion of secularism, regardless of the majority religion. Hindus, as a minority, have been at the receiving end in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh where religious conflicts have resulted in violence.
The writer is senior research fellow at CERI-Sciences Po/ CNRS, Paris, professor of Indian politics and sociology at King’s India Institute, London, Princeton Global Scholar and non-resident scholar at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
express@expressindia.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)