Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Sunday, December 22, 2024

Hindus Never Fight For Their Legal Rights: Sageer Khan

Posted in: Political
Mon, Aug 30, 21, 12:19, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4551
Hindus are the most tolerant of all the religions in the world. I am a Muslim but I will never shy away from saying that Muslims must learn tolerance from Hindus

Hindus are the most tolerant of all the religions in the world. I am a Muslim but I will never shy away from saying that Muslims must learn tolerance from Hindus who are just matchless in the entire world and I can say this with full conviction that they will always remain so. Jawaharlal Nehru most wrongly imposed monogamy on Hindus alone on both men and women but dare not impose monogamy on Muslims.

This despite the irrefutable fact that Dr BR Ambedkar who left Congress due to being ignored very early had recommended in his Hindu Code Bill 1951 to retain polygamy among Hindus and to make polygamy as a ground for divorce but Nehru overruled him and abolished polygamy and polyandry for Hindus and made polygamy or bigamy punishable for Hindus alone which I term as most discriminatory yet Hindus bowed before Nehru and most humbly hailed it! Muslims will never accept abolition of polygamy under any circumstances!

This is the real difference between Hindus and Muslims! Hindus never fight for their legal rights and very humbly accept anything as we see in case of polygamy and polyandry! Why Muslims fight over Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura which have been Hindu religious most sacred sites since ages and still so many Hindus bat for Muslims openly? This is the worst appeasement in which so called secular parties shamelessly indulge in! Should Ram temple be built in Mecca or Medina? What if Hindus also demand the same in Mecca and Medina? Will any Muslim anywhere accept this? Muslims will not permit a single temple leave alone in Mecca or Medina or anywhere in Saudi Arabia but also anywhere in any Muslim country in the world!

No true Muslim should ever worship at any disputed site and Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi should not have even a single mosque anywhere as they are Hindus sacred sites and Muslims must respect it and not fight over it in the manner that one most shamefully sees! How many more such illustrations should I give to prove my valid point that Hindus are most tolerant in the world? If India is a secular country, it is because Hindus are secular and not communal as we see in case of Pakistan! Pakistan abolished triple talaq in 1961 but in India it is still continuing in 1994 and God knows till when?

The day Muslims become majority in India, Hindus will accept humbly their rule just like they accepted abolition of polygamy and polyandry so humbly and will never fight for their legal rights under the influence of so called secular leaders!

These priceless words came from none other than my best friend Sageer Khan who when I failed in BSc IInd year by just few marks from Sagar University and my number in Botany were increased by 12 marks after the reevaluation results were out but as the Supplementary exams had been conducted, I lost my one precious year. I was completely heart broken and faced many taunting remarks even from some of my close friends which left me even more shattered!

Before I could take any extreme step, this very same Sageer Khan who was staying in a rented building in first floor whereas I was in ground floor whom till then I treated just like a normal friend suddenly knocked my door and I started crying on seeing him. He hugged me and consoled me so much that I can never forget. He boosted my morale and made sure that I ate my food, slept in time and like a big brother and father made sure that I took bath and ate food which he cooked with his own hands.

Not just this, when I expressed my desire to become a Muslim like him as he held my hand most when I was in my worst phase of life, tears rolled down his cheeks and he took a vow from me that let alone convert I shall never ever enter a mosque or even bow my head in front of mosque and shall always keep worshipping Lord Shiv just like earlier like a true friend. He said you can accompany me to dargah where both Hindus and Muslims goes but not in mosque as I always want to see you as a Hindu and not as a Muslim ever! When I told him that my Hindu friends mock and taunt me then he immediately retorted that:
Pledge with your hand on my head that do all your Hindu friends mock and jeer at you?

I said no some of them and then he said that then why just because of some bad apples are you ready to change your religion. Just like I will never change my religion similarly you also will never change yours. Religion are just different path and names of God are different in different religion but the goal is one. Nation, religion and parents can never be changed. Hindu religion is most tolerant in the world and people of all religion including Muslims must follow their basic tenets like tolerance and sacrifice as we saw in case of polygamy which Hindus accepted so humbly and made sure that the same Jawaharlal Nehru who abolished polygamy among Hindus only and not among Muslims and yet ruled in Hindu majority India for 17 uninterrupted years till his death!

What Nitin Patel who is Deputy Chief Minister of Gujarat is saying about Hindus is only endorsing hundred percent what my best friend Sageer Khan also said and predicted way back in 1994 that:
Those talking about the Constitution, laws, secularism will continue to do so only as long as Hindus are in majority in this country. May god prevent this from happening, but if in another 1,000-2,000 years, the number of Hindus reduces, and (the number of) people from another religion increases, there will be no courts, Lok Sabha, Constitution, secularism...they will all vanish in thin air, nothing will remain.

The only difference is that Sageer Khan predicted in 1994 that:
This will happen in just about another 40 to 50 years as the population of Muslims is increasing very rapidly and Centre is dead determined against abolishing polygamy among Muslims due to vote bank politics as they know that Muslims will never quietly accept what Hindus accepted so quietly! Even BJP who is projected as a Hindu party has vowed to never abolish polygamy among Muslims and it is continuing at least till now in 2021 even after PM Narendra modi has been in power for more than seven years! One cannot predict what will happen in future but every PM trembles to abolish polygamy among Muslims as my best friend Sageer Khan always wondered aloud!

Speaking for myself, it is a national shame that our celebrated film actor Dharmender who is my personal favourite hero also had to become a Muslim to marry again! We see such conversions happening time and again as we saw when the son of . This will continue no matter how many laws are made until and unless polygamy is abolished among Muslims also. Why only Muslims are allowed to indulge in polygamy? One can understand that Pandit Nehru did not want to hurt Muslims as the country was recovering from the fresh wounds of partition but what about the other so many PM till now who have been witness to this worst injustice? This was what Sageer Khan also never liked and he never refrained himself from openly saying what he felt strongly. Sageer Khan openly batted for only temple in Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura and had serious arguments with many Muslims right in front of me and sometimes in my absence also over this as he felt that not a single mosque should ever be built in these 3 Hindus sacred sites! How many Muslims think like him? They are in a minority!

Sageer Khan also rightly said that:
Can anyone deny that Hindus were made refugees in their own country which is a Hindu majority country in Jammu and Kashmir in 1990 when VP Singh was PM and so many of them were butchered and their houses were burnt and even now Hindu Kashmiri Pandits especially are living as refugees in their own country yet Hindus always tolerate, tolerate and do nothing but tolerate? Can anyone deny that Article 370 and Article 35A of Constitution ensured that Kashmiris feel one with Pakistanis and not with India and yet no PM has ever dared to abolish them or at least amend them? Why can't people from elsewhere settle in J&K or do any job there? Why just because Kashmir is Muslim majority do we see that they get all the concessions and not a single person from Jammu has ever become CM as it is only from Valley that is made CM?

We all saw recently that Gujarat Deputy Chief Minister Nitin Patel has sparked a fresh row by saying that talks about India's Constitution, laws and secularism will last only as long as Hindus are in majority in the country, and none of the country's courts, Lok Sabha, Constitution, secularism will remain in case Hindus are reduced to a minority. What wrong has he said? This my best friend Sageer Khan had also predicted! While addressing an event on Friday to mark the idol installation ceremony at a temple of goddess Bharat Mata in Gandhinagar organised by Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), Patel also clarified that he was not talking about all the Muslims or Christians, as a large number of them are patriots but he made the observation in the current context.

Sageer Khan always considered Babri as a disputed site and not as a mosque yet he pointed out that:
When it was broken by rowdy mob we saw how in Muslim countries so many thousands of temples were broken! Even in India we saw so many riots and so many people being killed due to Muslims getting infuriated so foolishly which can never ever be justified! Why are Muslims so intolerant? Why can't Muslims be more tolerant? Muslims must mend their ways and learn a lot from Hindus who are most tolerant in the world!

As we all know, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehruji took the single biggest and the most commendable step of controlling the population of Hindus by restricting Hindus to just one marriage. Prior to Pandit Nehruji's government framing The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindus both men and women could marry as many as they wanted and there was just no limit on either men or women. Lord Krishna had 16,108 wives as was reported in The Times of India newspaper in 2018.

Similarly Ashoka also had thousands of wives and so was the case with not just kings but even among the common man and women. There was just no limit and both men and women had the liberty even during British rule to marry as many as they wanted. But Pandit Nehruji brought down both Hindu men and women to just one which is the most commendable step since independence ever taken by any PM for which Hindus must always be grateful to Pandit Nehruji! This alone explains why I always refer to Pandit Nehruji as the Real Reformer of Hindus but Pandit Nehruji didn't touch Muslims as the country then was reeling fresh from the partition wounds and Nehruji didn't want to do anything that would create insecurity among Muslims in any manner! But what about the other PM who ruled after Nehruji till PM Narendra Damodardas Modi who is ruling since last more than 7 years?

But my best friend Sageer Khan differed with me on this. He was strongly critical of Pandit Nehruji's decision to impose monogamy on Hindus alone. He said in 1995 that:
What is UN? It is ruled by just US and UK. France, China and Russia are just servants of US and UK and China got permanent membership because of US and UK. Who created India and got it partitioned in 1947 on the basis of religion? It is again UN ruled by US and UK. UN loves Pakistan and hates India. So never get surprised that why Taliban aided, abetted and armed by Pakistan have taken over Afghanistan and UN watching with smile on face! Hindus, Shia Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Muslims who migrated to Pakistan called Mohajjirs are raped, insulted, punished and then killed! Yet UN is proud always of Pakistan as it is the brain child of US and UK who rule UN and who want to crush India as patriotic Indians especially Hindus in large numbers forced Britishers to leave India.

It was UK who did not forget its defeat and so again advised Nehru our first PM to disregard the advice of Dr BR Ambedkar who favoured retention of polygamy in his Hindu Code Bill 1951 and he did accordingly by abolishing polygamy and polyandry among Hindus and also heeded to UK's decision to not abolish polygamy among Muslims so that slowly Muslims become majority and Hindus become minority and India never gets stability and they could again come back to rule India. Why monogamy imposed only on Hindus alone? Muslims enjoy maximum liberty in India all over the world and it is Muslims who can still indulge in polygamy even though Nehru abolished it among Hindus in 1955. This is most unfair and must be strongly condemned.

Why Hindus are forced to become Muslims to marry more than once? Polygamy should have been abolished for both or for none but Nehru very wrongly imposed monogamy only on Hindus which is most disgraceful and cannot be ever justified. Similarly why Muslims fight with Hindus in Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura which have been Hindu worshipping sites since ages. Should Ram temple be built in Mecca, Medina or in Ayodhya? Muslims should never fight over Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura which since thousands of years have been Hindus sites of pilgrimages just like Mecca and Medina are for Muslims. Muslims should be treated on par with Hindus and polygamy should be abolished among us also. This will greatly help in controlling the population also in our country.

When Hindus can be brought down to one both male and female then why can't Muslim males be also not brought down to one and Muslim females are already one as they unlike men cannot marry more than one? Centre and our law makers must give it a serious thought!

For far too long this most pressing issue of uniform civil code has been hanging fire and our law makers have just callously preferred to always look the other way around on it. Why is it that the son of former Chief Minister of Haryana – Bhajan Lal named Chander Mohan had to change his name to Chander Mohammed and so also Anuradha Bali had to assume a Muslim name Fizza and convert to Islam just to marry each other as Chander was already married and in Hindu religion one cannot marry than one? There are millions of such cases as we saw in case of film actor Dharmender where the conversion is purely on the temptation to marry more than one women! Why can't this sham end once and for all? Why can't law be same for one and all? Will it not help control population also if monogamy is imposed on one and all?

To put it mildly: When Hindus can be made to shun polygamy and polyandry in 1955 then why can't the same be done among Muslim men in 2021? My best friend Sageer Khan also always wanted Muslims to abolish polygamy as it is a bad practice and cannot be ever condoned! Sageer Khan also used to often ask: Why Centre trembles to do anything on this score? Why can't monogamy be imposed equally on people of all religion alike? It has become a fashion to marry more than one. This is the root cause of increase in population in India. This only shows that Hindus are most tolerant and Muslims are least tolerant. Centre must seriously ponder on it.

If Centre takes decisive action and after 75 years of independence summons the courage to abolish polygamy among people of all religions just like Pandit Nehruji summoned to do the same for Hindus in 1955 not just among men but also among women that is abolishing both polygamy and polyandry then population can be controlled to a great extent! But what an unbeatable irony that in last 75 years of independence no PM nor any Supreme Court Judge has ever gathered the guts, gall and gumption to call a spade a spade and abolish polygamy among people of all religion as my best friend Sageer Khan always advocated also and not keep quiet just because Hindus always keep quiet on their legal rights as Sageer said and as we see in case of polygamy also!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Najma vs Govt of NCT of Delhi a promise or assurance given by the Chief Minister in a press conference amounts to an enforceable promise and that a CM is expected to exercise his authority to give effect to such a promise.
It goes without saying that the population of India is increasing very rapidly which is a cause of grave concern
Madhav Sathe v Maharashtra a plea filed by two politician-applicants seeking quashing of a conviction order on the ground that they had settled the dispute with the victim-complainant.
Talibanis are entering in one go from Pakistan to Afghanistan to occupy it and massacre whoever comes in their way with full help, active support both moral and material with latest weapons
The purpose of this proposed law is to tackle the growing population in the State and so ensuring judicious and equal availability of all the resources in the State through a two-child policy.
Susmita Saha Dutta v/s UOI has outrightly rejected State Government's argument that police can't be held responsible for post-poll violence due to Election Commission of India's (ECI's) Model Code of Conduct.
Dumya Alias Lakhan Alias Inamdar, Etc vs Maharashtra the default sentences imposed on a convict cannot be directed to run concurrently.
Nine of our soldiers died in J&K and India will be playing T20 match with Pakistan on October 24? Do the lives of our soldiers carry no value?
o one can dare do what Congress can dare do in India. The biggest, bluntest and the boldest truth to prove my inevitable point lies in the irrefutable fact that it was the Congress party under the dynamic
West Bengal vs Suvendu Adhikari refused to interfere with an order of a Single Bench wherein criminal proceedings initiated against BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari who secured maximum limelight after he defeated Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in Nandigram by a convincing margin had been stayed.
Hasratullah Shervani v/s UP From perusal of the injury report, it prima facie supports the contents of first information report, therefore, in above circumstances and that the injured has turned hostile is of no consequence.
Lawyers Voice vs Punjabthere is a blame game between the State and Central Government as to who is responsible for such lapses.
High Court Bench must be created in West UP at Meerut even though his most commendable recommendation was not implemented in UPA's regime
Ashish Shelar v/s Maharashtra Legislative Assembly that the suspension of 12 BJP MLAs from the Maharashtra Assembly for a full year is prima facie unconstitutional and worse than expulsion as the constituency is remaining unrepresented.
dogged the limelight for quite some time over the wearing of hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka was most unfortunate.
hat had happened so brazenly with Muskan Khan even though she is a Muslim and I am a Hindu as there was no justification to haul her up in the manner
Dr Rajeev Gupta M.D. v. U.P. that it is like a termite in every system and once it enters the system, it keeps on getting bigger and bigger.
March a woman was shown offering namaz in a class in Sagar University
Shahida vs UP that tolerance, respect for all communities is essential to keep country united.
Madrasa-e-Anware Rabbani Waqf Committee v/s Surat Municipal Corporation on the ground that the construction was without prior permission of the competent authority.
Brinda Karat v. State of NCT of Delhi that: Hate speeches especially delivered by elected representatives, political and religious leaders based on religion, caste, region or ethnicity militate against the concept of fraternity, bulldoze the constitutional ethos, and violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution
she was squarely blamed single handedly for the terror acts that were perpetrated in Udaipur, Kanpur and other parts of the country.
had lashed out most severely at Nupur Sharma for being single handedly responsible for putting the entire nation on fire which drew scathing criticism
Kamini Arya Through Perokar vs NCT Of Delhi has taken suo motu cognizance to facilitate admission of an 8 year old child to school which could not be facilitated for the reason that her parents were in judicial custody in a murder case since July 2021.
Parvez Parwaz vs Uttar Pradesh dismissed a plea challenging denial of sanction to prosecute Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a case alleging making of hate speech in 2007
Vishwanath Pratap Singh vs Election Commission of Indiathat the right to contest an election is not a fundamental right but only a right conferred by a statute.
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyender Jain, dismissed the plea made by Delhi Health Minister challenging the trial court order transferring his money laundering case to another Judge.
Umar Khalid that the attack on police personnel during the 2020 North East Delhi riots by women protestors prima facie be covered by the definition of ‘terrorist act’ under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
United we stand and divided we fall! They also gloss over what Deanswift had once very famously
why Lord Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru is not the official father of the nation?
Ramaprasad Sarkar v. Union of India dismissed a PIL praying for a direction to the Central government to remove Jagdeep Dhankhar as the Governor of West Bengal, claiming that he was acting as the ‘mouthpiece of the Bharatiya Janata Party’.
Kapil Sibal himself says on record about Rahul Gandhi’s conviction that both the process and the outcome of the 2019 case are bizarre.
Mamata Banerjee is an Indian politician and the current Chief Minister of West Bengal. She was born on January 5, 1955, in Kolkata, West Bengal. Mamata Banerjee completed her education from Jogamaya Devi College and the University of Calcutta.
Shri Potsangbam Jaminikanta Singh v/s Manipur directed the State government to decongest the traffic on national highway in front of the Old Manipur Secretariat by making arrangements for proper parking of vehicles on both sides.
Shamim vs UP that it is a clear case of false implication due to political rivalry and property dispute. The Court also held that there is no material evidence to substantiate the prosecution case.
In my life, I definitely cannot ever even dare dream of a more bigger insult of legendary Prabhu Shri Ram
Top