Iron is hot; hit hard to forge ‘Akhand Bharat’!

Hyderabad: The ongoing violence, arson, and destruction of public property, particularly of the 1.31 crore Hindu population in Bangladesh, resulting in forcing Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to flee to India, should be seen as the God-given opportunity to annex the rogue State called Bangladesh along with its remote control, Pakistan!

In fact, India, which is the natural habitat of over 125 crore Hindu population has a legal, moral, and pious duty to go to the rescue of Hindus anywhere in the world when their very existence is in peril. The lives and property of Hindu citizens of Bangladesh today are in great danger. The perpetrators of heinous crimes on the unarmed, gullible Hindus have to be annihilated at once without losing a single moment.

The tacit approval of Hindu genocide in Bangladesh by the so-called protectors of human rights, national sovereignty, and integrity speaks volumes of the double standards and dubious nature. Most members of the Opposition bandwagon in India have maintained stoic silence over the gruesome situation in Bangladesh. On the other hand, some parties have started the rhetoric of popular wish, which forced Sheikh Hasina to run away from Dhaka, but they have no tears to shed on the Hindu victims of mob violence.

Clearly, the developments in Bangladesh cannot be brushed aside as the internal matter of that country because of the manifest opposition to the father of Bangladesh, which is evident from the demolition of the statue of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and enmity towards his daughter Sheikh Hasina, which has a direct nexus to the role played by India in creating Bangladesh in 1971.

Today, the situation is quite explosive. While the pro-Hindu Union government, despite the iron will, may have some political constraints in acting swiftly for reassuring the Hindus in Bangladesh, other non-government organisations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Bajrang Dal, Hindu Janjagruti Samiti, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and the like obviously have no such constraints. They should act proactively, firmly, and immediately.

Indeed, this is the right time to put a nail on the Jihadi elements not only in India but also in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Today, almost 80 per cent of the Islamic world has been engulfed in a war-like situation. Pakistan is burning, Bangladesh is also burning, and the US is busy with the forthcoming presidential elections in November; therefore, it can’t afford to play with either Bangladesh or Pakistan. The role of other European countries and Russia-China as the saviour of Bangladesh and Pakistan is also ruled out, as they have greater stakes in Ukraine. Iran, Turkey, Syria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Muslim countries are already embroiled in the Israel tangle.

In short, this is the most opportune time to annex both the rogue States, called Bangladesh and Pakistan, by military action. Before embarking on such a course, it is necessary to officially declare India the Hindu Rashtra, impose an Emergency in the country, enforce the defence protocol, deal firmly and effectively with the Jihadi and anti-national elements, and dissolve Parliament temporarily.

True, a lot of hue and cry will be raised by the anti-Hindu and anti-national forces, culminating in widespread communal violence, but it should be remembered that no sacrifice is bigger than the sacrifice for the sake of religion and for the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. This is a moment of joy for the Hindus to join the crusade for the establishment of Akhand Bharat!

SC deprecates the lawyer's brazen behaviour

While issuing notice to the respondent in an SLP titled Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, a division bench took a serious view of the brazen behaviour of the petitioner's counsel, who, when asked by the High Court to argue the matter, finally refused to do so and insisted that his third bail petition must be heard first.

The division bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, stated in the order that it is a different thing to say that I want some time to argue the case and seek adjournment, but the counsel cannot brazenly refuse to argue the matter altogether. Therefore, a rider was added by the court, which said both the petitioner and his counsel would tender an apology by way of an affidavit and submit the same to the High Court. After verifying compliance with this stipulation, further proceedings in the SLP will be taken up, the bench added.

Kerala HC on vexatious contempt cases

In a scathing attack on an advocate who filed a contempt of court case against a judicial officer, Justice C. Jayachandran of the Kerala High Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh.

Terming the case as mischievous and vexatious, the court held that in order to put an end to such mischievous litigation, it is the duty of the court to nip such activities in the bud.

The single judge found no merit in the contempt case and dismissed the same vide judgement dated August 2. (PM Kurien vs. . Deepa Mohan and others).

TG lawyers boycott courts, condemn police brutality

Advocates practising in Telangana courts protested against the police brutality on fellow advocate couple Amruth Rao and Kavita. They demanded stern action against the concerned police personnel.

The lawyers staged a dharna on the court premises and boycotted work on August 8 and 9 throughout the State. The Bar Council of Telangana and various Bar Associations demanded the enactment of the Advocates Protection Act.

Article 21 applies equally to all categories of crime: Bombay HC

A single-judge bench of Justice Urmila Joshi - Phadke of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, in an order dated August 6, held that the benefit of Article 21 is available to all accused, irrespective of the nature of the crime. Just because an accused has allegedly committed a serious crime, he can’t be deprived of the benefit of the Article, the court added.

"Long incarceration with the unlikelihood of the trial being completed in the near future is a good ground to grant bail," the court observed in its order in the case entitled Dattatray Shrikrushna Shejole Vs. State of Maharashtra.