Dr. Majid Ahmed Talikoti, a renowned oncosurgeon, announced his candidacy for the presidency of the India Islamic Cultural Centre (IICC) during a press conference at Hotel Riverview in Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.
Dr. Talikoti highlighted his diverse interactions with people from various walks of life as a key factor in his decision to engage with IICC. “As a surgeon, I interacted with people from different walks of life, and I know how to deal and serve people. That’s why I decided to engage myself with IICC,” he stated.
Dr. Talikoti, who is well-regarded in the medical community, aims to showcase IICC as a beacon of Islamic heritage and culture. He emphasized the peaceful nature of Islam and the importance of promoting this message through IICC. “Given a chance, I will try to showcase IICC as a prominent center of Islamic heritage and culture. Islam is a religion of peace, and I would try my best to send the message of peace through this Centre. We are supposed to welcome our non-Muslim brothers on Eid and join them on Diwali,” Dr. Talikoti said.
Dr. Talikoti outlined his vision for IICC, focusing on maintaining a non-political, brotherly atmosphere during the election and beyond. He stressed the importance of adhering to IICC’s aims and objectives, which include fostering youth empowerment and initiating interfaith dialogues to bridge community gaps. “We will not fight this election as a political battle, but in a brotherly manner in a very congenial atmosphere and try to keep the center away from politics, following the aims and objectives of IICC. We will develop IICC as a center of empowerment for youths and start interfaith dialogues to bridge the gap between communities,” he asserted.
With the support of former IICC president Sirajuddin Quraishi, Dr. Talikoti’s campaign has garnered significant attention. He is also the convener of the Muslim Rashtriya Manch (MRM), an RSS-affiliated organization formed in 2002 to facilitate dialogue with the Muslim community.
Established in 1981, IICC is a premier institution in New Delhi dedicated to promoting and preserving Islamic culture and heritage. It aims to foster cultural exchange, interfaith dialogue, and communal harmony through various educational, social, and cultural programs.
The election campaign for the governing body of IICC has officially commenced, with candidates contesting for posts of president, vice president, and members of the Board of Trustees (BoT) and Executive Committee (EC) promising significant shifts in the center’s functioning. The election is scheduled for August 13th.
Among the other presidential candidates are ex-cabinet minister Salman Khurshid, retired IRS officer Abrar Ahmad, former bureaucrat Afzal Amanullah, businessman and philanthropist Waseem Ghazi, businessman M. Asif Habib, and BJP activist Suhail Hindustani. Each candidate brings unique perspectives and visions, making this election a pivotal moment for IICC’s future.
Interestingly, Dr. Majid Talikoti’s panel includes Kaleemul Hafeez, who is contesting for the post of vice president. Until recently Hafeez has been a sharp critic of Serajuddin Quraishi, the former IICC president, who is also running for membership on the Board of Trustees (BoT)
Md Irshad Ahmad Advocate, Supreme Court of India & Former President, AMUOBA-DELHI is also contesting for BoT from this panel.
source: http://www.muslimmirror.com / Muslim Mirror / Home> Indian Muslim / by Special Correspondent / June 25th, 2024
The petitioner alleged that Khurshid has misused his fundamental right to freedom of expression in a very complex manner as it is not absolute.
Congress leaders Digvijay Singh, P. Chidambaram and Salman Khurshid at the launch of ‘Sunrise over Ayodhya’ book on November 10. Photo: Facebook.
New Delhi:
The Delhi high court Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking direction to the Centre and Delhi government to ban the sale and publication of Congress leader Salman Khurshid’s book Sunrise Over Ayodhya: Nationhood In Our Times.
A bench of chief justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh pulled up the petitioner for not impleading the author of the book or publication house as a party to the plea, saying he was a chance taking petitioner who has filed the plea for publicity.
“You want a complete ban on the book but you have not made the author a party. You may ask any heaven or sky. We may dismiss it with costs. You are not joining the author as a party. Stop doing this activity in court. Why are you feeling so shy and not joining the author as a party. We will not give you any chance, this is a deliberate move. These are all chance-taking petitioners. It is for publicity,” the bench said.
After some time, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition and file a fresh one with proper averments, annexures and joining proper persons as parties.
The court allowed him to withdraw the petition and disposed it of as withdrawn.
“He has no courage to join Salman Kurshid as a party, what type of PIL (Public Interest Litigation) he will argue. If you are so much worried about the name of the author or the senior advocate, you should not have filed the PIL. These are blackmailing or publicity petitions. This is a waste of time PIL,” the bench said.
Petitioner Rakesh, in his plea through advocates A.K. Dubey and Pawan Kumar, alleged that Khurshid has misused his fundamental right to freedom of expression in a very complex manner as it is not absolute and carries with it special duties and responsibilities towards public interest.
It said there are 90 crore Hindus in the country and if anyone takes offence of such statements made in the book, it could become a law and order problem in society.
“Salman Khurshid has written in the chapter that Sanatan Dharma and classical Hinduism known to sages and saints was being pushed aside by a robust version of Hindutva, by all standards a political version similar to the jihadist Islam of groups like ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and Boko Haram of recent years,” it said.
Khurshid’s new book on the Ayodhya dispute was released recently.
On November 17, an additional civil judge here had refused to grant an ex-parte injunction on a lawsuit by Hindu Sena president Vishnu Gupta to stop the publication, circulation, and sale of the book for allegedly hurting sentiments of a large section of society.
While declining interim relief, the trial court had said the author and publisher had the right to write and publish the book.
(PTI)
source: http://www.thewire.in / The Wire / Home> English> Books> Government> Law / by PTI / November 30th, 2021
The senior Congress leader talks Pakistan, triple talaq, Indian Muslims, and his party’s need for a new vocabulary
Congress leader, former Foreign Minister and lawyer Salman Khurshid is a man of many parts. From tomorrow, he will be appearing in the Supreme Court as amicus curiae in the controversial triple talaq case. In a wide-ranging conversation, he talks about the triple talaq issue, what it means to be a Muslim in Narendra Modi’s India, the need in the Congress party for a new narrative, and the problem with the government’s Pakistan policy. Excerpts from the interview:
Why have you offered your services to the Supreme Court on triple talaq?
Why not? It may have a political context, but it’s not necessary to look at it in a political context. It can be seen in pure humanistic terms, and towards (developing) a pure understanding of the sociology of Islam. Instead of a partisan approach, we can have an objective discussion that will be helpful for both parties, the court and society. I have done some research, I offered it to the court and am very encouraged that the court accepted it.
But for the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), it is a political issue.
In politics, [you can] pose something for the benefit of a segment of society; or you can propose something [because] it gives you political advantage. If the BJP is genuinely concerned about the welfare of Muslim women, then it is understandable. If they are doing it to excite aversion to Muslims, it’s very sad. My view is that they may be taking a simplistic political stand. Therefore I hope an objective understanding of triple talaq will be an appropriate response.
The Muslim ulema see it as an interference in personal laws.
That’s their point of view. There are many other points of view. If ulema from elsewhere in the world and ulema from India have different positions then there needs to be a dialogue between the two sets of ulema rather than for Indian Muslims to say we will only listen to the Indian ulema.
Do you think the BJP is gradually moving towards enacting a Uniform Civil Code?
Maybe, but anyone in the BJP who thinks framing a Uniform Civil Code is about removing elements of Islam from the law in this country is barking up the wrong tree because there are many more complicated issues that arise. Let me give you an example: what is the position of the BJP on same-sex marriages? If you have a Uniform Civil Code, you can’t stop at traditional attitudes towards human relations.
Isn’t there a court ruling already on triple talaq?
There are High Court rulings and one specifically from Delhi of Justice Badar Ahmed which is very explicit: the ruling doesn’t say we will overrule triple talaq, it says there is no such thing as triple talaq. The world over, the majority view of Muslim thinkers is that there is no such thing as triple talaq. Even if you say talaq three times, it amounts to talaq being said only once. So we have to look at the texts more closely and then come to a conclusion.
Is triple talaq really a big issue for Muslim women?
It is not an issue at all, but anyone who feels the threat of adversity would like to stand up against it. But for the BJP to assume that Muslim women think only it can save them from this adversity is completely wrong. There are systems within Islam, and an understanding within the Muslim community that does not favour triple talaq. In fact, triple talaq is largely a propagation and promotion of Hindi movies.
You have written at least two books in which you have dwelt at length on what it means to be a Muslim in India. What does it mean to be a Muslim in Narendra Modi’s India?
Those books are already dated. What it means today is to understand what it means to be irrelevant. And you cannot blame Mr. Modi or [Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister] Yogi Adityanath for making Muslims irrelevant. The BJP is a political party and it has to win elections, and they have won elections by making Muslims irrelevant. But Muslims have played a major role in making themselves irrelevant.
Muslims have been wrongly described as a political group that is captive of the Congress and other liberal parties. They were participants in the Congress movement because it was the only movement that vigorously fought against Partition, refuted the idea of a divided India. So Muslims of India are those who rejected the idea of Pakistan. Where would they go? There have been disappointments with the Congress. Periodically, they return to the Congress. That’s how 10 years of UPA rule was possible. But Muslims have been constantly attacked for being Congress lackeys and the Congress has been attacked for appeasement of Muslims.
However, the fact remains that Muslims are not the only ones who have made themselves irrelevant. The liberals have made themselves completely irrelevant. The liberal voices are in complete isolation. It is liberal India that stood up for the minorities and women.
On the subject of appeasement of Muslims by the Congress, the A.K. Antony Report after the 2014 elections hinted that that might have been part of the problem.
I have not seen the report but I don’t accept the report has this because I have spoken to Mr. Antony. He said he was saying this is in the context of political structures in Kerala, it was not a general proposition.
That is not how it is read in your party.
My party has all kinds of characters but I don’t think they have a right to claim they speak for the party. I can say with enormous confidence that either in private conversations or in public we haven’t heard such a direction from our top leadership.
You mean Sonia and Rahul Gandhi.
Yes, yes. But there is ideology, principle and perception. If a perception is being created against the Congress, then we have to learn the idiom and the manner of presentation so that we don’t become susceptible to perception. And that’s where some of our colleagues are lacking.
We are not an NGO, we are a political party. And therefore, what needs to be said has to be said in a manner that will unite, not divide people. We were under a lot of pressure from the NGOs to use a language that is unfortunately divisive. The Congress has a very inclusive and nationalistic idiom that it has used in the protection of minorities and of vulnerable sections of our society. If we lose that idiom, we will be hurt, and that’s what the BJP has done. It doesn’t mean that we have second thoughts on our ideology.
Doesn’t the party need a new narrative?
Of course, we need a new narrative, a redrafting of strategies, a change in vocabulary. I would say fight for liberal India, you don’t have to fight for secular India. If people are unwilling to understand what secularism means, we should take the larger picture and talk of liberalism.
Define it as freedom, the right to express yourself, do things that you want to do in a way that does not impinge on the other person, community. That’s how all liberal societies define themselves and that’s how India should define itself till such time as we can get the balance back to speak more freely and more openly about the rights of minorities.
It’s been three years since 2014 but there is no talk of a new narrative in the Congress.
In our party we tend to concentrate more on organisation. There’s always a lot of good people available all the time but the larger winning strategy — of course the changes you make in the organisation are absolutely indispensable, the fresh flavour, the fresh passion, fresh vigour to work, reorganise yourself — will come from new thought processes. Perhaps we have not done enough of that. We did this when we had conclaves in the past in the years before we came to office in 2004, we built up a narrative that brought us to power for 10 years. I think a similar exercise is called for.
What will you say about the BJP’s Pakistan policy?
Disastrous. They have not understood Pakistan. Mr. Modi thought it was all about hugs and kisses, and the amazing charm that won him elections in India would win him Pakistan. He has realised that is not the case. Pakistan is a hard nut, very complicated case. Not only are they convinced that their existence is hugely dependent on the continuing disharmony with India but also that their internal structures are very finely balanced on hostility towards India.
In all my references to Pakistan, I have said we must stand by the government. It is our duty and obligation that the nation remains united and speaks in one voice. But frankly, how long can we keep our eyes shut and not cry out in pain about what is going on — the repeated casualties and no explanations? What happened to all those promises of we will fix them, show them what India is… There are no easy answers, but you can’t show you are weak as far as your military preparedness is concerned.
What about dialogue?
Let them say that dialogue will never be resumed. You start it, one day you stop it. Nowhere in the world does conflict end without dialogue. To hold out a promise that there won’t be a dialogue is silly.
There will be dialogue at an appropriate time and under appropriate conditions after we have no reason to feel a sense of weakness. Casualties must stop, that is the first priority and it won’t stop by begging Pakistan to stop it. We must have the strength to stop it.
source: http://www.thehindu.com / The Hindu / Home> Opinion> The Wednesday Interview – Interview / by Smita Gupta / May 10th, 2017
Observing that disparities between the rich and the poor are growing, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid today pitched for a new global awakening and a means to meet the needs of the poorest “effectively and adequately”.
“We are living in a complex world where disparities between the rich and the poor, as just being told, are wide and continue to grow. The world population continues to grow and increase globally,” he said during the inaugaral address of the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit.
“Consequently, the needs also grow exponentially. We, therefore, need a new global awakening to be able to deal with disparities and means by which the needs of the poorest can be met effectively and adequately,” Khurshid said.
He said this was not just a political imperative, as has been reminded due to important and dramatic changes taking place in several countries of the world, but also a moral obligation. He asked the global community to take urgent steps to anticipate future challenges and start dealing with them right away in the wake of growing problems of energy, water and food.
“Problems of energy, water and food are likely to become more acute over time unless we take urgent steps globally to anticipate future challenges in this regard and start dealing with them right away,” Khurshid said. He said while large number of people in this world do not have access to electricity, there are others who are living under the shadow of water shortages, hunger and malnutrition.
“Continuation of these conditions will lead to global tensions and threats to lasting peace. The global community and international organisations in particular have to be at the forefront of efforts — to change directions if need be — and take such initiatives as are required to solve these problems,” Khurshid said. He said India has placed great emphasis on food, water and energy and no global efforts to live in peace together will be possible unless we ensure sustainable development.
source: http://www.dnaindia.com / DNA / Home> India / Thursday – February 06th, 2014
