History of India:-In 2005, when Mulayam Singh Yadav was in power in Uttar Pradesh and Manmohan Singh was at the center, the Taj Mahal was given to the Waqf. What happened next? How was the Taj Mahal saved from becoming private property?
The most interesting battle for the Muslim vote is between the Congress and the Samajwadi Party. Due to this, the Taj Mahal became private property, meaning it was a Waqf property, for a short time.
During the UPA regime, the Waqf Act, Jamia as a Muslim University, Muslim reservations, the Minority Ministry, and Ranganath and Sachar were being implemented to appease Muslims. Then, the SP government in UP stepped forward and said, "We will give the Taj Mahal to the Waqf!"
On July 13, 2005, a formal order was passed by the UP Sunni Waqf Board. The Chairman's instructions were sent to the CEO of the Waqf Board. The Taj Mahal was registered as a Waqf property. The Taj Mahal became private.
At this time, the Chairman of the UP Sunni Waqf Board, Hafiz Usman, was a Samajwadi Party MLA. He also served as the President of the Aligarh Muslim University Students Union.
Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav said, "The state government will not interfere in the Waqf Board's affairs."
He added, "Those with complaints should go to court."
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) rushed to the Supreme Court. Congress leader Salman Khurshid later stood up to represent the Waqf Board.
The Supreme Court asked the Waqf Board, "Where are the documents proving that Shah Jahan owned the Taj Mahal? He will give the Taj Mahal to the Waqf only when he becomes its owner. The documents will have to be produced."
The Chief Justice said, "We need a document with Shah Jahan's handwriting and signature proving that he gave the property to the Waqf. When did he sign it while he was in jail? Where is his will?"
If the documents were not available, the Waqf Board's order was stayed.
Will the common man be able to approach the Supreme Court against such claims by the Waqf Board?
In 2018, the UP Waqf Board withdrew its claim, narrowly escaping the Taj Mahal from becoming private property. With the change of government, the atmosphere had changed.
A strange story is unfolding in the country.
The land is Indian. The marble is Indian. All the artisans are Indian. The sweat was shed by local people. The construction costs were paid for by the taxes of local farmers.
But did the property become Shah Jahan's? Shah Jahan didn't register the land in his name.
Indeed, a large part of the country was under the control of the emperors. What if they had given the entire country to the Waqf Board?
No one loses anything by making a claim. Tomorrow, a claim will be made on the Red Fort. Congress has passed a law in favor of the Waqf Board. It has been given unlimited power.
India's historical buildings of national importance are not private property, but the property of the Indian people.
The Taj Mahal is government property by a government order dated November 18, 1920. The Indian government has acquired this property from the British governmen
1 comment:
Why Leninism and Maoism failed after 7 and 3 decades though they claim to establish utopian societies? AI Deep Drive: Analysing the decline or transformation of Leninist and Maoist systems involves looking at the gap between revolutionary theory and governance reality. While both ideologies aimed to bypass the inequalities of capitalism to create a classless utopia, they encountered several systemic "failure points."
Here is an analysis of why these systems struggled to maintain their original forms.
1. The Economic Calculation Problem
The primary driver for the shift in both the USSR (Leninism) and China (Maoism) was economic stagnation.
Central Planning vs. Complexity: Both systems relied on top-down directives. As economies grew more complex, central planners couldn't accurately price goods or predict consumer needs, leading to chronic shortages or massive surpluses of useless items.
The Incentive Gap: By removing the profit motive and implementing "iron rice bowl" policies (guaranteed jobs regardless of performance), productivity plummeted.
The Transition: In China, this led to the 1978 "Reform and Opening-up" under Deng Xiaoping, effectively replacing Maoist economics with State Capitalism to survive.
2. Institutional Rigidities and "The New Class"
Both Lenin and Mao sought to destroy the old ruling classes, but critics (like Milovan Djilas) argue they inadvertently created a "New Class" of party bureaucrats (the Nomenklatura).
Bureaucratic Ossification: Over decades the revolutionary zeal faded into a desire for stability and privilege among party elites.
Lack of Feedback Loops: Without a free press or competitive elections, leadership often became trapped in "echo chambers," unaware of the severity of ground-level problems until they reached a crisis point (e.g., the Chernobyl disaster or the Great Leap Forward).
3. The "Succession Crisis"
One of the most significant political weaknesses of these systems is the lack of a clear, peaceful mechanism for transferring power.
Personalist Rule: Leninism and Maoism often devolved into the "Cult of Personality." When a strongman leader dies (Lenin, Stalin, Mao), it often triggers a violent or destabilizing power struggle.
Ideological Drift: Successors often found that to maintain power, they had to dismantle the very policies of their predecessors (e.g., Khrushchev’s "De-Stalinization" or Deng’s rejection of the Cultural Revolution).
4. Totalitarian Overreach
Maoism, in particular, relied on Permanent Revolution—the idea that the population must be constantly mobilized.
Social Exhaustion: After decades of mass campaigns like the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese population experienced "political fatigue." People prioritized stability and material wealth over ideological purity.
The Cost of Repression: Maintaining a massive security apparatus to enforce ideological conformity drained resources and stifled the innovation necessary to compete with the West during the Information Age.
Post a Comment