While sitting with my friends on the road side beneath the Chinar tree making the fun of each other and discussing different things about Kashmir politics. Meanwhile beef politics became the topic of our discussion, it is when we saw on social websites such as facebook and whatsapp that Jammu bench of HC of J&K comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal had issued orders regarding the ban on sale of beef in Muslim dominated J&K while passing PIL registered by advocate Parimoksh Seth of Jammu. All the police officers were given the orders to abide by this decision and make its implantation sure and any body found slaughtering the beef producing animals were liable of severe punishment.
The decision hurted the religious sentiments of Muslim majority of Kashmir followed by the protests, describing it as anti-Islamic draconian law hurting the religious sentiments of people of Kashmir. As the decision on the one hand is justifying the safeguarding the religious sentiments of one section but on the other hand it is anti-Islamic and sacrificing the religious sentiments of Muslims for satisfying the Collective consciousness of Hindus. Every individual has Fundamental right to religion and every religion has its own code of rules which he has to follow and is obligatory for every individual to follow the laws of his own religion, it is the Fundamental Right of every individual to practice and propagate his religion, under Article 25 and Article 26 which are enforceable by the court, and every religion has right to eat what they want, to do what their religion allows them and nobody has a right to violate the Fundamental Rights of others and no judiciary can sacrifice the rights of one for the sake of another.
This decision is clearly anti-Islamic and devaluing the dignity of one religion for the other religion. The RSS and present government has become a threat to the Muslim religion and identity and dignity. In Sunil vs. Delhi Administration and Vikram vs State of Bihar (1988), Supreme court ruled that right to life (Article 21) means right to live with dignity and in another case Ramsahran vs union of India court interpreted that the term life includes human culture, tradition and heritage which gives meaning to human life. So how could you sacrifice the sentiments of one religion for other religion and devalue one religion for the sake if another? It is then clearly violation of Article 21 as ruled and elucidated and clarified by SC in Sunil vs. Delhi Administration and Vikram vs State of Bihar (1988) and Ramsahran vs union of India.
Judiciary was believed to be a legislative Avatar to give decisions without any bias keeping in view the religious feelings of every section of society but the Courts were politicized by dirty and communal politics of RSS and BJP. The ban on slaughtering of cows under Article 48 Part IV of Indian Constitution falls under Directives Principles of State Policy which are not enforceable in courts and this provision in itself contradicts and interfere with right to liberty and religion and ultravires while Right to express and practice the religion of his choice is Fundamental right and is enforceable in courts under Article 32 which has been described as Magna-Carta of Indian Constitution. So what is the profitability of recognizing such contradictory PIL by courts? And why government is more eager to implement it?
The RSS puppet rulers are trying to hinduise the whole India and trying to apply same policy in Kashmir but their draconian laws are not acceptable to Kashmir and Kashmir is not a ground or workshop where you can apply the RSS laws and decisions. Kashmir has a long history of its own regarding the brotherhood and fraternity towards the minority religions. Kashmir is a workshop of brotherhood but cannot become the workshop of the dirty politics of Nagpur installed government.