From: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 11:36 am
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Amendments to controversial Enemy Act rejected
New Delhi
iftikhar@tehelka.com
__._,_.___
****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:
http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68
http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Saturday, December 10, 2011
[mukto-mona] Fwd: [ALOCHONA] Amendments to controversial Enemy Act rejected
-
Here is a big difference between how India and Bangladesh operates. We just amended our "Enemy property act" but so called secular India decided to reject it. And many people wonder why India is not popular among her neighbors....
-----Original Message-----
Amendments to controversial Enemy Act rejected
Panel headed by Venkaiah Naidu rejects Bill that enabled legal heirs of those who migrated to Pakistan to claim their property
Iftikhar Gilani
Raja of Mahmoodabad's efforts to claim his huge ancestral properties have been stymied by a parliamentary panel which has unanimously rejected the amendments introduced in the controversial Enemy Property Act, 1968. The panel has asked the government to submit a fresh draft.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, which met here recently, was of the view that the Act could not be amended to benefit an individual. The members felt that the Bill was being introduced to help MA Mohammad Khan, the 'Raja' of Mahmoodabad, to get control of huge properties of his father and grandfather, spread across Uttar Pradesh, who had migrated to Pakistan.
The Bill was aimed to allow legal heirs to inherit the properties of relatives who migrated to Pakistan in 1947. But the panel said that it could have adverse impact on 2,186 such properties in the possession of a Mumbai-based government custodian and families living in them for decades.
The highest number of such properties, 1,468, are in UP, which saw the biggest Muslim exodus during and after partition. Other such properties are in Gujarat (63), Goa (35), Delhi (66), Maharashtra (25), Andhra (21), West Bengal (351), Kerala (24) and other states.
In the report, submitted to Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari on Thursday, the committee, which is headed by former BJP chief M Venkaiah Naidu, felt that enemy properties—worth crores—should not pass into hands of illegal claimants.
The original Bill was enacted to appoint a custodian to such properties that belonged to, or were held or managed on behalf of "an enemy, an enemy subject or an enemy first" and left behind by them. The amendments caused so much controversy that the government introduced one Bill after another to effect changes under pressure of Muslim MPs.
There was also a bit of controversy on the Bill impacting the long pending dispute in the Bombay High Court over Mumbai's Jinnah House, the prime property once owned by Pakistan's founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah and claimed by his New York-based 92-year-old daughter Dina Wadia. The government, however, clarified then that her rights over the mansion stood extinguished since it was acquired by the Ministry of External Affairs and no longer remained vested in the custodian.
Iftikhar Gilani is Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com.
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional