Salvation Of Country Lies In Identifying People As Indians, With Communal Identities Playing Secondary Role: Karnataka High Court
In lauding the communal concord exhibited by individuals within the border space of Hyderabad and Karnataka, the Karnataka Excessive Courtroom has noticed, “The salvation of the nation lies in figuring out human beings as a human being and as an Indian with the opposite identities taking part in a secondary function.”
Justice M I Arun identified that Yadgiri District, which is part of Hyderabad Karnataka space, celebrates communal concord, which is mostly present in Hyderabad-Karnataka space. This consists of the participation of each Hindus and Muslims within the festivals of one another’s communities.
It stated “The establishments like Sharanabasaveshwar Temple, Khaja Bandanawaz Dargah, are examples of the communal concord, which could be adopted by your complete nation…In tune with the communal concord, Muharram pageant of the Muslim neighborhood can be celebrated by Hindus, whereby sure Hindu Deities are additionally worshipped by each Muslims and Hindus in the course of the pageant.”
These observations had been made whereas listening to a petition filed by Madiga Dandora, which acknowledged that in Tumkur village in Vadagera Taluk of Yadgiri district, a Hindu Deity known as Kashimalli is worshipped by each Hindus and Muslims, and the Muharram pageant can be celebrated by a people dance known as ‘Alai Bhosai Kunitha’ in entrance of the village temple.
Members of the Madiga Neighborhood additionally take part within the stated celebrations. The celebration additionally entails beating of halige (a sort of percussion instrument) by the Madiga Neighborhood.
Nevertheless, it was felt that they had been being made to beat the identical as a result of they had been untouchables, and for that motive, they stopped beating the identical, however took half within the festivities. This gave rise to a communal disharmony between the higher caste Hindus and the Madiga neighborhood, which resulted in communal clashes.
Thus, the petitioner gave a illustration to the authorities involved to ban public festivities, together with ‘Alai Bhosai Kunitha’ in the course of the Muharrum pageant within the village. Because it was not thought of, they approached the courtroom.
In response, the federal government advocate filed an affidavit of Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri, whereby it was submitted that it isn’t advisable to go forward with Muharram festivities in Tumkur village, Vadagera taluka, Yadgiri district, within the gentle of the prevailing circumstances.
Following which the bench noticed, “It’s unlucky {that a} Muslim pageant, which is being celebrated harmoniously by each Hindus and Muslims has resulted in communal clashes between higher caste Hindus and the Dalits.”
Then it stated “The State ought to promote festivities, which spreads the message of peace and communal concord between a number of communities, however, nonetheless, when it isn’t attainable, the choice is greatest left to the State authorities and within the current circumstances, the State authorities are required to determine whether or not the festivities are required to be gone forward with or not.”
“A neighborhood has a proper to rejoice a pageant with out scary the opposite communities. Nevertheless, a selected neighborhood can not pressure one other neighborhood to do an act, which they despise, solely on the bottom that it has been completed historically by them,” it added.
Following this, it directed the respondents to think about the illustration of the petitioner in addition to hear all of the stakeholders within the festivities and thereafter take applicable selections in accordance with legislation.
It clarified, “It’s unnecessary to state that, if the festivities are gone forward with, nobody can compel the Madiga neighborhood to beat the halige (a sort of percussion instrument) and it’s the responsibility of the State to offer ample safety for the contributors.”
Look: Advocate Vinay Swamy C for Petitioner.
AGA Mallikarjun Sahukar for Respondent.
Quotation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
