As Hajj season nears visit visa holders banned from entering Makkah from May 23 to June 21

Mangaluru, Apr 10: In a profound act of generosity and faith, senior businessman and Congress leader Inayath Ali has donated 1.5 acres of prime land in the heart of Mangaluru for the construction of a Haj Bhavan. The land—strategically located just 1.5 kilometres from the Mangaluru International Airport and adjacent to a major road—is estimated to be worth over ₹8 crore.

The donation, made earlier this week, has captured public attention not just for its magnitude, but for the spirit behind it. At a time when the nation is engaged in an intense debate over the recently passed Waqf (Amendment) Act, this selfless contribution opens a new chapter in understanding the true essence of waqf.

According to sources, the upcoming Haj Bhavan will house a mosque, and offer training and orientation services for pilgrims travelling to Mecca—providing both spiritual and logistical support to hundreds of Hajj aspirants from the region.

What sets this gesture apart is the absolute surrender of rights by Inayath Ali. Despite not being a high-profile industrialist or real estate mogul, he has forfeited all claims over the land. Under Islamic waqf principles, once a property is donated, neither the donor nor their descendants can reclaim or profit from it—making it a permanent endowment for the community.

This timely development is sparking fresh conversations about the spiritual and charitable foundations of waqf, especially amid allegations and controversies surrounding waqf properties in various parts of the country. Critics often claim that waqf lands have expanded disproportionately or were historically acquired from other communities. Inayath Ali’s donation stands as a counter-narrative—one that reflects the voluntary, sacred, and socially uplifting nature of such endowments.

For generations, Muslims—from wealthy businesspersons to humble individuals—have donated land and property to build mosques, madrasas, orphanages, and cemeteries. Elders from the coastal Muslim community affirm that such acts are not merely cultural traditions but are deeply rooted in the belief that sadaqah jariyah (a continuing charity) benefits the soul in both this world and the hereafter.

Inayath Ali’s contribution, thus, is not just a donation of land—it is a message of unity, service, and spiritual vision for generations to come.

In a country that brands itself the “Land of the Free,” pro-Palestine students are being treated like enemies of the state. The United States—once hailed as a beacon for academic freedom—is now using deportation threats, visa revocations, and AI surveillance to silence dissenting voices on its university campuses. What started as peaceful protest against the genocide in Gaza has turned into a full-scale purge of international students who dare to speak out. As global outrage grows, America's hypocrisy on free speech has never been more glaring—or dangerous.

Point-by-Point Summary:

•    Momodou Taal Forced Out:
British-Gambian activist and former Cornell PhD student Momodou Taal has left the U.S. after facing threats of deportation. His only “crime”: suing the Trump administration for policies targeting pro-Palestine students.

•    Bold Words from Exile:
Taal called out the U.S. for suppressing dissent and ignoring its own laws:
“Is imprisoning those who speak against genocide the kind of nation you want?”

•    300+ Visas Revoked:
Trump-era directives have led to mass deportations of foreign students who participated in or supported Gaza solidarity protests.

•    Rubio's Harsh Justification:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the move, calling student protesters “lunatics” and stressing the government’s right to “remove you from our country.”

•    ACLU Slams Hypocrisy:
ACLU's Ben Wizner warned that the U.S. is now driving away the world’s brightest minds by criminalizing intellectual dissent.

•    Targeted Individuals:

•    Iranian student Alireza Doroudi arrested without cause.

•    Turkish student Rumeysa Ozturk lost her visa for an op-ed criticizing the Israeli regime.

•    Indian scholar Ranjani Srinivasan fled after agents showed up unannounced.

•    Korean resident Yunseo Chung, a green card holder, is still fighting deportation.

•    Professor Rasha Alawieh was deported despite holding a valid visa.

•    AI Used for Surveillance:
Reports confirm U.S. authorities are using artificial intelligence to flag students based on social media activity—even likes or shares.

•    Selective Freedom:
No pro-Israel lobbyist or supporter has faced deportation, even amid cases of inciting violence and harassment.

•    Global Consequences:
Calls to boycott U.S. universities are growing. The crackdown has undermined America’s status as a hub of academic freedom and global talent.

•    Final Warning:
The U.S. now risks not only its academic integrity but its moral standing. In defending a genocide abroad, it’s committing a slow-motion purge at home.

In a controversial statement that has sparked alarm among legal experts and constitutional scholars, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its bounds, particularly targeting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President,” Mr. Dhankhar said, suggesting that the judiciary is interfering with the powers of the executive. He further described Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do "complete justice" — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.”

This incendiary metaphor has drawn backlash for implying that judicial independence — a cornerstone of democracy — is somehow hostile or dangerous. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines public trust in the judiciary and risks damaging the careful separation of powers between branches of government.

While addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, the Vice President also referred to a serious incident involving a Delhi High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered in March. He questioned the delayed disclosure of the incident and criticized the absence of an FIR against the judge.

“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including the one before you... But if it is Judges, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,” he argued.

He went on to question why judges, unlike the President and Governors, appear to enjoy immunity not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

“If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart,” he remarked, criticizing the pace of response and investigation.

Why These Remarks Are Dangerous

While scrutiny of public institutions is necessary in a democracy, the Vice President’s remarks are concerning for several reasons:

1.    Undermining Judicial Authority: By calling Article 142 a "nuclear missile," the Vice President risks portraying the judiciary as a threat rather than a guardian of constitutional rights.

2.    Challenging Separation of Powers: The suggestion that courts should not “direct” the President could erode judicial checks on executive inaction or overreach, especially when constitutional responsibilities are being delayed or ignored.

3.    Eroding Public Confidence: As the Vice President of India — also the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha — such statements carry institutional weight. Attacks on judicial legitimacy can embolden other political actors to disregard court rulings, weakening the rule of law.

4.    Threatening Judicial Independence: Implying that judges should be more easily prosecuted, without proper due process and internal accountability, could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

5.    Fueling Distrust During Sensitive Times: At a moment when public trust in institutions is essential, these remarks may sow unnecessary suspicion and politicize judicial matters that require careful and independent handling.

The Vice President’s speech has ignited a vital conversation about accountability and judicial conduct. However, framing the judiciary as a rogue institution and questioning its constitutional powers without nuance is fraught with danger. Safeguarding democracy requires mutual respect and balance among all pillars of governance — executive, legislature, and judiciary. When this balance is disturbed through political rhetoric, it threatens not just institutions, but the very foundation of constitutional democracy.