Re: [IAC#RG] Definition of "Hindu"

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Guys and gals generally have disconnects on marriage.

Yes, it is not a good thing. 

 

There is no such thing as "India". It is a forced amalgamation brought about by the Mughals and then completed by the British. Like any amalgam it can be easily separated into its pure constituents - Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Brahmos and "everyone else" (@aka Hindus)

Sorry boss, India is a country with a government and political borders.  Its origins may be a regional amalgamation, but it is most certainly a country now.

<snip>
Rivalry and Competition between religions is BAD (for the nation) ??? Then what do you suggest, one common religion for everyone, or no religion at all ? It is only when the tenets and beliefs of 1 religion are tested against those of another that both religions adapt to survive (Darwin).

I do think rivalry and competition between religions is bad for the country. In my view, dividing people on the basis of identities and then pitting them against each other makes for insecurity, malice and usually profits the thugs, while putting ordinary citizens at disadvantage and risk. As for the "common religion", etc. You are confusing religion with personal law. No one is forbidding religion. It is a personal matter and not for the state to promote or prohibit.

<snip>

There are essentially only 4 religions in India. Islam, Christianity, Brahmoism and everyone else (@Hindus). Flying Sphagettos are classified as Hindus. Even major religions like Sikhs and Jains and Buddhists are all Hindus in law. Muslims are subsidised because they don't get caste benefits which are given to Hindus. Scheduled caste followers of Dio Sphagetto will get those Hindu benefits but Muslim one's wont.

Followers of Dio Spaghetto, the Holy Slying Spaghetti Monster are called Pastafarians. We Pastafarians are allowed dual religionality if we want, but most follow only Pastafarianism, and are not Hindus. 

 

Marriage is alternatively a sacrament and not only a contract. A father will contract to give his daughter in marriage for Rs. 1,000 and the girl is bound to it for life ? Luckily the Govt doesn't agree that marriage is a contract and treats it instead as a sacrament with the State filling the shoes of God.

Marriage is a sacrament to those who believe it. As a social, manufactured relationship, there is no requirement that it be a sacrament. Nor is the purpose of marriage to create babies. Plenty of people have babies without marriage, and plenty of known barren people marry. And while the moral police may have a fit over the first, the second usually doesn't raise objections, which it would if the purpose of marriage were creating "little me"s.

In my view, a marriage is between a couple, and everything other than the consent of the couple is an additional feature. Marriage without the consent of the couple should be treated as trafficking - these ain't breeding farms.

 <snip>

No, no of course women are not scooters to be parked. The law says that women ARE NO LONG TO BE TREATED as "goods, chattel or  cattle". The Law does not guarantee equality, it guarantees equity (Big difference). Equals cannot be treated unequally, and unequals cannot be treated equally.

To my knowledge, article 14 of constitution is about EQUALITY before law. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex (among other things). Enough said. 

The woman is given a choice by the law - return to your husband IF he is asking you to come back OR ELSE face the consequences of not returning to him because THEN you Woman are the party interested in breaking the marriage (which is a sacred institution .. to be preserved .. blah blah ..)

Which is a typical tactic by abusive families to claim desertion when the woman exits an abusive home. If we are to define rights by how laws are misused, then there is no point to this farce. 

Basic fact is that if the woman can live and work anywhere in the country, no one ought to be forcing her into her marital home if she is living in another place of her free will.

Which is why most  "Cruelty" applications for divorce are met by a "restore my conjugal rights" application.

Forced sex is rape. Whether a judge forces it, a husband forces it or your garden variety rapist. Legal coercion is no less coercion. 

 

<snip>

All these Counsellors, Social workers, Respected elders etc etc are already contained in the Family Law. eg. see Order XXXII-A CPC.

Then there is no need to also make judges do the same thing. That too in abject violation of the women's rights. 

Every citizen has the Fundamental Right to move FREELY throughout the territory of India. Personal law cannot stop that.
 

And I assume you consider women citizens as well. Then we are in agreement. 

 

<snip>

Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it.

Everyone's  mileage may vary on what the lesson is. Women haven't got too much to celebrate in the history men revere.

 

 
No such thing as Bisexual / Homosexual MARRIAGE.

Why not? 

Purpose of marriage is to produce babies and raise them in a stable family unit. LGBT unions cannot do this. Indian law does not allow 2 people of same sex to get married (take the media / tabloid stories with large pinch of salt).

Not true. Or kindly quote some legal document (which will need to be fought). With your logic, it isnt just LGBT unions that cannot take place, infertile people should not marry either, it seems. Nor should aged people marry. Nor should people with handicaps, genetic problems, and other factors which make reproduction not possible, too risky, or not recommended. Soon, poor people may not afford to have kids either. Malnourished girls must most certainly not be married till they are healthy. And so on. The "babies" argument is pure rubbish.

Vidyut