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

Inline

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Vidyut Kale <wide.aware@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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.

India is not a country. It is a loosening Federation of States ruled by corrupt rulers, held together by toilet paper bearing Gandhi's visage.
 
<snip>
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. 

You are sadly mistaken that Patafarians have DUAL religionality.  They have TRIPLE- Religionality !!!

Pastafarians are Brahmos. They are Pirates who oppose Intelligent design. Bobby Henderson's letter of Jan 2005 was sent on behalf of 10 million Brahmos. The first 2 founders of Brahmoism (Raja RamMohan Roy and Dwarkanath tagore) were both notorious Pirates who were distributing Indian "candy" to child emperors in China to fund the religion.

Pirates are "absolute divine beings" and the original Pastafarians.Furthermore, Pastafarians believe that the concept of pirates as "thieves and outcasts" is misinformation spread by Christian theologians in the Middle Ages and by Hare Krishnas. Instead, Pastafarians believe that they were "peace-loving explorers and spreaders of good will" who distributed candy to small children, adding that modern pirates are in no way similar to "the fun-loving buccaneers from history".

Its no coincidence that we are the only 2 Desi-Pirates of India.
 

 <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. 

You stress the Equality but ignore the "before law" part.

http://www.preservearticles.com/2011111216872/essay-on-right-to-equality-under-article-14-of-indian-constitution.html

http://www.legalblog.in/2011/02/right-to-equality-article-14-reasonable.html

"It is settled law that equals must be treated equally and unequal treatment to equals would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. But, it is equally well-established that unequals cannot be treated equally. Equal treatment to unequals would also be violative of 'equal protection clause' enshrined by Article 14 of the Constitution. "

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/344273/
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1045661/

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.

You are ARTIFICIALLY separating 2 connected issues.

A married woman from Chennai goes to Delhi to work. If the husband objects and goes to go court asking for Rest. of Conj Rrights which the woman does not agree to, it is CRUELTY and DESERTION against the husband. The Court must then see if it is possible to preserve the marriage under these circumstances and MAINLY how the children, if any,  are to be protected. You cant expect a man to go without sex, and if he does so outside marriage it becomes grounds against him of adultery ?? Essentially, it is not possible to make general laws for such specific examples.

If marriage is treated as contract law as you favour, then it is essentially (after stripping away all the sham,  pretence and hypocrisy)  means that marriage is legalised prostitution and both sides are only in it for what they can get in the short term - so who gives a damn for the children !!.

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.

They do it, the judges confirm it if all sides agree it is just and fair.,

Vidyut

Sarbajit