YOU WRITE BEAUTIFULLY AND HOWSOEVER YOUR VIEWS AND REASONING MAY BE GENUINE BUT THIS ALL IS SUBVERTED WHEN YOU WISH OR ENTERTAIN A VISION OF ALL INDIANS BEING HINDUSTANI, BECAUSE MUSLIMS CAN ONLY BE MUSLIMS ( THOUGH THEIR FOREFATHERS WERE ALL HINDUS AND WERE CONVERTED TO ISLAM)
From: Ranjit Rai <ranjitrai123@gmail.com>
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"
In my book Indians Why We Are What We Are I had great diffculty
defining who is Indian.
The chapter and book cover attached.
Ranjit Rai
On 27 April 2013 13:10, Gaur J K <gaurjk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir,
There is no need to define ,who is Indian. If you consider Constitution as supreme, you may also see provisions relating to citizenship there in and by implication every citizen is an Indian.
gaur
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:02:17 +0530
From: vijoy.ambasta@gmail.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"
Dear FriendsThis ridiculous talk on who is Hindu is superfluous. Let us only define who is Indian. The constitution is supreme and nothing can supercede this even. Individual rights OK but they cannot be at cross purpose with the Constitution of India that is supremeVijoy K ambasta
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
The British Law is the only point we CAN start from. The only other "Hindu" Law Canon is Chanakya's.
The Laws of Chanakaya are completely impractical to be used nowadays. The British Laws, however, are still working very well until Indians started tampering with them.
Members of HRArmy list cannot post to IAC's "indiaresists" mailing list, so I've added your ID there also.
A UCC is very good thing to have if everyone agrees to it.
Sarbajit
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Sumer Agarwal <sumeragarwal@gmail.com> wrote:
You seem to be relying only on what the British or East India Company did. Younseem to forget the expanse of India at the time of Asoka. It was onlybwhen he embraced Ahimsa that India started to to weaken. Although are many malpractices such as untoucability, etc which is the bane of Hinduism but that does not mean we cannot have ONE CODE/LAW AS IN USA and other democratic and Islamic and Asian, Euoropian states--
On Thursday, April 25, 2013, Sarbajit Roy wrote:
Guys and gals generally have disconnects on marriage.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Vidyut Kale <wide.aware@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, we seem to have a fundamental disconnect on what marriage is.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
If Muslim Personal Law is better than Christian Personal Law then more Christian's will convert to Islam than the other way around. every religion is guaranteed the fundamental right to propagate itself and personal law is one of the components of that propagation process.
I disagree with the whole "personal law" business. People must be equal under law. The idea of separate laws for separate people and conversions to take advantage across them is something that further highlights differences and creates a sense of opportunist exploitation of religion on one hand, while it adds to inter religion rivalry. This, in my belief is not so good for the country.
Unfortunately there are too many ignorant people who demand UCC without knowing its history and toxicity.
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)
The British recognised the quicksilver nature of this amalgam early on, and the East India Company in 1850 (because the Brahmo Samaj was converting a huge number of Muslims and Hiudus to itself) enacted "The Caste Removal Disabilities Act 1850". This law is the first Indian law which can be called a Uniform Civil Code and it was drafted solely so that people converting to Brahmo Samaj were not excluded from their inheritance under personal law.
Here is the text, and this LAW IS STILL IN FORCE and part of each and every secular law of India.
"WHEREAS it is enacted by section 9, Regulation VII, 1832 (Ben. Reg. VII of 1832), of the Bengal Code, 3 that" whenever in any civil suit the parties to such suit may be of different persuasions, when one party shall be of the Hindu and the other of the Muhammadan persuasion, or where one or more of the parties to the suit shall not be either of the Muhammadan or Hindu persuasions the laws of those religions shall not be permitted to operate to deprive such party or parties of any property to which, but for the operation of such laws, they would have been entitled"; and whereas it will be beneficial to extend the principle of that enactment throughout 1 India]; It is enacted as follows:--
1. Law or usage which inflicts forfeiture of, or affects, rights on change of religion or loss of caste to cease to be enforced.-- So much of any law or usage now in force within 1[ India] as inflicts on any person forfeiture of rights or property, or may be held in any way to impair or affect any right of inheritance, by reason of his or her renouncing, or having been excluded from the communion of, any religion, or being deprived of caste, shall cease to be enforced as law 2[ in any Court].
2. 3[ Short title and extent.--(1) This Act] may be called the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 .(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.]
1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for" the territories subject to the Government of the East India Company". 2. Subs. by s. 3 and Sch., ibid., for" in the Courts of the East India Company, and in the Courts established by Royal Charter within the said territories". 3. Added by s. 3 and Sch., ibid.
So very clearly the Long HISTORY of Indian Law finds that Indians HAVE LONG HAD A CHOICE - to be governed by their personal Law OR to opt out from personal law by availing the Secular law and your children will also then be taken out of personal law and be governed henceforth only by the secular law.
So where is the problem, OR the need for a COMPULSORY Uniform Civil Code as the ignorant Hindu Loony fringe are demanding ?
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).
Laws cannot be the same for everyone till the Constitution is radically amended.Agree.2. There should be separation of religion and state and complete freedom to practice the religion of choice or invent new religons and this should not be the business of the state.
Its already there except for a few token things like Haj subsidy - which is balanced out by Mansarovar Yatra and administration of Hindu shrines by State to protect the interests of devotees against unscrupulous vested interests who were raiding the temple coffers like it is their private Bank.
Yeah, well. that's what I said. Separation. No "except". There is no reason why pilgrimmage must be sponsored by the state - particularly when it usually aids those who can afford trips. But the afford part of it is irrelevant too. A state that cannot guarantee availability of basic needs for all has no business sponsoring luxuries. The addition of religion to the mess makes it worse. What about other religions in India? Or are only major religions entitiled to this? What about some guy who adopts a foreign religion? Will the state sponsor his trip to that country? Important question, because I am a follower of Dio Spaghetto - the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do I get a trip to Italy? Why not? Is the religion of some more important? Why should the state get into all this at all, when it cannot do its fundamental job well?
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.
3. Similarly, there should be separation of state and marriage. The state may record marriage, but beyond very basic rules (like "no kids" or "no domestic abuse or rape" or "if there is no specification in the marriage contract, an exclusive relationship will be assumed" etc - can be drafted by wise people) the state should stay out of the nature of the union.
The State MUST COMPLETELY interfere in marriage through Laws. The laws are not only for marriage but also for DIVORCE and protection of Child interests and Child welfare (which is paramount) and things like return of dowry and streedhan.Obviously, and it ought not to be rocket science to figure out these things and formulate laws that go with the idea of the contract marriage.
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.
An important component of these laws is forcing a woman who has abandoned the marriage to return to her husband for purposes of SEX (restitution of conjugal rights).Forced sex is rape. This law treats the woman as property and is inherently INSULTING. Also, this idea of restitution of conjugal rights doesn't seem to be interested in returning men to take on their responsibilities in the marriage. Sexual or otherwise. If we are guaranteed equality in law, then this is not acceptable. A woman is not a scooter to be parked with the owner whether she wants to or not.
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.
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 why most "Cruelty" applications for divorce are met by a "restore my conjugal rights" application.
The Law recognises that there are phases of ups and downs in every marriage and Sex is the medicine to keep the ship of marriage afloat through all the misunderstandings and interference from family and well wishers.It is not the business of law to make generalizations on the nature of marriage or to force only one side to act against its view of its best interest. We have counsellors, social workers, village elders, etc for that. The law needs to decide if women are independent citizens of the country or marriage strips them of right to move freely in the country.
All these Counsellors, Social workers, Respected elders etc etc are already contained in the Family Law. eg. see Order XXXII-A CPC.
Every citizen has the Fundamental Right to move FREELY throughout the territory of India. Personal law cannot stop that.
If the parties do not want to get married under their personal laws with all the priests and mumbo jumbos they can get married under Brahmo Samaj rites (I can carry out such ceremony for anyone interested) which can be over in 10 minutes and is perfectly valid in law.Yawn. Not interested.
Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
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).
If marriage is reduced to a contract, then it will be ENFORCED in law as a contract which would greatly go against the Females as the parties would be dead by the time the final judgment emerges.Good point. Better safeguards needed.VidyutSarbajit
Warm regards.Er Sumer AgarwalBE Mech(IIT-Roorkee) MS Indus(University of Michigan,USA)Former Teaching Fellow, University of Michigan- Administration,Human PerformanceFormer Research Assistant, University of Michigan- Management Information SystemsFormer International Scholar, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, USARoorkee University (IIT ROORKEE) Member,University Students Council,Bhawan Council,Dy Bhawan Leader,Prefect"CURSE NOT DARKNESS, LIGHT A LAMP"
"VEGETARIAN IS HEALTHY"
+=======================[ MENU ]=====================+
| Post: hrarmy@lists.riseup.net |
| Exit: hrarmy-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net |
| Quit: https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/hrarmy |+====================================================+
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
Cmde(R) Ranjit B Rai MBIM(UK)
Ex Vice President Indian Maritime Foundation
International Correspondent India Strategic
C 443/377 Defence Colony New Delhi 110024
www.iduanalysis.com
24330087 +9810066172
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
No comments:
Post a Comment