Dear Ms. Sen
Just to update you, IACRG is not one of those cozy litte twitterati echo-chambers which exist in cyber space. We encourage healthy scholarly discussion here and those who are wrong on FACTS (including ourselves) must be exposed.
Accordingly, this is issued as a public service communique to the Hindus of Hindustan to convey to them the truth about certain imposters masquerading as Hindus for cheap electoral gains through deceptions.
1. We never claimed there was a Hindu Code Act. Any schoolboy knows that the Ambedkar version of the Hindu Code Bill 1951 failed to muster support causing Nehru to pass it in pieces between 1955-56. Those 4 enactments are known today as Nehru's Hindu Code of 1955.
2. It is incorrect (in fact it is a gross mis-statement and insult to them) to say that Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists would be "counted" as Hindus after 1955. If you are capable of reading laws the ways they are meant to be read, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and FOLLOWERS of the Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj and Prathana Samaj were only deemed to be covered/governed by Hindu Law. BTW: The legal significance of the term "followers of the ..." may have escaped you.
3. Today Hindus (as defined in the Hindu Code 1955) only constitute under 30% of the population of India.
4. Insofar as Mr. Rahul Gandhi is concerned, the factum of his lighting his father's funeral pyre is completely irrelevant to his misrepresentations of himself as a Hindu Kaul Brahmin of Dattatreya gotra and descendant of Lord Parushrama etc etc.
5. Actually the only thing more ludicrous than Mr. Rahul Gandhi (INC President) saying he is a Hindu and Brahmin is Mr.Amit Shah's (BJP President) denying he is a Jain and claiming instead to be a "Hindu" Vaishnav. Now, We the Hindustani people of India have had enough of both these jumla artistes and their corrupt parties. ... a POX on both their houses.
Amit Shah doing Jain worship.
《By these laws, a Hindu is (negatively) defined to be everybody who is
not a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Sikh or a Jain or a Buddhist
or a Parsi or a Scheduled Tribal or an Arya Samaji or a Prarthana
Samaji or a Brahmo Samaji or a Lingayat etc.and so on.》
Not really.
l. First of all, there's no Hindu Code Act.
The Code Bill moved by the then Union Law Minister, Dr. Ambedkar - not by Nehru , got defeated on the floor of the Indian parliament.
Dr. Ambedkar would resign.
ll. Subsequently, Hindu family/personal laws would be amended in bits and pieces.
Some specifically pertaining to the "Hindus".
Some, to all Indians.
lll. For these purpose, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains etc. would be counted as Hindus.
Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Jews were not.
Brahmos, Arya Samajis and Lingayats were/are very much considered as Hindus, for all purposes.
That's precisely why there's now a demand from a section of the Lingayats for a separate identity.
The demand remains to be met.
lV. Even without counting Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains as Hindus, as per the 2011 census, Hindus constitute approximately 80% of Indian population.
Sukla
P.S.: The above has, evidently, nothing to do with whether Rahul Gandhi had lit his slain father's funeral pyre or not.
That stands already settled.
This is not about US divorce laws or EU marriage laws, rather it is
about the absurd system of laws known as "Hindu Code 1955" which
Jawaharlal Nehru imposed on the people of India.
By these laws, a Hindu is (negatively) defined to be everybody who is
not a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Sikh or a Jain or a Buddhist
or a Parsi or a Scheduled Tribal or an Arya Samaji or a Prarthana
Samaji or a Brahmo Samaji or a Lingayat etc.and so on.
In other words by the present Hindu code less than 30% of India is
Hindu and these consist of the Scheduled Castes and the OBC castes who
get 50+% . reservations.
So it is quite understandable why parasite compradors like Shri Arun
Kumar, Shri Rahul Gandhi, Shri Narendra Modi, Shri Mohan Bhagwat and
the entire RSS etc insist that they are Hindus and the rest of us
(presumably) are not.
You are quite correct that codifying marriage and divorce laws was for
inheritance and to provide compensation to divorcees, Under the
prevalent codified law, the day Indira Nehru married Feroze Gandhi she
ceased to be a Hindu and he ceased to be a Parsi. Thereafter when
Rajiv Gandhi married Sonia Gandhi under the Indian laws, both they and
their children ceased to have any religion in the eyes of the State.
Therefore it is quite inexplicable that Mr. Rahul Gandhi insists in
public that he is a Hindu of Brahmin caste and claims his gotra from
an alleged distant ancestor Kamala Kaul. His ignorance of True
Hinduism is further exposed when he goes as an idolator to pray in a
fake temple of Brahma which has as its idol a four headed image of a
deity.
Insofar as who is a Hindu, I can suggest either the Tilak test or the
following definition by Raj Narain Bose (the Grandgather of Indian
Nationalism)
"Hinduism defined as worship of Brahma, or the Supreme Being, whose
knowledge and worship all the Hindu Shastras agree in asserting to be
the sole cause of salvation, and other forms of Hindu worship and the
observance of rites and ceremonies as preliminary means for ascending
to that knowledge and worship."
S Roy
> I appreciate the perspective offered in Shukla Sen's contribution to this
> issue. It is really absurd to flog this worn horse further. It's a non-
> starter. Marriage, according to several judgements in divorce cases in US
> and Europe laws, does not merely concern two individuals or even two
> families but the groom, the bride, and their society, their shared or
> several community/communities. Forms of cohabitation without religious or
> legal acceptance are now recognised in common law, including in India.
>
> The purpose of codifying marriage and divorce rites in modern - Imperial
> British - Indian law was mainly to protect the estates and inheritance of
> the three parties involved and to determine the rights of the parties - of
> maintenance or compensation due to divorced spouses of the various
> communities.
>
> Therefore, whatever be the rites followed in the above sets of marriage
> and death, and their reversal or appropriation by the several communities
> involved it will be impossible to untangle at this point of time the will
> and purpose of the actions of the three concerned parties.
>
> I want to share what a senior confidante and palace official of late King
> Birendra of Nepal, Shri Renu Singh told me in 1980 : King Mahendra
> complained to Nehru about his son wishing to marry out of caste and
> community, to have in effect, a 'love marriage'. Nehru said he had had
> the same problem with his only child Indira. He advised Mahendra, who is
> seen as a representative of Vishnu by 'Hindus', to give up his clinging to
> past convention, to caste, tribe and custom and let the children do as
> they wish. "Parents," Nehru allegedly said, "can do nothing about this in
> these new times". (I may add that the woman Birendra wanted to marry
> actually refused his offer and went on to marry someone else, also out of
> caste.)
>
> So, "the times, they are changing," and S. Roy ought to give up his
> fascination for true or accurate descriptions of people's religion, castes
> and such affiliations, particularly those of public persons. We are no
> longer in the age of Tulsidas's Ramayana when Ram had to abandon his
> lawfully married Mallika in the forest due to mere suspicion that she was
> sullied by captivity in the kingdom of Lanka.
>
> Joya Roy
This is a snap book review by IDF of BLUE WATERS AHOY (Harper Collins 430 pages ISBN 9-789553-025526430.
