TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[Joe Shearer]

So what?

Why was Sati abolished Joe? It was accepted practice too per the faith that followed it at the time.

Bad example. Show me one personal law aspect today, from any of the prevalent personal laws, that violates any article of the Criminal Procedure Code?

 

[Sashan]

Tchah! And one more rat deserts the sinking ship!



Because every faith defines these differently.Whenever members of two different faiths marry, it is the civil law that applies, so why are some of us obsessed with what happens between consenting adults?

Joe sir - I am consistent with my view. Denial of uniform civil code and undermining the path to a progressive with nation has been my single biggest anger with Nehru. Unfortunately I could not write in detail as I stuck in the office.

 

[vsdoc]

Bad example. Show me one personal law aspect today, from any of the prevalent personal laws, that violates any article of the Criminal Procedure Code?

Why should we go straight to Criminal Procedure Code.

What about the civil rights of each of our citizens?

Should a girl get married legally just because she has reached menarche?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe sir - I am consistent with my view. Denial of uniform civil code and undermining the path to a progressive with nation has been my single biggest anger with Nehru. Unfortunately I could not write in detail as I stuck in the office.

I am deeply suspicious about this Uniform Civil Code demand. To me, it seems like a call crafted specifically to finger Muslims. And the root of it seems to be sexual envy, based on a mistaken Hindu ( and Parsi?) belief that Muslims get to bed four women legally, and as a by-product, procreate like crazy. Logically, this is so stupid that the reason for it being present is almost an invitation to euthanase those holding the belief, for the reasons given. But it is there. And it has sane, rational, otherwise normal people advocating it.

 

[vsdoc]

I am deeply suspicious about this Uniform Civil Code demand. To me, it seems like a call crafted specifically to finger Muslims. And the root of it seems to be sexual envy, based on a mistaken Hindu ( and Parsi?) belief that Muslims get to bed four women legally, and as a by-product, procreate like crazy. Logically, this is so stupid that the reason for it being present is almost an invitation to euthanase those holding the belief, for the reasons given. But it is there. And it has sane, rational, otherwise normal people advocating it.

What is sane rational or normal about marrying four women man?

Are of of the opinion that the only legal recourse a red blooded Indian man has of bedding a woman legally is by marrying her?

Or that I need to get to a girl the moment she starts her menses?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why should we go straight to Criminal Procedure Code.

What about the civil rights of each of our citizens?

Should a girl get married legally just because she has reached menarche?

No. Under Indian law, it remains 21 for men and 18 for women, in spite of a silly judgement that recommended - recommended - that Muslim women could marry at 15. A judicial pronouncement does not overset the law.

 

[vsdoc]

No. Under Indian law, it remains 21 for men and 18 for women, in spite of a silly judgement that recommended - recommended - that Muslim women could marry at 15. A judicial pronouncement does not overset the law.

That was by the Delhi High Court.

Part of the Indian State.

It went beyond "silly."

It was culturally blasphemous.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What is sane rational or normal about marrying four women man?

Are of of the opinion that the only legal recourse a red blooded Indian man has of bedding a woman legally is by marrying her?

Why should it matter to anyone but the men and women concerned? Where were you when Boney Kapoor and Srividya got married? Illegally? Or Dharmendra and Hema Malini, after allegedly converting to Islam? Didn't see you mobilising.

If Indian men have so many legal recourses to bedding a woman other than by marrying her, why are they so bothered? On a point of principle? Why not concentrate on important points of principle first?

That was by the Delhi High Court.

Part of the Indian State.

It went beyond "silly."

It was culturally blasphemous.

Not culturally blasphemous; it was precisely the opposite. It was just illegal.

 

[vsdoc]

Why should it matter to anyone but the men and women concerned? Where were you when Boney Kapoor and Srividya got married? Illegally? Or Dharmendra and Hema Malini, after allegedly converting to Islam? Didn't see you mobilising.

If Indian men have so many legal recourses to bedding a woman other than by marrying her, why are they so bothered? On a point of principle? Why not concentrate on important points of principle first?

Not culturally blasphemous; it was precisely the opposite. It was just illegal.

Indians are bothered because there are Indian girls who are being exploited and repressively suppressed in full view by laws that are legally sanctioned by the same state that is supposed to protect them.

These are Indian girls. They are not Muslim girls we are talking about.

That is what a secular state should do.

Not ban people playing with colors or making a noise.

 

[SQ8]

Why do I get the feeling that there seems to be a deep anti-Islamic sentiment in general at play here.
In any case.. good discussion nonetheless.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Indians are bothered because there are Indian girls who are being exploited and repressively suppressed in full view by laws that are legally sanctioned by the same state that is supposed to protect them.

These are Indian girls. They are not Muslim girls we are talking about.

That is what a secular state should do.

Not ban people playing with colors or making a noise.

I really fail to understand. If these are voluntary marriages, why are you and I bothered? If they lived in sin with their partners, you are not bothered; if they marry partners who have another wife alive and are not out of their other marriage, you are bothered. How come?

Why do I get the feeling that there seems to be a deep anti-Islamic sentiment in general at play here.
In any case.. good discussion nonetheless.

You wouldn't have noticed post 665 by any chance, would you?

 

[vsdoc]

I really fail to understand. If these are voluntary marriages, why are you and I bothered? If they lived in sin with their partners, you are not bothered; if they marry partners who have another wife alive and are not out of their other marriage, you are bothered. How come?

Define "voluntary" Joe.

Is it the fact that she reaches the nikah and goes through with it quietly?

Is it the fact that the girl does not walk out of the nikah and take the nearest taxi or auto to the police station?

Or the fact that she quietly waits for her much wedded husband to one day up and say the three words that designates her time is done - and she is free - minus the pesky encumberances of conjugal support or money?

Look at them as Indian girls Joe.

Do not turn your head away reassuring yourself that her community knows best.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Define "voluntary" Joe.

Is it the fact that she reaches the nikah and goes through with it quietly?

Is it the fact that the girl does not walk out of the nikah and take the nearest taxi or auto to the police station?

Or the fact that she quietly waits for her much wedded husband to one day up and say the three words that designates her time is done - and she is free - minus the pesky encumberances of conjugal support or money?

That's hypocritical, Doc.

Do I have to tell you that exactly the same thing happens in Hindu marriages? Or that more Hindu marriages are below the age of consent than Muslim marriages? If you weren't intent on finding a large, thick object (!) to beat Muslims with, you might recognize this and acknowledge what a bed of slime this call for a Uniform Civil Code rests on.

 

[vsdoc]

That's hypocritical, Doc.

Do I have to tell you that exactly the same thing happens in Hindu marriages? Or that more Hindu marriages are below the age of consent than Muslim marriages? If you weren't intent on finding a large, thick object (!) to beat Muslims with, you might recognize this and acknowledge what a bed of slime this call for a Uniform Civil Code rests on.

Yes but Joe, for the Hindu girl, she has the husband to herself.

Providing for only her kids.

And protected by the full force of Indian Law in the case of a separation.

Inclusive of what she came from her family with.

Level the field Joe.

These are not Hindu or Muslim girls.

They are Indian girls and its we old farts who need to protect them.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes but Joe, for the Hindu girl, she has the husband to herself.

Providing for only her kids.

And protected by the full force of Indian Law in the case of a separation.

Inclusive of what she came from her family with.

Level the field Joe.

These are not Hindu or Muslim girls.

They are Indian girls and its we old farts who need to protect them.

I thought we'd get around to Shah Bano sooner or later, once you raised the Uniform Civil Code, and, ladies and gentlemen, heeeeeere it comes.

Doc, do you have even the faintest clue what the Indian courts are doing for Muslim women, since we are talking about the full force of Indian law? I suspect you don't, because you are too busy looking at 'headline' issues to look around and check the realities of life.

Yes but Joe, for the Hindu girl, she has the husband to herself.

Providing for only her kids.

And protected by the full force of Indian Law in the case of a separation.

Inclusive of what she came from her family with.

Level the field Joe.

These are not Hindu or Muslim girls.

They are Indian girls and its we old farts who need to protect them.

And that makes hundreds of thousands of breaches of the law all right, Doc? So much so, that you only see the hugely smaller number of cases involving Muslims?