TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[KingMamba]

Personal bigotry will always raise its head within conversations..
When it does, its best to agree to disagree and leave it at a level. Rather than drying to draw out more venom.

You are right, feel free to delete my comments. I cannot do so myself until I get back home in the evening.

 

[Joe Shearer]

...and I'm deeply suspicious of anyone suspicious of the Uniform Civil Code on the flimsy grounds that the BJP supports it. The BJP does it because it serves as a red rag to its audience. Best to take it away. The Uniform Civil Code was put in by the creators of the constitution, even if only as a directive principle and has been upheld by the Supreme court. If you are going to pick & choose what parts of the constitution you want to apply, then you must expect others to ask for an "out" on certain other provisions. Slippery slope that. As long as there is a "Muslim law", then there will always be a "Hindu law" even if that is a misnomer & it is about as secular a law as we have now. Can't beat your chest about true secularism & yet fail the first test available.

Yes, I am deeply suspicious of the BJP and its actions, for reasons that we have gone into perhaps a couple of million times. I am opposed to their stand on the Uniform Civil Code for the simple reason that it is not necessary not yet, not as long as other, more pressing problems are not addressed and corrected. I do not see it as the first test available, only as the first obstacle put forward by those who wish to divert attention from the wrongs and outrageous discrimination practiced against ourselves.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Drawing a connection to the topic we were discussing earlier, I can't help but wonder whether one of the reasons you are indulging in trench warfare on the AIT & the Sarasvati issues is simply because you think that the opposite side are the BJP wallas & you refuse to give in to them regardless of the merits of the arguments advanced simply because they are the ones offering it up or because it benefits them the most.

Read my lips.

I have stated that my opposition is due to systems which depend on their substance on internal evidence from religious scriptures and from myths, and are interpreted moreover by an assortment of unprofessional, untrained individuals with a bee in their bonnets. What reason is there to suspect that this statement is a falsehood?

It is quite another thing that the world-view held by the proponents of these theories and by the BJP is practically the same. They are nevertheless distinct entities, and I see them as distinct, and distinctly disagree with them.

 

[neokautilya2]

Well, I do. Why is my voice not important?

r u an atheist????? if yes , yyyyyy????

 

[neokautilya2]

That's really unfair.

I'm against Hindus. I'm also against Muslims, and their ridiculous practices in India, when those exact same practices have vanished from the rest of the world for Muslims, including in Pakistan. Ironically, in Pakistan, the laws governing Muslims are far, far more progressive than their equivalents here. I'm against Christians. I'm not that hostile to Buddhists, because Buddhists don't need to believe in God, just be good human beings. I am against the Khalsa. I'm against Jainism, although that is perhaps the most harmless, least harmful religion on earth.

I agree that we should all live under just and equal laws, but I don't agree that we have to squash some people to accept it for the sake of uniformity.

So here's wishing you, Doc, and your good lady and the little ones Happy Diwali. Even if I don't believe in it, after all that you've said, you do, right?

sir really u are a typical typical bengali

 

[Contrarian]

Joe, you are very wrong on the Civil Rights Code.

Would you support that today Hindu men are allowed to have polygamy? Would be allowed to simply say Talaq 3 times and walk away from their marriage? Would be allowed to walk away without giving their fair share to the divorced woman?

If your answer is yes. Then i would agree with your assessment of things being left to the Community. Because in Bangladesh, Hindus are allowed Polygamy.

Ironically they cite the same reasons that Muslims cite in India to keep the old male chauvinist laws in place as it benefits the thekedaars of the community.

I would appreciate a very direct answer to my question.

 

[bronxbull]

I don't get that one. We already have the option for every single citizen to use a non-religious code. Many of us use it. My wife and I got married thrice, the Bengali way, the Iyengar way, and a civil ceremony. The civil ceremony overrules everything. My daughter is using only a civil ceremony, though her fiancee is a Bengali Hindu as well. We didn't do the sanskars for my dad because he specifically forbade it. We can write a will, and it is valid.

So what is wrong with getting everyone to join it when theyare good and ready?

it is all cool,but this has nothing to do with Uniform Civil Code.

When Civillians are happy they dont need the court,but when they are unhappy it is which court they go to.

Do they need special courts,perhaps i ll choose honour killing for adultery whereas my wife ll want monetary compensation?

 

[bronxbull]

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.

There is no envy here,dont know where you get that wierd angle,

The only issue is that i work hard and pay my fvckin tax and i expect it to be used efficiently.

I dont want some village moron screwing like crazy and not using a condom because of faith issues.

Tomorrow,if we want to do a 2 child policy,will this or wont this affect the execution?

Secondly,why do the Muslims come to the regular courts for criminal offenses?

Why shouldn't we apply sharia laws and implement hand cutting,chopping other things,stoning etc for criminal offenses like the Sharia law dictates?

If they want to be on their own,they should be on their own totally,not one leg here,one leg there.

Thats what they say in Gangs of Waaseypur,

Terha maaroge toh loda ghus jaayega.

 

[bronxbull]

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.

It is not Mr,Joe,

I dont see why it is so hard for you to understand it,The same thing doesn't happen in Hindu Marriages and if it does,the law is there to fix the anomaly if it does its duty.

But in Muslims marriages,there is no recourse and some maulvi fixes it.

Can you do an RTI on the Maulvi's decisions?

 

[bronxbull]

That's really unfair.

I'm against Hindus. I'm also against Muslims, and their ridiculous practices in India, when those exact same practices have vanished from the rest of the world for Muslims, including in Pakistan. Ironically, in Pakistan, the laws governing Muslims are far, far more progressive than their equivalents here. I'm against Christians. I'm not that hostile to Buddhists, because Buddhists don't need to believe in God, just be good human beings. I am against the Khalsa. I'm against Jainism, although that is perhaps the most harmless, least harmful religion on earth.

I agree that we should all live under just and equal laws, but I don't agree that we have to squash some people to accept it for the sake of uniformity.

So here's wishing you, Doc, and your good lady and the little ones Happy Diwali. Even if I don't believe in it, after all that you've said, you do, right?

Dada,

we dont want this JNU nihilistic idealism,

I want the perfect round thing with glass on the outers and crystal ball on the inside.

Sorry Dada,that world never exists.

Societies constantly need balancing,either ways.

If one part of the country is rigid and the other part the flexible,the rigidity just gets to the flexible part and it all gets stagnant,you cannot ask the flexible part why don't u remain flexible?

You are just another atomic particle in the whole piece and whether you like it or not,you have to co exist within.

That is where the conversation is being veered towards despite Joe's attempts to prevent it.

Dont you think the topic gets validated by the argument?

Justice,isn't it?

 

[bronxbull]

That is where the conversation is being veered towards despite Joe's attempts to prevent it.

Dont you think the topic gets validated by the argument?

Justice,isn't it?

 

[Joe Shearer]

r u an atheist????? if yes , yyyyyy????

Do you expect an answer in one sentence or in one paragraph? Isn't it a bit much to expect an answer within the bounds of an Internet forum? Some other time, some other place, maybe.

 

[Joe Shearer]

sir really u are a typical typical bengali

Whatever a typical typical bengali happens to be...incidentally, there are a lot of Bengalis celebrating Kali Puja all around me as I write this (actually, about four hours before, there were a lot of Bengalis, etc.). So what would you call them? Typical typical typical Bengalis? Or typical Bengalis? Just trying to get a feel of where you are coming from.

 

[Sashan]

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.

One can be deeply suspicious but can you rule out it is not good for the country? And just because it is supported by hindu organizations, how can you treat it as something evil? If the secular(pseudo) parties can pander to muslim fundamentalists for all the wrong reasons in 1980s why not pander to the hindu fundamentalists for the right reasons? You may not see it as a priority but I can think about many reasons why India needs one but here are some.

1. Population crisis is a major issue now in India. The birth control slogan has shifted from "we two ours two" in 1990s to "we two ours one" and allowing polygamy for one religious people whose TFR is already more than any religious groups in India. If you want statistics - Muslims have a TFR of 2.4 while Hindus have 2 while Sikhs and Buddhists fall somewhere in between and Jains have the lowest. The muslim population has grown from 10.5% in 1991 to 13.4% as per the 2010 data.

So there is a crisis and every religious group need to make a contribution to avoid the crisis. One religion can't claim religious reasons when they have caste system within their community which negates all the religious reasons.

Meanwhile can you show me statistics that polygamy is not one of the reasons for the higher TFR of muslims? If you can't, then it is open for each other's interpretations.


2. Shah Bano case is the turning point in the deep division among the religious groups and the younger generation and even the educated ones think of it as pandering to the muslim minorities. And you see hindutva right wing getting strengthened and you do not see a need to remove the fuel from the fire by going in for uniform civil code?(how many know that Daniel Latifi case almost nullied the 1986 law).

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe, you are very wrong on the Civil Rights Code.

Would you support that today Hindu men are allowed to have polygamy? Would be allowed to simply say Talaq 3 times and walk away from their marriage? Would be allowed to walk away without giving their fair share to the divorced woman?

If your answer is yes. Then i would agree with your assessment of things being left to the Community. Because in Bangladesh, Hindus are allowed Polygamy.

Ironically they cite the same reasons that Muslims cite in India to keep the old male chauvinist laws in place as it benefits the thekedaars of the community.

I would appreciate a very direct answer to my question.

A very direct answer would start by pointing out that we must get basics right first - there is no such thing as a Civil Rights Code under discussion. We are not discussing Civil Rights here; we are discussing a Uniform Civil Code, an entirely different thing.

If I could digress a bit from the very direct answer, and I am only being mildly sarcastic here, I would remind you of what a wise man once said, a saying that we quote when it suits us, but forget in the heat of the discussion, and allow our true feelings to emerge:

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

What is your point of view, that of the common people? In which case your protests and arguments are fair. That of the wise? In which case, all this is futile, and we should be putting severe restrictions in place on religion. That of the rulers? In which case, you should join me in my point of view, and allow religion to play out its role in the life of the common man, staying away from it until it can be weakened sufficiently through secular education to be surgically removed.

I believe that a society that allows polygamy should allow polyandry as well (both Hazaras in Afghanistan and some of the hill tribes in India still practise it).

A minority of the Kinaauri's still claim to be descendant of the Pandavas and thus justify the practice of Polyandry. However this is a debatable issue as Kinnauris existed much before the Pandavas as mentioned in the epic. Apart from Kinnaur, Polyandry was practiced by some south Indian tribes, prevalent among the Todas of Nilgiris, Nairs of Travancore and Ezhavas of Malabar. While polyandrous unions have disappeared from the traditions of many of the groups and tribes, it is still practiced by some Paharis especially in Jaunsar Bawar region in

Unfortunately, we do not have a purely secular society like France. As Doc said when he was pointing out the errors of my ways, Indians are a noisy, extroverted people and enjoy their religious festivals, each and every one of them, right out in the open, no matter who else is happy about what is going on, or is unhappy. There is a huge amount of latitude given to the religious, in every aspect of daily life, which impinges directly on our daily civic life. Which other country allows a place of worship to start from a daub of colour on an anthill and to end with a marble temple in the middle of a busy road? As long as we do not have secular values within ourselves, we cannot hope to harmonize civic life. And if we cannot harmonize civic life, it is difficult to understand how we can legislate on religious matters, beyond a point.

Your points: no, I do not believe any Indian should practice polygamy. Period. Whatever his religion. But until secular values are instilled, I believe that we should live with the status quo. If we encourage the religious faction within a community for over sixty years of life as an independent nation, and discourage the secular elements within that community, we cannot suddenly turn around and say to the whole community, "It's time up. From tomorrow, all of you get to act secular." That doesn't compute. Then the ruling party should not have encouraged the mullahs, and every other party followed them slavishly. In my own state, there is insufficient money for building schools, roads and drains in the Maoist areas because that budgeted money has been diverted to a new, bright idea by the Chief Minister, to increase the fees of Maulvis (Hindu priests don't get paid, btw). You can't have half the country pulling one way and the other half pulling the other way. First you get rid of the state interfering in religion for politics to seek votes, then you get rid of religious feeling dominating a community, then you get rid of religious rules which are patently anachronistic, by appropriate legislation, by an act of the state which is seen to be fair and equitable. Short cuts won't work.

Similarly, I don't believe that men should be allowed to divorce women except through due process; that should read 'men and women should be allowed to seek divorces'. And nobody is allowed to walk away without giving a fair share to the divorced woman; I thought my post about the judiciary in India had made that quite clear.

What Polygamy in Bangladesh has to do with India is not clear. If they did not pass the Hindu Marriage Act or its equivalent, then the legal position is that men can marry more than once. More than four times, if it comes to that. But they didn't pass that act, we did, so why the confusion? What has their behaviour got to do with us? We have to deal with what we have, and we have personal codes running which are applicable on all personal matters, adjudicated by the courts.

So to answer your question, reforming one community should not make that community resent others that have not been reformed, for Pete's sake; the reformed community should be feeling proud and smug about it. Instead, it is incredible that the vast bulk of people posting who belong to the reformed community, according to the tenor of their posts and the glimpses of their points of view, are actually envious of the others, who have not been reformed. A case of, "My tail has been cut off, why should you retain yours?"

Don't you find that incredible social behaviour? I would appreciate a very direct answer to my question.