TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[Sashan]

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?

Joe sir - are you serious in expecting an uneducated youngster from an organized religion to throw away all the traditions and make use of the non-religious code? And who will decide when they are good and ready? Sorry Joe sir -I am not an optimistic person as you are - they were not ready as per Nehru in 1954, they were not ready in 1961 and they are not ready after 65 years and when do you expect them to be ready and I have showed you demographic change i.e 3 percent change in 20 years(in fact some sites showed the change by 2001 and some showed 2006 - I took the conservative among them i.e 2010). Now you can't change it - do you expect that to happen when by percentage nos they will be significant? And I believe that there will be only one Kemal Ataturk who can change the century old traditions in a moment's time(while there will be multiple Nehrus and Gandhis)

 

[Joe Shearer]

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?

That is ignorant, I am sorry to point out. When civilians, by which I presume you mean those who have chosen the Civil Marriage Act under which to get married, seek redress, they have no choice but to go to constituted courts of the land.

Now I have some interesting news for you. Prepare for a shock.

When anybody seeks redress under his or her personal code, they have no choice but to go to the constituted courts of the land.

Do you understand? Secular judges administer these personal codes, not priests and mullahs.

I strongly suspect, from your language in your post, that you were not aware of this. Otherwise you would not say something so silly as their needing special courts, or choosing honour killings, or wives choosing monetary compensation. None of this is applicable; none of this is permissible.

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.

Obviously you are an ignorant idiot. Muslims have to come to civil courts to administer their personal codes. Get your facts straight.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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?

This is not correct. Where have you picked up this gem? How do you think Shah Bano landed up in the Supreme Court? The Saffron Fairy wafted her there? No Maulvi has jurisdiction on personal code matters. They may express their opinion in religious terms; that is a fatwa, advice, and that is not binding on Indian courts.

 

[Sashan]

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?

Sorry Joe sir - You say that you do not want to squash some people. But here is my argument - The people who did not want to get squashed have got their separate nation to practise their own beliefs. Now we are left with people who need to contribute to a modern nation buildingand we expect everyone to keep their religious beliefs at their homes(it does not matter hindus, christians, muslims whoever it is) and contribute to the nation building - there is a cake which is lying there and everyone want to eat it in a way acceptable to others. Not pandering to age old practices which can affect other people is not something I subscribe to. Polygamy, Women inequality or perceived inequality, dowry - all these need to go away. There was a statistics published for each nation - Indian gdp can increase by 27% if women are equally educated as men while it is 5% increase for US.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

And what is that supposed to mean? What is the JNU, and why does it appear in the argument? How does it apply to me, or my point of view? What, for that matter, is nihilist idealism? Do you understand either term, or does it just sound nice? If you don't understand what something means, why use it? Why not stick to things you do understand?

The same goes for your views. Those are your views. I have my views, which I have expressed. If the electorate wants reform, nobody and nothing stops it from seeking reform. There is a political process and that is under the Constitution that someone quoted at me, as the Directive Principle seeking a Uniform Civil Code. So if you think that the matter is so important, why not get voters to say so, to elect a government that brings it in? If the voters don't say so, if they aren't convinced, if a government that wants to bring it in isn't elected, then, your point of view remains just that. A point of view. Don't expect anybody to stand up and salute your own perfect round thing with glass on the outers and crystal ball on the inside (your wording, btw, I don't write things like 'on the inside'). And remember, now and for always, a very wise thing: You are just another atomic particle in the whole piece and whether you like it or not, you have to co-exist within. So stop complaining and maintain the rule of law.

Dont you think the topic gets validated by the argument?

Justice,isn't it?

Meaningless gibberish. The topic is "Turning Point in the History of Indian Sub-continent". What argument validates this topic? The drift towards bigotry that some readers detected? How does a drift towards bigotry in the discussion validate the topic?

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

As I have mentioned time and again, I oppose the BJP. I do not merely suspect it, I oppose it. I oppose it and its idiotic behaviour because it has demonstrated, time and again, that it does not respect the rule of law. Whenever it wants political power, it does not take recourse to legitimate political means but to divisive methods and riots and violence. It has associated organizations which are fully dedicated to supporting its programmes with violence, like the Shiv Sena and the Bajrang Dal, although some would say that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is itself a sufficiently fundamentalist and potentially terrorist element. It has no policies of its own. When it was in power, for a considerable period of time, all that it did was to Pakistanise our education system by re-writing the texts to reflect their parochial point of view. Why then do you BJP supporters descend like packs on Pakistani sites and mock the Pakistanis for manipulating their text books to tell a concocted story, when you did exactly the same and nothing more? The Ram temple didn't happen, the Uniform Civil Code didn't happen, only the textbooks were distorted, and of all the incredibly stupid things to do, the atomic explosion was conducted, giving Pakistan an open invitation to set right the irreversible balance of military forces in favour of India. So why should any sane person support the BJP and the Sangh Parivar? Not for its political programme; not even, from present indications, for personal integrity of its leadership.

Please ask yourself honestly: do I need to change my position of opposing both the Congress and the BJP, or do you need to change your position of opposing the Congress and hoping that the BJP will be different, in the face of the evidence?

 

[Sashan]

As I have mentioned time and again, I oppose the BJP. I do not merely suspect it, I oppose it. I oppose it and its idiotic behaviour because it has demonstrated, time and again, that it does not respect the rule of law. Whenever it wants political power, it does not take recourse to legitimate political means but to divisive methods and riots and violence. It has associated organizations which are fully dedicated to supporting its programmes with violence, like the Shiv Sena and the Bajrang Dal, although some would say that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is itself a sufficiently fundamentalist and potentially terrorist element. It has no policies of its own. When it was in power, for a considerable period of time, all that it did was to Pakistanise our education system by re-writing the texts to reflect their parochial point of view. Why then do you BJP supporters descend like packs on Pakistani sites and mock the Pakistanis for manipulating their text books to tell a concocted story, when you did exactly the same and nothing more? The Ram temple didn't happen, the Uniform Civil Code didn't happen, only the textbooks were distorted, and of all the incredibly stupid things to do, the atomic explosion was conducted, giving Pakistan an open invitation to set right the irreversible balance of military forces in favour of India. So why should any sane person support the BJP and the Sangh Parivar? Not for its political programme; not even, from present indications, for personal integrity of its leadership.

Please ask yourself honestly: do I need to change my position of opposing both the Congress and the BJP, or do you need to change your position of opposing the Congress and hoping that the BJP will be different, in the face of the evidence?

Joe Sir - your basic assumption is faulty here. You assume that the uniform civil code is the demand of BJP and its associated hindu orgs alone and not others. I beg to differ here. The quest for Uniform civil code and the delineation of state vs religion is not something which a single party can take ownership of. It is the true reflection of a secular country is my belief.

Please do not bundle me with the BJP and hindu elements (though for all practical sense given a compulsion to pick BJP vs Congress I will pick BJP( as they are my bastards as my birth religion is not going to go away even if I shout through the roof that I am agnostic) unlike Congress)

 

[Bang Galore]

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.

Without doubt, the Uniform Civil Code has been hijacked by nuts among the right wingers who use it for their own purposes and while there are genuine reasons to worry what the Muslim personal law does to the women of that religion, I'm reasonably sure that is not what concerns the Hindu right wingers. What they are concerned with is "polygamy" part in the law. While I am not particularly sure that it makes a real difference, it still creates a negative perception about the behaviour of the Muslim community especially in population control, something that worries many Hindus. However irrational that fear is, it is a big source of friction and is used by the right wingers to build up resentment. The law is also remarkably sexist seeing Muslim women or even converted women as lesser beings. Communal harmony requires a Uniform Civil code to work best. The price the Muslim community is paying because of these archaic laws is huge. That society is simply not being allowed to evolve like the others and we will all pay the price for that. I simply don't understand why a female citizen of India, just because she is a Muslim has to suffer laws that are extremely prejudicial to her interest while her Hindu counterparts get a much better deal.

Your point about a community being happy with its own social progress and not bothering with the other while sounding very idealistic borders on the dangerous. You are placing emphasis on the "other" as if they were a completely separate entity.That idea has already got this sub continent enough grief and I don't think any of us wants a repeat performance. For someone believing in secular values, that argument is odd because you are willing to let society divide themselves on the basis of religion with those of one religion not bothering about the other. Not something this nation needs. Not in the least.

I have said this elsewhere and this may partially support your position, we need a voluntary uniform civil code to start with but compulsory for all inter-religious marriages regardless of whether there has been a conversion(at any time) or not. That will make it impossible for a Muslim man to take a convertee as his second,third,fourth wife or marry someone else while being married to her. It will both take the wind of the propagandists sails, as well as preserve the right of atleast those women who had it before they married . Start there and maybe we can build something, even if it remains a long, slow process.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

I think you need to learn a lot about birth rates and about reproduction among women. I had drafted an entirely different reply, with a lot of detail, but also shot through with irritation at your refusing to do your homework before commenting. That seemed a very angry post on reading through, so I will confine myself to saying that your knowledge of this matter needs refreshing (that is my way of saying you know very little, you should get a little better informed before returning to the topic).

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

Typically, high birth rates are associated with health problems, low life expectancy, low living standards, low social status for women and low educational levels.

Surprise, surprise.

 

[Sashan]

I think you need to learn a lot about birth rates and about reproduction among women. I had drafted an entirely different reply, with a lot of detail, but also shot through with irritation at your refusing to do your homework before commenting. That seemed a very angry post on reading through, so I will confine myself to saying that your knowledge of this matter needs refreshing (that is my way of saying you know very little, you should get a little better informed before returning to the topic).

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:



Surprise, surprise.

Joe sir - not surprised you will throw this googly at me - In fact I was expecting this when I wrote this - can you show me statistics that polygamy is not one of the reasons for the higher TFR of muslims" - I consciously wrote this line expecting a similar response above from you that you will quote other reasons as well.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Answers below.

Joe sir - are you serious in expecting an uneducated youngster from an organized religion to throw away all the traditions and make use of the non-religious code?

No, I expect the educated youngsters to use the non-religious code. I expect others to follow their example. That is why I keep talking about education every chance I get. Education for women in particular; these cases will vanish once women are educated and empowered

And who will decide when they are good and ready? Sorry Joe sir -I am not an optimistic person as you are - they were not ready as per Nehru in 1954, they were not ready in 1961 and they are not ready after 65 years and when do you expect them to be ready and I have showed you demographic change i.e 3 percent change in 20 years(in fact some sites showed the change by 2001 and some showed 2006 - I took the conservative among them i.e 2010).

I have already commented on your very unsound approach to demographics. Those who remember my older posts will remember that I had worked out clearly what the roots of Muslim birth rates were.

Now you can't change it - do you expect that to happen when by percentage nos they will be significant? And I believe that there will be only one Kemal Ataturk who can change the century old traditions in a moment's time(while there will be multiple Nehrus and Gandhis)

If there is an Ataturk, there will be secularization at a pace that has not been dreamt of before. I would like very much for there to be an Ataturk in India, to hear what the right-wing Hindus do and say.

 

[Sashan]

Answers below.

Joe Sir - Care to share the nos behind your analysis for the high birth rates among muslims?

 

[Contrarian]

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:

Apologies for using the wrong words. I allowed my mind to drift off while typing.
Reconsider my question with the word Uniform Civil Code.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sorry Joe sir - You say that you do not want to squash some people. But here is my argument - The people who did not want to get squashed have got their separate nation to practise their own beliefs. Now we are left with people who need to contribute to a modern nation buildingand we expect everyone to keep their religious beliefs at their homes(it does not matter hindus, christians, muslims whoever it is) and contribute to the nation building - there is a cake which is lying there and everyone want to eat it in a way acceptable to others. Not pandering to age old practices which can affect other people is not something I subscribe to. Polygamy, Women inequality or perceived inequality, dowry - all these need to go away. There was a statistics published for each nation - Indian gdp can increase by 27% if women are equally educated as men while it is 5% increase for US.

Haven't you answered your own post in the last line you wrote?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe Sir - your basic assumption is faulty here. You assume that the uniform civil code is the demand of BJP and its associated hindu orgs alone and not others. I beg to differ here. The quest for Uniform civil code and the delineation of state vs religion is not something which a single party can take ownership of. It is the true reflection of a secular country is my belief.

Please do not bundle me with the BJP and hindu elements (though for all practical sense given a compulsion to pick BJP vs Congress I will pick BJP( as they are my bastards as my birth religion is not going to go away even if I shout through the roof that I am agnostic) unlike Congress)

Excellent!

If all are agreed that laws must be brought in, a Uniform Civil Code should be brought in, then where is the problem? My message to the backers of a UCC, go ahead, legislate. Just do it. But if you can't, then don't come and moan in the posts of the Pakistan Defence Forum that you wanted to do something wonderful for your country, but the damn' fools didn't let you do it. Either it is the demand of the majority of Indians, or it is not. Please make up your own mind which it is.