China takes cue from Gujarat Inc

[Yeti]

You dishonour all our brave soldiers who died defending a country where all citizens ca live in peace. Yu should be ashamed of equating those sadistic killers with soldiers of the Indian army.


For someone who has Professional on their name your not very bright are you?





If blowing hot air were an Olympic sport, I would bet on you for gold. That is the sum total of betting I am willing to do with you.

For someone who has Professional on their name your not very bright are you? the word 'battle' need not mean in the military sense for example someone could overcome their battle with illness etc this was the point I was making but something which just went over your head.


Well the offer stands I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and say that Modi will not spend time in jail.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Before i write i uphold my white flag to both parties here

I liked the word centrist, in a sense me too. While i don't like too much of Hindutva propaganda i can't accept pseudo secular approach of Congress too.

I am also interested in this point, can there be a single law for all??

No either you are with us or you are against us..lol..

 

[Joe Shearer]

For someone who has Professional on their name your not very bright are you? the word 'battle' need not mean in the military sense for example someone could overcome their battle with illness etc this was the point I was making but something which just went over your head.


Well the offer stands I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and say that Modi will not spend time in jail.

I may not be bright, but on the whole , I am a decent person. There are more important things in life than being bright. As for judging what is appropriate and what is not, it is better that you leave it to the professional and not try to imagine what it is like.

Neither your money, wherever you put it, nor your offer has the slightest interest for me. Since you have certified yourself to be bright, try to find someone to explain to you in simple terms what beneath contempt means.

 

[Yeti]

I may not be bright, but on the whole , I am a decent person. There are more important things in life than being bright. As for judging what is appropriate and what is not, it is better that you leave it to the professional and not try to imagine what it is like.

Neither your money, wherever you put it, nor your offer has the slightest interest for me. Since you have certified yourself to be bright, try to find someone to explain to you in simple terms what beneath contempt means.

Yes your a decent person but according to you I am not? as I am a supporter of Modi? if that is the case so be it, something I could live with and will not lose sleep over.

 

[Joe Shearer]

umm ... what slander? But the point is that it is not clear that the Congress mobs were under Modi's control.

Staines was a Baptist missionary, a breed that tends to be interested in converts. He should have been lawfully deported.

The Congress mobs, if there were any, like the other mobs, should have been dealt with strictly, and should not have enjoyed the protection of the chief minister's unthinkable instructions to his policemen to stand aloof, or of his officers unthinkable compliance with such orders.

It is unbelievable that in the face of such a monstrous crime, you should be obsessed with the politics of the criminals.

Regarding Staines, whether he was a Baptist missionary or any other kind of missionary, he broke no laws. He kept to the terms of his entry. Whether he was of a type that is interested in converts or not is irrelevant; there was no excuse for burning alive the man and his infants.

You know nothing of the law. There is no law under which he could be legally deported.

 

[Yeti]

Staines was accused by Hindu groups of forcefully converting Hindus into Christianity, he worked in a very dangerous region. Really he should of known better I put it down to stupidity on his part which resulted in his death for which there is no excuse! but if he done some research or a little groundwork prior to his undertaking it may have been prevented.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I know AIMPLB are not legitimate sources but you can't club them with Anna Hazare's pack in that for all practical purposes, the government in cahoot with them have always succumbed to their blackmail. Can you definitely say that AIMPLB does not command the power? So why can't I quote them as some kind of authority?

I can definitely say that the AIMPLB does not command power. Nor does any old ragamuffin from Deoband who issues a fatwa of a regressive character, nor does the khap panchayat that kills young people who marry swagotra, nor does the mob that assaults people in bars. These are self-declared authorities. Who are they to tell either the government, or their own people, or other people what to do? The courts have interpreted personal law of all sorts, of all religions since the introduction of common lW to India. Why are these people allowed to impose their opinions on government or on the community? What is the government doing?

You believe that they wield some authority - not power but authority. Do you then think that quietly accepting the situation will make matters better?

 

[Joe Shearer]

In my response to mfreak's post, I was ignoring Madrasahs due to the lack of quality education and I agree I misunderstood your response to that.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Madrasahs take in the children of the poor, educate them with the extremely limited resources and feed and house the children. This was a progressive approach to education which only the vision of MGR introduced to secular education. I was a Sceptic, but the mid-day meal policy was so wholesome, so beneficial, I am a fervent admirer of the old buzzard now.

Madrasahs are a necessary evil, until we stop doing bloody moon shots and concentrate on our primary education. I do not support them, not in the least, but they are not Islamist jihad factories. They are a community effort to improve themselves.

 

[Rig Vedic]

The Congress mobs, if there were any, like the other mobs, should have been dealt with strictly, and should not have enjoyed the protection of the chief minister's unthinkable instructions to his policemen to stand aloof, or of his officers unthinkable compliance with such orders.

The allegations regarding the said instructions are wholly unproved, and have been made by an individual who himself is charged with torture, fabrication of false evidence and many other serious crimes.

It is unbelievable that in the face of such a monstrous crime, you should be obsessed with the politics of the criminals.

The politics of the mobs is certainly relevant, since the accusation is being made by some that the mobs were affiliated with the CM.

In fact, given the number of rioters that were injured or killed in police firing, it does appear that some very harsh measures to control the violence were taken.

there was no excuse for burning alive the man and his infants.

I've already said it was an unfortunate, and if I may add, ghastly, incident. It is decidedly unadvisable to go to remote locations and roil tribal societies. Staines is certainly not the first missionary to have fallen in the line of duty. In Africa the tribals sometimes have missionaries for supper.

 

[Joe Shearer]

My third question still stands - why do minorities need to have different laws especially when the government finds it difficult to refine the laws due to opposition by religious conservatives especially in case of muslims - case to point again - Shah Bano case. And these different laws for different religions are nothing but the legacy of the British?

I liked the word centrist, in a sense me too. While i don't like too much of Hindutva propaganda i can't accept pseudo secular approach of Congress too.

I am also interested in this point, can there be a single law for all??

This is an historical aberration. However, I have a shock for you - and the entire Hindutva brigade.

Goa already has a uniform civil code.

Please consider the different situations in Great Britain, actually, in England and Wales, since Scots law differs in certain particulars, and in France.

England followed common law, a system whereby all law is either statutory, regulatory or case law. If a matter is defined by law passed in a legislature, it is governed by statutory law. If a regulatory authority determines certain processes and functions to be undertaken, based on its authority from the legislature, it is regulatory law that determines it. If neither, then case law is used. Case law is nothing but the study of precedents set in previous cases. In south Asia, both Pakistan and India follow common law, but Sri Lanka follows civil law, since the Dutch introduced European law to the country, and Goa follows civil law due to the Portuguese occupation. Common law covers civil law, everything related to property and to contracts, and criminal law, obviously, crimes.

However, personal matters such as birth, marriage, divorce, sharing of family property and inheritance are covered by Personal Laws. The Hindus are under Mitakshara throughout India, except for Bengal, which is under Dayabhaga. Muslims are under different laws for Sunni and Shia; Indian Muslims are under Hanafi or Jafari systems, depending on whether Sunni or Shia. Christians are governed under the Indian statutes of marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, and guardianship. Brahmos are under the special marriage act. Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, for historical reasons, are under the Hindu laws, specifically, under the Hindu marriage act.

I am prepared to explain further, but only if anyone is interested.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I've already said it was an unfortunate, and if I may add, ghastly, incident. It is decidedly unadvisable to go to remote locations and roil tribal societies. Staines is certainly not the first missionary to have fallen in the line of duty. In Africa the tribals sometimes have missionaries for supper.

This reflects your sensitivity and genuine feeling. I am sorry that I failed to acknowledge it the first time you made that statement. My apologies.

 

[indushek]

This is an historical aberration. However, I have a shock for you - and the entire Hindutva brigade.

Goa already has a uniform civil code.

Please consider the different situations in Great Britain, actually, in England and Wales, since Scots law differs in certain particulars, and in France.

England followed common law, a system whereby all law is either statutory, regulatory or case law. If a matter is defined by law passed in a legislature, it is governed by statutory law. If a regulatory authority determines certain processes and functions to be undertaken, based on its authority from the legislature, it is regulatory law that determines it. If neither, then case law is used. Case law is nothing but the study of precedents set in previous cases. In south Asia, both Pakistan and India follow common law, but Sri Lanka follows civil law, since the Dutch introduced European law to the country, and Goa follows civil law due to the Portuguese occupation. Common law covers civil law, everything related to property and to contracts, and criminal law, obviously, crimes.

However, personal matters such as birth, marriage, divorce, sharing of family property and inheritance are covered by Personal Laws. The Hindus are under Mitakshara throughout India, except for Bengal, which is under Dayabhaga. Muslims are under different laws for Sunni and Shia; Indian Muslims are under Hanafi or Jafari systems, depending on whether Sunni or Shia. Christians are governed under the Indian statutes of marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, and guardianship. Brahmos are under the special marriage act. Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, for historical reasons, are under the Hindu laws, specifically, under the Hindu marriage act.

I am prepared to explain further, but only if anyone is interested.

Yes please go on Joe, i am listening really.

From the differences you have explained logically i think that it will be very hard to follow a common law for all. Does this effect the secular credentials of our country ?? i think u already stated that uniform civil code is a point used by Hindutvadi's as a whipping stick. However in a way does this mean we aren't exactly delineating religion from state (i mean not just centre but state also at a governance stand point). I say this because from a legal standpoint with such diverse application of different legal points a uniform code could be challenged in a court of law as it impinges on the personal freedom of a citizen of this country which it shouldn't. Even if my question seems silly please explain.

 

[Sashan]

I can definitely say that the AIMPLB does not command power. Nor does any old ragamuffin from Deoband who issues a fatwa of a regressive character, nor does the khap panchayat that kills young people who marry swagotra, nor does the mob that assaults people in bars. These are self-declared authorities. Who are they to tell either the government, or their own people, or other people what to do? The courts have interpreted personal law of all sorts, of all religions since the introduction of common lW to India. Why are these people allowed to impose their opinions on government or on the community? What is the government doing?
You believe that they wield some authority - not power but authority. Do you then think that quietly accepting the situation will make matters better?

Isn't that what is going on where the government is hesitant to take on these conservative elements? And isn't that the reason many Indians are frustrated and it has strengthened the right wing Hindu elements and many youngsters are moving towards the right wing?

The court have strived to reduce some of the damages caused by the government. And that is a comforting factor. For example, the damage done by the law passed as an after effect of Shah Bano case was offset by the courts in couple of judgements(I haven't had the time to look up the exact cases but I remember reading about it a while ago)

As for the question of authority vs power - the power they command and what they achieve - in strictest sense it can't be called as authority but in all practical sense, it is.

 

[Sashan]

This is an historical aberration. However, I have a shock for you - and the entire Hindutva brigade.

Goa already has a uniform civil code.

Please consider the different situations in Great Britain, actually, in England and Wales, since Scots law differs in certain particulars, and in France.

England followed common law, a system whereby all law is either statutory, regulatory or case law. If a matter is defined by law passed in a legislature, it is governed by statutory law. If a regulatory authority determines certain processes and functions to be undertaken, based on its authority from the legislature, it is regulatory law that determines it. If neither, then case law is used. Case law is nothing but the study of precedents set in previous cases. In south Asia, both Pakistan and India follow common law, but Sri Lanka follows civil law, since the Dutch introduced European law to the country, and Goa follows civil law due to the Portuguese occupation. Common law covers civil law, everything related to property and to contracts, and criminal law, obviously, crimes.

However, personal matters such as birth, marriage, divorce, sharing of family property and inheritance are covered by Personal Laws. The Hindus are under Mitakshara throughout India, except for Bengal, which is under Dayabhaga. Muslims are under different laws for Sunni and Shia; Indian Muslims are under Hanafi or Jafari systems, depending on whether Sunni or Shia. Christians are governed under the Indian statutes of marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, and guardianship. Brahmos are under the special marriage act. Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, for historical reasons, are under the Hindu laws, specifically, under the Hindu marriage act.

I am prepared to explain further, but only if anyone is interested.

Sorry Joe sir - the highlighted portion is not a shock for me as I knew Goa have a civil law based on amalgation and modification of three different laws.


As for the historical abberation, I feel that word does not convey the exact meaning considering the damage it has done the social fiber of India. I strongly believe this is what have divided the society and the division is getting even more deeper as India economically grows.

I feel this is the reason.

While Hindu laws have been reformed getting rid of some of the evil practices among the hindus - for example, polygamy was prohibited among Hindus, dowry was done for in 1961 - the same have not happened for muslims as the muslim laws were not reformed as Nehru and later others were afraid of touching these laws. Now a section of the population has some not so modern practices like polygamy and dowry and women are not provided maintenance after a certain period(iddah??? - though the courts through various judgements have gotten rid of this convenience of muslim men as I mentioned above). So it is natural for Indians especially Hindus to get frustrated(and isn't it one of the reasons along with opening of the Babri Masjid by Rajiv) the reason for BJP coming to power? And with more and more Indians moving upwards to the middle class, the young Indians are veering towards right. Though it is not good for India, I will not blame them as the Congress in cahoot with religious conservatives have overplayed their hand. Here is why - people who belong to a particular religion wanted their own land and got it during independence. So there should have been only the argument about Hindu India vs secular India and my belief is many hindus would have preferred secular India but it was not the case - the congress still continued the legacy of the British Indian laws and went even further in not touching the muslim laws. So if the religious based divison needs to be stopped, the only way is bringing in uniform code (though I do believe when such a law is formulated, different religions need to make a compromise including Hindus)


I will take your offer about you providing further details on the civil laws.

 

[Sashan]

Before i write i uphold my white flag to both parties here

I liked the word centrist, in a sense me too. While i don't like too much of Hindutva propaganda i can't accept pseudo secular approach of Congress too.

I am also interested in this point, can there be a single law for all??

Mate - isn't that what many Indians want? But I do not see that happening in the near future as the national parties are getting weak and the regional parties are getting stronger and therefore coalition government will be the norm and without absolute majority, no single party can think about bringing in uniform civil code.