He is obviously misconstrued, obviously. This is what he said,
Parties Opposing Notes Ban Like Pakistan's Cover Fire To Terrorists: PM Modi
Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.
- Thread starter Hyde
- Start date
He is obviously misconstrued, obviously. This is what he said,
Parties Opposing Notes Ban Like Pakistan's Cover Fire To Terrorists: PM Modi
911
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 2,408
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
noksss
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,950
- Reaction score
- -15
- Country
- Location
Raul_AD
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2014
- Messages
- 796
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
At last the judiciary seems to be reacting against this six decades of injustice to Hinduism
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...bile&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=referral
CHENNAI: The Madras high court on Wednesday threatened to 'abolish' the Hindu religious and charitable endowments (HR&CE) department of the Tamil Nadu government and even 'abrogate' the HR&CE Act.
The court summoned the HR&CE department commissioner to 'remain personally present' before the first bench on Thursday.
The department wields administrative control over moveable and immoveable assets of temples, valued at a couple of lakh crores of rupees and several thousand temples -- small, medium and big - directly come under it.
At least on paper, these temples own about 4.78 lakh acres of land, 22,500 buildings, besides more than 30,000 vacant sites. Antique idols, temple jewellery and other valuables defy valuation. It controls more than 36,000 temples.
On Wednesday, the first bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar made the caustic oral observations, after the HR&CE commissioner filed an affidavit to side step the court's earlier orders to involve Unesco in conservation and renovation of ancient heritage temples in the state, and, instead, sought to prevent any meaningful role for the Unesco.
As if it was not enough, the official raised a bogey of 'possible religious backlash' if people unauthorised by agama rules of the temples concerned enter the sanctum sanctorum of the temples.
Lambasting the official and making it clear that the court would be constrained to even disband the very department and abrogate the legislation from which the department draws its power, the first bench said: "We find, prima facie, the stand of the HR&CE department subversive of our directions and seeks to prevent any meaningful role for Unesco."
It all started with a PIL filed by a devotee bringing the issue of irreparable damage being caused to ancient heritage temples in the state, in the name of renovation by the HR&CE department. Shocked by the photographs and other proofs showing reckless construction activities right inside some of the oldest and best known temples in the state, the first bench formed a panel, headed by senior advocate P S Raman, to inspect the temples and file reports to court.
After several damning reports were filed, in addition to new PILs concerning specific temples as well as general mishandling of temple heritage by the state department, the bench asked authorities as to why they should not involve an expert body such as the Unesco which had heritage conservation specialists. Initially, it was replied that Unesco did not have a presence in this part of the world.
A PIL-petitioner took the pains of writing to Unesco and bringing it to the notice of the court that one of Unesco's oldest field offices were in India, and that it had offered its expertise to Tamil Nadu government, which did not respond after initial enthusiasm.
The bench then asked Unesco to depute a team to hold talks and study the ground situation in the state, and directed Tamil Nadu government to make arrangements.
When the authorities said there were several committees appointed by them, the bench during last hearing said it would appoint its own committee to go into the issue. It was in response to this court suggestion, that the HR&CE commissioner filed an affidavit stating that even the commissioner of his nominee were not in a position to enter the sanctum sanctorum as per Section the HR&CE Act. He, therefore, said Unesco need not be involved in the exercise.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...bile&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=referral
CHENNAI: The Madras high court on Wednesday threatened to 'abolish' the Hindu religious and charitable endowments (HR&CE) department of the Tamil Nadu government and even 'abrogate' the HR&CE Act.
The court summoned the HR&CE department commissioner to 'remain personally present' before the first bench on Thursday.
The department wields administrative control over moveable and immoveable assets of temples, valued at a couple of lakh crores of rupees and several thousand temples -- small, medium and big - directly come under it.
At least on paper, these temples own about 4.78 lakh acres of land, 22,500 buildings, besides more than 30,000 vacant sites. Antique idols, temple jewellery and other valuables defy valuation. It controls more than 36,000 temples.
On Wednesday, the first bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar made the caustic oral observations, after the HR&CE commissioner filed an affidavit to side step the court's earlier orders to involve Unesco in conservation and renovation of ancient heritage temples in the state, and, instead, sought to prevent any meaningful role for the Unesco.
As if it was not enough, the official raised a bogey of 'possible religious backlash' if people unauthorised by agama rules of the temples concerned enter the sanctum sanctorum of the temples.
Lambasting the official and making it clear that the court would be constrained to even disband the very department and abrogate the legislation from which the department draws its power, the first bench said: "We find, prima facie, the stand of the HR&CE department subversive of our directions and seeks to prevent any meaningful role for Unesco."
It all started with a PIL filed by a devotee bringing the issue of irreparable damage being caused to ancient heritage temples in the state, in the name of renovation by the HR&CE department. Shocked by the photographs and other proofs showing reckless construction activities right inside some of the oldest and best known temples in the state, the first bench formed a panel, headed by senior advocate P S Raman, to inspect the temples and file reports to court.
After several damning reports were filed, in addition to new PILs concerning specific temples as well as general mishandling of temple heritage by the state department, the bench asked authorities as to why they should not involve an expert body such as the Unesco which had heritage conservation specialists. Initially, it was replied that Unesco did not have a presence in this part of the world.
A PIL-petitioner took the pains of writing to Unesco and bringing it to the notice of the court that one of Unesco's oldest field offices were in India, and that it had offered its expertise to Tamil Nadu government, which did not respond after initial enthusiasm.
The bench then asked Unesco to depute a team to hold talks and study the ground situation in the state, and directed Tamil Nadu government to make arrangements.
When the authorities said there were several committees appointed by them, the bench during last hearing said it would appoint its own committee to go into the issue. It was in response to this court suggestion, that the HR&CE commissioner filed an affidavit stating that even the commissioner of his nominee were not in a position to enter the sanctum sanctorum as per Section the HR&CE Act. He, therefore, said Unesco need not be involved in the exercise.
ashok321
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 17,942
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
With your money Modi govt plans to waive off Rs 8 lakh crore worth loans of rich. Mark my words: Rahul to rally goo.gl/h6iLZk
It's time for electoral reforms as finances of 255 political parties under EC radar
The poll watchdog has said that it has unlisted 255 registered but unrecognised political parties between February and December 15 this year.
But alleged honest Modi is against all this...
Unprecedented acrimony marks Jung's tenure as L-G
Najeeb Jung prefers 'his first love' over L-G post
MHA had no clue on Delhi LG's impending move?
TMC will hit streets with 'Modi hatao,desh bachao'
ashok321
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 17,942
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Kanhaiya, Kejriwal and Mallya prominent news makers in 2016 jantakareporter.com/politics/kanha
911
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 2,408
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
Fraudsters, Charlatans and Hidden Jihadis Masquerading as Liberal Muslims
Increasingly, it appears to me that fraudsters, charlatans and hidden jihadis are posing themselves as liberal Muslim intellectuals in India. On the issue of Uniform Civil Code (UCC), some articles and tweets tend to reduce the UCC to a debate between uniformity and diversity, with the purpose being inevitably to do a favour to Islamic Sharia. Their running argument is also that the UCC is a blueprint for the Hindu rule, not a blueprint for the universal values of liberty and equality.
On December 15, historian S. I. Habib tweeted an article whose singular objective was to oppose the UCC. Habib’s tweet contained these words: “No reason to impose Uniform Civil Code on Muslims, but a legal basis to abolish triple talaq.” [1] These words are not Habib’s but constitute a subtitle to the article, written by A.G. Noorani, who seems to have decided to use his constitutional expertise to the cause of Sharia rather than human freedom. [2]
Habib can walk away by saying that he does not endorse Noorani’s intellectual position, especially since many people tweet opposing views. However, some people questioned Habib for his tweet and his responses do make it clear that he does endorse Noorani’s position. Artist Punminder Kaur, resorting to sarcasm, responded to Habib: “And we have to hear these intellectuals (like Habib) on prime time giving lecture(s) on secularism.” [3] To Kaur, Habib retorted: “What has secularism to do with this? Homogeneity in any field (is) not possible in a heterogeneous society.” [4]
If one were to speak of a person’s IQ, this is very unfortunate that Habib, the self-called historian of science, cannot see secularism and universalism in the UCC. Habib’s original tweet also got a response from one Mukesh Bhardwaj, who tweeted: “According to this gentleman Sharia will (be) good for India’s diverse culture.” [5] To Bhardwaj’s tweet, Habib gave an argument: “If this is what… (you) conclude after reading the article then I can only blame your IQ.” [6] I have reviewed Habib’s timeline, and it doesn’t appear that his own IQ is any better than merely opposing the UCC without any arguments in favour of rights and scientific thought.
To Habib’s original tweet, prominent Islamist editor Shahid Siddiqui too responded: “UCC is not suitable for a diverse country like India. It will divide instead of uniting the nation.” [7] Siddiqui is editor of the Urdu-language weekly Nai Duniya . He often appears on television and takes liberal-sounding positions, which are contrary to the positions in his weekly newspaper, which justifies pro-jihadi arguments, which I have discussed in details elsewhere. [8] His newspaper has been known for injecting religious orthodoxies and conspiracy theories into Muslim minds. He speaks of “uniting the nation” in his tweet while his paper is separating Muslims from India’s mainstream.
Habib and Siddiqui, much like explicit Islamists associated with the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, are intentionally diverting the debate on UCC away from the constitutional rights of equality, liberty and non-discrimination. Their singular objective seems to be to mislead public opinion, so that pro-Sharia forces continue to thrive in modern India. Writers and scholars like them are the first line of defence for Islamist clerics, who promote religious orthodoxy, women’s subjugation and religious discrimination. The UCC is not about religion, not even about culture. The UCC is a debate about constitutional rights and universal values for every man and woman.
A.G. Noorani’s article, which was published by The Indian Express , opens with a bold dishonesty: “There is absolutely no case for enacting a uniform civil code.” The facts are otherwise. As a constitutional expert, Noorani must know that Article 44 still exists in the constitution. It says: “The state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” Noorani’s second sentence declares that Modi’s speech at Mahoba in UP on October 24 “professing profuse and unprecedented concern for ‘my Muslim sisters’, impressed none.” Blindsided by his hate for Modi, Noorani cannot see that semi-educated Muslim women are knocking at the Supreme Court’s door to protect their fundamental right to equality. Here is a question for Noorani: how do you know that Modi’s speech “impressed none?”
In the second paragraph, Noorani launches an attack on the Bharatiya Janata Party for not opposing Article 371A on “Naga customary law”, but conveniently ignores the fact that any UCC, whenever it materialises, will ultimately remove all personal laws that conflict with the fundamental rights granted by the constitution. In the third paragraph, Noorani defends, by deliberate omission, the cause of Sharia by arguing that Muslims were offered “respect for their personal law” by Nehru and Gandhi, who also promised “protection by specific provisions” for Muslims in the constitution. If this argument is correct, then Noorani is a hidden jihadi in our social midst, who will also justify Gandhi’s support for the Khilafat Movement, which stood for Sharia rule.
Noorani’s crime is that he is writing over 1,050 words to justify Sharia in India. He quotes Shiv Sena leader Uddhav Thackeray as saying that the BJP “should first announce that this country is a Hindu rashtra and impose the uniform civil code.” Noorani’s clever use of Thackeray’s statement is meant to hide his own love for Sharia rule, and shows complete disregard for constitutional ideals of equality, liberty and women’s rights. He thinks that the UCC’s goal is to “obliterate Muslim identity.” Noorani’s intellectual dishonesty is that he is presenting the UCC in terms of cultural identity, whereas the UCC’s goal is not to change people’s lifestyles, but to uphold their constitutional rights when they come in conflict with personal laws.
“Hence, the Muslims’ opposition (to UCC). It is the lust for uniformity that alienates people,” writes Noorani and I do not know if he understands the political meaning of lust. Lust, which being a private feeling, if defined in the context of his article, will essentially mean Noorani’s lust for Sharia rule in India. The truth, he ignores is this: Muslims have chosen separatism. In the 1857 war, Muslims and Hindus fought together, the former for the revival of Islamic rule. After the war, Muslims missed two historical opportunities – as reminded by Maharashtra-based reformer Hamid Dalwai – to join the national mainstream. The first was the educational movement led by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, which began in opposition to Hindus; and the second was the freedom movement during which Muslims chose a Shariah state in Pakistan.
After Independence, numerous Hindu Islamists – of whom Gandhi was the prime example, since he had supported the Khilafat Movement – fostered separatism by offering quota, by causing Hindu-Muslim riots to win votes and by establishing minority wings of political parties. It is not surprising that in his article, Noorani cites the statements of many Hindu Islamists, who supported Sharia principles and quoted the Quran – rather than the Indian constitution – in their judgements regarding Muslim women’s rights. Unfortunately, Noorani recommends Sharia’s criminal law in India by arguing that a “small UK has two systems of criminal law.”
It suits the hidden jihadi in Noorani to cite justices V.R. Krishna Iyer and Baharul Islam for quoting the Quran, not the constitution, in their judgements. In this country, unfortunately many judges do quote religious texts, not the constitution, when questions about women’s rights and equality are raised. The interesting point is that Noorani quotes these justices as if their word is the word of god, non-negotiable for the democratic age. There are Islamist groups that will find support for Noorani-like intellectuals. For example, the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Aandolan (BMMA), which runs parallel Sharia courts in India, masquerades as a women’s rights group.
Noorani also has an objection to “national integration” and therefore, he belongs to the camp of prominent Muslims, who are fostering Islamic separatism, which once led to the partition of India. He also thinks that the “modern trend is acceptance of diversity.” As if he is emerging from an elementary school, Noorani cannot understand, or understands, but pretends not to, that the UCC is not about diversities in people’s lifestyles and dresses, but about the universal values and rights of individuals. Identities can be diverse, but the rights to liberty, equality and non-discrimination are achievements of rational thinking and secular movements worldwide.
Unfortunately, the word “uniform” in the Uniform Civil Code is being misused by such writers to advance their love for Sharia. The “uniform” in the UCC is meant as a uniformity and equality in terms of rights available to all the citizens. Even secularism is the rational spirit behind the UCC, a point Habib needs to learn quickly. Contrary to Noorani’s arguments, the UCC is not meant to impose lifestyles. Muslims can continue to offer prayers in mosques, go for Hajj or fast during Ramzan. Similarly, members of other religious communities can adhere to their lifestyles and religious practices. The UCC is meant to uphold the constitutional rights of liberty, equality and non-discrimination, when these rights are denied to a citizen for absolutely any reason.
In November, I had a meeting with Maulana Mahmood Madani of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind in Goa, where we discussed the personal law issues. I asked Maulana Madani about the UCC to which he said, we will talk about it when the government brings it, since it relates to other communities as well. I asked him: So, why is it that the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind is organising protest meetings almost every week across India, especially in parts of Maharashtra, against the UCC when its specifics are not yet available? Maulana Madani had no answer to this question. Much like Maulana Madani and his brand of Islamic clerics, Muslim writers like A.G. Noorani, S. I. Habib and Shahid Siddiqui too have launched attack on the UCC even without knowing what its specifics would be. Their intention is clear. This is their intellectual dishonesty in public space. If they are honest, they should say this: let the government present the specifics of UCC first, then we will discuss.
The fundamental objective behind the UCC is the protection of the rights of Indian citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs and identities. Due to these concerns, I drafted with assistance from two friends Satya Prakash and Siddharth Singh a UCC within the broader framework of a Universal Bill of Rights for the Indian Citizen (Ubric). [9] On November 30, 2016, we put this draft UCC in public domain for wider discussion. This is the first draft UCC, since the constitution came into force in 1950. It has 12 clauses, which seek to protect the rights of Indian citizens irrespective of their religious and other identities. [10] These twelve clauses affect neither the lifestyles nor the religious identities of any community. If A. G. Noorani has even an ounce of intellectual honesty, he should spend his legal acumen and draft his own UCC for all Indians, or publicly declare himself a jihadi out to advocate Sharia rule in India. This great country of 1.3 billion people needs to know who we are dealing with.
Increasingly, it appears to me that fraudsters, charlatans and hidden jihadis are posing themselves as liberal Muslim intellectuals in India. On the issue of Uniform Civil Code (UCC), some articles and tweets tend to reduce the UCC to a debate between uniformity and diversity, with the purpose being inevitably to do a favour to Islamic Sharia. Their running argument is also that the UCC is a blueprint for the Hindu rule, not a blueprint for the universal values of liberty and equality.
On December 15, historian S. I. Habib tweeted an article whose singular objective was to oppose the UCC. Habib’s tweet contained these words: “No reason to impose Uniform Civil Code on Muslims, but a legal basis to abolish triple talaq.” [1] These words are not Habib’s but constitute a subtitle to the article, written by A.G. Noorani, who seems to have decided to use his constitutional expertise to the cause of Sharia rather than human freedom. [2]
Habib can walk away by saying that he does not endorse Noorani’s intellectual position, especially since many people tweet opposing views. However, some people questioned Habib for his tweet and his responses do make it clear that he does endorse Noorani’s position. Artist Punminder Kaur, resorting to sarcasm, responded to Habib: “And we have to hear these intellectuals (like Habib) on prime time giving lecture(s) on secularism.” [3] To Kaur, Habib retorted: “What has secularism to do with this? Homogeneity in any field (is) not possible in a heterogeneous society.” [4]
If one were to speak of a person’s IQ, this is very unfortunate that Habib, the self-called historian of science, cannot see secularism and universalism in the UCC. Habib’s original tweet also got a response from one Mukesh Bhardwaj, who tweeted: “According to this gentleman Sharia will (be) good for India’s diverse culture.” [5] To Bhardwaj’s tweet, Habib gave an argument: “If this is what… (you) conclude after reading the article then I can only blame your IQ.” [6] I have reviewed Habib’s timeline, and it doesn’t appear that his own IQ is any better than merely opposing the UCC without any arguments in favour of rights and scientific thought.
To Habib’s original tweet, prominent Islamist editor Shahid Siddiqui too responded: “UCC is not suitable for a diverse country like India. It will divide instead of uniting the nation.” [7] Siddiqui is editor of the Urdu-language weekly Nai Duniya . He often appears on television and takes liberal-sounding positions, which are contrary to the positions in his weekly newspaper, which justifies pro-jihadi arguments, which I have discussed in details elsewhere. [8] His newspaper has been known for injecting religious orthodoxies and conspiracy theories into Muslim minds. He speaks of “uniting the nation” in his tweet while his paper is separating Muslims from India’s mainstream.
Habib and Siddiqui, much like explicit Islamists associated with the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, are intentionally diverting the debate on UCC away from the constitutional rights of equality, liberty and non-discrimination. Their singular objective seems to be to mislead public opinion, so that pro-Sharia forces continue to thrive in modern India. Writers and scholars like them are the first line of defence for Islamist clerics, who promote religious orthodoxy, women’s subjugation and religious discrimination. The UCC is not about religion, not even about culture. The UCC is a debate about constitutional rights and universal values for every man and woman.
A.G. Noorani’s article, which was published by The Indian Express , opens with a bold dishonesty: “There is absolutely no case for enacting a uniform civil code.” The facts are otherwise. As a constitutional expert, Noorani must know that Article 44 still exists in the constitution. It says: “The state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” Noorani’s second sentence declares that Modi’s speech at Mahoba in UP on October 24 “professing profuse and unprecedented concern for ‘my Muslim sisters’, impressed none.” Blindsided by his hate for Modi, Noorani cannot see that semi-educated Muslim women are knocking at the Supreme Court’s door to protect their fundamental right to equality. Here is a question for Noorani: how do you know that Modi’s speech “impressed none?”
In the second paragraph, Noorani launches an attack on the Bharatiya Janata Party for not opposing Article 371A on “Naga customary law”, but conveniently ignores the fact that any UCC, whenever it materialises, will ultimately remove all personal laws that conflict with the fundamental rights granted by the constitution. In the third paragraph, Noorani defends, by deliberate omission, the cause of Sharia by arguing that Muslims were offered “respect for their personal law” by Nehru and Gandhi, who also promised “protection by specific provisions” for Muslims in the constitution. If this argument is correct, then Noorani is a hidden jihadi in our social midst, who will also justify Gandhi’s support for the Khilafat Movement, which stood for Sharia rule.
Noorani’s crime is that he is writing over 1,050 words to justify Sharia in India. He quotes Shiv Sena leader Uddhav Thackeray as saying that the BJP “should first announce that this country is a Hindu rashtra and impose the uniform civil code.” Noorani’s clever use of Thackeray’s statement is meant to hide his own love for Sharia rule, and shows complete disregard for constitutional ideals of equality, liberty and women’s rights. He thinks that the UCC’s goal is to “obliterate Muslim identity.” Noorani’s intellectual dishonesty is that he is presenting the UCC in terms of cultural identity, whereas the UCC’s goal is not to change people’s lifestyles, but to uphold their constitutional rights when they come in conflict with personal laws.
“Hence, the Muslims’ opposition (to UCC). It is the lust for uniformity that alienates people,” writes Noorani and I do not know if he understands the political meaning of lust. Lust, which being a private feeling, if defined in the context of his article, will essentially mean Noorani’s lust for Sharia rule in India. The truth, he ignores is this: Muslims have chosen separatism. In the 1857 war, Muslims and Hindus fought together, the former for the revival of Islamic rule. After the war, Muslims missed two historical opportunities – as reminded by Maharashtra-based reformer Hamid Dalwai – to join the national mainstream. The first was the educational movement led by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, which began in opposition to Hindus; and the second was the freedom movement during which Muslims chose a Shariah state in Pakistan.
After Independence, numerous Hindu Islamists – of whom Gandhi was the prime example, since he had supported the Khilafat Movement – fostered separatism by offering quota, by causing Hindu-Muslim riots to win votes and by establishing minority wings of political parties. It is not surprising that in his article, Noorani cites the statements of many Hindu Islamists, who supported Sharia principles and quoted the Quran – rather than the Indian constitution – in their judgements regarding Muslim women’s rights. Unfortunately, Noorani recommends Sharia’s criminal law in India by arguing that a “small UK has two systems of criminal law.”
It suits the hidden jihadi in Noorani to cite justices V.R. Krishna Iyer and Baharul Islam for quoting the Quran, not the constitution, in their judgements. In this country, unfortunately many judges do quote religious texts, not the constitution, when questions about women’s rights and equality are raised. The interesting point is that Noorani quotes these justices as if their word is the word of god, non-negotiable for the democratic age. There are Islamist groups that will find support for Noorani-like intellectuals. For example, the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Aandolan (BMMA), which runs parallel Sharia courts in India, masquerades as a women’s rights group.
Noorani also has an objection to “national integration” and therefore, he belongs to the camp of prominent Muslims, who are fostering Islamic separatism, which once led to the partition of India. He also thinks that the “modern trend is acceptance of diversity.” As if he is emerging from an elementary school, Noorani cannot understand, or understands, but pretends not to, that the UCC is not about diversities in people’s lifestyles and dresses, but about the universal values and rights of individuals. Identities can be diverse, but the rights to liberty, equality and non-discrimination are achievements of rational thinking and secular movements worldwide.
Unfortunately, the word “uniform” in the Uniform Civil Code is being misused by such writers to advance their love for Sharia. The “uniform” in the UCC is meant as a uniformity and equality in terms of rights available to all the citizens. Even secularism is the rational spirit behind the UCC, a point Habib needs to learn quickly. Contrary to Noorani’s arguments, the UCC is not meant to impose lifestyles. Muslims can continue to offer prayers in mosques, go for Hajj or fast during Ramzan. Similarly, members of other religious communities can adhere to their lifestyles and religious practices. The UCC is meant to uphold the constitutional rights of liberty, equality and non-discrimination, when these rights are denied to a citizen for absolutely any reason.
In November, I had a meeting with Maulana Mahmood Madani of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind in Goa, where we discussed the personal law issues. I asked Maulana Madani about the UCC to which he said, we will talk about it when the government brings it, since it relates to other communities as well. I asked him: So, why is it that the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind is organising protest meetings almost every week across India, especially in parts of Maharashtra, against the UCC when its specifics are not yet available? Maulana Madani had no answer to this question. Much like Maulana Madani and his brand of Islamic clerics, Muslim writers like A.G. Noorani, S. I. Habib and Shahid Siddiqui too have launched attack on the UCC even without knowing what its specifics would be. Their intention is clear. This is their intellectual dishonesty in public space. If they are honest, they should say this: let the government present the specifics of UCC first, then we will discuss.
The fundamental objective behind the UCC is the protection of the rights of Indian citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs and identities. Due to these concerns, I drafted with assistance from two friends Satya Prakash and Siddharth Singh a UCC within the broader framework of a Universal Bill of Rights for the Indian Citizen (Ubric). [9] On November 30, 2016, we put this draft UCC in public domain for wider discussion. This is the first draft UCC, since the constitution came into force in 1950. It has 12 clauses, which seek to protect the rights of Indian citizens irrespective of their religious and other identities. [10] These twelve clauses affect neither the lifestyles nor the religious identities of any community. If A. G. Noorani has even an ounce of intellectual honesty, he should spend his legal acumen and draft his own UCC for all Indians, or publicly declare himself a jihadi out to advocate Sharia rule in India. This great country of 1.3 billion people needs to know who we are dealing with.
ashok321
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 17,942
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
New passport rules: Aadhaar as DoB proof, Hindu sadhus can apply giving their guru's name
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...ds-date-of-birth-proof-pan-card/1/841509.html
ROFOL at India.
Demonetisation human toll exceeds 100 now.
noksss
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,950
- Reaction score
- -15
- Country
- Location
New passport rules: Aadhaar as DoB proof, Hindu sadhus can apply giving their guru's name
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...ds-date-of-birth-proof-pan-card/1/841509.html
ROFOL at India.
Demonetisation human toll exceeds 100 now.
Raul_AD
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2014
- Messages
- 796
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
http://linkis.com/myvoice.opindia.com/QWMOo
Demonetization: What does the world’s most unbiased reporter say?
BY CHAIWALLAH / EDITOR’S PICKS, MEDIA / 15 DEC 2016
This might come as a shock to The Hindu, The Troll, The Wire and The Huffington Post. Not to mention a shock to Newslaundry. The best journalists in the world don’t come out of Doon school and St. Stephens College and JNU and Jamia Millia Islamia. To say nothing of Columbia University school of Journalism.
Here is the world’s best journalist:
It’s called money.
Suppose that you want to know how India’s rice farmers are doing right now. Suppose you want to know how the laborers who sowed the rice, the laborers who harvested the crop, the farmers who sold the crop, the traders who bought the crop and the truckers who transported the crop and finally the grocers who put the rice on market shelves are doing.
You have two choices. You could go to a “journalist” who will pick one person from each category and ask the question that is the hallmark of airhead reporting today: “Aapko kaisa lag raha hai?”. But keep in mind that this journalist could have an agenda. He or she could have been an Agustapatrakar. Even a Radia stenographer perhaps. Or maybe a Bhakt?
But there is a second, much better choice. You could simply go check the price.
The price is one single magical number that captures the situation of every single person in the supply chain. The best thing about prices is that they don’t have an agenda. The price does not have a political affiliation. The price doesn’t care if you are a Modi supporter or a Rahul Gandhi supporter. The price doesn’t care if you are an illiterate person or you have an arts degree from JNU.
Since Nov 8, we have all read fantastic stories of how all the agricultural Mandis are empty, of how trucks have gone off the road. We have heard about how farmers cannot harvest their crop nor sell their crop nor plant a new crop. Amazingly however, there is one stubborn fact. Prices aren’t rising!
Apparently, no trader, no hoarder has noticed yet the opportunity of a lifetime. Hardly any crop got harvested, hardly any crop got sowed and hardly any crop got transported. The farms are empty, the trucks are empty, the Mandis are empty, but the markets are full. Amazing!
In fact, is there one item that people can name that has disappeared from the shelves since Nov 8? From tomatoes to journalists to intellectuals, the markets seem well stocked with stuff for sale as usual.
Those claiming “poor implementation” of demonetization should answer the question about why there are no price shocks happening anywhere? Do they understand what it takes to keep 1200 million people supplied with milk, grain and vegetables after sucking 86% of all currency out of the system? And yet, not a single price shock.
In fact, in the initial weeks, the “poor implementation” brigade was greedily looking forward to a collapse of the supply chain. Here is the Wall Street Journal on Nov 16.
Choked since Nov 8 but still prices not rising. Will good Dr. Manmohan Singh kindly explain this? Look at this:
It’s on Nov 20 that The Indian Express confirmed the collapse of the sugar supply chain. It’s Dec 14 and still no coup in the prices of sugar. Clearly an RSS conspiracy.
Again on Nov 24, a confirmation from India Today that 70% of trucks are off the roads. As if further evidence was needed, they even have a photograph of 7 trucks parked side by side. The other 3 trucks must still be on the road. But still no price rise? Why? What is the deal, Modi ji?
Food markets frozen since Nov 18 as reported by Scroll.in, complete with a picture of a gloomy trader sitting with the last vestiges of India’s food stocks.
The prices still aren’t rising. Only intolerance is.
The closest we came to a price shock was a rumor about a shortage of salt. In a matter of a few hours, salt prices across the country went through the roof, with gullible people buying one kg of salt for as much as Rs 200 and journalists buying it for as much as Rs. 400.
That is what can happen simply from the perception of a shortage. And here we have confirmed reports from Wall Street Journal, India Today, The Indian Express and Scroll.in about a freeze in the supply chain. But the price system still shows no sign of cooperating with the intellectuals. Has the credibility of journalists become so low that people would go in a mad rush to buy salt based on Whatsapp rumors but ignore the hard hitting reporting of qualified journalists? I guess this must be the “post truth society” the liberals keep complaining about.
ThinkLogically
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
- Messages
- 821
- Reaction score
- -16
- Country
- Location
Similar threads
