Riot for Votes, the politicization of bloodshed.

[Dillinger]

I can't talk about ayodhya, but I can say that it is not unconventional to allow distinctive groups to evolve themselves. In the end the muslim women of India need to protest and fight this- not us, happens in many parts of the world. And I can't see how issues muslim personal law can remove corruption. Instead of focussing on this, we should look at other issues on a war footing.

Convenient, so IF the party you support engages in activities which are clearly NOT secular then people should turn a blind eye and focus on more pressing issues, on the other hand if a candidate at least speaks of addressing more pressing issues (economy, development) then one needs to be aware of his communal credentials and avoid him. How absolutely convenient.

Muslim women should handle it on their own hunh? Then why cry rivers of blood over a mosque? The mosque and the vote is more important than their womenfolk and their education.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Convenient, so IF the party you support engages in activities which are clearly NOT secular then people should turn a blind eye and focus on more pressing issues, on the other hand if a candidate at least speaks of addressing more pressing issues (economy, development) then one needs to be aware of his communal credentials and avoid him. How absolutely convenient.

No- you, along with scholar politicians Praveen Togadia and Ashok Singhal are going to lead muslims to a brighter future. Good luck with that.

 

[Bang Galore]

I can't talk about ayodhya, but I can say that it is not unconventional to allow distinctive groups to evolve themselves. In the end the muslim women of India need to protest and fight this- not us, happens in many parts of the world. And I can't see how issues muslim personal law can remove corruption. Instead of focussing on this, we should look at other issues on a war footing.

The Supreme Court ruled, there was no need to do anything. RG overturned a Supreme Court decision to allow alimony for a Muslim woman by using his parliamentary majority. As shameless as it gets.

 

[Dillinger]

No- you, along with scholar politicians Praveen Togadia and Ashok Singhal are going to lead muslims to a brighter future. Good luck with that.

Oh yes, your polling partner Owaisi is a match for Togadia and his buffoon squad. If non sequiturs are all you have then so be it.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

The Supreme Court ruled, there was no need to do anything. RG overturned a Supreme Court decision to allow alimony for a Muslim woman by using his parliamentary majority. As shameless as it gets.

That's why there is a balance of power between executive and judiciary. There really are decisions that are not right to implement at a given time. Why only this case then? Even on right to property IG used her majority to go against a judicial decision? Why is that never talked about? Coz in this case it's easy to get political mileage for the right wingers.

 

[Dillinger]

The Supreme Court ruled, there was no need to do anything. RG overturned a Supreme Court decision to allow alimony for a Muslim woman by using his parliamentary majority. As shameless as it gets.

The Gandhi name washes away all sins, its like the Ganga of old. Ye have been blessed oh great nation, with ye nitwits who shall never look beyond the name.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Oh yes, your polling partner Owaisi is a match for Togadia and his buffoon squad. If non sequiturs are all you have then so be it.

This is as valid as it gets. The people asking for uniform code are Togadia, Singhal, Dillinger and co. You really are saying you know better how muslims should live their lives than you do. And your credentials are primarily rabble rousers of the Bajarang Dal kind. Not exactly intellectual material.

 

[Bang Galore]

This is as valid as it gets. The people asking for uniform code are Togadia, Singhal, Dillinger and co.

Err.....and the Constitution.....and the Supreme Court.......

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Err.....and the Constitution.....and the Supreme Court.......

No- supreme court has clearly left it in legislative domain that's why they haven't passed a ruling that says 'uniform civil code is mandatory'. And the constitution recognizes somethings are not achievable on day 1 so they have directive principles of state policy to be achieved over time.

 

[Dillinger]

This is as valid as it gets. The people asking for uniform code are Togadia, Singhal, Dillinger and co. You really are saying you know better how muslims should live their lives than you do. And your credentials are primarily rabble rousers of the Bajarang Dal kind. Not exactly intellectual material.

Take it up with the directive principles of the constitution. Your morality only sees you "bleed" for votes and the ye old Gandhi name. You know nothing of the situation. You know nothing of the fact that we have been trying to get your sainted babus in the Congress and SP to grant us JUST 6,00,000 rupees so that we can provide scholarships to Muslim girls (300 in number for a pilot project) so that they may transition from primary to secondary schooling (which sees the highest percentage of dropouts in said segment)- you have no idea of the snide remarks passed by the district officials appointed by your coalition partners. We are working in two states, and guess which other state I am referring to and their cooperation on the matter. Secularism and caring for the minorities my foot!
@Bang Galore leave it be man, leave it be.

 

[Bang Galore]

No- supreme court has clearly left it in legislative domain that's why they haven't passed a ruling that says 'uniform civil code is mandatory'. And the constitution recognizes somethings are not achievable on day 1 so they have directive principles of state policy to be achieved over time.

It is a directive principle in the constitution.......and time does not mean never. If it is there in the constitution, then one can always argue for its implementation. Your argument that it is somehow wrong to ask for it to be implemented is clearly not valid.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

It is a directive principle in the constitution.......and time does not mean never. If it is there, then one can always argue for its implementation. Your argument that it is somehow wrong to ask for it is clearly not valid.

And directive principles are to be achieved 'over time', it is something to be worked towards. Even in our own laws they have made allowances to following practices which are in keeping with those 'prevalent at the time'. And don't play victim here- for similar reasons there is no ban on caste in India. It is for Indians to 'evolve' into a casteless society which will take time. Hindus have much to correct before pointing fingers at others too you know. Far more pressing for the Togadia brigade must have been a clarion call to remove dalit discrimination (hell I'd have even joined the VHP for that). There is no power there is it?

 

[Bang Galore]

And directive principles are to be achieved 'over time', it is something to be worked towards. Even in our own laws they have made allowances to following practices which are in keeping with those 'prevalent at the time'. And don't play victim here- for similar reasons there is no ban on caste in India. It is for Indians to 'evolve' into a casteless society which will take time. Hindus have much to correct before pointing fingers at others too you know. Far more pressing for the Togadia brigade must have been a clarion call to remove dalit discrimination (hell I'd have even joined the VHP for that). There is no power there is it?

Who's playing victim? Me? Directive principles exist for a reason, you were the one arguing that it is somehow wrong to ask that it be implemented.No ban on caste? That's your logic? Forget about lecturing me about what Hindus have to do, I have never shied from taking anything & everything on but that excuse is pathetic. Uniform civil ode is not the same as trying to remove Sunni-Shia differences, that might have a parallel with caste issues.

It is these kind of arguments that are responsible for so many Hindus to take hardline positions on these matters, the utter lack of any desire to engage honestly. They read, and correctly that some will pick & choose what they want from the constitution. That is simply asking for trouble.

 

[Dillinger]

Who's playing victim? Me? Directive principles exist for a reason, you were the one arguing that it is somehow wrong to ask that it be implemented.No ban on caste? That's your logic? Forget about lecturing me about what Hindus have to do, I have never shied from taking anything & everything on but that excuse is pathetic. Uniform civil ode is not the same as trying to remove Sunni-Shia differences, that might have a parallel with caste issues.

There seems to have been this law that had outlawed caste discrimination- now if the gentleman would call for the stringent enforcement of said law then yes he would be in the right and we would finally share one common goal at least.

 

[Bang Galore]

There seems to have been this law that had outlawed caste discrimination- now if the gentleman would call for the stringent enforcement of said law then yes he would be in the right and we would finally share one common goal at least.

He is talking about a ban on caste itself, not just on discrimination where he knows what the legal position is.