Saturday, April 27, 2013

[IAC#RG] Online Request/Grievance registration in President's Secretariat Helpline

From: <helpline@rb.nic.in>
Date: Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Subject: Online Request/Grievance registration in President's Secretariat Helpline


Dear Sir/Madam,

Your Request/Grievance has been registered vide Registration number PRSEC/E/2013/06052 .Please quote the same in your future correspondance.

Note: This is a system generated mail. Please do not reply it.

I am aggrieved as follows:-

1) That I had formally lodged a Public Grievance duly registered at no. CABST/E/2012/00216 on 26.06.2012 on the Central Govt web portal www.pgportal.nic.in.

2) That my grievance was specifically directed against certain misconduct of Mr. Ajit Kr. Seth the present Union Cabinet Secretary.

3) That whereas the time to dispose of the registered Public Grievances is 2 months, in my case it is lying unattended for over 9 months now.

4) That I am caused to say that my Public Grievance is unattended due to the specific allegations I have made therein concerning the role of Mr. Ajit Kr Seth in corruptly manipulating the appointment and selection of Central Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission.

5) That I have been regularly following up and representing for my aforesaid Public Grievance to be resolved, however, Mr. Ajit Kr. Seth has been interfering to see that no action is taken. My latest communication dt. 21.04.2013 to Shri Alok Chaturvedi (Jt. Secretary/Cabinet Secretariat) has also been ignored.

6) That I am a directly affected person in the matter since I was one of the 214 persons who applied for the said post, and that my eminence, qualifications and suitability for the post(s) cannot be denied vis-a-vis / over the candidates actually appointed. However, as an honest person I did not agree for / employ the usual bribes / dishonesties to advance my cause.

7) That in the circumstances I must PRAY that I either be appointed as a Central Information Commissioner (4 posts for which are still vacant) or that I be given the statutory permission / approval to prosecute Mr. Ajit Kr. Seth for corruption and other offences.

Re: [IAC#RG] Leadership

No one is free person in our country and also no one wants to lead the people for betterment.
We only talk and discuss something which we are unable to acheive.
The Prime Minister or any selected or elected person can;t reveal the truth after they have taken the oath or affurmation while taking the charge of post
allotted under the Constitution .
They are not allowed to speak in the house of people or at Rajya Sabha without obtaining permission from the Chairperson.
 
 

Warm regards,
 
Rakshpal Abrol
Consumer Activist
9820203154
rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in


From: Hari Goyal <haridgoyal@hotmail.com>
To: Ajay Dixit <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>; "vijay.pti@gmail.com" <vijay.pti@gmail.com>; Brig. <jagjit.ahuja@gmail.com>
Cc: Hari Goyal <haridgoyal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013 8:36 PM
Subject: RE: [IAC#RG] Leadership

I fully endorse your views. Unfortunately, there is no national or regional leader who 
is ready to contain or eradicate corruption in the present Indian system. P.M. is prisoner 
of corrupt oppurtunists.    

Hari Dev Goyal
011-25082239

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:14:46 +0530

From: jagjit.ahuja@gmail.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Leadership

In fact our PM as leader , should have taken the responsibility for all the scams and resigned long back.

We now need a leader who should  convert every citizen of our country  as  Indian .

Brig J S Ahuja

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Vijay Verma <vijay.pti@gmail.com> wrote:
We need leader like Lal Bahadur Shastri who has guts to take responsibility of a minor error which dose not relate direct to him like after a train accident he did resign as then Railways Minister, and we have leaders which only take credit for good things and point out finger on others when some thing went wrong and refuse to take responsibility. This my humble request to all those people who wants to became a leader please understand the meaning of leadership. If you leads the nation you must be followed by millions if you find that few is people is around you, that means only those getting facilitation by you.

--


With warm regards,

Vijay Verma (Photo Journalist)
The Press Trust of India (PTI)
4, Parliament Street, New Delhi (India)
Pin code- 110001

Ph:+91-11-23715847(O)
     +91-9810126683 (M)
Fax:+91-11-23359217


Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in


Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in

Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in

Re: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

Dear Members

The term "Hindustani" is a proud one and superior to 'Bhartiyas' or Bharat-wasis etc. The best way to understand the meaning of it is as "not Pakistani".

Hindustani's are those Indians (Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Brahmos, and all other "Hindus") who rejected the notion of Pakistan at the time of Partition and opted for India. It cannot be forgotten that there were Hindus who migrated to Pakistan as well as Muslims who migrated to India at the time of Partition.

In war after war with Pakistan, India's Muslims have demonstrated their loyalty to Hindustan and despite the treacherous rulers of India which frittered away all the hard won gains due to a silent foreign hand which controls India's destiny. (The term "Bharat Bhagya Vidhata" has to be properly decoded to refer to that notorious international secret society which the Hindu Samaj has always opposed - which notorious secret society openly names persons like the Nehrus, Swami Vivekananda and virtually every US President as its members).

http://www.masonindia.org/index10.html

"Q). Name some of the prominent Indians who were Freemasons.

A). Swamy Vivekananda (initiated in 1884 under the name of Bro. Narendra Nath Dutt in Lodge Anchor & Hope, Calcutta). Motilal Nehru - Lodge Harmony, Kanpur (Father of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and grand father of Indhira Gandhi), C. Rajagopalachary (Governor General of India), Sir C P Ramaswamy Iyer (Divan of Travancore), Dr. P V Cheriy (Governor of Maharashtra), and Fakruddin Ali Ahmed (President of India)."

India Against Corruption supports that everyone Indian should be termed "Hindustani" and all subsidies and concessions must be withdrawn immediately. The phrase "We the people of India that is Bharat" should be replaced everywhere by "We the people of Hindustan" so that the Hindustani people are rapidly united and strengthened to fight the inevitable "war on 2 fronts".

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:39 AM, krishan tuli <kptuli@yahoo.com> wrote:
1)   U R VERY RIGHT I AM VERY OLD.   I CAN SAY I HAVE SEEN THE WORLD, TRAVELING AND LIVING IN MANY COUNTRIES.

2) MY COMMENTS WERE GENERAL IN NATURE.  IT CANNOT BE DENIED AND HISTORY IS A WITNESS TO THIS FACT THAT MOST MUSLIMS, AS INDIVIDUALS, ARE NICE AND MORE TRUSTWORTHY THAN OTHERS INCLUDING HINDUS.  MUSLIMS HAVE PROVED TO BE DEPENDABLE, LOVABLE AND SINCERE.  PROBLEM COMES WHEN THEY ARE TOLD, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, THAT ISLAM IS IN DANGER.   THIS SUPERSEDES EVERY OTHER CONSIDERATION, WITH SOME EXEMPTIONS OF COURSE, WITH THE RESULT IT BECOMES A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

3)  HAS ANY ONE BOTHERED HOW ETHNIC CLEANSING OF HINDUS, SIKHS, CHRISTIANS IN PAKISTAN HAS HAPPENED AND IS CONTINUING!

4)  UNDER THE GARB OF SECULARISM, HINDUS WHO FORM MAJORITY IN INDIA, ARE DENIED BASIC RIGHTS.  WHY EVERY INDIAN IS NOT CALLED HINDUSTANI AND SHOULD  HAVE NO OTHER IDENTITY OR SPECIAL RIGHTS?

ALL THIS IS HIGHER 'POLITICS' AND POLITICIAN ARE FOOLING PEOPLE BY DIVIDING AND MANIPULATING VOTES.

IT LOOKS IT IS GETTING BEYOND GOD TO SAVE THIS COUNTRY WITH THE PRESENT  KIND OF GOVERANCE AND THE TWIN DANGERS LOOMING  FROM CHINA AND PAKISTAN.


From: Amjad Afridi <afridiamjad@hotmail.com>
To: krishan tuli <kptuli@yahoo.com>; "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:55 PM
Subject: RE: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

Mr. Tuli,
You are absolutely wrong.
Aap pata nahi kis zamaney ki baat kar rahey hain......lol....

You are either very old and cynical and/or have a very warped sense of History and Social Change.

To speak in your language and make generalizations like you....
I can bet you also think that Caste system is good and I am sure you also practice un-touchability.

Just to inform you :

I am a Muslim.
I am more Nationalist than you can ever dream to be.
I know more about the History of the Freedom Movement than you can appreciate its nuances.
I hate Pakistan because as a nation their thinking is as twisted and prejudiced as yours.

I also want to tell you and all of your ilk and tribe that my brother was the first J&K Police officer who volunteered to take up anti-militancy operations in the Kashmir Valley in the early 1990s, when the Government of India was at a complete loss and no intelligence was forth coming. It was my brother who led multiple operations and strategies to crush militancy in Kashmir. Anyone having in-depth knowledge of anti-militancy operations, including field army officers, in the Kashmir valley will tell you this. This has been acknowledged by the Government of India, (including Advani Ji when he was the Home Minister) by decorating him many a times.
My brother is also a Muslim. I do not want to take his name. He has a number of enemies and is under life time 'Z' category protection for serving his County.

You have abused and hurt my Nationalist sentiments by what you have written.
An apology from you will only be in the fitness of things. 
Please try to see life in ways other than your jaundiced vision.

Jai Hind.

Amjad Afridi

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 03:48:06 -0700
From: kptuli@yahoo.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

YOU WRITE BEAUTIFULLY AND HOWSOEVER YOUR VIEWS AND REASONING MAY BE GENUINE  BUT THIS ALL IS SUBVERTED WHEN YOU WISH OR ENTERTAIN A VISION OF ALL INDIANS BEING HINDUSTANI,  BECAUSE MUSLIMS CAN ONLY BE MUSLIMS ( THOUGH THEIR FOREFATHERS WERE ALL HINDUS AND WERE CONVERTED TO ISLAM)


[IAC#RG] ESCALATION: PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: DoPT's new Guidelines on suo-moto disclosure in RTI.

To:
Shri P.K.Misra, IAS
Secretary, Department of Personnel

BY EMAIL

Date: 28.04.2013

Sir,

I am constrained to inform you as follows:-

1) That Shri Manoj Joshi, JS(AT&A) has not yet acknowledged my email addressed to him, dated 21.04.2013.

2) That every time I complain to the DoPT using Public Grievance Facility, certain vested interests like Ms. Aruna Roy (Member/NAC) ensure that the concerned files get stolen / lost within DoPT. The junior officers of the concerned RTI section are hapless since the oral orders to arrange the theft of these files emanate directly from the National Advisory Council and they are powerless to refuse. When the officers refuse to be cowed down to make the files disappear they are bribed with out-of-turn promotions, such as in the case of Mr. K.G.Verma (formerly Director/RTI) who arranged that some crucial files disappeared and no FIR was lodged for it.

3) In the instant case, I am aggrieved that Ms. Aruna Roy-member NAC (who describes herself as being founder of an organisation styled as National Campaign for People's Right to Information - "NCPRI") managed to pack a Task Force for RTI suo-moto disclosure with constituents of the NCPRI, to the extent that all the representatives of so-called "civil society" in the Task force were her dummies who uniformly demanded to be heavily reimbursed for their participation in the Task Force, and which I suspect is a kick-back for Ms. Aruna Roy who got them appointed by misusing her position as member NAC, where incidentally she mock-piously takes no money.

4) As Mr. Manoj Joshi has a long way to go in public service, he is evidently not prepared to tangle with fixers like Ms. Aruna Roy and take up my public grievance with the integrity and dedication it deserves.

5) Accordingly, I would be obliged if my public grievance is therefore entrusted to some capable and upright officer, if there are any, in your Department for urgent and expeditious resolution.

6) I and members of my movement - the "India Against Corruption" are OUTRAGED at a particularly obnoxious and bizarre clause 1.4.1 in these guidelines, inserted at the behest of Ms. Aruna Roy, which is designed to target RTI Activists so as to get them killed and/or physically assaulted and threatened etc., and which I say should be withdrawn immediately since the present position is that an RTI request abates on the death of the applicant.

With best wishes

Yours faithfully

Sarbajit Roy
National Convenor
India Against Corruption, jan andolan

B/59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
To:
JS(ATA)/DoPT

Kind Attn: Mr. Manoj Joshi

cc: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net

21-April-2013

Sir

I refer to the RTI Guidelines on suo-moto disclosure. I have carefully noted that these are stated to be based on the proceedings of the Task Force of May 2011 which allegedly included some civil society representatives.

http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02rti/Suo_moto_disclosure-15042013.pdf

It seems all my several objections and public grievance made to you and your predecessor Mr Rajiv Kapoor that the so-called members of civil society organisations of the May 2011 Task Force are bogus and/or fake persons hand-picked by Ms. Aruna Roy (NAC/NCPRI) to push through a foreign financed transparency agenda, have been ignored / overlooked / not considered.

Let me reiterate for your benefit a few of my objections which were not considered while issuing these guidelines :-

1) NCRPI was meant to send 1 representative, they sent 3 (Mr. Venkatesh Nayak, Ms Rakshita  and Mr. Nikhil Dey).

2) Satark Nagrik Sangathan is a dummy constituent of NCPRI operating out of a small "scooter garage" measuring 4' x 6' of a DDA flat.

3) JOSH is another constituent of NCPRI, as is MAGP, which is closely associated with NCPRI.

4) "IT for Change"'s connection to NCPRI is unclear

On the other hand there is no dearth of civil society organisations working for RTI which openly disagree with and are not connected to NCPRI and who ought to have been represented.

I would therefore request you to kindly acknowledge my instant grievance and immediately recall your impugned Guidelines. In the alternative I would be left with no alternative but to complain against the officers who allow such blatant lobbying by Ms Aruna Roy to take place for extraneous considerations, and I would do so publicly.

PS; for your ready reference the text of one such complaint I made to Mr. Rajiv Kapoor by email on 9.June.2011 is appended below, and I hope the same was taken into consideration while formulating  these guidelines

Sarbajit Roy
National Convenor
India Against Corruption

B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel: 011-24334262

<text of email of 9.6.2011>

"To:
Mr Rajeev Kapur
Joint Secretary (ATA), DoPT/GoI

CONFIDENTIAL

Sir

SUBJECT: Concerning section 4 RTI Act Task Force

1) I thank you for the courtesy extended to me when I visited your office today in connection with my grievances regarding PG and RTI matters and consequent perception / accusations of impropriety ./ dishonesty. I am very concerned that no wrong / false accusations are made / perceived to be made.

2) For your ready reference, I am listing a few initial concerns of mine on the OM for composition of the Task Force for section 4 RTI Act implementation, and on which OM public comments are invited.

A) That many (perhaps all) of the 5 NGOs selected for the Task force seem to be hollow / fake organisations, none of which could be located by me in the NGO database maintained by the Planning Commission of India [http://ngo.india.gov.in/ngo_search1_ngo.php] having over 35,000 duly registered VOs / NGOs. It is pertinent that the Planning Commission requires a valid address and copy of the Incorporation Certificate of the NGOs for listing on the website, which further leads me to suspect that some or all of the 5 NGOs are unincorporated or having other deficiencies in their particulars / place of business.

B) That I was informed that some of the "fake" NGOs on the Task Force are demanding that they be "reimbursed" for expenses allegedly incurred by them instead of accepting grants / contracts as funding for their Task Force obligations. I apprehend that such demands will expose your Department to fresh accusations of corruption and money laundering, especially since no tenders (or other transparent procedures) have been followed to select these NGOs. I would humbly suggest that the financial systems / accounting processes / balance sheets of the concerned NGOs be properly assessed before any funds are released / reimbursed to them. It would not be out of place here to mention that I am given to understand that until very recently Mr Shailesh Gandhi (Central Information Commissioner) continued to jointly operate funding systems of the NCPRI running into lakhs of rupees despite the fact that Mr Nikhil Dey is ostensibly the.NCPRI convenor.

C) That many of the NGOs / representatives who attended the first meeting of the Task Force appear to have no verifiable expertise concerning non-compliance / implementation of section 4 of RTI Act. For example Mr Nikhil Dey, Ms Aheli Chowdhury, Ms. Pankti Jog, IT for Change etc have not filed any appeals / complaints at the CIC whatsoever (as per CIC website),  and so the average observer (hard pressed to know what other expertise they possess in this field) would trust that the DoPT would proactively arrange that the concerned NGOs detail their expertise in the field citing the appeals / complaints in which they are parties concerning section 4 implementation before the Information Commissions, and which could be disseminated via the website of the DoPT.

D) That there are many expert individuals who are domain experts in the practical problems of section 4 delivery and access. These persons can be easily located from public domain resources such as the decision database of the Central Information Commission or through their prior correspondence / RTIs to the DoPT etc. In my view such affected / expert individuals would be a far better resource to be directly tapped to determine the problems / ambiguties, if any, with section 4 RTI Act, and I am certain (as I know many of them) that they would share their knowledge freely / without charge if properly invited / requested instead of merely asking them to comment on minutes of meeting involving NGOs / CSOs.

E) That my close reading of the OM constituting the Section 4 Task Force shows that it specifically excludes the citizen stakeholders (ie. the statutory clients) from its participatory purview. In the circumstances it would be irregular to expect that aware individuals actively involved in RTI would voluntarily participate in a policy formulation process which deliberately excludes them (except as a token formality / afterthought) and which instead includes ersatz substitutes in their place.

f) There is also the issue of disclosure of information (intellectual property) submitted to the Government in confidence, and whether such submissions in the course of a public consultation / adversarial process can be unilaterally disclosed to private persons / NGOs in the absence of a pre-disclosed policy which prevents plagiarism / IP theft by NGOs / CSOs / other stakeholders. That this is a serious issue is evident from the CIC decision in "CIC/WB/A/2007/00731/LS dt 17.03.2009" titled "Rajinder Singh versus MoUD" where the CIC held that the MoUD could only disclose my pleadings in a court case available with the MoUD to my co-Petitioner Mr Rajinder Singh once the case was finally decided so as to protect my 3rd party rights. The question of whether such submissions / pleadings in this case can be disclosed during the course of adverserial proceedings is very complex and is also the subject of a pending SLP 30152/2010 in the Supreme Court where I am the 2nd Respondent, and for  which SLP the DoPT has consented to allow the Attorney General of India to represent the CIC against me. The linkage of the impugned decision to section 4 disclosure / repeated non-compliance is clear from page 5 of the following document [http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/WB-01062009-04.pdf]

G) That notwithstanding the above, I shall certainly submit my own views / experiences on section 4 issues which the Task Force is dealing with and on the expectation that it will be fairly considered

Yours faithfully

Sarbajit Roy

B/59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024

Tel : 09311448069 "



Re: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

1)   U R VERY RIGHT I AM VERY OLD.   I CAN SAY I HAVE SEEN THE WORLD, TRAVELING AND LIVING IN MANY COUNTRIES.

2) MY COMMENTS WERE GENERAL IN NATURE.  IT CANNOT BE DENIED AND HISTORY IS A WITNESS TO THIS FACT THAT MOST MUSLIMS, AS INDIVIDUALS, ARE NICE AND MORE TRUSTWORTHY THAN OTHERS INCLUDING HINDUS.  MUSLIMS HAVE PROVED TO BE DEPENDABLE, LOVABLE AND SINCERE.  PROBLEM COMES WHEN THEY ARE TOLD, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, THAT ISLAM IS IN DANGER.   THIS SUPERSEDES EVERY OTHER CONSIDERATION, WITH SOME EXEMPTIONS OF COURSE, WITH THE RESULT IT BECOMES A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

3)  HAS ANY ONE BOTHERED HOW ETHNIC CLEANSING OF HINDUS, SIKHS, CHRISTIANS IN PAKISTAN HAS HAPPENED AND IS CONTINUING!

4)  UNDER THE GARB OF SECULARISM, HINDUS WHO FORM MAJORITY IN INDIA, ARE DENIED BASIC RIGHTS.  WHY EVERY INDIAN IS NOT CALLED HINDUSTANI AND SHOULD  HAVE NO OTHER IDENTITY OR SPECIAL RIGHTS?

ALL THIS IS HIGHER 'POLITICS' AND POLITICIAN ARE FOOLING PEOPLE BY DIVIDING AND MANIPULATING VOTES.

IT LOOKS IT IS GETTING BEYOND GOD TO SAVE THIS COUNTRY WITH THE PRESENT  KIND OF GOVERANCE AND THE TWIN DANGERS LOOMING  FROM CHINA AND PAKISTAN.




From: Amjad Afridi <afridiamjad@hotmail.com>
To: krishan tuli <kptuli@yahoo.com>; "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:55 PM
Subject: RE: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

Mr. Tuli,
You are absolutely wrong.
Aap pata nahi kis zamaney ki baat kar rahey hain......lol....

You are either very old and cynical and/or have a very warped sense of History and Social Change.

To speak in your language and make generalizations like you....
I can bet you also think that Caste system is good and I am sure you also practice un-touchability.

Just to inform you :

I am a Muslim.
I am more Nationalist than you can ever dream to be.
I know more about the History of the Freedom Movement than you can appreciate its nuances.
I hate Pakistan because as a nation their thinking is as twisted and prejudiced as yours.

I also want to tell you and all of your ilk and tribe that my brother was the first J&K Police officer who volunteered to take up anti-militancy operations in the Kashmir Valley in the early 1990s, when the Government of India was at a complete loss and no intelligence was forth coming. It was my brother who led multiple operations and strategies to crush militancy in Kashmir. Anyone having in-depth knowledge of anti-militancy operations, including field army officers, in the Kashmir valley will tell you this. This has been acknowledged by the Government of India, (including Advani Ji when he was the Home Minister) by decorating him many a times.
My brother is also a Muslim. I do not want to take his name. He has a number of enemies and is under life time 'Z' category protection for serving his County.

You have abused and hurt my Nationalist sentiments by what you have written.
An apology from you will only be in the fitness of things. 
Please try to see life in ways other than your jaundiced vision.

Jai Hind.

Amjad Afridi

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 03:48:06 -0700
From: kptuli@yahoo.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

YOU WRITE BEAUTIFULLY AND HOWSOEVER YOUR VIEWS AND REASONING MAY BE GENUINE  BUT THIS ALL IS SUBVERTED WHEN YOU WISH OR ENTERTAIN A VISION OF ALL INDIANS BEING HINDUSTANI,  BECAUSE MUSLIMS CAN ONLY BE MUSLIMS ( THOUGH THEIR FOREFATHERS WERE ALL HINDUS AND WERE CONVERTED TO ISLAM)


From: Ranjit Rai <ranjitrai123@gmail.com>
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

In my book Indians Why We Are What We Are I had great diffculty 
defining who is Indian.

The chapter and book cover attached.

Ranjit Rai 


On 27 April 2013 13:10, Gaur J K <gaurjk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir,
There is no need to define ,who is Indian. If you consider Constitution as supreme, you may also see provisions relating to citizenship there in and by implication every citizen is an Indian.
gaur
 

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:02:17 +0530
From: vijoy.ambasta@gmail.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

Dear Friends
This ridiculous talk on who is Hindu is superfluous. Let us only define who is Indian. The constitution is supreme and nothing can supercede this even. Individual rights OK but they cannot be at cross purpose with the Constitution of India that is supreme
Vijoy K ambasta


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
The British Law is the only point we CAN start from. The only other "Hindu" Law Canon is Chanakya's.

The Laws of Chanakaya are completely impractical to be used nowadays. The British Laws,  however, are still working very well until Indians started tampering with them.

Members of HRArmy list cannot post to IAC's "indiaresists" mailing list, so I've added your ID there also.

A UCC is very good thing to have if everyone agrees to it.

Sarbajit

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Sumer Agarwal <sumeragarwal@gmail.com> wrote:
You seem to be relying only on what the British or East India Company did. Younseem to forget the expanse of India at the time of Asoka. It was onlybwhen he embraced Ahimsa that India started to to weaken. Although are many malpractices such as untoucability, etc which is the bane of Hinduism but that does not mean we cannot have ONE CODE/LAW AS IN USA and other democratic and Islamic and Asian, Euoropian states


On Thursday, April 25, 2013, Sarbajit Roy wrote:
Guys and gals generally have disconnects on marriage.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Vidyut Kale <wide.aware@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, we seem to have a fundamental disconnect on what marriage is.

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
If Muslim Personal Law is better than Christian Personal Law then more Christian's will convert to Islam than the other way around. every religion is guaranteed the fundamental right to propagate itself and personal law is one of the components of that propagation process.

I disagree with the whole "personal law" business. People must be equal under law. The idea of separate laws for separate people and conversions to take advantage across them is something that further highlights differences and creates a sense of opportunist exploitation of religion on one hand, while it adds to inter religion rivalry. This, in my belief is not so good for the country.

Unfortunately there are too many ignorant people who demand UCC without knowing its history and toxicity.

There is no such thing as "India". It is a forced amalgamation brought about by the Mughals and then completed by the British. Like any amalgam it can be easily separated into its pure constituents - Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Brahmos and "everyone else" (@aka Hindus)

The British recognised the quicksilver nature of this amalgam early on, and the East India Company in 1850 (because the Brahmo Samaj was converting a huge number of Muslims and Hiudus to itself) enacted "The Caste Removal Disabilities Act 1850". This law is the first Indian law which can be called a Uniform Civil Code and it was drafted solely so that people converting to Brahmo Samaj were not excluded from their inheritance under personal law.

Here is the text, and this LAW IS STILL IN FORCE and part of each and every secular law of India.

"WHEREAS it is enacted by section 9, Regulation VII, 1832 (Ben. Reg. VII of 1832), of the Bengal Code, 3 that" whenever in any civil suit the parties to such suit may be of different persuasions, when one party shall be of the Hindu and the other of the Muhammadan persuasion, or where one or more of the parties to the suit shall not be either of the Muhammadan or Hindu persuasions the laws of those religions shall not be permitted to operate to deprive such party or parties of any property to which, but for the operation of such laws, they would have been entitled"; and whereas it will be beneficial to extend the principle of that enactment throughout 1 India]; It is enacted as follows:--

1. Law or usage which inflicts forfeiture of, or affects, rights on change of religion or loss of caste to cease to be enforced.-- So much of any law or usage now in force within 1[ India] as inflicts on any person forfeiture of rights or property, or may be held in any way to impair or affect any right of inheritance, by reason of his or her renouncing, or having been excluded from the communion of, any religion, or being deprived of caste, shall cease to be enforced as law 2[ in any Court].

2. 3[ Short title and extent.--
(1) This Act] may be called the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 .
(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.]

1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for" the territories subject to the Government of the East India Company". 2. Subs. by s. 3 and Sch., ibid., for" in the Courts of the East India Company, and in the Courts established by Royal Charter within the said territories". 3. Added by s. 3 and Sch., ibid.

So very clearly the Long HISTORY of Indian Law finds that Indians HAVE LONG HAD A CHOICE - to be governed by their personal Law OR to opt out from personal law by availing the Secular law and your children will also then be taken out of personal law and be governed henceforth only by the secular law.

So where is the problem, OR the need for a COMPULSORY Uniform Civil Code as the ignorant Hindu Loony fringe are demanding ?

Rivalry and Competition between religions is BAD (for the nation) ??? Then what do you suggest, one common religion for everyone, or no religion at all ? It is only when the tenets and beliefs of 1 religion are tested against those of another that both religions adapt to survive (Darwin).


Laws cannot be the same for everyone till the Constitution is radically amended.

Agree. 

2. There should be separation of religion and state and complete freedom to practice the religion of choice or invent new religons and this should not be the business of the state.

Its already there except for a few token things like Haj subsidy - which is balanced out by Mansarovar Yatra and administration of Hindu shrines by State to protect the interests of devotees against unscrupulous vested interests who were raiding the temple coffers like it is their private Bank.

Yeah, well. that's what I said. Separation. No "except". There is no reason why pilgrimmage must be sponsored by the state - particularly when it usually aids those who can afford trips. But the afford part of it is irrelevant too. A state that cannot guarantee availability of basic needs for all has no business sponsoring luxuries. The addition of religion to the mess makes it worse. What about other religions in India? Or are only major religions entitiled to this? What about some guy who adopts a foreign religion? Will the state sponsor his trip to that country? Important question, because I am a follower of Dio Spaghetto - the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do I get a trip to Italy? Why not? Is the religion of some more important? Why should the state get into all this at all, when it cannot do its fundamental job well?

There are essentially only 4 religions in India. Islam, Christianity, Brahmoism and everyone else (@Hindus). Flying Sphagettos are classified as Hindus. Even major religions like Sikhs and Jains and Buddhists are all Hindus in law. Muslims are subsidised because they don't get caste benefits which are given to Hindus. Scheduled caste followers of Dio Sphagetto will get those Hindu benefits but Muslim one's wont.
 
 
3. Similarly, there should be separation of state and marriage. The state may record marriage, but beyond very basic rules (like "no kids" or "no domestic abuse or rape" or "if there is no specification in the marriage contract, an exclusive relationship will be assumed" etc - can be drafted by wise people) the state should stay out of the nature of the union.

The State MUST COMPLETELY interfere in marriage through Laws. The laws are not only for marriage but also for DIVORCE and protection of Child interests and Child welfare (which is paramount) and things like return of dowry and streedhan.

Obviously, and it ought not to be rocket science to figure out these things and formulate laws that go with the idea of the contract marriage.

Marriage is alternatively a sacrament and not only a contract. A father will contract to give his daughter in marriage for Rs. 1,000 and the girl is bound to it for life ? Luckily the Govt doesn't agree that marriage is a contract and treats it instead as a sacrament with the State filling the shoes of God.
 
 
An important component of these laws is forcing a woman who has abandoned the marriage to return to her husband for purposes of SEX (restitution of conjugal rights).

Forced sex is rape. This law treats the woman as property and is inherently INSULTING. Also, this idea of restitution of conjugal rights doesn't seem to be interested in returning men to take on their responsibilities in the marriage. Sexual or otherwise. If we are guaranteed equality in law, then this is not acceptable. A woman is not a scooter to be parked with the owner whether she wants to or not.

No, no of course women are not scooters to be parked. The law says that women ARE NO LONG TO BE TREATED as "goods, chattel or  cattle". The Law does not guarantee equality, it guarantees equity (Big difference). Equals cannot be treated unequally, and unequals cannot be treated equally.

The woman is given a choice by the law - return to your husband IF he is asking you to come back OR ELSE face the consequences of not returning to him because THEN you Woman are the party interested in breaking the marriage (which is a sacred institution .. to be preserved .. blah blah ..)

Which is why most  "Cruelty" applications for divorce are met by a "restore my conjugal rights" application.
 
 
The Law recognises that there are phases of ups and downs in every marriage and Sex is the medicine to keep the ship of marriage afloat through all the misunderstandings and interference from family and well wishers.

It is not the business of law to make generalizations on the nature of marriage or to force only one side to act against its view of its best interest. We have counsellors, social workers, village elders, etc for that. The law needs to decide if women are independent citizens of the country or marriage strips them of right to move freely in the country.

All these Counsellors, Social workers, Respected elders etc etc are already contained in the Family Law. eg. see Order XXXII-A CPC.

Every citizen has the Fundamental Right to move FREELY throughout the territory of India. Personal law cannot stop that.

 
 
If the parties do not want to get married under their personal laws with all the priests and mumbo jumbos they can get married under Brahmo Samaj rites (I can carry out such ceremony for anyone interested) which can be over in 10 minutes and is perfectly valid in law.

Yawn. Not interested. 

Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
 
 
No such thing as Bisexual / Homosexual MARRIAGE.

Why not? 

Purpose of marriage is to produce babies and raise them in a stable family unit. LGBT unions cannot do this. Indian law does not allow 2 people of same sex to get married (take the media / tabloid stories with large pinch of salt).
 

If marriage is reduced to a contract, then it will be ENFORCED in law as a contract which would greatly go against the Females as the parties would be dead by the time the final judgment emerges.

Good point. Better safeguards needed.

Vidyut 

Sarbajit




--
Warm regards.
Er Sumer Agarwal
BE Mech(IIT-Roorkee) MS Indus(University of Michigan,USA)
Former Teaching Fellow, University of Michigan- Administration,Human  Performance
Former Research Assistant, University of Michigan- Management Information Systems
Former International Scholar, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, USA
Roorkee University (IIT ROORKEE) Member,University Students Council,Bhawan Council,Dy Bhawan Leader,Prefect
 
"CURSE NOT DARKNESS, LIGHT A LAMP"
"VEGETARIAN IS HEALTHY"


+=======================[ MENU ]=====================+
|  Post: hrarmy@lists.riseup.net                     |
|  Exit: hrarmy-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net         |
|  Quit: https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/hrarmy |

|  Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user        |
|  WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in        |
+====================================================+


Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in



--
Cmde(R) Ranjit B Rai MBIM(UK)
 Ex Vice President Indian Maritime Foundation
International Correspondent India Strategic
C 443/377 Defence Colony New Delhi 110024
www.iduanalysis.com
24330087 +9810066172
 


Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in


Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in


Re: [IAC#RG] FW: [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

Dear
Ajmad afridi

I salute your feeling and guts, and at the same time I pity Mr. Tuli

Regards
Dinesh
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

-----Original Message-----
From: Amjad Afridi <afridiamjad@hotmail.com>
Sender: indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:36:16
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net<indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>; indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net<indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net>; sroy.mb@gmail.com<sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Reply-To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: [IAC#RG] FW: [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in

RE: [IAC#RG] FW: [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

I am happy to read the message from Amjad Afridi. . All such Muslims should express their thoughts openly and take active part in identifying the bad ones  and they should expose every single doubtful character . If such action is taken systematically we will have no MUSILIM SPONSORED TERROR even it  is from Pakistan . No one will dare to enter India for destroying/ disturbing us.

However the fact is that we have many friends of Dawood and  ,many Indians who have moved to Pakistan and operate from there to harm India .  Let all likeminded Muslims act and you will see India prosper .  Seshadri

 

From: indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net [mailto:indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Amjad Afridi
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:06 PM
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net; indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net; sroy.mb@gmail.com
Subject: [IAC#RG] FW: [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

 

Mr. Tuli,

You are absolutely wrong.

Aap pata nahi kis zamaney ki baat kar rahey hain......lol....

 

You are either very old and cynical and/or have a very warped sense of History and Social Change.

 

To speak in your language and make generalizations like you....

I can bet you also think that Caste system is good and I am sure you also practice un-touchability.

 

Just to inform you :

 

I am a Muslim.

I am more Nationalist than you can ever dream to be.

I know more about the History of the Freedom Movement than you can appreciate its nuances.

I hate Pakistan because as a nation their thinking is as twisted and prejudiced as yours.

 

I also want to tell you and all of your ilk and tribe that my brother was the first J&K Police officer who volunteered to take up anti-militancy operations in the Kashmir Valley in the early 1990s, when the Government of India was at a complete loss and no intelligence was forth coming. It was my brother who led multiple operations and strategies to crush militancy in Kashmir. Anyone having in-depth knowledge of anti-militancy operations, including field army officers, in the Kashmir valley will tell you this. This has been acknowledged by the Government of India, (including Advani Ji when he was the Home Minister) by decorating him many a times.

My brother is also a Muslim. I do not want to take his name. He has a number of enemies and is under life time 'Z' category protection for serving his County.

 

You have abused and hurt my Nationalist sentiments by what you have written.

An apology from you will only be in the fitness of things. 

Please try to see life in ways other than your jaundiced vision.


Jai Hind.

 

Amjad Afridi


Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 03:48:06 -0700
From: kptuli@yahoo.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

YOU WRITE BEAUTIFULLY AND HOWSOEVER YOUR VIEWS AND REASONING MAY BE GENUINE  BUT THIS ALL IS SUBVERTED WHEN YOU WISH OR ENTERTAIN A VISION OF ALL INDIANS BEING HINDUSTANI,  BECAUSE MUSLIMS CAN ONLY BE MUSLIMS ( THOUGH THEIR FOREFATHERS WERE ALL HINDUS AND WERE CONVERTED TO ISLAM)

 


From: Ranjit Rai <ranjitrai123@gmail.com>
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

 

In my book Indians Why We Are What We Are I had great diffculty 

defining who is Indian.

 

The chapter and book cover attached.

 

Ranjit Rai 

 

On 27 April 2013 13:10, Gaur J K <gaurjk@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sir,
There is no need to define ,who is Indian. If you consider Constitution as supreme, you may also see provisions relating to citizenship there in and by implication every citizen is an Indian.
gaur
 


Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:02:17 +0530
From: vijoy.ambasta@gmail.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] [HRA] Definition of "Hindu"

Dear Friends

This ridiculous talk on who is Hindu is superfluous. Let us only define who is Indian. The constitution is supreme and nothing can supercede this even. Individual rights OK but they cannot be at cross purpose with the Constitution of India that is supreme

Vijoy K ambasta

 

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

The British Law is the only point we CAN start from. The only other "Hindu" Law Canon is Chanakya's.

The Laws of Chanakaya are completely impractical to be used nowadays. The British Laws,  however, are still working very well until Indians started tampering with them.

Members of HRArmy list cannot post to IAC's "indiaresists" mailing list, so I've added your ID there also.

A UCC is very good thing to have if everyone agrees to it.

Sarbajit

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Sumer Agarwal <sumeragarwal@gmail.com> wrote:

You seem to be relying only on what the British or East India Company did. Younseem to forget the expanse of India at the time of Asoka. It was onlybwhen he embraced Ahimsa that India started to to weaken. Although are many malpractices such as untoucability, etc which is the bane of Hinduism but that does not mean we cannot have ONE CODE/LAW AS IN USA and other democratic and Islamic and Asian, Euoropian states



On Thursday, April 25, 2013, Sarbajit Roy wrote:

Guys and gals generally have disconnects on marriage.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Vidyut Kale <wide.aware@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, we seem to have a fundamental disconnect on what marriage is.

 

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

If Muslim Personal Law is better than Christian Personal Law then more Christian's will convert to Islam than the other way around. every religion is guaranteed the fundamental right to propagate itself and personal law is one of the components of that propagation process.

 

I disagree with the whole "personal law" business. People must be equal under law. The idea of separate laws for separate people and conversions to take advantage across them is something that further highlights differences and creates a sense of opportunist exploitation of religion on one hand, while it adds to inter religion rivalry. This, in my belief is not so good for the country.


Unfortunately there are too many ignorant people who demand UCC without knowing its history and toxicity.

There is no such thing as "India". It is a forced amalgamation brought about by the Mughals and then completed by the British. Like any amalgam it can be easily separated into its pure constituents - Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Brahmos and "everyone else" (@aka Hindus)

The British recognised the quicksilver nature of this amalgam early on, and the East India Company in 1850 (because the Brahmo Samaj was converting a huge number of Muslims and Hiudus to itself) enacted "The Caste Removal Disabilities Act 1850". This law is the first Indian law which can be called a Uniform Civil Code and it was drafted solely so that people converting to Brahmo Samaj were not excluded from their inheritance under personal law.

Here is the text, and this LAW IS STILL IN FORCE and part of each and every secular law of India.

"WHEREAS it is enacted by section 9, Regulation VII, 1832 (Ben. Reg. VII of 1832), of the Bengal Code, 3 that" whenever in any civil suit the parties to such suit may be of different persuasions, when one party shall be of the Hindu and the other of the Muhammadan persuasion, or where one or more of the parties to the suit shall not be either of the Muhammadan or Hindu persuasions the laws of those religions shall not be permitted to operate to deprive such party or parties of any property to which, but for the operation of such laws, they would have been entitled"; and whereas it will be beneficial to extend the principle of that enactment throughout 1 India]; It is enacted as follows:--

1. Law or usage which inflicts forfeiture of, or affects, rights on change of religion or loss of caste to cease to be enforced.-- So much of any law or usage now in force within 1[ India] as inflicts on any person forfeiture of rights or property, or may be held in any way to impair or affect any right of inheritance, by reason of his or her renouncing, or having been excluded from the communion of, any religion, or being deprived of caste, shall cease to be enforced as law 2[ in any Court].


2. 3[ Short title and extent.--

(1) This Act] may be called the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 .

(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.]


1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for" the territories subject to the Government of the East India Company". 2. Subs. by s. 3 and Sch., ibid., for" in the Courts of the East India Company, and in the Courts established by Royal Charter within the said territories". 3. Added by s. 3 and Sch., ibid.


So very clearly the Long HISTORY of Indian Law finds that Indians HAVE LONG HAD A CHOICE - to be governed by their personal Law OR to opt out from personal law by availing the Secular law and your children will also then be taken out of personal law and be governed henceforth only by the secular law.

So where is the problem, OR the need for a COMPULSORY Uniform Civil Code as the ignorant Hindu Loony fringe are demanding ?

Rivalry and Competition between religions is BAD (for the nation) ??? Then what do you suggest, one common religion for everyone, or no religion at all ? It is only when the tenets and beliefs of 1 religion are tested against those of another that both religions adapt to survive (Darwin).

Laws cannot be the same for everyone till the Constitution is radically amended.

 

Agree. 

 

2. There should be separation of religion and state and complete freedom to practice the religion of choice or invent new religons and this should not be the business of the state.


Its already there except for a few token things like Haj subsidy - which is balanced out by Mansarovar Yatra and administration of Hindu shrines by State to protect the interests of devotees against unscrupulous vested interests who were raiding the temple coffers like it is their private Bank.

 

Yeah, well. that's what I said. Separation. No "except". There is no reason why pilgrimmage must be sponsored by the state - particularly when it usually aids those who can afford trips. But the afford part of it is irrelevant too. A state that cannot guarantee availability of basic needs for all has no business sponsoring luxuries. The addition of religion to the mess makes it worse. What about other religions in India? Or are only major religions entitiled to this? What about some guy who adopts a foreign religion? Will the state sponsor his trip to that country? Important question, because I am a follower of Dio Spaghetto - the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do I get a trip to Italy? Why not? Is the religion of some more important? Why should the state get into all this at all, when it cannot do its fundamental job well?


There are essentially only 4 religions in India. Islam, Christianity, Brahmoism and everyone else (@Hindus). Flying Sphagettos are classified as Hindus. Even major religions like Sikhs and Jains and Buddhists are all Hindus in law. Muslims are subsidised because they don't get caste benefits which are given to Hindus. Scheduled caste followers of Dio Sphagetto will get those Hindu benefits but Muslim one's wont.
 

 

3. Similarly, there should be separation of state and marriage. The state may record marriage, but beyond very basic rules (like "no kids" or "no domestic abuse or rape" or "if there is no specification in the marriage contract, an exclusive relationship will be assumed" etc - can be drafted by wise people) the state should stay out of the nature of the union.


The State MUST COMPLETELY interfere in marriage through Laws. The laws are not only for marriage but also for DIVORCE and protection of Child interests and Child welfare (which is paramount) and things like return of dowry and streedhan.

 

Obviously, and it ought not to be rocket science to figure out these things and formulate laws that go with the idea of the contract marriage.


Marriage is alternatively a sacrament and not only a contract. A father will contract to give his daughter in marriage for Rs. 1,000 and the girl is bound to it for life ? Luckily the Govt doesn't agree that marriage is a contract and treats it instead as a sacrament with the State filling the shoes of God.
 

 

An important component of these laws is forcing a woman who has abandoned the marriage to return to her husband for purposes of SEX (restitution of conjugal rights).

 

Forced sex is rape. This law treats the woman as property and is inherently INSULTING. Also, this idea of restitution of conjugal rights doesn't seem to be interested in returning men to take on their responsibilities in the marriage. Sexual or otherwise. If we are guaranteed equality in law, then this is not acceptable. A woman is not a scooter to be parked with the owner whether she wants to or not.


No, no of course women are not scooters to be parked. The law says that women ARE NO LONG TO BE TREATED as "goods, chattel or  cattle". The Law does not guarantee equality, it guarantees equity (Big difference). Equals cannot be treated unequally, and unequals cannot be treated equally.

The woman is given a choice by the law - return to your husband IF he is asking you to come back OR ELSE face the consequences of not returning to him because THEN you Woman are the party interested in breaking the marriage (which is a sacred institution .. to be preserved .. blah blah ..)

Which is why most  "Cruelty" applications for divorce are met by a "restore my conjugal rights" application.
 

 

The Law recognises that there are phases of ups and downs in every marriage and Sex is the medicine to keep the ship of marriage afloat through all the misunderstandings and interference from family and well wishers.

 

It is not the business of law to make generalizations on the nature of marriage or to force only one side to act against its view of its best interest. We have counsellors, social workers, village elders, etc for that. The law needs to decide if women are independent citizens of the country or marriage strips them of right to move freely in the country.


All these Counsellors, Social workers, Respected elders etc etc are already contained in the Family Law. eg. see Order XXXII-A CPC.

Every citizen has the Fundamental Right to move FREELY throughout the territory of India. Personal law cannot stop that.

 

 

If the parties do not want to get married under their personal laws with all the priests and mumbo jumbos they can get married under Brahmo Samaj rites (I can carry out such ceremony for anyone interested) which can be over in 10 minutes and is perfectly valid in law.

 

Yawn. Not interested. 


Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
 

 
No such thing as Bisexual / Homosexual MARRIAGE.

 

Why not? 


Purpose of marriage is to produce babies and raise them in a stable family unit. LGBT unions cannot do this. Indian law does not allow 2 people of same sex to get married (take the media / tabloid stories with large pinch of salt).
 

 

If marriage is reduced to a contract, then it will be ENFORCED in law as a contract which would greatly go against the Females as the parties would be dead by the time the final judgment emerges.

 

Good point. Better safeguards needed.

 

Vidyut 

 

Sarbajit

 

 

--

Warm regards.

Er Sumer Agarwal

BE Mech(IIT-Roorkee) MS Indus(University of Michigan,USA)

Former Teaching Fellow, University of Michigan- Administration,Human  Performance

Former Research Assistant, University of Michigan- Management Information Systems

Former International Scholar, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, USA

Roorkee University (IIT ROORKEE) Member,University Students Council,Bhawan Council,Dy Bhawan Leader,Prefect

 

"CURSE NOT DARKNESS, LIGHT A LAMP"
"VEGETARIAN IS HEALTHY"



+=======================[ MENU ]=====================+
|  Post: hrarmy@lists.riseup.net                     |
|  Exit: hrarmy-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net         |
|  Quit: https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/hrarmy |


|  Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user        |
|  WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in        |

+====================================================+

 


Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in

 


Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in


Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in



 

--
Cmde(R) Ranjit B Rai MBIM(UK)
 Ex Vice President Indian Maritime Foundation
International Correspondent India Strategic
C 443/377 Defence Colony New Delhi 110024
www.iduanalysis.com
24330087 +9810066172
 


Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in


Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in