Friday, December 10, 2010

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: RTI challenges

Please give more priority on rti issue and i will agree with Mr. irfan Khan 

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:26 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Most of the time, v keep discussing all the issues except RTI related issues. 
I suggest th rename this blog appropriately.


From: irfan khan <rtirti.khan@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 10 December, 2010 9:13:08 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: RTI challenges

dear sarabajit.
 
wake up,
marriage is not termination of relationships but divorce is .
 
if your daughter marries some one she do not loose her relationship with you as daughter .You still remains her father and she still remains your daughter .
 
If she is divorced  , she no longer remains his wife but she continues to remain your daughter .
 
now tell me ...who shall provide her maintenance ..... one who is no longer related to her  or one who is very much related to her .
 
 
most logical answer is .... one who is still related to her .
 
so after divorce .. it is duty of father  or son or brother to look after his daughter ,sister  etc .
 
Can supreme court say that if daughter gets divorce from her husband she SHALL NOT BE LOOKED AFTER BY HER FATHER  OR BROTHER OR SON ????


On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:07 PM, sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
The Indian Constitution  is opposed to discriminatory and gender
biased personal laws like Muslim Personal law. It enjoins the Govt to
implement uniform civil codes as expeditiously as possible and uphold
the dignity of women..

You obviously support that section of Islamists who believe that their
women are to be treated like camels and other cattle to be used and
discarded when useless.

The Supreme Court made no mistake in Shah Bano. It is because of the
arrogance and short-sightedness of Gandhi-Nehru parivar that incident
like Shah Bano's reversal (and support to religious extremists like
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala) have repeatedly created terror like states
in India by allowing State encouraged religious fundamentalism to
flourish.

I think the list owner should restore posting privileges of eminent
RTIers like S D Sharma who can give a fitting reply to such kind of
arguments.

Sarbajit

On Dec 10, 5:40 pm, irfan khan <rtirti.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dear sarbajit.
>
> india's constituition acknowledges and protects "Muslim Personal Law".
>
> In Shah Bobnu's case supem court of india passed an illegal order .
>
> Suprem court cannot pass any order that is against constituition of India,
> But supreme court did that mistake in shah bau case by interfering muslim
> personal law.
>
> what rajive did was "he upheld sanctity of constitution of india.
>
> Sarbajit do not be so narrow minded.
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:05 AM, sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > She is a member of Parliament. Her son is a member of Parliament. They vote
> > on laws including personal (religious) laws. They make amendments to
> > personal laws. Sonia Gandhi is the de-facto head of India's Govt. The public
> > of India (which includes me) has every right to know her religion. I have a
> > right to know in advance what her position is on say birth control which has
> > ceased to be a priority since she became an Indian citizen.. . She should
> > come out and openly state what her religion is, and not masquerade as a
> > Christian or a Hindu or a Parsi as the situation requires.
>
> > PS: The day we get a Uniform Civil Code I will stop seeking  this question.
>
> > PPS: The day Rajiv Gandhi overturned the Shah Bano judgment was one of the
> > blackest days in India's democracy.
>
> > Sarbajit
>
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:34 PM, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <
> > rudreshtechnol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> what you will gain by knowing sonia gadhi's Religion , It will not serve
> >> any purpose , in what way it will help the general public ,
>
> >> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Dear Guptaji
>
> >>> You ask about PUBLIC PURPOSE !!! Let us take Mr Karira's suggestion of
> >>> obtaining marriage records.
>
> >>> In England/UK you can go to the local site where marriages are registered
> >>> and inspect the records. If you don't find it there is a secondary record
> >>> maintained at the National General Registry Office.
>
> >>> In India we have the same arrangement. Each and every law for marriages
> >>> of foreigner to Indian specifies that a copy will be maintained at the local
> >>> level as well as at Central Level.
> >>> In Delhi these records are available since 1860. Yet, I ask you where
> >>> have the marriage records of Sonia-nee-Maino to Rajiv Gandhi disappeared off
> >>> to ?
>
> >>> How do you know that this is not a bigamous marriage like another pair of
> >>> MPs Dharmendra/Hema Malini whose marriage records have equally mysteriously
> >>> vanished.? Are  the children of this marriage legally entitled to avail
> >>> benefits from Members of Parliament? How did Dharmendra file an election
> >>> affidavit without naming his "wife" and get elected to Lok Sabha ?.
>
> >>> It is a national scandal, and somebody must answer. Preferably
> >>> IC(Shailesh Gandhi) who must order an FIR to be lodged for these lost/stolen
> >>> records.
>
> >>> The media publicises that Rahul Gandhi eats a meal at a Dalit's (low
> >>> caste house). What is the caste, if any, of Rahul Gandhi that makes this
> >>> newsworthy ? Don't you want to know!
>
> >>> Another thing, after somebody asked for Sonia Gandhi's Census records to
> >>> know her religion, has anybody on this mailing list been asked for their
> >>> religion in the course of the latest Census ? I know I haven't as yet and
> >>> 2010 is almost over.
>
> >>> Sarbajit



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.