India needs to understand the ways of the West, particularly evangelical enterprise. Arvind Kejriwal is in our recent memory. Satyarthi maybe a genuine guy with not so desirable Marxist connections, but evangelical enterprise modus operandi is to identify activists, give them awards and lift them up at the cost of many others who could be doing much greater work and make the activists beholden to their agenda. What is so disturbing is World Vision, the largest missionary enterprise congratulating him as a partner!!! World Vision has also the dubious record of day light murdering of Swami Laxmananda and his associates after attempting several times. Here is quote Hindu in March 13, 2001 on scale of evangelical enterprise (which was not under the same leadership as now):(for interested readers)Christian missionary enterprise presentation:World Vision murder of Swami Laxmananda (see images)Kailash Satyarthi's Nobel Prize decoded
SANKRANT SANU | OCT 12, 2014
Kailash Satyarthi seems deeply involved in Western evengelical institutional structures.
The announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize for Kailash Satyarthi was somewhat of a shock. Firstly he was practically unknown within India with journalists and others all shaking their heads and asking "Satyarthi who?" Secondly, the announcement from the Norwegian Nobel Committee was both politically charged and condescending:
The Nobel Committee regards it as an important point for a Hindu and a Muslim, an Indian and a Pakistani, to join in a common struggle for education and against extremism. Many other individuals and institutions in the international community have also contributed. It has been calculated that there are 168 million child labourers around the world today. In 2000 the figure was 78 million higher. The world has come closer to the goal of eliminating child labour.
The announcement draws on the old theme of Western "parity" between India and Pakistan, and then calls out the purportedly "Hindu" and "Muslim" affiliations of the awardees. Now, going back at least 10 years we did not find the religion of the awardees mentioned in the Nobel Peace Prize announcement. Barack Obama is not called out as a Christian, nor are the affiliations of Marti Ahtisaari, Al Gore, Mohammad Yunus, or any of the other awardees called out. Why the necessity to call out Satyarthi as a Hindu?
Not that Satyarthi is, by any stretch, a Hindu leader. In fact, Ellen Barry, writing in the New York Times, explicitly points out that he is a Marxist. Here is my exchange with her:
The long-standing friend and colleague that Barry cites is Simon Steyne. Simon Steyne, according to a report in the Telegraph was a Marxist and "A former militant schoolboy who was once considered so dangerous that his activities were investigated by MI5 is working as a senior official for the Trades Union Congress." Steyne was vice-chairman of the Schools Action Union, an organisation of militants, "An extreme Maoist group" that Steyne himself described as a ""Marxist-Leninist-Liberal broad front". In any case, all this Steyne says, is in the past.
Would the Nobel Prize Committee call out a Marxist in the West as a "Christian" just as it calls Satyarthi as a "Hindu." It appears on the lines of "thou protesteth too much", unusually calling out a religious affiliation of someone who is clearly not properly identified with that label. What exactly are they trying to hide?
Speaking of religious affiliation, it looks like there is another nexus at play. Of the congratulations Satyarthi got, one came from World Vision who identified him as a "partner."
Representational image
World Vision is powerful evangelical organisation that makes no secret of its Christian affiliation and agenda. Satyarthi partnering with World Vision brings the classic Breaking India nexus into play—using Indian Leftists to pave the way for evangelism mission in India. World Vision declined to provide additional details of their relationship. "Project Rescue:" that aims to bring trafficked children "to Jesus" is another potential link. Other Christian evangelical websites such as "Rivers of Hope", referenced Satyarthi's Bachpan Bachao Andolan rescues, though their exact relationship remained unclear.
Jaya Jaitley, in an NDTV interview after the Nobel was announced, also gave a less-than-glowing review of Satyarthi. Apparently she was quite familiar with his work from the 1980s before he got the Nobel, but she "found the selection of awards rather strange."
She also mentioned that "we hadn't heard much about his work lately. He has gotten a lot of international awards and there are some cynical comments on how these awards are selected." There were many people working on the issue of child labour and Satyarthi's work was not particularly notable. She called out Swami Agnivesh, who Satyarthi"trained with" as the one who brought this issue to the fore and was the prime mover. It is unlikely a saffron-clad "Hindu" would be given the Nobel, however.
If we take a look at the list of awards that Satyarthi has received, Jaitley's contention is certainly borne out.
– Defenders of Democracy Award (2009-USA)
– Alfonso Comin International Award (2008-Spain)
– Medal of the Italian Senate (2007-Italy)
– Heroes Acting to End Modern Day Slavey by US State Department (2007-USA)
– Freedom Award (2006-USA)
– In October 2002, Satyarthi was awarded the Wallenberg Medal from the University of Michigan in recognition of his courageous humanitarian work against the exploitation of child labor.
– Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Award (1999-Germany)
– La Hospitalet Award (1999-Spain)
– De Gouden Wimpel Award (1998-Netherlands)
– Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award (1995-USA)
– The Trumpeter Award (1995-USA)
– The Aachener International Peace Award (1994-Germany)
Germany, USA, Spain and Italy are certainly prominent among the countries from which these awards originate. Also the US State Deparment has both awarded Satyarthi and funded his Bachpan Bachao Andolan (BBA) during the Bush era.
Finally, Megha Bahree writes in Forbes that her experience with Satyarthi's Bachpan Bachao Andolan was "Anything But Nobel-Worthy." She mentions being taken by a BBA representative on a "tour" to show her child labour for a story she was doing. But none of the places she took her had child labor, till he finally asked her to wait and presented a situation with looked fake to her journalistic eyes. As she pointed out "the problem is that the more children you show "rescued", the more funds you get from foreign donors." On that account BBA appeared to be doing rather well. According to Madhu Kishwar, as far back as 12 years ago, he was funded $2 million dollars by US and German foundations.
Representational image
Kailash Satyarthi has no doubt done some good work. At the same time he also appears to be deeply embedded in Western institutional structures and sources of funding for a long time. But he also has his local supporters. He has received an endorsement from Dr. Vaidik, who also claims to know him for long. Dr. Vaidik says that Satyarthi is not self-promotional and keep a simple lifestyle. On the other hand it is difficult to reconcile the slew of largely foreign awards, criticism of peers and charges of inflating numbers with the endorsement of lack of self-promotion.
The verdict is still out on Satyarthi and the Nobel on whether he is a hero manufactured by Western institutions for their own interests or a simple, unassuming human rights worker. Given the pattern of funds, the less than stellar endorsement from peers, his Marxist leanings coming with a "Hindu" tag and relationships with evangelical organizations such as World Vision, we should take our newly minted hero with a grain of salt.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this article are the author's personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of Niti Central and Niti Central is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
ABOUT AUTHORSankrant Sanu
Sankrant Sanu is an entrepreneur, writer and researcher based in Seattle and Gurgaon. His essays were published in the book "Invading the Sacred" that contested Western academic writing on Hinduism and is a popular writer and blogs at sankrant.org. He is a graduate of IIT Kanpur and the University of Texas and holds six technology patents.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Nobel ignoble, evil intent creating new messiahs to fool the gullible
To: Gautam <gautam.sen@gmail.com>
Cc: Arvind Kumar <arvind.kumar@gmail.com>, kalyan <kalyan97@yahoo.com>, Rajeev Srinivasan <rajeev.srinivasan@gmail.com>, Srinivasan Kalyanaraman <kalyan.97@gmail.com>, Narayana Sd <narayanasd123@gmail.com>, Narayanan Komerath <narayanan.komerath@gmail.com>On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Gautam <gautam.sen@gmail.com> wrote:Satyarthi World Vision connection confirmed.GSSent from my iPod--Regards,Satya#evmindia#satyad--Regards,Satya#evmindia#satyad--#evmindia, #satyadRegards,
Satya
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
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Re: [IAC#RG] Niti Central: Kailash Satyarthi’s Nobel Prize decoded
DEARS,
I wonder, why so many children missing in INDIA, more so many in the capital of INDIA, not found out in todays technologyWhy rich ones does not miss ? they are the one to manipulate every thing , being in power, what ever they have
IS THIS PRIZE TO HELP RICH ONES, to be well known to them, be aware of this crusader SATYARTHI
ONLY GOD MAY HELP On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Satya D <hitaya123@gmail.com> wrote:
RE: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity
14/10/14
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I agree with you and feel that we move away from this discussion.
This issue was discussed earlier after the SC judgement and the opinion was as sharply divided as is now. We should wait for further developments from the Govt./judiciary.
I may however add that Human rights is still a developing concept. Human rights are already guaranted by the constitution as fundamental rights. The other source of human rights is through the UN covenants. Based on the same Human rights act has been passed by the parliament and a number of Commissions have been established for protection of those rights. But these Commissions have not been power of prosecution and award punishment. That is still with the judiciary.
Till these covenants are incorporated in the domestic laws,the courts can only take note of them and ask the Govt. to suitably amend the laws. To my mind it is for this reason the court asked for suitable amendment in Sec.377
As per clause 253 of the Constitution and entry at S.No.14 and 14 of Seventh Schedule , the Govt. has been given the power to enter into All types of treaties and ratify them.But they do not incorporate them in domestic laws as we saw in case of prevention of corru ption treaty a few years back. Personal freedom and choice in matters of sex and pornography has to have legal backing and the Govt. has to taken into account condtions prevailing in the Society.
Regds
JKGaur
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:17:27 +0530
From: mdnalapat@gmail.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity
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
From: mdnalapat@gmail.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity
Let's not enter bedrooms of consenting adults. Far too many consequential matters to discuss. Regards Madhav
Original Message
From: Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2014 00:29
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Reply To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity
Dear Pavan
An important point was left out from Mr Joshi's email which I hasten to fill.
The litigating PRIVATE parties before the Delhi HC and the SC in the
377 cases, are almost all DUMMY / PROXY parties for vested interests
which are putting up bogus "straw man" arguments designed for the
Court to strike down / aside.
In fact the next round is all set to have a new generation of
intervenors all waiting to act as though they represent the public to
put forward new fake arguments. NGO fronts for the RSS, VHP and
Catholic Church in particular are all lining up to accept the golden
showers by the US porn industry to anyone who wants a piece of it
(said with a straight face).
Sarbajit
On 10/14/14, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Pavan
>
> IAC, and this mailing list, is starting to achieve a national position
> where balanced and highly intellectual discussions are taking place,
> and quite openly between different groups. This is truly one of the
> few places where it happens.
>
> Unfortunately last year the discussions on this list, for various
> reasons connected with anger against Congress, tended to be a battle
> between AAP and BJP boosters (somewhat in proportion to their national
> strength), while IAC's membership looked on bemused. Thankfully all
> that is now behind us, with almost a 1,000 new subscribers from the
> major political parties being inducted as observers (with full posting
> rights should they wish to avail it under IAC's list regulations).
>
> IAC was founded in early 20th cent. I tried to drag it into the early
> 21st. Other members disagreed and so the pendulum swung back to 1860
> (late 19th cent.) Indian Penal Code's
> Victorian mores and moralities.
>
> The core of the section 377debate can emerge by comparing it to what
> is loosely termed "stealing the affections of a brother officer's
> wife", ie "conduct unbecoming of an officer".
>
> Q: If I flip this to when "an officer steals the affections of a
> brother officer FROM the wife", would you still support
> decriminalisation of gays in the armed forces ?
>
> I also don't think that gays are 5% of the population. Even in the
> USA, the most wildly optimistic figures are 4%. The official India
> Govt figure is around 30 lakh gays (incl. L's B's and T's) in India
> CONCOCTED by the Govt body (NACO) most interested in exaggerating this
> number. But since there are so many "gays" in the media and arts, they
> exercise a hugely disproportionate effect far exceeding their numbers.
> They are also taking over the information resources, like WIKIPEDIA,
> to concoct and fabricate information on a wide variety of topics
> seemingly unconnected to homosexuality. They now also have 2 major TV
> channels in India which are COLORing small town India with non-stop
> prime time transvestitism which is being made socially acceptable for
> the porn invasion which is slated to come via "4G"
>
> PS: I still say that IAC will move into the 21st century with
> extremely modern and LIBERAL views and with considerable consensus on
> thorny issues such as these :-) so long as cool citizens like you are
> around, and nobody is shy to have their say.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/13/14, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Mr Joshi,
>> Thank you for the clarification. I entirely agree that we have to leave
>> it to the legislature to amend the relevant section, if at all considered
>> necessary and that the said section is constitutional being a part of the
>> IPC. However we (IAC) need to clarify our stand on this. For instance, we
>> may disapprove of same sex marriages and yet decriminalise the act
>> between
>> humans even if it is against the order of nature (all gay sex is against
>> the order of nature of heterosexual people). Bestiality could be covered
>> under cruelty to animals. About 5% of the population is homosexual which
>> amounts to 50 million or more people. The section makes them criminals in
>> the eyes of the law and therefore in my view needs amendment. Regards.
>> Pavan Nair
>> PS Sarbajit, I think we need more views/discussion on this issue.
>>
>
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
Monday, October 13, 2014
Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity
Thanks Sarbajit. Gays are in all spheres of life including the armed forces. Are you suggesting that gays both men and women should not be allowed to join? Would that not infringe on the fundamental right of a citizen to participate in the defence of his/her country? The armed forces have their way of dealing with incidents if it affects functioning or good order and military dicipline. As far as numbers are concerned, even if gays are 1% of the population you would have a figure of 12 million. Did you mean 30 million? There is an interesting and relevant report in the IE of today which brings out the importance of detailed analysis before amending laws. It seems that the recent amendment of Section 375 is now being used by husbands to avoid being tried under 377 for unnatural acts. Pavan Nair
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Pavan
IAC, and this mailing list, is starting to achieve a national position
where balanced and highly intellectual discussions are taking place,
and quite openly between different groups. This is truly one of the
few places where it happens.
Unfortunately last year the discussions on this list, for various
reasons connected with anger against Congress, tended to be a battle
between AAP and BJP boosters (somewhat in proportion to their national
strength), while IAC's membership looked on bemused. Thankfully all
that is now behind us, with almost a 1,000 new subscribers from the
major political parties being inducted as observers (with full posting
rights should they wish to avail it under IAC's list regulations).
IAC was founded in early 20th cent. I tried to drag it into the early
21st. Other members disagreed and so the pendulum swung back to 1860
(late 19th cent.) Indian Penal Code's
Victorian mores and moralities.
The core of the section 377debate can emerge by comparing it to what
is loosely termed "stealing the affections of a brother officer's
wife", ie "conduct unbecoming of an officer".
Q: If I flip this to when "an officer steals the affections of a
brother officer FROM the wife", would you still support
decriminalisation of gays in the armed forces ?
I also don't think that gays are 5% of the population. Even in the
USA, the most wildly optimistic figures are 4%. The official India
Govt figure is around 30 lakh gays (incl. L's B's and T's) in India
CONCOCTED by the Govt body (NACO) most interested in exaggerating this
number. But since there are so many "gays" in the media and arts, they
exercise a hugely disproportionate effect far exceeding their numbers.
They are also taking over the information resources, like WIKIPEDIA,
to concoct and fabricate information on a wide variety of topics
seemingly unconnected to homosexuality. They now also have 2 major TV
channels in India which are COLORing small town India with non-stop
prime time transvestitism which is being made socially acceptable for
the porn invasion which is slated to come via "4G"
PS: I still say that IAC will move into the 21st century with
extremely modern and LIBERAL views and with considerable consensus on
thorny issues such as these :-) so long as cool citizens like you are
around, and nobody is shy to have their say.
Sarbajit
On 10/13/14, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr Joshi,
> Thank you for the clarification. I entirely agree that we have to leave
> it to the legislature to amend the relevant section, if at all considered
> necessary and that the said section is constitutional being a part of the
> IPC. However we (IAC) need to clarify our stand on this. For instance, we
> may disapprove of same sex marriages and yet decriminalise the act between
> humans even if it is against the order of nature (all gay sex is against
> the order of nature of heterosexual people). Bestiality could be covered
> under cruelty to animals. About 5% of the population is homosexual which
> amounts to 50 million or more people. The section makes them criminals in
> the eyes of the law and therefore in my view needs amendment. Regards.
> Pavan Nair
> PS Sarbajit, I think we need more views/discussion on this issue.
>
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] Time to render justice to Sadhvi Pragya - let us wipe thisblot of shame on what is done to a Sadhu and a woman
Now, I can understand why Sarbjeet Roy is such an interesting person. He is alleging all possible motives and collusions to my work. Thanks Sarbjeetji for such new insights into my work.
--
Yamuna Satyagraha
Well, to respond to Mr. Devender, the Indian judicial system largely involved the local residents. Advantage is the locals always knew who is who and what he does. The deliberations were held in open meetings, almost all acquaintances/ residents of the village. This limited the chances of the litigants lying.
At initiation level, the litigants followed a custom. Each would get into agreement to invite two-three people from each side and allow them to deliberate and pronounce judgement. In case of disagreement, though rare, any of the litigating parties could approach a larger village gathering. If one of the litigants was still not satisfied, he/she could approach a multi village gathering. The last was in practice in khap areas like West UP, Delhi, Haryana and Punjab. In rest of country, the highest court of appeal was village panchayat. In the khap areas, the British had accepted thee supremacy of local customs and preferred not to interfere.
Below is extract from a book on customary practices in erstwhile Punjab.
"Pax Romana could be said to have influenced even British effort to induct the customary usages of rural communities into a system of customary law in the Punjab. The British Government's attitude to custom was described by Michael O'Dwyer's concluding lines of his speech in 1915, at the Conference on Customary Law in Simla: "The problem before us in the Punjab is unique. Other Provinces in India, have as a rule, the Dharma Shastras and the various commentaries on them for the Hindus and the Shariyat and the Hadis for the Muhamaddans . . . Here we have elected to be governed by custom. We have no body of feeling that condemns our tribal customs as a whole as antiquated or unsuitable. No
desire for uniformity, no sense of injustice involved in the maintenance of the existing system.Our function is therefore to uphold, not to destroy." Consequently, the process of assimilation of custom into the legal frameworkof rural society in Punjab was done at various stages but the final shape was given by the enactment of the Punjab
Laws Act IV 1872. Therefore, even though the root of Punjab custom was tradition and was in several ways
"coincident with popular feelings and necessities" nevertheless they (Punjab customs) became the law of the
province by a single statute."
The above extract is not focussed on judicial system, but, relates to it. It only serves to highlight the role of local customs, traditions, and many of these were related to dispute resolution.
In rest of country too, the judicial system worked similarly. Please visit any far away village in any corner of country and you would see such systems still in operation.
A friend , Faizul, from Bengal told me about such systems in their society. Similarly, in Assam, South India etc.
Yes, there were deficiencies too. If the village gathering was hijacked by influential landlord or a purohit, or anyone else, it led to skewed justice. So, wheresoever, people could ensure a wider participation in the jury, the decision were just and quick.
Much can be discussed. This is for now.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All
Question: If Mr Diwan Singh (Ridge Bachao Andolan) is so concerned
with the poor quality of "British" laws and seeks their abolition in
favour of "khap" system, then why did he and his so-called 'andolan'
go to Supreme Court in Vasant Kunj malls case with Prashant Bhushan as
his advocate ?
Since I have asked the question, let me also provide 1 possible opinion.
Ans: Because these dubious NGOs and the people who promote them, are
oftentimes nothing but proxies for mafias. In the Vasant Kunj Malls
case, because the Delhi High Court had stopped construction in Vasant
Kunj in "Sultangarhi" matter in an absolutely water-tight judgment,
the land mafia arranged many NGO rascals to file an absolutely bakwaas
PIL with bakwaas counsel to quickly get contrary orders in an
unrelated proceeding in SC. Since it was very valuable land on which
the malls (DLF, Ambience etc) were 80% constructed and stopped by
'Sultangarhi' judgment, such dubious andolans came in very handy to
bypass Sultangarhi judgment, in 2006 (if I recall correctly), by
throwing their case.
Sarbajit
On 10/13/14, devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com
<devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Dear Diwan Singh Ji. You have said something rather fascinating. Can you
> please throw some more light on what you have said that the parties involved
> in litigation chose their own juries? and can you also please say what was
> the system of justice and do you think it could cater for the intricate and
> complex which we have become.
>
> I agree with what you have said about the British being much smarter,
> calculative and effective. Regards Devinder
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Diwan Singh <diwans2007@gmail.com>
>>To: devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com
>>Cc: Rakshpal Abrol <rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in>;
>> "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
>>Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 7:50 AM
>>Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Time to render justice to Sadhvi Pragya - let us wipe
>> thisblot of shame on what is done to a Sadhu and a woman
>>
>>Dear Devinderji,
>>Thats why I said, its a deep discussion. The Mughals system was not so
>> pervasive. It did not effect the day to day lives of Indian villages. The
>> Mughal system could not dislodge our traditonal judicial system that
>> involved juries chosen by the parties themselves.
>>
>>
>>What Mr. Bhatia has sent is right. The British actually dislodged
>> everything. They were much smarter, calculative and effective. They have
>> been so effective that most of us educated Indians do not know about
>> traditional Indian judicial system.
>>
>>On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 4:15 PM, <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>What was our legal system before the British took control of us and
>> introduced English legal system??.In what way was it superior to the
>> system we presently have.?? We were then ruled by the Mughals and I
>> believe that they had the Qazi, Kotwal and Qued khana. What was the source
>> of their law, was it based on equity or law or both or just what the
>> Quaran said about the crime and punishment in a given situation.. Just
>> imagine, what system of law would have existed today if the British had
>> not come. Would it have been able to cope with the growing complexities of
>> the society.?? What quality, and the level of legal intellect would have
>> been applied in arriving at a judgement which would have also served as
>> legal precedent.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are right about the "hegemony of the British and their own need. After
>>> all they were ruling a country as big as India. It needed a fully
>>> developed social order, a transport system, and law and order machinery.
>>> without which they would have been unable to rule.
>>>
>>>
>>>I agree with you that litigation in India is prohibitively expensive and
>>> atrociously slow and no doubt people are afraid to get involved any kind
>>> of legal action. Devinder.
>>>
>>> From: Diwan Singh <diwans2007@gmail.com>
>>>>To: devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com
>>>>Cc: Rakshpal Abrol <rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in>;
>>>> "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
>>>>Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 10:21 AM
>>>>
>>>>Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Time to render justice to Sadhvi Pragya - let us
>>>> wipe thisblot of shame on what is done to a Sadhu and a woman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This judicial system supresses everything. People fear going to courts
>>>> and the police. What use is such system that is so expensive, have no
>>>> regards for local custom, culture. Our old system was pretty good, swift
>>>> and delivered justice. No doubt, it needed some reforms. Its a matter of
>>>> detail, can not discuss so much online. We could have continued with old
>>>> system with reforms, but , then, it would not have allowed hegemony for
>>>> the British. So, they brought their own, to suit their own needs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM, <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Most of the European Laws as well as the American laws are based on the
>>>> British Law. The British law has the most well developed ystem of
>>>> jurisprudence. In Indian we did not have any such system before the
>>>> British rule. So there is nothing wrong with have a system which is
>>>> adopted and practised by more than half the world.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I should however mention that since independence, our judiciary has
>>>>> developed our own case law and legal prcedents. So it is not understood
>>>>> how our own culture is being suppressed??. Devinder
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Rakshpal Abrol <rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in>
>>>>>>To: "devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com"
>>>>>> <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com>; Diwan Singh <diwans2007@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cc: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
>>>>>>Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 9:07 AM
>>>>>>Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Time to render justice to Sadhvi Pragya - let us
>>>>>> wipe thisblot of shame on what is done to a Sadhu and a woman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In our country, we have adapted Indian Penal Code,1860 enacted by
>>>>>> Britishers to supress the growth of our culture. Please o through the
>>>>>> Statement dated 2nd February,1835 of Lord Mccauley.
>>>>>>You can see the same on Face-Book of RajnishAbrol.
>>>>>>The plan of the State Government failed as on 26th November,2008, it
>>>>>> was meant for Sadhvi Pragya.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Warm regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rakshpal Abrol
>>>>>>Consumer
> Activist
>>>>>>9820203154
>>>>>>rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com"
>>>>>> <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com>
>>>>>>To: Diwan Singh <diwans2007@gmail.com>
>>>>>>Cc: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
>>>>>>Sent: Saturday, 11 October 2014 8:08 PM
>>>>>>Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Time to render justice to Sadhvi Pragya - let us
>>>>>> wipe thisblot of shame on what is done to a Sadhu and a woman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is premature to say whether she has been punished enough or not. If
>>>>>> we go by the gravity of the alleged crime, she has not spent enough
>>>>>> time in jail, because such crimes entail a long term in imprisonment
>>>>>> and any time spent in prison, waiting for the trial is adjusted
>>>>>> against the eventual prison sentence. This can only be decided by a
>>>>>> fair and speedy trial which she is being denied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The fact that she is a Sadhvi, has no value in the eyes of law. Her
>>>>>> status is that of a citizen and that is what she will be treated as.
>>>>>> Sadhvi's do not get involved in criminal conspiracies to kill other
>>>>>> people. Another political Sadhvi got away lightly was Uma Bharati who
>>>>>> confessed to instigating the demolition of a historic structure.
>>>>>> Devinder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Diwan Singh <diwans2007@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>To: devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com
>>>>>>>Cc: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
>>>>>>>Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 3:11 PM
>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Time to render justice to Sadhvi Pragya - let us
>>>>>>> wipe thisblot of shame on what is done to a Sadhu and a woman
>>>>>>>I support this mail. shadvi pragya seems to be punished already
>>>>>>> without being convicted. She is a saint and deserve respect from the
>>>>>>> society.
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
Diwan Singh
Ridge Bachao Andolan
Campaign for Preservation of Commons
Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity
Pray,your good sense ,spreads!
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 14, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Madhav Nalapat <mdnalapat@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let's not enter bedrooms of consenting adults. Far too many consequential matters to discuss. Regards Madhav
>
> Original Message
> From: Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2014 00:29
> To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
> Reply To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
> Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity
>
> Dear Pavan
>
> An important point was left out from Mr Joshi's email which I hasten to fill.
>
> The litigating PRIVATE parties before the Delhi HC and the SC in the
> 377 cases, are almost all DUMMY / PROXY parties for vested interests
> which are putting up bogus "straw man" arguments designed for the
> Court to strike down / aside.
>
> In fact the next round is all set to have a new generation of
> intervenors all waiting to act as though they represent the public to
> put forward new fake arguments. NGO fronts for the RSS, VHP and
> Catholic Church in particular are all lining up to accept the golden
> showers by the US porn industry to anyone who wants a piece of it
> (said with a straight face).
>
> Sarbajit
>
>> On 10/14/14, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Pavan
>>
>> IAC, and this mailing list, is starting to achieve a national position
>> where balanced and highly intellectual discussions are taking place,
>> and quite openly between different groups. This is truly one of the
>> few places where it happens.
>>
>> Unfortunately last year the discussions on this list, for various
>> reasons connected with anger against Congress, tended to be a battle
>> between AAP and BJP boosters (somewhat in proportion to their national
>> strength), while IAC's membership looked on bemused. Thankfully all
>> that is now behind us, with almost a 1,000 new subscribers from the
>> major political parties being inducted as observers (with full posting
>> rights should they wish to avail it under IAC's list regulations).
>>
>> IAC was founded in early 20th cent. I tried to drag it into the early
>> 21st. Other members disagreed and so the pendulum swung back to 1860
>> (late 19th cent.) Indian Penal Code's
>> Victorian mores and moralities.
>>
>> The core of the section 377debate can emerge by comparing it to what
>> is loosely termed "stealing the affections of a brother officer's
>> wife", ie "conduct unbecoming of an officer".
>>
>> Q: If I flip this to when "an officer steals the affections of a
>> brother officer FROM the wife", would you still support
>> decriminalisation of gays in the armed forces ?
>>
>> I also don't think that gays are 5% of the population. Even in the
>> USA, the most wildly optimistic figures are 4%. The official India
>> Govt figure is around 30 lakh gays (incl. L's B's and T's) in India
>> CONCOCTED by the Govt body (NACO) most interested in exaggerating this
>> number. But since there are so many "gays" in the media and arts, they
>> exercise a hugely disproportionate effect far exceeding their numbers.
>> They are also taking over the information resources, like WIKIPEDIA,
>> to concoct and fabricate information on a wide variety of topics
>> seemingly unconnected to homosexuality. They now also have 2 major TV
>> channels in India which are COLORing small town India with non-stop
>> prime time transvestitism which is being made socially acceptable for
>> the porn invasion which is slated to come via "4G"
>>
>> PS: I still say that IAC will move into the 21st century with
>> extremely modern and LIBERAL views and with considerable consensus on
>> thorny issues such as these :-) so long as cool citizens like you are
>> around, and nobody is shy to have their say.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>>> On 10/13/14, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Mr Joshi,
>>> Thank you for the clarification. I entirely agree that we have to leave
>>> it to the legislature to amend the relevant section, if at all considered
>>> necessary and that the said section is constitutional being a part of the
>>> IPC. However we (IAC) need to clarify our stand on this. For instance, we
>>> may disapprove of same sex marriages and yet decriminalise the act
>>> between
>>> humans even if it is against the order of nature (all gay sex is against
>>> the order of nature of heterosexual people). Bestiality could be covered
>>> under cruelty to animals. About 5% of the population is homosexual which
>>> amounts to 50 million or more people. The section makes them criminals in
>>> the eyes of the law and therefore in my view needs amendment. Regards.
>>> Pavan Nair
>>> PS Sarbajit, I think we need more views/discussion on this issue.
> 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
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 14, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Madhav Nalapat <mdnalapat@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let's not enter bedrooms of consenting adults. Far too many consequential matters to discuss. Regards Madhav
>
> Original Message
> From: Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2014 00:29
> To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
> Reply To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
> Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity
>
> Dear Pavan
>
> An important point was left out from Mr Joshi's email which I hasten to fill.
>
> The litigating PRIVATE parties before the Delhi HC and the SC in the
> 377 cases, are almost all DUMMY / PROXY parties for vested interests
> which are putting up bogus "straw man" arguments designed for the
> Court to strike down / aside.
>
> In fact the next round is all set to have a new generation of
> intervenors all waiting to act as though they represent the public to
> put forward new fake arguments. NGO fronts for the RSS, VHP and
> Catholic Church in particular are all lining up to accept the golden
> showers by the US porn industry to anyone who wants a piece of it
> (said with a straight face).
>
> Sarbajit
>
>> On 10/14/14, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Pavan
>>
>> IAC, and this mailing list, is starting to achieve a national position
>> where balanced and highly intellectual discussions are taking place,
>> and quite openly between different groups. This is truly one of the
>> few places where it happens.
>>
>> Unfortunately last year the discussions on this list, for various
>> reasons connected with anger against Congress, tended to be a battle
>> between AAP and BJP boosters (somewhat in proportion to their national
>> strength), while IAC's membership looked on bemused. Thankfully all
>> that is now behind us, with almost a 1,000 new subscribers from the
>> major political parties being inducted as observers (with full posting
>> rights should they wish to avail it under IAC's list regulations).
>>
>> IAC was founded in early 20th cent. I tried to drag it into the early
>> 21st. Other members disagreed and so the pendulum swung back to 1860
>> (late 19th cent.) Indian Penal Code's
>> Victorian mores and moralities.
>>
>> The core of the section 377debate can emerge by comparing it to what
>> is loosely termed "stealing the affections of a brother officer's
>> wife", ie "conduct unbecoming of an officer".
>>
>> Q: If I flip this to when "an officer steals the affections of a
>> brother officer FROM the wife", would you still support
>> decriminalisation of gays in the armed forces ?
>>
>> I also don't think that gays are 5% of the population. Even in the
>> USA, the most wildly optimistic figures are 4%. The official India
>> Govt figure is around 30 lakh gays (incl. L's B's and T's) in India
>> CONCOCTED by the Govt body (NACO) most interested in exaggerating this
>> number. But since there are so many "gays" in the media and arts, they
>> exercise a hugely disproportionate effect far exceeding their numbers.
>> They are also taking over the information resources, like WIKIPEDIA,
>> to concoct and fabricate information on a wide variety of topics
>> seemingly unconnected to homosexuality. They now also have 2 major TV
>> channels in India which are COLORing small town India with non-stop
>> prime time transvestitism which is being made socially acceptable for
>> the porn invasion which is slated to come via "4G"
>>
>> PS: I still say that IAC will move into the 21st century with
>> extremely modern and LIBERAL views and with considerable consensus on
>> thorny issues such as these :-) so long as cool citizens like you are
>> around, and nobody is shy to have their say.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>>> On 10/13/14, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Mr Joshi,
>>> Thank you for the clarification. I entirely agree that we have to leave
>>> it to the legislature to amend the relevant section, if at all considered
>>> necessary and that the said section is constitutional being a part of the
>>> IPC. However we (IAC) need to clarify our stand on this. For instance, we
>>> may disapprove of same sex marriages and yet decriminalise the act
>>> between
>>> humans even if it is against the order of nature (all gay sex is against
>>> the order of nature of heterosexual people). Bestiality could be covered
>>> under cruelty to animals. About 5% of the population is homosexual which
>>> amounts to 50 million or more people. The section makes them criminals in
>>> the eyes of the law and therefore in my view needs amendment. Regards.
>>> Pavan Nair
>>> PS Sarbajit, I think we need more views/discussion on this issue.
> 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] IAC's position on homosexualtity
Let's not enter bedrooms of consenting adults. Far too many consequential matters to discuss. Regards Madhav
Original Message
From: Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2014 00:29
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Reply To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity
Dear Pavan
An important point was left out from Mr Joshi's email which I hasten to fill.
The litigating PRIVATE parties before the Delhi HC and the SC in the
377 cases, are almost all DUMMY / PROXY parties for vested interests
which are putting up bogus "straw man" arguments designed for the
Court to strike down / aside.
In fact the next round is all set to have a new generation of
intervenors all waiting to act as though they represent the public to
put forward new fake arguments. NGO fronts for the RSS, VHP and
Catholic Church in particular are all lining up to accept the golden
showers by the US porn industry to anyone who wants a piece of it
(said with a straight face).
Sarbajit
On 10/14/14, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Pavan
>
> IAC, and this mailing list, is starting to achieve a national position
> where balanced and highly intellectual discussions are taking place,
> and quite openly between different groups. This is truly one of the
> few places where it happens.
>
> Unfortunately last year the discussions on this list, for various
> reasons connected with anger against Congress, tended to be a battle
> between AAP and BJP boosters (somewhat in proportion to their national
> strength), while IAC's membership looked on bemused. Thankfully all
> that is now behind us, with almost a 1,000 new subscribers from the
> major political parties being inducted as observers (with full posting
> rights should they wish to avail it under IAC's list regulations).
>
> IAC was founded in early 20th cent. I tried to drag it into the early
> 21st. Other members disagreed and so the pendulum swung back to 1860
> (late 19th cent.) Indian Penal Code's
> Victorian mores and moralities.
>
> The core of the section 377debate can emerge by comparing it to what
> is loosely termed "stealing the affections of a brother officer's
> wife", ie "conduct unbecoming of an officer".
>
> Q: If I flip this to when "an officer steals the affections of a
> brother officer FROM the wife", would you still support
> decriminalisation of gays in the armed forces ?
>
> I also don't think that gays are 5% of the population. Even in the
> USA, the most wildly optimistic figures are 4%. The official India
> Govt figure is around 30 lakh gays (incl. L's B's and T's) in India
> CONCOCTED by the Govt body (NACO) most interested in exaggerating this
> number. But since there are so many "gays" in the media and arts, they
> exercise a hugely disproportionate effect far exceeding their numbers.
> They are also taking over the information resources, like WIKIPEDIA,
> to concoct and fabricate information on a wide variety of topics
> seemingly unconnected to homosexuality. They now also have 2 major TV
> channels in India which are COLORing small town India with non-stop
> prime time transvestitism which is being made socially acceptable for
> the porn invasion which is slated to come via "4G"
>
> PS: I still say that IAC will move into the 21st century with
> extremely modern and LIBERAL views and with considerable consensus on
> thorny issues such as these :-) so long as cool citizens like you are
> around, and nobody is shy to have their say.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/13/14, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Mr Joshi,
>> Thank you for the clarification. I entirely agree that we have to leave
>> it to the legislature to amend the relevant section, if at all considered
>> necessary and that the said section is constitutional being a part of the
>> IPC. However we (IAC) need to clarify our stand on this. For instance, we
>> may disapprove of same sex marriages and yet decriminalise the act
>> between
>> humans even if it is against the order of nature (all gay sex is against
>> the order of nature of heterosexual people). Bestiality could be covered
>> under cruelty to animals. About 5% of the population is homosexual which
>> amounts to 50 million or more people. The section makes them criminals in
>> the eyes of the law and therefore in my view needs amendment. Regards.
>> Pavan Nair
>> PS Sarbajit, I think we need more views/discussion on this issue.
>>
>
Original Message
From: Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2014 00:29
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Reply To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity
Dear Pavan
An important point was left out from Mr Joshi's email which I hasten to fill.
The litigating PRIVATE parties before the Delhi HC and the SC in the
377 cases, are almost all DUMMY / PROXY parties for vested interests
which are putting up bogus "straw man" arguments designed for the
Court to strike down / aside.
In fact the next round is all set to have a new generation of
intervenors all waiting to act as though they represent the public to
put forward new fake arguments. NGO fronts for the RSS, VHP and
Catholic Church in particular are all lining up to accept the golden
showers by the US porn industry to anyone who wants a piece of it
(said with a straight face).
Sarbajit
On 10/14/14, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Pavan
>
> IAC, and this mailing list, is starting to achieve a national position
> where balanced and highly intellectual discussions are taking place,
> and quite openly between different groups. This is truly one of the
> few places where it happens.
>
> Unfortunately last year the discussions on this list, for various
> reasons connected with anger against Congress, tended to be a battle
> between AAP and BJP boosters (somewhat in proportion to their national
> strength), while IAC's membership looked on bemused. Thankfully all
> that is now behind us, with almost a 1,000 new subscribers from the
> major political parties being inducted as observers (with full posting
> rights should they wish to avail it under IAC's list regulations).
>
> IAC was founded in early 20th cent. I tried to drag it into the early
> 21st. Other members disagreed and so the pendulum swung back to 1860
> (late 19th cent.) Indian Penal Code's
> Victorian mores and moralities.
>
> The core of the section 377debate can emerge by comparing it to what
> is loosely termed "stealing the affections of a brother officer's
> wife", ie "conduct unbecoming of an officer".
>
> Q: If I flip this to when "an officer steals the affections of a
> brother officer FROM the wife", would you still support
> decriminalisation of gays in the armed forces ?
>
> I also don't think that gays are 5% of the population. Even in the
> USA, the most wildly optimistic figures are 4%. The official India
> Govt figure is around 30 lakh gays (incl. L's B's and T's) in India
> CONCOCTED by the Govt body (NACO) most interested in exaggerating this
> number. But since there are so many "gays" in the media and arts, they
> exercise a hugely disproportionate effect far exceeding their numbers.
> They are also taking over the information resources, like WIKIPEDIA,
> to concoct and fabricate information on a wide variety of topics
> seemingly unconnected to homosexuality. They now also have 2 major TV
> channels in India which are COLORing small town India with non-stop
> prime time transvestitism which is being made socially acceptable for
> the porn invasion which is slated to come via "4G"
>
> PS: I still say that IAC will move into the 21st century with
> extremely modern and LIBERAL views and with considerable consensus on
> thorny issues such as these :-) so long as cool citizens like you are
> around, and nobody is shy to have their say.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/13/14, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Mr Joshi,
>> Thank you for the clarification. I entirely agree that we have to leave
>> it to the legislature to amend the relevant section, if at all considered
>> necessary and that the said section is constitutional being a part of the
>> IPC. However we (IAC) need to clarify our stand on this. For instance, we
>> may disapprove of same sex marriages and yet decriminalise the act
>> between
>> humans even if it is against the order of nature (all gay sex is against
>> the order of nature of heterosexual people). Bestiality could be covered
>> under cruelty to animals. About 5% of the population is homosexual which
>> amounts to 50 million or more people. The section makes them criminals in
>> the eyes of the law and therefore in my view needs amendment. Regards.
>> Pavan Nair
>> PS Sarbajit, I think we need more views/discussion on this issue.
>>
>
Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity
Dear Pavan
An important point was left out from Mr Joshi's email which I hasten to fill.
The litigating PRIVATE parties before the Delhi HC and the SC in the
377 cases, are almost all DUMMY / PROXY parties for vested interests
which are putting up bogus "straw man" arguments designed for the
Court to strike down / aside.
In fact the next round is all set to have a new generation of
intervenors all waiting to act as though they represent the public to
put forward new fake arguments. NGO fronts for the RSS, VHP and
Catholic Church in particular are all lining up to accept the golden
showers by the US porn industry to anyone who wants a piece of it
(said with a straight face).
Sarbajit
On 10/14/14, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Pavan
>
> IAC, and this mailing list, is starting to achieve a national position
> where balanced and highly intellectual discussions are taking place,
> and quite openly between different groups. This is truly one of the
> few places where it happens.
>
> Unfortunately last year the discussions on this list, for various
> reasons connected with anger against Congress, tended to be a battle
> between AAP and BJP boosters (somewhat in proportion to their national
> strength), while IAC's membership looked on bemused. Thankfully all
> that is now behind us, with almost a 1,000 new subscribers from the
> major political parties being inducted as observers (with full posting
> rights should they wish to avail it under IAC's list regulations).
>
> IAC was founded in early 20th cent. I tried to drag it into the early
> 21st. Other members disagreed and so the pendulum swung back to 1860
> (late 19th cent.) Indian Penal Code's
> Victorian mores and moralities.
>
> The core of the section 377debate can emerge by comparing it to what
> is loosely termed "stealing the affections of a brother officer's
> wife", ie "conduct unbecoming of an officer".
>
> Q: If I flip this to when "an officer steals the affections of a
> brother officer FROM the wife", would you still support
> decriminalisation of gays in the armed forces ?
>
> I also don't think that gays are 5% of the population. Even in the
> USA, the most wildly optimistic figures are 4%. The official India
> Govt figure is around 30 lakh gays (incl. L's B's and T's) in India
> CONCOCTED by the Govt body (NACO) most interested in exaggerating this
> number. But since there are so many "gays" in the media and arts, they
> exercise a hugely disproportionate effect far exceeding their numbers.
> They are also taking over the information resources, like WIKIPEDIA,
> to concoct and fabricate information on a wide variety of topics
> seemingly unconnected to homosexuality. They now also have 2 major TV
> channels in India which are COLORing small town India with non-stop
> prime time transvestitism which is being made socially acceptable for
> the porn invasion which is slated to come via "4G"
>
> PS: I still say that IAC will move into the 21st century with
> extremely modern and LIBERAL views and with considerable consensus on
> thorny issues such as these :-) so long as cool citizens like you are
> around, and nobody is shy to have their say.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/13/14, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Mr Joshi,
>> Thank you for the clarification. I entirely agree that we have to leave
>> it to the legislature to amend the relevant section, if at all considered
>> necessary and that the said section is constitutional being a part of the
>> IPC. However we (IAC) need to clarify our stand on this. For instance, we
>> may disapprove of same sex marriages and yet decriminalise the act
>> between
>> humans even if it is against the order of nature (all gay sex is against
>> the order of nature of heterosexual people). Bestiality could be covered
>> under cruelty to animals. About 5% of the population is homosexual which
>> amounts to 50 million or more people. The section makes them criminals in
>> the eyes of the law and therefore in my view needs amendment. Regards.
>> Pavan Nair
>> PS Sarbajit, I think we need more views/discussion on this issue.
>>
>
An important point was left out from Mr Joshi's email which I hasten to fill.
The litigating PRIVATE parties before the Delhi HC and the SC in the
377 cases, are almost all DUMMY / PROXY parties for vested interests
which are putting up bogus "straw man" arguments designed for the
Court to strike down / aside.
In fact the next round is all set to have a new generation of
intervenors all waiting to act as though they represent the public to
put forward new fake arguments. NGO fronts for the RSS, VHP and
Catholic Church in particular are all lining up to accept the golden
showers by the US porn industry to anyone who wants a piece of it
(said with a straight face).
Sarbajit
On 10/14/14, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Pavan
>
> IAC, and this mailing list, is starting to achieve a national position
> where balanced and highly intellectual discussions are taking place,
> and quite openly between different groups. This is truly one of the
> few places where it happens.
>
> Unfortunately last year the discussions on this list, for various
> reasons connected with anger against Congress, tended to be a battle
> between AAP and BJP boosters (somewhat in proportion to their national
> strength), while IAC's membership looked on bemused. Thankfully all
> that is now behind us, with almost a 1,000 new subscribers from the
> major political parties being inducted as observers (with full posting
> rights should they wish to avail it under IAC's list regulations).
>
> IAC was founded in early 20th cent. I tried to drag it into the early
> 21st. Other members disagreed and so the pendulum swung back to 1860
> (late 19th cent.) Indian Penal Code's
> Victorian mores and moralities.
>
> The core of the section 377debate can emerge by comparing it to what
> is loosely termed "stealing the affections of a brother officer's
> wife", ie "conduct unbecoming of an officer".
>
> Q: If I flip this to when "an officer steals the affections of a
> brother officer FROM the wife", would you still support
> decriminalisation of gays in the armed forces ?
>
> I also don't think that gays are 5% of the population. Even in the
> USA, the most wildly optimistic figures are 4%. The official India
> Govt figure is around 30 lakh gays (incl. L's B's and T's) in India
> CONCOCTED by the Govt body (NACO) most interested in exaggerating this
> number. But since there are so many "gays" in the media and arts, they
> exercise a hugely disproportionate effect far exceeding their numbers.
> They are also taking over the information resources, like WIKIPEDIA,
> to concoct and fabricate information on a wide variety of topics
> seemingly unconnected to homosexuality. They now also have 2 major TV
> channels in India which are COLORing small town India with non-stop
> prime time transvestitism which is being made socially acceptable for
> the porn invasion which is slated to come via "4G"
>
> PS: I still say that IAC will move into the 21st century with
> extremely modern and LIBERAL views and with considerable consensus on
> thorny issues such as these :-) so long as cool citizens like you are
> around, and nobody is shy to have their say.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/13/14, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Mr Joshi,
>> Thank you for the clarification. I entirely agree that we have to leave
>> it to the legislature to amend the relevant section, if at all considered
>> necessary and that the said section is constitutional being a part of the
>> IPC. However we (IAC) need to clarify our stand on this. For instance, we
>> may disapprove of same sex marriages and yet decriminalise the act
>> between
>> humans even if it is against the order of nature (all gay sex is against
>> the order of nature of heterosexual people). Bestiality could be covered
>> under cruelty to animals. About 5% of the population is homosexual which
>> amounts to 50 million or more people. The section makes them criminals in
>> the eyes of the law and therefore in my view needs amendment. Regards.
>> Pavan Nair
>> PS Sarbajit, I think we need more views/discussion on this issue.
>>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)