Kalia_Test Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 So you are saying that there are no people in India who protest and call you "non-hindu" etc if you eat beef ? I can only speak from my experience. - By my 'so-called' whatever, I am supposed to be be vegetarian. - I was not and used to eat non-veg just to try during college days. No one called me non-hindu. - I tried beef too in front of other 'hindus'.. No one called me non-hindu - I gave up non-veg not as any principle or anything ( I am happy to take a bite of anything even now ) simply because I don't find non-veg to be so > Veg in terms of taste. Others will find it different and I have no problem with that too. To repeat - in the area/region I live in, what you eat/ don't eat has NOTHING to being a hindu.
asterix Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 I read 92% of Muslim women in India want oral ...I was like :woot: :giggle: :giggle:
ravishingravi Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 It doesn't. True secularists want uniform civil code. I don't see any secularist here who opposes such laws but talks about secularism. But I have seen RSS supporters welcome beef ban while talking about secularism. There they use the current Indian version of secularism (where everyone is pleased). I would say you have not net too many secularists in India then. Also, the beef van, please refer the constitution of India.
sensible-indian Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 I would say you have not net too many secularists in India then. Also, the beef van, please refer the constitution of India. I know about that. But just cos our constitution defines it doesn't mean a neutral person would agree that is true secularism. The reason for beef ban is due to a faith based reason. While religiously speaking, I don't want cows to be killed - I feel in the larger picture, it wil only lead to a mess and we should be moving away from giving leeway for all religions (instead of giving it to all). This is like muddying up the water.
ravishingravi Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 I know about that. But just cos our constitution defines it doesn't mean a neutral person would agree that is true secularism. The reason for beef ban is due to a faith based reason. While religiously speaking, I don't want cows to be killed - I feel in the larger picture, it wil only lead to a mess and we should be moving away from giving leeway for all religions (instead of giving it to all). This is like muddying up the water. I am not clear. You brought RSS into this. Now beef ban was not incorporated in constitution by RSS. You attack should be on founders and asking for constitutional amendment. I would think that is more "sensible". RSS is wrong on many fronts but here the law entitles them. Now, you can also maybe share some prominent secularites who call for uniform civil code. I ask because in India it is only right wing which has asked for it persistently. I agree, it would be the most secular way to go.
sensible-indian Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 I am not clear. You brought RSS into this. Now beef ban was not incorporated in constitution by RSS. You attack should be on founders and asking for constitutional amendment. I would think that is more "sensible". RSS is wrong on many fronts but here the law entitles them. Now, you can also maybe share some prominent secularites who call for uniform civil code. I ask because in India it is only right wing which has asked for it persistently. I agree, it would be the most secular way to go. I didn't say RSS incorporated beef ban on constitution. My attack wasn't on RSS at all (though I don't like them one bit in general). I said I have seen RSS guys talk about true secularism, uniform civil code and what not but they are happy to use the technicality of constitution for beef ban to be enforced. Of course, all may not subscribe to this view. If someone is TRULY secular and is genuinely honest about wanting to be secular, they would want uniform civil code and not want beef ban regardless of their religious inclinations cos that's what is good for India in the larger picture.
Tiger80 Posted August 23, 2015 Author Posted August 23, 2015 I would say you have not net too many secularists in India then. Also, the beef van, please refer the constitution of India. Constitution was written in 1950s we are in now 2015. India exported buffalo beef of 16000 crore worth in 2014, imagine how much more india can export cow beef.There is something called economics. The truth is the people who shout about cow protection hardly want to spend money on old cows. In 125 crore nation where people are sleeping on streets , govt cannot afford to spend crores for cow shelters
The Outsider Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 Constitution? LOL! It's a directive principle in the constitution which implies that it can be implemented as long as fundamental rights are not infringed upon. In this case ban on consumption on beef clearly contradicts the right to practice religion. That includes Adivasis who chaddhidharis want to engulf.
diga Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 so the thread is about Chaddidaris now... Should personal law be allowed if it infringes on an individual's rights? All such laws should go.. why not have a periodic review of constitutional laws?
Desi Cartman Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 https://youtu.be/qCnkNzgSoLE Is this for real :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: So the couple needs to get laid once before getting remarried to each other? Rofl at the dude on the phone who went "I dont like this, lets skip you getting laid and just get married" :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: BTW the husband divorced her because she wanted to work and he thought that she might sleep around and as a result now legally she needs to sleep around :icflove:
JaDed Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Sharia was revolutionary when it was introduced during those times it was almost pro women but with time laws and circumstances change. India lost the opportunity on uniform civil code not happening again.Also the inheritance laws of Christians and Hindus are different i don't see the elderly(Hindus) adjusting for it in rural areas as well.
Precambrian Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Constitution? LOL! It's a directive principle in the constitution which implies that it can be implemented as long as fundamental rights are not infringed upon. In this case ban on consumption on beef clearly contradicts the right to practice religion. That includes Adivasis who chaddhidharis want to engulf. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Quran calls for mandatory eating of beef I suppose
seedhi Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Constitution? LOL! It's a directive principle in the constitution which implies that it can be implemented as long as fundamental rights are not infringed upon. In this case ban on consumption on beef clearly contradicts the right to practice religion. That includes Adivasis who chaddhidharis want to engulf.You surely do not know our Constitution and the flaws therein. There is something called the Ninth Schedule (inserted by the great "democrat" Nehru in the very first amendment) which allows for laws that cannot be challenged in the court of law. So yes, laws that violate the Fundamental Rights can be implemented as long as they are in that schedule. Only in 2007 did the Supreme Court rule that even those laws can be scrutinized if they are against the basic structure of the Constitution, but I submit that Beef ban can never be considered that since it as much a violation of the Basic Structure as banning Satanic Verses. In sum, we are governed by a Constitution that itself allows laws that can violate the Fundamental Rights. ....... The first amendment to the Indian Constitution added the Ninth Schedule to it. It was introduced by the Nehru Government, on 10 May 1951 to address judicial decisions and pronouncements especially about the chapter on fundamental rights. Nehru was also very clear on the purpose behind the first amendment. The state wanted to pursue nationalisation, take away lands from the zamindars, re-distribute them, and make special provisions for the socially and economically backward. Despite having architected the Constitution, Nehru was not confident that the laws made to pursue these special interests of the state would stand up to judicial scrutiny on account of being discriminatory. The First Amendment that brought in Articles 31A and 31B conferring upon the state the right to make laws to acquire private property and to deem such laws as not being discriminatory and to further protect all such laws from any judicial review by creating something called the Ninth Schedule. It is interesting to note that the origins of the Ninth Schedule lie in land acquisition by the state, given the current political debate on SEZs and Singur, Nandigram. Since the First Amendment, the Ninth Schedule has been relied upon to amend the constitution multiple times over. The 4th amendment inserted six acts to the 9th schedule. The 17th amendment added 44 more acts. The 29th amendment brought in 2 acts from Kerala. The 34th amendment in 1974 added 20 more land tenure and land reforms laws enacted by the states. In 1975, Indira Gandhi’s infamous abuse of executive power leading up to emergency saw the 39th amendment adding certain central enactments. 1976 saw the 40th amendment even more to the 9th schedule. The 47th amendment in 1984 added more, and then in 1990 the 66th amendment gave more protection to land ceiling acts. The 76th amendment to accommodate Tamil Nadu Government’s legislation to provide for reservations to the level of 69 percent for SC/ST and OBCs followed. What takes the cake however is the 78th amendment, which was about not just immunity to laws in 9th schedule, which was suspect, but amendments to those laws and making those amendments immune. Since then there were absurd laws from Sugarcane supporting price to the New Delhi Urban Zoning Laws all clamoring for an exalted spot in the much abused Ninth Schedule. ......... http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/judicial-review-and-the-ninth-schedule-of-the-indian-constitution/24982/
Mariyam Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Sharia was revolutionary when it was introduced during those times it was almost pro women but with time laws and circumstances change. India lost the opportunity on uniform civil code not happening again.Also the inheritance laws of Christians and Hindus are different i don't see the elderly(Hindus) adjusting for it in rural areas as well. When did that happen??
mishra Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 When did that happen?? He is trying to say in the era of Prophet Muhammad
gs Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 He is trying to say in the era of Prophet Muhammad On a lighter note, do you know if 92% muslim women like triple oral? :cantstop:
Mariyam Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 He is trying to say in the era of Prophet Muhammad It wasn't pro women even then.
seedhi Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 It wasn't pro women even then. Sharia was revolutionary when it was introduced during those times it was almost pro women but with time laws and circumstances change. India lost the opportunity on uniform civil code not happening again.Also the inheritance laws of Christians and Hindus are different i don't see the elderly(Hindus) adjusting for it in rural areas as well.
Tiger80 Posted September 3, 2015 Author Posted September 3, 2015 [No scope of change in triple talaq system: AIMPLB http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-scope-of-change-in-triple-talaq-system-AIMPLB/articleshow/48784652.cms
Recommended Posts