[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: We must focus on the main target



========================================================
Administrative Note:
-------------------

Week's Agenda: Social Conditions

  Minimum Wage
  Rules regarding Safety of Personnel at work to be made clear
  Introduction of Social Security Net
  Introduction of identity card
  Removal of Age discrimination at work
  Creating conditions so that reservations will no longer be necessary
========================================================



> Ashok Chowgule. I have subscribed him to this list and he is most welcome
> to talk to all of us, as is anybody else, but as an individual citizen,
> concerned about the key targets we have set for ourselves: being the #1 in
> income, sports, and knowledge; and not as the representative of the Sangh
> Parivar or anybody else.

Maybe we should have a provision for other bodies to participate as well?
Why limit this platform to just individuals? 

> He says: It is possible that one's daughter might be thrown out on the
> streets by marrying into a Muslim family. Well: to that my reply is: one's
> daughter, after the age of 18 is an ADULT, capable of deciding her own
> fate. If she choses a particular method of marriage in which a sudden risk
> of divorce exists, and is well known to all, then it is her choice
> entirely. It is not the society's business to be concerned with such a

May I point out we wouldn't need any law at all if we have such an attitude.
Why not just have the shariat and chop off the hands of a pickpocket?
And then say that the person who chose the faith was an adult.
I am not for UCC in toto. As long as no law hurts anyone AND no law
gives undue advantage to anyone (e.g: Why should the Hindu United
Family be given any tax rebates?), any law is fine.

Continuing in your line of thought, why have any law for divorce at all?
The woman takes a risk and as an adult deserves what she gets.
The fact is that there are some social issues which have to be taken
into consideration while framing any law.

If everyone meet and discuss the specific points which are contentious,
we will find that they are very few and can easily be ironed out. In my
opinion, BJP has made as a national issue what could have been
sorted out by the legal experts. And other parties blindly oppose it
because BJP proposed it.

> I am not an insensitive soul. If I find a woman thrown out on the streets,
> I will help her - irrespective of the cause. All I am saying is that
> marriage is a purely private business, since it involves the relationship
> between a man and a woman who alone bear the costs and reap the 
> benefits.  
> It does not involve me, except as a 'recognizer' of the marriage, and as
> an eater of the marriage party goodies.

Why have marriage laws at all? Why should Hindus and Christians 
benefit? Aren't they adults too? Having a law doesn't mean that we
interfere in others' lives. Not in all cases does the law decide between
right and wrong for the society. It needs to protect individuals from
not only crimes but from being taken advantage of.

Finally, why should the law not be defined in a precise manner?
If you want a different law for Muslims, it is fine by me but these laws
MUST be defined by the system itself. It must not refer to some
1000 or 2000 year old document. The responsibility must be vested with
legally qualified persons, not with someone whose only qualification
is that he is a priest.
Women are being taken advantage of and our law does NOT cater
to protecting them! Isn't that a fact?

-Arvind



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------