dikgaj Profile picture
14 Sep, 5 tweets, 1 min read
1)This was also why whole "Hindu" civil code was formulated: combined with the Muslim League successor Constituent assembly member's claim that Hindus being majority shdnt hv Constitutional protection for their culture/law only "minorities" need it-logic since used by judicially.
2)in ruling after ruling the "Hindu code bill" has stripped off all obligations but affirmed all the rights of the wife given in Hindu traditional jurisprudence. Courts only cite interpretations of Hindu texts that support their ruling but I have never seen full original quotes
3)this extension of marital recognition to same-biological gender unions, should be pursued on its own demerits or merits and come under a special marriage act - but it would a be cynically abusive attack on Hindus by calling it a 'Hindu marriage" under Hindu civil code.
4)No part of Hindu jurisprudence before the free mash under the disaster Nehru - has any support for same bio-gender "marriages". Open minders should be open minded enough not to discriminate by preventing non-Hindus from the benefit of open-minded marriages.
5)Open minders should show also the minimal honesty and respect in not claiming same bio-gender marriages as "Hindu" as there is no traditional textual Hindu jurisprudence support for it - the same respect they show to Islamic and Christian jurists.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with dikgaj

dikgaj Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dikgaj

21 Sep
1) looking at the history of judiciary over the last few centuries, especially under western European powers - judiciary go most strongly against ideologies, institutions, movements they think will curb their own powers. They bend to powers who they know can crush them at will.
2) modern judicial practice has one insidious aspect: it is unique in resulting in training through profession to hide latent agenda or motivations by skillful (not necessarily) and obscurantist or obsolete use of language.
3) thus when politicians who gained leadership wr also trained as legal professionals, as in India's freedom movement, the results were typically disastrous in the long term - as the two skill sets converged to heighten the deception of the people while initially lulling them.
Read 11 tweets
19 Sep
"Rape as an idea shd only be criticized where it is a national pastime (as even its defenders r open to be raped): not where it is beginning to claim its right to be a national pastime. As long as its defenders can control who gets raped, its all good".
Its ridiculous to claim that an ideology can only conditionally be criticized, depending on where, when, and by whom. If an ideology has flaws, it has them everywhere - and always. If extremists can derive their support from the ideology, then the fault lies with the ideology.
Siddiqui's argument can only be understood as refusal to accept that the ideology may itself hv elements that nurtures "extremist" views persistently and repeatedly over wide swathes of time and place as evidenced in history of that ideology and its real life implementations.
Read 7 tweets
8 Sep
1) Twitter meltdown on a self-proclaimed "atheist"'s finding Kali "sexy" and supposed intention to "trigger" Hindu "Far Right" and show them same as jihadis. For a start, I find his arguments very revealing about why and how most "atheists" fail in their replacement religion.
2) In case of Kali, the thing to note is that Kali is "taken" already, a consort of Shiva - in most Hindu traditions. If an "atheist" finds her "sexy", it raises quite a few questions about the social aspects of the "atheists" thinking on sex and sexuality.
3) to say one finds a woman "sexy", is an automatic acknowledgement that the viewer's sexual responses have been triggered by mere visuals of the woman. From there its a grey zone: he/she is open to sex with the woman or he may restrain and not have sex even if available.
Read 15 tweets
17 Aug
K-f-r in old Arabic means to "cover" : a farmer/tiller is a Kafer because he covers seeds with soil. But The Quran uses "Kafer" predominantly metaphorically as "one who covers" the claimed "revelation" - hence "disbeliever" hence enemy/target for elimination.
It is a sly sleight of hand to try and pretend that "k-f-r" begins and ends with its pre-Islamic language usage and implication. It does not matter if the language that founders of Islam learned, thought "kfr" a neutral word: what matters is how Islam's founders used it.
By that argument, "Nigger" in its original root form was not originally an offensive word - as it is derivation from Latin "nigrum" simply meaning black as a colour/pigment/hue. No proof Romans used it as pejorative. But in the American slave society dynamics it became offensive.
Read 5 tweets
6 Aug
(1) Get this very clearly: Hindu "dharma" has a value system and not everything and anything is acceptable. Since it has its own values not every other belief is automatically also "dharma" for Hindus and Hindus should have no hesitation to say so.
(2) Hindu "dharma" does not automatically belong to "all humanity" unless they subscribe to its values. For example ISIS sadists and their worshipers are biologically humans too but Hindu dharma doesnt belong to them.
(3) Hindu dharma is not "universally tolerant" to anything and everything as it has its own distinctive value system and it cannot and should not tolerate things that outrages its values. Tolerance of things that should not be tolerated destroys dharma by contradicting it.
Read 5 tweets
28 Jul
Those whose loved ones wr shot dead for their part in removal of disputed structure at Ayodhya or burned by jihadis at Godhra returning from Karseva-should have had the first rights at Bhumipujan. A foundation that doesn’t pay respect to founders starts on shaky ground.
It might very well be true that without the PM and his cabinet at centre, any other central gov wd hv done everything possible to appease jihadis and intervene to prevent bhumipujan. But ppl elected him to do what they expected him to do and empowered him to do so.
He should be present at the foundation for that was part of the expectation that people voted him for. But those who went for karseva and gave their lives did it without being given the power to do so hence their sacrifice deserved much more from the organisers.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!