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
1) Jihadis have not thought out Sarmishtha case fully. They and their patrons, think they can use full state coercion to make an example out of her - to gain Muslim votes, intimidate Hindu dissenters. But they r failing to sense the deep alienation and considerable anger in ppl.
2) this is not helping jihadi cause, as some think the leader of Rashidi foundation himself had openly abused Hindus/Hinduism online (screenshots were posted but not sure they still exist) but never faced the heavy hand of law and order the way Sarmishtha is being made to face.
3) sometimes whether by design (as in Dandi March)or unintended, people are given the choice between only two options. Who takes which side, shows up their true loyalties, commitments, affiliations and priorities. This case is taking a similar psychological space in popular view.
1) Every European country that has in the past, and continues to, facilitate, protect, and enhance Islamist movements or organisations outside Europe as part of Neo-imperialist foreign policy - are defenceless against jihadis on their own soil.
2) the reasons are wide ranging, historical, and twisted by the colonial interlude. The long stranglehold of a totalitarian church has created a social psyche that runs on a dominance submission paradigm and ironically the weakening and discrediting of the church leaves a vacuum.
3) the church weakened because it was totalitarian, just like the Soviet state as it collects all the dregs and charming psychopaths as the sole outlet for their perversions and ambitions without necessarily the talents for their people to flourish under their rule.
1) Mandal might be onto something. Let’s explore RT and ancestors dalitness. RT’s grandpa was treated as untouchable by his grandma for dining and more with Europeans, and bathed every time she had to come to his proximity. She being from same casta. But it gets stranger.
2) Dalit Dwarkanath sat at separate table from his European guests since Europeans were offered plates of “forbidden meat” and he wouldn’t eat it. He also practised “Brahminical” rituals. His wife and mother were strict vegetarians and practised orthodox rituals.
3) in fact apparently the first rift between the couple happened from his association with non-veg eaters in his business circle and the suspicion that he must be contaminated by association. And yet they were a Dalit family. 🤔
1) All borders are temporary compromises in space and time. Retreats and expansions are part of the process. Identities should not be linked to physical borders, even though never give up on territorial claims, even while retreating.
2) Country and nationhood are not identical, and they don’t have to be. However, their deviation from each other over long periods can only be resolved by the dissolution of one or the other, eventually leading to dissolution of both.
3) Sometimes existing power relations in a state form itself prevent the natural fulfilment of a nationhood. It becomes a state where every force within balances and wears the other out, paralysing the state. That is when the state itself becomes the greatest enemy of nationhood.
1) Some observations. Hindus, (and all those in other identities who find themselves aligned closer to Hindus than their community leaders) should not rely only on the country’s army to stand fast against jihadi aggression. They might. They may fail. But a bigger issue remains.
2) the army is conditioned to obey superior command. Their first reaction will be to obey the order. If the order is to hold back, or retreat, bulk of them will follow. The greatest weakness in national armies before jihadis is the vacillation or betrayal of their commanders.
3) many hv argued with me on the most used defence of Indians in the British army of India, “the oath”. It’s not that oath was a novelty invented by the Brits, but Indians obviously wr not so shy about flipping oaths when they left defeated Hindu kings to join invaders.
1) The E.Pak army could easily paralyse jihadis. Two reasons it won’t: such a move can provoke jihadis inside the army to revolt, 2nd, the longer jihadis rampage, better army’s case for not handing over power to elected parties. Current arrangement works for three key players.
2) the intention of international backers of E.Pakistan is to create a weak political regime (Ghazi Yunus is excellent for this with no real networks of power in a jihadist social base) dependent entirely on the army. As long as he can be the facade, army rule can’t be blamed.
3) with Yunus in facade, the army can protect jihadis so jihadis can be reassured to do what they do best: rape, arson, massacre, generally terrorise the population and impose mullah rule at all levels of society. Both Yunus and army have plausible deniability.