Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: Diatribes of.............
From: dchatterjee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Date: 20 Dec 92 01:17:17 CST
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Dec15.224429.29322@athena.mit.edu>, tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.) writes:
> ==================================
>  To:
>....... (hollow statements deleted)......
>  So, now you admit that the constitutionally provided laws are few in number.
>  But, your question mark suggests that you don't know for sure, how many/which
>  laws these are.

  My knowing or not knowing does in no way make my assertions wrong. I remember
  you quoting NYT, Dec 11th issue - article by Gargan. In that article Gargan
  makes the discontents of Hindus very clear. Yes, only Hindus have been
  referred to, as they are the majority in India. However, I am pretty sure
  that other religious minorities will agree with the fact that the most
  pampered community are the Muslims. They have been manipulating, or have
  allowed themselves to be manipulated (quite dastardly) by a bunch of greedy,
  nefarious, bone-headed politicians for exercise of "adult-franchise". Finally
  what Gargan comments is true: namely Islam has been used quite conveniently
  by this minority to spew anger and hatred amongst others. (I hope that your
  "supreme intellect" that is otherwise seemingly capable of asking "questions"
  would recollect what Gargan wrote !!!)

> 
>  Nevertheless, you proceed to assert that this is the MAJOR concern. Well, 
>  such shifting foundations are not rational grounds for asserting such
>  conclusions, IMO. 
>

  There *is* a distinct bias here. I am not making up facts. I did not quote
  from "unaccessible" sources. The reference was made to NYT, where the article
  appeared. Thus your rhetorics remind me of:" full of sound and fury, 
  signifying nothing ". "Shifting foundations" as you assert, are products of
  your incapability to understand what was I referring to. Seems that one
  should not cast information before rustic intellectuals like you.
 
>  You mention the Shahbano case. Is islamic divorce/alimony 
>  a privilege that most hindu seek? If no, then which privileges
>  are you talking of.
>

   I mentioned the Shahbano case because of two (2) reasons. I hoped, because
   if you want to argue like a grown up, that you are expected to know the
   facts/ basis of the arguments. I repeat them here for your convenience,
   noting that it is easier to hammer a nail into a piece of solid rock, than
   to make a recalcitrant person like yourself appreciate the crux of the
   message. These are as follows:

   (1) Islamic practices amongst Muslims depend on the Sharia. These are
       laws that are basically outdated - written about 1000 years ago.
       It is *not* the definition of marriage laws *only*. The whole Sharia
       demands entirely different set of laws for Muslims. If you are at all
       aware, then Sharia laws also urge that a Muslim must live in a
       "Dar-ul-Islam". This denies the existing set of judiciary that has
       been democratically agreed upon by Indians. I am referring to the
       Indian Constitution, if you have heard about it (???). In this case
       (Shahbano, 1985) the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the
       destitute woman - based on the Constitution of GOI. The Muslims in
       India, including Imam Syed Abdullah Bukhari (chief Imam) ruled that
       the Supreme Court was interfering with the fundamental principles of
       Islam, and, all Muslims emphasized/ protested by saying that "Islam
       was in danger from kafirs." To me, it was always clear that no matter
       what religion you belong to, that if you are a citizen of a country,
       you are to be judged by the Federal laws (in this case the Indian
       Supreme Court) of that country. (I know that Constitution gives a
       special privilege to Muslims, but, when a Supreme Court *has* ruled
       against something, it stays. The decision of the Supreme Court on
       any matter is final.) It is the highest legal authority, guaranteed
       by the Indian Constitution. This allegation is extremely humiliating
       for Hindus - who are also citizens of India. 
       

  (2)  The Muslims, including all their leaders, rapidly got together with
       Rajiv Gandhi, and, one witnessed the Cong.(I) *overruling* the
       decision of the Supreme Court, and passing a separate bill for Muslims.
       *showing a special respect for their religion*. It is here that the
       Muslims, in order to exert their authority, used Islam as a means to
       get at the top - by making political alliances. (I am not absolving
       the then PM Rajiv of all blames.) This outright dismissal of the
       Supreme Court ruling is a blatant insult on the part of the India.
       (This also made other non-Muslims furious). I hope you were born in
        1985 ?????????

   The incident has two issues - as stated above. Hindus could not take this.
   
   Over the years, many issues have compounded. Kashmir issue, generally
   unpatriotic attitude, and, religious fundamentalism. These are several in
   number, and, I am not going to quantify. (To have a glimpse, re-read
   Gargan's article(s).)
> 
>  How can you assert "you may be...."
>  Facts? or Emotions?
>  You find questions bizarre? and humiliating? 

   I am sorry. I emphasize that you *are* an Islamic apologist probably a
   pro-secessionist - member of the IPSG (Indian Progressive Study Group).
   IPSG openly advocates (I was shocked to see this in their meetings at
   McGill U., Montreal, Canada), that GOI *must* give up Kashmir to Pakistan.
   You may agree/rationalize with this, but, I cannot.

   I find questions bizarre because you seem to comment on topics on 
   which you have neither read, nor, have any personal experience. They
   (your questions) are hollow.

   To draw an analogy, rickshaw-pullers in India ask such questions. I am
   just making an observation, please.
> 
>  What is a fool, dear chanakya? 

    Yourself.

>  How can one "look" wise?

   By not asking stupid questions. I mean stupid is a relative term. To me
   your questions are stupid and full of ignorance.
 
>  what is wisdom?

   Something that is sought.

>  What are questions?

   What is Tapesh Yadav ? 

>.....(deleted)...... 
>  
>  well, we are all getting tired, aren't we? :)
>  different souls, different attitudes..........
>  take it easy.
   
   Have a nice day.
>  
> T.Y.
> ----
> tyadav@athena.mit.edu

        - stay alive,

          deb chatterjee
        (a good samaritan)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian