[Reader-list] India on a list of countries which have failed to protect its religious minorities adequately

[Rajendra Bhat Uppinangadi]

Rakesh,
  please go into archives of the list, you will be sure to find the answers
with inquisitive intellect.Governance if without fear or favor to any group
of individuals on the basis of faith, caste or religion or region.

 Just as 16 % bite for musims, the other oppressed are also entitled to
their bite, and shikhandi doing this talk with a retired tired justice is an
insult to intellect of the aam admi. Governance is the business of
delivering the good of democracy to all in the society, not on priority of
vote banks.Not only those who follow faith of Islam are poor, there are 34
crores below the line of survival, who need the governance to deliver them
out of the miseries of life, may be hindus, may be many other castes, many
other faiths, may be tribals who are deprived, oppressed and denied right to
earn a decent living, life of dignity to earn and the right to self
preserve. Then why this "priority" to 16 %.?

Regards,

Rajen.

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well Rajen ji
>
> Good points. But what is this rule of law? You people yourself contest and
> start asking for a Uniform Civil Code, thereby stating that the current laws
> are inadequate or incorrect to satisfy the current situation, and hence such
> a code is required. So also for POTA.
>
> And as for the implementation, most of the minority appeasement acts are
> not against the Constitution of India, whether it be the Sachar Committee
> Report or the demand for reconstruction of the Babri Masjid. Therefore, what
> exactly do you want?
>
> You are one of those who state that it's wrong for Manmohan to say that
> Muslims have the first right on the resources of the country. He didn't say
> that others don't have a right too. But you seem to think that statement
> does mean that. What do you want about those kind of statements, can you
> tell? And anyways, how does that statement correlate with functioning on the
> ground?
>
> The Haj subsidies are supposedly within the Constitutional directives and
> ideas. Do you support that, or do you oppose that? And why?
>
> Do you support the point that post-Godhra violence was wrong and
> unjustifiable, howsoever Godhra as a crime may be?
>
> You are good at misusing questions to avoid answers. My simple question is
> this: what should be the value system upon which the Indian law and
> Constitution must be based and what should be the Indian judiciary's values
> as well while giving their judgements: Hindutva? Secularism? Islam?
> Hinduism? Something else........
>
> Which rule of law should prevail: Hindutva rule of Law/Indian Penal
> Code/Shariat/Something else? And where would Muslims be placed as a section
> of the society in any such rule of law which you are talking about?
>
> As for "brownie points", I have learnt that from you. So you are my guru in
> that, I wholeheartedly acknowledge. Congrats for that, guruji. I would never
> be able to keep up with you in this, I agree.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
>



-- 
Rajen.