#1. I am afraid, the fact that this Sharma guy is being quoted by Amberish means he could be a typical marxist under a Hindu name. #2. The symbol of cow has a very very "rational" meaning - Cows right from their birth to death (both male and female) provide nature (and self-centred human beings like us) many many products that are a necessity. Milk (and numerous products), cow dung (makes a excellent fertilizer and insecticide), cow skin are all used by us and our children. Male cows do the plauging of farms. So the symbol of "cow" represents "giving" to the nature back. One can atleast show repect to cows by not killing them for eating them! As for the plastics eaten by cows - fix the garbage removal systems and "educate" Indians about civic sense. So much for "rational" thinking by Amberish!! #3.There is no point in comparing UCC with cow slaughter. UCC pertains to citizens and their actions, and is a basic necessity in a democracy. But journalists like Amberish would drag anything that can bash the hindus, to bring them to the same level of most "dogmatic" Muslims. #4. In western countries the UCC is defined by the majority community, tell me again why not in India?
Mr. Diwanji writes in his stupid, twisted article that - "After all, isn't it the Hindus who insist it is their faith that tells them the cow is sacred or that Lord Ram was born at a particular spot even if evidence is lacking?" First of all, Hindus revering the cows and believing that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Ram has NOTHING TO DO with Uniform Civil Code. India can have a uniform civil code, which it should, and individuals can have religious faith in their private lives like not wanting to eat beef and believing in Ram and his birthplace. There is no contradiction. None, whatsover. One is an area of law, the UCC, which should be fair and reasonable. The other is private belief. Mr. Diwanji, in a rather foolish and hypocrital way (which is typical of pseudo securalists in India) calls into question the belief about Ram's birthplace. Mr. Diwanji says evidence is lacking. I am sure Mr. Diwanji does not question the beliefs of Muslims about the birthplace of Prophet Muhammed or the beliefs of Christians about birthplace of Jesus Christ. Why not ? Because he is just like the rest of the self-loathing Hindu hating hypocritical pseudo-secularists that populate Indian landscape.
RE:Mr. Diwanji - Do you have evidence that Mecca is the birthplace of Prophet Muhammed ?
by Jai Sriram on Aug 07, 2003 03:42 PM
Dear Srirama, Your comparison does not hold. The point is not whether Ayodhya is the birthplace of Rama or not. Ayodhya is Ramjanmabhoomi. The point is whether a particular spot in Ayodhya (of x sq.ft) can be pinpointed as the exact birthplace (janmasthan) and a structure existing there be demolished.
The fact is that the people who demolished the masjid have broken a criminal law in doing so. This criminal law is already a common law applicable to all citizens, but they say the temple is a matter of faith. Now these very same people are raising the issue of common civil law!
I have nothing against impartial, carefully considered common laws, but clearly the motives of those championing the cause of the UCC are suspect.
RE:Mr. Diwanji - Do you have evidence that Mecca is the birthplace of Prophet Muhammed ?
by sajid on Aug 05, 2003 02:53 PM
Mr.sreeramaji,
Prophet Muhammed(PBUH) is a historical figure. What he had done & what he had not done...everything is in history. Have some verification before commenting on someone's knowledge.
Reply
by Nav on Aug 05, 2003 07:01 PM
Sir, Though the anologies of cow and Ram were irrelevant, Amberish has made his point very clear. If BJP and its allies make the UCC, it would be a plain Hindu code. It's as simple as that. With respect to your question about the birthplaces of the two prophets, Mecca is not considered to be sacred because Prophet Muhammed was born there. It's considered to be sacred because of its specific mention as a sacred place in the Koran, and to the direction of which muslims should face while offering namaaz. Though the grave of Prophet Muhammed is present in Medina, nobody knows the exact location of his birth in Mecca. There's no need to know that either because muslims are not allowed to construct any memorials. Muslims just believe in the message conveyed by him.
Mr. Diwanji - Do you have evidence that Mecca is the birthplace of Prophet Muhammed ?
by Nilufer on Aug 05, 2003 01:21 PM
Yes, there is evidence about the birth place of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) Provide me your email ID, I will forward it to you my dear.
I very much agree with the author, that the sacred cow (of hindus) is roaming around in the streets and has been treated so badly for long long years now. It has been used by the hindu community itslef to load on luggage and even to plough.
Islam has always been wrongly interpreted, people only know the outline, but have never tried to go deeper and undestanding the meaning of it !
If there is a UCC or HCC, we all should learn to respect & honour each other.
The author tries to bring Ayodhya while talking about UCC or Hindu Civil Code, they are no way related.
Let us put a question to the author, if Hindus agree for UCC on all accounts, are Muslims going to agree for the same? First the author should tell his opinion on this, then he can go to other issues like Ayodhya rather than bring all issues which are not related and make a mess.
There is no means to justify that India should not have UCC.
1. Maharastra, karnataka, AP, TN and kerala have made changes to the hindu civil code and daughters along with the widows have an equal share in their inherited property along with sons. Are there similar changes when it comes to minority civil code. I don't think so. Surely the southern states definitely have big hindu business houses and I don't see any of them baulking. Also note that it is not just inheritance, if one's dad owed money all the inheritors are indebted and are by hindu law required to repay the debt. This point is always overlooked.
2. If I am not mistaken, RSS's goal is a united hindu society without caste prejudices. Why would you think they would impose a castiest hindu code on everybody?
3. The supreme court's lordships made the observation about UCC when it was in context. Why do you think it is pertinent that they should have made an observation about universal education while dealing with a case that was clearly about civil code.
4. We know who our father is because our mother says so. Did't we believe her? Only now we have dna mapping. Similarly if a majority believe that rama was born in ayodhya at a specific place, why shouldn't it be belived?
I do not understand, how we attack the source of an idea or thought. It is always the source which has to be blamed. If the source had been Gandhi, then I guess no-one would have even given a second look at this law.
It is time, we forget the source and start thinking, is this something India needs? Yes, BJP has put it on the table, so??? They are not going to make the law. They give suggestions. I have no problem , if they along with other parties give suggestions and leave it to the supreme court to decide on the law.
WE are a developing nation and need to act like one. It is time, we did away with all this casteism and all, everyone is equal and one under law. The law should rule the land. No
Regarding, as to why we regard Cow as sacred, Well it is an age-old tradition, and looking at an age-old tradition with your post-modernistic outlook is faulty. Everything will look comical when seen with modern spectacles. Yes, we need to change, and change should come from the people. Our mistake is we leave it to the government to tell us how to change, and once they do, we complain.
Editorials can be written in plenty. It is the spread of this thought, which is important
What we need is an all inclusive law over-riding other laws which discriminate or are perceived to discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, race, color, nationality, physical abilities, age and other human characteristics.
Though, you may be right that there should be UCC but I don't think that it is an important issue. So called backers of UCC (VHP, RSS, and alike) have applauded saying that it is necessary. Same outfits recently decried regarding Ram Janmabhoomi ruling saying that the matter of faith cannot be decided by the court. That's great. When the ruling is against you then it is a matter of faith. How about personnel laws? OK, I agree that it requires reformation but let it come from them. It will take time but surely it will come.
Law does not stop any bad social practice, example: dowry. We have so many laws but dowry is now more prevalent than before. Gambling during diwali is practiced more than before. Social awareness, education, and sense of responsibility will bring changes.
Probably, a law combining UCC and personnel law should have been the way, a compromise.
