I cant say anything about judiciary, but people should have some common sense. Religious places are associated with peoples sentiments and beliefs. They should not be treated as places of tourism.
.....the BJP-President is absolutely on the mark when he says that it si important for the judges to satisfy themselves that the verdict can be carried out from the law and order perspective. What can be seen here is that even the women-devotees in very large numbers among the protesters are being mercilessly dealt with by the state administration which is using thee SC-verdict as the cover to perpetrate brutality against the Hindu-devotees.
Re: Re: Good Justice Is Good ONLY If It Can Be Carried Out....
by Chaitanya B on Oct 27, 2018 09:04 PM
Shall we interpret that purported statement of Amit Shah, as a reflection of the BJP's frustration and inability to govern in the wake of recent court verdicts such as SC ST Atrocities ?
If so, let's put the BJP out of its misery in the next elections.
Re: Re: Re: Good Justice Is Good ONLY If It Can Be Carried Out...
by rishi on Oct 29, 2018 01:39 AM
21-states in the short span of four-years and the Centre intact.....a crumbling congress-led-opposition bankrupt of issues....and an upright, hardworking and honest 21st-Century billion-plus well-wishers of the Nation increasingly embracing the most enterprising, risktaking and dynamically evolving fully-homegrown socio-political RSS-BJP-Combine-Led-Progressive-NDA ......it matters not that some leftover cancerous-traces of an ancient 19th-century-colonially-created-and-nurtured corrupt-congress choose to duck their heads in sand for some more time.....true, 2019 is not far ! And yes, 6o-plus years the Nation moved at a snail's pace.....all that you saw was poverty, misery and dirty politics around you....greed-and-corruption-driven spineless traitors shamelessly ended up doing "jee hujoori" to an italian-housewife-led-dynasty.....and the crooked dynastic-politics took the centre stage in the lives of many dimwits some of whom are visible in the comments sections of some news-portals here.....Governance did not exist as the regime of cuts-and-commissions manifested in its DNA doled out some morsel of stale-bread to a yester-years'pidis here or there....! ! ! Time to do Yoga to uplift yourself.....compulsive BJP-bashing has not helped anyone !
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Justice Is Good ONLY If It Can Be Carried Ou
by Chaitanya B on Oct 29, 2018 10:15 AM
You're only attempting to dodge the question and create diversions, with more Bhakt Bootlicking and Cong-bashing.
The point here is: Amit Shah says he's finding Court rulings difficult to implement (he's conveniently forgotten the fact that it's the State govt that has taken the major share of burden of implementation). Isn't that statement a reflection of their incompetence to govern? That was such a no-no statement he made, that wouldn't be acceptable even in any banana-republic ruled by tin-pot dictators.
If you can answer that question, answer. If you can't please spare me your Bhakt Bakwaas.
have formed his opinion on this supposed centuries old tradition at sabarimala after reading only one side of the argument !
And that side excludes any reading of the history and antiquity of this supposed tradition.
He has also written that the temple authorities can decide whom to invite for the rituals and pujas at the temple. But he has not stated who or which is that temple authority in the case of sabarimala!
Apparently, he is under the impression that that authority is someone who is inclined to stick to this 27 year old tradition of barring womxen of a certain age group at the temple!
The authority vested with all administrative powers is the Travancore devasxwom Board, not the tuntri or the mel shanti ! The responsibilities of the tuntri are only to consecrate the deixty and invoke and confer divine powers upon the deixty during the periodic opening of the temple (nada opening). The pujaris sole function is to conduct the daily rituals and pujas.
The writer is not aware of this inconvenient detail only because he has read up only one side of the argument (even while stating gratuitously that he waited for the intellectuals to speak before stating his opinion)!
And as far as the so called tradition is concerned, he has taken the word of those who claim to stand exclusively for the devotees as the incontrovertible truth.
The tradition of barring womxen of this age group at sabarimala has a very hoary history. It is not backed by any extract in any of the
Women in between this age have entered before also, even movie shooting has been done. Secondly, depicted as a bachelor, shy or gazing by women, or Brahmachari, the fact is Aypa, abandoned son of Shiv and Mohini (an incarnation of Vishn*) defeated ‘Mahishasuri’, and she turned into a women who proposed Aypa for marriage. Aypa promised to marry her the day new devotees would stop visiting him. But this did not happen. How agreed for marriage in condition be ‘shy or gaze or brahmachari’. Thirdly, by supporting ban on triple T, some people are demanding equality and right of women but showing hypocrisy by supporting ban of entry of 10-50 women by not let them enter. Its all about 2019 election. First NRC card in N East, Then Sabarimala in Kerala, then Netaji card in W Bengal. They want to make up the shortfall of seats in MP, RJ,UP, Bihar, Gj in Kerala, N East and WB. More issues will come.
--1--It's a centuries-old tradition. --I've read that it exists only since 1995.
--2--It appears to stand on a firm religious motive. --How so? Which religious text says so?
--3--Lawyers haven't abandoned the tradition of a black coat. --Illogical jump. No connection at all.
--4--There are temples that allow only women. --Not aware of case-specific details. Subject to such details, if men demand to be allowed there, they should be allowed there too.
--5--These rules have been framed by temple mgmts and are needed to govern them. --Temple mgmts' authority to frame rules has its limits, remember? For example, they cannot frame rules that people with a certain color or kaste should be disallowed.
Re: Article Summary, with My Views
by Chaitanya B on Oct 27, 2018 05:31 PM
(...Continued)
--6--These rules have been based upon convention and belief. --When fundamental right to practice religion is being violated, even the conventions and beliefs are questionable.
--7--The rule doesn't persecute or physically harm or mentally torture anyone. --A fundamental right to practice religion is being violated. Talking of physical harm is an illogical diversion.
--8--The Temple Mgmt is only exercising their right to Freedom of Religion. --Temple mgmts authority to frame rules has its limits, remember? For example, they cannot frame rules that people with a certain skin color or caste should be disallowed.
--9--The rule is based on some people's beliefs (in Ayyappa's shyness, Ayyappa's respect for women, etc) --What about other people's beliefs? Those who don't believe that Ayyappa is shy? Those who believe that Ayyappa doesn't need humans to invent or interpret or insulate Him? Those who want to allow the women? The women who believe they should be allowed? Why shouldn't those views be considered?
--10--It doesn't take away women's rights of contesting in elections and availing govt benefits. --A fundamental right to practice religion is being violated. Talking of right to contest elections is an illogical diversion.
--11--Sports events segregate based no gender. --That's done to keep contests fair and even. If spectators are willing to pay, and players are willing to play, you will find mixed events too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Summary, with My Views
by Chaitanya B on Nov 09, 2018 07:13 AM
@swaminathan kt:
It's easy for you to say that "you don't know many things", without specifying what those "many" things are, and what is the relevance of those "many" things to the current topic.
True, I don't know many things, including the name of the current prime minister of New Zealand, and you don't know many things too -- but what's the point?
I DO know the story of Iyappa being born as a prince. So what?
If the argument is that Iyappa's celibacy will be disturbed by the presence of 10-50 group women AS DEVOTEES, how does it NOT get disturbed if the same women happen to be present for "survey" or "study"? Is it the presence of these women within a particular radius (say 10 meter radius) of Iyappa that will disturb Iyappa's celibacy? How do you decide what is the safety radius (is it 10 meters or 1000 kilometers) that Iyappa needs, from such women, in order to preserve His celibacy?
