why ram madhav went back to RSS

[Raven_Rayes]

6 hours ago, telugu_fan said:

Raven_reyes,

congrats on getting the spelling right. The person who made this id got it wrong. All hail the gorgeous Raven Reyes from 'The 100'.

6 hours ago, telugu_fan said:

You made the claim that art. 370 is linked to referendum, not me. it would make sense to provide references to the claims you made.

6 hours ago, telugu_fan said:

And no Kashmir wasn't a separate or alien nation, it had a king just like Junagadh or Hyderabad or Travencore, Your words will not stand in any court legally either or Pakistan would have tried that shtick already. 

 

Kashmir was different from the large kingdoms you mention. for one, Its ruler at that time wanted to remain independent, and only acceded to India after Pakistan broke its promise that it won't invade Kashmir.

art 370 was drafted in such a way to keep the special circumstances under which Kashmir acceded to India. Like Kashmir having its own constituent assembly, its own constitution, and its head of state being Prime Minister of Kashmir. it comes into force in 1952, along with an agreement with delhi to stay true to the art 370, which means that India cannot enforce its constitution on Kashmir without the Kashmir assembly agreeing to it. A special privilege that no other state is given.

But within 2yrs, Nehru colluded with Sheikh Abdullah and managed to both sideline Hari Singh, and introduce a backdoor into the art 370 through an amendment of the act, pushing several Indian laws into Kashmir. The legality of this is up in air.

by 1963, effectively this had become the standard practice, pushing Indian laws through simple presidential decree into Kashmir. Kashmir was reduced from a special status in 1949 to having less rights as a part of India, compared to other states because of this one illegal loophole. This is something similar to how British pushed their laws into India. Effectively making Kashmir a colony of India, and not its state.

the dilution of 370 thus happened in 1954 first, and complete abrogation happened in 1963 itself. Modi simply lifted the mask off.

-------

Also, the Dogra ruler Hari Singh was an unpopular king in Kashmir, and had chosen NC Sheikh Abdullah to lead a Quit Kashmir movement against him, similar to Quit India movement in India at that time. Given this circumstances, it is doubtful what kind of power Hari Singh himself had to accede to India, when his people wanted him out.

but from day one, India played both Sheikh Abdullah and Hari Singh against each other and treated Kashmir just like it treats a colony. Nehru making pubic statements about plebiscite, while he had no intention of keeping his word.

Manipulating Kashmir's constituent assembly to dilute art 370 provisions that enslaved them forever etc.

so yeah, technically Kashmir's constitution that came into effect declares that Kashmir is an 'integral' part of India, but everything that happened after that screams an unequal partnership between kashmir and India. like between a colony and its empire.

so Kashmir is a colony of India, ever since the times of Nehru. Modi is just brazen about it. that's all.

 

 

[telugu_fan]

On 1/24/2023 at 2:24 AM, Raven_Rayes said:

Hindus currently follow the Hindu civil code that was descendant of the Hindu personal law, not 'the law' whatever that means.

you ask a lot of silly questions. why should there have been a study before mplb was set up, I wonder?

are you really saying that mplb didn't exist before the shah bano case? lmao. how can you make such a basic error in facts that take less than a minute to search on the internet? there's a wiki on aimplb.. pls read that and get back.

I don't understand what the benefits of UCC will be, except fomenting dissatisfaction among population who want to follow their own religious codes, both Hindus and Muslims.

according to you the only use of UCC is to help govts bulldoze temples/masjids for 'development', is it? Seems pointless. Its not like govts aren't doing it already.

why shouldn't people organize themselves around laws that they are comfortable with? I don't understand the case for UCC really. both for Hindus and Muslims. Do you expect Muslims to fully live under a common code that prohibits certain practices that are allowed in their religion? Do you think its fair?

I made the msitake of typing that AIMPLB was setup after the shah bhano case, it was actually the Muslim Woman (Protection of divorce act). My mistake.

I said i don't know what UCC can entail earlier . I said i suspect it will deal with laws in common/public places where everyone meets or interacts and are governed by a law as opposed to personal laws.

The point of Hindu laws are subsumed in a larger set of laws applicable to vevryone except muslims. The Hindus are reformed or forcibly reformed, no such luck with the muslim personal law as of now when it comes to marriage or divorce or succession for woman. If i only had to hazard a guess they will start with that in terms of age of marriage of woman, divorce and succession laws and probably take aim at some of the extreme teachings in madrassas, but this is only my guess.

You have social issues when an underage non-muslim girl is taken away and sufaces 2-3 months later and if the parents protest it is said that she has converted to islam and has married under muslim personal law, so nothing can be done. this leads to more tensions as time passes by, we are already seeing that in a few places.

[telugu_fan]

On 1/24/2023 at 8:09 AM, Raven_Rayes said:

congrats on getting the spelling right. The person who made this id got it wrong. All hail the gorgeous Raven Reyes from 'The 100'.

 

Kashmir was different from the large kingdoms you mention. for one, Its ruler at that time wanted to remain independent, and only acceded to India after Pakistan broke its promise that it won't invade Kashmir.

art 370 was drafted in such a way to keep the special circumstances under which Kashmir acceded to India. Like Kashmir having its own constituent assembly, its own constitution, and its head of state being Prime Minister of Kashmir. it comes into force in 1952, along with an agreement with delhi to stay true to the art 370, which means that India cannot enforce its constitution on Kashmir without the Kashmir assembly agreeing to it. A special privilege that no other state is given.

But within 2yrs, Nehru colluded with Sheikh Abdullah and managed to both sideline Hari Singh, and introduce a backdoor into the art 370 through an amendment of the act, pushing several Indian laws into Kashmir. The legality of this is up in air.

by 1963, effectively this had become the standard practice, pushing Indian laws through simple presidential decree into Kashmir. Kashmir was reduced from a special status in 1949 to having less rights as a part of India, compared to other states because of this one illegal loophole. This is something similar to how British pushed their laws into India. Effectively making Kashmir a colony of India, and not its state.

the dilution of 370 thus happened in 1954 first, and complete abrogation happened in 1963 itself. Modi simply lifted the mask off.

-------

Also, the Dogra ruler Hari Singh was an unpopular king in Kashmir, and had chosen NC Sheikh Abdullah to lead a Quit Kashmir movement against him, similar to Quit India movement in India at that time. Given this circumstances, it is doubtful what kind of power Hari Singh himself had to accede to India, when his people wanted him out.

but from day one, India played both Sheikh Abdullah and Hari Singh against each other and treated Kashmir just like it treats a colony. Nehru making pubic statements about plebiscite, while he had no intention of keeping his word.

Manipulating Kashmir's constituent assembly to dilute art 370 provisions that enslaved them forever etc.

so yeah, technically Kashmir's constitution that came into effect declares that Kashmir is an 'integral' part of India, but everything that happened after that screams an unequal partnership between kashmir and India. like between a colony and its empire.

so Kashmir is a colony of India, ever since the times of Nehru. Modi is just brazen about it. that's all.

 

 

Raven_Rayes,

hope i got it right this time 🙂

You still have to provide the reference for the underlined assertion.

Hyderabad, travencore also wanted to remain independent. But travencore changed course and Sardar patel did Operation Polo for Hyderabad. So Kashmir wanting to saty independent was not something unique.

he did only join India after Pakistan invaded and his army was defeated with some sections wholly joining Pakistans raiders on the account of being muslims.

Article 370 was introduced as a "temporary measure", just as all Princely states did with granting Indian govt initially the right over finances, foreign affairs and communications. All the princely states adopted the points of constituent assembly and later the Indian constitution, but J&K kept resisting it even when monarchy was abolished.

Abdullah played Nehru like a fiddle over trying to win the people over to Indian side when that shouldn't have been the case. Later Nehru threw Abdullah in prison. People protesting in 1947 has very little as there were protests across the country in trying to sway the population or rulers to one side or another. There were protests in calcutta and hyderabd to gujarat and Punjab, doesn't say anything about rulers or the elected represnetatives of congress and muslim league.

When you are part of India, then why do you need special status that too that takes away the rights of people not from the state.

[telugu_fan]

Here is the UN resolution fro plebiscite, it explicitly talks about pakistan withdrawing all of its forces and India reatining a portion for maintaining law and order.

So for the plebiscite to take place pakistan will have to vacate first.

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/111955/?ln=en