Finance minister Arun Jaitley was delivering the first Atal Bihari Vajpayee memorial lecture when he said this in light of the ongoing Sabarimala temple protests.
Congress chief Rahul Gandhi mimicked Prime Minister Narendra Modi's "mitron" at a rally in Madhya Pradesh, and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley called Rahul a...
Jaitley also differed on a portion of the apex court ruling on adultery, saying it may end up converting the Indian family system into a Western family system.
Dice have been found dating to the Bronze Age in various Harappan sites in present-day northwest India and throughout Pakistan. And it’s very possible that some had female owners.
This world is being restructured and redrawn by one man, and what’s his power? It’s not his formidable military. It’s trade. With China, it turned on him.
Mr Jaitley has very aptly concluded his speech with these words:
“And therefore in the interpretative process, my own view is, there is a greater statesmanship by allowing the two sets of fundamental rights to coexist harmoniously by finding how they can do it.”
He rightly said that one fundamental right cannot subsume another fundamental right. He was talking of fundamental rights of Religion and Equality. But in the matter of Sabrimala standoff, the fundamental right of equality doesn’t come into picture (that law uses the word “person”, the words ‘man’ or ‘woman’ are not even mentioned). This standoff is ONLY about a person’s fundamental right to practice her or his religion.
I think a fundamental right pertains to AN INDIVIDUAL, and NOT TO A GROUP. Fundamental right is NOT ADDITIVE; a group of devotees of lord Ayappa cannot VETO another of His devotees, even if they are a very large group, because their fundamental right DOES NOT ADD UP and become LARGER than the fundamental right of ONE INDIVIDUAL.
The CRUX OF THE MATTER is this: If Hinduism EVEN TO THIS DAY had remained ENTIRELY an ORAL religion, the protesters could have claimed that such-and-such practice is NOT IN OUR TRADITION. Which is not the case now. Hinduism now being available in written form, in black-and-white, the oral claims have become mere hearsay.
If some “tradition” was “authentic and integral to Hinduism”, then why did it NOT GET WRITTEN into its holy books over the centuries? Hinduism wasn’t born yesterday. Can they show it anywhere WRITTEN in Hindu scriptures that women between 10-50 years of age cannot enter Sabrimala?
If brute force is allowed to supercede the law of the land, then the word “lawlessness” would obviously define our society. No “strong” government should allow that to happen. If some priests are threatening to shut down the temple, then those priests should be dismissed and new ones appointed in their place. After all they are not lord Ayappa’s descendants!
Mr Jaitley has very aptly concluded his speech with these words:
“And therefore in the interpretative process, my own view is, there is a greater statesmanship by allowing the two sets of fundamental rights to coexist harmoniously by finding how they can do it.”
He rightly said that one fundamental right cannot subsume another fundamental right. He was talking of fundamental rights of Religion and Equality. But in the matter of Sabrimala standoff, the fundamental right of equality doesn’t come into picture (that law uses the word “person”, the words ‘man’ or ‘woman’ are not even mentioned). This standoff is ONLY about a person’s fundamental right to practice her or his religion.
I think a fundamental right pertains to AN INDIVIDUAL, and NOT TO A GROUP. Fundamental right is NOT ADDITIVE; a group of devotees of lord Ayappa cannot VETO another of His devotees, even if they are a very large group, because their fundamental right DOES NOT ADD UP and become LARGER than the fundamental right of ONE INDIVIDUAL.
The CRUX OF THE MATTER is this: If Hinduism EVEN TO THIS DAY had remained ENTIRELY an ORAL religion, the protesters could have claimed that such-and-such practice is NOT IN OUR TRADITION. Which is not the case now. Hinduism now being available in written form, in black-and-white, the oral claims have become mere hearsay.
If some “tradition” was “authentic and integral to Hinduism”, then why did it NOT GET WRITTEN into its holy books over the centuries? Hinduism wasn’t born yesterday. Can they show it anywhere WRITTEN in Hindu scriptures that women between 10-50 years of age cannot enter Sabrimala?
If brute force is allowed to supercede the law of the land, then the word “lawlessness” would obviously define our society. No “strong” government should allow that to happen. If some priests are threatening to shut down the temple, then those priests should be dismissed and new ones appointed in their place. After all they are not lord Ayappa’s descendants!