[nukkad] Composite mail

["Mahesh chandra gupta" <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:  Prune messages that you are forwarding or replying to include
only the relevant material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


MULTIPLE RESPONSES

ONE

Subject: secularism and HUF

Netgeek sent a nice article on secularism by Amberish Diwanji. In that article occur the following words which call for coment.
 “Similarly, why should a Hindu 
undivided family get tax benefit but not a non-Hindu undivided family? It is 
not the duty of the State to subsidise religious programs or exempt united 
families from taxes.:

Comments: 
1. HUF is only a term used by Income tax people. The real legal term is Hindu Joint Family. This is not a figment of imagination. The joint family is an ancient Hindu concept, the like of which probably does not occur in other major religions. This ols concept is an old legal fact and well defined, elaborate laws regarding this exist since ancient times, which have been recognised by the Supreme Court. It may be mentioned that customary law is a very important source of law all over the world.

2. In the modern context, the importance of Hindu Joint Family cannot be overemphasised. Sociologists tell us that joint family system has great virtues and lament that joint family system is getting eroded in India. Do we want to hasten the speed of this social erosion of a healthy practice?

3. It is not only a social concept but also has very deep cultural implications. I mentioned in one of my mails about the stark differences how muslim and hindu sons have treated their fathers in history. If Rama gave up the throne and went to forests at the merest hint from father Dashrath, it was because of the deeply ingrained joint family system which teaches and inculcates respect and obedience to the family patriarch. If the Americans and the British admire the dutiful perseverence and excellence of Indian children in USA and UK, it is because of the hindu joint family system which teached discipline and respect for the elders and teachers. 

4. The comparison of Haj subsidy and Hindu Joint Family is misplaced. The former is a purely religious affair and appeasement. The latter is purely a principle of law recognised internationally: that customary law is a recognised, legitimate, important source of law which should have precedence over artificial law, as long as it is not abominable or otherwise despicable.

5.  There is nothing like a non-Hindu undivided family. As I explained, HUF is not a correct or legal term. The real term is Hindu Joint Family. This term represents a reality that has existed for thousands of years. A like concept cannot be created in other cultures and religions by mere wishing.

6. It is wrong to state that a Hindu Joint Family has any tax benefits. As a matter of fact, the taxable income limit of a HJF was substantially reduced a few years ago. The only thing about HJF /HUF is that individual assets and joint family assets are held to be separate entities with separate taxable identities.

MC Gupta


TWO

Subject: Laws to appease Hindus? 

Netgeek sent a nice article on secularism by Amberish Diwanji. In that article occur the following words which call for coment:

“India also has laws that, for the sake of the Hindus, impose restrictions on non-Hindus in 
India. Such laws have no place in a democratic and liberal India. To raise 
an extremely contentious issue, why are so many Hindus hell bent on ensuring 
that cow slaughter is banned?:

Comment:

I would like to know which are the “laws that, for the sake of the Hindus, impose restrictions on non-Hindus in India”.  There may be, but i am unaware of them. I shall be glad to learn about them.

2. The example of cow slaughter given above is not correct. Firstly, ban on cow slaughter is not there to appease hindus but to follow the Costitutional directive, which it is obligatory for all, government and the citizens alike, to follow. Secondly, there is no law that muslims [and , for that matter, even hindus] cannot eat beef. Hence no restrictions are thereby imposed upon muslims. Thirdly, there is no total ban on cow slaughter as such. I have already quoted the Constitutional provisions regarding cow slaughter in yesterday’s mail. Fourthly, the only grouse that the muslims have got is that restrictions on cow slaughter as contained in the Constitution are unreasonable [as if it is the religiously ordained duty imposed upon muslims by the holy Quoran that they must kill cows if they are true muslims, just as they must kill kafirs [non-believers in Allah] as a religious  duty! The supreme court has held that it is a reasonable restriction and in no way does it impinge upon the religious rights of muslims. I have given the citation of the relevant decision in my previous mail.

MC Gupta 


THREE

Subject: Billions given to Shankaracharyaa?

Kapil wrote:

“Then what about the billions being given to the
Shankaracharyas? Isn't this the tax payers' money,
too? Muslims pay tax, too, and why should their money
be diverted to the Shankaracharyas?”

Comment: I just do not know what you are saying. Tax payers money given as taxes to the government is being squandered away by billions as money given by the government to the Shankaracharyas? What are you talking about? Please elucidate.

MC Gupta


FOUR

Subject: Suggestions about Nukkad invited and received by Harshal

Harshal wrote:
“Dr. Gupta's and Dr. Vasudevan's efforts in sending composite emails with
multiple responses in a single message are a great start.”


Comment:

1. I knew for long that one can subscribe to regular mails or the digest or to both. I, however, never tried the digest. I had to switch to it because i was going out for a few days and Harshal suggested I change to the Digest mode so as to avoid the likelihood of jammed inbox. Though I came back from my tour, I found the digest so much more convenient that have stuck to it ever since.

2. Virtues of Digest are as follows:

 A: It saves downloading time and computer space; 

B: It is a time saver for busy persons because one does not have to keep on looking an incoming mail every now and then and keep on responding to it, but, rather, one gets all mails in one shot, so that one can dispose them of in a more structured and systematic manner. In the regular mail system, one might feel tempted to reply to a provocative mail, but in the digest mode, one may find that the provocative mail has already been answered adequately by somebody else, hence one need not waste one’s time and energy over it all over again; 

C: Digest mode allows better mail processing. What I do is that I copy the whole Digest mail into a word file. That way, when I read it, i find it much more convenient to edit the mail, copy paste etc. This makes archiving and sending replies much easier.

D: Getting digest mode mail makes it possible to reply to various mails in a composite mail. That is just not possible or practical with the regular mail system

3. I have written the above to let others know my feedback about digest mail and to let them know that it is well worth a try.

3. Lastly, I did not send my wish-list to Harshal because i just could not think of what more to ask. The list seems to be just perfect to me. My feeling seems to be vindicated by the fact that in a month, Harshal could not get more than 6 persons to respond.

MC Gupta



FIVE

Subject: Uniform civil code and Article 370

Netgeek wrote:
 “The current government was swept to power on the promise of implementing 
Uniform Civil Code and abolishment of Article 370. Who prevented them from 
doing so? Don't tell me that the minorities did.”

Comment:

This is factually incorrect. The NDA government stated very clearly that these, along with Ram Temple building, are not part of the common minimum program agreed by the 23 aligning parties. However, the parties were not obligated to discard their respective party views on these or other things. These 3 things continue to be admittedly supported by BJP. You should not equate BJP with the government. BJP is the largest party in the coalition, not the coalition or the governing party or the government itself.

MC Gupta


SIX

Subject: Uniform civil code

Net Geek wrote in response to Akshay as follows:

“>i havent asked for a hindu code(n even that would not have been too much 
>>considering that 85% are hindus).

Imagine Ireland or Italy coming out with a law stating that the entire 
populace irrespective of their ethnic and cultural background, should desist 
from eating non-vegetarian food on Friday because Catholic beliefs prohibit 
them. Had you been there what will be your feeling? I fully agree that 
minorities/immigrants should integarte into the mainstream but forced 
imposition of a religious personal law is not the answer.”

Comment;

Net Geek is mistaken about the concept of Uniform Civil Code. Firstly, it is the Constitutional mandate vide Article 44 and thus all citizens are bound by it. Secondly, it has nothing to do with eating habits or personal beliefs etc. It mainly concerns law relating to marriage, divorce and maintenance. You would appreciate that these three things have very direct nexus with women’s empowerment and welfare. Any community whose women are un-empowered and discriminated against will never prosper as a modern civilized society. That is the bane of the muslims at present. If you at your high educational level are not clear, yet are sentimental about Uniform Civil Code, you can appreciate how much more easy it would be for the mullahs and the so called muslim leaders to instigate illiterate muslims against the “government design” to a perceived encroachment  upon the personal liberty and beliefs and eating habits of muslims etc.!

I do not know what does Net Geek mean by “forced imposition of a religious personal law”. How can Uniform Civil Code be labelled as forced imposition of a religious personal law? Whose religious personal law? Uniform Civil Code is nobody’s religious personal law. Hindu personal law was marauded by the Hindu Code Bill in 1955 when the government tried to bring fundamental changes in Hindu personal law in an attempt to make a beginning with Hindus at least as regards article 44. I was 13 years old then and still remember the daily protests against the bill on the streets through loud speakers etc. I did not understand what it was all about, but i do understand now that had it not been for the foresight of Nehru etc. in trying to change hindu personal law, in the face of fierce opposition, India would not today be a near super power as it is today. The opposition was so strong that the government had to give up the idea of a composite Code Bill and bring up piece meal legislation in the form of Hindu marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act and Hindu Adoption Act. It is to the credit of the Hindu community that there was no stubborn opposition to the change on their personal law and that they did not allow themselves to be lead by a few orthodox zealots. Today hindus are reaping the benefit of their resilience. Muslims want to walk on crutches in the form of various subsidies and reservations on the basis of minority status, but they do not want to change themselves for the better. In the process, they are harming none but themselves. Look at the situation today: the whole civilised world is today one against muslim fundamentalism!

My muslim bretheren, let me assure you i have all goodwill for all indians. Every single muslim in india has as much right as anybody else. But, along with that right, go duties. The  duties i am referring to are none else but our legal and constitutional duties. I hope a day will come when newer, younger, more modern leaders will arise in muslim community to take the muslim masses out of the morass of illiteracy, fundamentalism, orthodoxy and discrimination against women.

One last thing. Let me clarify the statement made by me that “Look at the situation today: the whole civilised world is today one against muslim fundamentalism!” I do not mean to say that muslims are uncivilized in the common perception of the term. The term Civilized countries or  societies is a standard usage in sociological and legal circles to indicate  those countries where modern law prevails as per the universally accepted  legal principles,  in contradistinction to those where ancient, medieval religious or tribal law prevails. The shariat law would not be classified among laws common to the civilized world.

MC Gupta



SEVEN

Subject: Nutritional value of vegetarian diet

Mubashir wrote: “Any way I am still not convinced that veg diet is a complete diet”

Comment: Your conviction is scientifically incorrect. I do not want to elaborate here except to state standard scientific facts in very brief:

A. Vegetarian diet can be fully nutritious, even without animal milk 
B. Vegetarian diet is more healthy. Nonvegetarian diet is associated with many diseases like constipation, diverticulitis, certain types of cancer, many infective diseasesetc. American Dietetic association advises Americans to reduce non-veg food. 
C. Vegetarian diet is cheaper. Six times more veg food can be grown per acre land compared to non-veg food.

If you are really interested in the subject, you may read any good, modern book on nutrition or search the net. Since the net contains all types of info from all sources, beware. If you find any info to support your conviction, do let me know. I will indeed be glad to have it; not because i am in doubt about my own knowledge as a nutritionist, but because it will give me a chance to point out the fallacy in it that might be not clear to a person who is not an expert in the field.


MC Gupta 



EIGHT

Subject: surviving on uncooked food

Mubashir wanted to know whether humans can survive on uncooked rice, grain , vegetable etc. the answer is YES.

MC Gupta



NINE

Subject: Cellulase

Kapil wrote: “Human beings did have cellulase, but is gradually
disappeared.”

That is not a correct statement. It is wrong. Man never had cellulase, nor cellulose digesting capacity. You are probably getting confused with lactase deficiency found in about a fourth of humans, especially among the westerners, who are not used to drinking milk.

MC Gupta


_________________________________________________________
Click below to visit monsterindia.com and review jobs in India or Abroad
http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, use the form at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/#options
This list is archived at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html