1037 I am sad that BJP and its bosses have avoided a more secular and safer way of rescuing innocent women being got ridden of by some unscrupulous husbands

Many Indians seem to believe that BJP Rulers of India, have got the Instant Triple Talaq Prohibition bill accepted in Lok Sabha, as they have great compassion towards the suffering Muslim Women abandoned by their unscrupulous husbands using the Custom of Triple Talaq. May be true, they have Great Compassion, which Ms. Sonia Gandhi and her crony Prime Minister, Hon. Manmohan Singh lacked. But, let us see what Mr. Vijay Rupani said on about 11th Sept. 2017 i.e. before Gujarat Elections, to Shri Shashi Bhushan, of DeccanChronicle.Com. Link to study that interview: Click to go to :

"...Are you confident of carrying out Mr Shah’s goal for 150 of 182 Assembly seats? ..."

"...The BJP is going to record a historic win. We will get over 150 seats. When Modiji was chief minister, he got 122 seats in the 2012 Assembly polls. This time we are confident of getting over 150 seats. There will be division of votes in the Muslim community because of our fight against triple talaq, and we expect Muslim women to vote for the BJP. It happened in Uttar Pradesh. When Prime Minister Narendra Bhai talks of 6.5 crore Gujaratis, it also includes Muslims. ..."

Question: In the title of this Blog Post, you say that 'there is a more secular and safer way of designing this bill. What is that?

Ans: These are my personal views which I do not want to impose on others. By the word 'Secular', I mean that State shall not be concerned with the religions / castes of its Citizens. In case of divorces, a Secular State shall not be concerned about the Religion - caste of the Persons in a marriage. In such case, a Secular Law can have clauses on following lines:

"...Irrespective of the Religion/Irreligion/Caste/Lack of caste of Persons in Marriage, irrespective of Grounds on which Divorces are sought, the Divorces can become effective / valid / enforceable only through an Order issued by a Civil / Criminal Court of Appropriate-Competent Jurisdiction in India. Under no circumstances Divorces / Abandoning Wives-husbands should be allowed to be done by spouses through processes outside India's Laws and Courts...."

"... The Courts deciding Applications for Divorces, can hear and decide them on Merits and Circumstances, Documents, Evidences, available to them, if there are no clear-cut Statutory Provisions. ..."

"..Such decrees can be challenged in appeal in Higher Courts, as per the extant Legal Provisions, like any other Civil, Criminal Cases, and the Higher Courts can decide the Appeals on Merits.

BJP Rulers in their hurry to create a Muslim-Women Vote-Bank exclusively for themselves, seems to have opened a Pandora's Box. Haste will always be perilous. Consultation with Opposition Parties, at least trying to obtain a Consensus- if not full waiting for Consensus can help the country in avoiding / preventing complex situations, such as Communal Conflicts, Internal Civil Wars.

A verse by the Great Ancient Sanskrit poet 'bhAravi':
सहसा विदधीत न क्रियाम्
अविवेकः परमापदां पदम् ।
वृणते हि विमृश्यकारिणं
गुणलुब्धाः स्वयमेव हि संपदः ॥ (किरातार्जुनीयम् २.३०)

sahasA vidadhIt na kriyAm
avivEkaha paramApadAm padam
vriNatE hi vimrisya kAriNam
guNalabdhAha svayamEva hi sampadaha.
(KirAtArjunIyam 2/30)

సహసా విదధీత్ న క్రియామ్
అవివేకః పరమాపదామ్ పదమ్
వృణుతేహి విమృశ్య కారిణమ్
గుణ లబ్ధాః స్వయమేవ హి సంపదాః.
కిరాతార్జునీయమ్, ౨_౩౦.

Approx. Gist: 1. Nothing should be done in haste/hurry. (There is also a reverse maxim: Alasyam amritam visham. Meaning: When delayed, nectar can become poison).

2. Indiscretion can become a cause for great dangers/hardships and troubles.

3. Good Results and glory accomplished with virtuosity, prefer those who exercise discretion. In other words, an approximate inference. (subject to revision): Only those who exercise discretion can alone gain virtuosity, and good results.

Question: You seem to hate BJP Rulers. Why don't you criticise Mr. Rahul Gandhi?

Prince Rahul Gandhi, seems to be immature. He is going around Temples because somebody in Congress Coteries advised him to do so, and in the recent Gujarat Elections, like a Parrot he has repeated the Dialogues his Counsellers. Anyway, he is not in Power today. Because Congress and Hon. Manmohan Singh failed miserably, people gave an opportunity to BJP Rulers. The BJP Rulers are committing the same Mistakes which their Congress Predecessors had committed.

Mr. Rahul Gandhi seems to have fallen in the trap of Hardik Patel

Mr. Rahul Gandhi, by promising to meet the demands of Mr. Hardik Patel, the Spear-head of Patidar Andolan, seems to have fallen in his trap. Now, Mr. Hardik Patel is trying to switch on the "AyA Ram GayA Ram Culture", by calling Mr. Nitin Patel to defect with 10 MLAs, within one month of Gujarat Election Result:--

If Gujarat Deputy CM #NitinPatel along with 10 MLAs is ready to leave BJP, then will talk to Congress to get him a good position. If BJP does not respect him, he should leave the party: Hardik Patel in Gujarat's Sarangpur pic.twitter.com/cFlORE7Yqu

— ANI (@ANI) December 30, 2017

Link to read this News Report: Click here to go to http://www.firstpost.com/india/hardik-patel-asks-gujarat-deputy-cm-nitin-patel-to-leave-bjp-says-he-will-get-him-good-position-in-congress-4281365.html.

To come back and continue adding / deleting / modifying.

995 Social boycott is not a solution for the problem of Triple Talaq

Arguments have ended in the Supreme Court of India, over the validity of the Triple Talaq System in India. Supreme Court may deliver its judgement at any time, at its discretion. Discussing the triple talaq in this blog post will not in any way be a comment on the matter which is sub judice, Hence, we shall try to have a look into some issues and solutions connected to the Triple Talaq case. During the hearing of the case, the All INdia Muslim Personal Law Board has submitted affidavits which contain, inter alia, the following two views:--

The AIMPLB said qazis and imams will inform the wife that she can exclude the husband’s right to give instant triple talaq.

The affidavit said social boycott will help decrease the incidents of divorce.

Personal views of ybrao-a-donkey, which are not intended to be imposed on others:

Who will oversee that the qazis and imams inform the wife that she can exclude the husband's right to give instant triple talaq? Does AIMPLB have any statutory authority to issue instructions to the qazis and imams? Does AIMPLB have any powers to punish qazis and imams who fail to inform the prospective wives about their rights? Ans: Apparently not.
Does the AIMPLB have any right / statutory authority / legal powers to impose and enforce social boycott on those who indulge in triple talaq? Ans: Apparently not.

RELATED LINKS

Click here to go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Muslim_Personal_Law_Board .

Click here to go to http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-ready-to-ban-triple-talaq-in-one-sitting-aimplb-2447682.

Click here to go to http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-has-to-decide-whether-triple-talaq-is-unconstitutional-mukul-rohatgi/articleshow/58825758.cms.

According to the information available on the Wikipedia.org, AIMPLB is only a private, non-governmental organisation. It is not clear, under which statute it has been registered, as an entity. Here are some quotes from Wikipedia, about the status of AIMPLB:

"...AIMPLB is a private body working to protect Muslim personal laws, liaise with and influence the Government of India and guide the general public about crucial issues. The board has a working committee of 51 ulama representing various schools of thought. In addition to this, it also has a general body of 201 persons of ulama as well as laymen, including about 25 women. ..."

"... However, some of the Shias and Muslim feminists have formed their own separate boards, the All India Shia Personal Law Board and the All India Muslim Women's Personal Law Board, respectively but have failed to win any significant support from the Muslims or the government. ..."

"... The diktats and rules of All India Muslim Personal Law Board does not apply to Shia and Ahmadiyya Muslims in India. Ahmadis were not allowed to sit on the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which is widely regarded in India as representative of Muslims in the country as most Muslims don't consider the Ahmadis as Muslims.

"...The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) is a non-government organisation constituted in 1973 to adopt suitable strategies for the protection and continued applicability of Muslim Personal Law in India, most importantly, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937, providing for the application of the Islamic Law Code of Shariat to Muslims in India in personal affairs. Some Muslims followed Hindu customs before 1937. The Act applies to all matters of personal law except such successions. ..."

Question: Is India, not a Secular country

Ans., a personal view of yb-a-donkey: India is definitely a secular country. From the purest definition of the word 'secular', we have to infer that State shall not have anything to do with relgions of its Citizens. It also implies that there should be only one law for all social matters. May be a Uniform Civil Code, or any other law, by whatever name it may be called. By enacting the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 the British Rulers seem to have tried to DIVIDE AND RULE THE COUNTRY. While it is true that non-Hindus cannot be forced to follow Hindu Customs, there is nothing wrong in insisting that all the Citizens follow a Secular law applicable to everybody equally. After the bifurcation of India in 1947, by creating Pakistan, India ought to have, at the first available opportunity, annuled the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937. Reason: Such laws are not conducive to a secular country.

By helping in the formation of the AIMPLB in 1973, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, seems to have, for her Vote Bank Politics, botched up and created further cleavages in a secular State. She should have, undauntedly, resolutely, firmly, replaced all Religious personal laws with a Secular Code. The Secular Code, ought to have been got designed with the help of a Board consisting of Secular Lawyers, Sitting and Retired Judges, Bureaucrats, and other Secular Intellectuals.

Heinous practices followed in India, in the name of social boycotts

Social boycotts in India, in vogue for the last several Centuries, have caused incalculable damage to the social fabric of India and tortured poorer and weaker Sections of the Society in extremely grievous ways. This monstracity is irrespective of the religions and castes. Even today, there are some Indian villages where dalits are not being allowed by Upper Caste persons, to draw drinking water from common wells.

Allowing social boycotts tantamounts to perpetration of cruelty on Weaker Sections. Reason: Influential Persons in the Society will take / have taken the custom into their hands, and Rule of the Law will be a casualty.

The sufferings of Muslim Women, owing to denial of Human Rights, Natural Justice and Equity by Clerics, Kazis, Maulvis, Imams, Mullahs

The sufferings are too many. They cannot be solved just by social boycott of a few people. Serious Diseases need serious treatments. Balms and Ointments cannot cure them. Secular codes, Secular Administrations, Secular Enforcements, Secular Supervisions, Secular adjudications alone can ameliorate the ailments such as triple talaqs.

Someday, we may have to abolish or discontinue or dismantle the system of Marriage itself. True Total Socialism alone can help in that final goal.

Vocabulary help

sub judice/sʌb ˈdʒuːdɪsi,sʊb ˈjuːdɪkeɪ/ adjective : under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere.

boycott/ˈbɔɪkɒt/ verb : withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest. noun: a punitive ban on relations with other bodies, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods.

Source: net.

botch/bɒtʃ/ noun: a bungled task. Verb. 1. botch up - make a mess of, destroy or ruin; "I botched the dinner and we had to eat out"; "the pianist screwed up the difficult passage in the second movement"
Source: www.thefreedictionary.com/botch+up ‎

cleavage/ˈkliːvɪdʒ/ noun: a sharp division; a split. The hollow between a woman's breasts when supported, especially as exposed by a low-cut garment.

Undaunted: 1. undismayed; not discouraged; not forced to abandon purpose or effort: undaunted by failure. 2. undiminished in courage or valor; not giving way to fear; intrepid: Although outnumbered, he was undaunted.

grievous/ˈɡriːvəs/ adjective: (of something bad) very severe or serious.

To come back and continue adding / deleting / modiying. सशेष. ఇంకా ఉంద.

987 Advocates have a duty to their conscience, rather than to the Client who pays them.

Advocates are not business persons, though they are expected to eke out their livelihood from the fees their clients pay. They owe their basic duty to Justice, particularly, the Natural Justice. They owe their duty to their conscience. Though according to British Jurisprudential customs, Advocates are just Assistants to Courts and Judges, to help them in exploration of truth-s about the cases in question, Advocates cannot exempt themselves from their duties to explore the truth-s, and if such explorations reveal facts / arguments / concepts which are in divergence with what their clients expect, by hanging on to arguments favouring their clients the Advocates will be deceiving themselves. In such situations, the Advocates whose financial position is not at a 'starvation level', have a moral duty, to step down from the tasks they have accepted for their Clients, explain the changed situation, refund fees collected proportionately, and request them to go for another advocate. If needed, they can recuse themselves from further continuing the case, with the permission of the Court. Ethical and Moral duties / responsibiities get enhanced when Advocates occupy / have occupied in the past, respectable positions such as Additional Solicitor General of India, President of Supreme Court Bar Association.

Related Links

Click here to go to http://www.news18.com/news/india/majority-cannot-make-laws-for-minority-kapil-sibal-to-sc-1402691.html.

Click here to go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapil_Sibal

Click here to go to http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/triple-talaq-practised-for-1-400-years-a-matter-of-faith-all-india-personal-muslim-personal-law-boar-1694095

Important quotes from above links

What Mr. Kapil Sibal said	what ybdonkey observes
"...If I have faith that Lord Ram was born at Ayodhya, then it's a matter of faith and there is no question of constitutional morality ..."
"Triple talaq is there since 637. Who are we to say that this is un-Islamic. Muslims are practising it for last 1,400 years. It is a matter of faith. Hence, there was no question of constitutional morality and equity"

Shall try to finish today evening.

To come back and continue adding / deleting / modifying. सशेष. ఇంకా ఉంది.

986 Real Question which needs Judicial Scrutiny seems to be: Is Marriage a Part of Religion? If there is proof for marriage as an integral part of religion, then the question of whether Triple Talaq is part of Islam will arise!!!

The decision which the Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice of India, Jus. Khehar, is going to take in the Triple Talaq case, will probably change the Constitutional Legal History of India. As the hearing is a 'Summer Vacation Hearing', it may not be possible for the Bench to examine the other two relevant contentious issues of Polygamy,and nikha halala. Probably, the issue may have to get extended into the Regular Sessions of the Supreme Court. One important observation made by the Bench, which seems to set a sort of boundary for the scope of the case, appears to be in the following observation of the Court: "We have to see the test of essentiality and the government has to prove that 'triple talaq' is not an essential part of Islam as this will amount to tinkering with religion". The following few more observations are also important:--

RELEVANT LINKS

Click to go to http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-centre-has-to-prove-triple-talaq-not-essential-in-islam-says-supreme-court-2439472

Click here to go to: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/rNg8D2Omc723Xf7ozgCdEJ/Triple-talaq-case-SC-to-not-focus-on-polygamy-nikah-halala.html

Click here to go to http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/triple-talaq-polygamy-nikah-halala-supreme-court-centre-mukul-rohatgi/1/954030.html. Centre will bring out a New Law, if Supreme Court strikes down Triple Talaq

Important Quotes from Links

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General: "...All the three forms of divorce among the Muslim community - talaq-e-biddat, talaq hasan and talaq ahsan, were 'unilateral' and 'extra- judicial'. 'Yes, we can bring law. There is no law for past 60 years. It has not been done. But the court should first strike down these practices which are not in confirmity with the Constitution..."

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General: "...Issues of Muslim marriage and divorce were separated from religion in Shariat Act of 1937 itself and have been codified as personal law under Section 2 of the Act. ... Apex court has to test them on the touch-stone of the fundamental rights of gender equality, justice, dignity, gender discrimination and human rights under the constitutional provisions, including Articles 14, 15, 21 and 51A. ...Muslim women must have equal rights to property, succession, marriage and it should be non-discriminatory among the women of same class and other communities."

AG: "...When half the population of a particular community is not empowered, no equal opportunity is given, they are devoid of gender equality, then it does not pass the test of constitutional morality. ... Even if triple talaq is considered as an essential part of religion and falls under Article 25, the practice still has to be constitutionally moral. ... Even if talaq is considered under Article 25, it has to be related to the fundamental rights and should abide by the principles of gender equality, non-discrimination and justice. ... All personal laws have to be in confirmatory (conformity?) with the Constitution. ..."

"...Government has to first prove that this practice of triple talaq was not essential to Islam and only then can it delve further into other aspects. ...".

AG: "...it is not the apex court's job to interpret a religion. ..You cannot go into essential principle because it is not an ecclesiastical court. ... In Hindu religion, women used to practice Sati till the law termed it as illegal and obsolete. ... As far as Hindu laws are considered, various reformatory steps were taken but with regard to Muslim laws no such steps were taken,..".

Bench: "...Will only examine the triple talaq practice, under which a Muslim man can divorce his wife by uttering the word talaq thrice, and keep the remaining issues open." (Nikah halala requires a female divorcee to marry someone else, consummate the marriage and then get a divorce to remarry her previous husband).

AG: "...If the practice of instant divorce (triple talaq) is struck down by the court, then Centre will bring a law to regulate marriage and divorce among the Muslim community. ..."

AG: "...“Even Islamic theocratic states have moved towards reforming personal laws, ...”

AG: "...The scope of referring had all the three issues that was divorce, nikah halala, polygamy. All these three issues are before this court by virtue of the reference order of the two- judge bench. ... "At a time when theocratic countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan are moving towards reform, we being a secular country are still debating. ..."

Note: The above quotes are not in sequence. They are just indicational.

ybdonkey's personal views, within the limit of right of a citizen's freedom of expression, without disrespect to the Apex Court

The Attorney General's submission to the Supreme Court is that the Govt. will bring a legislation "a law to regulate marriage and divorce among the Muslim community." . This submission discriminates among different religions of India. A Secular Government has to bring a Single Divorce Law which will apply to all the Citizens of all Religions, without any discrimination. A truly Secular Government and its laws have to ignore the Religions of Parties.

NEARLY 2000 YEARS OF TYRANNY OF RELIGIONS ON INDIVIDUALS, SHOULD END AT LEAST NOW.

First of all it is to be proved that MARRIAGE IS A PART OF RELIGION, before Govt. of India can venture to prove that Triple Talaq is / is not a part of Islam. Marriages and Divorces are personal affairs. They are not part of Religions. Since about last 2,000 years, Religious functionaries such as priests, mullahs, pastors have started intruding into the personal rights of Citizens. For that matter, even prayers, and praying-methods are a personal matter of individuals. Priests, mullas, pastors and other Religious functionaries cannot intrude into them. Same is the case with the manner of dressing by individuals. Prayer-houses can probably enforce dress codes for their visitors, that too, when they visit the Prayer Houses. But, in what way they can interfere into how an individual dresses himself-herself, when moving outside? This applies to trimming beards, veils, burqas also. A person going to a prayer house, if his Religion insists that a beard should be sported, can wear a wig-beard.

The procedure of Religious functionaries solemnizing weddings in Prayer Houses should not have any legal validity or legal recognition. Such procedures, can however, continue to be allowed to be conducted in Prayer Houses, but with an Express Notice Board displayed in Prayer Houses, in BOLD AND LARGE FONTS, ATTRACTIVE COLORS, stating that WEDDING PROCEDURES TAKING PLACE IN RELIGIOUS PLACES WILL NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL RECOGNITION / VALIDITY, AND THEY CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW.

The Government of India ought to have offered to the Court, to amend the current Secular Marriages Act suitably, or repeal it and make a Comprehensive Secular Marriage and Divorce Law, applicable without exception to all the Citizens.

Why the Government is waiting for the Supreme Court to strike down Triple Talaq? Does the Government want to take shelter under the Supreme Court's Judgement, if some Sections of Islam object to Government's Offer to make a law? Government can take its own initiatives for making its Secular laws with FUTURE VALIDITY, so that the question of 'matter sub judice' will not arise. Even if there is any variance between the Government Enactment, and the Supreme Court decisions, Govt. can always amend its Acts. Or alternatively, it can request Supreme Court to review its decision, through a Review Petition.

If marriages can be regarded as NOT AN INTEGRAL PART OF RELIGIONs, then Article 25 of Constitution will not apply. Minority Religious Rights also will not apply. Govt. should make an enactment recognising marriages as SPECIAL Civil Contracts between parties. Govt. can also design some model marriage contract forms. Govt. can also define and standardize terms and conditions of marriages, with explanations for rights and responsibilities of both the parties.

To come back and continue adding / deleting / modifying. सशेष. ఇంకా ఉంది.

966 While triple talaq is a very cruel custom violating human rights, Mr. Narendra Modi could have allowed Supreme Court to issue appropriate directions on it

Every Indian, with the exception of a few religious bigots and fanatics agree that triple talaq is a cruel custom, violating human rights. The custom needs to be discontinued by all means, legislation, persuasion, social reforms. But our Honorable Prime Minister of India appears to be in a hurry. He seems to be in undue haste. This is particularly true because, the matter is sub judice, and the Highest Court of India is going to hear it on 11th May 2017 (only 15 days ahead). It is very much likely that Supreme Court may expedite its decision in view of its 'cruel' nature, and its paramount imporance from the point of view of human rights. The rising of the issue by Mr. Narendra Modi in Karnataka, which is due for elections this year, he has created a situation that he wants to seize the initiative from Supreme Court of India. Besides, an impression among people's minds may arise that our Prime Minister does not want to give due credit to the Supreme Court, and that he wants to emerge as 'Muslim nAri hridaya samrAT' (English: "Emperor of the Hearts of Muslim Women") , and wants to be hailed as their Messiah.

A quote of what Mr. Modi is reported to have said in Karnataka, on the occasion of the birth anniversary celebration of Basaveswara, a Kannada philosopher

'Don't politicise triple talaq issue',

"... protect women from the effects of the practice of oral divorce. ..."

"...“I am sure enlightened people will emerge from among Muslims and come forward to end this practice, liberating our Muslim daughters and mothers from the scourge ..."

"...“Come out and find a solution. That solution will have its own majesty and generations will remember you. ..."

"...show the 'path of modernity' to Muslims across the world. ... That is the kind of power and energy this land gives to all of us.”

" ... Reformers from the Muslim community itself+ will come forward to fight what (our) Muslim daughters have to go through (in the name of triple talaq), they will find a way out ..."

"... I also request the Muslim community, don't look at this issue through a political lens, don't let it go that route ..."

"...show the “path of modernity” to Muslims across the world. “That is the kind of power and energy this land gives to all of us. ...”

yb-donkey's personal views, not intended to be imposed on others

Mr. Modi is asking others not to politicise the issue. But, he himself is politicising it. Other parties have not raised it. Besides, the appropriate time to raise this issue will be : "after receiving Supreme Court judgement, and before implementing it".

Hon. Prime Minister has rightly identified the resentment and unrest in the minds of enlightened / educated Muslim Women, about the continuance of the obnoxious custom of triple talaq. But the timing is not apt, because it gives an impression that he is trying to use 'liberation of Muslim women from triple talaq' as a bait to capture their votes. But, it can be counter-productive sometimes, because he may be alienating Muslim Men from BJP.

SAUDI ARABIAN + Pakisthani TUTORED MUSLIM CLERICS MAY SPOIL THE MINDS OF MUSLIM MEN

Instigated by Saudi Arabian and Pakisthani trained Muslim Clerics may instigate the minds of Muslim men to such an extent that Muslim Husbands may not allow their wives to go out and vote in the 2019 General Elections.

PLIGHT OF BURQA/VEIL CLAD WOMEN

Day by day, the % of burqa clad women, face-tightly-tied with veil, moving on streets, is rising. They seem to be under pressure from their parents, siblings, husbands, neighbors to wear burqa or at least tightly tie their faces with full veil. Government of India ought to initiate a survey on the plight of women who are forced to wear burqa. Even during those surveys, majority women may inform that they wear the burqa/full veil on their own volition, and that there is no pressure on them to wear full mask. Burqa women need liberation from their hardships. But Governments cannot take hasty steps, which will lead to alienation, and conflicts between men and women.

All these issues are very slippery. "Slow and Steady" treading with "harmony and conciliation" are very important.

BJP LEADERS HAVE TO INTROSPECT

Many Indians view BJP as a party with 'HIndu Religious Agenda'. BJP also seems to believe that it is the sole representative of the Hindus, and Indian Nationalism + patriotism. If BJP's positioning itself as the savior of Hindu Religion is true, the right step for the BJP Leaders ought to have been to start with REFORMING HINDU CUSTOMS. For example, there is the custom of lavish expenditure in Hindu Marriages, and the CRUEL practice of extracting / extorting dowry from daughters-in-law and their parents. This practice is continuing in spite of Dowry Prohibition Act, and Sec. 498 of IPC domestic violence provisions. This dowry harassment and violence appears to be more rampant, quantitatively and in intensity, in BJP Ruled states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra. Uttar Pradesh.
See this link: Click to go to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Dowry-death-One-bride-burnt-every-hour/articleshow/11644691.cms. Here is one quote from it:--

2012 Report: NEW DELHI: In a crime that is prevalent only in India, greedy husbands and his relatives harass the newly wed bride for getting more dowry, and often kill her in the process. And, very often, she is burnt alive. This horror is therefore called bride-burning or in official terms, dowry death.

In 2010, there were 8391 reported cases of dowry death in the country. That works out to a shocking one death every hour approximately. Bride-burning is on the increase — just a decade ago, in 2000, there were 6995 cases.

Another link of 2015, worth studying: Click here to go to http://www.smh.com.au/world/india-burning-brides-and-ancient-practice-is-on-the-rise-20150115-12r4j1.html

A quote from the above news report

"...Of the 671 bride burnings she knew of in the area surrounding Bangalore last year, only about 50 cases had been formally registered by police last year. Nationally, convictions are secured in only about 15 per cent of cases that make it to court. ..."

yb-donkey: If only 50 cases are reported out of 671 bride burnings at Bangalore, and conviction rate is only 15% of tried cases, what will be the position at All India level? Bangalore is also in Karnataka State, where Mr. Narendra Modi spoke. Why didn't Mr. Modi speak about 'dowry deaths' (seems to be common to all religions, as far as my little knowledge goes)?

TODAY'S ENVIRONMENT IS VITIATED WITH CONFLICTS AMONG ISLAMIC COUNTRIES, AND BETWEEN WEST and THE isis+taliban

We know that today's world is infested with terrorists. Some external elements from countries like Saudi Arabia, Dubai (UAE), Pakistan are trying to play with Indian Muslim sentiments and superstitions, by instigating some gullible innocent Indian Muslim clerics. In the circumstances, every step on our part will have to be very careful, discreet, and harmonizing. Any indiscreet step, hasty step can lead to long-drawn civil wars. Who wins or who loses in the process will be immaterial, because WEAPON SELLING COUNTRIES WILL USE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FISH IN TROUBLED WATERS, and the country will be ultimate loser.

A verse by the Great Ancient Sanskrit poet 'bhAravi's' work 'kirAtArjunIyam':
सहसा विदधीत न क्रियाम्
अविवेकः परमापदां पदम् ।
वृणते हि विमृश्यकारिणं
गुणलुब्धाः स्वयमेव हि संपदः ॥ (किरातार्जुनीयम् २.३०)

sahasA vidadhIt na kriyAm
avivEkaha paramApadAm padam
vriNatE hi vimrisya kAriNam
guNalabdhAha svayamEva hi sampadaha.
(KirAtArjunIyam 2/30)

సహసా విదధీత్ న క్రియామ్
అవివేకః పరమాపదామ్ పదమ్
వృణుతేహి విమృశ్య కారిణమ్
గుణ లబ్ధాః స్వయమేవ హి సంపదాః.
కిరాతార్జునీయమ్, ౨_౩౦.

Approx. Gist: 1. Nothing should be done in haste/hurry. (There is also a reverse maxim: Alasyam amritam visham. Meaning: When delayed, nectar can become poison).

2. Indiscretion can become a cause for great dangers/hardships and troubles.

3. Good Results and glory accomplished with virtuosity, prefer those who exercise discretion. In other words, an approximate inference. (subject to revision): Only those who exercise discretion can alone gain virtuosity, and good results.

VOCABULARY HELP FOR 'DISCREET' AND 'DISCRETE'

discreet, adj. : Careful and prudent in one's speech or actions, especially in order to keep something confidential or to avoid embarrassment. ‘we made some discreet inquiries’

Intentionally unobtrusive. ‘a discreet cough’ Usage: The words discrete and discreet are pronounced in the same way and share the same origin but they do not mean the same thing. Discrete means ‘separate’, as in a finite number of discrete categories, while discreet means ‘careful and circumspect’, as in you can rely on him to be discreet
Link to : Click to go to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discreet

To continue to add / delete / modify depending on lgal needs. सशेष. ఇంకా ఉంది.