Is The Unelected Indian Supreme Court Acting as a Government And Destroying India?

You may also like: Disturbing stats on black-white inequality Now girls are a THIRD more likely to go to university than boys Sound effect: Bhajans (Hindu faith songs) helping Autism Lessening productivity 50% of Americans have worked with a hangover Scientists say fist bump is healthier than handshake ?Hug & kiss Meet Darknet, the hidden underbelly of the searchable Web

Click here for more unique views on South Asia (Modi, AAP, terrorism and Pakistan)

In this instance, while legalisation favouring gay sex but not their marriage would make it an extra marital sex by default, the myopic and unfocused abolition of penalty for women's adultery would enhance extramarital sex- by men!! Almost parallel to the 'have sex but with condom' of sex education, this symbolically aids couples to be immoral. It enhances the 'proposal harassment' of married women as the Australian was tired of and mentioned in her blog. Saner women even ask 'If for equality, why not penalise both and save family?' Almost like doing a copy and paste in the making of the constitution, Indian Supreme Court is acting like SC of the US. And in doing so, it is destroying the family structure of India and trying to make it like that of the West. It's amazing that while the government said no to 'bhabi' porn to save family, its SC is saying adultery isn't illegal if bhabi wants it! With prince Charles eloping with his girlfriend, Camilla, while marrying Diana, testosterone in men crying out for a female and his instinct seeking a gene spread it is foolish to think that men seek adultery, when marriage is already at its ebb. Civilizations, like nations aren't formed out of rights that aids instincts fulfilment but out of duties. For social progress man's instincts have to be restrained by the fears of the family, society, law and God. Enhancing men's desire to make love with other people's wives, the SC's decision, sadly, also enhances the available pool of females. With this, while family will increasingly be meaningless and unstable, immorality and rapes will rise. Although designed to offer equality, like in the US it will bring sadness to women. The SC, cannot escape responsibility in making their lives measurable. While centuries ago Chinese travellers have said Indians didn't even lock doors at home, now in the new free and modern India, parents worry if their daughters will arrive home unmolested! 4. On the Sabarimala temple issue: Striking a blow against the mosaic pattern's beauty, Hinduism and the ways of civilization itself Indian SC allowed women to enter the Sabrimala temple. Seeing most mosques not allowing women although Hindus ask, 'Why us?', this judgment by SC was in response to a plea by a Muslim man!! Hindu man's plea on Muslim's issue is a different matter to the courts. In any case, the judgement was clearly an addition to the factors that caused a Hindu Revolution in 2014. Actually, the practice in Sabarimala was not a gender injustice but a part of a beautiful mosaic pattern that is admired in the modern world like boys and girl schools or colleges, sports etc. For a start, deity isn't God but an expect of God that has its own peculiarity. If Hindu temples had only this peculiarity and restricted women (due to any reason) then that would be discriminatory and the SC would be right. But, the pluralistic faith offers other temples with their own peculiarities that deny men too. Thus, like boy's school, lady's hostel etc. that are a part of the Modern Civilization, in totality Hinduism offers a similar mosaic pattern, which is beautiful and multicultural. Disregarding that pattern, the SC has expressed its paucity of thought similar to going to a boys school and screaming gender discrimination - oblivious to the girls school nearby. Secondly, it is a civilized act to respect other people's ways like not making noise when one is praying, not exposing food on a fasting month etc. The deity here isn't male alone but a brahmachari (celibate) too. Civilization, therefore demands that like a male respecting the ways of a female brahmacharini, females should respect the celibate aspect of the male deity, and avoid going close to it. It is simply a part of being sensetive. Thirdly, the idea of visiting a temple isn't about sightseeing but pleasing the deity by offering things that the deity prefers e.g. special flowers, plants, fruits, vermilion etc and seeking its blessings. Obviously not displeasing it. If the deity is real and is displeased, almost reminding the 'have sex but with condom' advice bringing pain to girls, will the SC take responsibility for the pain caused to women by the wrong advice? Even if the deity isn't real, while imprudence wise it is like the SC going to a boys school and screaming discrimination oblivious to the presence of girls school nearby as stated above, power wise it is destroying the beautiful mosaic culture and converting it to a boring monoculture. Not only Hindu men but women's resentment is clear. The paucity of thought does not end there. Though Hindus helped build the first mosque outside Arabia, mosques don't become holy places like temples for the Hindus. A mosque is only a preferred place and not essential for prayers (namaz). It can be demolished for the benefit of Islam. However, since ummah is sacrosanct mosques are an essential part of Islam as it helps ummah. It's, therefore, clear that the SC's judgment (1994) lacks understanding of the ways of the 2nd largest religion in the world!! It is quite clear from the above discussions that by ignorance or by design the decisions by the Supreme Court of India have been detrimental to India as a country and as a civilization. If Indian ethos are not but western ethos are the prime movers of the country, that too inadequately, then why not hire western SC judges like the hired economists? If that is not OK, why do a revolution for Swarajya against the British? Why not just ask for equality laws (the precursor of the independence movement) and remain under the British? Stretching it to the extreme, why not even beat the West in their own game of being liberal by giving thumbs up to consensual paedophilia and even bestiality for women, if not for men? India is India because it has got some shared peculiarities, for that matter every country has. India wants its citizens to be happy and to spread that peculiarity to the world as a global leader in the future. India can beat the West in pluralism from society to God but it cannot beat the West in being liberal. It's respected history is full of sacrifices (duties) not enjoying instinctual rights. ---------------------------------

1 2 3

The Sabarimala Temple