Mains 2021 Result declared - In or Out?

Akkkusaid

@necromancer Then, a such larger section was anti-Indian when they started violence to stop implementation of the Sabarmila judgment.

Akkkusaid

@Sopranos nahi, itna late toh nahi ayenge.

Matlab, phele interview date pata chalne pe bhi 15 days wagra rahte the I guess. Abh 20 days mai daf 2 bhi bharwenge, fir list nikalenge.

Ya, delhi wala sahi lag raha.

necromancersaid

This will ruffle a few feathers but this judgement and the reaction to it shows how distinctively anti-Indian a very large section of Muslims are. 

The court asked the petitioners to prove that hijab is an essential practice which incidentally finds no mention whatsoever in the Quran. All it asks for us to be dressed modestly. To my understanding, Hijab as a cultural artefact has gained prominence in the recent times, post the increasing dominance of the Saudi theologians. 

On a personal observation basis, Hijab wasn’t so prominent as recently as 10-15 years back. 

Yet the way Muslims are reacting to this verdict, calling it ‘apartheid’, ‘nazism’ and what not just shows how ‘Indian’ they truly are.

No respect for the rules and laws of the land and that too in favour of what is largely a cultural import from a foreign nation. Since when did objects of patriarchy become a symbol of power? Only in the Muslim world I guess. 

I’ve always maintained that a reform against the hijab must originate from Muslim women themselves. Today I can confidently say that in order to chase the ‘persecution dopamine’, Muslim women are completely willing to subject themselves to ‘loving patriarchy’ in the name of ‘culture’. 

The colleges maintained a stand they’ve had since forever, wear what you want outside the gates, inside, you wear the uniform. A stand that’s been very consistent. Now with the rise of institutions like PFI, you suddenly see all these new formed ‘existential’ issues for Muslims. Surprisingly (or not), the so called educated, ‘intellectual’ elite are on the wrong side of the debate (again).

I don’t consider myself an opportune feminist, my stand is clear, under no pretext must objects of patriarchy be justified. Ghungat, Purdah, Hijab and the ilk have no other justification for their existence outside of dictations by men who have traditionally held power. ‘It’s religious’, ‘it’s our faith’ has no argumentative standing. 

Courts and laws have broken down what were forever considered essential religious practices even before this country officially existed. Why can’t the great learned feminists and Muslim intellectuals recognise what the real problem here is? I haven’t seen one person from the famous intellectual cabal decry the creeping imposition of hijab. 

I’m a Hindu but I’m an Indian first, I didn’t burst crackers on Diwali because it’s not an essential practice and it harms the environment, I don’t believe in casteism because it’s not an essential practice, I couldn’t keep long hair at school because it’s not an essential practice. All this requires respect for the law of the land. On the other hand, despite court orders, loudspeakers are still growing in number- no power can get them to even lower the volume; new controversies are routinely being generated as evident from this hijab fiasco. 

Funnily enough, it’s now the state that’s denying these ‘bright’ girls education by not allowing them to wear the hijab in college. 

 Absolutely baffles me how people don’t see a problem with this

Akkkusaid

@necromancer Then, a such larger section was anti-Indian when they started violence to stop implementation of the Sabarmila judgment.

necromancersaid

This will ruffle a few feathers but this judgement and the reaction to it shows how distinctively anti-Indian a very large section of Muslims are. 

The court asked the petitioners to prove that hijab is an essential practice which incidentally finds no mention whatsoever in the Quran. All it asks for us to be dressed modestly. To my understanding, Hijab as a cultural artefact has gained prominence in the recent times, post the increasing dominance of the Saudi theologians. 

On a personal observation basis, Hijab wasn’t so prominent as recently as 10-15 years back. 

Yet the way Muslims are reacting to this verdict, calling it ‘apartheid’, ‘nazism’ and what not just shows how ‘Indian’ they truly are.

No respect for the rules and laws of the land and that too in favour of what is largely a cultural import from a foreign nation. Since when did objects of patriarchy become a symbol of power? Only in the Muslim world I guess. 

I’ve always maintained that a reform against the hijab must originate from Muslim women themselves. Today I can confidently say that in order to chase the ‘persecution dopamine’, Muslim women are completely willing to subject themselves to ‘loving patriarchy’ in the name of ‘culture’. 

The colleges maintained a stand they’ve had since forever, wear what you want outside the gates, inside, you wear the uniform. A stand that’s been very consistent. Now with the rise of institutions like PFI, you suddenly see all these new formed ‘existential’ issues for Muslims. Surprisingly (or not), the so called educated, ‘intellectual’ elite are on the wrong side of the debate (again).

I don’t consider myself an opportune feminist, my stand is clear, under no pretext must objects of patriarchy be justified. Ghungat, Purdah, Hijab and the ilk have no other justification for their existence outside of dictations by men who have traditionally held power. ‘It’s religious’, ‘it’s our faith’ has no argumentative standing. 

Courts and laws have broken down what were forever considered essential religious practices even before this country officially existed. Why can’t the great learned feminists and Muslim intellectuals recognise what the real problem here is? I haven’t seen one person from the famous intellectual cabal decry the creeping imposition of hijab. 

I’m a Hindu but I’m an Indian first, I didn’t burst crackers on Diwali because it’s not an essential practice and it harms the environment, I don’t believe in casteism because it’s not an essential practice, I couldn’t keep long hair at school because it’s not an essential practice. All this requires respect for the law of the land. On the other hand, despite court orders, loudspeakers are still growing in number- no power can get them to even lower the volume; new controversies are routinely being generated as evident from this hijab fiasco. 

Funnily enough, it’s now the state that’s denying these ‘bright’ girls education by not allowing them to wear the hijab in college. 

 Absolutely baffles me how people don’t see a problem with this

necromancersaid

@Akkku which violence are you talking about? Last I checked, protest was legal in the country. Even in that case, though I support the judgement, that was a blatant overreach by the judiciary imo. Additionally, wasn’t one of the petitioners a Muslim? What role does she have in a religion and a sect that doesn’t concern her? 

Plus, the situation we’re talking about isn’t comparable. But of course this is the kind of whataboutery expected from your ilk of spineless cowards.

Akkkusaid

@babu_bisleri Haha. All judgments need to be followed. You are not super court to decide!

Capedcrusader1said

necromancersaid

@Akkku which violence are you talking about? Last I checked, protest was legal in the country. Even in that case, though I support the judgement, that was a blatant overreach by the judiciary imo. Additionally, wasn’t one of the petitioners a Muslim? What role does she have in a religion and a sect that doesn’t concern her? 

Plus, the situation we’re talking about isn’t comparable. But of course this is the kind of whataboutery expected from your ilk of spineless cowards.

like the way you cement your arguments

this should be done in current scenario where suddenly a veil of victimhood has become a norm

i usually dont mince words when something is going on in the name of something else (you know what this is). i take stand, unless i am writing a upsc answer in which case a 'nuanced' stance is needed

babu_bislerisaid

Capedcrusader1said

necromancersaid

@Akkku which violence are you talking about? Last I checked, protest was legal in the country. Even in that case, though I support the judgement, that was a blatant overreach by the judiciary imo. Additionally, wasn’t one of the petitioners a Muslim? What role does she have in a religion and a sect that doesn’t concern her? 

Plus, the situation we’re talking about isn’t comparable. But of course this is the kind of whataboutery expected from your ilk of spineless cowards.

like the way you cement your arguments

this should be done in current scenario where suddenly a veil of victimhood has become a norm

i usually dont mince words when something is going on in the name of something else (you know what this is). i take stand, unless i am writing a upsc answer in which case a 'nuanced' stance is needed

This victimhood is continuing since ever. For this judgement also which is declared by state to bring reforms in a country against a practice which is protested almost everywhere in the world will be called Nazism and some particular religious group which forms majority in this country will be blamed.

Just like how Barkha Dutt justified genocide of minority in Kashmir by people of "peaceful" faith.

babu_bislerisaid

Capedcrusader1said

necromancersaid

@Akkku which violence are you talking about? Last I checked, protest was legal in the country. Even in that case, though I support the judgement, that was a blatant overreach by the judiciary imo. Additionally, wasn’t one of the petitioners a Muslim? What role does she have in a religion and a sect that doesn’t concern her? 

Plus, the situation we’re talking about isn’t comparable. But of course this is the kind of whataboutery expected from your ilk of spineless cowards.

like the way you cement your arguments

this should be done in current scenario where suddenly a veil of victimhood has become a norm

i usually dont mince words when something is going on in the name of something else (you know what this is). i take stand, unless i am writing a upsc answer in which case a 'nuanced' stance is needed

This victimhood is continuing since ever. For this judgement also which is declared by state to bring reforms in a country against a practice which is protested almost everywhere in the world will be called Nazism and some particular religious group which forms majority in this country will be blamed.

Just like how Barkha Dutt justified genocide of minority in Kashmir by people of "peaceful" faith.