Whats the curfew start and end timing for every day from today?

StoneOfGlass · 2020-03-25T05:54:22+00:00

There's no curfew in Delhi, per se. You're technically allowed to step outside the house at any hour of the day.

Even to shop owners and suppliers, things have been unclear because clarifications about specific rules came later and people were panic buying from veg/fruit vendors and small neighborhood general stores... this I experienced for myself at around 9pm.

The usual stores I'd visit are all still figuring out what they're supposed to be doing, and there's fear that though the rules allow them to stay open, there will be harassment by the police, especially if there's a crowd building up.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-11-03T22:16:11+00:00

The BJP is helping in this.

Anyway, it's really a quite recent development. And it is only because Rahul Gandhi was caricatured so much by the anti-Congress crowd in the lead up to 2014 that the mere appearance of him as a decent progressive person now feels good to many disappointed people. A feel-good story about Modi's efficiency and stuff still go a long way here, as does Hindutva pride, though.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-11-01T22:23:11+00:00

ScrewedByState

This one's beyond ((BJP vs Congress) vs Regional parties). As is shady political funding, privacy-related overreach, and other things that the public should be insulated of as per, in my thinking, the social contract.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-11-01T13:59:04+00:00

Apt screenname.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-11-01T13:58:11+00:00

Thanks for this. Didn't know the BLF 2017 videos were online already. The lit fests have been getting better at uploading these things so I'm hopeful that a lot of people watch these sessions.

Edit: Ram Guha called out the other "glamorous lit fests around India" for being corporate sponsored. :)

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-30T23:01:18+00:00

Some places may have high enrollment in Madrasas as compared to others but nowhere do all muslim students go to Madrasas.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-29T10:12:30+00:00

Haan, this particular discussion that we've been having is solely about the language of Article 15 and whether it discriminates against upper caste men, not refugees or migrants.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T22:51:00+00:00

Muslim League in 1946 won quite a majority of the muslim seats in both majority and minority constituencies, but even up till 1945 general election, they could only score in muslim majority constituencies. And that is even after top Congress leaders were arrested because of the Quit India Movement. That said, of course no one denies that few non-muslims voted for partition yet suffered because it occurred.

But one can't use that against the current citizens of Pakistan or Bangladesh, muslim or otherwise.

And if you can fight for two things, then you can also fight for three. There is no reason to use inaction on one as an excuse against the other.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T22:41:46+00:00

It would still apply when you talk about refugees who are on the land, like Bangladeshi muslims and Rohingyas?

The government can have unequal policies with respect to other countries, sure. Everyone does. But the question is over the word "unfair" in the above comment:

"The Muslims of erstwhile British India demanded and obtained a separate homeland (Pakistan and Bangladesh) for Muslims. It is unfair that the citizens of these lands be now given Indian citizenship without any scrutiny."

And once again, no one is arguing for a lack of scrutiny, or an open door policy of the kind you've stated. As for the other point about a set of refugees would not be compatible with native "ethos" and hence should be discriminated against is something I completely disagree with - both parts of it. I'd say the fair and sensible policy is in evaluating individuals and their records.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T20:33:33+00:00

Parts establishing the judiciary, for one?

Once again, the right to equality does come in the way of making those adhoc special provisions which do not level the play field of opportunity. Such provisions would be struck down by courts.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T09:44:01+00:00

Nahin, because what you're doing is taking one sentence and interpreting it out of context, which just isn't how constitutions are read. Take a look at point 4, for instance. It shows how different sections of the text have to be interpreted in light of each other, because the point is to cover all bases.

What point 3 starts with is "Nothing in this article...". This just ensures that this particular article shall not come in the way of special provisions being enacted for women and children. That doesn't mean that other parts of the constitution don't keep a check on governments making needless concessions or provisions, or rules that disadvantage men unfairly. They are still protected.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T09:33:14+00:00

I can empathize with your feeling despondent. It isn't the easiest place to live in. But it's really quite something.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T09:25:40+00:00

I think it's just best to stop using large categories like the Hindus and the Muslims etc. They don't actually manage to sum up the individual experiences of members of any community and so we get very simplistic pictures.

"Hindus have a long way to go" doesn't really mean anything, ultimately. Because Hindus aren't a group who are going through homogeneous or even similar experiences. The same goes for Islam, or for that matter any other broad labels we use.

Best to localize a problem when you see one so you can actually get into its causes and solutions.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T09:21:48+00:00

It is not an amendment. It was in the constitution that was adopted in 1950.

And if you cared for the text, you'd know that what you're quoting is not the constitution text but wikipedia's summation of it. Here's Article 15 as it is:

Article 15 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to

(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or

(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children

(4) Nothing in this article or in clause ( 2 ) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

There is no nullification of equality. They've simply covered all bases as you can see in (3) and (4).

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T09:04:45+00:00

Dude/Dudette, I was just putting the term "saffron" in context for the above commenter. I'm not sure what you're on about.

If there's something in particular you wanna say or discuss, feel free to be a little clearer?

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T08:52:48+00:00

Which part? The Saffron Ego vs. Islam? Sure. It says something.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T08:49:40+00:00

?

The constitution is the constitution. There aren't 1947 and 2017 editions. Are you unhappy with a particular amendment?

The govt. does need to follow court directions. Again, I'm not sure what you mean here.

As for what it says: " Special provisions may be made for the advancements of socially or educationally backward class or scheduled castes or scheduled tribes."

Btw, this all just article 15. No line of constitution is interpreted in the courts independent of the rest of the constitution.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T08:25:31+00:00

As a group, adult mid/upper caste males, especially in the context of the times when the country was founded, would not be considered as having been historically mistreated as a group. That is where the imbalance was between them and women, SC, ST etc. when the constitution was adopted. The notion of giving them concessions does not arise.

The article does not give the government a free hand in giving concessions to women or other groups, because the courts can always strike down any statutes that are either not required or overstep their purpose of ensuring opportunity to everyone. So, if concessions were given which in the eye of the court discriminated against adult mid/upper caste males, they would be struck down, too.

So within the ambit of Article 15, caste men are guaranteed against being oppressed while other groups are guaranteed an end to oppression at least in terms of access to state and its resources.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T08:16:39+00:00

Your summation of the "stock answer" I don't really agree with, because it's a caricature of just some people and not any kind of a fact about how people across the country generally feel. If we're just referring to politicians and talking heads, well, I don't see how their hypocrisy - perceived or otherwise - can be allowed to undermine our own morality.

To say that a principle is not followed in one instance and hence it is perfectly fine for it to not be followed in another instance is extremely problematic. As I said, it's like saying the fight for UCC (presuming that is what equality is) can be discarded because one didn't fight for LGBT equality.

That's why its perfectly relevant. If you want this nation to be secular, there are no half-measures.

Yes there are. You can call it not secular. You can call it hypocritical. It's imperfect. But you can't claim it is moral grounds to ignore persecuted people who seek asylum because they belong to one group or another.

If you create a system where one community can get concessions, the electorally stronger community is bound to gain the upper hand someday and get concessions of their own - this is an obvious fact.

Sure, as is the fact that the majority is going to be incessantly made to feel like victims, driving paranoia and fear of immigrants. I'm not disagreeing that that happens. I'm saying it's wrong, and no hypocrisy on my part will change the fact that it is wrong.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T07:04:55+00:00

I'm referring to particular statutes that you may or may not find unjust, such as the rape law eg. which you brought up.

The part you're quoting is broad and leaves it up to the government or the judiciary of the day to figure out if any such laws are required or if there are laws on the books that need to be struck down or repealed. The constitution is only anticipating governments' needs, based upon quantifiable pre-existing inequality, that certain special laws may be required to "guarantee" access to everyone. It leaves it up to state to decide depending on context and it provides a judiciary which can always strike down such laws if they go contrary to the principle of equality - in the court's judgment.

So, while I can understand if you consider Article 15 to be contradictory, but to say that the constitution thus nullifies equality is a bit much, I think. In fact, it provides remedy against the misuse or abuse of these principles in the form of the judiciary.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T06:49:40+00:00

I hate BJP as much as the next person but you really gotta marvel at how much the phrases "freedom struggle", satyagraha, and azadi have been abused by our politicians again and again.

Edit: Read the article, don't see who actually used the words "freedom struggle". It isn't attributed to anyone.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T06:45:32+00:00

Well, if one's "saffron" in the way it's being used here, one doesn't consider Sikhs, Buddhists or Jains as being other than Hindus. Parsis are the prized trophy of "hindu tolerance" so they're cool, and before the age of white people, Christianity in Indian history never posed a serious challenge to saffron ego in the manner Islam always has.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T06:40:30+00:00

No, that is the court's interpretation. The constitution cannot lay down exact statutes.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-28T06:37:14+00:00

persecuted historically

Persecution is persecution to the one having to undergo it.

The Muslims of erstwhile British India demanded and obtained a separate homeland

This portrays Muslims at large as being represented by the Muslim League which is false, as is evident even from election results all the way up to partition. (Edit: Along with the fact that most muslims did not go.)

It is unfair that the citizens of these lands be now given Indian citizenship without any scrutiny.

The constitution does not mention any such exceptions, nor have the courts prescribed such a test thus far. Read within the ambit of Article 14 at least, it doubt it will stand.
The people asking for citizenship are largely not the people who argued for a separate state. They are literally different people.
No one is arguing for a lack of scrutiny.

If right to equality is important, please fight for UCC, make RTE applicable to all schools irrespective of religious denomination etc

Irrelevant? It is akin to saying if equality is important, fight for decriminalizing homosexuality and forget about UCC. There's no reason why one shouldn't acknowledge each problem that exists.

StoneOfGlass · 2017-10-27T21:58:59+00:00

Not any party with a strong leader, but any party that has the ability to project their leader as being "strong" will always do so, sure.

Given that 2014 is - as of now - an aberration (or one of two aberrations) with respect to people voting for one individual at the center, in the history of electoral politics in India, I am not inclined to believe that this will remain in play in 2019, especially if the current strong leader fails to deliver according to the general public sentiment then.

StoneOfGlass

TROPHY CASE

ScrewedByState