How to change Sc to obc

Dear Democratic Indian: Why attribute words to me which I have not spoken? I  said nothing about the supremacy or otherwise of the scripttures. That ia an imagination of your biassed mind. The question was  husband-sc  wife -obc. (1) Can husband  become obc? (2) Can their child  be obc?  There are no  documents which give  answer to the question except the scripttures. I mentioned scripttures in that cotext and scripttures say 'no' to both the questions. It did not mean that  I asserted the supramacy of the scripttures.  I have also mentioned that  the answer of Democratic Indian that the child takes the caste of the father was wrong as it was not supported by any documents or even practice, where a question of high or low arise.

Dear Democratic India: Why attribute words to me that I have not spoken. I have said nothing about the supremacy of the scripttures. That is an imagination of your biased mind. The question was “Husband-SC wife -OBC. (1) Can husband become OBC?  (2) Whether their child can be OBC. There are no documents which give answers to the questions except the scripttures. I mentioned scripttures in that context to say that only scripttures contain answers to the questions and no other document. It did not mean that I asserted the supremacy of the scripttures.

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	Dear Democratic Indian: Why attribute words to me which I have not spoken? I  said nothing about the supremacy or otherwise of the scriptttures. That ia an imagination of your biassed mind. The question was  husband-sc  wife -obc. (1) Can husband  become obc? (2) Can their child  be obc?  There are no  documents which give  answer to the question except the scriptttures. I mentioned scriptttures in that cotext and scriptttures say 'no' to both the questions. It did not mean that  I asserted the supramacy of the scriptttures.  I have also mentioned that  the answer of Democratic Indian that the child takes the caste of the father was wrong as it was not supported by any documents or even practice, where a question of high or low arise.

Well said, Dr. MPS Ramani, about biased mind of some hidden Democratic Indian with his misunderstandings even about the Constitution of India !

He is also under some misconception that "the child takes the caste of the father"! That is also not mandatory. All depends upon the culture and traditions. For example, if he goes to Meghalaya, he can find the case of mother annexed with the names of children of any spouse. I know one person, who settled in Shillong (Meghalaya). His caste by his hereditary was "Sacheva" being a resident of Punjab, But all his children (boys & girls) are known by the caste "Wallang" of his wife, as he married a Meghalaya lady.

So, to what extent in which respect, the said Mr. Democratic Indian is expert, i.e., the Constitution, the democracy, the marriage systems of India, the castes system of the Indians, the ancient scripttures, and the law, etc., can be anybody's guess. But, he still claims, as if "the question of the author of this thread has been very PRECISELY and CLEARLY answered" by him.

So, there seems no doubt that Mr. Jigyasu has anlysed well even the character of the assumption based self claimed "Democratic Indian".

I am thankful to both, Dr MPS Ramani and Mr. Dhingra, for their unstinted support to my views on the issue.

It is real pity that some individuals out of their own insecurities are merely trying to score brownie points and make cheap, vague allegations and patting their own and each others backs. They do not even know the basic fact that core purpose of Constitution and State is to protect individual liberty. When they do not have this baisc understanding, I see no reason to waste my time to rebutt their misconcieved ideas. They can first read my reply here about importance of individual liberty then come for any meaningful debate https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Divorce-in-india-150561.asp

@ Democratic Indian,

Self praise is no recommendation in addition to the evasive and sidetracking face saving attempt on your part. You could better have scuttled down my findings as well as Dr. MPS Ramani's observation about your views with authentic legal quotes. By quoting your earlier reply is merely an attempt on yopur part to act as judge of your own case..The question was not about understanding of Constitution, but contribution towards the solution to the problem of the querist, which you utterly failed to provide, except making some very vague and sidetracking statement, which was quite irrelevant to the problem

Even otherwise, aslo, about your quoted link, you have indirectly agreed to the views of Dr. MPS Ramani, as were endorsed by Ms. Raveena Kataria. She only supported the views of Dr. MPS Ramani's views, as she had agreed to Mr. MPS Ramani's viewpoints, and in turn you ventured to agree on the extended earlier views of Dr. MPS Ramani, as made by Ms. Raveena kataria by adding legal sections pertaining to divorce.

So, what is original in that thread on your part for which you have referred the link, seemingly very proudly?

Originally posted by : JIGYASU: Legal Analyst
	@ Democratic Indian, Self praise is no recommendation in addition to the evasive and sidetracking face saving attempt on your part. You could better have scuttled down my findings as well as Dr. MPS Ramani's observation about your views with authentic legal quotes. By quoting your earlier reply is merely an attempt on yopur part to act as judge of your own case..The question was not about understanding of Constitution, but contribution towards the solution to the problem of the querist, which you utterly failed to provide, except making some very vague and sidetracking statement, which was quite irrelevant to the problem Even otherwise, aslo, about your quoted link, you have indirectly agreed to the views of Dr. MPS Ramani, as were endorsed by Ms. Raveena Kataria. She only supported the views of Dr. MPS Ramani's views, as she had agreed to Mr. MPS Ramani's viewpoints, and in turn you ventured to agree on the extended earlier views of Dr. MPS Ramani, as made by Ms. Raveena kataria by adding legal sections pertaining to divorce. So, what is original in that thread on your part for which you have referred the link, seemingly very proudly?

Mr. Jigyasu, either you are too careless to properly read or having some issues understanding English language.  Clear solution has been provided if you read the reply carefully. There is no need to do spoon feeding on every query. If you are unable to understand anything, then rather than indulging in cheap game of one upmanship with irrelevant or vague comments, it is more dignified to seek clarity. Isn't it?

The fact that you are too careless to properly read or having some issues understanding English language further gets confirmed when you fail to understand what Dr. Ramani had said in another thread and reply of Ms Kataria disagreed Dr. Ramani's views. Neither I have agreed with Dr. Ramani's views. On the contrary my reply is exact opposite to the view of Dr. Ramani.

In Kerala there is a dominant Hindu community called Nayars. They follow what is called "Marumakkathayam". They have got "tharavad" with tharavad name.  Tharavad is similar to gotra in the patriarchial system. Children belong to tharavad of the mother. Father will be from another tharavad. They will have matrimonial relations with higher castes such as Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Their women used to be married into higher castes. The higher castes themselves follow the gotra system. Property succession was also along tharavad lines, until the Hindu Sucession Act, 1955 abolished Marumakkathayam. Basically the tharavad system also followed the Hindu scripttures in so far as the caste of the child. Brahmins had the best of both the worlds, one Brahmin wife at home and a nayar wife in the tharavad. Nayars are the back-bone of RSS in Kerala.

@ Democratic Indian,

You may live with your own assumptions, presumptions, contentions and pretension, etc., but facts cannot fade with any gimmic on your part.

Mr. Jigyasu, since you have no facts or logic in your defense in this debate, as a last resort, you are just resorting to psychological projection. Psychological projection is the psychological phenomenon where someone denies some aspect of their own behavior or attitudes and assumes instead that others are doing or thinking so.

Originally posted by : Democratic Indian
	Mr. Jigyasu, since you have no facts or logic in your defense in this debate, as a last resort, you are just resorting to psychological projection. Psychological projection is the psychological phenomenon where someone denies some aspect of their own behavior or attitudes and assumes instead that others are doing or thinking so.

@Democratic Indian,

Apparently, you seemed to have forgotten that the question pertained to your own defence about your wrong contentions with specific reference to the query of the author, NOT of mine. I have already made clear that .your assumptions, presumptions, contentions and pretension, etc., cannot fade away the facts with any of your gimmic. However, you are free to continue with your tirade. But the position will not change about your false contentions.

 

Mr. Jigyasu not a single of your reply has any substance except baseless inflamed emotional outbursts. All your replies point towards psychological projection been used as a defense mechanism. The author of this thread has been answered very well by me, if someone is not able to understand, it is not my problem. One who has not understood has to ask.

Democratic Inbdian alias slave of your repeated pretensions,

welcome with your stereotype pretensions!

Mr. Jigyasu facts stand on their own feet, they do not need your or anybody else's approval or support. Even Adv. Dhingra and Dr. Ramani failed to understand that logic and reasoning can be defeated only by proper logic and reasoning. It is a real pity that non of the posters, including yourself, have been able to understand simple concepts and facts and are just harping over irrelevant matters.

1. When child is born from parents of two different castes, child has inherent natural liberty or natural right to choose his caste of either parent.

2. The secular Constitution and State is not bothered about customs or scripttures that go against in matters of inherent natural rights or liberty. Rather it goes by scientific temper, purpose of reform and protection of individual liberty.

3. If any legislation of State is infringing on this inherent natural right or liberty, the petitioner can move High Court under guidance of an advocate.

What is there to be so upset or inflamed about this? If someone is getting inflamed by these facts, then matters are self evident.

Originally posted by : Democratic Indian
	Mr. Jigyasu facts stand on their own feet, they do not need your or anybody else's approval or support. Even Adv. Dhingra and Dr. Ramani failed to understand that logic and reasoning can be defeated only by proper logic and reasoning. It is a real pity that non of the posters, including yourself, have been able to understand simple concepts and facts and are just harping over irrelevant matters. 1. When child is born from parents of two different castes, child has inherent natural liberty or natural right to choose his caste of either parent. 2. The secular Constitution and State is not bothered about customs or scripttttures that go against in matters of inherent natural rights or liberty. Rather it goes by scientific temper, purpose of reform and protection of individual liberty. 3. If any legislation of State is infringing on this inherent natural right or liberty, the petitioner can move High Court under guidance of an advocate. What is there to be so upset or inflamed about this? If someone is getting inflamed by these facts, then matters are self evident.

@Democratic Indian alias slave of your repeated primitive age pretensions,

You are welcome again with your vague, evasive and hypocritic contentions and pretensions.

Your vulgar most with hypocritic unconstitutional fiction can never be the fact even in your whole life.

Howevber, your latest post makes me believe as if you still belong to some most primimitive jungle age. For example, your very first sentence in the post gives a clear impression that you are grossly ignorant about the legal system developed within the framework of the Indian Constitution, while you boast about the Constitution of India and also have assumed a fake name of "democratic Indian."

Before making your most irrelevant statement, "When child is born from parents of two different castes, child has inherent natural liberty or natural right to choose his caste of either parent," you should first have gone through the relevant laws of the land. Of course, YOUR VERY PRIMITIVE AGE SUPPOSITION, WHICH GIVES A VERY CLEAR INDICATION THAT YOU EVEN DON'T KNOW THAT THE LAW OF THE DEMOCRATIC INDIA DOES NOT ALLOW A CHILD ANY CUCH RIGHT BEFORE HE ATTAINS MAJORITY.

You seem to be so ignorant about laws of the land , like an infant child, that even you don' know that in most cases a child's wishes and rights depend solely upon the parents as well as the society he lives in, even after some more years beyond the age he attains majority.

While you boast about the secular Constitution, even the second para of your post denotes clearly as if you don't even know what is there in the secular Constitution of India, when you say, "the secular Constitution and State is not bothered about customs or scripttttures that go against in matters of inherent natural rights or liberty." Sinc the Constitution bothered about the innosence of a child, the laws made thereunder prescribed the age of majority of a person, which do not conform to your vulgar view. Even if some crime is committed by an underage person, he is tried under juvenile laws, not the laws meant for the adults.

Even your selection of a jungle lion as your avatar gives clear inkling that you believe in jungle life, not like a democratic Indian citizen as per the Constitution of India.

Anyway, I can only wish for the health of your deteriorating mental state!