NO
I totally disagree
Fundamental Rights are THOSE RIGHTS WHICH DO NOT IMPUNGE ON OTHERS AND HAVE DEVASTATING EFFECT.
Any INDIAN CITIZEN expressing views which are ANTI NATIONAL CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
To discuss on your examples
SATI was playing with life of an INNOCENT LIFE OF A WIFE WHICH WAS DONE FORCIBLY BY THE SOCEITY
THE SAME JOHAR PERFORMED TO AVOID PERSECUTION AT THE HANDS OF INVADERS IS BEING STILL REVERRED IN HISTORY
TODAY IF A WIFE OF HER OWN VOLITION ENDS HER LIFE IF THE HUSBAND DIES BECAUSE OF THE LOVE BY RESORTING TO SOME KIND OF YOGA OR JUST CONSUMING ANYTHING IN WHAT CATEGORY YOU WILL PUT THIS DEATH
BUT THE SAME WIFE , IF SHE GOES TO A COURT OF LAW TO TAKE PERMISSION TO END HER LIFE OUR CONSTITUTION MAY NOT AGREE , OR EVEN US SUP COURT MAY NOT AGREE
THE DEMAND TO END ONES LIFE WILL COME UNDER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OR NOT
IF RIGHT TO EXPRESS AND RIGHT TO LIFE CAN BE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS WHY NOT RIGHT TO END ONES LIFE
AND YOU ARE GIVING SATI EXAMPLE AS IF WHENEVER A HUSBAND USED TO DIE IN INDIA HIS WIFE USED TO DIE WITH HIM
IT WAS FORCED SATI WHICH WAS BAD AND IT INFRINGED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIVE
UNTOUCHABILITY WAS NEVER A PART OF ARYAN CULTURE AND I CAN PROVE IT WITH INNUMERABLE INSTANCES FROM OUR KNOWN SCRIPTURES
BUT AS TIMES WENT BY IT BECAME A WAY OF LIFE
BHAGWAT GITA STANDS AS A SINGLE SCRIPTURE WHICH TRIED TO REVOLUTIONIZE THIS SYSTEM AND BRINGING ALL THE CASTES AT EVEN KEEL
IF YOU GO THROUGH CHAPTER 18 , THE LORD SAYS I HAVE CREATED ALL VARNAS (NOT CASTE) ON THE BASIS OF SWABHAVA (HIS THOUGHTS AND WHAT HE WIL:L NATURALLY DO) AND KARMA (HIS DAILY ACTS)
IF WE GO BY WHAT HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED BY THE LORD FOR A BHRAMIN , I AM AFRAID , RARELY WE MAY FIND A FEW IN WORLD WHO WILL PASS THE TEST
SO WHEN UNTOUCHABILITY INFRINGED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIVE THIS WAS TO BE BANNED
AND TO THIS EXTENT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL WRITERS ARE TO BE PRAISED TO GIVE THEM THIS RIGHT TO LIVE BY DECLARING UNTOCHABILITY AS A PENAL OFFENCE
BUT EVEN SO HAS IT BEEN ERADICATED FULLY
ASK YOURSELF AND YOU WILL KNOW THE ANSWERS
CHILD MARRAIGE CAME INTO PLAY TO AVOID FORCIBLE CARRYING OF UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS BY THE THEN RULERS
WE HAVE BEEN RULED BY INVADERS FOR 1000 YRS
STILL OUR CULTURE IS VIBRANT
TO GIVE YOU A FEW EXAMPLES TO NEGATE THAT CHILD MARRAIGE WAS EVER A WAY OF LIFE IN OUR CULTURE
ONE CAN QUOTE DEVI SITA IN RAMAYANA , DRAUPADI IN MAHABHARATA , RUKMINI -THEY WERE NOT CHILD WHEN MARRIED
AND ABOVE ALL OUR LADIES HAD A CHOICE TO SELECT THEIR HUSBANDS LIKE SWAYAMVARS WERE HELD
AND LOVE MARRAIGES WERE ALSO DONE AS LORD KRISHNA DID IN CASE OF RUKMINI
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MAY NOT BE DECIDED ON YARDSTICK OF CULTURE
BUT THEY MUST BE DECIDED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF WHAT IMPACT WILL IT HAVE ON OTHERS IN SOCEITY
WHY SUPREME COURT MADE PUBLIC SMOKING AS A PENAL OFFENCE
BECAUSE IT HAD DEVASTATING EFFECT ON OTHERS HEALTH AND ALSO GAVE A WRONG SIGNAL TO HE YOUNG CHILDREN
IF YOUR SOCEITY IS SO BOLD COME IN OPEN AND SUPPORT THE PERSONS WHO HAVE EXPRESSED SOMETHING WHICH THE ISLAMIC WORLD SAYS IS AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS
YOU WILL NOT DO SO
THAT CANNOT BE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
BECAUSE THE RERACTIONS MAY BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HINDUS OR BUDDHISTS DO
COMING TO YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION , NUDITY
NUDITY IN PRIVATE MAY BE ALLOWED BUT EXPRESSING IT PUBLICLY MAY NOT BE ALLOWED
WHAT YOU DO IN YOUR BEDROOM OR YOUR HOTEL ROOM IS YOUR PERSONAL MATTER BUT IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE TAPED AND SOLD FOR PUBLIC VIEWING
The Other day You will demand one is FREE TO MAKE INTERCOURSE IN PUBLIC
IF YOU WANT TO DO AWAY WITH 'A' CERTIFICATE ITS YOUR WISH
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT ALLOW IT , IN MY OPINION
PL REVERT WITH YOUR VALUABLE RESPONSE SO THAT COURSE OF LEARNING GOES ON
WITH REGARDS
Mob : 9929596546