08-12-2005, 12:48 AM
K.ram,
All ethics is based on reciprocity. do unto others...
Yes we need new laws. But a simple clause for reciprocity in law will go a long way in helping with many of these issues.
Even irrational terrorists will feel an awakening jolt if the irrationality is reciprocated.
Open democratic societies are under attack from opportunistic and subversive elements like islamists and marxists that use the system for their own benefit when it suits them, but would work to subvert the system whenever an opportunity presents.
Open democratic societies have to demand 'reciprocity' from such elements.
Why should someone qualify to run in an election when his party's guiding manifestos are openly anti-democratic?
Why should someone who is utterly intolerant on religious matters be given benefits under the religious protection sections of our laws?
Why should saudis be allowed to donate to muslim causes in India to build mosques or fund madrassas, if hindus can't fund temples or hindu religious orgs in Saudi arabia?
Say, if reciprocity clause existed, and my efforts to donate to build a Ram temple in Saudi arabia were rejected by Saudi authorities, then I could file a PIL and demand under the reciprocity laws that Saudi donations for mosque building in India be stopped. Currently it is not feasible to stop such donations from the saudis.
Legally it should be possible to incorporate reciprocity requirements in the law. If the religious/cultural/minority organizations show themselves as hypocrites, at least their organization's benefits/accreditations etc can be challenged in a court. Currently they sit happily in their cocoons enjoying all the benfits of the open democratic societies, while biding their time for subversion.
Of course ideological battles are not only fought through law and order. Individuals and organizations will and should continue to do their part in the ideological battle. But legal backing helps a lot. IMDT wasn't repealed even after so many agitations and ideological posturing. But was repealed because it couldn'tr stand the law.
All ethics is based on reciprocity. do unto others...
Yes we need new laws. But a simple clause for reciprocity in law will go a long way in helping with many of these issues.
Even irrational terrorists will feel an awakening jolt if the irrationality is reciprocated.
Open democratic societies are under attack from opportunistic and subversive elements like islamists and marxists that use the system for their own benefit when it suits them, but would work to subvert the system whenever an opportunity presents.
Open democratic societies have to demand 'reciprocity' from such elements.
Why should someone qualify to run in an election when his party's guiding manifestos are openly anti-democratic?
Why should someone who is utterly intolerant on religious matters be given benefits under the religious protection sections of our laws?
Why should saudis be allowed to donate to muslim causes in India to build mosques or fund madrassas, if hindus can't fund temples or hindu religious orgs in Saudi arabia?
Say, if reciprocity clause existed, and my efforts to donate to build a Ram temple in Saudi arabia were rejected by Saudi authorities, then I could file a PIL and demand under the reciprocity laws that Saudi donations for mosque building in India be stopped. Currently it is not feasible to stop such donations from the saudis.
Legally it should be possible to incorporate reciprocity requirements in the law. If the religious/cultural/minority organizations show themselves as hypocrites, at least their organization's benefits/accreditations etc can be challenged in a court. Currently they sit happily in their cocoons enjoying all the benfits of the open democratic societies, while biding their time for subversion.
Of course ideological battles are not only fought through law and order. Individuals and organizations will and should continue to do their part in the ideological battle. But legal backing helps a lot. IMDT wasn't repealed even after so many agitations and ideological posturing. But was repealed because it couldn'tr stand the law.