Dearest Balu,
For your kind information, I have read Manusmriti, though surely not as thoroughly as I have read the Income Tax Act! I am no pseudo-liberal who takes a sadistic delight in denigrating my own culture after having read a couple of Angrezi books. Swami Vivekananda said that Hinduism isn't afraid of the Truth. The greatest thing about Hinduism is its inbuilt self-correction mechanism. So whilst we had the system of Sati—women being set alight on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands; we also had people like Raja Ram Mohan Roy who rose in protest and had it banished. What distinguishes Hinduism from the Semitic religions is that the Hindus do not treat their scriptures as Words of God, unlike the followers of Semitic religions. Manusmriti, many people believe, says nasty things about women and Shudras. May be we can argue those aren't original verses, but later interpolations. I am no scholar of Sanskrit and have no means of knowing whether the English texts faithfully render what Manu wanted to say originally. But from what I have read from writings of eminent and unbiased authors—and not what Arun Shourie describes as "eminent historians" mind you--it's difficult to believe Manu had a high regard for women.And yes I said "Manu-like" to convey a sexist attitude. This I did despite having known that Friedrich Nietzsche, probably the greatest German philosopher and one of Osho Rajneesh's all-time favourites, had this to say about the Manusmriti:"Close the Bible and open the Manu Smriti. It has an affirmation of life, a triumphing agreeable sensation in life and that to draw up a lawbook such as Manu means to permit oneself to get the upper hand, to become perfection, to be ambitious of the highest art of living".And I don't think I contradicted myself by quoting from the HMA the definition of Sapinda. Hinduism is much bigger than Manusmriti. While we have had a history of oppression of women and other people, we have been able to move on, because we didn't believe our scriptures had any divine sanction. Let's not strip our great heritage of its greatest strength—self-criticism and self-correction. Namaskara,CA Sanjeev Bedi--- In http://us.mc508.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ICAI_CIRC_MEERUT_CA%40yahoogroups.com, "balunand" wrote:>> Dear Sanjeevji,> > I am a little surprised and disappointed that you too find it > fashionable to indulge in Manu bashing, a normal practice that I > have found among people who have never bothered to read what he has > written. Nowhere does Manu say that mother is not part of the > ancestry. Whether in inheritence or offering funeral oblations the > three generations from both father and mother's side are always > considered. In fact you contradict yourself in your last para when > you quote the definition of sapindaship as per HMA. Are you under > the impression that the 500 odd politicians sitting in our > parliament suddenly came up with that definition in 1956??. In > reality it is nothing but an english version of Shastric law. > > > --- In http://us.mc508.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ICAI_CIRC_MEERUT_CA%40yahoogroups.com, "Sanjeev Bedi" > wrote:> >> > Hi Priyank,> > > > Lineal ascendant/descendan t refers to people who form a vertical, > > unbroken line in their relationship. An ascendant is usually more > > remote than a grandfather. It seems the draftsmen decided to use > the > > words "lineal ascendant/descendan t" instead of saying Father, > > Grandfather, Great grandfather and so on. In terms of Section 56, > > this line can be extended to any degree. Since Ascent refers to a > > thing going skywards, and Descent means heading down south, it is > > clear that people related to you horizontally viz your cousins > > aren't your relatives for the purposes of Section 56 at least. > > > > Probably there has been a case or two where it's been held that > > lineal ascendant/descendan t refers to a person related to us > through > > the male lineage only—our mother, since she took our father's name > > after marriage, changed her lineage. Another school of thought is > > that the mother's mother i.e. the Nani and the mother's father > i.e. > > the Nana too are relatives within the meaning of Section 56 and > > there shouldn't be any problem accepting gifts from them. > > > > I am more inclined to believe the second line of reasoning. > > Especially in these times it seems too sexist and Manu-like to > argue > > that mother's Mom and Dad have got nothing to do with our > ancestry. > > But for our mothers we wouldn't be here. But for our fathers we > > could still have been here since this is the age of artificial > > insemination! In the absence of any statutory definition of lineal > > ascendant/descendan t in the I T Act, we can safely derive our > > meaning from the sense in which these words are understood > > ordinarily-- we have descended from our Mother as much as, if not > > more than, our father. > > > > The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 also defines a "Sapinda relationship" > as > > a relationship that "extends as far as the third generation > > (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the mother, and the > fifth > > (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the father, the line > being > > traced upwards in each case from the person concerned, who is to > be > > counted as the first generation"> > > > So the HMA recognizes "ascent through the mother".> > > > Based on the above, in my opinion, Nanas and Nanis are relatives. > > > > Thanks,> > > > CA Sanjeev Bedi> > > > > > --- In http://us.mc508.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ICAI_CIRC_MEERUT_CA%40yahoogroups.com, "priyankkabra" > > wrote:> > >> > > Who all are covered in Lineal Ascendent or Descendent?> > > Whether father, mother, grandfather, grandmother paternal as > well > > as > > > maternal, i.e., dada dadi n nana nani are covered?
No comments:
Post a Comment