ganpaty@ut-ngp.UUCP (S.Ganapathy) (03/09/86)
I am sure that all netters must be fully aware of the turmoil the Muslim community in India is undergoing due to the controversial judgement issued by the Supereme court restoring alimony payment to a divorced women. Inspite of this issue being about a month old there has hardly been any discussion on the net regarding this. This judgement has been so bitterly opposed by the clergy " Mullas " as no others has been in recent times. I would like to inititate a discussion on this issue. To me it seems to be a mix of religion and politics. The congress party has lost the Muslim vote bank in a spate of recent elections on just this single issue alone. India Today also had a very good cover article on this subject. I would like to know what netters especially those belonging to Islam think about all this ? In US I am not aware of any particular law applying to a certain segment of population. What is the role and relevance of the Muslim Personal Law in the present day world. My purpose is to initiate an intelligent and healthy discussion on this issue and do not intend to downgrade or hurt religious sentiments.
ams@philabs.UUCP (Ali Shaik) (03/10/86)
>the turmoil the Muslim community in India is >undergoing due to the controversial judgement >issued by the Supereme court restoring alimony ... >judgement has been so bitterly opposed by the clergy >" Mullas " as no others has been in recent times. I read "India Abroad" over the weekend, they have a report on this too. It seems Gandhi got some sort of discussion going among various groups, and the result is a proposed bill which would amend sec. 125 of the Indian Penal Code (this would make it impossible for women like Shah Bano to obtain reasonable alimony through the courts, and also anull the award by the Supreme Court in her favor). The minister for Energy a Mr ?Khan?, quit over this issue: he felt he couldnt continue in the Gandhi govt after this proposed bill (is this a try by Mr G. to get back the muslim vote?). Womens groups have protested against this bill. Now I can understand some amount of paranoia in the Muslim community, about the Hindu majority trying to interfere in Muslim (religious) affairs, but fighting the alimony decision is simply ridiculous. It falls entirely within the area of civil rights of women, and everyone should accept the Supreme Court decision. Some might say this is interference with Muslim law: I would like to mention that other "fundamental" tenets of Islam, like the need to have an Islamic State, are out of place and cannot be satisfied in India (*neither* for that matter can we have a Hindu State, or Christian State, or Jewish State in India). Muslims in a democratic country such as India have an opportunity, existing in very few places around the world, to evolve an Islamic community which is free of some of the outdated fundamentalist notions. Having a name like "Ali Shaik," (with or without the Bangalore) I do not want to appear to beat up on the Muslims in India: what I am against is unfairness based on religion, be it among Muslims or Hindus or Christians or Jews. So I would like to have more discussion on this topic, including info from those knowledgeable about Hindu law. Those who followed the stuff about Manu, etc would know all is not well there either. Specifically, property rights of Hindu women are pretty bad, aren't they: is it true that property would go to the eldest son rather than the widow? and that property is divided unequally among sons& daughters (sure, this holds among Muslims too..). And what correlation does this have with the dowry system: do lower property rights lead to lower "economic worth" of women? And last but not the least, much as I am for the things Mr. Gandhi seems to be doing these days, supporting the mullahs on this issue would be grounds to vote anti- Cong(I). Is he afraid of communal violence, or of losing the votes? The Minister for Energy deserves much support for both his views and his resignation. Ali Shaik ..ihnp4!philabs!ams ..ucbvax!/
ganpaty@ut-ngp.UUCP (03/12/86)
I agree fully with Mr. Ali Shaik regarding the handling of this issue by Rajiv Gandhi. Looks like he has caved in to the populist demand to revoke the supreme court judgement. The minister whom you referred to was so much for the judgement as per his interview that appeared in India Today. Obviously Rajiv is worried about the Muslim vote bank and is doing all he could to retain it. Mullas I think are dead against this judgement to ensure that their hold on the janta (Mulsim) is not tampered with.
raj@purdue.UUCP (Rajendra S Yavatkar) (03/12/86)
First I would like to point out that the Gandhi cabinet has given in to the exigencies of politics and introduced a new bill titled ``Muslim Women Divorce Bill'' which would effectively render the Supreme Court judgment ineffective. Arif Mohamad khan (central cabinet minister) resigned in protest against the Government's decision. Since we claim to be a secular democracy, I think the rights of an individual should be held higher than the rules dictated by religious leaders. The minorities in our country do deserve protection against discrimination. This can be ensured by making due provisions in the constitution as has been done in case of Harijans. But the muslim personal law goes against the princilpes on which our constitution has been based. It has hindered the process of integrating moslims with rest of the population and has benefited unscrupulous politicians and religious leaders like Shahi Imam who foment hatred for their personal benefit. To achieve the goal of building up a secular state, we first need to follow a uniform personal code which would be applicable to all Indian citizens, irrespective of which caste, creed or faith they belong to. Otherwise we soon will have 10 personal codes satisfying 10 different faiths which would only accelerate the process of disintegration. I would like to request the netters to take up the following question for discussion: Is(n't) it possible to have a truly secular constitution (devoid of any religion based personal codes) and still protect the rights of the minorities?
rajeev@sfsup.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/13/86)
> > >the turmoil the Muslim community in India is > >judgement has been so bitterly opposed by the clergy > >" Mullas " as no others has been in recent times. > in India (*neither* for that matter can we have a Hindu State, > or Christian State, or Jewish State in India). Muslims Why not, pray? If a part of India could become a Muslim State, why not the rest of India a Hindu State? I think this is entirely possible. In fact, I think India is already a Hindu State, and that it is secular only insofar as Hinduism itself is a secular religion. The republican, democratic ideas in the Indian constitution are a mix of indigenous Hindu/Buddhist ideas about laissez-faire tolerance and imported ideas of Greek origin. Orthodox Hinduism, with its ideas of caste, can easily accommodate Muslim and other religious minorities as "other castes" in its scheme of things; there is no real paradox there. In general, I would say that India is a Hindu State just as I would say that the US, despite its protestations to the contrary, is a Christian State. The tenets of Hinduism guide the Indian state, just as those of an enlightened Judaeo-Christian tradition guided the framers of the US constitution. The sad thing about the current problems is that Muslim fundamentalism plays into the hands of Hindu fundamentalists, who, while they are a small minority, are always present, and often well organized just as the Moral Majority and its ilk here are. I think that the spectre of Muslim fundamentalism is used by the RSS and others to gain political power at the expense of secular parties. Which is a vicious circle: it forces secular parties to become increasingly polarized along communal lines; the net result is probably the ascent of communalists. Everybody loses at that point. I think that, as least to me, it is self-evident that there should be a uniform civil and criminal code. I mean, are you going to send a Hindu to jail for theft, and cut off a Muslim's hand for the same offense? Indeed, if you have separate laws for different religions, why not have them for different castes as well? The situation is plainly ridiculous. What we need are secular laws based on humanistic, not religious considerations. In a secular country, people live by secular laws: for instance, although Islam outlaws alcohol, I am yet to see a Muslim in the US protesting against the easy availability of booze here . Another issue is that the mullahs often do not reflect the opinions of Muslim society as a whole, necessarily. For instance, I was astonished the pre-partition Muslim League never did very well (with its pro- partition sentiment) even in predominantly Muslim areas in any fair election -- I mean one that was not boycotted by the Congress . (Ref. M.J. Akbar, "India, the Siege Within", Penguin Books 1985). Then a band of over-zealous mullahs allied with a gentleman with a taste for power got what they wanted: a religious state. I think now most Indian Muslims are probably not terribly keen on the imposition of Islamic law: they probably have plenty of other things to worry about. > not well there either. Specifically, property rights of Hindu > women are pretty bad, aren't they: is it true that property > would go to the eldest son rather than the widow? and that property > is divided unequally among sons& daughters (sure, this holds > among Muslims too..). And what correlation does this have with > the dowry system: do lower property rights lead to lower > "economic worth" of women? Although the Manusmrti is often spoken of as though it were the gospel truth, I understand that it was less of a code of law than a wishlist by the vested interests: you will notice that not only does it try to oppress women, its pronouncements against low-caste and outcaste people are pretty outrageous as well. It is hard to believe, in the light ot strong Mother-Goddess worship and the sanctity associated with mother and woman, that there is much that is fundamentally anti-woman in Hindu thought. (From my sparse understanding of Semitic religions, this is probably not the case there: women have a distinctly inferior place in the scheme of things.) There have certainly been unsavoury practices, but reform is coming steadily if slowly: witness widow remarriage, dowry abolition, etc. -- these are beginning to happen. It is also interesting to note that property rights vary according to region: till recently, the matriarchal castes in Kerala used to inherit property through the woman: men got only small shares. Sri Rajeev ihnp4!attunix!rajeev [Dislaimer re AT&T]
swami@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/13/86)
Re: Supreme Court judgement re: alimony for Muslim women, and fundamentalist's
reaction to it:
The Congress(I) introduced a bill in Parliament called the Mulim women's
rights protection act or something like that. The bill was widely opposed
as kowtowing to the fundamentalists, denying women alimony rights, and
discriminating against muslim women on the basis of religion. A Union minister,
Arif Mohammed Khan (name?) resigned in protest. Several Congress(I) members
criticised the bill. Then Rajiv asserted that the bill was intended to protect
women, and this pacified the Congress(I) members! Even 'The Hindu' which is
usually pro-Government, indicated that the bill was ill-advised. There is
also widespread speculation that the bill may be ruled unconstitutional
by the Supreme Court, on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of
religion.
My views? Evident, I think, from the tone of the above posting!
Note: The above is what i gathered from reading news reports, and my not be
entirely accurate. corrections welcome.
swami@a.cs.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4, pur-ee, convex}!uiucdcs!swami
"i am so full of good intentions, i MUST be on the road to hell"kumar@hpcea.HP (Arvind Kumar) (03/15/86)
Timeout. Definition time: sec.u.lar, adj., 1. Of or pertaining to the temporal rather than the spiritual 2. Not specifically pertaining to religion or a religious body 3. Pertaining to or advocating secularism 4. Not living in a monastery or religious community. Said of the Clergy. 5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century 6. Lasting from century to century sec.u.lar.ism, n., The view that consideration of the present well-being of mankind should predominate over religious considerations in civil affairs or public education. (American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin, 1981) Take it away, guys.
raj@purdue.UUCP (Rajendra S Yavatkar) (03/16/86)
In article <172@sfsup.UUCP>, rajeev@sfsup.UUCP (S.Rajeev) writes: > In fact, I think India is already a Hindu State, and that it is secular > only insofar as Hinduism itself is a secular religion. The republican, > democratic ideas in the Indian constitution are a mix of indigenous > Hindu/Buddhist ideas about laissez-faire tolerance and imported ideas of > Greek origin. Orthodox Hinduism, with its ideas of caste, can easily > accommodate Muslim and other religious minorities as "other castes" in > its scheme of things; there is no real paradox there. In general, I The basic tenet of our constituition is to move away from the fundamentalism of any religion. What you are suggesting will simply help perpetuate the ills of orthodox Hinduism. Secondly, creating additional castes will simply add to the existing problems of rampant casteism. > constitution. The sad thing about the current problems is that Muslim > fundamentalism plays into the hands of Hindu fundamentalists, who, while > they are a small minority, are always present, and often well organized > just as the Moral Majority and its ilk here are. I think that the spectre > of Muslim fundamentalism is used by the RSS and others to gain political > power at the expense of secular parties. Which is a vicious circle: it > forces secular parties to become increasingly polarized along communal > lines; the net result is probably the ascent of communalists. Everybody > loses at that point. We think the spectre of Muslim fundamentalism is existing and is not raised by RSS or any other organization. Secondly, organizations like RSS have never acquired any power. We think it is fashionable to use RSS as a whipping boy without trying to understand what it stands for. The concept of Hindu Rashtra professed by RSS encompasses all indians irrespective of their religious beliefs. Also, the concept of Hindu Rashtra does not mean spreading Hinduism but the revival of Indian values and culture. We have yet to see any so-called liberal-minded newspaper or magazine attacking fundamentalist organizations like Jamate-e-Islami who have exploited the innocent muslims by arousing fear in their minds. These organizations also have captured power in some states and cities like Hyderabad and their 1-point manifesto is spreading hatred. Raju Yavatkar Rajiv Khanna Purdue University.
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (03/17/86)
Since this dialogue seems to be taking place in a world-wide forum
that is primarily of North American readership, would somebody versed
in the matter please explain briefly exactly what is "shariat", what
Muslim law says about divorce settlements, what the Indian Supreme
Court did, and what the government's proposed legislation would do?
Thanks.
Michael C. Berch
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb