muppala@sunybcs.UUCP (Shankar Muppala) (12/09/85)
* In a recent case involving payment of alimony to an ex-wife, the arguement put forward by the ex-husband was that they were Muslims and hence don't have to pay alimony according to the law, but according to their religion. The case was finally heard and the supreme court tendered a decision in favour of the lady involved in the divorce. This case clearly implies that the law does not favour any religion, but it has been helping the victims of injustice. What bother's me is that in the 20th century, people still take recourse to religion for issues such as these. The supreme court clearly proved that human beings are human beings, irrespective of the religion they follow. In another case involving a Hindu couple's divorce, the ex-husband claimed that the lady was working and hence does'nt need alimony. But a magistrate pointed out that the income earned by his ex-wife was not sufficient, hence ordered alimony payments as well as child support. In the first case, as a protest to the supreme courts judgement, about 100,000 people led a peaceful morcha in Bombay. This just proves that democracy is working in India.** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
rao@cvl.UUCP (Kambhampati Subbarao) (12/10/85)
In article <2599@sunybcs.UUCP> muppala@sunybcs.UUCP (Shankar Muppala) writes: >* > >In a recent case involving payment of alimony to an ex-wife, >the arguement put forward by the ex-husband was that they were >Muslims and hence don't have to pay alimony according to the >law, but according to their religion. The case was finally >heard and the supreme court tendered a decision in favour of >the lady involved in the divorce. An interesting postscript to the above case was that after having been honored by many feminist groups in India, the woman in question withdrew her writ retroactively and criticized supreme court's judgement in her favor on the grounds that the judgement violates the religious laws of Islam. The woman, above 70 yrs of age, gave a press conference from behind a curtain and said that the elders of the mosque "convinced" her of the far reaching ramifications of the judgement. One only hopes that some sort of 'religious pressure' did not lead to her decision. -rao -- Arpa: rao@cvl
raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar) (12/11/85)
In article <1031@cvl.UUCP> rao@cvl.UUCP (Kambhampati Subbarao) writes: >In article <2599@sunybcs.UUCP> muppala@sunybcs.UUCP (Shankar Muppala) writes: >>* >> >>In a recent case involving payment of alimony to an ex-wife, >>the arguement put forward by the ex-husband was that they were >>Muslims and hence don't have to pay alimony according to the >>law, but according to their religion. The case was finally >>heard and the supreme court tendered a decision in favour of >>the lady involved in the divorce. > > An interesting postscript to the above case was that after having >been honored by many feminist groups in India, the woman in question >withdrew her writ retroactively and criticized supreme court's judgement >in her favor on the grounds that the judgement violates the religious laws of >Islam. The woman, above 70 yrs of age, gave a press conference from behind >a curtain and said that the elders of the mosque "convinced" her of the >far reaching ramifications of the judgement. > > One only hopes that some sort of 'religious pressure' did not lead to >her decision. >-rao If not 'pressure' from religious Bosses then why else do you think she changed her mind ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
bhatnaga@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Bhatnaga) (12/14/85)
> > One only hopes that some sort of 'religious pressure' did not lead to > >her decision. > >-rao > > > If not 'pressure' from religious Bosses then why else > do you think she changed her mind ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? If recent reports in India Abroad and India Today are any indication then she was 'visited' by numerous religious leaders after the supreme court judgment. She also faced ostracism from 'neighborhood' and family members (two of her sons were appreciated as 'ideal muslims' by the people who were not on her side of the fence). Quite interestingly only ten days before taking her case back, she filed another suit in the local court of Indore (she belongs to Indore) against her husband to take actions towards implementing the supreme court judgment. One should not expect a 70 year old lady to win a war against the rest of the world and against the laws of religion in practice for hundreds of years. Most likely her decision was not so much because of 'sudden realization of religion' as much of the pressure from the 'bosses'. Still, in my opinion she deserves all the praise. Before yielding she started and fought a war which can be termed to be the first of its kind in India or possibly in the world- a woman's fight against fundamentalism. I sizable percent of moderate muslims, big percentage of muslim and non-muslim Indian women a significant percentage of all men had their sympathies with her. It must also have forced some people to do some soul-searching. Neeraj Bhatnagar ------ ---------
rao@cvl.UUCP (Kambhampati Subbarao) (12/14/85)
In article <4271@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> bhatnaga@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Bhatnaga) writes: > Still, in my opinion >she deserves all the praise. Before yielding she started and fought a war >which can be termed to be the first of its kind in India or possibly in the >world- a woman's fight against fundamentalism. I sizable percent of moderate >muslims, big percentage of muslim and non-muslim Indian women a significant >percentage of all men had their sympathies with her. It must also have >forced some people to do some soul-searching. > >Neeraj Bhatnagar >------ --------- I always felt a uneasy about the special status the Indian judicial system gives the Muslim minority.. the foremost among those being allowing such things as polyandry, divorces which put the male partner at tremendous advantage etc. All this when there is a separate sensible 'marital law' governing the rest of the country. I mean religious tolerance is one thing and giving the type of privileges as above another. I do not want our system to parallel those of some arab countries where the law of the land blindly enforces the tenets of the majority religion on people who do not belong to it. But such muslim marital practices as are condoned by the indian courts are clearly unjust (by any rational standards) and discriminate against the muslim women while trying to give religious independence to 'islam'. To me giving religious freedom or independence does (should) not imply that state should condone practices of a group that are deemed to be harmful to some other citizen of the state just to preserve the speicial status of the said group. (An interesting example i came across is the case of a chrisitian fundamentalist group some where in midwest usa who believe that any type of medical help is against god. I believe the members of the group try to 'faith heal' their ailing children and this has caused high 'infant mortality rates' among the group. Now should or should'nt US prosecute the group members?!) Thus I think it is time indian penal code was changed to make such special previleges accorded to muslims void.. any comments? -rao -- Arpa: rao@cvl
raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar) (12/16/85)
In article <1046@cvl.UUCP> rao@cvl.UUCP (Kambhampati Subbarao) writes: > I always felt a uneasy about the special status the Indian judicial >system gives the Muslim minority.. the foremost among those being allowing >such things as polyandry, divorces which put the male partner at tremendous >advantage etc................... > ...................... (An interesting example >i came across is the case of a chrisitian fundamentalist group some where >in midwest usa who believe that any type of medical help is against god. >I believe the members of the group try to 'faith heal' their ailing children >and this has caused high 'infant mortality rates' among the group. Now >should or should'nt US prosecute the group members?!) >Thus I think it is time indian penal code was changed to make such special >previleges accorded to muslims void.. any comments? >-rao The state of relations and the amount of trust that exists between Muslim minority and Hindu majority is such that any attempt to modify constitution or I.P.C. will draw strong opposition from Muslims. The reaction against the supreme court judgement is a good indication. The educated section of Muslims is opposed to the practices that you call 'special privileges'. It is the fundamentalist leadership of Muslims in present day India that seems to have a vested interest in not accepting any changes even though they may be for the benefit of their community. At the slightest mention, the bogey of 'danger to religious identity of Muslims' is raised. I don't think they have reasons to feel so insecure. May be, Hindus should come forward, reach out to Muslim community and reduce their fears!! Until the leadership of Muslims goes into the hands of educated class and the demand for change comes from within the community, it will be very diffcult to make any changes and above all, any such impositions will be undemocratic. Looking at the ways of Islam in rest of the world in general, it seems that their jurisprudence may never fit in with that of Hindus in India!! Look at the way Pakistan is going. How many Indians will accept an interest free banking system? Once again, it will take an educated and reality oriented Muslim community to accept any changes and breaks from the past. If that does not happen, then what........... What solution do you have for those in US who believe in 'faith healing' and will not go to doctors even if their children may die. Should they be granted 'religious freedom' ? What if the size of this minority is as sizable as that of Muslims in India?