[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Religious conversion of Hindus to other faiths
In article <4il7ds$99t@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
<DCHATTERJEE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU> wrote:
>>From: gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (Please Listen)
> Truly it is a matter of injustice to Mrs. Ghosh. However in her
> case her husband, once he converts to Islam, can simply say NO to all
> the secular laws of Indian Constitiution, since personal law for
> Muslims - Sharia would override everything else.
> This explains why conversion to Christianity for Hindus is not so
> profitable, because Christians are " religiously " obligated to be
> governed by the laws of the land (Indian Constitution).
>
>|*i doubt if this can be a reasonable ground to do away with
>|*separate personal laws in india.
>
> In fact your doubts (or creative ambiguities) are paving stones for
> the denigration of the Indian Constitution. No secular society that
> I know makes constitutional compromises for its minorities. Freedom
> to practise one's religion is not equivalent to mindlessly irresponsible
> behavior. Moreover, this despicable saga of Gyanprakash Ghosh also
> suggests that Islam condones such irresponsible behavior when probably
> some Muslim would argue that such is far from the truth. However in the
> realistic sense, we do not see mullahs and other local bigwigs preventing
> such unfortunate incidents from happening.
>
> This quiet endorsement of irresponsible behavior by the likes of Ghosh
> creates the rift between Hindus and Muslims. A rift that always exists
> and shall continue to exist because of the very nature of Islam and Hindu
> culture. It is prudent for anyone to try to pacify matters rather than
> exacerbate undesired situations.
>
> It is basically this penchant for compromise, propelled by such ambivalence
> and indecision, that has generated chaos and mistrust for each other in
> the Hindu society.
>
> In my opinion, Article 44 should be enforced and the Sharia (or Muslim
> personal laws) should be abrogated, if both Hindus and Muslims are to
> live amicably in India.
>
> - cheers,
>
> deb chatterjee
> (a good samaritan)
>--
(1) In india, not only muslims have their own personal law,
but also christians, hindus etc. you must have heard about
mitakshara law, dayalbhaga law, aagamas etc. to say that
christians do not have personal laws of their own, and that
they are religously *obligated* to follow the law of the land
smells of ignorance. first, they have their own personal laws.
second, every one has obligation to follow the law of the land.
only that the personal laws are also the laws of the land.
(2) Family courts can take cognisance even of a custom or
tradition by *any* community, how so ever small the
community may be in terms of numbers; they only need
to shown 'remote-ness' of a custom. there could be
umpteen definitions of a marriage, for example, for
hindus. [the ceremony of putting jaggery and jeera on
the head, i guess, is the completion of marriage in
legal sense in a.p. for most hindu families, while this
function may be completely absent in the north ]
(3) if there are problems with personal law, the solution
can be through amendments to personal law, like hindu
marriages act, or anti-dowry acts etc. the solution
need not necessarily be by total repeal of personal
laws.
(4) if a case is to be made for uniform civil law, it should
be made on merits of such a law; not based on inconsequential
aberrations.
(5) any conceivable secular nation [was it euphemism for western
nations?] might be having a uniform civil law imposed on
all citizens, but it is never equally applied, since
the so-called uniform civil law is essentially a christian
law. [how can application of christian law on christians
equal to application of christian law on hindus?]. for
example, the definition of family being spouse and kids
only.
(6) arguments for uniform civil code vs varied personal laws
run analogous to centralization vs decentralization.
(7) Nothing aforesaid is against enforcing certain *principles*
of equity and justice, even if that requires amendments
to personal laws [just like anti-sati act, the four wives
provision can be abrogated].
(8) What i said in previous post is this: the *Ghosh* case does
not and should not form the basis for repeal of personal
laws.
(9) something unique about india is existence of personal
laws. removing them not only affects people of other
faiths but also hindus. mere fact that other democracies
have no separate personal laws should not be an argument
to take away what we have. [whether you believe or not,
i was not amused at Muslim women [protection of rights]
Act or whatever the name, of shah bano fame, because that
act ironically abridged the rights of muslim women. what
i am saying is that we should not throw our baby with ..
