[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Religious conversion of Hindus to other faiths
I find Gopal Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana's comments very superficial.
To summarize, every society has personal laws, and many sects or
divisions in Hindu society are different from others in the way they
practise their religious creeds / conduct marriages etc.
But Hindu society laws are NOT above the law of the land. There are
a plethora of examples which can be cited to show that Indian Govt.
has stepped in and overturned " personal laws " when necessary.
The same general comments apply to Christianity. In both Hinduism and
Christianity the church and the state are separate. That's the way most
of us know.
In Islam it is not - which is why Islam is a functional theocracy.
I have selectively deleted what I found irrelevant in Gopal's
arguments against the implementation of UCC (Article 44). My comments
are summarized as below.
> X-News: soc.religion.hindu:2155
> From: gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana)
> Subject:Re: Religious conversion of Hindus to other faiths
> Date: 20 Mar 1996 05:32:48 GMT
> Message-ID:<4io5a0$k1c@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
>......[deleted].......<
>
> (1) In india, not only muslims have their own personal law,
>.....[" arguments " deleted]......<
Both Christianity and Hinduism view Temple/Church and State as
*necessarily* separate. This is a widely known fact, for many
centuries.
Islam, as the Koran and Shariah defines, is a functional theocracy.
This is the root of the conflict which strongly manifests in the
compliance of the Muslim personal law.
> (2) Family courts can take cognisance even of a custom or
> tradition by *any* community, ........ (deleted)
>
> (3) if there are problems with personal law, the solution
> can be through amendments to personal law,.... (deleted)
Comments: (2) and (3) are only correct by themselves. In fact
(3) does not make any sense w.r.t the actual question
I posed. Regarding (2) I think Gopal needs to know that
if the apex Court of India (Supreme Court) over-rules
any community court decision, then that stays.
For Muslims, amendments to their personal law (3) in Gopal's
post, cannot be made as such in view of the framework of the
Indian Constitution. For other societies, such is possible.
>
> (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.
I don't see any " inconsequential aberrations " in the implemenation
of the UCC. The biggest merit is that it emphasizes that all the
citizens of India are subject to a set of equal laws - which is NOT
the case now.
>
> (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.
I don't see any relevance of repeating this point. I have defined
secularism at the begining of this post. This is NOT a " christian "
law. Such concept of secularism existed much before, and is even found
in the Mahabharata. The functions of the ruler are to treat his subjects
equally and protect them from tyranny and injustice. The ruler is NOT
obligated to execute his duties according to some revealed scripture.
That's what I mean by secularism. I was unaware of some Christian brand
of secularism.
> (6) arguments for uniform civil code vs varied personal laws
> run analogous to centralization vs decentralization.
So what ? If implementation of a set of laws are for the better of a
society, then that is most welcome. Semantics hang-ups are basically
needless.
> (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].
Says who ? It *IS* difficult to enforce Supreme court directives when
there is support for theocracy. (Refer to the Shah Bano case.) The
barbaric practices of sati etc. were abrogated because Hindus are NOT
theocratic like Muslims.
> (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.
On the contrary; Ghosh's case, the preceding Shah Bano case must be
taken as very strong issues for completely striking off the antiquated
laws of the Shariah.
On a different note: the mormons in Utah committed polygamy. Now, when
Utah joined the Union, it was forced to abandon the polygamy practices
of the followers of Brigham Young. Many in Utah (as a recent National
Geograhic describes) may still practice polygamy, but the law exists.
That the law is not enforced, is a different matter. I am sure that had
the law been strictlty enforced, mormons in Utah would not have objected.
This reflects a very progressive looking attitude on the part of mormons.
(No mormon would rise to disrespect the Star and Stripes because the US
constitution legally stripped them of their polygamous rights a century
ago. At least I have not met any mormon who is against the US Constitution
on this. But I know a lot of Indian Muslims who resent the very fact that
there is an awareness amongst non-Muslims regarding UCC and related
issues.)
> (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 ..
Like it or not, your comments in (9) are not worth responding.
- cheers,
deb chatterjee
(a good samaritan)
