[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Religious conversion of Hindus to other faiths
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Religious conversion of Hindus to other faiths
-
From: gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana)
-
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 10:29:14 -0500
-
Expires: Thu, 30 May 1996 00:00:00 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Academic disscussions only incorporated
-
References: <4j83tt$div@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator)
-
Summary: conversions hindu muslim personnel law
In article <4j83tt$div@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
<dchatterjee@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU> wrote:
> I find Gopal Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana's comments very superficial.
[highly educative parts of the post deleted].
now, can you please write down verbatim, for our benefit, which
specific provisions of the constitution are offensive, and which
provisions limit supreme court's ability in matters specific to
muslim personal law while not limiting its ability in other
personal laws such as christians'.
> I was unaware of some Christian brand of secularism.
(a) in the secularism that you are talking about, how will a
marriage be defined?
[1] a legal contract or
[2] a union of souls, [where anullment of marriage is
a last resort of irreconcilable differences]
[3] an intermediate variation?
Selecting one of them automatically implies a religious bias,
for [1] is muslim marriage, [2] is hindu marriage and [3] is
christian.
(b) same questions as in (a) arise in the matter of divorce
[1] anullment according to the terms of contract of marriage?
[2] anullment after a prologed mediation and judicial separation
procedures do not result in reconcilliaton?
[3] by a variation in between?
(c)In the secular law you are visualizing how will
inheritance of a adopted child be decided?
[1] from adopted parents and siblings?
[2] from sapinda relationships spanning some 7 generations?
(d) In the secular law that you conceive, how will a
family be defined?
[1] spouse and kids?
[2] on the lines of hindu-undivided family HUF?
we then have this *basic* philosophical question:
does closing the eyes make the world non-existent?
> 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.
oh. now you are *not* talking about constitution or directive
principles of state policy any more. you are essentially saying
"we the hindus are better than you the muslims". Due to my
*superficial* knowledge, i do not venture this line of
*reasoning*
i do not know what is *difficult* in the above para of yours:
to borrow your phrase - - seems to be a "creative ambiguity" --
In shah bano case, the supreme court, i thought, did not find any
problem in upholding the provisions of the of civil law
irrespective of the position of shariat. it is another matter
that parliament chose to anull its verdict through legislation.
gopal
