I feel the ppl a2k and ruby are not aware of the line where "a law" seperates from "a practice". Even though me being a Hindu, I would say that Hinduism definitely has some wrong practices, although they are not allowed under our law. That can be determined as CIVIL CODE which hindus have to accept. But Muslim practices even though wrong are still practiced and accepted as law without even questioning them. That shows the blind faith towards something they do not comprehend completely or do not intend to in their life time.
If the Constitution must be followed, and the criminal code is being followed because of the Constitution, why should the UCC not be implemented...? Why should Hindu men be forced to give up polygamy, but not Muslims? Sure, Hindus, too, take second and third "wives." Point is, when bigamy is proven, these ppl are liable for prosecution -- whereas a Muslim is not. Why shouldn't this discrimination gall a Hindu man...? Why should the Criminal Procedure Code be followed by Indian Muslims, but not a common civil code...? If I say to a Muslim, cool, take as many wives as you want, but then also get your hand lopped off for stealing as per the Shariat, in what way am I being irrational? Muslims can't have one and not have the other - as per their convenience and we r supposed to be some secular country which Hindus are trying to take over Nazi style, this is the peculiar version of Indian secularism and Muslims really r oppressed even though they can do as they want in India. USA is also secular but it seems Muslims have no problem with UCC in US, just shows the special privileges of Muslims in India.
YOu have spent so much 'effort' in writing an article but what is the use as in which way does Muslim personal law apply to you and for that matter to me??? Muslim law applies only when both parties in dispute are muslims and therefore are willing to submit to Shariah law. How can it affect Secular India and what is there to laugh? If a muslim does not have faith in his own law and wishes to say get wedded also in accordance with the law of the land can you - in all your intelllgence tell us that Shariah only will still apply? That a divorce ruled by Talaq will be final without due processes of law as exist in our Nation??
Why go around like a bag of hot air on matters that the muslims could best sort out among themselves. They can and they will do so without any of our help. If you are really so interested in sorting out the matter convert to Islam and then speak about something that affects your life directly. Till then look out for some areas of your personal concern to write ahout or have you like the Sangh parivar run out of ideas and gimmicks and persecution mania to talk about?
oh please
by manofsan on May 13, 2005 03:12 AM
Your response was ridiculous. "does muslim law apply to you" oh please. The fact is that muslims are not some separate sovereign state within India. All inhabitants of India share the same space, and therefore should share a common system of law. When everyone is driving together on the same road, each one can't be following a different traffic law as they see fit. All developed countries have separation of Church and State -- this is of fundamental importance. If you can't understand the meaning of Separation of Church and State, then you are an irrational fundamentalist. Having a Uniform Civil Code doesn't mean that it will be some Hindu Code imposed on everyone else. It means separation of church and state, and it means laws should be based on reason, instead of on the arbitrariness of scripture.
let there be a national debate to define the word secularism.at present ,it just means appeasement of minorities,even at the cost of national safety and integrity. those who strive for secularism here never seem to comment on the denial of secular rights to minorities in islamic nations.compare the muslims in india with hindus in saudi arabia where u can't keep a 'gita' or perform pooja openly,neither can u cremate the body as per hindu rites.bodies of hindus killed in iraq war had to be flown to india for cremation because shariat does permits only burial.. here muslims even after death claim land for burial.
It's nice at least somebody is talking about uniform civil law. Anytime somebody speaks on this, he or she is called anti-muslim. That is wrong. Topics like these should often be debated. Laws should be there to lead life peacefully and happily and what the majority (not religion-wise) of us find to be just to everyone. For this to happen efficiently, they have to be constantly reformed keeping in tune with the times we live in. And they have to be reformed by the people we believe in after debates. A uniform civil law helps achieve these objectives in a less complex manner. Then the next task is how do you implement it. If a uniform civil law does not bring happiness to the majority within the minority then it is of no use. So the govt should frame the law first, ask people to volunteer to accept it, once in their lifetime, to avoid admin issues, ensure sufficient benefits to people who accept it. In due course of time, society itself will decide whether uniform civil code is good or bad. What's required is people should have freedom of options, the bureacrats should have all the headache associated with that freedom.
our power is our 'multi' character - in terms or religion, language, culture, society. Its obvious that foriegn powers want to undermine us and they have been creating/using hardliners in all communities (author?) successfully.
No body (including muslims. i am one!) in india should have any special privilege. no religion. no caste. let it be uniform for all. let financial status be the only criteria for reservation(that too only for education!).
And most imp, let the country be first and foremost than all these religion|caste|community|region!
RE:we are multicultural, multi religious. but secular ?
by Goutam on May 20, 2005 06:49 PM
This is response to Md Naushad.
A fast growing faith does not necessarily mean a it's a ethical or good faith. Some belief which is followed by many, is not necessarily correct. 500 years ago people used to believe Earth was at the centre of the universe and thinkers who wished to bring about a revolution were persecuted. Further there can be other advantages that people may take to a faith system, some of these advantages may not be humanitarian ot legitimate. If a particular tag provides immunity from certain crimes including polygamy, ethnic hatred, terrorism, treason etc, then there will be a lot of people who will fall for it. Lot of people will go in, just to fulfill their personal greed, lust, vengence, jealousy with the belief in the back of their minds that all wrong doings will be exonerated in the name of religion or belief system. Selfishness, greed and jealousy are the oldest features of man. And a belief which indulges them is not what the world needs.
RE:we are multicultural, multi religious. but secular ?
by Satya on May 16, 2005 09:27 AM
I believe we spend a lot of time discussing irrelevant issues.
How does uniform civil code affect any thing else except play right into communal forces hands?
The founding fathers wanted a Indian where everyone co-exists. If that means a different set of laws (esp. if the laws does not affect any other sect/s) so be it.
For the politician this topic is a easy way to while away time without doing anything useful. He/she wins votes stay in power and does nothing useful. Any useful work (improving infrastructure etc.) takes a lot of effort and bring in results slowly. We (the voters) are playing right into their hands.
First and foreemost this was written by a Hindu and there is nothing in the article that suggests her motivationother than stirring a hornet's nest.
In my mind in a democratic country every one co-exists. If uniform civil code is a thorn in the flesh and majority of muslims are ok with how things are why disturb the peace?
Instead we could look at why India is still backward in terms of standard of living? why is india still among the most corrupt countries? Why is the infrastructure so poor? These are more pressing issues.
A lot of research seems to have gone into the article and all such a waste of time.
RE:Wrong Choices!
by manofsan on May 12, 2005 03:11 AM
Satya's response is a defense of sectarian feudalism. A country has to have a single set of laws, and not some rigged patchwork. There has to be separation of Church and State, and not sectarian appeasement. As predicted, people like Satya can only respond with accusations of communal motivation, and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. If everyone drives on the road together, then you can't have one person following one type of traffic law and another person following a different type of traffic law. Smash-ups will result. A Uniform Traffic Code is an example of a Uniform Civil Code.
RE:Wrong Choices!
by Sriram vanamamalai on May 13, 2005 06:08 PM
No one is debating about having uniform code for Hindus and uniform code for muslims We are talking about having Uniform code for Indians. Does any one understand the meaning of the word Indian? Who cares if you are a muslim or a Hindu be what you are in your home and in your place of worship but outside be an Indian? is that too much to ask for? Why fight over religon and faith? Both religions have practises which are deplorable. Like Sati is not good same way the muhharam( May be I am wrong with the term here) when the muslims inflict pain on themselves is also bad.
Ms ruby and Mr naushad question the differences in Hindu culture. First of branding hinduism as a religion is ignorance hindusim is a faith. It does not have any hard and fast rule. It deeply beileves in karma. It is never said any where that you have to do this or that. Its people who brought in these practises. Questioning those are good. In Islam I believe there are hard and fast rules. So I again appeal to all INDIANS to accept UCC as our guide. let there be unity in the name of country. Sriram
RE:Wrong Choices!
by Ruby Nishat on May 12, 2005 03:58 PM
Instead of addressing the points raised by me most of the comments are beating towards the bush. Point out the weaknesses in the Muslim Personal Law. I am of the firm belief that each one will be answered logically and scientifically.
One need to brush up one's knowledge as regards the practice of Sati. This is not the place to quote from Hindu scriptures. Has one forgotten the Sati controversy when none other than Vijay Raje Scindia of VHP sat in for dharna in favour of Sati. Now don't say that VHP is an Muslim agent!
RE:Wrong Choices!
by Md Naushad on May 16, 2005 01:03 PM
It has been alleged that I aspire to migrate to other country. I take it very seriously. Where in my writing I have aspired so? It shows the level of so called tolerants in the society who are actually bent upon spreading ill-will in India and trying to break the secular fabric of society.
We Muslims, born in independent India, are Indian by birth and not by migration. we believe in Indian constitution which guarantees equal right of worship and way of life to each citizen at par. Those incomfortable with this basic concept of the constitution may surely migrate to any part of the world but not the believers of Indian cosntitution.
RE:Wrong Choices!
by sharfuddin on May 12, 2005 04:10 PM
You say that we were really well off until Muslim invaded India. First of all Islam reached the coastal part of India much before the Muslim kigs were invited by the local Hindu kings to India. secondly, in what way India was well off. The dalits, comprising of 70% of Indian population, were put to death for reading or reciting a single sentence from the books then available in India. The land properties were confined to 10% of the landlords and kings.and so on....
RE:Wrong Choices!
by Ruby on May 17, 2005 03:10 PM
govt should, first, cover all the communities under the list of schedule Caste, and not the Hindus alone. why this appeasement of Hindu SCs.
RE:Wrong Choices!
by Md Naushad on May 12, 2005 04:04 PM
1. Ruby Nishat is not abusing but only responding to the allegation made against Muslim women. Being a citizen of India, a democratic state, she has all the right to protect her belief. she has not referred Hindu scriptures on women. That will open a pandora box.
2. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. And no Islamic sword is hanging around. Stories of forcible conversions are old. Talk in term of presence when every incident takes place before video coverage and media persons. Take, for example, the Meenakshipuram conversion where Dalits embrace Islam in masses. It is suffocating caste system in Hindu society which compels the dalits to embrace Islam, even at the cost of getting deprived the fancy benefits of reservation in jobs.
