as long as India remains a secular country, it has to give freedom of religious belief to its citizens. And why to single out Muslims alone for having personal laws? Doesn't Hindus of this country have their own laws. Does the tribal communities, though a part of Hindu society, not have their own laws? Why the tribals kept out of purview of Hindu laws? why the Hindus be allowed exemption from income tax, resulting into a loss of thousands of millions to Indian exchequer.
And who says the Muslims Personal Law is gender biased. I am a Muslim woman and I find that the status of Muslim women is much better than that of Hindu women because of lesser percentage of polygamy, lesser rate of divorce, absence to dowry deaths, absence of bride burning, absence of practices like maitrikarar, beejdaan, sati etc. Today the percentage of Muslims women for every 1000 men is 935 comparing to 930 for Hindu women. It is because of absence of practices like female foeticide, female infanticide, deprivation of female child etc. The remarriage of widow, among Muslims, is not taboo like for Hindu widows.
Get your facts right
by Sriram Vanamamalai on May 11, 2005 07:11 PM
According to Mr Mohammad Naushad in South Ravana is worshipped???? Has he ever been to the south? Has he ever seen a temple for Ravana? Secondly inspite of having some differences in teh Hindu culture in the end we are trying to unite the country how can you call it secularism when 1 person is being treated differently than the other. Please think of the nation as a mother to whom no child is different from the other. We are all Indians before we are Hindus or Muslims. Law is for India not for Hindus and Muslims. Uniform Civil code is right as per that wether a person is Hindu or Muslim will be treated the same why this difference? By creationg differences we are just creating animosityies and hatred Do we really want that?
RE:Secular?
by Ravi on May 12, 2005 02:54 PM
ucc means that there should not be any privileges/punishments to hindus or for that matter any other religion (includes muslims too).
how abt having a personal criminal code and applying sharia for muslims like chopping-off hands for theft, stoning to death etc.
RE:Secular?
by subbaraman on May 11, 2005 07:59 PM
One does not know the source of the wonderful knowledge of Mohammad Naushad: Ravana is worshipped in South? Cow not worshipped in South? I think he should check his facts
Mulsim law
by Vijaya Kumar on May 11, 2005 06:34 PM
The question here is not if one religion is better for its devotees or not. Secular by definition, the religion should be separate from any administrative decision. In India, it is not being done. When a divorce comes, for example, Muslims want their religous law to be applied. That is the case with inheritence etc.etc. There should be one law-your religion is your personal business, when the administration of law comes, it should be one. If you are better off with Muslim religion, that is fine, no one is here to argue with you. But if you want judiciary to be tainted with religion, then we have a problem. Vijaya Kumar
RE:Secular?
by Mohammad Naushad on May 11, 2005 12:06 PM
The points raised by Ms. Ruby Nishat needs a serious notice by the so called secularist. The terms secularism, in Indian context, is not irreligiousity, but giving equal regard to all the religions. the uniform civil code is a western concept. In India even the Hindus have contradictory beliefs. If in north Lord Rama is worshiped, in the south his enemy, Ravana is worshiped. And both claim to be followers of true Hindusim. In Tamil Nadu most of the Hindus are cow's beef eaters and various beef shops are owned by Hindus, in north the cow is worshiped.
we need to accept these realities. And the status Muslim women is undoubtedly far better than those of Hindu women. The Sangh Parivarists need to take notice of these.
RE:Secular?
by manofsan on May 12, 2005 03:06 AM
Mr Naushad's and Ruby's replies are ignorant. Uniform Civil Code does not tell you whom to worship. It is practiced by all developed nations of the world (countries which Mr Naushad aspires to immigrate to) and it means that a uniform legal system applies to the entire population, irrespective of religion. It does not mean imposition of one religion upon others. It clearly separates Church and State, instead of the contrasting patchwork of ethnic feudalist laws that govern populations in primitive countries.
RE:Secular?
by Bobby Awasthi on May 11, 2005 01:09 PM
Maitrikaraar and Bekaar and Sati and Pati all sound good words. Whats the strength behind them, you should enlighten us all. Just using some fancy words from midieval India doesnt open my eyes. Can you please tell me when was the last you heard of a Sati? And can you remind YOURSELF, whether there was a criminal case lodged against the perpetrators or not? Now tell me, what happened to Shah Bano Case. I know you as an enlightened muslim woman, will have as short term memory as your menfolk; there was not only a civil case, there was a judgement delivered as well, by the highest court of India. What did you 'enlightened' muslim women do? I am sure it was women like you, who supported the government pass a law depriving a poor old woman of her legally achieved right to life with dignity.
Another piece of information for you; which I am sure you will not be having, as 'enlightened people like you are only enlightened enough to 'campaign' for social rights, not 'pay' for social responsibilities. In income tax, HUF means Hindu Undivided Families, which means the income of all members is clubbed and treated as one. So, historically, more Hindus find themselves under the tax net.Bobby
RE:Secular?
by satish on May 11, 2005 01:48 PM
1. What tax benefits do I get. The same amount of tax is deducted from my salary as well as that of my Muslim colleagues. 2. Sati was a custom born because of Muslims, if you had studied your history well, and in a normal school instead of a madrassa. The Muslim marauders used to rape the women of defeated kingdoms, so the women resorted to immolating themselves to save their honour. 3. There might be slightly more females for 1000 males amongst Indian Muslims, but the literacy rate is way too low.
We have looked inward enough and realized that we were really well off until Muslims came in and converted your forefathers, because of which today, you are abusing the very same people from whom you have descended.
RE:Secular?
by oracle on May 11, 2005 12:00 AM
hey.. i did read with some intrest ur posting as to why position of muslim women is better than those of Hindu one's. Here's a counter view- female literacy in mulsim women 37%, in Hindu women 51% 1.8% of muslim women have university education compared to 4.9% of Hindu women. Out of total women work force in prvt sector( as per census 04), % of muslim women- 7%, hindu women 86%
muslim women have a better life after all I conclude. :)
time and again its seen that rediff comes out with such articles strongly against minorities, its time rediff to wake up before you r dumped, just read comments on this article and take ur lesson, other sites are coming up, i request you pls do not spread the venom like these political parties, plssssssss
RE:why always anti-minority
by subbaraman on May 11, 2005 07:55 PM
It is open to stariff and his ilk to not read such columns; there is no compulsion that you read these articles
When we all expect the Union of India to ensure Constitutional Guarantee " Right of Equality" in all sphere of life irrespective of gender, even reservations to arrive at equality with those who have progressed economically/educationally, it will not be out of place to question why not to have uniformity in Personal Laws to ensure human values for all irrespective of religious faith. Union of India must resolutely pass Laws without discrimination.
RE:Uniform Civil Code
by Ruby Nishat on May 12, 2005 12:00 PM
as for polygamy, the census report, 1971 (subsequent report doesn't cover this information) shows that the rate of polygamy is higher among the Hindus than Muslims. Thisis despite Hindu laws prohibiting such marriages, and Muslim laws permitting under certain condition.
Mr Gupta, Will the Unform Civil code also dictate how hindus and muslims should marry in an Unform way. May be you want them to marry in front of the Judges who as you know follow some laws made by normal persons who have nothing to do with religion. Allowing everybody to follow their relation with the law only assisting them on the grounds of humanity, so long as it does not interfere/contradict with the respective religious law is required.
Are you ready, or is anybody else ready to follow the muslim law or the christian law for a Hindu to follow if it is leaglised as a National Uniform Law.
Nation is a different entity and religion should be used to co-ordinate and build it in conjunction with it, not to use it to co-ordinate and merge religions !.
Rediff, please do not allow such short sighted persons to write articles in your site, or you will lose credibility of all the non-alligned, coperative, secular and intelligent indians.
RE:Secularism
by sundeep grover on May 10, 2005 10:10 PM
precisely!concentrate on IT and technology and dont follow outdated laws. behave as a citizen of India and follow universal modern human rights and not some old outdated law systems. in this age of IT and technology, accept that nothing is divine or above the law.man made laws for the mankind which are open to reappriasal and criticism are what we need.I hope you agree.
RE:Secularism
by Krishna on May 11, 2005 12:16 AM
Dear a2k, you have not understood the meaning of Uniform Civil Code. It means that we will have a set of laws that will be applied uniformly to all citizens of India. The legal entitlement of "marriage" comes under the purview of law but how a marriage "ceremony" is performed is NOT under the purview of law. In other words, you can have the ceremony of your choice be it Shia Muslim, Sunni Muslim, Punjabi, Tamil, what ever you choose. However you can only get married to one woman at a time. USA has uniform civil code and even muslims in USA cannot have more than one wife. Thats a great system. The fundamental question is, do you have to have 4 wives to become a muslim? The answer is no! Does it make you a better muslim to divorce your wife and NOT pay alimony. The answer is no! Infact, lot of these things have nothing to do with God. The whole thing about muslim personal law is to prevent muslims from integrating with the mainstream and thereby destabilise India. I strongly believe that implementing uniform civil code will unite India and make it more peaceful and allow people to practice their faith peacefully and without confrontation. Sadly, not everyone wants peace and equality.
At the first look I didnt understand the intension behind this artical. Then again I reviewed the heading and now the thngs are very clear. This is the artical written by an unsecular Indian or among the persons those who like to divide INDIA on religious sects. First of all, Muslim persnal LAW is just an organization they are not the Decision makers. The Decision Makers are our Indian courts.. they are just helping Indian muslims to solve ther within community decisions according to ther religion. Here please be noted that "Within Muslim Community" such kind of laws and regulations does not effect on any HINDU brother. Still if any Hindu or Muslim or any INDIAN do have the problem with such laws mean He does want to disturb INDIAN secular power and like to divide country on religious sects. Why dont you undertand our enemies? The peoples who are finding enemies within the country are the agents of investigation organizations of other countires. The motive behind such aritcals are just to divide the country. We are united with our values and our values are what that our forfathers has given to us. Lets concentrate on IT and Technology. JAI HIND.. Non Residential Indian.
RE:We are finding good steps to be a secular.
by subbaraman on May 11, 2005 07:53 PM
In which world is shahnawaz living? In all great democracies like the USA and the UK Muslims do not have separate set of laws; muslims there have no problem. When it comes to India, why are they not able to digest uniform civil law? It is incorrect and illogical to say that muslims have their own law within their community and that does not affect other religious groups. For example,when these people do not accept family planning and family size norms, it does affect the entire nation, which includes other religious groups. If muslims do not want uniform civil law, why should not they accept and voluntarily introduce their own criminal law which enjoins that any one stealing should have his arm cut off, indulging rape and adultery should be stoned to death publicly, etc.?
non secular
by Vijaya Kumar on May 10, 2005 06:50 PM
I disagree that the writer is non-secular etc. If India is a true secular country, it should not have two laws. Respecting the cultural and social habbits is one thing. Making the courts to follow their personal religous text to decide a case because the person belongs to specific religion is non-secular. America has one law. It does not go through a Hindu or a Muslim scripture for administering justice. India does not do it. The writer is not dividing the nation. In fact he is finding ways to unite under one law. Vijaya Kumar
Please note the rule described by George Orwell in his book named Animal Farm. I slightly change it to suit the topic. In Secular state, all religions are equal, but some are more equal than others.
