Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sfsup.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sfsup!rajeev From: rajeev@sfsup.UUCP (S.Rajeev) Newsgroups: net.nlang.india Subject: Re: Muslim Personal Law " shariat " Message-ID: <172@sfsup.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 19:53:10 EST Article-I.D.: sfsup.172 Posted: Wed Mar 12 19:53:10 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Mar-86 06:27:25 EST References: <616@philabs.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Summit N.J. Lines: 80 > > >the turmoil the Muslim community in India is > >judgement has been so bitterly opposed by the clergy > >" Mullas " as no others has been in recent times. > in India (*neither* for that matter can we have a Hindu State, > or Christian State, or Jewish State in India). Muslims Why not, pray? If a part of India could become a Muslim State, why not the rest of India a Hindu State? I think this is entirely possible. In fact, I think India is already a Hindu State, and that it is secular only insofar as Hinduism itself is a secular religion. The republican, democratic ideas in the Indian constitution are a mix of indigenous Hindu/Buddhist ideas about laissez-faire tolerance and imported ideas of Greek origin. Orthodox Hinduism, with its ideas of caste, can easily accommodate Muslim and other religious minorities as "other castes" in its scheme of things; there is no real paradox there. In general, I would say that India is a Hindu State just as I would say that the US, despite its protestations to the contrary, is a Christian State. The tenets of Hinduism guide the Indian state, just as those of an enlightened Judaeo-Christian tradition guided the framers of the US constitution. The sad thing about the current problems is that Muslim fundamentalism plays into the hands of Hindu fundamentalists, who, while they are a small minority, are always present, and often well organized just as the Moral Majority and its ilk here are. I think that the spectre of Muslim fundamentalism is used by the RSS and others to gain political power at the expense of secular parties. Which is a vicious circle: it forces secular parties to become increasingly polarized along communal lines; the net result is probably the ascent of communalists. Everybody loses at that point. I think that, as least to me, it is self-evident that there should be a uniform civil and criminal code. I mean, are you going to send a Hindu to jail for theft, and cut off a Muslim's hand for the same offense? Indeed, if you have separate laws for different religions, why not have them for different castes as well? The situation is plainly ridiculous. What we need are secular laws based on humanistic, not religious considerations. In a secular country, people live by secular laws: for instance, although Islam outlaws alcohol, I am yet to see a Muslim in the US protesting against the easy availability of booze here . Another issue is that the mullahs often do not reflect the opinions of Muslim society as a whole, necessarily. For instance, I was astonished the pre-partition Muslim League never did very well (with its pro- partition sentiment) even in predominantly Muslim areas in any fair election -- I mean one that was not boycotted by the Congress . (Ref. M.J. Akbar, "India, the Siege Within", Penguin Books 1985). Then a band of over-zealous mullahs allied with a gentleman with a taste for power got what they wanted: a religious state. I think now most Indian Muslims are probably not terribly keen on the imposition of Islamic law: they probably have plenty of other things to worry about. > not well there either. Specifically, property rights of Hindu > women are pretty bad, aren't they: is it true that property > would go to the eldest son rather than the widow? and that property > is divided unequally among sons& daughters (sure, this holds > among Muslims too..). And what correlation does this have with > the dowry system: do lower property rights lead to lower > "economic worth" of women? Although the Manusmrti is often spoken of as though it were the gospel truth, I understand that it was less of a code of law than a wishlist by the vested interests: you will notice that not only does it try to oppress women, its pronouncements against low-caste and outcaste people are pretty outrageous as well. It is hard to believe, in the light ot strong Mother-Goddess worship and the sanctity associated with mother and woman, that there is much that is fundamentally anti-woman in Hindu thought. (From my sparse understanding of Semitic religions, this is probably not the case there: women have a distinctly inferior place in the scheme of things.) There have certainly been unsavoury practices, but reform is coming steadily if slowly: witness widow remarriage, dowry abolition, etc. -- these are beginning to happen. It is also interesting to note that property rights vary according to region: till recently, the matriarchal castes in Kerala used to inherit property through the woman: men got only small shares. Sri Rajeev ihnp4!attunix!rajeev [Dislaimer re AT&T]