Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcsb
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!swami
From: swami@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Muslim Personal Law " shariat "
Message-ID: <141700084@uiucdcsb>
Date: Thu, 13-Mar-86 12:04:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.141700084
Posted: Thu Mar 13 12:04:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 03:38:54 EST
References: <3040@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:ut-ngp.UUCP:3040:uiucdcsb:141700084:000:1159
Nf-From: uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU!swami    Mar 13 11:04:00 1986


Re: Supreme Court judgement re: alimony for Muslim women, and fundamentalist's
reaction to it:

The Congress(I) introduced a bill in Parliament called the Mulim women's
rights protection act or something like that. The bill was widely opposed
as kowtowing to the fundamentalists, denying women alimony rights, and
discriminating against muslim women on the basis of religion. A Union minister,
Arif Mohammed Khan (name?) resigned in protest. Several Congress(I) members
criticised the bill. Then Rajiv asserted that the bill was intended to protect
women, and this pacified the Congress(I) members! Even 'The Hindu' which is
usually pro-Government, indicated that the bill was ill-advised. There is
also widespread speculation that the bill may be ruled unconstitutional
by the Supreme Court, on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of
religion.

My views? Evident, I think, from the tone of the above posting!

Note: The above is what i gathered from reading news reports, and my not be
entirely accurate. corrections welcome.

swami@a.cs.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4, pur-ee, convex}!uiucdcs!swami

"i am so full of good intentions, i MUST be on the road to hell"