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 Permalink
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 Permalink
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 Permalink
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 Permalink
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 Permalink
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 Permalink
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 Permalink
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 Permalink
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 Permalink
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. :)
