When this columnist says we need to look history in the face in a way the French did it he is being mature. However this feeling of reading a mature article gets murky when a reader finds the underlying message or righting the wrong. The Kashmiris today have no link other than that of religion to Aurangazeb and their preference for Shariah should not be linked to Aurangzeb.
The Indian Nation is mature enough to allow Muslims to be governed by Mohammed Law in civil matters. The Muhammaden is also guided occasionally by their clerics who do decide on some civil matters. How does it affect the majority of us who are not so governed as we do not belong to the Muslim faith? Whenever there are cases that breach good governance like the Imrana case the courts go beyond those rules and punish the rapist instead of decreeing that the person raped now has found a new husband at the cost of his existing one.
And correct me if I am wrong too but Dara Sikho along with his brothers Sujah and Murad like Aurangzeb raced to Delhi when Shah Jahan was sick to decide who the new ruler would be. Aurangazeb managed to put his siblings to death (not for interest in Hinduism) and when wonder of wonders when the old man improved in health he was consigned to Agra fort where he lived another 8(? or so) years before he died.
RE:Flogging the dead Horse!
by Koushik Rudra on Feb 16, 2007 04:03 PM Permalink
My dear Mr. Radhakrishna Iyer, why should our secular Government not allow us to follow the Hindu civil rules of Manu, where a man can marry "n" number of time. This will not be affecting other communities.
Killing Aurangzeb's brothers were not related to Hinduism but for throne but we cannot ignore the fact that the religious tolerance started by Akbar, which continued till Shah Jahan was carry forwarded by Dara also. The comparison with Kashmir is very much apt because like Aurangzeb, the Muslim fundamentalist who clensed out Hindus, the same thing was being done with the Kashmiri pandits and now full fledged Ismalisation of a state of democratic and secular India is on process and so called secular people are feeling very happy. can you tell me why subsidy is given on Hadge while a pilgrimage to Amarnath is taxed? Can you tell me why a marxist minister Subhash Chakravorty was show caused by the leadership beause of his worshipping mata Kali in a temple?Ok the marxists do not belive in God. Then why a Muslim leader in CPM is never questioned for going to a mosque? Boss - its plain hypocricy. Minorities are pampered just for vote at the cost of any and every ideology. This is done by all Congress and their fellow minded politicians. why cant every body be equal? No special rules for any body - no special preferntial treatment for anybody? Look at the democracy of European countries. They dont have separate outlooks for their fellow citizens based on religion and caste. Please dont be a pseudo secularist.
RE:Flogging the dead Horse!
by Ashwin Iyer on Feb 16, 2007 03:39 PM Permalink
Dear Shri. Iyer,
I do agree with you that the article leans a little right in the end, but I feel only to an allowable extent.
I do not agree with you on the statement that Muslims should be allowed to be governed under Sharia on civil matters. What is every religion starts demanding such privileges (which goes unheard by GoI)? Why do we need a Hindu marriages Act 1956 and why did we stop using the tradional laws that we were using till then?
Again, Uniform Civil Code is an extremely difficult task to achieve in India. Brit tried it twice, once in 1828 and 1858 (durin the first and second law commissions) and left it. They could only bring a uniform penal law (IPC 1872). POst Independance also we tried our best and left it to god by putting it in the wish list by mentioning it only in the directive principles of state policy (Art 44).
BJP whose poll manifestos always talk about UCC has not even moved an inch towards this. This requires a lot guts, which I dont think today's politicians have.
