Since we claim to be a secular democracy, I think the rights of
an individual should be held higher than the rules dictated by
religious leaders. The minorities in our country do deserve
protection against discrimination. This can be ensured by making
due provisions in the constitution as has been done in case of
Harijans.
But the muslim personal law goes against the princilpes on which
our constitution has been based. It has hindered the process
of integrating moslims with rest of the population and has
benefited unscrupulous politicians and religious leaders like
Shahi Imam who foment hatred for their personal benefit.
To achieve the goal of building up a secular state, we first
need to follow a uniform personal code which would be applicable
to all Indian citizens, irrespective of which caste, creed or faith
they belong to.
Otherwise we soon will have 10 personal codes satisfying 10 different
faiths which would only accelerate the process of disintegration.
I would like to request the netters to take up the following
question for discussion:
Is(n't) it possible to have a truly secular constitution (devoid of
any religion based personal codes) and still protect the rights
of the minorities?
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.
sw...@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"
sec.u.lar, adj.,
1. Of or pertaining to the temporal rather than the spiritual
2. Not specifically pertaining to religion or a religious body
3. Pertaining to or advocating secularism
4. Not living in a monastery or religious community. Said of the Clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century
6. Lasting from century to century
sec.u.lar.ism, n., The view that consideration of the present
well-being of mankind should predominate over religious considerations
in civil affairs or public education.
(American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin, 1981)
Take it away, guys.
Thanks.
Michael C. Berch
ARPA: m...@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb