Hey thanks Shanti… ur links are always interesting reads… i come back here everyday looking for ur posts …:blush: cheers ! :beam:

Thanks, Sade - that makes my day :beam:

You know, at least as far as Muslims in India go, in the urban areas, upwardly progressive ones wont mind UCC. The reason they oppose it is that oiver the years it has become associated with rabid right wing hindutva fundamentalism.

They are opposing the hindutva ideology rather than the UCC. i know it is not the right thing to do, but that is how it is.

UCC is perhaps the touchiest issue in India… even more than Ayodhya or Godhra or any other. As Gaurav says, progressive Muslims are in fact pro-UCC. That is because they know how the retrograde interpretations of Sharia have wrecked Islam from within. And the worst thing is that the rabble-rousing mullahs have managed to be selective while interpreting the Sharia… they allow a Muslim male to be polygamous… but they won’t chop off a hand for thievery (as prescribed in the Sharia).
It was a mistake putting Article 44 in “Directive Principles of State Policy”… leaving its implementation to the legislature rather than the judiciary.
I don’t see why UCC won’t work. It has been working wonderfully well in Goa. And has there been any major communal tension in Goa?!!

Well gaurav,
If what you’re saying is right, why isn’t there any political capital to be made by a moderate muslim leader who strongly opposes BOTH the “fascist hindutva forces” and the extremist islamist leaders?
Look at the shabana azmis and the rafiq zaqarias. Don’t u think they’d do well to deviate from the party line once in a while and actually come out in support of a UCC - and not just as a throat-clearing statement..
I mean, they’ll say “Of course we need the UCC in due course, but first….” and launch into a harangue about how evil the BJP is. They are perfectly willing to condemn their women to bondage to spite the BJP.

Either the muslims are cursed with particularly cowardly leaders - or the muslims are simply using the BJP as an excuse for their obscurantism.

I wonder, do we really require a UCC? Why not have many personal laws and allow people to choose? Or why have a “personal” law at all? Can’t the law of torts (contracts) deal with it? After all, in the eyes of the law, marriage is a contract.

On a personal note, I enrolled in a law course today, and I notice that personal laws engage me in 3 semesters. ;-) So I hope to go into such matters in depth.

I think I tend to agree with SAmeer and Ravi here - it is easier to blame someone for your own inaction than to get up and do something that really makes a difference.

Yaz, you a lawyer? Awesome, you can become specialized in blog law and protect us poor souls from law suits :)

As a sidenote… I would like to remind that even the Hindu personal laws are riddled with inequities. In addition to that, there are various sub-streams like the Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga laws.

Having a UCC isn’t going to affect only the Muslims, Parsis, Christians, Buddhists, etc. It’s also going to impinge on the Hindu community.

The need is for all the communities to draft a set of reformed laws and then work from there. It won’t help to continue looking inwards.

The oft-used term “Unity in Diversity” (under the garb of which ppl tend to shy away from the UCC) refers to the natural diversity that is so abundant in India. Creating artificial diversity (by having numerous personal laws) and then searching for unity in it is a wild-goose-chase at best! ;)

Exactly, Sameer - I think it is good for the country to be more nationalistic and less communal (like Varsha Bhosle said in one of her recent columns). The one thing though, is that the bad Hindu customs like dowry, Jauhar, Sati and child marriage have all been banned by the current law. We are fine with it and use the opportunity to move forward. I think a similar change should occur in the way Indian Muslims think - they should agree to ban bad customs like polygamy, etc.

pleasure !:nice:

I oppose the MPL too. However I think the argument “why dont u implement it in criminal law as well?” is not really a potent one.

I am sure the crazed mullahs, given a chance will implement shariat in criminal law as well……and believe me, that will be even worse. look at iran, afghanistan, nwfp in pakistan, saudi etc. they have shariat in criminal law too.

mullahs have no compassion for a thief whose hand might be cut off. they are steeped in their own ideas.

True, Gaurav - like I said in my post above originally, there needs to be a change - but the change has to come from within the Muslim community. We have so many feminist organizations looking after the welfare of women caught up in the dowry-related abuse and other issues. There need to be women like that on the Muslim side taking initiative and seeking to change the system. Unless the community’s heart is open to change, it is hard and worthless to force it on them.

Shariah law by mandate, stipulates a lot of laws that aren’t strictly followed by even the most ardent Muslim fundamentalists in India. Hence, as a government, it was wrong on the Rajiv Gandhi govt to overturn the decision. Over a period of time, in order to appease communities decisions have been taken keeping in mind a short term gain by governments. This probably has destabilised the entire secular fibre of the nation.
On the topic of the UCC, changes will have to be made to curb all kinds of fundamentalism - Hindu and Muslim. What the common man sees of the opposite religion is an extremists view for which the media is partly responsible. i.e. Perhaps the Muslims view the average Hindu as a Togadia or a Modi and vice versa.

Shashank, I agree that all kinds of fundamentalism has to be condemned and dealt with, with new laws if necessary. I don’t really agree with the moral equivalence here, since the so-called evil customs of the Hindus have all been banned under law and you don’t see any Hindus complaining about wanting to impose Sati or child marriage on Hindus again. With the Muslim community on the other hand, no changes are allowed or even considered, even for laws that are blatantly anti-women, as was the case with Shah Bano.

Shanti, now that is point open to debate between the judicial system and the political system in India. The judiciary in the Shah Bano case ruled in her favour, and it was later overturned by Rajiv Gandhi. Also I don’t think you would see the average Muslim trying to impose their Sharia laws on the rest of the community. It’s just a very small section of the Muslims who try to impose Sharia laws as the law of the land. They are probably highlighted to you by the media in the current scenario. Sati etc are still followed by section of the Hindu community in places.
The crux of my argument being : Muslims are no less passionate about their religion and vice versa. The degrees of mistrust have been elevated to such an extent that even the common man will rise to protect the ‘dignity’ of their religion as was proved with Godhra.

Shashank, I do agree with a lot of what you say, but not totally convinced either. Yes, the average Muslim is not interested in imposing Sharia on everybody - but when the small section of those who do want to do so, why are the average Muslims not even condemning it? We can blame it all on media, but ultimately isn’t it the duty of the so-called silent majority to rise up and speak against those who are allegedly “hijacking” the Religion of Peace?

I agree there is Hindu fundamentalism, but you don’t go a single day without seeing it condemned in print, online and on the air. What about Islamic fundamentalism - everyone is fine condemning Pakistan, but isn’t the underlying issue Pan-Islamic allegiances? We had Indian Muslims go to Iraq as human shields - how many went to Kashmir?

There were communal riots before Babri Masjid and before Godhra - we cannot blame it all “Hindu fundamentalism”. I don’t like giving a free-pass to any one community. But I also am not comfortable with bashing up on one while “trying to understand” another in the name of fairness.

In the proud tradition of the MPL, I present to to you, the Atheist Personal Law …

I knew it! I knew it! Atheism is a religion too! :tongue3:

For the purpose of getting concessions, hell, why not?! ;)

Kingsley, you guys should apply for discriminated -against minority status - there is a bunch of political capital to be made with this thing here ;)

See Shanti, if we just need a stick to beat the Muslim community with, this is a good one.

However while doing so, please don’t adopt the hoity toity “Us Hindus are so damn progressive” without checking up on our history. It may end up exploding in our face.

Do you know that post-independence, the attitude of Hindus was pretty much similar to that of Muslims now? The “non-condemnation equals support” philosophy can be applied there also. The Hindu Code Bill was opposed nail and tooth by Hindu leaders. The politicians then were in favour of the rigid ancient Hindu personal laws. No one really came out in support in a big way. If things had gone the way the majority of people as well as leaders want, we would have been suffering from archaic laws as well.

You know who pushed through the law through the sheer force of his personality and credibility? The man we all love to hate - Jawaharlal Nehru. Another man who played a key role in this was another man we all love to hate - Bhimrao Ambedkar.

Unfortunately his grandson got into the whole Shahbano mess and screwed things up. Even in that, Aarif Mohammad Khan, a Congress leader, took an admirable personal stand. But we, and our media choose to systematically ignore moderate Muslims and scream about the extremist ones.

I could think of some more sticks to beat the Muslims with. However you seem to have ample so I won’t offer them to you.

By the way, one of the inequities in Hindu personal law is regarding inheritance. Nehru’s original draft had the clause that both the movable and the immovable assets of a family be equally divided between sons and daughters in the event of the demise of their father.

But he and Ambedkar had to drop this clause in compromise. It was either drop this clause or not pass the bill at all.

On a lighter note, I demand reservations for atheists. :tongue3:

Gaurav, in Andhra Pradesh (my home state), NTR changed the law to make the inheritance equal between sons and daughters, in the 80’s - a step in the right direction :)

I am throwing my lot with the Atheist Personal Law - anything that helps me get a few ;)

Muslims and Non Muslims look at this webiste

http://www.jackshiles.com/Muslim_Humor/muslim_humor.html

Get in touch personally you have poor knowledge of the QURAN its interpretation, shariat laws, hadithsharif and sunna’s

dear sir
actually i have some quary on personal law, because i m not getting answer or a right person if you can help me then only iwill write you. it is regarding marriage.
i will be thankful to if u will reply me
thanks
sana

The Inheiritance Law inequality in the Hindu Code has been corrected. One more step closer to UCC for the majority of the nation !

On a side note, the archai ‘hindu’ laws someone mentioned above were actually ‘convenient’ ‘laws’. I mean you use a social document like Manusmirit and term it ‘religious’ even though Manu was not a demi-god, avatar nothing.
So why would you do it?
I think you can all guess.