🚀 go-pugleaf

	First I would like to point out that the Gandhi cabinet has
	given in to the exigencies of politics and introduced a new bill
	titled ``Muslim Women Divorce Bill'' which would effectively
	render the Supreme Court judgment ineffective. Arif Mohamad khan
	(central cabinet minister) resigned in protest against the Government's
	decision.

	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?

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"

Timeout. Definition time:

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.

Since this dialogue seems to be taking place in a world-wide forum
that is primarily of North American readership, would somebody versed
in the matter please explain briefly exactly what is "shariat", what
Muslim law says about divorce settlements, what the Indian Supreme
Court did, and what the government's proposed legislation would do?

Thanks.

Michael C. Berch
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb