🚀 go-pugleaf

 I agree fully with Mr. Ali Shaik regarding the
 handling of this issue by Rajiv Gandhi. Looks
 like he has caved in to the populist demand to
 revoke the supreme court judgement. The minister whom
 you referred to was so much for the judgement as per
 his interview that appeared in India Today. Obviously
 Rajiv is worried about the Muslim vote bank and is
 doing all he could to retain it. Mullas I think are
 dead against this judgement to ensure that their
 hold on the janta (Mulsim) is not tampered with.

> 
> >the turmoil the Muslim community in India is
> >judgement has been so bitterly opposed by the clergy
> >" Mullas " as no others has been in recent times.

>     in India (*neither* for that matter can we have a Hindu State, 
>     or Christian State, or Jewish State in India). Muslims

Why not, pray? If a part of India could become a Muslim State, why not
the rest of India a Hindu State? I think this is entirely possible. 
In fact, I think India is already a Hindu State, and that it is secular
only insofar as Hinduism itself is a secular religion. The republican,
democratic ideas in the Indian constitution are a mix of indigenous
Hindu/Buddhist ideas about laissez-faire tolerance and imported ideas of
Greek origin. Orthodox Hinduism, with its ideas of caste, can easily
accommodate Muslim and other religious minorities as "other castes" in
its scheme of things; there is no real paradox there. In general, I
would say that India is a Hindu State just as I would say that the US,
despite its protestations to the contrary, is a Christian State. The 
tenets of Hinduism guide the Indian state, just as those of an
enlightened Judaeo-Christian tradition guided the framers of the US
constitution. The sad thing about the current problems is that Muslim
fundamentalism plays into the hands of Hindu fundamentalists, who, while
they are a small minority, are always present, and often well organized
just as the Moral Majority and its ilk here are. I think that the spectre
of Muslim fundamentalism is used by the RSS and others to gain political
power at the expense of secular parties. Which is a vicious circle: it
forces secular parties to become increasingly polarized along communal
lines; the net result is probably the ascent of communalists. Everybody
loses at that point.

I think that, as least to me, it is self-evident that there should be
a uniform civil and criminal code. I mean, are you going to send a
Hindu to jail for theft, and cut off a Muslim's hand for the same
offense? Indeed, if you have separate laws for different religions,
why not have them for different castes as well? The situation is plainly
ridiculous. What we need are secular laws based on humanistic, not
religious considerations. In a secular country, people live by secular
laws: for instance, although Islam outlaws alcohol, I am yet to see a
Muslim in the US  protesting against the easy availability of booze here .

Another issue is that the mullahs often do not reflect the opinions of
Muslim society as a whole, necessarily. For instance, I was astonished
the pre-partition Muslim League never did very well (with its pro-
partition sentiment) even in predominantly Muslim areas in any fair
election -- I mean one that was not boycotted by the Congress      
. (Ref. M.J. Akbar, "India, the Siege Within", Penguin Books
1985). Then a band of over-zealous mullahs allied with a gentleman
with a taste for power got what they wanted: a religious state. I think now
most Indian Muslims are probably not terribly keen on the imposition
of Islamic law: they probably have plenty of other things to worry about.

>     not well there either. Specifically, property rights of Hindu
>     women are pretty bad, aren't they: is it true that property
>     would go to the eldest son rather than the widow? and that property
>     is divided unequally among sons& daughters (sure, this holds
>     among Muslims too..). And what correlation does this have with
>     the dowry system: do lower property rights lead to lower
>     "economic worth" of women?
 
Although the Manusmrti is often spoken of as though it were the gospel 
truth, I understand that it was less of a code of law than a wishlist by
the vested interests: you will notice that not only does it try to 
oppress women, its pronouncements against low-caste and outcaste people
are pretty outrageous as well. It is hard to believe, in the light ot
strong Mother-Goddess worship and the sanctity associated with mother
and woman, that there is much that is fundamentally anti-woman in Hindu
thought. (From my sparse understanding of Semitic religions, this is
probably not the case there: women have a distinctly inferior place in
the scheme of things.) There have certainly been unsavoury practices,
but reform is coming steadily if slowly: witness widow remarriage, dowry
abolition, etc. -- these are beginning to happen. It is also interesting
to note that property rights vary according to region: till recently,
the matriarchal castes in Kerala used to inherit property through the
woman: men got only small shares.

				Sri Rajeev
				ihnp4!attunix!rajeev

[Dislaimer re AT&T]

In article <172@sfsup.UUCP>, rajeev@sfsup.UUCP (S.Rajeev) writes:
> In fact, I think India is already a Hindu State, and that it is secular
> only insofar as Hinduism itself is a secular religion. The republican,
> democratic ideas in the Indian constitution are a mix of indigenous
> Hindu/Buddhist ideas about laissez-faire tolerance and imported ideas of
> Greek origin. Orthodox Hinduism, with its ideas of caste, can easily
> accommodate Muslim and other religious minorities as "other castes" in
> its scheme of things; there is no real paradox there. In general, I

	The basic tenet of our constituition is to move away from the
fundamentalism of any religion. What you are suggesting will simply
help perpetuate the ills of orthodox Hinduism. Secondly, creating additional
castes will simply add to the existing problems of rampant casteism.

> constitution. The sad thing about the current problems is that Muslim
> fundamentalism plays into the hands of Hindu fundamentalists, who, while
> they are a small minority, are always present, and often well organized
> just as the Moral Majority and its ilk here are. I think that the spectre
> of Muslim fundamentalism is used by the RSS and others to gain political
> power at the expense of secular parties. Which is a vicious circle: it
> forces secular parties to become increasingly polarized along communal
> lines; the net result is probably the ascent of communalists. Everybody
> loses at that point.
	We think the spectre of Muslim fundamentalism is  existing and is
	not raised by RSS or any other organization. 
	Secondly, organizations like RSS have never acquired any power.
	We think it is fashionable to use RSS as a whipping boy without
	trying to understand what it stands for. The concept of 
	Hindu Rashtra professed by RSS encompasses all indians irrespective
	of their religious beliefs. Also, the concept of Hindu Rashtra does
	not mean spreading Hinduism but the revival of Indian values and culture.
	We have yet to see any so-called liberal-minded newspaper or magazine
	attacking fundamentalist organizations like Jamate-e-Islami who
	have exploited the innocent muslims by arousing fear in their
	minds. These organizations also have captured power in some states
	and cities like Hyderabad and their 1-point manifesto is 
	spreading hatred.

						Raju Yavatkar
						Rajiv Khanna

						Purdue University.

> 	The basic tenet of our constituition is to move away from the
> fundamentalism of any religion. What you are suggesting will simply
> help perpetuate the ills of orthodox Hinduism. Secondly, creating additional
> castes will simply add to the existing problems of rampant casteism.

Whoa, gentlemen! I fear you misunderstand me: I certainly do not
ADVOCATE the creation of new castes and the absorption of religious
minorities into these. (I feel strongly that "rampant casteism", as you
accurately depict it, is THE worst aspect of traditional Hinduism.) I am
merely pointing out that there is a simple way for orthodox Hindus to
rationalize away the presence of Muslims, etc.

> 	We think the spectre of Muslim fundamentalism is  existing and is
> 	not raised by RSS or any other organization. 

I agree that Muslim fundamentalism is a world-wide phenomenon. But it is
also true that the RSS gets considerable mileage out of this.

> 	Secondly, organizations like RSS have never acquired any power.

Well, perhaps not explicitly, but weren't the Jan Sangh and the RSS on
extremely good terms at one point, with people being members of both?

> 	We think it is fashionable to use RSS as a whipping boy without
> 	trying to understand what it stands for. The concept of 
> 	Hindu Rashtra professed by RSS encompasses all indians irrespective
> 	of their religious beliefs. Also, the concept of Hindu Rashtra does
> 	not mean spreading Hinduism but the revival of Indian values and
culture.

The RSS certainly originated as a conservative organization
devoted to the resurrection of Hinduism as it once was. That is
precisely where I differ with the RSS (or indeed any conservative group:
they hunger for a golden age somewhere in the past that really never
existed.) -- I feel that the RSS is not a progressive force that tries
to reform Hinduism. (Note your phrase "revival of Indian values ...")
I have considerable sympathy for the RSS: I want a resurgent Hinduism,
too. Furthermore, the RSS does much good work on behalf of the poor. But
I think that their ideas are too retrogressive; in practice I have seen
the RSS encourage reactionary, caste-ridden activities.

> 	We have yet to see any so-called liberal-minded newspaper or magazine
> 	attacking fundamentalist organizations like Jamate-e-Islami who
> 	have exploited the innocent muslims by arousing fear in their
> 	minds.					Raju Yavatkar
> 						Rajiv Khanna

The Jamaat-E-Islami and other communalist organization deserve to be
blamed for provoking religious hatred: no disagreement from me.

			Sri Rajeev