» Another fine example of pseudo-secularism . || Satyameva Jayate ||

Dedicated to “Bharat” and “Dharma”

Home » Featured, Politics and Governance in India, Politics of Minority Appeasement

Another fine example of pseudo-secularism

28 October 2007 189 views 10 Comments

Some of you must have already read about the recent SC directive to states and UTs to frame laws “to make registration of marriage compulsory, irrespective of religion”.

Apparently, some states have made “registration of marriages compulsory only for Hindus”.

Amazing.

Wait there is more…

In the same edition of Hindustan Times (Oct 26. ’07, Pg 14, “Muslims divided over SC order”), Maulana Khalid Rasheed, a member of All India Muslim Personal Law Board and head of Lucknow’s oldest Islamic seminary Firangi Mahal (said):

“After all the Shariat Application Act of 1937 clearly allows Muslims to carry out their marriages and other religious rituals in the manner prescribed under Islam; and no law is supposed to override that right”

So am I to understand from this statement that we in independent India are still hostage to laws framed during the British Raj…and can a professedly secular state have laws based on Shariat or other religious interpretations? Comments and thoughts welcome, as always.

Also Read: “Pseudo-secularism” at its best?

If you liked what you read, please consider subscribing to my feed (here or by Email)

10 Comments »

1. muni said:

There should be one universal law applicable to all Indian citizens.

30 October 2007

2. Dr. Ranjeet Singh said:

If Muslim laws are to govern Muslims, why should Hindu Laws be interfered with? Where does the principle of equality and non-interference in the religious affairs by the State (that is, the principle of Secularism) go when it comes to Hindus? Why are their Mandirs touched, their takings taken away by the State – and not of the Christian, Muslims or the Sikhs?

31 October 2007

3. Vidhya said:

I read this article on Pioneer where the author points out the failure of our state to maintain secular ideals.
http://sarvesamachar.com/click_frameset.php?ref_url=%2Findex.php%3F&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailypioneer.com%2Fcolumnist1.asp%3Fmain_variable%3DColumnist%26file_name%3Dsurya%252Fsurya43%252Etxt%26writer%3Dsurya

Instead of upholding the supreme court order, our governments (state and central) fall victims to the threats of these clerics and possible loss of votes . I wonder if this is really just fear of votes or is it some deeper agenda to undermine the integrity and security of our country. Seeing this happening every time, every day, hearing justification in the name of secularism, even shedding tears for those killers who feed on the blood of innocent people by bombing markets, trains and theaters, I cant help but believe our leaders are playing incapacity and cowardice as an act to slowly but steadily destroy this country. Pardon my language but unless we stop being so gullible and call spade a spade we have no escape from being swallowed by the black hole, and we are close!

6 November 2007

4. B Shantanu said:

Thanks for the link Vidhya.

I noted these two sentences:

“…And, if the Indian state feels so helpless that it would rather violate a judgement of the Supreme Court than make the AIMPLB see reason, are we to presume that it has lost the capacity to govern and enforce Article 14 of the Constitution, which ordains equality before law and the equal application of the laws?”

AND

“It now appears as if pseudo-secularism is a national creed and the Indian state has begun to practice it as if it were constitutionally ordained.”

From: “Undoing idea of secular India” by A Surya Prakash, 6th Nov ’07 (The Pioneer)

6 November 2007

5. B Shantanu said:

This is becoming complicated.

From a news report on rediff today:

***
January 24, 2008 00:14 IST

Opposing the recent Supreme Court order making marriage registration certificates mandatory, the New All-India Muslim Personal Law Board on Wednesday said the community would not accept the directive, as it was an infringement of the Muslim personal law.

Mohammed Hashmi Kanpuri, a member of the board, stated that each and every Muslim was bound with Shariat laws, given by Islam and guaranteed by the country’s Constitution.

“Any marriage in Islam is certified by three people including a Kazi, and there is no need for any other certification,” he said.

“Muslims are governed by their own rules which are different from the rules of other communities,” said Mr Hashmi.

He stated that according to Shariat law, a girl can marry once she attains the age of 16 years, whereas the Constitution allows marriage only after the girl reaches the age of 18.

***
Note that Mr Hashmi appears to claim that Shariat is not only guaranteed by Constitution, it also supercedes it (as in the case of age for marriage for girls)

I am speechless.

24 January 2008

6. swabhimaan said:

Hindus (including Jains and Budhists) who are tired of pseudo-secular governments and media are invited to join Swabhimaan – a movement launched to unite Hindus of India and protect their interests. For more details please visit
http://swabhimaan2008.blogspot.com/2008/11/om-ganseshay-namah-om-shivay-om-durgay.html

STRENGTHEN US WITH YOUR PARTICIPATION

5 December 2008

7. B Shantanu said:

Many of you will find this article thought-provoking:

One Law for All: The Campaign against Sharia law in Britain

12 December 2008

8. B Shantanu said:

Unbelievable…(emphasis mine)

Kerala: Islamic court ordered chopping of professor’s hand:

It was a Taliban-model court Darul Khada (God’s abode or God’s court) which ordered the chopping off the palm of Professor T D Joseph, the Malayalam professor of Newman’s College, Thodupuzha, recently.

The shocking revelation had come during the interrogation of Popular Front activist Ashraf, who is the first accused in the case.

…Sources in the state police told rediff.com that Ashraf had spilled the beans that the Islamic court, which was functioning in Kerala under the auspicious of the Popular Front, had given the sentence to chop off the right hand of Prof Joseph, for ‘blasphemy to Prophet Mohammed.’

Police sources also informed that Eaasa Moulavi was the Kerala coordinator of the Darul Khada, and this particular case was decided by its branch in Eearattupettah, in Kottayam district, which is very near to Muvattupuzha, the site of the incident.

Those arrested have also confirmed to the police that the Popular Front is interfering in several family disputes involving Muslim families in the state, and trying to persuade them to come to Darul Khuda, and not to other courts, to settle their disputes.

Arun Lakshman in Thiruvananthapuram

7 July 2010

9. Indian said:

Same with Bihar, days are not far!

8 July 2010

10. B Shantanu said:

From Centre changed personal laws of only Hindus: SC by Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN, Feb 9, 2011, 02.30am IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has again pulled up the government for its failure to overhaul personal laws of the minority communities, saying that it was a reflection on their secular credentials.

The court also said on Tuesday that government’s attempts to reform personal laws don’t go beyond Hindus who have been more tolerant of such initiatives.

…When asked by the bench and NCW counsel Aparna Bhat about the glaring discrepancies between different laws and how government plans to reconcile them, Jaising said: “Hindu laws is one of the finest laws, a saying that has to be taken with a pinch of salt. It provides for all oppression and also the escape route. The problem with the Hindu law is that legislators have tried to chip away little by little but there is no overhauling of it.”

Jaising argued that though there can be no uniform marriage age, other laws including the Hindu Marriage Act, needed amendments to make them conform to the age of marriage provided under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

…In the last two decades, the Supreme Court had stressed time and again the importance of enacting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as advised by the Constitution.

Between the Shah Bano judgment in 1985, Sarla Mudgal judgment (1995) and John Vallamatom verdict in 2003, the court had thrice stressed the need for enacting a UCC, saying it would help forge national integration and remove dissimilarities.

Provision for UCC is incorporated in Article 44 under the Directive Principles chapter of the Constitution, which says, “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”

9 February 2011