Another fine example of pseudo-secularism
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? and Secularism or Politics of Appeasement
If you liked what you read, please consider subscribing to my feed (here or by Email)
Also read: On live-in relationships, Hindu culture and Uniform Civil Code
There should be one universal law applicable to all Indian citizens.
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?
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!
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)
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.
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
Many of you will find this article thought-provoking:
One Law for All: The Campaign against Sharia law in Britain
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
Same with Bihar, days are not far!
From Centre changed personal laws of only Hindus: SC by Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN, Feb 9, 2011, 02.30am IST
From Minor Muslim girls can marry, rules HC:
MONDAY, 04 JUNE 2012 by SANA SHAKIL:
Muslim girls can marry as per their will at the age of 15 years or after attaining puberty, the Delhi High Court has ruled while referring to various provisions of the Muslim Personal Law Board.
From TN Muslim body flays stalling of minor girl’s marriage:
An umbrella body of Muslim organisations is up in arms against Perambalur district administration protesting the stalling of a marriage of a 17-year-old girl of their community on the ground that she was a minor.
The ‘Federation of Tamil Nadu Muslim Organisations and Political Parties’ on Saturday (14th July 2012) July said the officials of Social Welfare Department in Perambalur had on June 25 prevented the marriage of the girl which was to take place in the presence of her parents and the groom.
..
He said as per the Islamic law, a Muslim girl can marry as per her choice at the age of 15 if she has attained puberty and cited a recent Delhi High Court verdict on the issue.
..
The leaders said they would hold an agitation in front of the Perambalur District Collectorate on July 17 demanding that the social welfare officials be dismissed from service.
This raises interesting questions which I hope to explore at a later date, e.g. do community laws over-ride “general purpose” laws especially those related to minors, women etc?
In the meantime, pl feel free to share your thoughts/opinion.
On one side whole of the media and government is talking tough about KHAP and Jaat Panchayats. Whereas on other size the same media is appreciating the setting up of Shariat Court. Here is the link to the news article in Marathi. पीडित महिलांसाठी शरीयत नà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾à¤²à¤¯ . Not to be surprised as there is no wide coverage for this in media forget about criticism. Reproducing the whole article here for the reference:
Jay Bharat!
From What a Secularist can and should be Proud of? by Aravindan Neelakandan:
But what places the question of Hindu Code Bill debate entirely within the Hindutva framework alone is the statement made by Dr.Ambedkar himself in defense of the bill. On 11th January 1950, he said,
The reader can notice that for Dr.Ambedkar the Hindu Code Bill is not only progressive but is also a step towards a common civil law for all citizens of India irrespective of their religion and also it is a law based on the religious scriptures of Hindus. In other words Dr.Ambedkar states that in essence Hindu scriptures can form the basis for drafting a progressive law and that law can and should become the basis for the common civil code for all citizens of Hindustan irrespective of their religion.
# Reference at [3] is from [3]Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, quoted in Vasant Moon, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, National Book Trust, 2004, p.192
Excerpts from Indian Muslims split over wedding age ruling, June 8, 2012:
…
Muslim religious leaders across the country are pleased with the court edict that based its judgement on the Sharia, the moral code and religious law of Islam. While criminal laws in India apply to all equally, communities are allowed their own personal laws.
“According to Mohammedan law, a girl can marry without the consent of her parents once she attains the age of puberty,” Justices S Ravindra Bhat and SP Garg said recently.
The bench was ruling on a Delhi Muslim girl`s contention that she had married on her own free will when she was 15 years old and that her mother`s charge that she had been abducted be dropped. She won the case.
…
According to the Sharia, a Muslim girl can marry once she attains puberty. Keeping this in view, the British permitted Muslims to marry their daughters when they were 15.
Excerpt from Dev 360: Vote jihad by Patralekha Chatterjee, August 28, 2014:
…
A marriage between a Hindu and a Muslim is perfectly valid if it is solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. But as Shubhangi Singh, a lawyer with the Lucknow-based Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiatives (AALI), explains, the Special Marriage Act that recognises inter-faith marriage has one complication — it requires a one-month public notice, which an eloping couple is afraid to give. Conversion is the short-cut. Though there is no estimate of how many of these conversions are forced, clearly this legal issue needs to be sorted out.