Should India have a secular legal system

There are separate laws for Muslims and Christians. Muslims have always opposed same laws for everyone.

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13892924

India must secularise its legal system: Rushdie

Sunday, 10 July , 2005, 19:57

New York: Using the Imrana episode, India-born controversial writer Salman Rushdie on Sunday described Islamic seminary in Deoband Darul-Uloom as a ‘medievalist’ institution and said India should secularise and unify its legal system to take power over women’s lives.

“At the risk of being called a communalist, I must agree that any country that claims to be a modern, secular democracy must secularise and unify its legal system and power over women’s lives away, one and for all, from medievalists institutions like Darul-Uloom,” he said in a comment piece in The New York Times while discussing the Imrana case.

Imrana was ordered by the religious institution to leave her husband after her father-in-law had allegedly raped her.

He discussed the case of Mukhtar Mai in Pakistan, who was gang-raped at the order of a tribal council as a punishment for her brother’s indiscretions.

In the Imrana case, Rushdie criticised the All-India Muslim Law Board which, he said, ‘unsurprisingly’ backed Darul-Uloom decision despite many other Muslim and non-Muslim organisations and individuals denouncing it.

“Shockingly, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, has also backed the Darul-Uloom fatwa,” he said, adding, “This is a craven statement.”

Darul-Uloom, in the village of Deoband 145 km north of Delhi, is the birthplace of the ultra-conservative Deobandi cult, in whose madrassas the Taliban were trained, Rushdie claimed.

He said it taught the “most fundamentalist, narrow, puritan, rigid, oppressive version of Islam that exists anywhere in the world today.”

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

I don't know the details of the case he is referring to or even why India adopted any separate law in the first place for one particular religion. There should be one set of laws and one consistent way it is administered for all citizens of India.

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

same thing bjp is striving for .i mean unifrom civil code.rule of the land must be same for all its citizen above his /her religion.

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

it is only possible when u have a respect for all the religon and becore u make any code u look from every religon perspective :slight_smile:

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

if all ppl r like me then u dont need any such code ,rule ,law etc.and religion i dont know wat it is.may be humanity is better word.and respect for humanity is wat everyone shud strive for.

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

Sounds good and I agree in theory. In practice however, why should we look at any religion to form the laws of the country? All religious laws must be made subservient to the constitution.

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

coz if law of the country conflicting with any believe then it means u r conflicting with many poeple. but in islam u should follow the rules of land as long as in stopying to follow the oder of god.

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

i understand when some u make by intellegence which against oder of ALLAH then u will see the cortuption in that law :slight_smile:

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

Hence the need for secular law.

Any country which tries to placate a religion is bound to offend another somewhere somehow.

On the other hand, fairness and equality of all people is achieved only by making all religious dikta subservient to secular law.

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

well is complicated and hard to make every one happy

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

did i go against allah.its different that i simply dont believe in any form of god.might be allah wanted me to be like this.

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

India should first have a legal system

Re: Should India have a secular legal system?

Op-Ed Contributor

India and Pakistan’s Code of Dishonor

By SALMAN RUSHDIE
Published: July 10, 2005
IN honor-and-shame cultures like those of India and Pakistan, male honor resides in the sexual probity of women, and the “shaming” of women dishonors all men. So it is that five men of Pakistan’s powerful Mastoi tribe were disgracefully acquitted of raping a villager named Mukhtar Mai three years ago. Theirs was an “honor rape,” intended to punish a relative of Ms. Mukhtar for having been seen with a Matsoi woman. The acquittals have now been suspended by the Pakistan Supreme Court, and there is finally a chance that this courageous woman may gain some measure of redress for her violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/opinion/10rushdie.html?

Pakistan, however, has little to be proud of. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says that there were 320 reported rapes in the first nine months of last year, and 350 reported gang rapes in the same period. The number of unreported rapes is believed to be much larger. The victim pressed charges in only one-third of the reported cases, and a mere 39 arrests were made. The use of rape in tribal disputes has become, one might say, normal. And the belief that a raped woman’s best recourse is to kill herself remains widespread and deeply ingrained.

For every Mukhtar Mai there are dozens of such suicides. Nor is courage any guarantee of getting justice, as the case of Shazia Khalid shows. Dr. Khalid was raped last year in the province of Baluchistan by security personnel at the hospital where she worked. A Pakistani tribunal failed to convict anyone of the crime.

Dr. Khalid says that she was subsequently “threatened so many times” that she was forced to flee Pakistan. “I was hounded out,” she says, expressing dissatisfaction that the government neither brought her attackers to justice nor protected her from the threats that followed.

That is the same government, led by President Pervez Musharraf, that confiscated Mukhtar Mai’s passport because it feared she would go abroad and say things that would bring Pakistan into disrepute; and it is the same government that has allied with the West in the war on terrorism, but seems quite prepared to allow a war of sexual terror to be waged against its female citizens.

Now comes even worse news. Whatever Pakistan can do, India, it seems, can trump. The so-called Imrana case, in which a Muslim woman from a village in northern India says she was raped by her father-in-law, has brought forth a ruling from the powerful Islamist seminary Darul-Uloom ordering her to leave her husband because as a result of the rape she has become “haram” (unclean) for him. “It does not matter,” a Deobandi cleric has stated, “if it was consensual or forced.”

Darul-Uloom, in the village of Deoband 90 miles north of Delhi, is the birthplace of the ultra-conservative Deobandi cult, in whose madrassas the Taliban were trained. It teaches the most fundamentalist, narrow, puritan, rigid, oppressive version of Islam that exists anywhere in the world today. In one fatwa it suggested that Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Not only the Taliban but also the assassins of The Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl were followers of Deobandi teachings.

Darul-Uloom’s rigid interpretations of Shariah law are notorious, and immensely influential - so much so that the victim, Imrana, a woman under unimaginable pressure, has said she will abide by the seminary’s decision in spite of the widespread outcry in India against it. An innocent woman, she will leave her husband because of his father’s crime.

Why does a mere seminary have the power to issue such judgments? The answer lies in the strange anomaly that is the Muslim personal law system - a parallel legal system for Indian Muslims, which leaves women like Imrana at the mercy of the mullahs. Such is the historical confusion on this vexed subject that anyone who suggests that a democratic country should have a single, unified legal system is accused of being anti-Muslim and in favor of the hardline Hindu nationalists.

**
In the 1980’s, a divorced woman named Shah Bano was granted “maintenance money” by the Indian Supreme Court. But there is no alimony under Islamic law, so orthodox Indian Islamists like those at Darul-Uloom protested that this ruling infringed the Muslim Personal Law, and they founded the All-India Muslim Law Board to mount protests. The government caved in, passing a bill denying alimony to divorced Muslim women. Ever since Shah Bano, Indian politicians have not dared to challenge the power of Islamist clerical grandees.

In the Imrana case, the All-India Muslim Law Board has unsurprisingly backed the Darul-Uloom decision, though many other Muslim and non-Muslim organizations and individuals have denounced it. Shockingly, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, has also backed the Darul-Uloom fatwa. “The decision of the Muslim religious leaders in the Imrana case must have been taken after a lot of thought,” he told reporters in Lucknow. “The religious leaders are all very learned and they understand the Muslim community and its sentiments.”
**
This is a craven statement. The “culture” of rape that exists in India and Pakistan arises from profound social anomalies, its origins lying in the unchanging harshness of a moral code based on the concepts of honor and shame. Thanks to that code’s ruthlessness, raped women will go on hanging themselves in the woods and walking into rivers to drown themselves. It will take generations to change that. Meanwhile, the law must do what it can.

In Pakistan, the Supreme Court has taken one small but significant step in the matter of Mukhtar Mai; now it is for the police and politicians to start pursuing rapists instead of hounding their victims. **As for India, at the risk of being called a communalist, I must agree that any country that claims to be a modern, secular democracy must secularize and unify its legal system, and take power over women’s lives away, once and for all, from medievalist institutions like Darul-Uloom. **

Salman Rushdie is the author of “The Satanic Verses” and the forthcoming “Shalimar the Clown.”

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

u take any written code from centuries all were partial to men (may be always written by men)thes code/laws of land always tried to subdue/maginalize females.its not only the sad story in india/pak but also in all the countries the rule of the land are some or the other way r against females.y?coz women dont ve proportional reprsentation in the law making body of the country.hell even in india women reservation bill for seats in parliament is blocked by males unanimously by both gov and opposition..im no feminist,,,,but i will say that we the females r suffering in males hands since evolution and will keep on suffer untill we will be awakened and demand rather i say fight for our rights.

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

I think India should have one law for all. Rather then implementing this overnight, we should announce a timetable like in 5 yrs time or 10 years time all will have unifarm laws. Starting with some less trivial/impact things tobe unifarm in say 2 yrs time and so on till every Indian is under 1 law.

Re: Should India have a secular legal system

partly true but that’s nothing compared to the how men suffer at the whim and will of the women. Women keep screaming about rights, men keep deluding themselves that we have power.

It’s laughable really. 50-50 doesn’t make majority or minority