>Darul Uloom Deoband (an extremely fundamentalist outfit) from issuingan edict >of >the sort it has and whether it would have preventedImrana and Noor Ilahi >from >accepting the edict I agree. Fundamentalist outfits will behave as they do, and manyadherents will accept those edicts as commandments from God. But that in itself does not excuse a secular society to have a uniformcode that has the last word. The Imranas of the society should have ajustice of last resort that they can fall back upon if required.Edicts from fundamentalist outfits shouldn't have to be finalarbiters. Immediate societal pressures may have 'forced' Imrana & Illahi toaccept such unfair verdicts. I would venture that someone like Imranaprobably thinks it is her 'own fault' and readily accepts thepunishment passed by uneducated and fundamentalist Mullahs.
On 7/7/05, Roy, Santanu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> The only question in my mind is whether a uniform civil code - i.e., a uniform set of laws on personal matters applicable to all - would have prevented the Darul Uloom Deoband (an extremely fundamentalist outfit)from issuing an edict of the sort it has and whether it would have prevented Imrana and Noor Ilahi from accepting the edict (even if it has no place in the personal laws of the land). The roots of such obscurantism run much deeper than laws.> Santanu.> > > -----Original Message-----> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ram Sarangapani> > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 1:13 PM> > To: Assam> > Subject: [Assam] Uniform Civil Code> >> >> > Here is a pretty good piece by Bikash Sarma in the Sentinel.> > He raisessome salient issues on the need for a uniform civil> > code in India.> > Secularism should also mean that sometimes people ought to> > beprotected from! their own religions. Personal laws> > (Religious) that areunfair have no place in a secular society.> > --Ram> > ------------------------------Killing a Woman TwiceBikash Sarmah> > In the wake of the rising Mullah's voice in India and the> > terror thatsome claustrophobic Hindu bigots want to strike in> > the name of RamRajya, one would have enough reasons to decry> > the secular garb thatIndia dons. We will surely talk about> > Hindu bigotry — as opposed tothe austerity of the Hindu ethos> > — at some other time ; in fact, wecan take some time for that> > because we have not only a whole lot ofeducated and> > progressive Hindus to take care of Hindu bigotry but alsoa> > whole lot of pseudo-secular gurus in politics who would> > hardlyhesitate to exaggerate Hindu bigotry so as to raise> > some sort of aninternational alarm. Therefore, at the moment,> > we would deliberate onthe Mullah's voice and the increasing> > legitimacy of Islamicobscurantism in a so-called secular Ind! ia.> > Let us first assure ourselves that we are not hawks in an> > Islamiccountry. One must have heard about the Mukhtar Mai> > episode inPakistan, an Islamic country. Just recall that this> > 33-year old womanwas gangraped in June 2002 on the orders of> > an Islamic villagecouncil. Her 'crime' was that her brother> > had an affair with a girlbelonging to a powerful rival clan.> > After three excruciating years,Mukhtar is back in the> > limelight after the Pakistan Supreme Courtordered the> > re-arrest of all the accused — a total of 13 bestial'human> > beings'. We do not want to dwell on this episode here. This> > isjust to kickstart the big debate. One does have the right> > to invokeMukhtar Mai here, because many sane, secular minds> > are scared intoday's India, thinking that a Mukhtar Mai-type> > fatwa could haunt theIndians too! And there is a reason for> > such a scare.> > Recently, the Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband passed an> > edict —an extremely obscurantis! t one in a modern nation-state> > — that Imrana,who was raped by her father-in-law in> > Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh,cannot live with her husband> > anymore. This is so because, according toBegum Naseem Iqtedar> > Ali Khan who is a member of the All India MuslimPersonal Law> > Board (AIMPLB), "as per the Quran, Imran's> > conjugalrelationship with her husband stands dissolved, since> > she has beenraped by the latter's blood relative". In the> > Begum's view, had shebeen raped by "anyone other than a blood> > relative, she could havestayed with her husband as in the> > Bilkis case of Gujarat". So,according to the Islamic law, a> > sacred relationship has been violated,"the consequences of> > which have to be borne by Imrana and her husbandNoor Ilahi".> > Nothing could be more absurd and obscurantist than this.> > Though it isanother matter that Imrana and her husband have> > agreed to abide by theDeoband's edict, what moves a> > progressive mind, whether Hindu orMuslim, i! n a secular> > country is that in the absence of a uniform civilcode — the> > most important hallmark of secularism — a bunch ofirrational> > mullahs have begun to step into the domain of law and,hence,> > into the domain of civilization. Castigating the> > Deoband'sdecision to deny the rape victim her right to> > continue her marriedlife which she would want to do, CPI (M)> > Politburo member Brinda Karatsaid that it is a "shocking> > example of how the thekedars of religioncan bulldoze the> > constitutional rights of a citizen". Absolutelyright. The> > thekedars of religion — in the instant case, the> > mullahsmanning the Deoband — have not only lowered the> > dignity of theirreligion by killing an innocent woman twice> > but also disturbed themaking of a just, egalitarian and> > secular society by meddlin!> > g with apurely criminal offence committed by a lecherous> > father-in-law againstwhom there is no fatwa (wonder of wonders!).> > The Imrana episode is a chilling one! that reminds us of the> > need of auniform civil code — an area that the Directive> > Principles stress soclearly but which fails to be realized> > due to the pseudo-secular orderof the day. Other things> > apart, in the absence of a uniform civilcode, the worst> > sufferers have been innocent women doomed to lead arepudiated> > life so full of insecurities. This gives the religiousbodies> > and the "messengers of the Almighty" that the Deoband> > mullahsmight claim to be, the right to throw away an innocent> > woman anytime,anywhere.> > And all this happens in the name of religion which never> > really tellsa woman, who has been brutally raped by a> > fatherly figure, thefather-in-law (father in law), to walk> > out of her marriage justbecause there has been a sexual> > relationship with the blood relativeof the husband. The most> > ridiculous thing is that the Deoband's edictcalls it a> > "sexual relationship". Dear religious gurus, it is not> > arelationship; it is rape ! — forced sexual intercourse — that> > too, by afather-in-law. Had the Shariat been really invoked,> > the father-in-lawshould have been stoned to death, because> > this is what would actuallyhappen in a purely Islamic> > country. If you do not believe, have aholiday in Saudi Arabia> > to see Shariat in action.> > CPI (M) General Secretary Prakash Karat is right (the Left> > sometimestalks sense) when he says: "If the personal law of> > any communityinfringes upon the genuine rights of women, the> > law of the land shouldtake centre stage and impart justice."> > Let this be said here in nouncertain terms that if the> > personal laws of any community, Hindu orMuslim or otherwise,> > begin to betray the cause of law, thusundermining all secular> > efforts to establish an egalitarian societywhere women will> > have as much space as men, and if these obsoletepersonal laws> > attack the whole secular fabric of a progressive nationin the> > making, one would do God (if one believes! Him) a bit of> > favourby throwing away such distorted personal laws. Personal> > laws that killa woman twice contribute to the making of a> > greater crime, because noreligion tells ordinary men to> > imagine a few laws, write them downfoolishly, and then attack> > the very fact of womanhood.> > Naeem Hamid, a member of the All India Muslim Personal Law> > Board,seems to have mustered enough courage to decry the> > Deoband's edict.Hamid says: "Deoband should have kept quiet> > on this issue as India isnot an Islamic country. They have no> > right to issue a fatwa on acriminal offence. What is the> > logic behind giving a decision in whichone party (Imrana) is> > penalized when it has no power to punish theculprit?" Yes,> > this is what should move us. If the Deoband cannotpunish the> > guilty father-in-law, what authority it has to punish> > theinnocent rape victim? Absolutely none. And this is not> > even religion.If it is, the world would be a far better place> > without! any religion.> > But fundamentalists would not agree. How could they? In a> > so-calledsecular country, if the political leaders use> > religion as a tool tograb power, resorting to the mischief of> > religious appeasement, onewould always have a situation where> > religious fundamentalists couldstorm into politics anytime,> > thus hindering all progressivepropensities. This is clear as> > one analyses the unsavoury Imranaepisode. Uttar Pradesh Chief> > Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav says thatthe Imrana fatwa is> > right. According to him, the fatwa was ordered by"religious> > leaders who are learned people". He further said that itwould> > be better "to leave such issues to religious leaders".> > Thisshows very clearly to what extent our 'secular'> > politicians go. Infact, politicians like Mulayam Singh Yadav> > have a 'secular' obligation— they never mince a word against> > the mullahs, the "learned people",because these people> > represent the religious minority, and secu! larism,in Mulayam's> > view, must pamper these thekedars of religi!> > on. WhatMulayam does not know is that these Deoband leaders> > do not representIslam in the real sense. Nor would he care to> > know the voice of theliberal Muslims in India, because that> > would snatch away his 'secular'vote-bank.> > This brings us to a very important fact of secularism. Irfan> > Habib, anoted historian who is also a protagonist of the> > liberal Muslim'svoice in India, once said that secularism> > must necessarily mean"relying on reason". A country held to> > ransom by religious bodies andreligious leaders who do not> > know even a bit of the spiritual aspectof religion — like our> > gaggle of fake mullahs and sadhus — can neverclaim to be> > secular. To put it the other way, a country that does nothave> > a uniform civil code in place cannot claim to be secular.> > Themost surprising thing is this: Muslim personal law in> > India requiresShariat to be applied only in civil cases and> ! > absolutely not incriminal cases, which is a double standard,> > and this > double standardis within another double standard> > which is the fact that > there arepersonal laws in a secular country.> > Who would fight for a uniform > civil code? The Congress? The> > Left? TheBJP? The Congress will never do it > because any such> > fight willcontradict its policy of religious appeasement. > The> > Left can do it butagain it would run the 'secular' risk of it> > being > dubbed anti-Muslim.How could the Left sing the BJP's> > song? The BJP can > definitely do itbut here also it would run> > the risk of it being dubbed > 'communal'.Strange, India is> > still secular without being really so! And > that iswhy a woman> > is killed twice here. Only a uniform civil code can > saveher.> > Is it not the duty of modern India to see that a woman is> > > notkilled twice?> > _______________________________________________> > Assam > mailing list> > Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu> > > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/lis! tinfo/assam> >> > Mailing list FAQ:> > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html> > To unsubscribe or change options:> > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam> >> _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
