India's top court has ruled that daughters have equal rights to Hindu family property

[Imran Khan]

Very very good step

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

It's an injustice with male members. In indian society, females are given a lot of dowry. Then she gets equal rights as well. I mean, yeah Allah has made men tough, but not that tough.

Dowry is family members of bride giving some money to the groom's family. Basically, a payment since the groom's family will be taking care of the bride.

Anyway, dowry should be banned/made illegal but I'm sure some people will still illegally continue with that practice.

 

[PDF]

Not my country, not related to my faith, not my concern. I hold no opinion on this matter. (No offense intended)

 

[DalalErMaNodi]

Excellent step.


We also have this rule in Bangladesh, but many women are scared to avail it by seeking legal counsel during the 'baatwara' of inheritance.


Nonetheless, many women do benefit.

 

[fitpOsitive]

Dowry is family members of bride giving some money to the groom's family. Basically, a payment since the groom's family will be taking care of the bride.

Anyway, dowry should be banned/made illegal but I'm sure some people will still illegally continue with that practice.

Some money? This some money some times compels brides father to sell his house.

 

[jamahir]

Dowry is family members of bride giving some money to the groom's family. Basically, a payment since the groom's family will be taking care of the bride.

Anyway, dowry should be banned/made illegal but I'm sure some people will still illegally continue with that practice.

It is illegal since 1961 according to Google but practice continues. And found this good article :

An ancient custom, dowry is a payment made from the bride’s family to the groom’s. It still exists today in spite of being prohibited by the Indian law under Section 304B, IPC 1860. The reason for the prohibition of dowry was primarily the violent nature the custom took, leading to several women being harassed and even killed. As of 2016, the National Crime Records Bureau reported that 1,10,378 cases were reported under “cruelty by husband, or his relatives” pertaining to crimes against women. To give an approximate number, daily 20 women are killed due to dowry-related violence.

One reason that dowry still exists is that it is perceived as a source of easy income by the groom’s family. With respect to this one might see the practice of dowry predominantly in the rural areas and among the households of the poor. Yet, researches suggest that dowry is highly prevalent among urban households and households of the rich and educated. It might make many wonder why someone who is educated and aware of laws indulges in the practice of dowry. There are several factors apart from being “an easy source of money” that answer the question.

The marriage market can be described as a market of brides and grooms. An imbalance in the number of two leads to the existence of “price of marriage”. In most cases, due to patriarchy and preference of boy child over girls, the sex ratio in many states of India is disparate. This leads to more number of men compared to women. It could be argued that since men are more in number than women, dowry might hardly exist. But this isn’t true. Among the men, the desired men i.e. men having characteristics desired by the bride and her family are few. These characteristics include physical features, income, the status of the family, etc. Thus, the bid for these highly demanded men leads to the existence of dowry. This is a typical market approach focusing on the demand and supply of desired partners.

Another reason for the prevalence of dowry is the notion of security. 20th-century research done by eminent scholars such as Krishnaswamy and Sharma suggests that in-laws show more preference towards the daughter-in-law that brings a large dowry, giving her more autonomy and say in households matters and giving her fewer chores to do. According to a few, the bride herself encourages dowry as she sees it as a transfer of wealth from her paternal side to her husband’s leading to a rise in the financial position and status of her new family. Hence, the play of power and autonomy has led dowry to still exist.

The 21st century, marking the era of modernisation has led several researchers to understand dowry in the changing setting of society. An open economy fostered globalisation, which in turn led to the coming in of the consumerist attitude. The growing consumerism has affected the way dowry is perceived, encouraging it. The understanding of women supporting the dowry system is strongly connected to modernisation. Cash and household items that come in the form of dowries are for the use of the new couple, the clothes and jewellery may be used by the mother-in-law or the sister-in-law, the rest of dowry might be used as a dowry for sister-in-law’s wedding.

Many argue that with the rise in awareness and education, the practice of dowry has declined. On one hand, if we compare today’s society to the one existing 50 years ago, this might be true, but the decline in the numbers aren’t much. With women being educated, it is seen that compared to the traditional norms, many women prefer working post marriage. These earning women contribute to the household’s income, thus many argue that the demand for dowry from them ceases to exist. A few studies suggest that the employment status of women matters in today’s time and there exists a negative correlation between working women and dowry. To put it in simple words, higher the salary and more economically independent the woman, lesser the dowry price (as she might be viewed as an asset to the groom’s family). Surprisingly, on the contrary, there are studies that also indicate a positive relationship between how qualified a woman is and dowry. The logic for this correlation is this– when a woman is more educated, the search for a groom as educated as her or more qualified than she intensifies. The demand for such grooms in the marriage market is high, leading to their ‘prices’ going higher.

Dowry although prohibited, still exists in different forms. The reasons for dowry are numerous, as is evident. In such a situation, the need to revise the institutional framework concerning dowry and the need for more research on different forms of dowry and the reasons for its prevalence is the need of the hour.

@fitpOsitive

 

[fitpOsitive]

It is illegal since 1961 according to Google but practice continues. And found this good article :

@fitpOsitive

The problem is, if let unkilled, women outnumber men. To get a groom, women's family need to give this bribe.
If every man marries two women, I swear to Allah, men will give this bribe to get a wife.
That's why Islam gives permission to men to marry more than 1.

 

[jamahir]

The problem is, if let unkilled, women outnumber men.

Women outnumbering men is ideal, especially in the Subcontinent, especially in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan where many males are a waste.

Automation and computerization in many fields also means not much necessity of physical labor by the men.

To get a groom, women's family need to give this bribe.

Yes, that's what dowry is... Bribe.

Found this writing about 'Jahez' in Dawn :

THIS is apropos the letter ‘Doing away with dowry’ (Nov 7). Dower and Jahez are two different things. Sura An-Nisaa 4, Verse 4, “Dower — And give the women (on marriage) their dower as an obligation”.

Jahez is culture of the subcontinent (not in Islam), given by the bride to the bridegroom. Dower (Islam) is to be given by the bridegroom to the bride, to meet the marriage and her other requirements of setting her house.

Parents of the girl spend a lot of money on the education of their daughters and, on top of it, the bridegroom demands Jahez. It is unfair, putting unnecessary burden on the parents of the bride. These days both girls and boys are in jobs. They should bear their marriage expenses.

M.K. Sufi
Islamabad

If every man marries two women, I swear to Allah, men will give this bribe to get a wife.
That's why Islam gives permission to men to marry more than 1.

As long as the man is able to do upkeep of the four wives.

 

[saiyan0321]

Great judgement.

It is and the question behind it was whether the law had retrospective nature or not. The Indian parliament, it seems, had already amended the women share part in 2005. The statement of the judge that daughters are forever is actually found in our law as well where multiple times the courts have stated that the father or grandfather is to provide maintenance to the daughter till her marriage.

This is a good step and a good judgment. In our region, we have tooth and nail to get rights and if we have the law working against us rather than with us, then it becomes impossible so kudos for more rights especially women rights.

Although a retrospective law is basically against the fundamental nature of law which is to have forward impact in its natural form and this doesnt go against the concept of retrospective punishment since nobody is being punished here and only rights are being allotted. The Pakistani supreme court has also allowed for retrospective effect on some laws like the tenancy law in case of co-shearer occupation and ofcourse the famous gilgit baltistan judgments.

Although i do predict alot of new cases to be filed now and alot of guys who were happily sitting on usurped rights would be sweating a bit

 

[peagle]

The difference is that Hindus were still allowed to give 50% or more than 50% share to their daughters but now after this decision it is a compulsion.

Why are you getting so frustrated with this judgement?
You can instead look at this: https://www.thehindu.com/news/inter...dmark-Hindu-marriage-bill/article17324249.ece

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39233567

Why did it take so many years for Pakistan to recognize Hindu marriages?

Additionally, in Pakistan while Hindus or other minorities can be converted to another religion, Muslims can't be converted to another religion. Any thoughts on that?

The difference is that Hindus were still allowed to give 50% or more than 50% share to their daughters but now after this decision it is a compulsion.

Why are you getting so frustrated with this judgement?
You can instead look at this: https://www.thehindu.com/news/inter...dmark-Hindu-marriage-bill/article17324249.ece

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39233567

Why did it take so many years for Pakistan to recognize Hindu marriages?

Additionally, in Pakistan, while Hindus or other minorities can be converted to another religion, Muslims can't be converted to another religion. Any thoughts on that?

Please use some sense and make some effort to understand the discussion before you contribute, I understood the article, I was making a point on hypocrisy, stop getting frustrated.

Please do not get frustrated, you are clearly unable to contribute without getting your panties in a twist.

I am merely highlighting the hypocrisy in which your legal justice operates. The article concerns a court judgement so I am within my rights to raise relevant points. I stuck to the topic in the thread, but, you have chosen to go into your Indian fantasies about alleged wrongdoings about Hindus in Pakistan, WITHOUT providing a reply to any of the issues I raised, talk about self-absorbed.

Never-the-less I will reply to your queries, even though clearly you do not have the mental aptitude to answer the issues I raised.

The personal laws system in India is merely a British colonial heritage, so don't get your panties in a twist and make larger than life claims, you people did not do anything except attack Muslim rights in so many ways, legal and otherwise. There is a massive movement towards a uniform civil code, you can't digest the little rights that were accorded to the Muslims by the British, and even those rights have been taken away under one excuse or another.
Get out of your fantasies, you live in an oppressed society and an oppressed system, YOU are the oppressor.

You don't recognise Sikhism as a separate religion, and I know they hate you for it, you only approved a Sikh marriage act after Pakistan started the process to approve such a law in Pakistan, so you had to do it before Pakistan could, hypocrites, go teach someone else about your hypocrisies.

Regarding Hindu marriage act, there has to be demand before a law is passed, when demand rises, we act in Pakistan, most of Pakistans Hindu community is based in rural areas and concentrated in small parts of the country, granted it could have been done much earlier, but it was done, and their voice was heard. There isn't exactly a history of stable governments in Pakistan, so things moved slowly on lot of other issues too, it has nothing to do with any wrongdoing against anyone.

Right now, in Pakistan, Hindu women effectively have 3 votes in an election and Hindu men have 2 votes. Please do not get your panties in a twist, I shall explain so you don't have to get frustrated.

1. Pakistan has reserved seat system, proportional to their population for each minority religious groups to guarantee their representation in each and every Assembly and Parliament.
2. They are also allowed to contest in open seats if they win it is not part of the reserved seat quota, it is over and above.
3. 20% of the seats are reserved for women to guarantee a minimum representation for women, women from religious minorities can also get elected from these reserved seats over and above the first two rights.

In effect, minority religious group males have 2 votes and women have 3 votes.
In your hypocritical India Muslims makeup, 15% of the population but only have 0-5% representation in your parliaments and assemblies. shame shame shame.

I personally disagree with any laws that infringe on a person's right to choose whichever religion they choose to follow,
But, even here at least we are honest, not hypocritical hypocrites like you lot in India.

You are secular but ban beef, whilst making Billions of dollars a year by exporting beef and cow leather.
Your state controls Mandirs in India so effectively a secular government has a say in how Mandirs are run in India.
you are forcing minorities to convert to Hinduism, Ghar Wapsi, and cry about Muslims and Christians converting people, hypocrites!!!!!!!!, you can't cry about a thing and then do that very thing, hypocrites!!!!

You have anti-conversion laws, but still, pretend to be secular.

At least in Pakistan, they are honest. Islam is a state religion, people know the law and are free to try to repeal it, there are free voices, who do speak against certain laws, but the point is we are open and honest, right or wrong, that is always better than being two-faced hypocrites as in India.

https://theprint.in/economy/indias-...pite-hindu-vigilante-campaign-at-home/210164/

https://www.milligazette.com/news/11636-how-is-ghar-wapsi-different-from-forcible-conversions/

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Andh...ans-to-mass-conversion-to-Hinduism-48367.html

https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/i...w-in-five-states-but-proposed-to-go-national/

You lot are frustrated hypocrites, and you have nothing to say except to cry, shout and lie.
Shame on you.


@Mangus Ortus Novem @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @PAKISTANFOREVER

 

[Salman876]

It's an injustice with male members. In indian society, females are given a lot of dowry. Then she gets equal rights as well. I mean, yeah Allah has made men tough, but not that tough.

Sometimes dowry become more then share of son. And income of son is also used on parents.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

Muslims can't be converted to another religion.

Why?

Do you want to go back to the times when people used to travel in bullock carts?

Why not think about our nation instead?

 

[pothead]

All the loonies taking shots at us,
Not one Hindu uttered a single word or opposed the law.

Albeit we feel it's too late,
Equal rights for women is not something men need to agree to, it's their bloody right as human beings.

To all the bigots crapping on us,
please go and read what the Indian Islamic property law for daughters is...Yeah, they are entitled to half of sons. I didn't want to bring up this shitty comparison in topic that should have been appreciated.
But few posters were chest thumping about how their religion treats women equally.

Yeah, like you are entitled to 4 wives at the same time,
are your women entitled to 4 husbands at the same time.

If the answer is NO, please cover your head in shame. Forget about equality, even the thought that as a man you are entitled to multiple wives is insulting women at so many levels.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Please use some sense and make some effort to understand the discussion before you contribute, I understood the article, I was making a point on hypocrisy, stop getting frustrated.

Please do not get frustrated, you are clearly unable to contribute without getting your panties in a twist.

I am merely highlighting the hypocrisy in which your legal justice operates. The article concerns a court judgement so I am within my rights to raise relevant points. I stuck to the topic in the thread, but, you have chosen to go into your Indian fantasies about alleged wrongdoings about Hindus in Pakistan, WITHOUT providing a reply to any of the issues I raised, talk about self-absorbed.

Never-the-less I will reply to your queries, even though clearly you do not have the mental aptitude to answer the issues I raised.

The personal laws system in India is merely a British colonial heritage, so don't get your panties in a twist and make larger than life claims, you people did not do anything except attack Muslim rights in so many ways, legal and otherwise. There is a massive movement towards a uniform civil code, you can't digest the little rights that were accorded to the Muslims by the British, and even those rights have been taken away under one excuse or another.
Get out of your fantasies, you live in an oppressed society and an oppressed system, YOU are the oppressor.

You don't recognise Sikhism as a separate religion, and I know they hate you for it, you only approved a Sikh marriage act after Pakistan started the process to approve such a law in Pakistan, so you had to do it before Pakistan could, hypocrites, go teach someone else about your hypocrisies.

Regarding Hindu marriage act, there has to be demand before a law is passed, when demand rises, we act in Pakistan, most of Pakistans Hindu community is based in rural areas and concentrated in small parts of the country, granted it could have been done much earlier, but it was done, and their voice was heard. There isn't exactly a history of stable governments in Pakistan, so things moved slowly on lot of other issues too, it has nothing to do with any wrongdoing against anyone.

Right now, in Pakistan, Hindu women effectively have 3 votes in an election and Hindu men have 2 votes. Please do not get your panties in a twist, I shall explain so you don't have to get frustrated.

1. Pakistan has reserved seat system, proportional to their population for each minority religious groups to guarantee their representation in each and every Assembly and Parliament.
2. They are also allowed to contest in open seats if they win it is not part of the reserved seat quota, it is over and above.
3. 20% of the seats are reserved for women to guarantee a minimum representation for women, women from religious minorities can also get elected from these reserved seats over and above the first two rights.

In effect, minority religious group males have 2 votes and women have 3 votes.
In your hypocritical India Muslims makeup, 15% of the population but only have 0-5% representation in your parliaments and assemblies. shame shame shame.

I personally disagree with any laws that infringe on a person's right to choose whichever religion they choose to follow,
But, even here at least we are honest, not hypocritical hypocrites like you lot in India.

You are secular but ban beef, whilst making Billions of dollars a year by exporting beef and cow leather.
Your state controls Mandirs in India so effectively a secular government has a say in how Mandirs are run in India.
you are forcing minorities to convert to Hinduism, Ghar Wapsi, and cry about Muslims and Christians converting people, hypocrites!!!!!!!!, you can't cry about a thing and then do that very thing, hypocrites!!!!

You have anti-conversion laws, but still, pretend to be secular.

At least in Pakistan, they are honest. Islam is a state religion, people know the law and are free to try to repeal it, there are free voices, who do speak against certain laws, but the point is we are open and honest, right or wrong, that is always better than being two-faced hypocrites as in India.

https://theprint.in/economy/indias-...pite-hindu-vigilante-campaign-at-home/210164/

https://www.milligazette.com/news/11636-how-is-ghar-wapsi-different-from-forcible-conversions/

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Andh...ans-to-mass-conversion-to-Hinduism-48367.html

https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/i...w-in-five-states-but-proposed-to-go-national/

You lot are frustrated hypocrites, and you have nothing to say except to cry, shout and lie.
Shame on you.


@Mangus Ortus Novem @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @PAKISTANFOREVER

Just the usual indian delusions and propaganda in trying to portray themselves as being as democratic and secular as the West...............................

 

[jamahir]

please go and read what the Indian Islamic property law for daughters is...Yeah, they are entitled to half of sons.

I haven't completely read the translations on this but that arrangement is most probably because the daughters are compulsorily promised economic assets / security when they get married. This is called 'Mahr'. The groom has to pledge or pay money, jewelry, land etc to the bride during the wedding ceremony. The manner and time when the asset transfer is completed is also formulated during the ceremony. These assets are the woman's personal property and the man has no claim on them. We should remember that a Muslim woman can divorce and remarry with each marriage having its own 'Mahr'.

Please read this thread of mine from 2015. It is an article written by an Indian Christian woman who married her Indian Muslim husband under Islamic marriage law because it gave her better socio-economic security. The article is not only the author's experience but is generally about the need of prenuptial agreements in Indian non-Muslim marriages and how Islam since inception has provided a model for it.

To come back to your original point, the sons in a Muslim family get economical assets by their own effort or by inheritance ( from mother or father ).

@Indos @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan, any comments ?