TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[vsdoc]

I thought we'd get around to Shah Bano sooner or later, once you raised the Uniform Civil Code, and, ladies and gentlemen, heeeeeere it comes.

Doc, do you have even the faintest clue what the Indian courts are doing for Muslim women, since we are talking about the full force of Indian law? I suspect you don't, because you are too busy looking at 'headline' issues to look around and check the realities of life.

Maybe.

My wife and I are equally currently in opposing warring camps.

As a close couple friend of ours (our sons are together in school) are separating.

She (like most women) is aggressively involved and taking the woman's side.

Me (like most men) am maintaining a neutral stance (embarrassed at getting involved as all the dirty stuff comes pouring out) and continue to share a drink on occasion with the guy.

Sorry I forgot to mention.

Muslims.

So why don't you educate me?

Cause right now she is living separately, alone, in a rented flat.

And he is living with their sons, in their home.

 

[Joe Shearer]

For your ready reference, Doc, and one of the reasons why I am as proud of Indian judges as I am of the Indian military or the bog-standard Indian citizen:

High Courts have interpreted "just and fair provision" that a woman is entitled to during her iddat period very broadly to include amounts worth lakhs (hundreds of thousands) of rupees. More recently the Supreme Court in Danial Latifi v. Union of India read the Act with Art 14 and 15 of the constitution which prevent discrimination on the basis of sex and held that the intention of the framers could not have been to deprive Muslim women of their rights. Further the Supreme Court construed the statutory provision in such a manner that it does not fall foul of Articles 14 and 15. The provision in question is Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which states that "a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband". The Court held this provision means that reasonable and fair provision and maintenance is not limited for the iddat period (as evidenced by the use of word "within" and not "for"). It extends for the entire life of the divorced wife until she remarries.....

 

[vsdoc]

Joe what is "reasonable and fair" when a man can get up and say talak three times and call quits on a marriage man.

Who decides?

The court?

After how many years?

Ever wondered if she does not want to get divorced?

And the guy is doing it because he's simply - to put it very crudely - running out of his quota?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Maybe.

My wife and I are equally currently in opposing warring camps.

As a close couple friend of ours (our sons are together in school) are separating.

She (like most women) is aggressively involved and taking the woman's side.

Me (like most men) am maintaining a neutral stance (embarrassed at getting involved as all the dirty stuff comes pouring out) and continue to share a drink on occasion with the guy.

Sorry I forgot to mention.

Muslims.

So why don't you educate me?

Cause right now she is living separately, alone, in a rented flat.

And he is living with their sons, in their home.

You know the Qureishis? The guy who was Chief Election Commissioner? He got divorced from his wife after some forty years together, and neither had anything but an impeccable life. They just couldn't get along, and their differences became more and more acute. Both are very modern, very progressive, although observant. The husband is a mean hand with a guitar, and an incredible range of songs. The wife is stunningly beautiful, and has been publishing more and more under her byline of late; look for the name. A real woman of worth. Both close friends, very close friends of very close friends.

They split right down the middle. She is bitter and lonely, and so, I suspect, is he. But life goes on. It's at the poor, the lower middle class, the middle class level that things sour up. I could give you examples, and examples where the civil marriage laws apply, and the woman, Muslim, in this case, got a raw deal. Until, that is, family and friends stepped in and stopped the creep she had unfortunately married of her own free will buckled under pressure.

I am not preaching arranged marriages. How would I, without being a total phony? I am not saying all self-arranged marriages, for which we have a platitudinous term in India, all fall apart. I'm saying you can't generalize, not unless you are making a political case, where the reality of the situation doesn't mean a damn, it's just a question of how many suckers are impressed by an apparent act of statesmanship.

There is no bloody reason why Hindus work themselves up to a frenzy when it comes to a Muslim woman's marriage, under apparently unequal conditions, and forget about her right to education, her right to rent or buy a house, or her right to get gainful employment (yeah, I know, that's not a right under the constitution), other than to do the Muslims in the eye.

Joe what is "reasonable and fair" when a man can get up and say talak three times and call quits on a marriage man.

Who decides?

The court?

After how many years?

Ever wondered if she does not want to get divorced?

And the guy is doing it because he's simply - to put it very crudely - running out of his quota?

It boils down to penis envy, isn't it, Doc? You don't want the guy to be in quota when you can't. Is anything else bothering the UCC fans?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe what is "reasonable and fair" when a man can get up and say talak three times and call quits on a marriage man.

Who decides?

The court?

After how many years?

Ever wondered if she does not want to get divorced?

And the guy is doing it because he's simply - to put it very crudely - running out of his quota?

The court decides. After as many years as it takes our courts to decide - now there's an issue you should be looking at, instead of this one. And as for not wanting to get divorced, many women don't want to get divorced, and they happen to be - wait for it - Hindu. So their rights evaporate, Doc?

 

[vsdoc]

You know the Qureishis? The guy who was Chief Election Commissioner? He got divorced from his wife after some forty years together, and neither had anything but an impeccable life. They just couldn't get along, and their differences became more and more acute. Both are very modern, very progressive, although observant. The husband is a mean hand with a guitar, and an incredible range of songs. The wife is stunningly beautiful, and has been publishing more and more under her byline of late; look for the name. A real woman of worth. Both close friends, very close friends of very close friends.

They split right down the middle. She is bitter and lonely, and so, I suspect, is he. But life goes on. It's at the poor, the lower middle class, the middle class level that things sour up. I could give you examples, and examples where the civil marriage laws apply, and the woman, Muslim, in this case, got a raw deal. Until, that is, family and friends stepped in and stopped the creep she had unfortunately married of her own free will buckled under pressure.

I am not preaching arranged marriages. How would I, without being a total phony? I am not saying all self-arranged marriages, for which we have a platitudinous term in India, all fall apart. I'm saying you can't generalize, not unless you are making a political case, where the reality of the situation doesn't mean a damn, it's just a question of how many suckers are impressed by an apparent act of statesmanship.

There is no bloody reason why Hindus work themselves up to a frenzy when it comes to a Muslim woman's marriage, under apparently unequal conditions, and forget about her right to education, her right to rent or buy a house, or her right to get gainful employment (yeah, I know, that's not a right under the constitution), other than to do the Muslims in the eye.

It boils down to penis envy, isn't it, Doc? You don't want the guy to be in quota when you can't. Is anything else bothering the UCC fans?

Dada seriously man. You are really very anti Hindu.

You think all of the other things you mentioned as rights a Muslim girl should get have not been vociferously argue and demanded by ALL Indians.

Including here on this very board. Me involved as well?

Come on big brother.

In trying to go non-religious do not turn so diametrically against your own ex- coreligionists to gain credibility in your own eyes as somehow being fair.

Call a spade a spade.

You think a Hindu is not getting enough action and a Muslim is?

Where, in Kolkata?

Chalo I am out of here on this absurd note though I would have liked to continue.

Wish you and mam and beti and damadji and everyone else a very Happy and Joyous Deepawali.

Even if you do not believe in it anymore.

Cheers, a bawa who needs more action - a whooooooole lot more.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dada seriously man. You are really very anti Hindu.

You think all of the other things you mentioned as rights a Muslim girl should get have not been vociferously argue and demanded by ALL Indians.

Including here on this very board. Me involved as well?

Come on big brother.

In trying to go non-religious do not turn so diametrically against your own ex- coreligionists to gain credibility in your own eyes as somehow being fair.

Call a spade a spade.

You think a Hindu is not getting enough action and a Muslim is?

Where, in Kolkata?

Chalo I am out of here on this absurd note though I would have liked to continue.

Wish you and mam and beti and damadji and everyone else a very Happy and Joyous Deepawali.

Even if you do not believe in it anymore.

Cheers, a bawa who needs more action - a whooooooole lot more.

That's really unfair.

I'm against Hindus. I'm also against Muslims, and their ridiculous practices in India, when those exact same practices have vanished from the rest of the world for Muslims, including in Pakistan. Ironically, in Pakistan, the laws governing Muslims are far, far more progressive than their equivalents here. I'm against Christians. I'm not that hostile to Buddhists, because Buddhists don't need to believe in God, just be good human beings. I am against the Khalsa. I'm against Jainism, although that is perhaps the most harmless, least harmful religion on earth.

I agree that we should all live under just and equal laws, but I don't agree that we have to squash some people to accept it for the sake of uniformity.

So here's wishing you, Doc, and your good lady and the little ones Happy Diwali. Even if I don't believe in it, after all that you've said, you do, right?

 

[vsdoc]

That's really unfair.

I'm against Hindus. I'm also against Muslims, and their ridiculous practices in India, when those exact same practices have vanished from the rest of the world for Muslims, including in Pakistan. Ironically, in Pakistan, the laws governing Muslims are far, far more progressive than their equivalents here. I'm against Christians. I'm not that hostile to Buddhists, because Buddhists don't need to believe in God, just be good human beings. I am against the Khalsa. I'm against Jainism, although that is perhaps the most harmless, least harmful religion on earth.

I agree that we should all live under just and equal laws, but I don't agree that we have to squash some people to accept it for the sake of uniformity.

So here's wishing you, Doc, and your good lady and the little ones Happy Diwali. Even if I don't believe in it, after all that you've said, you do, right?

No more unfair than being branded Islamophobic by you dada.

Wishing you the same - gotta rush.

3 days later will be back.

Yes, I believe in all festivals. And have a plethora of religious stuff across our spectrum on my prayer table - not just Zoroastrian.

 

[Bang Galore]

I'm not saying ban the Muharram processions. Let me expand that. You are allowed to use the public thoroughfare, for instance, if you are licensed to do it. You are allowed to go carol-singing if your neighbours don't object. You are allowed to solicit, which is what those fatsoes with the Santa Claus are doing, if you have a municipal license. I'm saying this shouldn't be allowed to come into government work and government property. That specifically doesn't include rituals that are part of the tradition of a force, such as swearing in recruits in single-class regiments.

Properly licensed. Controlled. Regulated. Gestuert, reguliert.

Licensed? Regulated? don't we have enough of licenses & regulations already. Don't tell me you are nostalgic for the license raj.......

I am deeply suspicious about this Uniform Civil Code demand. To me, it seems like a call crafted specifically to finger Muslims. And the root of it seems to be sexual envy, based on a mistaken Hindu ( and Parsi?) belief that Muslims get to bed four women legally, and as a by-product, procreate like crazy. Logically, this is so stupid that the reason for it being present is almost an invitation to euthanase those holding the belief, for the reasons given. But it is there. And it has sane, rational, otherwise normal people advocating it.

...and I'm deeply suspicious of anyone suspicious of the Uniform Civil Code on the flimsy grounds that the BJP supports it. The BJP does it because it serves as a red rag to its audience. Best to take it away. The Uniform Civil Code was put in by the creators of the constitution, even if only as a directive principle and has been upheld by the Supreme court. If you are going to pick & choose what parts of the constitution you want to apply, then you must expect others to ask for an "out" on certain other provisions. Slippery slope that. As long as there is a "Muslim law", then there will always be a "Hindu law" even if that is a misnomer & it is about as secular a law as we have now. Can't beat your chest about true secularism & yet fail the first test available.

Drawing a connection to the topic we were discussing earlier, I can't help but wonder whether one of the reasons you are indulging in trench warfare on the AIT & the Sarasvati issues is simply because you think that the opposite side are the BJP wallas & you refuse to give in to them regardless of the merits of the arguments advanced simply because they are the ones offering it up or because it benefits them the most.

 

[Shahin Vatani]

I was referring to the group to which the guy giving me my character certificate belonged, not you guys.

I am done fighting with you guys (though I am peeved that Abii still insists on attacking India).

I am not fighting with you, just discussing. Don't take my posts as an act of aggression. They come from a friendly place.

 

[KingMamba]

Not worth it.....

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

As for how to change things or make it secular discussion that u 2 senior citizens are having,its simple you can'
t do anything overnight by passing any law .Period.
Remember the basic definition of law.It is enforced by the state but maintained by the people.If you can't convince the people the law will eventually become useless.
As for these festivals i am in favour of them as i think they are not only a part of religion[whichever] but a part of indian culture as a whole.An attempt to enforce rigid western style secularism would be disastrous.I personally am atheist but i'm aware of this ground reality.This is because too many people in this country leave in a state of poverty where there is no hope of a better life in sight.
God is the only way out for them,they beleive in god not only because it has been passed on to them but also because they NEED the concept of god to believe their otherwise wretched lives have a meaning.That even if they have neither fame,glory,wealth or anything worth of note in life,after they get through this there is a ray of hope for them.They need to believe this to go on.That is the essence of why religion is a mass movement.

 

[KingMamba]

Why do I get the feeling that there seems to be a deep anti-Islamic sentiment in general at play here.
In any case.. good discussion nonetheless.

That is where the conversation is being veered towards despite Joe's attempts to prevent it.

 

[SQ8]

That is where the conversation is being veered towards despite Joe's attempts to prevent it.

Personal bigotry will always raise its head within conversations..
When it does, its best to agree to disagree and leave it at a level. Rather than drying to draw out more venom.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Licensed? Regulated? don't we have enough of licenses & regulations already. Don't tell me you are nostalgic for the license raj.......

If we are to have the rule of law, how do we prevent promulgating measures that enforce that rule of law? That underpaid inspectors took bribes to allow people to flout silly rules is not a reason to throw everything open and depend hopefully on people suddenly turning angelic. Certainly we do not want too many rules, but does that mean the baby follows the bathwater? Does that mean that we are allowed not to pick and choose and select the laws to discard, or to simplify, or to alter? And that we can rest comfortably when all those laws are gone?