The Doll’s House

Hindvi

Tell me/us, where is abolishment of slavery mentioned in this article presented by/in US Congress...




``Article Thirteen.

``No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.``

APPROVED, March 2, 1861.

Hindvi

Slavery was abolished in December 1865, as confirmed from the following..that means, while civil war was going on, slavery was not abolished and it could not have been the real cause of civil war..Recall, Emancipiation Proclamation was about Confedrate states and not for the whole of United States..

Quote:

December 18 Ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution announced by the Secretary of State; the amendment abolishes slavery throughout the United States

Pardesi

Sorry, your name got misspelt in post 470.

AlephNull #400
re kafir
This is like the jihadi collection boxes and 5 years of Paki lies about them on chowk. I have heard the term kafir being used many times on Pakistani TV even by a suited and booted PPP ex-senator. And it is not used metaphorically as `disbeliever`(a common usage), it is used to explicitly mean Hindus/nonMuslims. You can do a google of kafir + dawn.com to see it was used even in the legal challenge to Musharraf`s military takeover.

As for Pakis who do have goodwill towards nonMuslims - they are those whose unreconsructed native Islamic/cultural values haven`t been obliterated by modern reconstructed/ideological Islam and the credit goes to state failure to indoctrinate and widespread Muslim illiteracy more than anything else.

Layman #399
PS to bear up #406 about
1. Muslim law is not codified
2. It is mostly administered by local Jamaats
3. The road to UCC requires making Muslim law itself uniform first

A summary/history of Personal Law in India:
http://www.law.emory.edu/IFL/cases/India.htm#03

From which:
``After 1864 indigenous legal advisors were dispensed with and the British judges took it upon themselves to learn Sanskrit or Persian or Urdu, and interpret and pronounce upon Hindu and Muslim laws, while increasingly drawing on English legal principles and procedures to work through these customary law, usage and shastric laws. Often the colonial courts simply �interpreted� for purposes of specific judgments rather than reform existing practices. Precedents and case laws were built up this way.�� The consequence in practice was that sometimes the laws were stretched too far towards arcane customary practices which even the community found aberrant at the best of times. At other times English common law wisdom subverted indigenous proclivities or preferences on the pretext that ancient usages stand in the way of �social progress� and utilitarian objectives , i.e. greatest happiness for the greatest number.``

``In any case, critics all along have argued that the Personal Law system as re-invented by the British in India has been �bogus�� (Derrett), at best �hybrid� (Galanther), and at worse, an �egregious blunder� (Gandhi), a queer mix of Indian and Western traditional moralism (Nandy), that hardly reflect� the coordinates of the lived culture, i.e., They are far from being normative.

And although these have governed a narrower area of personal or �private� community conduct - pertaining to family law, marriage, inheritance, kinship, adoption, succession, collective property title, and so on - they nevertheless have specific implications for thinking on issues of citizenship, rights and obligations (including the duty of the State towards its citizens within varying social and cultural contexts).� Prima facie, this tinkering has made room for inequality and preferential treatment depending on the subject`s community membership claims and the particular personal law involved. ``

``Despite these contradictions and moral antinomies, however, there were positive outcomes as well..``.

``...But major contradictions or quiddities were never quite ironed out, and even Muslim judges argued with their British counterpart on points of law, interpretation of Qur�anic or al-Hidaya principles, application of the hybrid Anglo-Muslim law, and the hegemony of the Privy Council sitting at the safe distance of the Westminster.� Muslim leaders in the 1930s demanded codification of their laws. Some redress came for the Muslim community with the enactment of the Shari �at Act 1937 which declared that Muslims prefer to be governed by their own Shari �at or canon law of Islam as interpreted by their imam and �ulama (theologists-cleric body) and legal experts (faq�as) who extrapolate hukm or legal codes and injunctions from the extensive moral guide that includes the Qur�an, Sunnah and Hadith. Henceforth this law would apply univocally to all Muslims, their minors and descendants.

But just what is Shari �at has remained vague, undefined in terms of what a modern nation-state takes law to be with its more pragmatic if not secular nuance; nor did much specific codification on the thorny areas within Personal Law actually take place, and uniformity across the plethora of Islamic sects was not achieved.

The Shari �at Act was based on interpolated hukms, as duties and obligations, and not on rights of the individual. In fact, the rights discourse was eschewed or by-passed altogether. The Ismailis or Bohras who follow the Aga Khan heeded to his verdict that the Shari �at had already been abrogated and so they would rather be governed by Hindu law. Although the Shari �at Act did make some progress. It recognizes inheritance of family property for women, which was not allowed under customary law or Hindu law as understood in colonial times.... ``

``....The Constitution on January 26, 1950 gave sanction to the Shari � at Act, 1937, as the prevailing Muslim Personal law. However, as a corrective to the impression that Personal Law, beyond provisional statutory status, should gain absolute and immutable protection of the Constitution, it is worth pointing out that the Fundamental Rights was followed by a section entitled �Directive Principles of State Policy�. The Directive Principles were intended as a signal to the state (though not enforceable by the courts or under the purview of the judiciary) to apply� constitutionally recognized principles through legislature and governance of the country. The most relevant principle for our purposes is stated as follows:

�Uniform Civil Code for the citizens � the state shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India�....``

``...In contrast[which the author explains] to Hindu Law, Muslim Personal law has not been reformed to that extent. As I said earlier, MPL reflects a very old form of Muslim Law, Hanafi within Shari� at law. Muslims have the protection of their personal law, which has socially (not necessarily legally) binding jurisdiction over the Muslim persons. [b]Unless Muslims choose otherwise, they are governed for all family related matters by the broadly Shariat and narrowly rulings of the representative jurists in their local zillas (location) maulvis, muftis, and qazis (the latter only the authority to pronounce fatawas, legal pronouncements, which are considered as sacrosanct, or near-divine, hukm�law by the Muslims. Unless the affected or grieved member seeks redress or alternative legal help outside this framework, no agency of the state has a right to interfere with this process. So if a marriage or its dissolution is decreed by the Qazi then it is divorce. This is �good in law�, whatever a secular Indian might think of the theology behind it.[/b]``


``....Krishna Iyer, the eminent judge on the bench, made this pertinent plea:

�At present, we are a distance away from a common Civil Code for all religions, since first things first; let us tackle the job of modernizing the Islamic law first, preserving its genius and great principles but approximating the law to the general system and eventually enriching the latter in many respects�. (NUCC Working Papers p 32).

[b]Hence codification of personal law as the first step, and that too at the initiative of the concerned community[/b]; i.e, the affected community has to ask for legislation; or as� S S Nigam had put it, �the respective areas in which religious influence is still strong have to be demarcated with sympathy, understanding and vision�. (ibid p 30) ...``

``...Although by the late 1990s (i.e. presently) The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has agreed from pressures within Muslim women�s activists groups, to codify matrimonial contracts (with details about exactly the amount and extent transactions and exchanges, mehr, dower, ancestral property rights, etc), issue injunctions towards more reasonable maintenance provisions, custodial rights of estranged mothers over their children, and so on. That is a sign of reform from within which indeed is consistent with the Shah Bano dicta� that the Muslim community should assume the onus and responsibility of transforming from within� Muslim Personal Law....``

(btw, even in 2004, the nikahnama is not yet codified).

Hindvi

Post #459

Quote:

`` You are right that no state will grant seccesion but i dont understand your other points if the united States gave autonomy to its states did it lead to anarchy?``

Sir, it led to Civil War which went on for few years. USA became USA only after that war and in that Center did prove that a country needs to have strong Center.

Coming to the question did it lead to anarchy. Recall, my reminding number of times that India is not US. India is a poor country. Many do not get even two square meals a day. What is expected from people when their local govts do not do what they are supposed to do? Meaning, it is natural for some to start rebeling, and demand for seperatism and secession, start appearing on the horizon.

Autonomy already is there. Now what you can do is perhaps suggest that there should be more autonomy. That brings us to my original question as to what extent/degree or how much more? This does not mean that there should not be improvement in Center State relations with regard to their powers in certain areas.

On US Civil War history, while I do thank you for the recommendation on books but you may have noticed in my posts I have also quoted some facts and not just opinion of some individual or individuals.

rajsingh
I hope you understand the difference between a fundamentalist organisation and an ordinary militant. JKLF viewed from the Indian perspective could be called a terrorist organisation but how is it fundamentalist?

And are you saying Rajsingh that slavery continued to exist in the northern states after the civil war? i.e. it was only abolished in the south?

Farzana

The first line in the paragraph was sarcastic and if you read the rest of the post that is what I am saying no body can change a word of the Quran, not even the grand Mufti of Al Azhar people just wouldnt accept it. And by development that is what I mean, people will have to change and I dont agree with ``Education and economic development can transform the way people think, not what they believe in``. It does transform what they believe in other than fundamentalist Christians and Jews nobody in the west believes the lines of the old testament literally.

Paredesi

Post#464

It appears, civil war of US was avoidable only if President Lincoln did not want to retain/keep/maintain the territorial integrity of US of that time, and not make Center more strong.

Southern states or states which went ahead with secession, had done that peacefully. Given that, if civil war was not about Union then what else could be there? Where is slavery in this, as a real cause for civil war? (rhetorical questions...)

Pardesi

I agree with you but how does that discount slavery as a cause? all those causes arose from slavery including the cheap labour argument I was making.

Hindvi

Here is a quote from a debate which I referred to earlier..and have visited there today, after long time...and this one consists of opinion too..


July 25, 1861

1861 Congress passes Crittenden-Johnson Resolution

The Crittenden-Johnson Resolution passes, declaring that the war is being waged for the reunion of the states and not to interfere with the institutions of the South, namely slavery.

The measure was important in keeping the pivotal states of Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland in the Union.

This resolution should not be confused with the Crittenden Compromise—a plan circulated after the Southern states began seceding from the Union that proposed to protect slavery as an enticement to keep the Southern states from leaving—which was defeated in Congress. At the beginning of the war, many Northerners supported a war for to keep the Union together, but had no interest in advancing the cause of abolition. The Crittenden-Johnson plan was passed in 1861 to distinguish the issue of emancipation from the war`s purpose.

The common denominator of the two plans was Senator John Crittenden from Kentucky. Crittenden carried the torch of compromise borne so ably by another Kentucky senator, Henry Clay, who brokered such important deals as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850 to keep the nation together. Clay died in 1852, but Crittenden carried on the spirit befitting the representative of a state deeply divided over the issue of slavery.

Although the measure was passed in Congress, it meant little when, just two weeks later, President Lincoln signed a confiscation act, allowing for the seizure of property—including slaves—from rebellious citizens. Still, for the first year and a half of the Civil War, reunification of the United States was the official goal of the North. It was not until Lincoln`s Emancipation Proclamation of September 1863 that slavery became a goal.

tahmed:
``How would it sound like to you if someone implied that hinduism or sikhism is evil``
I would certainly agree with someone who points out some really vile and evil aspects of hindu religion instead of arguing that those practices had nothing to do with the true hindu religion. As for the sikh religion, I am not aware of any such aspect.

``and certainly you cannot deny that appalling acts of evil have been conducted in the name of hinduism and by sikhs as well``

Yes, evil acts have been committed by hindus and sikhs, but I am not aware of them doing so while invoking their holy scriptures to justify their actions, as the quran has been used/misused/abused (take your pick!). BTW, I firmly believe that there are no more evil people among muslims than among the adherents of any other religion.


rajsinghi:
I think that you are mixing maharashtra govt.`s finances with the economy. The last I heard, Mumbai still contributes almost three-fourths of the direct taxes collected by the centre (and the centre doesn`t spend anywhere near that proportion on Mumbai or Maharashtra).
JKLF: You are absolutely right about them. People must have real short memories for them to be convinced that JKLF stood for kashmiriyat and were not terrorists. Mufti`s daughter was abducted by JKLF people. More importantly, kashmiri pandits were driven out by terrorist acts committed by the JKLF goons and the ethnic cleansing of the valley was complete before the outsiders took control of the insurgency. The difference between the JKLF and others is not that the JKLF is secular but that it wants independence instead of joining Pakistan.

Hindvi

Post#459

Quote:


``The civil war was all about slaves the proximate cause was restriction of slavery in western states, but the south knew if this continued they would be outvoted in the center. there was a lobby in the north that was against it on moral grounds but there was an equally if not stronger lobby which wanted protection from european manufactures i.e. tariffs and an end to free labour in the south when the north had to pay for it in its factories. The south equally opposed tarriffs because it didnt want to pay extra and had a dominant plantaion lobby which feared for its future, since it would be become unviable without slave labour. ``

If American civil war was about aboliton of slavery then please explain something to me. In the Union, there were 8 states who believed in slavery and had large number of slaves, whereas in confedracy, there were 7 states. Why is it that no war was declared in slavery states of the Union?

`` If the north were truly fighting to end slavery why didn`t it declare war on Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware? All those states recognized slavery and three of them had large populations of slaves. Why didn`t the Emancipation Proclamation emancipate the slaves in those states?``

Hindvi

Post#460

Quote:

`` Lastly even in Kashmir the movement when it started was dominated by the JKLF, which isnt a fundamentalist organisation,``

Since you are good at history so you may remember Indian Airlines plane hijacked by JKLF and one of the guys who did it, has come back to mother India...

You may also remember the murder of Indian diplomat in London/Britain..I think, his name was Mr Mahtre of something like that...

And we are being told JKLF is not a fundamentalist organisation? It is/was thru and thru a terrorist organisation...

I am sure there are some more activities too but I do not recall myself as of now...Perhaps, some other participants may remember or know more about terrorist activities of JKLF, even at that time..

Rajsinghi1, hindvi

I am not current on this but I read some time back that civil war was unavoidable.

The Southern whites not only had votes for themselves but also each slave owner had 3/5th of a vote for each slave they owned. That’s why most of the presidents up until 1850 or so were from south. The Northern states did not want to see this system extended to western states (Lincoln however was willing to grandfather this arrangement for the then current southern states as long as western states will not have this system). Imagine southern folks’ control over federal government if they had been able to get this expansion.

Southern states had this mentality of “we are the martial race” and “my one guy is equal to their x soldiers” since they had provided all the fighting soldiers/generals for wars starting from 1776 to war with Mexico etc. They also had this genuine complaint that they did not die in all the wars so that “their way of life” will not be able to survive after they win wars for the union.

Also, since they were leading what today we call “feudal life” (with slaves doing all the work while they could tend to more finer cultural activities), they had this arrogant superiority complex. Poor Northerns were just studious and working on industrial revolution as worker bees.

The martial race underestimated the business oriented white baniyas from north.

Net net, reasons for war in order of priority imo - Political control/considerations, industrial labor needs as someone else discussed. Freeing slaves was a byproduct, not the reason for slaughtering each other. This does not mean however that Lincoln was not in favor of letting slaves keep their own earnings. He just wanted to have this thing expand from north to west gradually and let south reform over time.

#457 by tahmed32

much obliged for the hospitality. we are not worthy.

if you read my post, i was talking of a book by a bengali, and not a lowly bigoted (and ofcourse low class and low bred) chowk poster.

anyways, read this book, its pretty good and available on amazon cheap.

In an Antique Land (Vintage Departures) [Paperback]
By: Amitav Ghosh, Ghosh Amitav

the indian archeology student spent several years in egypt among the rural.

that indian (and ex-pakistani) hindus and muslims have low view of each-others religion is understandable.

that one has a good view of his own religion is also understandable (my stuff, right or wrong).

what is weird is that folks who had little idea of geography or history of india, had however a pretty clear idea of its religion. this contrasts sharply with koranic (academic) concepts of you should treat other religions with respect.

Hindvi

Another name that comes from the top of my head is Maqbool Bhatt/Butt...

Correct me if I am wrong..he too used to belong to JKLF and he was the same person who was convicted, and hanged in India.