The Doll’s House

1) ``Now may I ask on what basis do a number of Hindus have any business to suspect this? ``
- No one in India expects any Indian Muslim to express contrition for a suicide bombing in Israel. However, there is a legitimate expectation that the moderate muslims will distance themselves from an Akshar-dham attack or a Raghunath temple attack or an attack on the Parliament. This is legitimate because these terrorists justify their deeds on the basis of Islam. So, you the moderate muslim, should condemn these co-religionists of yours. You should listen to the Friday sermons in the mosques. There is all the pretentious talk about Iran, Iraq and Palestine. When you take up the cudgels on behalf of Muslim causes the world over, you should also take time to discriminate between the legitimate and terrorist approaches they take to achieve their goals.

2) ``If I am supposed to feel ashamed for what someone does in another part of the world, whose language I cannot understand, whose food habits and clothes are different from mine, who even looks different, then I have every right to find terrorists in my backyard from the majority community.``

If so, how come you find it necessary to support the causes of people in other parts of the world ``whose language I cannot understand, whose food habits and clothes are different from mine, who even looks different.`` You do so on the basis of the concept of Muslim brotherhood. The concept of ``Umma.`` When the people who you support behave barbarically, you turn around and say how am I connected to all this. Take it on your chin... You can`t have it both ways.

The Ottoman Caliphate is defeated in WWI and you find it necessary to protest here in distant India. Salman Rushdie, a British citizen, writes a book, and you riot in Mumbai. A newspaper publishes an article with references to Dante`s Inferno and thousands gather in the streets of Bangalore and we have a law and order situation.

Who are we fooling? If everything is hunky-dory with the muslim society, why are we having this discussion at all?

PS to #508

http://meaindia.nic.in/humanright/2003/0415hr01.htm
`` We are all aware that there is no single universally applicable definition of minorities. This becomes even more difficult for a diverse country like India. My delegation would, therefore, in the context of minorities, refer to the religious minorities in India. ``

http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2004/09/05/fea25.html

``The discussion on the issues of minorities and their rights in the present form has been going on for almost a century. After the First World War, the concern of the minorities particularly in the context of Europe was on the agenda of the League of Nations.

The discussion on the minority issues continues, but no formal attempt was made to define a `minority`. In 1945, the United Nations put more emphasis on the human rights rather than minority rights. It is in 1977, that a UN study on the `Rights of Persons belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities offered a definition of a minority group.

It defined the minority as ``a group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, on a non-dominant position, ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show if only implicity, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, tradition, religion or language.``

A revised version of the definition was submitted to a Sub-Commission of the United Nations in 1985. Accordingly, it defined the minority as ``a group of citizens of a State, constituting a numerical minority and in a non-dominant position in that State, endowed with ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristic which differ from those of the majority of the population, having a sense of solidarity with one another, motivated, if only implicitly, by a collective will to survive and whose aim is to achieve equality with the majority in fact and in law.``

--

Agreed that there is ambiguity in definition of `minorities`, but don`t know how far the Indian constitution has lent itself to innovative definitions other than the broadest religious and linguistic(mother tongue) definitions.

In other words, I doubt for instance Shias are recognised as having minority status wrt Sunnis, rather they are given minority status as Muslims wrt Hindus. Suppose a uniform Muslim code was imminent, could Shias claim minority status wrt Sunnis and opt out of it? And then on to smaller and smaller sect definitions possibly...? Lingayats in Karnataka have tried this wrt Hindus, certainly.

Another issue - how large is the geographical area where minorities are counted and declared minorities? Say the unit is district not state(as it currently seems to be). Do Hindus have minority rights in Muslim-majority North Kerala districts(running their own educational institutions, for instance) which they do not have in Hindu-majority South Kerala districts? Can Lingayats really claim minority status in Karnataka districts where they are in majority? Many Indian states are as big as independent countries, is it meaningful in terms of protecting minorities to fix state-wide ennumeration as the definition of majority-minority?

[And each Hindu caste group is itself a minority if viewed on national scale - but unlike religious self-awareness which is statutory, statutory caste self-awareness is illegal. Does this disadvantage some Hindu groups wrt the sharing of spoils - resulting in politics of scrambling to get into the statutory OBC definitions to claim their share?]

It seems to me that where the contradictions are, is where the tensions accumulate.

And those Muslims who don`t think Shariat is mandatory, can they be a recognised ``religious minority`` and the state intervene to keep them safe from fatwas and boycotts from the majority on that count?

I doubt it can be done until the general tone of politics and public discourse changes from protection of group rights to protection of individual rights. IMO, for UCC purposes, the broadest group definition applies currently - of Muslim minority rights in Hindu-majority population.

AlephNull #507


You asked:
``Is there in fact such a constitutional right (to autonomy/non-interferene)? And if so, how explicitly is it demarcated?``

For instance, how are ‘minorities’ (or ‘communities’, more generally) defined? Are the recognized minorities explicitly enumerated, or are they to be identified in an ad hoc fashion? Are ‘minorities’ granted any rights above and beyond those that voluntary associations of people inherit from their constituent individuals? ``


My answer(pl. feel free to contradict and demolish, and sorry in advance for my amateurish lack of exactitude)

Re religious minorities-

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution:
http://164.100.10.12/cgi/nph-bwcgi/BASIS/coiweb/all/secretr/DDW?W=actid
=`1ONS00`&M=30&K=960&U=1

26. Freedom to manage religious affairs.- Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right-

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and
charitable purposes;

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law.

--
There is no mention of `minorities`.

However in the previous article, Article 25, it sets Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists apart from others for state interference, in other words:


``Right to Freedom of Religion

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.-(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.


(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law-

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Explanation I.- The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to
be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.

Explanation II.- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.``

--
My comment:
How about 25 (a) - does the right to be governed by Shariat qualify as `religious freedom` or is it a fit subject in which the state can invoke 25 (a)? I don`t know.

There IS mention of religious and linguistic minorities in Article 30 wrt educational institutions:
30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.- (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

--

Hindus can be minorities too but this has taken time to get accepted. Correct me if I am wrong, that it took decades to get Hindus officially declared minorities in some NE states where they have been in minority.



Re noninterference and Muslim Law:

The Shariat Act 1937 adopted by independent India
http://www.helplinelaw.com/bareact/index.php?dsp=mus-per-law

Which gives a Muslim the right to be governed by Shariat Law. This implies non-interference by the state unless a Muslim explicitly approaches the state.

``2. Application of Personal Law to Muslims. —Notwithstanding any customs or usage to the contrary, in all questions (save questions relating to agricultural land) regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal property inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of Personal Law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust properties, and wakfs (other than charities and charitable institutions and charitable and religious endowments) the rule of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall be theMuslim Personal Law (Shariat).``

--

You asked:

``And most important, how should the state decide between the rights of individuals and the alleged rights of minorities when they are in conflict (as they very often are, and as they most certainly were in, e.g., the Shah Bano case)? ``


My answer:
There are plenty of contradications all over the place. In the Constitution, the directive principle calling for UCC contradicts the provisions of the Shariat Act 1937. `Shariat` as it is interpreted could contradict a Muslim woman`s Consitutional right to `equality of status and opportunity` (as could various other religious communities` personal laws)


Re interpreting what is Muslim law, there are contradictions there too. There are parallel judicial systems, 1) the local bodies/qazis/justice traditions of various sects of Muslims as well 3) the Indian judiciary (with Muslim and nonMuslim judges) both of which can issue legally binding judgements under Shariat Act 1937.

The problems regarding this according to me
1. The Indian judiciary`s building up of cases/precedents under Shariat binds only Indian judiciary`s future judgements under Shariat, not judgements from the multiplicity of local community boards/ Jamaats where the state can still not interfere.

2. An economically and socially vulnerable Muslim woman is mostly forced to remain within her local community`s judgement system and the state can do nothing about it(Shariat Act)

3. There is a limit to how much the effect of Shariat Act 1937 system can be influenced from outside- given a longstanding Muslim tradition of preference for Shariat, given politics, and the given right of minorities to run their own religious institutions without state interference(for instance if the state decreed a quota for women`s seats in mosque committees as a way to improve Muslim women`s status and opportunity. If I am correct, payscale revisions or terms of employment of teachers are other instances where state dictums have been challenged by minority educational institutions managements on the noninterference ground).


If I may repeat the conclusions I drew from the references in my past posts(in case you missed), it appears that (#473)
1. A Qazi/Jamaat/mosque committee`s judgement is legally binding on a Muslim woman unless she explicitly opts out and approaches the state judicial system
2. In the situation she does not opt out, state can not intervene on any grounds
3. Muslim law is not codified, in the sense that any body can deliver any judgement as long as he/the body is an accepted authority within the community.
4. The Indian judicial system does interpret what is Shariat but there are limits to its powers (as evidenced by the Shah Bano case).


How to go about resolving the contradictions in ways acceptable to large numbers of Muslim Indians is what I was talking of, not of purely the legalities.

IMO, the way to go about it is via codification and fundamental rights. It is better to project the positive aspect of holding a Muslim woman`s fundamental rights to be above her current exigencies under the current/local/regional interpretation/administration of Shariat vs the negative one of attacking the right of neighbourhood religious stiffs to decide on her personal affairs.

Sadna #406

{{In contrast, in the Muslim woman`s case the state appears to be forcing a curtailment of her rights by implicitly endorsing mosque committees as fit adjudicators under Muslim law- due to consitutional right of minorities to noninterference in religious affairs.}}

and #505

{{And without rationalizing it with the constitutional right to religious autonomy and without consensus on the religious question of whether Sharia is mandatory or not, imposing UCC does not make sense.}}

Is there in fact such a constitutional right (to autonomy/non-interferene)? And if so, how explicitly is it demarcated?

For instance, how are ‘minorities’ (or ‘communities’, more generally) defined? Are the recognized minorities explicitly enumerated, or are they to be identified in an ad hoc fashion? Are ‘minorities’ granted any rights above and beyond those that voluntary associations of people inherit from their constituent individuals?

And most important, how should the state decide between the rights of individuals and the alleged rights of minorities when they are in conflict (as they very often are, and as they most certainly were in, e.g., the Shah Bano case)?

harimau #502
It is not just the clergy who will react. Mosque committees are grassroots organisations functioning all over the country. If UCC is `imposed` and their power to run their communities` affairs is forcibly taken away, you can expect widespread grassroots reaction. And without rationalizing it with the constitutional right to religious autonomy and without consensus on the religious question of whether Sharia is mandatory or not, imposing UCC does not make sense. UCC can only make sense with broad Muslim consent.

IMO, the way to get that consent is to emphasize an Indian citizen`s individual rights/right to gender equality as primary reason for reform of all personal law, including Muslim personal law.

And how evil to talk of UCC, the ultimate culmination of Muslim mainstreaming, when the above FV article was all about how we Hindus are pure evil for ganging up with Zee TV and forcibly mainstreaming a Muslim woman (not by reforming her personal law, but simply by putting her on TV) ?

Dost-mittar #491

My assessment of Urstruly probably coincides with yours. My impression is that he would stay strictly within the boundaries of what he think Islam permits, but would strive for utmost lenience within those rigidly demarcated boundaries. It’s interesting though to see him trot out notions of ‘social contract’ between groups of human beings (genders, religious communities) to justify legally sanctioned unequal treatment of individuals. I pity those whom childhood brainwashing has programmed to find convoluted rationalizations for such a worldview.

My take on Asif Naqshbandi is somewhat similar. He wants a rigid dispensation of justice under shariat but regards the required standards for admissible evidence as being exceptionally high.

I ‘d probably be stoned to death within a week if suddenly transplanted into the Islamic society that these gentlemen pine for. I don’t doubt their core sincerity, though.

Quoting the following from another debate on the same subject...

`` Was the point of contention between the North and South largely about slavery? Yes, of course. No one is even really disputing that. Was the war that resulted from this disagreement about slavery? No. And it`s very important to understand the distinction, subtle though it may be.

Let`s try another example. Child pornography is a problem. You`ll find very few people who are in favor of it, just as you`ll find few in favor of slavery. But now let`s say the Government wanted to stop child pornography and they decide that since a lot of child pornography is on the internet, they need to shut the internet down. Now if you decide the oppose the government in shutting the internet down, does that mean you`re in favor of child pornography? Of course not. While that was what caused the dispute, it`s not what the dispute itself is about.

The North and South were opposed on the issue of slavery and it drove them apart. The secession of the Southern states was basically about slavery and their Constitutional rights to continue it, and thereby protect their economic livlihood. In response, the North went to war for the purpose of stopping that secession, not to stop slavery. He didn`t even try to stop slavery until two years into the war.

I say it`s important to note the difference because if you think the war was about slavery, then it becomes all too easy to just pass it off as a good vs. evil struggle where the righteous Union marched into the evil Confederacy and forced them to stop their slavin` ways, end of story. But if that`s what you think, you completely miss the real history of what happened. You miss how we went as a country from a collection of states, to a an entity driven by a central power. You miss the precedent and curcumstance by which the federal government came into ascendance and you`re more likely to believe that it`s simply always been that way and that`s how the Founding Fathers intended it. But that`s not the case. This is not the government they had in mind, at least not entirely. One of the major sources of checks and balances is gone. The states no longer have the ability to oppose the federal government and so the federal government has turned into something monstrous in size and no longer entirely clear in its purpose and intent. And this all goes back to Lincoln and the Civil War. But if you want to continue thinking it was about slavery and nothing more, then all this is lost on you. ``

#490 by AlephNull

``I live and have lived only in countries aspiring to be civilized, ``

Spoken like a true a-hole!!

Read this A-hole- from the “aspiring to be civilized country”.
All from the “Final” solution?” board. Running on the front page.
Some more narratives from where ``you have lived`` a-hole!

So were you celebrating when they were roasting children alive? Barbarian!


“No human can celebrate children being roasted alive. Only barbarians
can.
This is because they believe neither in religion nor in humanity. That
is
why, each day, Modi reminds us of Idi Amin and Pinochet. And Goebbels.

-- Amit Sengupta, in his article ‘A poem for Asif’, in The Hindustan
Times,
March 23, 2002.

The carnage was made possible by the city’s Hindu police force, which
merely
watched yesterday as gangs rampaged through Muslim areas.

-- The Guardian, London, quoted in The Statesman, March 3, 2002

`I`d worship Hitler, not Gandhi`

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 06, 2004 06:37:18 PM ]

AHMEDABAD/VADODARA: When asked about his perception of Gandhi, a mass communication student, Vishal Desai, says that he would rather worship Hitler than him. This was just one of the many grossly irreverent views of the youth who have all but forgotten about the man they were told was the Father of the Nation.

#42 by hindvi on October 6, 2004 9:35am PT
Urstruly

you have no idea of the kind of humiliation women underwent in gujrat. in some villlages they were strippped naked and made to run through the main street (infront of other hindu women) then they were made to pe, and finally raped. in other places they were stripped and raped sometimes infront of their children and male members of their families including fathers and brothers. in large numebrs of cases they were simply burnt. the mutilation of their bodies while alive and then later when dead attested to the extreme hate and urge to humilate on the part of their assailants. They also meant to terrorise the victims in running away and leaving their land/property. The economic boycott of those that remained continues till today more than 2 years later.

In some cases they continue to live in the same villages though in most cases the muslims just dissapeared leaving behind their gutted property and land. few rape victims have come forward mostly they are those who lost their children, husbands or were horrificly burnt , those who had a chance of getting married or whose families survived have not reported, if you have the time read this.

Link:http://www.geocities.com/shrawan_k_s/Communalism/Gujrat/TheSurvivorsSpeakX.html.htm
http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/TanikaSarkarJUL02.html

``Women have been killed in very large numbers. At the mass grave that was dug on March 6 to provide burial to 96 bodies from Naroda Patiya, 46 women were buried. Bilkees Beghum from the Godhra relief camp told a tale that seemed to confirm a recurrent pattern in most places, according to survivors` accounts. She was stripped, gang-raped, her baby was killed before her, she was then beaten up, then burnt and left for dead. For variety`s sake, other women also had acid thrown upon them, and then burnt in fires. A womens` fact-finding report sums up the usual procedure: ``..rape, gang rape, mass rape, stripping, insertion of objects into their body, molestationÖ a majority of rape victims were burnt alive.`` Before they were finally killed, some were beaten up with rods and pipes for almost an hour. Before or after the killing, their vagina would be sliced, or would have iron rods pushed inside. Similarly, their bellies would be cut open or would have hard objects inserted into them. A 13-year old girl, Farzana, had a rod pushed into her stomach, and was then burnt. A mother reported that her three-year old baby girl was raped and killed in front of her, while elsewhere daughters reported on the rapes of their mothers, now dead. Kausar Bano, a young girl from Naroda Patiya, was several months pregnant. Several eyewitnesses testified that she was raped, tortured, her womb was slit open with a sword to disgorge the foetus which was then hacked to pieces and roasted alive with the mother.

At Fatehpura, young girls were paraded naked. After they were rescued by a Muslim ambulance service, they travelled to the camp without a stitch on them. Other victims arrived naked at camps, too, after acid had been poured upon their clothes, which they tore off in agony from their burning and peeling bodies.

Medina Mustafa Ismail Shaikh reported from Kalol camp: ``My daughter was like a flower, still to experience lifeÖThe monsters tore my beloved daughter to piecesÖthe mob was saying, cut them to pieces, leave no evidenceÖI saw fires being lit. After some time, the mob started leaving. And it became quiet.``

It had become very quiet, for the voices of children could not be heard. A very large number of parents, especially mothers, had to see their children die in excruciating agony before they, too, were tortured and burnt. At the mass grave for 96 people, they buried a six month old baby. Fatimabibi, who came to Delhi to testify to the violence, kept repeating dementedly: ``Innocent (masoom) tender babies were crying for water, they filled them up with petrol and then lit them up.`` At Randhikapur village, a young pregnant woman first saw her baby cut to pieces. Then she was raped and her foetus was ripped out and killed. They beat her up and left her for dead. Four year old Asif died of 90 per cent burns after several days` of agony. Before he died, The Hindu took a photograph of his bandaged face, out of which his large, beautiful, fully aware eyes were blazing out.``

Ref sadna #501

[An exercise in standardization might only set off power struggles and sectarian rivalries and end in mutual declarations of apostasy just like in Pakistan (or it might not). Hm. So it might not be reasonable or rational to expect the clergy to sit together and deliver a uniform Muslim Personal Law, such a thing might be conceptually impossible (or it might not). So what should other Indians and Indian Muslim women DO ?]

Screw the mullahs. Forget about a Uniform Muslim Personal Law. Just bring out a Uniform Civil Law for all including Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jains, Buddists, Jews, Agnostics, Movie Actress Worshippers like Soysauce, etc. Those who don`t like it can lump it.

sadna #various
Of course a push for a uniform codified Muslim Personal Law might bring to attention a huge elephant in the room, which is that various leaders of various Islamic sects in various regions of India(perhaps even in the next town) cannot, infact agree on a single Muslim code.

Even if our traditions of justice are currently ambiguous and justice delivered uneven, we coexist and we each agree to disagree, because we have our share of Jamaats/mosques/communities which we preside over and so we do not need to be at each others throats to prove that our sect has the monopoly on the absolute truth(which it does of course, otherwise why would I, a learned member of the clergy, belong to mine?). A uniform code will put other sects on a equal basis to mine, how can I accept that?

An exercise in standardization might only set off power struggles and sectarian rivalries and end in mutual declarations of apostasy just like in Pakistan (or it might not). Hm. So it might not be reasonable or rational to expect the clergy to sit together and deliver a uniform Muslim Personal Law, such a thing might be conceptually impossible (or it might not). So what should other Indians and Indian Muslim women DO ?
(talking to myself)

498 #HP,

This from somebody whose country has effectively wiped out all minorities.

HP

Post#498

If you feel I have just picked a sentence from your post and going by that only, say so and/or feel free not to react/respond to it.

Quote:

`` Not a month passes in this “aspiring to be civilized” country when members of the minority community are not killed only because they belong to a religious minority.``

Assuming reference is to India. If that is the case, then it would be very, very hard to even show (note, I am not saying prove) that it is the case. Rumours/perceptions is a different matter. Things are not that bad at all in India.

#490 by AlephNull

Here this a-hole goes again!

“You’ve gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick as far as I’m concerned. I live and have lived only in countries aspiring to be civilized, where silly primitive notions such as ‘blasphemy’ and ‘hate-mongering’ do not carry excessive weight.”

This “aspiring to be civilized country” takes pride in killing people by thousands and the word “Muslim” in that “aspiring to be civilized country” has more heinous meaning than the word kafr can ever be.
This “aspiring to be civilized country” still boasts of a chief minister who is directly and indirectly involved in mass murders.
Two posters form this same “aspiring to be civilized country” are debating the merits of “RAT worship” on another thread.

And this self-proclaimed civilized person on another board implied that Sikhs in Golden Temple and in Delhi in 1984 were killed because they sought martyrdom.

This A-hole also believes that Muslims in Gujarat asked for the treatment they got. This A-hole is proud of the killing of unborn babies when babies were plucked out of mother’s womb and placed on sharp objects. This person from the so-called civilized country probably appreciated his fellow citizens’ gang raping and murdering 70 years old woman and similar incidences were repeated for days. This A-hole most likely applauded those ``civilized`` murders.
Not a month passes in this “aspiring to be civilized” country when members of the minority community are not killed only because they belong to a religious minority.

Here is a person so full of hate for one community in his own country that he cannot miss an opportunity to show his hatred on various threads and despite being this vile and hateful he thinks he is civilized because he does not worship “Rats”.

Any person with such ingrained hate cannot be civil! A-hole!
Any person who can blame the victims of the 1984 Sikh murders on Sikhs themselves can be only an A-hole!
Civilized! My foot!

Hindvi

Here is another resolution, directly from the Congress/House itself...and no where this too mentions anything about abolition of slavery ....

It can not be copy/pasted so self typing.

37th Congress, 1st Session

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JULY 25, 1861

Mr Clark asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in the following Joint Resolution; which was read the first and second time, ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

.... JOINT RESOLUTION

Declaratory of the determination of the Congress to maintain supermacy of the government and integrity of the Union.

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That we, as representatives of the people and States, respectively, do hereby declare our fixed determination to maintain the supermacy of the government and the integrity of the Union of all these United States; and to this end, as far as we may do so, we pledge the entire resources of the government and people, until all rebels shall submit to the one, and cease their efforts to destroy the other.

tahmed #410

{{Interestingly, I have never heard a peep from anyone out of you in all these years on what BJP did to mess up the indian school curriculum.}}

There have been repeated discussions on Chowk of the Indian school curriculum, and of moves to modify it. A vigorous discussion can be found, for instance, following one of Angana Chatterbox’s articles from last year. Did you not read it or did it simply not register?

Here is a good post from that thread. Prominent among those who debated it, are many of those with whom you regularly clash. Their specific take on matters is unlikely to satisfy you; but since you inhabit a world of your own, that would hardly be surprising.

{{On the point about `k` kafir being in urdu qaidas}}

Oh dear. Let me clue you in. I often permit myself a twist of the knife in the last couple of sentences in a post. ‘K for kafir’ is a chowk catchphrase made famous by Jay (a penetrating intellect indeed, sorely missed), together with ‘J for Jalim’ (sic). It may or may not occur in contemporary Urdu qaedas – I’m inclined to believe it does, along with a lot of other material in Pakistani textbooks that inculcates aspirations to militancy, jihad, shahadat etc. I thought it just right for a post on the observed uses of the word ‘kafir’. Having to explain it all spoils the fun. As to the rest of your post (1500s on the SATs as proof of ‘world-class’ education, etc.) the less said the better.

Hindvi

Post #480

Quote:

``and you accuse dost mittar of making up stuff? is their a difference between preserving unity and making a strong center or they are the same thing in your eyes? Lincoln was avoiding conflict at all costs this is the concensus among all US historians, he waged war only when they seceded. ``

Where has this come from? Issue was slavery, and whether civil war was fought for the abolition of slavery or not. And I have been presenting case by giving facts that it was not about slavery when the civil war started. Slavery is an after thought. If you want to discuss other aspects, sure, you are welcome. However, let us stick to this issue of slavery first as this is already being discussed.

Quote:

`` and then ``Southern states or states which went ahead with secession, had done that peacefully`` have you heard of Fort Sumter sir? ``

I have heard of that, Sir. Now, please familiarise yourself with the sequence of events. And this is a historical data, not made by me or someone else. Look at the dates...


**********

Dec 20, 1860 - South Carolina secedes from the Union. Followed within two months by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas.

Feb 9, 1861 - The Confederate States of America is formed with Jefferson Davis, a West Point graduate and former U.S. Army officer, as president.

March 4, 1861 - Abraham Lincoln is sworn in as 16th President of the United States of America.

April 12, 1861 - At 4:30 a.m. Confederates under Gen. Pierre Beauregard open fire with 50 cannons upon Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. The Civil War begins.

***********

Civil war begins, almost 4 months after some of the states had seceded peacefully.

Quote:

`` And do you believe Slavery was only abolished in the South and continued to exist in the north? ``

What is there to believe or not believe. It is in black and white. I think, I took that link from US Congressional records which says, ratification of abolition on slavery took place in December 1865.

Hindvi

Here, some more on choronology of Civil War and this one also Confirms that Civil War was not about abolition of slavery...Main points I have highlighted in bold ..

1860


November 6 - Abraham Lincoln elected President of the United States.

December 14 - A call issued in Georgia for a convention to deliberate on a Southern Confederacy.

December 20 - South Carolina seceded from the Union.



1861


January 9 - Mississippi seceded from the Union.

January 10 - Florida seceded from the Union.

January 11 - Alabama seceded from the Union.

January 19 - Georgia seceded from the Union.

January 21 - The legislature of New York and other free states pledge support to the Union.

January 26 - Louisiana seceded from the Union.

January 29 - Kansas admitted to the Union.

February 1 - Texas seceded from the Union.

February 4 - Seceded states held a Convention in Montgomery, Alabama.

February 8 - Convention being held in Montgomery adopted a Confederate Constitution.

February 9 - Jefferson Davis elected president of the Confederate States.

February 18 - Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy. After taking the oath of office as the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, a former Congressman from Georgia, stated that: ``Our new government is founded on the opposite idea of the equality of the races . . . Its corner stone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. This . . . government is the first in the history of the world, based on this great physical and moral truth.``

March 4 - Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as sixteenth President of the United States.

April 12 - The Confederates fired upon Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

April 15 - An announcement was made by President Abraham Lincoln that an insurrection was in progress and the call went out to loyal states to supply troops.

April 17 - Virginia seceded from the Union.

April 19 - A projected trip to Haiti was canceled by Frederick Douglass and he called for the recruitment of Black troops.

May 6 - Arkansas seceded from the Union.

May 20 - North Carolina seceded from the Union.

May 24 - General Benjamin Butler coined the phrase “contraband of war” and refused to surrender slaves who had sought refuge in his command at Fort Monroe, Virginia.

July 22 - The Crittenden Resolution passes the U.S. House of Representatives, affirming the fact that the war was being fought to preserve the Union and not to interfere with slavery. (A note here by self: What more evidence is required to show that Civil War was not about abolition of slavery?)

July 25 - Crittenden Resolution approved by the U.S. Senate on motion by Andrew Johnson of Tennessee. He later became Governor of Tennessee and Vice-President and President of the United States.

August 14 - General John C. Fremont declared “martial law” in St. Louis, Missouri. Confederate sentiment was widespread in the area.

August 16 - Confederate states declared to be in a state of insurrection by President Lincoln.

August 30 - General Fremont issued an order confiscating property of Confederates and emancipation of their slaves. The order caused wide protest and was disavowed by President Lincoln.

October 2 - General Fremont relieved of command by President Lincoln.

(Above act of Lincoln is further proof that Civil War was not about abolition of slavery)

1862


January 15 - A letter was written by General Thomas Sherman requesting the War Department send teachers to Port Royal, South Carolina to teach ex-slaves left on plantations under control of Union forces. Edward L. Pierce submitted a plan which subsequently began the Port Royal Experiment.

February 4 - The enrolling of free Blacks in the Confederate Army was debated in the Virginia House of Delegates. No action was taken.

April 3 - The U.S. Senate voted 29-14 to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.

April 11 - The U.S. House of Representatives voted 93-39 to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.

May 1 - General Benjamin Butler takes command of the Military Department of the Gulf in New Orleans, Louisiana.

May 9 - General David Hunter, Commander of the Department of the South (Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina), issued an Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves in those states and also authorized the arming of able-bodied ex-slaves. Shortly thereafter, he organized the 1st South Carolina Colored Regiment. The unit was subsequently disbanded except for one company.

May 13 - Robert Small sails the Confederate gunboat Planter from Charleston and delivers it to Union Navy.

May 19 - President Lincoln repudiates General David Hunter`s Emancipation Act of May 9 and disavows his order.

July 17 - Adoption of the Second Confiscation Act and Militia Act by the Administration which authorized emancipation and the employment of fugitive slave labor as weapons of war. The two Act declared “forever free” all captured and fugitive slaves of the Confederates and authorized the mobilization of Blacks in “any military or naval service for which they may be found competent.”

August 11 - General Ulysses S. Grant issued an order in Corinth, Mississippi utilizing the services of all fugitive slaves behind his lines.

August 14 - President Lincoln advocated the colonization of Blacks in Central America during a meeting with a delegation of free Blacks.

August 21 - Union Generals David Hunter and John Phelps denounced by Confederate President because of their wish to recruit slaves for the Union Army.

September 16 - Abolitionist Frederick Douglass rejected the proposal by President Lincoln to colonize free Blacks in Central America.

September 22 - The first draft of Emancipation Proclamation read to the cabinet by President Lincoln.

September 27 thru November 24 - The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Louisiana Native Guard Regiments (African Descent) organized and mustered into the Union Army in New Orleans.

October 10 - Confederate President Jefferson Davis requested the state of Virginia to draft 4500 Blacks to build fortifications around Richmond.

1863


January 1 - President Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation. The document was directed only to the states that seceded from the Union. Slaves states that remained with the Union was not affected.

January 12 - The Confederate Congress approved President Jefferson Davis’ proclamation of December 23, 1862.

January 20 - Governor John A. Andrew of Massachusetts was authorized by Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton to recruit and organize Black soldiers.

January 26 - The 1st South Carolina Volunteer Regiment (African Descent) engage the enemy at Township, Florida, shortly after being mustered in at Beaufort.

March 21 - Frederick Douglass issues a declaration, Men of Color, To Arms. He began to recruit troops, including his sons Charles and Lewis.

March 26 - The Secretary of War issued an order directing Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas to organize black regiments in the Mississippi Valley.



1864


February 20 - Battle of Olustee (Florida). Heavy losses suffered by the Union forces that included the 54th Massachusetts Volunteers, the 8th and 35th United States Colored Infantry Regiments. The Union forces were defeated.

April 8 - Thirteenth Amendment passes the U.S. Senate by a vote of 38-6.

April 12 - Massacre of Union Soldiers, Black enlisted and White officers, at Fort Pillow, Tennessee.

June 15 - Thirteenth Amendment falls short of the required two-thirds majority in the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 96-66.

July 8 - President Lincoln announces support of the Thirteenth Amendment.


November 8 - President Lincoln re-elected.

November 30 - Battle of Honey Hill, South Carolina. Participating were the 54th and 55th Massachusetts Volunteers, the 32nd, 35th, and 102nd U.S. Colored Infantry Regiments.

December 3 - The 25th Army Corps organized. (The first and only army corps made up of all-Black infantry regiments.)

December 6 - President Lincoln in the Annual Message to Congress requested reconsideration of the Thirteenth Amendment.


1865


January 1 - The U.S. House of Representatives began to debate the Thirteenth Amendment.

January 31 - Thirteenth Amendment passes the House of Representatives by a vote of 119-56.


December 18 - Thirteenth Amendment ratified after approval by twenty-seven states. (Delaware, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Mississippi rejected the amendment.)

http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/cwchron.htm

Hindvi

Post#484

Quote:

`` every state in the US has its own flag and anthem, that doesnt require loads of money, will you and India allow this autonomy?``

Hindvi Sahib, I have to assume you must been busy, occupied elsewhere when you wrote the above.

Pardesi

Post#476

Quote:

`` (you really need to read his speeches for about 10-15 years just before 1860). ``

I have seen/read some excerpts from his speeches which he gave in 50s. On purpose I did not quote from those as that can be taken as political rhetoric. Excerpts that I have read do not even remotely suggest that he really wanted to abolish slavery in US.

It is possible that he may have given speeches on abolition but I have not seen those. Now if I have not quoted those which show that he was not in favour of abolition because that can be taken as political stunt then that is applicable to those speeches also which talk about abolition. Anyway, that is not the issue at all.

There is plenty of direct evidence which tells us that Civil War was not about abolition of slavery. US Congress has made that clear in 1961, and President Lincoln himself too did that with his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, as that was applicable only on the states which had seceded. And in between we do have other material also which points in the same direction. As it is, officially, US abolished slavery at the end of 1965 only, when Civil War was already won by the Union.

AlephNull:
``I wouldn’t care to live in the ideal Islamic society that these two and their associates are preparing for us, but am grateful for having been forewarned by their candor.``

I think that an islamic society does not mean a hell-hole either. Urstruly, in my opinion, is a genuine humanitarian and, when he is serious, has outlined a fairly humanitarian interpretation of sharia without distorting it. As the Ottoman and Mughal rules showed, a non-muslim could live a peaceful and even prosperous life under muslim rule as long as he was prepared to accept an unequal status in the society.

tahmed #409

{{It is true that Naqshbandi and Echoboom using the word ``kafir``, and I should have noted that as with all rules there are some exceptions.}}

Really? What was that about “I challenge you to find any chowk post by any Pakistani … that uses this term”?

It’s not just Naqshbandi and echoboom. Right off the top of my head I can recall two other prolific Chowk interactors who often used the word. And these are not the only instances I’ve seen of Pakistanis using the term with serious intent – there have been plenty on other fora and media as well. Your alleged ‘rule’ is riddled with more exceptions than a sieve has holes.

I really would not have bothered to respond had you not used your risible claim as the basis for one of your little homilies directed at Indians. That is what moved me to knock the stuffing out of your claim.

{{you cannot demonize an entire community by picking ont he exceptions. I have never said that the Pakistanis were free of rotten vegetables, … And also note that both these two individuals you mention have heard from me the same way as hate-mongerers from India.’}}

You’ve gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick as far as I’m concerned. I live and have lived only in countries aspiring to be civilized, where silly primitive notions such as ‘blasphemy’ and ‘hate-mongering’ do not carry excessive weight. Far from being offended on hearing the word ‘kafir’ or having it directed at me, I’m likely to react with the same degree of mirth and glee as when my UP-ite friend calls me a ‘Madrasi’. I understand that in a Muslim country such as yours, being declared a kafir is a much more serious matter, since it may mark one out as a target for state-sanctioned civic discrimination or even physical violence. Since I don’t intend to live in such a country the point is moot for me.

I also object to the use of the term ‘rotten vegetables’ to besmirch those two fine gentlemen and upstanding Muslims Naqshbandi and echoboom. Dissembling and whitewashing is not their style; nor is pretending to not have seen what is in plain view. There are many Chowkies who ought to emulate their commendable forthrightness. I wouldn’t care to live in the ideal Islamic society that these two and their associates are preparing for us, but am grateful for having been forewarned by their candor.

#483 Hindvi,

I hear this mentioned often as to how Jagmohan`s role was critical in driving Pandits out of Kashmir, could you elaborate on this point of view.

#483 by hindvi

[Terrorist from your point of view fine, but they were not the only ones responsible for driving out Pandits, lots of Pandits vacated when a few were summarily shot, as were muslims for being informers.]

So you accept that the JKLF was not the only group that participated in the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pundits. The very fact that it did is enough to prove that the JKLF is no more/less fundamentalist than any other group.

Indeed, the only difference between it and the other groups is that it wanted independence, whereas the others wanted merger with Pakistan.

hindvi:
Could you please tell me how many hindus, sikhs, christians and buddhists are members of the JKLF? If none, how does it make it a kashmiri and not a muslim organization?
Re. Jagmohan, I would have to read both sides of the story before I agree or disagree with you. A priori, I have difficulty in believing that a supposed saffronite would do something to precipitate the ethnic cleansing of hindus.

Hindvi

Following quote I have taken from an article, link of which was given in the debate that I referred to earlier...I have not checked as yet in US govt archives to confirm the following quote which supposedly has come from the US Congress itself..I also feel, that this quote should be authentic/correct as other Americans in that debate have not objected to it or cited something to refute it...

And this is as good as getting evidence from the proverbial horse`s mouth ..on slavery was not the reason/cause for civil war in US..

`` The US Congress supported Lincoln’s position in mid-1861 when it issued a resolution on the purpose of the war. The war was not being waged, Congress declared,

``. . . in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those [Southern] states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired.`` (W.A. Dunning, Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction, p. 13)``

I did not post #474
In #473 I put some sentences in bold such as
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.

and
Hence codification of personal law as the first step, and that too at the initiative of the concerned community;

dost mittar

you seem to suffer from a short memory JKLF was never a fundamentalist organisation, they never argued for Islamic law, Khilafat, Sharia etc. Terrorist from your point of view fine, but they were not the only ones responsible for driving out Pandits, lots of Pandits vacated when a few were summarily shot, as were muslims for being informers. Just pick up any book documenting the history of the conflict, if you dont like Schofield`s try any other which you consider objective, you will see Jagmohan`s role clearly. When there is an aymmetry the weaker side will often use means you will not approve of this is Guerrilla warfare. When 400,000 troops face 6000, this will happen irrespective of wether its Vietnam, afghanistan or Kashmir.

Rajsingh every state in the US has its own flag and anthem, that doesnt require loads of money, will you and India allow this autonomy?

Rajsingh

where are you getting this stuff ``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.``

and you accuse dost mittar of making up stuff? is their a difference between preserving unity and making a strong center or they are the same thing in your eyes? Lincoln was avoiding conflict at all costs this is the concensus among all US historians, he waged war only when they seceded.

and then ``Southern states or states which went ahead with secession, had done that peacefully`` have you heard of Fort Sumter sir?

And do you believe Slavery was only abolished in the South and continued to exist in the north?

Hindvi

Post#469

Quote:

`` 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 I hope, you understand the difference between a militant and terrorist. :) Even a small child can have militant attitude, and parents/teachers/elders do say that when describing certain acts of a child or children. Hardly ever the word `terrorist` is used. So let us call JKLF organisation with its right and proper name..and that is, terrorist organisation. Now, are you saying that terrorists cannot be fundamentalists?

Quote:

`` 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? ``

I have said, at the time of Emancipiation Proclamation, which was in 1963, many northern states had slaves and recognised slavery. And civil war was still going on, at that time.

Your question is different. You are asking me if slavery continued to exist in northern states ``After`` the civil war.

This was not even the issue. For, we were talking about the causes of civil war and I had shown that when so called war on slavery was declared, many northern states of the Union did have slaves and recognised slavery too. So abolition of slavery as cause of civil war does not hold much water.

Second, now that you have asked, let me respond to that part also. I am saying this from memory only..if need arise, will check and reconfirm ..

I think it was abolished in 1865, and I think, civil war had been won by then by the Union.

Rajsinghi1, hindvi

Whatever I have read tells me that both sides wanted to keep union intact – on their own terms and both sides had a valid case. Intellectually/morally Lincoln was against slavery (you really need to read his speeches for about 10-15 years just before 1860). He was a realist though and did not want a war with south on this. However, western expansion brought the issue to head.

Lincoln did not think that southern states can secede from union at will. His reasons were practical – how will north control run away blacks from south to north if blacks are considered equal citizens in north? Will north chase these “properties” and return to south? What kind of treaty will keep peace between the two nations when north does not want to return its ``new citizen`` to south? He also saw that European powers might play south against north? So, I do not believe that he was trying to make center anymore stronger than was agreed upon in 1785 time frame, he just did not think that states can secede from union whenever they feel like.

Slavery issue - if west would have stayed untamed, who knows if the two sides would have fought the vicious war just because south did not subscribe to Lincoln’s moral code.

As we all know more soldiers died in civil war than TOTAL Americans killed in all subsequent wars i.e., WW1, WW2, Vietnam and Korea. What’s very interesting to me is how Americans from south and north can discuss the war with each other now and live peacefully. We, on the other hand, neither have fight to finish quality or ability to forgive each other. Our problems will stay with us for ever, like they have been before, and will keep siphoning away significant energy that could have been used more productively.

Dost Mittar

dont fall into the old trap: every demand by a muslim is a communal one and every demand by a hindu is a nationalist one.

check this journal article by Ayesha Jalal:

http://www.tufts.edu/~ajalal01/Articles/partition.ieshr.pdf

Here is the book Kashmir in Conflict:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1860648983/102-1558065-0238551?v=glance

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.

#448 by hindvi:

[this is actually more relevant on this board:
despite Hamidm`s and Manji`s valiant efforts to rewrite the koran, religions as large as islam cannot be reformed by individuals, they can only change with education and socio economic development.]

Do you realise that it isn`t religions that can be reformed but individuals who can? Rewriting religious texts does not necessarily reform a religion, which is dynamic and depends to a large extent on socio-political climate it thrives (or is repressed) in. Besides, such rewriting would reflect the disparate perceptions of individuals based on the factors I mentioned as well as their own opinions/prejudices. Education and economic development can transform the way people think, not what they believe in.

Would you say that the fairly open society that constitutes most of the UAE has undergoen a religious reformation? Unlikely. They are simply better off and at the superficial level are able to interact `commercially` with others. Rewriting and reinterpreting have been done several times and the only thing that changes is the person doing so. It is far easier to go out and live a life that suits one`s value system that may or may not be based on any religion.

(I have not read Irshad Manji`s book, but from what I have gathered, she is asking questions based primarily on what falls within her line of vision. At the level of her being a woman who has made her choices -- sexual, social, religious -- she has reformed herself and freed herself. But by using this to make a studied dismissal of a religion is not going to reform anything. Salman Rushdie tried it and became the toy-boy of the West.)

- - -
harimau (#450):

I do hope you add many more names to your Palm Pilot! And I repeat: stop obsessing over the Pakistani responses. It is unfair; someone had even suggested that they had no right to comment on this board. And watch how they go to boards that talk about Pakistani society. Indeed, although many disagree with what Manji has to say, their responses on that board are not personally nasty towards her (her lesbianism comes in because she has used it as her USP) or the writer of the article. Compare it with how the Hindus reacted here. I find it very revealing.

I can`t wait to see what kind of Islamic reformer one of them is going to find us...people in glass houses etc...

Jang

I agree with this point of yours:

``- i would like to treat chechneya (history of czarist domination) separately than indian union experiment``

i meant it not as a comparison of Czarist Russia with India, but as Chechenya`s role as a tiny part of the russian federation. Also India is much more democratic than Russia and also there is more democracy in kashmir than in chechenya. But Kashmir also has a brutal history of foreign domination by the Sikhs and the Dogras (hindus), and before them mughals and Afghans. The dogra and sikhs heavily taxed the local populace, the maharajah discouraged muslim education and prevented muslims from getting into goverment service, filling in positions in govt with pandits and with hindus from outside the state, and the Kashmiris carry this in their memory as stated by Victoria Schofield in the Kashmir Imbroglio.

Also one must remember that the Kashmiris like the Nagas, Manipuris, Bodos etc have an identity distinct from the dominant one in india, just like the chechens dagestanis etc in Russia, these differences can only be reconciled with more autonomy.

as regards ``- indian separatist movement of punjab was inspite of much higher standard of living and plenty participation in national life (e.g. military). ``

Firstly punjab militancy was in part mrs Gandhi`s creation she encouraged Bhindrawal as a counterweight to Akali`s it did not gain popularity until the Golden Temple was stormed.
Secondly its precisely because the punjabi`s had a much higher standard of living and plenty of participation in national life (i.e. military) that the militancy didnot have sustained mass support as it does in Kashmir.

and as I have pointed out in the past, the suppresion of militancy in punjab was finally done by sikh troops in punjab, unlike in Kashmir where the majority of the troops used are neither Kashmiri nor muslim.


``while agreeing with you on theoretical premise of your post regarding devolution of power (which was a favorite topics of home-minister-wanting-to-be-prime-minister advani), i dont see the separatist movements really articulate such views.``

What is a demand for independence if not an extreme demand for devolution of power, and advani did nothing for devolution of power, he just killed time with the Hurriyat, trying to show the US and outsiders that he was being reasonable and the kashmiris knew it too but they didnt want to show themselves as being unreasonable.

``in first analysis they seem to be violent, tribalistic, communal emotional outbursts. they almost always seem to be dominated by extremist and corrupt leaders.``

i thought separatist movement were by definition violent, how are you supposed to react with a power that is occupying with force and refuses to negotiate? how are you to establish your credibility/negotiating power? when peaceful demonstrations are fired upon as by the BSF under jagmohan in 89?

And when the situations comes to a head its usually the extreme that comes forth first, because when bullets fly its not the moderates who will dominatel but that doesnt mean there is not an underlying sympathetic mass, otherwise movements couldnt have been sustained 15 years with all the states might or 45 years as in the North east.

Lastly even in Kashmir the movement when it started was dominated by the JKLF, which isnt a fundamentalist organisation, it was atleast as apparent to me for a pan Kashmiri, but it was crushed by india and undercut by pakistan because it stood for azaadi instead of union with pakistan, they instead supported the Hizb, this suited the indian govenment too for now it could portray it as a struggle against islamic fundamentalists and bring on the secularism shield.

So we have an escalatory situation, and it will continue so until the indian govt changes its position because the people in Kashmir are pretty alienated, and being increasingly brutalised they have become even more fatalistic. the key lies with india it can still save the situation by granting them additional autonomy. infact it can make kashmir a gateway for a politcal understanding with pakistan and its natural ally afghanistan.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

rajsingh

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? why would the granting of autonomy mean no grants? after all doesnot the US govt. give Federal grants? doesnt the US/Indian federal governement collect taxes from the residents of these very states? and doesnt the US govt carry out nation wide programs such as Highway building etc? why would the indian govt. abandon the states? does a difference of degree have to be taken to extremes? and the trend towards decentralisation is global today. its even more powerful than democratisation because even non democracy are decentralising as in China.

as regards

``To say that American Civil War was about abolition of slavery in US would be grossly misreading and misunderstanding the history of that time. That is more of a myth like many other myths of similar nature. American Civil War was more about Union, keeping the territory and Economy, and survival of USA. And of course, making the Center more strong. Aboliton of slavery and all those sort of pious reasons are after thoughts, add ons.``