[Reader-list] Guests in Vedavati's house

S.Fatima sadiafwahidi at yahoo.co.in
Sat Aug 25 20:08:43 IST 2007

Dear Kshmendra
By suggesting that all references to religion in these
laws must be removed (and everyone be covered under a
single law) you are basically talking about
UNIFORMITY, which is precisely I can't digest. Laws
and religion and culture are not disjointed - they are
all connected. If we want a diversity of culture, one
would have to grant the right to live one's life
differently from others. Or else, force everyone to
become atheist and forget about religion.

Today we are talking about the SAME LAWS for everyone,
tomorrow someone would suggest the same culture for
everyone. I believe in France the right-wing
politicians are trying to codify what they call the
"official French culture". Will we do the same, after
we have formulated a single law for everyone. 

Let us respect everyone's way of living and marrying
and inheriting, as long as it doesn't hurt you. Tell
me which clause in the Muslim Personal Law hurts a
Hindu, and vise a versa?


--- Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Tapas
>   Thanks for the references.
>   Both these Acts are better named as """"India
> Marriage/Succession Act (excluding Muslims,
> Christians, Parsis, Jews)"""""  because that is what
> they are.
>   That is what needs to change.
>   Both the Acts currently cover " any person who is
> a Hindu by religion in any of of its forms or
> developments" AND "any person who is a Buddhist,
> Jaina or Sikh by religion" AND "any other person
> domiciled in the territories to which this Act
> extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew
> by religion". Not exclusively "Hindu", is it?
>   The Muslims, Christians, Parsis and Jews should
> get covered in a SINGLE Act alongwith everyone else.
> There should be no distinction on the basis of
> religion.
>   To address your original questions; YES all
> references or particularities of "Hindu" must be
> removed.
>   For example the "saptapadi" (seven steps) clause
> is ridiculous.
>   The ruling "deity" should be the "Compulsory
> Registration of Marriages". A simple affirmation by
> 2 people in front of competent authority in
> specified manner that they have entered the bond of
> "marriage". How they confirm to each other (the
> rituals they may want to follow) that they are
> "married" is their business. The Union should only
> be interested in their altered "joint" state for the
> purpose of application of other Laws (divorce,
> maintenance, taxation, adoption etc) attracted by
> the altered "joint" (married) state.
>   Exactly the same principle should be followed in
> Succession Laws. One Law applicable equally to
> everyone. No such differentiation as HINDU, MUSLIM,
> etc etc etc (The ETCs cover those FAITH SYSTEMS that
> are yet to pronounce themselves)
>   Kshmendra Kaul
> Tapas Ray <tapasrayx at gmail.com> wrote:
>   The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Hindu
> Succession Act, 1956.
> Tapas
> Kshmendra Kaul wrote:
> > I would be interested in knowing which Hindu Laws
> for Property and 
> > Marriage are operating in India.
> ---------------------------------
> Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places
> on Yahoo! Travel. 
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and
> the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to
> reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the
> subject header.
> To unsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> List archive:

      DELETE button is history. Unlimited mail storage is just a click away. Go to https://edit.india.yahoo.com/config/eval_register

More information about the reader-list mailing list