I'm writing this in a hurry, so please pardon the lack of clarity, etc. On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 16:57, Kiran K Karthikeyan <kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote: [...] > The most disturbing fact is that most Muslim countries have moved beyond > age-old Shariah laws, including Pakistan but in India we still rely on a law > formulated in the 1930s. [...]
While on paper it will seem like the Brits didn't interfere with 'Indian' personal laws,[1] that is not true at all. They in fact consolidated Hindu and Muslim identities, hence in the process deciding what is appropriate law for Hindus and Muslims. Customary law, while still given recognition, slowly becomes an exception rather than the rule which it was earlier. It also forces people to choose identities. Communities in which mixtures of Islamic and Hindu laws were followed were pigeonholed into one or the other based on what was perceived as their 'dominant' identity as chosen by the administration/courts. > In the end the argument is quite clear. If Muslim > countries can reform Muslim Personal Law, and if western democracies have > fully secular systems, then why are Indian Muslims living under laws passed > in the 1930s?> To quote Noorani again, "None can deny the fact that the Muslim law on marriage and divorce, as in force in India -- the Anglo-Muhammadan law -- violates the rights enjoyed by women in Islamic law" (Muslims in India by A.G.Noorani, 2003, page 16). [1] Incorporating Sharia into legal systems, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7235357.stm
