India's top court has ruled that daughters have equal rights to Hindu family property

[masterchief_mirza]

Meanwhile, Kashmiri men and women have lost property, liberty, expression, work, education, and even death certification rights to the advantage of non-Kashmiri men and women. Shining India - pissing on democracy for 73 years and counting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-53684408

"But most of my customers are Kashmiri and they can't see my products because pictures don't open on 2G speed. Earlier, I used to get 100-110 orders a week. Now I only get about five or six.

International customers worry over delayed orders. One recently contacted her to congratulate her for delivering her order after six months. Another asked her to "get lost" because she didn't reply to her text on time due to the internet shutdown.

"I don't think I can sustain my business for long like this. My monthly expenses are close to 200,000 rupees. And if I don't earn anything, how will I pay my seven workers?" "

" "As a law student, I study the constitution, spirit of democracy, fundamental rights, and due process of law. But these are merely words. The castle they build is crumbling. We are losing individual liberties. For all students and teachers, studying law has become a joke."

Mr Dujia is fast becoming disillusioned with his chosen profession.

"Speaking used to be a remedy but now it can land you in jail. As an intern with a human rights advocacy group in Kashmir, I saw a man bundled into a police van for speaking with media. Our spirit is being destroyed. There is complete hopelessness. We didn't study law to see it damaged by those who are paid to uphold it. I am searching for a different job." "

"If we miss out on important concepts at this point, how will we pass competitive exams in the future?" Falah asks.

"I am facing problems with basic concepts in science and mathematics. But with the internet cut, I couldn't even search for solutions. Now the internet is back but speeds are terrible. Even if I try to open a book and read, there is no use because I have no concepts to begin with." "

"Mr Sidiq works in pottery but says his work has ground to a halt because he can't get his raw material.

The state government recently handed out sand and rock extraction permits to non-local contractors, putting thousands of locals like Mr Sidiq out of work.

"The government has banned soil extraction. They say there are court orders. But where were the courts all these years? Did the judges not give a thought about the families of poor men like us? Do they want to starve us to death? Due to the lockdown, all of my products are unsold, I have stopped making new products and instead work as a manual labourer." "

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

Before you give your silly reply, why don't you try and read what I have written?

Are you simply incapable of managing a sensible discussion based on what is being said, you lot always go into your own fantasy world,
create an assumed statement by a person and then create your own fantasy answers.

I couldn't care less about judgement from a hypocritical court, and that was my point, your court is hypocritical and so is India, do you understand, read slowly if you don't.

I gave my statement and backed it up with valid reasons, if you disagree, highlight any parts of my statement and challenge them based on reason and facts not fantasy statements. Believe me, I will admit my error if it is correctly pointed out, only with justifiable reason, but I have no time to listen to your fantasies.

When I said, I don't believe in triple talaq, what do you think I meant? can you not understand a simple sentence. And, where did I claim triple talaq exists or doesn't exist in Pakistan. It is immaterial to this discussion.

It was the manner in which the whole topic was handled and the fact that a secular country and a secular court is passing judgement on religious matters.

For too long the world has been listening to your moralistic bullcrap. There was a time when you could hide facts and pretend nothing happened.
Now you need to be shown a mirror for the evil acts India does, against its minorities and against its neighbours, you can argue, discuss or run away and hide, the choice is yours.
Silencing anyone is no longer a choice you hold.

The only person replying in a silly and childish way is you. What an argument.

Is there any rule banning an secular country in framing religious laws? Particularly when an law is directly contrary to one of fundamental laws in constitution which promises equality to every person. Let me be clear. Whenever an fundamental right of an citizen is affected by any other law (including religious laws) then its the job of the court or parliament to correct that injustice. Now the court can struck any law as unconstitutional based on facts before it, but it gives an advice or orders the govt to make it unconstitutional. To give an ex, TT was banned by the court, but it cannot "become" an law until Parliament repeals it. Another example is in 86', Shah Bano verdict when the Parliament overturned the decision of the court by bringing in an new law making the judgement null and void.

Now just so you understand, Islamic law recognized in India's civil code is Polygamy, underage marriage, TT and Nika Halala. That's religious laws. Now that law is against the basic fundamental right of an human being to equality and gender rights not compatible with 21st century. There are in direct contravention to each other. The court in this scenario has to decide which law is supreme in this case.
When equality was bought in constitution, many Hindus opposed that law back in 47' saying it's an attack on their religion. Even not giving equal share to women was justified by saying they were given dowry and they have a share in husband's property. But it's not right.

The other option is going completely secular. Like the western way. Bringing in Universal Civil code making the law for everyone the same.

If you are saying secular country shouldn't have religious laws, then I am agreeing with you. Even this judgement is an discussion on religious laws I wholeheartedly agree. But India had to take care of religious sensitivity arising out due to partition and thus accommodated religious laws and it helped survive as an nation. Its time to go.

 

[xeuss]

The only person replying in a silly and childish way is you. What an argument.

Is there any rule banning an secular country in framing religious laws? Particularly when an law is directly contrary to one of fundamental laws in constitution which promises equality to every person. Let me be clear. Whenever an fundamental right of an citizen is affected by any other law (including religious laws) then its the job of the court or parliament to correct that injustice. Now the court can struck any law as unconstitutional based on facts before it, but it gives an advice or orders the govt to make it unconstitutional. To give an ex, TT was banned by the court, but it cannot "become" an law until Parliament repeals it. Another example is in 86', Shah Bano verdict when the Parliament overturned the decision of the court by bringing in an new law making the judgement null and void.

Now just so you understand, Islamic law recognized in India's civil code is Polygamy, underage marriage, TT and Nika Halala. That's religious laws. Now that law is against the basic fundamental right of an human being to equality and gender rights not compatible with 21st century. There are in direct contravention to each other. The court in this scenario has to decide which law is supreme in this case.
When equality was bought in constitution, many Hindus opposed that law back in 47' saying it's an attack on their religion. Even not giving equal share to women was justified by saying they were given dowry and they have a share in husband's property. But it's not right.

The other option is going completely secular. Like the western way. Bringing in Universal Civil code making the law for everyone the same.

If you are saying secular country shouldn't have religious laws, then I am agreeing with you. Even this judgement is an discussion on religious laws I wholeheartedly agree. But India had to take care of religious sensitivity arising out due to partition and thus accommodated religious laws and it helped survive as an nation. Its time to go.

Hindus can never talk about anything without bringing Islam or Muslims into it.

Case in point is this post. In a thread about Hindu personal laws, and some legal rulings, why does Muslim Personal Law have to be dragged in?

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

Hindus can never talk about anything without bringing Islam or Muslims into it.

Case in point is this post. In a thread about Hindu personal laws, and some legal rulings, why does Muslim Personal Law have to be dragged in?

I have an example bout Hindu law too if you can see. But again that person is an Pakistani and I had to explain in a way he could understand. I am not sure he is gonna understand the Hindu laws if I explain to him.

 

[xeuss]

I have an example bout Hindu law too if you can see. But again that person is an Pakistani and I had to explain in a way he could understand. I am not sure he is gonna understand the Hindu laws if I explain to him.

Why don't you try. Maybe he is not as stupid as you think.

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

Why don't you try. Maybe he is not as stupid as you think.

Well I gave an example too "secular" guy if you bothered to read through it. It would be I guess even more easier if I can remember an incident where Hindus had risen up in protests against change in religious laws very recently in the last 15-20 years or so. You can google up and help me refresh my mind if you are hell bent on showing changes in Hindu personal laws and inviting huge protests in return among common people.

 

[valkyr_96]

All the loonies taking shots at us,
Not one Hindu uttered a single word or opposed the law.

Albeit we feel it's too late,
Equal rights for women is not something men need to agree to, it's their bloody right as human beings.

To all the bigots crapping on us,
please go and read what the Indian Islamic property law for daughters is...Yeah, they are entitled to half of sons. I didn't want to bring up this shitty comparison in topic that should have been appreciated.
But few posters were chest thumping about how their religion treats women equally.

Yeah, like you are entitled to 4 wives at the same time,
are your women entitled to 4 husbands at the same time.

If the answer is NO, please cover your head in shame. Forget about equality, even the thought that as a man you are entitled to multiple wives is insulting women at so many levels.

Retard NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE WIVES it is permissible to have up to four wives with a caveat. It is at best to have one, even then, only if you have the means to provide for otherwise it it is proscribed for males to practice fasting. The same is not applicable to women, who can decide when to marry provided they have attained the requisite age.

 

[Vanamali]

What a beautifully twisted court and justice system,
It took 70 plus years to grant equal rights to Hindu women,
But were very quick to pass judgement on triple talaq, in the the process legally condemning a husband to jail if he did so.

I don't believe in triple talaq, but what is a secular court in a secular country doing passing judgements on religious matters.

In which country and in what logic does it make sense to send the husband to jail, in third world country, such as India how is the family meant to survive with the husband in jail and its effect on the children.
And once he is out, what effect will that have not just on the marriage but the entirety of both the family groupings.

Shameful Court.
This court has already declared that mosque is not a part of Islam.
Judicial Hindutva fascism

I think marriage is not religious affair, how you get married is religious. Marriage is contract, and contact is not fair if it gives undue advantage to one party.

 

[Desi_Guy]

All the loonies taking shots at us,
Not one Hindu uttered a single word or opposed the law.

Albeit we feel it's too late,
Equal rights for women is not something men need to agree to, it's their bloody right as human beings.

To all the bigots crapping on us,
please go and read what the Indian Islamic property law for daughters is...Yeah, they are entitled to half of sons. I didn't want to bring up this shitty comparison in topic that should have been appreciated.
But few posters were chest thumping about how their religion treats women equally.

Yeah, like you are entitled to 4 wives at the same time,
are your women entitled to 4 husbands at the same time.

If the answer is NO, please cover your head in shame. Forget about equality, even the thought that as a man you are entitled to multiple wives is insulting women at so many levels.

Yaar ye sab cheeze matt bataya karo. Let them rejoice in their loony toons world. If finding faults in a BMW is the argument of a Maruti 800 owner then so be it!

 

[zeeshe100]

abortion rates will increase in India that's the only change going to happen

 

[valkyr_96]

Only twisted misogynists would even begin to give excuses for polygamy in this day and age.

Lets be honest, men had all the power, hence they gave themselves "permission" to have multiple wives, make them do absurd things, deny them property rights, deny them right of dignity & life.

No there is no self granted "permission" you rant is absurd simply because even in this day and age polygamy is a rare occurrence, mostly seen at subsistence level.

Once again in Islam it is the right of a woman to get married and only incumbent upon able males. For a man to keep four wives he not only has to have 4 times the ability but also manage affairs equally. In the case of divorce, woman can instantly divorce but a man has to wait three periods -one period lasting a minimum of a month during which there is separation/ceasure of conjugal rights. This is ideal.

While sexual gratification is part of a marriage it is a two way street (appropriate sexual etiquette are mentioned in Islam -though not taught/rarely ever discussed).There are plenty of surveys about the frequency of sexual activities of married couples. The permissibility is there more in order to protect the women from ease of divorce and provide them security when none is available. I have no interest in discussing this matter further because as a matter of jurisprudence i.e. long drawn conversation and requires knowledge on Islam.

My point is if someone is ignorant about your religion you have to inform them rather than displaying your own ignorance.

 

[pothead]

No there is no self granted "permission" you rant is absurd simply because even in this day and age polygamy is a rare occurrence, mostly seen at subsistence level.

Once again in Islam it is the right of a woman to get married and only incumbent upon able males. For a man to keep four wives he not only has to have 4 times the ability but also manage affairs equally. In the case of divorce, woman can instantly divorce but a man has to wait three periods -one period lasting a minimum of a month during which there is separation/ceasure of conjugal rights. This is ideal.

While sexual gratification is part of a marriage it is a two way street (appropriate sexual etiquette are mentioned in Islam -though not taught/rarely ever discussed).There are plenty of surveys about the frequency of sexual activities of married couples. The permissibility is there more in order to protect the women from ease of divorce and provide them security when none is available. I have no interest in discussing this matter further because as a matter of jurisprudence i.e. long drawn conversation and requires knowledge on Islam.

My point is if someone is ignorant about your religion you have to inform them rather than displaying your own ignorance.

nothing to do with religion,
Lot of cultures still have polygamy..

Lot of cultures still deny women equal rights,
Lot of cultures still treat women subservient to men.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, since you are not alone in this disgrace.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Guys, report Indian trolls.

 

[peagle]

The only person replying in a silly and childish way is you. What an argument.

Is there any rule banning an secular country in framing religious laws? Particularly when an law is directly contrary to one of fundamental laws in constitution which promises equality to every person. Let me be clear. Whenever an fundamental right of an citizen is affected by any other law (including religious laws) then its the job of the court or parliament to correct that injustice. Now the court can struck any law as unconstitutional based on facts before it, but it gives an advice or orders the govt to make it unconstitutional. To give an ex, TT was banned by the court, but it cannot "become" an law until Parliament repeals it. Another example is in 86', Shah Bano verdict when the Parliament overturned the decision of the court by bringing in an new law making the judgement null and void.

Now just so you understand, Islamic law recognized in India's civil code is Polygamy, underage marriage, TT and Nika Halala. That's religious laws. Now that law is against the basic fundamental right of an human being to equality and gender rights not compatible with 21st century. There are in direct contravention to each other. The court in this scenario has to decide which law is supreme in this case.
When equality was bought in constitution, many Hindus opposed that law back in 47' saying it's an attack on their religion. Even not giving equal share to women was justified by saying they were given dowry and they have a share in husband's property. But it's not right.

The other option is going completely secular. Like the western way. Bringing in Universal Civil code making the law for everyone the same.

If you are saying secular country shouldn't have religious laws, then I am agreeing with you. Even this judgement is an discussion on religious laws I wholeheartedly agree. But India had to take care of religious sensitivity arising out due to partition and thus accommodated religious laws and it helped survive as an nation. Its time to go.

Thank you so much for presenting a proper discussion, whether it makes sense is not relevant, the fact that you made an effort is commendable, well done, tallyian tallyian.

Although this time you seem a bit more coherent and now I am actually enjoying out interaction. The main thing that concerns me is that your views seem to contradict themselves within the same statement, I don’t get a clear image of what you support and what you oppose, I’ve given my opinions supremely clear, with proper reasons, but I have to say your ramblings just do not make sense, because you do not hold one single view, you just Mumble Jumble, I don’t mean to be disrespectful but honestly, you are not being clear in what views you hold. Please allow me to clarify.

"Is there any rule banning an secular country in framing religious laws?"

The most commonly accepted definition of secularism is "separation of religion and state" so yes there is a ban on a secular country framing religious laws, it is YOU, India and Indians, who have been shouting with Band Baja for 70 plus years about you are secularism, if you are secular then why do you have a Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act that allows state governments to take over temples and control their vast properties & assets. Bizarrely, the state government can use the money generated by a temple (donations, income from assets etc.), what a joke.

Why do your courts make rulings on religious matters?
That’s my point, what’s not to understand????????
What are you?????? What do you believe in??????? Can you people not decide or do you enjoy living in hypocrisy?

You argument is based on the premise that you as an individual support secularism, but in the above statement you support the state/country in legislating on religious matters, MAKE UP YOUR MIND. You cannot have it both ways.

If you accept you are a hybrid system (although no Indian has ever claimed it) then you cannot have an issue with the Indian Personal Laws system, there is a personal law for the Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Jain but isn’t it strange your opposition is purely based on Muslim personal law, even when you are trying to hide it, still, your hatred for Muslims and Islam is so naked, it is shameful.

"Whenever an fundamental right of an citizen is affected by any other law
it gives an advice or orders the govt to make it unconstitutional. To give an ex, TT was banned by the court"

This does not make sense at all. If personal law system is approved according to the constitution, surely it must be or these laws would not exist, then how can they be in conflict with the constitution, do you not see the illogical reasoning in the argument, if a law is in violation of the constitution, that law cannot exist.
The fact that personal law system has existed for 70 plus years, means that it was not in violation of the constitution

In order to gradually attack the Muslim community, a certain aspect of the personal laws have been attacked as part of a well thought out design, “ we are not against you, just this small thing and that small thing” this argument lacks moral courage shamefully speaks of the Indian mindset.

For the record, a lot of the judges in the Supreme Court also were against hearing the TT case because it was a religious matter, it was driven through politically, so much for your Supreme Court, or Sham Court

Why is it only the Muslim personal law that always seems to be at the forefront of so-called civil rights issues, DO Hindus not have issues or Christians or Others? Why has everyone not properly questioned state control of Hindu Mandirs, and started a movement against it, or banning entry to women and low caste Hindus from many temples issue been resolved. Why are Muslim issues always politised?
Why is the Muslim always a red target? You cannot pick and choose and target your minorities, change the system fully, or let people live in peace.

Stop your silly reasoning’s because they are hollow, empty and hateful, people can see right through the Lots of you.

"Islamic law recognized in India's civil code is Polygamy, underage marriage, TT and Nika Halala. That's religious laws. Now that law is against the basic fundamental right of an human being to equality and gender rights not compatible with 21st century"

See again there you go with your ignorant attacks on Islam and Muslims, even when you are trying to hide it and I told you to keep religious attacks out of it you can’t help yourself, you hateful person. I will allow this to pass because clearly your brain needs some work, I can’t be bothered to repair you.

Who the heck are you to decide about another person’s religious beliefs, and what is suitable and what isn’t? I assume you are Hindu unless you are ashamed to admit it, I am proudly Muslim, openly a secular one.

Regarding your 21st century barometer, that you want to apply, would I be correct that according to your logic Hinduism and all its manifestation of believe systems also do not belong in the 21st century, that’s your reasoning, not mine. Hence the sole reason for the Nation-State of India does not exist, without Hinduism you have nothing, you are all different ethnicities.

Pack up India, and let the Marathi, Bengali, and Tamil live in their own countries. Actually that makes a lot of sense, you are a genius.

"The other option is going completely secular. Like the western way."

There is no western secular way sir gg, please what are you talking about. Most western countries practice secularism according to their own traditions, there is no set format. Secularism isn’t a magic formula that you Indians shout about, but practice with hypocrisy.

Do your own readings, up till recently some of the European countries use to directly collect taxes for the Church, some still do I think, the Church Bishops have memberships in the Parliament and some are not secular officially, but in practice they are very much secular.

Please understand the subject before so arrogantly making statements about it. You clearly don’t know anything, don’t Mumble Jumble.

"If you are saying secular country shouldn't have religious laws, then I am agreeing with you"

If you agree with me then what points were you trying to make above, why are to writing silly and childish replies, YOU ARE CONFUSED, you don’t know what’s what and you don’t know what you believe.

Just to remind you the topic was India’s judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, you’ve discussed everything except the topic in this thread. That only happens when a person is not clear in their head and just rambles on and on, hoping not to be caught out.

"Even this judgement is an discussion on religious laws I wholeheartedly agree."

I don’t fully understand what you said here, but if you agree that it is a religious judgment that should not have been done in principle, then what the heck are you crying about, you just agreed with everything I said. For God sake yaar, why are you wasting my time. I'm done with you.

"But India had to take care of religious sensitivity arising out due to partition and thus accommodated religious laws and it helped survive as an nation. Its time to go."

For one there was no partition because there was no Nation-State called India before 1947, India was a region that consisted of British colony and princely states, before that it was a region with many kingdoms, never a country.

SO WHAT PARTITION?????????????????????????????????????
It was Azadi, and Mubrak ho, tujay be oor mujay be.

Why personal law systems were kept is none of my business, you Indians do what you want, as long as people don’t suffer. But, whatever you do, if it affects me or my interests, I will have my say, and that’s exactly what I have been doing in this thread.

It is so shameful you lot are so full of hate for Islam and your own Muslim citizens, you people need to get rid of this hate or it will consume you completely, it probably already has, but I am still hopeful.


@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

 

[peagle]

I think marriage is not religious affair, how you get married is religious. Marriage is contract, and contact is not fair if it gives undue advantage to one party.

No sir gg,

Entering or leaving a marriage is a religious act if it is done according to relevant religious requirements, it is not a religious act if you follow a civil marriage route.
I thought this is a simple fact that was already clear to everyone. I hope I have helped in clarifying the issue. Thanks.