[nukkad] Lamenting the state of women and the men ....

["Mahesh chandra gupta" <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We struggle between 1% of what we know and 1% of what we don't know,
but rarely come across the 98% of what we don't know that we don't know.
   - Buckminster Fuller
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[nukkad] Lamenting the state of women and the men ....

Venugopal wrote a mail comprising 7 paras. Parawise replies are given below.
=====================================================================

1. Mitakshara School of inheritance deprived women of any inheritance
rights. They were entitled for right to maintenance for life only. All male
members born in the family irrespective of age had a share but no women had
right to share. Properties devolved on survivorship basis. One can
understand that in the absence of Law, tradition will prevail.

Reply: There is no absence of law. Rules are clear. The female has share in father’s individual property. There are certain benefits accruing to her even out of joint family property.
2. When a modern day parliament passes a law, it is expected that it will do
away with discriminatory traditions. Hindu succession Act laid down rules of
inheritance for Hindus. For HUF, the Act retained many of the provisions of
the mitakshara school. The only tinkering the Act did was to introduce the
concept of 'notional partition' and include the widow (or mother?) in
certain circumstances as entitled to a share of the Joint family property.
Daughters of the coparcener were still not eligible for a share of the joint
family property and but were made eligible for a share in the share
allocated to her father on his death.  Thus there is a wide disparity
between the share entitlement of a son and a daughter. The parliament
legitimized it in the form of law. 

Answer: There is no discrimination between genders in Hindu law as it exists. Rather, there is positive discrimination in favour of women. A married Hindu woman has the following four rights: firstly, right in father’s individual property; secondly, certain rights in father’s joint family property; thirdly, right, through her husband, in the father-in-law’s individual property; fourthly, right, through her husband, in the father-in-law’s joint property. In contradistinction, a male has only 2 rights: firstly, right in his father’s individual property; secondly, right in his father’s joint property.

As a matter of fact, discrimination lies in the fact that laws related to property rights of women, which form part of personal law, were codified by the parliament but made applicable only to Hindus, while the muslims were not brought under uniform civil code, as a policy of appeasement by the Congress government. Had this been done, Shah bano judgment would not have been necessary. And, shame of shames, the congress government even annulled that judgment by bringing in an amendment to constitution! A community where women are suppresed can never rise. The muslims want to keep their women suppressed, yet they want to progress. The two are contradictory.


3. Some states had recognized this discrimination and attempted correction.
Kerala totally abolished the traditional school. So it is clear that the
discrimination is allowed to continue by Government of India in spite of
awareness about it. 

Reply: Refer to above. Agreed, Kerala is a progressive state. But, having dealt a blow to Hindu personal law, has Kerala struck a blow for muslims? Why not? Afraid?
4. Not only that. Ambedkar had proposed a comprehensive Hindu Code Bill in
1947 which did not find favour with Congress. That bill had removed the
discriminatory provisions of the traditional schools. Sane recommendations
of the Rau Committee on HCB was rejected. Thus, even before HSA was enacted,
the discrimination against women in Mitakshara school was highlighted. 

Reply: Refer to above. Hindus were magnanimous in accepting the Hindu Code Bill even in the fifties, when level of education was low. Muslims are not willing to accept codification of their personal law or to accept uniform civil code even in 2002! They even want exemption from Child Marriage Restraint Act in the name of islam!


5. Shah Bano was not the first case where religious groups bullied Congress
successfully. First was Congress failure to enact a Uniform Civil Code.
Instead, it settled for consolidation of Hindu laws only. Even in that
Congress succumbed to pressure in preserving male bastions of HUFs. 

Reply: Refer above.

5. Abolition of Traditional schools does not necessarily involve violent
reactions. Abolition of it in Kerala in 1976 hardly created a ripple. 

Reply: Agreed.

6. I had read that Law Commission had recommended in  2000 for amending HSA
to remove the discrimination against women. Nothing happened. 

Reply: I will have to check that recommendation. But, if Law Commission’s recommendations are not accepted, what is new about it? Forget about law commission, uniform civil code is a constitutional directive, yet it is opposed by muslims and favoured by hindus.

7. In passing the HSA with its discriminatory provisions, the Parliament
violated the principle of equality and prohibition of discrimination on the
ground of sex etc. May be it did not violate the constitutional rights
because such rights are subject to several riders. But the principle stands
violated even if constitutional rights are not legally violated. 

Reply: Refer above.


MC Gupta
 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To join/leave, use the form at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/#options
This list is archived at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html