08-11-2005, 08:23 PM
Rajesh, Yes, Islamism is an ideology, but it thrives in a democratic and multicultural society because of legal infirmities in the system.
Muslim personal law keeps the hold of mullahs on the muslim society intact. Even supreme court has asked the govt many times to bring forth a single civil law in the country.
If one single civil law is enacted in the country then a lot of steam will go out of Islamist agenda.
But despite having a single civil law, britain and other european countries are facing the islamism problem. An open society can't selectively restrict some groups, unless it demands everyone to have some reciprocal commitments.
Say, if a hardcore islamist doesn't believe in secularism, then why should his rights under secular portions of the constitution be protected?
We must have reciprocity clauses. A citizen's rights should not be absolute. They should depend upon his/her commitment to those ideals. After all we restrict a criminal's rights.
So if a mullah doesn't believe in secularism, then he should not be able to extract advantages from secularism related Indian laws.
Idea of reciprocity can be extended in international sphere too. If Indian citizens are denied some rights in a country, then that country's citizens corresponding rights in India can be restricted too. The beauty of reciprocity clause is that it doesn't explicitly targets any groups or countries. If every country in the world enacted such reciprocity laws, Saudis will find it impossible to step out of their desert kingdom. If I go to Saudi Arabia and my Gita or picture of ganesha can be thrown in the trash by the customs, let the Saudis have the same treatment meted to their religious artifacts and books when they visit other countries.
Muslim personal law keeps the hold of mullahs on the muslim society intact. Even supreme court has asked the govt many times to bring forth a single civil law in the country.
If one single civil law is enacted in the country then a lot of steam will go out of Islamist agenda.
But despite having a single civil law, britain and other european countries are facing the islamism problem. An open society can't selectively restrict some groups, unless it demands everyone to have some reciprocal commitments.
Say, if a hardcore islamist doesn't believe in secularism, then why should his rights under secular portions of the constitution be protected?
We must have reciprocity clauses. A citizen's rights should not be absolute. They should depend upon his/her commitment to those ideals. After all we restrict a criminal's rights.
So if a mullah doesn't believe in secularism, then he should not be able to extract advantages from secularism related Indian laws.
Idea of reciprocity can be extended in international sphere too. If Indian citizens are denied some rights in a country, then that country's citizens corresponding rights in India can be restricted too. The beauty of reciprocity clause is that it doesn't explicitly targets any groups or countries. If every country in the world enacted such reciprocity laws, Saudis will find it impossible to step out of their desert kingdom. If I go to Saudi Arabia and my Gita or picture of ganesha can be thrown in the trash by the customs, let the Saudis have the same treatment meted to their religious artifacts and books when they visit other countries.