Sunday, July 10, 2005

Salman Rushdie on 'Code of Dishonor'


Rushdie's article has also been published by the Times; since the NYTimes link is likely to go behind a paywall, I am giving this link as well.

In his New York Times op-ed titled India and Pakistan's Code of Dishonor, Salman Rushdie says :

Why does a mere seminary have the power to issue such judgments? The answer lies in the strange anomaly that is the Muslim personal law system - a parallel legal system for Indian Muslims, which leaves women like Imrana at the mercy of the mullahs. Such is the historical confusion on this vexed subject that anyone who suggests that a democratic country should have a single, unified legal system is accused of being anti-Muslim and in favor of the hardline Hindu nationalists.

[...]

As for India, at the risk of being called a communalist, I must agree that any country that claims to be a modern, secular democracy must secularize and unify its legal system, and take power over women's lives away, once and for all, from medievalist institutions like Darul-Uloom.

5 Comments:

  1. Anonymous said...

    BLA BLA BLA
    What Rush-Die doesnt write is that on both sides of the border the culprits were muslims.
    Muslims are ghettoizing themselves.
    In england there were riots
    in bradford which were reported in the media as 'asian-white' riots.
    Why lump asian/indian into it?
    It was primarily a muslim riot.

  2. st said...

    Obviously the author hates India's secularism. Secularists should stop listening to rushdie.

  3. st said...

    The supremely secular Mulaym singh yadav got it right "The decision of the Muslim religious leaders in the Imrana case must have been taken after a lot of thought" . India's secularism is at work.

  4. pennathur said...

    As for India, at the risk of being called a communalist, I must agree that any country that claims to be a modern, secular democracy must secularize and unify its legal system, and take power over women's lives away, once and for all, from medievalist institutions like Darul-Uloom.

    Welcome to the real world Salman Bhaiyya.

    This is a multifecta, Rushdie is getting too many things right. His secular credentials are impeccable - he has angered the entire mullah establishment (and how) he annoyed Bal Thackeray greatly and has called him all sorts of names, he has poked fun at Nehru, and has been pooh-pooing religion (with barbs directed at all faiths in good measure. He has demanded secular law for Imrana's father-in-law; and does not waffle about the Muslim Personal Law and the odious bodies that prop it up. And finally he has - sorry, cliche! - called a spade a spade. How can a land calling itself secular countenance parallel and religiously motivated lawmaking bodies?

    If the secular worthies of India have any sense of shame still left they shd shrivel with embarassment and stop parrotting "secular".

  5. Anonymous said...

    A scathing essay. As Pennatur said, Rushdie calls a spade a spade. The matter merits more than what Rushdie has discussed, though. - Selva