Friday, February 27, 2004
First off, I do NOT support non-uniform law. I think it is a Democle's sword as far as minorities are concerned, and they create unmitigated distrust between communities. I support laws that provide freedom to me as an individual, not as a member of a particular community. There are many flaws with the Indian concept. Let me give u my core legal objection to it - it presupposes that a person born to, say, Muslim parents, is bound by Muslim laws, unless he/she explicitly gives it up in favor of another religion. I do not see why this should be so. Can a person escape enforcement of his community's law by, say, simply declaring himself a non-believer? The answer is "No."
Thus, paradoxically, this so-called secular law prevents a person's life from becoming completely secularized - a decision that his liberty still allows him to take. I think it is plain wrong for the state to claim that it is providing a person liberty, but allowing his/her community to be a perpetual regent.
I will provide my arguments on that status quo issue in a while.
Comments: Post a Comment