One-sided decision

Sir, - While every step in the direction of removing gender discrimination is welcome, the recent one-sided decision of the government to amend the Indian Divorce Act is nothing but a blatant interference in personal laws of Christians. There are no two opinions about structurally overhauling this archaic statute. But this decision without securing the public opinion in advance and without consulting anyone including Christians smacks of the Vajpayee Government becoming a party, subtly, to hostile and venomous tirade by the RSS and its associates against Christians.

It cannot be forgotten that the Hindu Code Bill which eventually produced two progressive pieces of legislation viz. the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 establishing monogamy and the Hindu Succession Act 1956 which gave right of inheritance to daughter, underwent churning at the hands of distinguished jurists, politicians and statesmen and every shade of opinion was consulted before being brought to Parliament. Still Section 29 of the Hindu Marriage Act saves established customs though they are offensively gender biased. There is no thinking to remove this discrepancy. Again Muslim and Parsi matrimonial laws have more pronounced gender injustice. Targeting Christians is the first part of the strategy of the RSS as is evident from repeated statements of Mr. Sudarshan. Amendment to the Indian Divorce Act is imperative but the same should be initiated after eliciting responsible, constructive and enlightened opinion from the community and also from sociologists.

Mahesh N. Vepari,

Mumbai

Sir, - The current proposal to amend the Indian Divorce Act with respect to Christians is very welcome; yet it smacks of lack of vision and uniformity. Christian women will welcome the amendment to the archaic law but our Muslim sisters are still left vulnerable to thrice talaq for easy ridding of it. Is it because our ruling party is wary of loss of 120 million population votes vis-a-vis the minuscule minority of the Christians. After all, when you dare change laws that are 2000 years old why not do the same to that which is still younger by 1300 years.

Gowri Sankaran,

Chennai

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Devolution in the U.K. - II
Next     : Rlys. financial crunch