Hindu Rashtra

What, exactly, is a Hindu Rashtra?

Prafull Goradia

The outcome of the election in Gujarat is likely to evoke a question as to what could be a Hindu Rashtra. The Narendra Modi-led victory is the first assertion of Hindu nationalism. One of its aspirations would be the founding of a Rashtra, or state, after its heart. What could be its character?
Unlike in Islam, the state is not woven as a weft to the warp of religion in the cloth of Hindu life. There is no imam in Hinduism. The question, therefore, of whether he and the sultan should be one or different individuals does not arise. What then would be a Hindu Rashtra?
The only self-declared Hindu state in modern India was the principality of Travancore. A Japanese scholar, Koji Kawashima, in his book Missionaries and a Hindu State (OUP, 1998) has researched the experience of Travancore between 1858 and 1936. To quote from the book: 'In India, the kingly duties have been called rajadharma, which can be defined as the obligation of the ruler to protect dharma, or to secure peace, prosperity, justice and order in the kingdom. Of these duties, the protection of the gods and their temples was perhaps the most important. As a servant of Sri Padmanabha, the Maharaja of Travancore observed a number of rituals...Travancore was a state which had a large number of non-Hindus, particularly Syrian Christians. In 1875, Christians formed about 20 per cent of the total population, and Muslims six per cent. These different religions have co-existed in Travancore state. One of the principal reasons for this co-existence was a semi-official state policy of religious tolerance'. Evidently, then, the Hindu state of Travancore did not discriminate against those of other faiths. Today, 20 per cent of Keralites are Christian and a similar percentage is Muslim.
Nepal is a self-declared Hindu kingdom. It is in fact the world's only Hindu country. Part I of its constitution adopted in 1990, describes the kingdom as a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, democratic, independent, indivisible, sovereign Hindu and constitutional monarchical kingdom. Part III makes the right to equality for all its citizens a fundamental right.
To quote M. Mohsin, a professor based in Nepal: 'Religion has never been a barrier of effective communication between different ethnic groups in Nepal. All though her long history Nepalese society has displayed a remarkably high degree of religious harmony.' There is, however, no mention of a minority or a majority in the Nepalese constitution. Nor is any section of the citizenry given any special treatment. All were not only declared equal before the law but were also treated on the same plane.
The practice of the Indian constitution has, however, been discriminatory. There are any number of special provisions for those citizens who are termed 'minorities'. Apart from the discrimination they represent, they also keep aflame the bogey of minorityism which in turn must provoke resentment among Hindus. Articles 29 and 30 give so many special concessions to minority educational institutions. There is a separate personal law for the Muslims. The Muslim Women's Bill, 1987, was specially passed to overturn a judgement by the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano case for alimony. The Minorities Commissions are another example of discrimination, as also the existence of wakfs. Not all of the latter are charitable organisations. Many are called wakf-e-aulad, or those meant for the benefit of the donors' progeny. The Haj subsidy is yet another example of this.
A Hindu Rashtra is unlikely to accept such discrimination between one set of citizens and another. All would be equal and be treated as equal.
(The writer is a former editor of BJP Today) Courtesy The India Express - Friday, December 20, 2002

Impressionist painters

Claude Monet (1840 – 1926) is regarded as the most important of the Impressionist painters. His landscapes are the embodiment of what is commonly thought of as Impressionist painting. The theory of Impressionism states that we do not see an object as such, but rather the light in which it appears to us. Thus Monet for instance painted the portal of Rouen Cathedral at various times of the day and under different weather conditions, showing us how the changing light affects its appearance.

Sharia laws vary among world's Muslims and how

Paris: Sharia law is understood and applied in such varied ways across the Muslim world that it is difficult to say exactly what it is and how it could fit into a western legal context, according to experts on Islam.
Full Islamic criminal law, the harsh code most non-Muslims think of when they hear the word Sharia, is applied in very few countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Islamic 'personal law' for issues like marriage and inheritance is much more common.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams sparked off a storm last week by suggesting Britain adopt some sharia law. British Muslims defending him stressed most of the Islamic world also rejected the ultra-orthodox model that he clearly ruled out.
"There are 57 Muslim countries in the world and only two or three of them impose full Sharia criminal law. Why on earth would we want to have that here?" asked Sheikh Suhaib Hasan, secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain.
There are also widely differing interpretations of Sharia, both within the four classical Sunni and one Shia schools of jurisprudence and between traditional and modern thinkers.
"In the Muslim world these days, 'Sharia' means a whole variety of different things," said John Voll, professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University in Washington.
Williams apparently had in mind a modern school of Muslim thinking that sees Sharia as a system of essential Islamic values rather than a fixed code of harsh punishments, he said.
LIMITED USE
Most Muslim states limit the use of Sharia to 'personal law' on issues such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and child custody. Western critics say most Muslim personal law limits women's rights and introduces inequality before the law.
Egypt says Sharia is the main source of its legislation, but has penal and civil codes based mostly on 19th century French law. Hudoud, the corporal and capital punishment outlined in the Quran, has not been applied there in modern times.
Muslims cannot convert to other faiths and non-Muslims who convert to Islam are not supposed to leave it, but a court allowed this for 12 people in a landmark case last week.
Pakistan has a similar split between civil and penal codes carried over from the British colonial period and Muslim personal law. It also has a Federal Sharia Court to decide if laws passed by parliament conform to Islam.
Apart from a few public lashings since Islamisation started in the 1980s, harsh physical punishments have not been imposed. Nobody has been executed under a law banning blasphemy against Islam, but some accused blasphemers have been killed by mobs.