Faith and sexual justice

In a recent interview, the Prime Minister said in an interview that the case of entry of women in Sabarimala temple, where it is related to tradition, the case of three divorces is related to gender justice. Other BJP leaders have been consistently saying that the matter of Sabarimala is related to faith. Surprisingly, in the judgment of the 2017 Shayra Bano judgment, the court did not say anything like sexual justice. The bench of the court found three divorced customs against non-Islamic faith and kept it separate from the discussion.

At such times when it is seen that religion is going to play an important role in the 2019 general elections, it is necessary to understand the meaning of 'tradition', 'faith' and 'gender justice'. It is important to know that the issues of Sabarimala and three divorced people have been associated with faith, tradition or gender equality.



Judge Indu Malhotra backed the Sabarimala issue as a matter of religious diversity, supporting the government's argument. But in the case of Shayra Bano, when the judges described the tradition of divorced three to Islam as much as 1400 years ago, he did not accept it. The matter of prohibition of entry of women in the Sabarimala temple is not related to the ancient tradition, and in 1939, the entry of the Queen of Travancore's temple is known.

Most judges considered religious independence as a whole while deciding on three divorce cases. Under this, there is a personal law, and the duty of the judges is to protect it without interfering in this personal law. The judges had made it clear that the judicial review of the personal law cannot be reviewed. Therefore, three divorces cannot be held wrong due to mandate or health or ethics or any other fundamental rights. Some judges kept it out of the Islamic practices, which have constitutional protection, keeping it in the category of 'sin'. If you talk about 'sin', then this is the question of 'faith', which is considered 'sin' in theology and is not considered legally valid.

S Radhakrishna believed that "Religion is a code of compliance with ethical rules and rituals, and different ways of functioning and worship are external forms of its expression." So who is to worship, where to do, how to do it And when to do so, the questions are related to faith or religious tradition. Faith only tells us which contexts are acceptable, and what not. In Article 26, each sect has been given the right to manage its religious matters.

By saying that some Muslim countries do not accept three divorces, it is wrong to make three divorces not to make a case of faith and to make it a crime category. Islamic law is not identical. There is a sect in it, different from the other. It is wrong to deny the three divorce as a valid way, but it is wrong to accept it as a crime. Therefore, it is unanimous in most of the experts of Indian Islam if it does not believe in the validity. But most of them are against this being considered a crime because it is a social issue.

'Faith' is a matter of faith. It is not based on logic and ethics. Religion does not believe in logic and empiricism. Rather, all beliefs are retrograde, abnormal, and discriminatory because they originated in the pre-modern period.

Being a progressive document, our Constitution has given us the right to keep both the right and the right to religious rights (Article 25-28) to a limited extent. An attempt has been made to reduce this right in the Sabarimala temple controversy decision by giving a message of constitutional morality. This is being opposed because of this. When Justice Chandrachud wanted to see this controversy in the context of untouchability, everyone felt that they were going away from the issue. But the news of two women being sanctified after the entry of the two women proved the judgment of Justice Changchun. All this happened, while the Constitution has ended the practice of untouchability.

The majority in the Sabarimala case opposed the rule of barring women because it is against the original act of worship places. This Act has been rendered to mean that all the places of worship in Kerala should be kept open to the Hindus of all classes. The Supreme Court refused to recognize the Ayyappa's identity as a separate sect in the Hindus. The Sabarimala Trust, while offering the request of Ayappa God to be Brahmachari, appealed in court to keep Rajswala women's entry barred, expand religious freedom to God. But the court rejected it saying that the fundamental rights can not be given to God.

The concept of sexual justice is modern, and our constitution is committed to it. Freedom of religion is under the right of equality, and this is the reason that the judges get little choice in maintaining discriminatory practices. But we should not just aim for formal equality, but should strive to achieve solid equality. In such solidarity, such a theory is accepted, in which man and woman can be treated differently. In this, it is advocated to identify the inequality between man and woman and behave in accordance with their nature.

The difference between faith and religion is artificial and demands justice for both sexual justice. Ayyappa devotees and Muslim Personal Law Board; Both should welcome the Constitutional concept of sexual justice and should try internal reforms in their religions. The reforms imposed from above or from the court cannot be accepted in the Indian society, because Indian opinion is basically religious and it considers more of its religious teachers. The anti-people conflict in relation to Sabarimala indicates that our courts are not equipped with proper weapons to improve faith.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to make notes

Current Affairs Quiz

Daily Current Affairs Quiz :- 22 April 2019