|
||||
|
|
Laura Dudley JenkinsAssistant Professor Copyright © 2000 Laura Dudley Jenkins Case Abstract In India, the “personal laws” of different religious communities continue to be legally recognized in marriage and divorce cases. Personal laws of all communities have been criticized for disadvantaging women. The Shah Bano decision, in which the Supreme Court overruled a Muslim personal law, granted a Muslim women alimony but threatened the limited legal autonomy granted to the Muslim minority in India. In response, legislation was proposed to prevent such a court decision in the future. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi faced a rights dilemma. His decision over whether to support the Supreme Court ruling or the new legislation, like the larger debate over whether to retain these personal laws or adopt a uniform civil code, poses dilemmas and debates for students of politics, law, women’s studies and human rights. Questions raised include: How should we weigh individual women's rights against the rights of a disadvantaged minority group? Can or should we have universal women's rights? Are human rights only the rights of individuals? Can we preserve both cultural traditions and individual rights? Is it possible to compromise when faced with such a rights dilemma? Note to Reader: This case makes use of the web to include a variety of links to supplemental readings, often primary sources, and related websites. A suggested approach is to read through the entire case first, without these digressions. This will provide the level of detail necessary for the questions and general class discussion. As you reread the case, you are then encouraged to explore these supplements to enhance your understanding of the case and to help you with your essays or other assignments and activities. The case may also be printed in a single file.
|
