|
||||
|
|
Introduction Rajiv Gandhi was an “accidental Prime Minister” (Tharoor 1997, 43). A young airplane pilot uninterested in politics, he was thrown into the political office of his mother, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, in the election following her assassination. Within a few months he faced one of the most difficult decisions of his brief political career. His choice: Take away an elderly deserted wife’s right to alimony, or take away a disadvantaged religious minority’s right to follow their traditional “personal laws” of marriage and divorce. What if you had to choose one or the other of these troubling stances? The Indian Supreme Court case of Shah Bano (Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and others, 1985) pitted two compelling rights arguments against each other, forcing the justices and, in the decision’s aftermath, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to make difficult choices. The case of Shah Bano poses dilemmas for those who think human rights are a straightforward matter. The right of a beleaguered religious minority to practice its religion collides with the idea that all Indian women should have the same rights. “Personal law” in India is rife with battles, both historical and contemporary, both personal and political. |
