Key Findings and Conclusions

Responsible balancing of law and religion by people or states always involves specific combinations of 1-2-3-4 in the context of the kite model. Within the web of the immensely complex relationship of Muslims and Indian law, there is certainly a legitimate place for religion, and therefore also for Islam in its various forms.

At the same time, there is still some room for discretion and freedom by Muslims in India, as individuals or members of a community, to keep their iden­tity more or less strictly Islamic, if that is what they wish to achieve. Indian Muslims could also perceive themselves more as members of Indian society, but still with strong links to Muslim Personal Law. They may take either option, partly relying on the fundamental right to freedom of religion. Even if ‘others’ in India refuse to accept such decisions by Muslims, the kite-flying model sug­gests that individual decision makers or groups can still exercise their legitimate agency, as free citizens and as law-related actors.

On the other hand, it is impossible for Indian state law to totally deny the indi­vidual Muslim’s voice, or the voices of the various Muslim communities, regard­ing aspects of their culture/tradition and religion/values. The state as a skilful kite flyer can seek to establish certain benchmarks or criteria for what is deemed acceptable or not, but has to cross-check this with the concerned individuals or community to avoid destructive confrontation. The state, despite overarching claims to legal supervision, has therefore in reality limited control over what Muslims actually do, especially if this happens behind closed doors or inside their own four walls, as long as such actions do not seriously infringe state law.

For India, case studies show that neither a Uniform Civil Code nor banning or criminalisation of certain aspects of Muslim law and practice are an adequate approach, as state law has limits. A skilfully balanced, constitutionally sound approach will need to maintain freedom of religion, while reminding Muslim citizens of India of being part of this composite whole with its unique laws. While most Indian Muslims seem to understand this, many scholarly and other interventions fail the test of plurality consciousness that we introduced here. This involves the balancing of competing forms of respect for the basic human need, everywhere and in all communities, to feel connected to certain significant ‘oth­ers' in responsible modes of interaction.

This significant ‘other' could indeed be a god that one believes in. Hence, in this regard, the Indian Constitution as a pluri-legal protective umbrella, enters the field again, obliged to secure the basic rights to freedom of religion for the Muslim citizens of India, and the right to live under their personal laws, albeit not in total disregard of the overarching framework of the Constitution and other relevant general laws. The challenge, in the past, right now, but also in future, has been and remains to find appropriate and sustainable balances between such competing entities and expectations. At the risk of stating the obvious, we con­clude here by reiterating that the kite methodology as presented here appears to be a useful tool to manage such challenges at all levels.

Notes

1 Michaels, Ralf, “Global Legal Pluralism,” Duke Law School Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 185 (2009).

2 Ahmed, Shahab, What is Islam? The Importance of Being Islamic (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016).

3 Ali, Shaheen Sardar, Modern Challenges to Islamic Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

4 Jamal, Arif, Islam, Law and the Modern State. (Re)imagining Liberal Theory in Muslim Contexts (London: Routledge, 2018).

5 Menski, W., “Flying Kites in a Global Sky: New Models of Jurisprudence,” Socio- Legal Review (Bangalore) 7 (2011): 1—22; Menski, W., “Law as a Kite: Managing Legal Pluralism in the Context of Islamic Finance,” in Islamic Finance in Europe. Towards a Plural Financial System ed Valentino Cattelan (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2013) 15—31; Menski, W., “Legal Simulation: Law as a Navigation Tool for Decision-making,” Report of Japan Coast Guard Academy 59 no. 2.1 (2014a): 1—22. URL at http://harp.lib.hiro- shima-u.ac.jp/jcga/metadata/12172?l=en; Menski, W., “Remembering and Applying Legal Pluralism: Law as Kite Flying,” in Concepts of Law: Comparative,Jurisprudential, and Social Science Perspectives, ed Sean Patrick Donlan and Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014b) 91—108; Menski, W., “Introduction: Conflicts Over Justice and Hybrid Social Actors as Legal Agents,” in Normative Pluralism and Human Rights: Hybrid Social Normativities in Conflict ed Kyriaki Topidi (London and New York: Routledge, 2018a) 1—36.

6 Mehdi, Rubya, Werner Menski and Jorgen S. Nielsen, eds. Interpreting Divorce Laws in Islam (Copenhagen: DJ0F Publishing, 2012); Menski, W., “Plural Worlds of Law and the Search for Living Law,” in Rechtsanalyse als Kulturforschung ed Werner Gephart (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2012a) 71—88.

7 Pearl, David and W. Menski, Muslim Family Law. Third ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998).

8 Degiorgis, Nicolo, Hidden Islam.

9 Barylo, William, Young Muslim Change-makers. Grassroots Charities Rethinking Modern Societies (London: Routledge, 2018).

Ballard, Roger. ed. Desh Pardesh. The South Asian Presence in Britain (London: Hurst & Co., 1994).

Chiba, Masaji. ed. Asian Indigenous Law in Interaction with Received Law (London and New York: KPI, 1986).

Menski, W., Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa. Second rev. ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006b).

Kokal, Kalindi, State Law, Dispute Processing, and Legal Pluralism. Unspoken Dialogues from Rural India (London: Routledge, 2019).

Derrett, J.D.M., Religion, Law and the State in India (London: Faber & Faber, 1968).

Rankin, Aidan, Jainism and Environmental Philosophy. Karma and the Web of Life (London and New York: Routledge, 2018).

Topidi, Kyriaki, ed. Normative Pluralism and Human Rights: Hybrid Social Normativities in Conflict (London and New York: Routledge, 2018).

Menski, W., “The Uniform Civil Code Debate in Indian Law: New Developments and Changing Agenda,” in The Many Faces of India. Law and Politics of the Subcontinent, ed Malcolm McLaren (New Delhi: Samskriti, 2012b) 136-82.

Menski, W., Modern Indian Family Law (Richmond: Curzon, 2001).

Menski, W., “Asking for the Moon: Legal Uniformity in India from a Kerala Perspective,” Kerala Law Times, Journal Section 2006 no. 2 (2006a): 52-78; Menski, W., “Still Asking for the Moon? Opening Windows of Opportunity for Better Justice in India,” Verfassung und Recht in Übersee Special Issue 49 no. 2 (2016): 125-47.

Benkin, Richard L. ed. What is Moderate Islam? (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2017); Menski, W., “Introduction: Conflicts Over Justice and Hybrid Social Actors as Legal Agents,” in Normative Pluralism and Human Rights: Hybrid Social Normativities in Conflict, ed Kyriaki Topidi (London and New York: Routledge, 2018a) 1-36; Menski, W., “Review Article: Religion, Governance and the Need for Plurality-Conscious Moderation,” South Asia Research 38 no. 1 (2018b): 92-102.

Baxi, Upendra, The Future of Human Rights (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002).