IF ever there were an example of how messy and ugly a divorce can get, the case of Hindu mother M. Indira Ghandi and her Muslim-convert ex-husband, Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, is it.
The unilateral conversion of their three minor-aged children to Islam by Riduan has involved the courts, police, religious authorities, and rights groups.
The problem, which began in 2009, only ended in the courts nine years later, when the Federal Court ruled that the unilateral conversion was invalid since it was done without the consent of both parents, as required by law.
Despite the court's ruling, the matter is still unresolved. To this day, Indira has still not been reunited with her youngest child, Prasana Diksa, who was 11 months old at the time of conversion, and is now about 14.
Indira's case has also drawn the sympathy of many Malaysians — regardless of religious persuasion — because it essentially involves a mother who has been forcibly separated from her child. And though this is essentially a custody matter, it has also inadvertently become a proxy religious war over the souls of children.
Which is why the Federal Court's ruling on Wednesday, invalidating another case of the unilateral conversion of minor children and reinforcing the judgment set in Indira's case, is important.
Children often become pawns in a nasty divorce game. And, given Malaysia's laws against proselytising to Muslims, sometimes, conversion is used as a custody strategy.
The Federal Court's latest decision should, therefore, be welcomed by all fair-minded Malaysians, regardless of faith, because it reaffirms that both parents, and not just one, should be involved in the upbringing of their children, even after they have divorced.
If both parents are alive, they should stay involved in their children's lives and work together to give the children the best possible life. And, if it is essential that parents discuss the living, schooling and socialising aspects of their children's lives, then it stands to reason that the larger issue of religious persuasion should be discussed together, too.
It is understandable that religion is an important matter to the believer (of whatever religion) because it involves one's immortal soul. And it is understandable that any parent would want the best for their children, both in this life and the next. But, belief — genuine belief — is not something that can be forced on someone.
The function of religion is to provide a guide on how to relate to the world and with other human beings. So, when a person's religious "membership" is born into animosity and strife, it does not make for a good example for why a person should want to stay in that religion.
If parents can maintain a healthy, amicable relationship with regard to their children's welfare, it is possible to decide on what life philosophy is best for the child. Or, at least agree to disagree.
It should be made legal for all parents to give religious guidance and exposure to their children — to share their religious experience with their children — without censorship against proselytising. If it is meant to be, the children can make an informed choice when they turn 18 — whether to stay or go.
Parents, and religious bodies, must respect and appreciate that this is the best way to obtain quality members to their faith. Let no religion be used as a pawn between divorcing parents.