Round The World

New Delhi, 24 November 2023

India-Australia Ties

THE 2+2 DIALOGUE

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism) 

India and Australia are rivals in cricket as two top teams in the world. They have clashed many times including in World Cup finals. After winning all the ten league matches, India unexpectedly, disappointingly lost to Australia in Sunday’s World Cup final. Even Prime Minister Modi was actively involved in the match, first as a spectator, then after the match, to commiserate the Indian team. However, that is cricket. Although, Indians are passionate about cricket, and a vast number tend to be emotional, each game should be taken sportingly, displaying magnanimity in victory and equanimity in defeat.  

On the other hand, the India-Australia bilateral engagement is currently at an all-time high encompassing defence, security, trade and cultural partnerships, technology and education as the key areas of collaboration. The Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong, the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles arrived in India early last week for the second 2+2 ministerial dialogue. As usual, the dialogues covered a wide range of issues including India-Canada relations which are undergoing some stress due to the rise of radicalism in Canada that is directed against India, and the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. 

The close proximity between Australia and Canada necessitated a discussion on India-Canada relations and possibility of defusing the tension. Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar underlined the need for such a discussion on Canada, “Australia has a good and strong relationship with both India and Canada. Hence it was important that Australia get our perspective on the issue”. He further pointed out that, “From our point of view, the key issue is really the space which is being given to extremism and radicalism in Canada.” 

Let us recall that the tensions between New Delhi and Canberra became worse with the controversial killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Canadian Prime Minister accused the Indian intelligence agencies of being behind the killing. Diplomatic staff from either side was repatriated. Australia was reportedly upset with New Delhi sending back 41 Canadian diplomats. However, sadly another terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, in a video appearance, has given a call to Sikhs to boycott Air India and has threatened the disruption of Air India flying across the world. Government of India has booked Pannun under several Acts of intimidation, prevention of unlawful acts etc. Presumably, the air was cleared between India and Australian leadership. 

From the available reports and the press briefings, it appeared that Australians have been sensitised on issues of terrorism which are of central concern to New Delhi. The Ministry of External Affairs said in a press brief, “We had extensive discussion on security issues. We spoke about terrorism, radicalism and extremism. At the heart of it, is really a shared commitment to a free, open, inclusive, prosperous, and rule-based Indo-Pacific region.” 

The similar Indian approach echoed in their response to Israel-Hamas war. The Indian position consisted of her response to three issues in the present war – one is terrorism, second, the hostage issue and the third, humanitarian crisis in Palestine. Both countries agreed that it is a very complex and challenging situation which cannot be addressed by a single issue response like condemning Israel or calling for unilateral ceasefire. 

It is pertinent to note the driving factors that bring Australia and India closer. India’s strong ties with the US since the Indo-US Civil Agreement signed in 2008 helped Australia, as an ally of United States to embrace India. Second, China’s border clashes with India and trade disputes with Australia bring them together. China, in fact, as a common threat to both India and Australia works as a catalyst in their bilateralism. The Australian Deputy Prime Minister in the 2+2 dialogue confirmed that, “China is the biggest security anxiety for India and Australia”. His counterpart, the Indian Defence Minister, Rajnath Singh, endorsed it, “Strong India-Australia ties are crucial for peace, security and prosperity of the India Pacific”.  Indeed, India-Australia bilateralism is sustained by a mutual interest in containing China and ensuring a stable order in India Pacific region. 

Third, the domestic constituents in both countries like civil society actors, think tanks and research organisations have advocated a closer relationship between the two countries. Fourth, the mutual economic and trade interests have also driven the partnership. Australia hopes to enhance its partnership with India in order to cut down on its reliance on China. The Australian Prime Minister Antony Albanese came with 25 Australian business leaders to expand trade when he came for attending the G-20 meeting last September. Likewise, New Delhi wants to tap into Australia’s rich mineral resources and investment potentials. 

The bilateralism is conducted through several agreements, membership of multilateral coalitions and bilateral visits by top leadership. Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Australia in September 2014 was the first by any Indian Prime Minister in 28 years. Following this visit, a Framework of Security Cooperation paved the way for future engagements. In 2020, India and Australia announced a comprehensive strategic partnership that includes an agreement on maritime and cyber technology cooperation and Mutual Logistics Support Agreement to increase military inter-operability through defence exercises and further cooperation on defence, science and technology. 

In November 2022, both countries signed the Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement (ECTA) in an effort to strengthen trade ties. Beyond bilateralism, Australia and India are involved in a range of multilateral mechanisms and regional groupings that include G-20, the Indian Ocean Rim Association, the ASEAN Regional Forum and Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD). Such agreements and cooperation have led to joint defence drills which are the main pillar of India-Australia bilateralism. 

Australia invited India to participate in Talisman Sabre, the most important military exercise between the US and Australia. Similar exercises between Australia and India include AusIndex, Kakadu, Pitch Black, and Milan. The Malabar Naval exercises where Australia has recently joined, is another frontline Naval exercise. In 2022, the joint army exercise Austra-Hind took place. 

To sum up, despite growing proximity between India and Australia, there are a few challenges to reckon with. Obviously, the bilateralism is shaped by their ‘shared interest’ and ‘shared values’. The shared interest is apparent, which is balancing China, the common threat. Second is the mutual benefit accruing from growing trade and economic partnership. There are concerns, however, on shared values. For instance, India’s refusal to condemn Russian aggression of Ukraine caused unease in Australia. 

Both countries got their independence from Britain. India chose to be non-aligned whereas Australia became an ally of the United States. While both have close defence partnership and are members of Quad, other members including Australia accommodate India’s strategic autonomy. Observers of India-Australia relations wonder what would be India’s position on Taiwan, if ever it was invaded by China. Any military confrontation like the one on Taiwan could have disastrous consequences in terms of security and economy in India-Pacific. Will India’s strategic autonomy sit well with such a destabilising possibility? 

For now, Australia seems to go along well with the Indian approach to multilateral partnerships. Also, the multi-stake holder approach favoured by both sides in building their bilateralism gives a cause for optimism. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 23 November 2023

Poll Has Thrown Up Basic Issues

By Inder Jit

(Released on 5 March 1985) 

Several issues of basic importance to the future of our polity have come up in the course of the poll battle for the State Assemblies. What kind of a Union is India -- federal or unitary? Opinion over the past two decades and more has been divided. There are many who feel that India, which is a Union of States, essentially a federal polity. However, there are others who feel that India is not quite a federation of states in the true or classical sense of the term. Instead, it is a mixture of both and is some kind of a federal-cum-unitary state. The confusion, perhaps, arises because of the background and circumstances in which the Union of India came into being. In the case of the United States of America, for instance, independent states decided to come together even as they retained a measure of their independence or autonomy. In sharp contrast, India at the time of independence was ruled by the British from New Delhi as a unitary state. And, Princely India was under its paramountcy.

True, British India was divided into provinces. Each province had its own Government headed by a Prime Minister, as the heads of provincial governments were then called. But the arrangement was for administrative convenience. Absolute power vested in the Raj at New Delhi. Following independence, the unitary polity was divided into States. The Centre retained many of the powers of the Raj and gave the States a measure of genuine autonomy. In other words, the unitary Centre voluntarily shed some of its powers and shared these with the States and not vice versa as in the case of the United States of America. Consequently, the past two decades have seen stresses and strains grow and develop between the Centre and the States. As a student of history, Nehru strongly believed that India’s real strength lay in its rich diversity and, therefore, worked for a healthy federal polity. This, he believed, would ensure for India richness which could not possibly come from uniformity imposed from New Delhi.

Nehru was also clear that a federal, decentralised polity with a strong Centre would ensure speedy and balanced growth. In fact, he set up the Planning Commission to provide not only planned development for the nation as a whole but also for planned development at the State level through a federal de centralised set up on the economic plane. The Planning Commission was made autonomous and virtually independent so that it could plan for India’s development uninfluenced and unencumbered by the Government at the Centre and its political complexion. Sir V.T. Krishnamachari was named the Commission’s Deputy Chairman and Nehru as Prime Minister its first Chairman. De facto, however, 'VT’ headed the Commission and Nehru was Chairman only to provide a link between the planning body and the Government -- and to answer questions on planning in the two Houses of Parliament. But the situation changed following elevation of Indira Gandhi to Prime Ministership.

Slowly but surely, the autonomy of the Planning Commission was eroded bit by bit and the country, in effect, sought to be run as a unitary state through both constitutional and extra-constitutional devices. (Remember, the role which Governors are now expected to play!) The final denouement came when the Commission, originally conceived as a body of independent experts, was virtually reduced to the position of a Government department and the Planning Minister appointed its de facto head and named its Vice Chairman. Simultaneously, the National Development Council, headed by the Prime Minister, came to be transformed into a brazen instrument of the Centre from its original concept of a body designed to fashion a national view on planning and economic development at the political level and ensure unity in diversity. Fortunately, Mr Rajiv Gandhi has sought to restore to the Planning Commission its original autonomy. Dr Manmohan Singh, one of India’s eminent economists, has been appointed its Vice Chairman and the States assured a fair deal. But other issues have arisen in the meantime.

The Prime Minister has now taken the stand that the same party should be in power at the Centre and in the States in the interest of speedy and coordinated development. Initially, Mr Gandhi denied Press reports that he had advocated one-party rule at the Centre and in the States. However, the Congress-I manifesto for the Assembly poll has taken the same stand. It reminds the voters that Parliament and the State legislatures are creatures of the same Constitution and adds: “There is a clear linkage between the Central and State Governments in the formulation and implementation of development plans and programmes.”Undoubtedly, there is a linkage between the Centre and the States. Equally, development is likely to be more coordinated and smoother if the same party is in power at New Delhi and in the States. But the stand taken by the Prime Minister and his party goes against the letter and spirit of the Constitution -- as also the background.

There was nothing wrong in Mr Gandhi appealing to the voters to elect Congress-I to power in each State that he visited in the course of his poll campaign. But to many veteran observers of the national scene he appears to have slipped up in linking the Centre and the States as a whole and pleading for one-party rule in the country. What he has stated amounts to holding the voters for the Assembly poll to ransom with the virtual threat: “Vote for a Congress-I Government in your State or else...” Shorn of polite verbiage, this amounts to giving notice that the States which vote for the Congress-I are likely to get better or more favoured treatment than the others. No wonder, therefore, that the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and the leader of the Telugu Desam Party, Mr N.T. Rama Rao, reacted sharply and not only demanded “legitimate allotment” of funds to the State from the Centre towards welfare programmes but also gave a counter-threat. He said at one poll meeting that there would be “bloodshed and great revolution” if due share of funds was not allotted to the State. He further added: “We are not beggars to ask for charity or alms. We are entitled to legitimate and due shares from the Centre.”

Centre-State relations have burst into the open once again, as they did last July. Four Chief Ministers then walked out of the meeting of the National Development Council in an unprecedented protest. They were: Mr N.T. Rama Rao of Andhra Pradesh, Mr R.K, Hegde, Karnataka, Mr Jyoti Basu, West Bengal and Mr Nripen Chakraborty of Tripura. They left the NDC meeting to protest against Dr Farooq Abdullah’s “anti-democratic and authoritarian dismissal”. Opinion was then sharply divided on what came to pass. Mrs Gandhi and her Congress-I colleagues were strongly of the view that it was wholly improper for the Chief Ministers to have made “a political statement” at the NDC forum. The four Chief Ministers were equally clear that the statement was perfectly in order. As Mr Hegde later pointed out: The Chief Ministers are political beings. What is more, Chief Ministers beginning with EMS of Kerala from Nehru’s time have made political statements at the NDC meetings. There has been never any bar against making them.

Impartially and candidly, both sides had a point. Mrs Gandhi was partly correct when she said that the National Development Council was only a forum for planning and national development and was not concerned with politics. However, Mr Rama Rao, Mr Hegde, Mr Basu and Mr Chakraborty had greater force --- and justice --- on their side. First, politics cannot be separated from planning in any federal polity as Mrs Gandhi knew only too well. Times out of number, she herself stated that national development was dependent upon close co-operation between the Centre and the States. This had inevitably led the NDC to a discussion on Centre-State relations and in the last case on the question of New Delhi’s virtual coup in Srinagar --- and the credentials and legitimacy of the successor State Government. Second, where else could the Chief Ministers have raised the Kashmir question in the absence of political forum? Nehru recognized this fact of life and did not, therefore, object when EMS first and Annadurai subsequently made political speeches at the NDC.

Significantly, the founding fathers of the Constitution recognised the need for a national political forum and wisely provided for one in the shape of an Inter-State Council. Alas, few remember that the establishment of an Inter-State Council was recommended in 1967 by a top-level Study Team headed by Mr M.C. Setalvad, one of free India’s top constitutional experts. The team, which submitted its report to the Administrative Reforms Commission, included among its members Mr M. Bhaktavatsalam, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and Mr Hitendra Desai, Chief Minister of Gujarat, was clear that the Inter-State Council should take care of all issues of national importance in which the States were interested. Indeed, Mr Setalvad, who as India’s first Attorney General was invited by Nehru to address Parliament on certain crucial matters, went one step further. He wanted the Inter-State Council to replace the National Development Council, the Chief Ministers’ Conference, the Finance Ministers’ Conference, the Food Ministers’ Conference and the National Integration Council.

The Sarkaria Commission is, no doubt, going into Centre-State relations. However, certain things need to be done without delay. One such thing is the need to ensure genuine functional autonomy of the Planning Commission. The appointment of Dr Manmohan Singh as its Vice Chairman is to be welcomed. But this by itself is not enough. Much more needs to be done to make the Planning Commission a truly autonomous body functioning as experts in the best national interest. Unknown to most people, the Planning Commission has no statutory base or authority. It was created through a Government resolution and its Vice Chairman and Members hold office at the pleasure of the Government. Originally, the term of the Vice Chairman and members was five years. Today, however, their position is as insecure as that of the Governors. The Planning Commission should be made a statutory body. What is more, it is time for the President to set up an Inter-State Council which could perhaps be given a better all-embracing name such as: National Affairs Council. Every effort must be made to find a solution to the basic issues raised by the poll. No scope should be left for any tension if India is to function as a happy and healthy Union of States. --- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 22 November 2023

Raising Work Productivity

MORE HOURS NOT AN ANSWER 

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

Increasing workers’ productivity is an issue which has come into sharp focus following a recent podcast of legendary co-founder of tech giant Infosys NR Narayana Murthy, wherein he requested youngsters to work for ‘70 hours a week’. India’s work productivity, he said “is one of the lowest in the world. Unless we improve our work productivity... we will not be able to compete with those countries that have made tremendous progress.” So, he added the “youngsters must say ‘This is my country. I’d like to work 70 hours a week”. 

Undeniably, labour productivity in India is quite low compared to many countries, even in the emerging economies. Thus, there is need to raise productivity, as efficiency increase is the order of the day, and must be ensured to make India competitive in the global market. 

However, the question arises whether this would be possible through more efficiency, which could be brought about by use of technology and/or better planning etc. or through extending a longer work week. The latter option is not evident in most other countries and therefore may not be acceptable. Moreover, working more hours per week does not necessarily improve work culture and standards. 

While urging the need for increasing productivity, the prevailing situation in the country, not just in the modern industrial sector but also in the traditional industrial sector in both big and medium industries needs to be considered. A section of analysts has been harping more on the induction of technology than in longer working hours. However, it may be mentioned here that in the unregulated informal sector, the working hours are around 70 hours a week. 

Some feel that Murthy’s thesis is not quite correct as productivity is not necessarily linked to how many hours people work. Indians already work longer hours than most. The Indian government’s time-use survey in 2019 found that men between the ages of 15 and 59 in urban India spent an average of 521 minutes a day in paid employment. That translates to over 60 hours a week. The number is even higher if you exclude those with only primary education. Indians, according to an ILO report, already work long hours ‘worked an average of more than 2,000 hours every year before the pandemic, much higher than the US, Brazil and Germany.’ 

Murthy pinpointed India’s underwhelming work productivity, ranking among the lowest in the world, which is possibly not the fact. The case of China, which is well known for high levels of efficiency and skill, needs to be studied. The China Labour-Force Dynamics Survey in 2017 revealed that the average employee in the People’s Republic spent just under 45 hours at work, though more than 40 percent reported that they were working over 50 hours a week. 

There are, however, some sectors in that country where the working hours are around 60-62 hours a week. But China’s progress and prosperity has been not because of long hours of work but due to high technological prowess. During the pandemic, work was being done from home but at least one survey found that Indians – may be also the Chinese -- had to put in more unpaid overtime. 

Murthy’s comparison with Germany also does not appear convincing. Though Germany’s workers in the 1950s certainly worked longer hours than, say, the British, the total was still probably between 45 and 50 hours a week though presently it’s not more than 50 hours a week. However, presently South Koreans have longer working hours, which may be around 60 hours a week. 

These comparisons are aimed at highlighting the fact that working longer hours need not necessarily boost productivity. Though Murthy has not referred to the government sector, where it is generally believed that productivity is low, the main reason that can be attributed for this is the lack of proper advance planning. But even then, one can say that even without corporate level efficiency, government hospitals have the best doctors and best treatment is received in these places. Obviously, this is because of high levels of skill and efficiency. 

Recall that more than a decade ago, Ratan Tata had complained to The Times, London that the management of the British steel company (Corus) and automaker (Jaguar Land Rover) he had taken over didn’t work hard enough. They wouldn’t stay for meetings that lasted past 5 p.m.; offices emptied early on Friday. Tata Steel’s hard-edged management, he implied, would soon set that right. India Inc.’s luminaries lined up to drape themselves in the flag and endorse their fellow billionaire. 

The five-day week culture may not be ideal for a developing nation like India, but factories operate for six days a week and most private sector companies also follow the same principle. It is necessary to mention here that if corporate India wants workers to work longer hours, it will need to create high productivity jobs for them. It is here that there is need to understand the nature of employment of India’s workforce and whether such jobs can be created for them. 

With more than 45 percent of India’s workers engaged in agriculture and another 40 percent in enterprises employing nine or fewer workers, high productivity jobs are scarce in the country. The reason is quite obvious -- we are yet to establish an efficient and technologically developed structure. The huge labour force does not find adequate employment and even those who find employment are without jobs for around six months a year. Whether it be agriculture or agro-based industries or even the informal sector, modernisation has not taken place yet. 

With little capital and land to work on, the marginal product of labour is too small to convince workers to work harder. Moreover, the situation is such that harder work does not reach the employee in most cases but are taken away by the employer in connivance with corrupt political leaders. All the talk of increasing working hours is limited to the top corporate sectors which have unfortunately got all the attention of the government and the country. In fact, all the capital has been invested in these few sectors, which employs around 8-9 percent of the total workforce.  

It is now necessary that a change be brought about in the informal sector of the country where pay structure, working hours, overtime allowance is fixed, and workers are not allowed to be exploited. Entrepreneurs like Murthy can talk about more working hours and can examine the labour put in by those who work in the informal sector and devise ways and means and then advise the government to conduct a comprehensive study towards reforming this sector and improving the working conditions of the workers.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 21 November 2023

Uniform Civil Code Anyone?

TIPTOEING  STEALTHILY

By Poonam I Kaushish 

In this poll season of freebies galore interspersed with vitriolic hate speeches and venomous tu-tu-mein-mein by BJP and Congress on the assumption that populist hand-outs yield better electoral rewards than reasoned policies, notwithstanding Prime Minister Modi crying halt to free “revadi” culture, the BJP Uttarakand Government in a groundbreaking move is quietly set to roll out the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) a long-debated legal reform genie in a special Assembly session this week granting it legal status. 

The Bill aims at uniformity in personal laws, like marriage registration, child custody, divorce, adoption, property rights and inter-State property rights regardless of religious beliefs. Reportedly it gives importance to safeguarding interests of women, children and differently-abled and covers equal rights for daughters living on ancestral properties and gender equality. The State also seeks a ban on polygamy and registration of live-in relationships.. 

Pertinently, the Code is BJP’s key agenda and Article 44 states: The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a UCC throughout India. It divests religion from social relations and personal laws related to marriage, inheritance, family, land etc, bypasses contentious issue of reform of existing personal laws based on religion --- Hindu Marriage Act (1955), Hindu Succession Act (1956) and Muslim Personal Law Application Act (1937). It would ensure all Indians are treated equally, provide gender equality and help improve women’s condition and tribal communities. 

Modi hoots for it. Asserting recently, “You tell me, if there is one law for one person in a home, and another law for another person, can that house function?” No. “So how can a country work with such a hypocritical system? We have to remember that even the Constitution of India talks of common rights.” 

Questionably, why now? There are four theories going around in BJP circles. One, it is part of a larger plan for the Saffron Brigade as UCC’s implementation could represent a political breakthrough that advances a narrative of uniformity and reform in law. 

Two, Uttarakhand’s UCC is to test political waters on how it will be received and could be the template that Central Government will follow for a pan-India code. The Law Commission has begun consultation on it, given Opposition vehement disagreement on grounds UCC would interfere in religious groups personal laws and right of religious freedom unless religious groups are prepared for change (sic). It is a ‘minority versus majority’ issue and Hindutva Brigade’s policy for Muslims living in India. It would disintegrate the country and hurt its diverse culture, they warn.   

Three, in case the Party wins crucial States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh it will roll out UCC in Parliament before general elections 2024, thereby fulfilling it last key agenda, part of its 2019 Lok Sabha election manifesto alongside Ram temple in Ayodhya and abrogation of Article 370 in J&K which have been fulfilled. 

Lastly, in the event it loses these crucial States the BJP might still bring UCC to distract attention from its defeat. “In fact, it plans to use the Uttarakhand as a model when developing its UCC Bill that it will eventually introduce”, said a Party leader. As it stands, two other BJP-ruled States Gujarat and Assam too might roll the Code out soon. While, Haryana, UP and Maharashtra wait in queue. 

However, this is easier said than done due to the country's diversity and religious laws, which not only differ sect-wise, but also by community, caste and region. Already, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has expressed reservations, stating India has a multi-cultural and multi-religious society and each group has the Constitutional right to maintain its identity. Adding, the UCC is a threat to India’s diversity and encroachment on their rights to religious freedom which will disregard their traditions, imposing rules influenced by the majority religious community. 

Besides, not a few argue it violates Constitutional freedom to practice religion of choice which allows communities to follow their respective personal laws. For example, Article 25 gives every religious group the right to manage its own affairs and Article 29 the right to conserve their distinct culture. Also, the Constituent Assembly’s Fundamental Rights sub-committee deliberately did not include UCC as a Fundamental Right. 

Some are wary UCC will impose a Hinduised code for all communities as it could include provisions regarding personal issues like marriage that are in line with Hindu customs but will legally force other communities to follow the same. 

Legal experts are divided on whether a State has the power to bring about UCC. Some assert as issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance and property rights come under the Concurrent List, 52 subjects on which laws can be made by both Centre and States, State Governments have the power to impose it. 

A similar concern is voiced by tribal groups like Rashtriya Adivasi Ekta Parishad, which approached Supreme Court 2016 seeking protection of their customs and religious practices from a potential UCC. In Nagaland’s tribal territories existing customary laws have primacy over federal laws with respect to personal issues like marriage, land ownership, etc. 

Goa is the only State which has a UCC regardless of religion, gender, caste. It has a common family law whereby all Hindus, Muslims and Christians are bound with the same law related to marriage, divorce, succession. When Goa became a Union Territory in 1961, Parliament authorized the Portuguese civil code of 1867 be amended and repealed by the competent legislature. 

Certainly the path to UCC is sensitive and difficult but it must be taken. A beginning has to be made if the Constitution is to have any meaning. Discrimination cannot be justified on the grounds of traditions and customs. To establish equality the law that regulates population of a country should also be one. 

Where do we go from here? Time for consensus among people which addresses their misgivings and concerns before the Code can be enacted. Said a senior Minister, “There is need to tackle “delusions” that some have “encouraged” that UCC is against rituals and core practices of any religion. It is a scientific and modern way of achieving goals of gender justice by removing disparate loyalties in laws which have conflicting ideologies.” 

A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing desperate loyalties to laws, which have conflicting ideologies. A way forward is to follow Balasaheb Ambedkar who advocated “optional” common civil code. Whereby, Parliament in the initial stage makes a provision of the Code being purely voluntary. 

What next? Ultimately, no community should be allowed to veto or block progressive legislation. Especially, if it is voluntary and does not seek to impose any view or way of life on any one arbitrarily. Time now to reject different laws for different communities, implement Article 44 and reform India. 

One cannot progress riding on past’s wheels. India needs uniform laws and should figure what is   satisfactory to all groups. Criminal and commercial laws are basic, so there is little purpose behind common laws to appear as something else. It just partitions Indians on the premise of religion that should not happen in the 21st century. It is beyond endurance of sensitive minds to allow injustice to be suffered when it is so palpable. What gives? ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)