Political
Diary
New Delhi, 13 July
2021
Uniform Civil Code
WILL IT REMAIN A MERE
HOPE?
By Poonam I Kaushish
Secularism has always
been the Hindutva Brigade’s bug bear and political untouchability the Congress
catch word. Whereby, Ram and Rahim have been reduced to election cut-outs. They
might have to take a backseat with the Delhi High Court putting the spotlight back
on the contentious Uniform Civil Code (UCC) of knitting India’s diverse social
fabric into one nation.
In its order last
week disposing of a case whether marriage between parties who belonged to the
Meena community were excluded from the ambit of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, it
stated, “Modern Indian society is gradually becoming homogenous, the
traditional barriers of religion, community and caste are slowly dissipating, the
hope expressed in Article 44 of the Constitution that the State shall secure
for its citizens Uniform Civil Code ought not to remain a mere hope.” Indian
youth belonging to various communities, tribes, castes or religions need not be
forced to struggle with issues arising due to conflicts in various personal
laws in relation to marriage and divorce.
The
Court ruling is music to the Modi Sarkar
as the BJP-RSS as having fulfilled two of the three-long-standing items on its
manifesto since 1998 --- construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya and abrogation
of Article 370 in J&K --- has just one item left Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
Both
Modi and Amit Shah have been pluming for it as they believe no country should
have any law based on religion and there should be a single law for all the
citizens. There cannot be gender equality till such time India adopts the Code
which protects the rights of all women. A consensus among all people has to emerge
which address their misgivings and concerns before the Code can be enacted.
Added
a senior Minister, “decades-old problems festering for over 70 years cannot be
solved by procrastination, in a ‘fits and start approach’ or in installments, there
is a need to address the “delusion” that some people have “encouraged” that UCC
is against the rituals and core practices of any religion. “It is a scientific
and modern way of achieving the goals of gender justice which would help the
cause of national integration by removing the contradictions based on ideology.”
But this is
vehemently opposed by Opposition Parties who feel the UCC would interfere with
the right of religious freedom and in personal laws of religious groups unless
the religious groups are prepared for change, (sic). It is a ‘minority versus
majority’ issue and the Hindutva Brigade’s policy for Muslims living in India. Secularism
is in danger under Modi Raj, they yell.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board too has expressed its
reservations, stating India has a multi-cultural and multi-religious society
and each group has the Constitutional right to maintain its identity. The UCC is
a threat to the diversity of India, it avers.
Arguably,
what is it about the Code that makes the political tribe other than the
Hindutva Brigade see red? Article 44 simply states: The State shall endeavour
to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of
India”. Bluntly, the Article simply spells out that there is no necessary
connection between religious and personal law in a civilized society.
Raising
a moot point: Why should a common civil code be viewed as encroaching on the
right of religious freedom? Or being anti-minority? If Hindu personal law can
be modernized and a traditional Christian custom struck down as unconstitutional,
why should Muslim personal law be treated as being sacred to the secular cause?
Alas,
over the years deliberate distortions of religion to suit narrow personal and
political ends had vitiated the country, which shamelessly, has everything to
do with vote-bank politics. All deliberately ignore and obfuscate a crucial
fact that Ambedkar advocated “optional” common civil code.
During
a debate in the Constituent Assembly on Article 35 (now 44) on November 3, 1948
when three Muslim members opposed the Article as it would interfere with their
right to follow their own personal law, Babasaheb made two observations. One, the Muslim Personal Law was not
immutable and uniform throughout India, contrary to what had been stated in the
amendments (moved by the Muslims members).
Two,
the Article merely proposes that the State shall endeavour to secure a civil
code for its citizens, not that after the code is framed States shall enforce
it upon all merely because they are citizens. It is possible that a future Parliament
might make a provision in the initial stage of the Code being purely voluntary.
Over
the years the need for UCC has been reiterated by the Supreme Court times out
of number including the 1985 Shah Bano case but they totaled zilch. Two years
ago a Private Member’s Bill on the Code was introduced by a BJP MP in the Rajya
Sabha but was stalled by the Opposition on the grounds that it could lead to
communal tensions at a time when protests were being staged against the
Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
Regrettably,
in today’s politico-social reality Ambedkar’s sound advice is ignored and
dismissed as a utopian hypothesis and Article 44 has remained a dead letter. As
things stand both Hindus and Muslims have lost sight of the essentials of their
respective religions and are largely misled by bigots and fundamentalists.
Worse, even the educated are speaking the language barely distinguishable from
that of Hindu-Muslim fundamentalists. Their stock answer to every critique:
Religion is in danger.
Surprisingly,
liberal Muslims have chosen to remain silent on the subject. Are they not aware
that many Islamic countries have codified and reformed the Muslim Personal Law
to check its abuse? Polygamy has been
banned in Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Iran and even Pakistan. Should they not
support Ambedkar’s middle path of a voluntary civil code. All this raises the
question: Should the State discriminate by caste and religion? Never, in a secular State.
Alas,
successive Governments have failed to draw a distinction between politics,
caste and religion. Forgetting, there is no mysticism in the State’s secular
character. It is neither pro or anti God and is expected to treat all religions
and people alike ensuring that no one is discriminated against on the ground of
religion.
Where
do we go from here? It all depends on whether the Government is willing to get
rid of its excess baggage of isms. The Court has shown the way once more. The
Government can now fire the gun from its shoulder.
India
and its secularism deserve a voluntary common civil code for gradual acceptance
without further delay as it will help the cause of national integration by
removing disparate loyalties in laws which have conflicting ideologies.
Enlightened
opinion among the Muslims will then have a choice; be liberal and progressive
or remain obscurantist and backward. Goa has had a common civil code for long,
thanks to its Portuguese rulers. Importantly, it has been willingly accepted by
all, creating a Goan identity.
Ultimately,
no one community should be allowed the 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. Enough needs to be viewed
as enough and action taken forthwith to implement Article 44. What gives? ---- INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|