What does our Constitution say about Uniform Civil Code? In article 44, our constitution clearly specifies this: "The State shall endeavor to secure the citizen a uniform civil code through out the territory of India".
The need: The objective of this article is to effect an integration of India by bringing all communities into a common platform which is at present governed by personal laws which do not form the essence of any religion.
The constitution is very clear that unless a uniform civil code is followed, integration cannot be imbibed. However, the so called secularists and saviors of secularism in India think otherwise. Their argument is that this code will affect the religious freedom of minorities. One fails to understand how abiding the law of land can go against religious principles! They claim that the sentiments of the minorities are not considered while implementing a common law! This code does not insist people from one religion to start practicing rituals of other religions. All it says is, with changing living styles along with the time, there should be a uniform civil code irrespective of all religions as far as social ethics are concerned
Till 1935, the Muslims in India followed different rules according to their practice. Khoja Muslims and Kutchi Memons are examples for this. The Kutchi Memons worshipped Hindu Gods and Ali is their tenth avatar instead of Kalki. They had the inheritance laws as per Hindus and also the marriage laws as per Hindus. When a common Mulsim Personal law was formed, there were many minority creeds of Muslims who had to accept these laws though they differed from their practices. There was no need of respecting the sentiments of the minorities (among Muslims) then. If this can be done for minority creeds of Muslims, why can’t the minority Muslims adapt the laws for the nation?
Much was debated on this issue at the Indian Parliament in 1948 by Ambedkar, Anantasayam Iyengar, KM Munshiji, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer favoring UCC and members from other religions opposing it. On 23rd Nov’1948, in Parliament, a Muslim member gave an open challenge that India will never be the same if it tried to bring in Uniform Civil code and interfere with Muslim personal law. It’s a shame that we could not do anything on this till date! I even doubt whether we had any subsequent debates in this regard at Parliament.
The Hindu laws that were different in different parts of the country had undergone a turbulent change, courtesy, geographically united India. The appreciable factor is, Hindus accepted these changes of laws with grace. Child marriages were banned, Sati was banned, widow re-marriage was encouraged, divorce was introduced, inheritance laws were amended and Hindus accepted all these changes. They never complained of hurting their religious sentiments. Those who oppose this law claim that this law is poking nose into their religious practices. “Narabali” (human sacrifice), that was considered a religious practice of Hindus is banned today. Hindus never protested this stating that their religious practices are tampered with.
There are Muslim countries that follow Islamic laws. Still, the laws differ from one country to another. This emphasizes that along with the personal laws, there has to be laws that should be written considering the changing phenomenon and the living style of the nation. Once again it is reiterated that this code is not biased towards a religion but to bring in a level playing platform among the citizens of India.
Muslims in other countries accept uniform civil laws where they do not consider this as a defeat whereas in India it is. This is the result of the selective secularism adapted by the political parties, media and the so-called learned men of India. It is a pity that in a democratic & secular state, people have different laws based on their religion. Is it secular to have different laws for different religion or it is secular to have a uniform law?
The approach of selective secularism had perpetuated the vertical divide among the people of India in the name of religion. This resulted in people having prejudice over this law itself. By bringing this code, neither the majority public wins over the minorities nor are the minorities in danger. Unless this prejudice is erased, bringing this law is difficult. The leaders of this country owe responsibility to explain this to public & an elaborate debate has to be held on this topic (which will never happen as this is against secularism?).
To make this debate on UCC healthy, Hindus should not treat this as a weapon against minorities. Meanwhile, the minorities should not feel that they lose by bringing this law. Whether this can be possible or not, only time will tell us.
Close
Aftab, my friend, will you take the trouble to visit the following links and let us know your reactions?
http://www.boloji.com/perspective/298.htm
http://www.boloji.com/society/170.htm
Reply | | Report Abuse
Aftab! If you are an Indian you are a shame. You better migrate to a land where only muslims are allowed to live and with the blessings of Allah treat their womenfolk as chattels. All backward societies resist reforms - some of them have been and will be reformed except your society. Hazrat Muhammad was one of the greatest reformers who transformed the ferocious barbarians of Arabia. Do you have an idea about the Arab society of the prophet's time? It was called aiyame jaheliat or the dark age. He risked his life to reform that society. Will anybody of your religion do like him today?
Reply | | Report Abuse
thank you MKV sir for your visit and valid comment.
perhaps you are right! I agree to your Hindi learning analogy (as i used to teach in Chennai decades ago on free of cost just to preach Hindi. I was then a pracharak in Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha)!
Reply | | Report Abuse
As you elaborate in your blog the need for a uniform code for maintaing law is acceptable to every group in India except for some interested hardliners. As you rightly say in your last para,
"To make this debate on UCC healthy, Hindus should not treat this as a weapon against minorities. Meanwhile, the minorities should not feel that they lose by bringing this law. Whether this can be possible or not, only time will tell us."
It is the outlook that is a problem. Hindus changed to uniform code by themselves. Similarly Muslims should change their law themselves. If Hindus stress on this it becomes a communal problem. It is similar to the imposition of Hindi in southern states. When it was forced by Hindi speakers there was strff resistance. Left to itself most southerners learnt Hindi themselves. I see that already some Muslim intellectuals are talking of reforms which should be lauded and encouraged.
MKV
Reply | | Report Abuse
Don Yaar,
AS i apprehended, this blog had taken the ugly turn of being religious one. you and the link provided by you (again written by a devout muslim and published by HINDU bashing news magazine though christened Hindu) gives this color.
When you want to follow the personal law that goes against the civil law (polygamy, birth control etc), why do you prefer to stick to Indian Penal Code seeking bails after bails. Why dont you call for public stoning to death or slashes in public?
The divide between Nehru and Bapuji (Dr Prasad) was well known and the reason cited by you is the biased version that people were taught.
I once again reiterate religion has nothing to do with the laws binding the society! May Allah give you the necessary insight (like He did to many other Islamic countries).
Reply | | Report Abuse
This is a sheer politics and hate campaign run by some hindu terrorists to earn majority hindu votes. The divide and rule politics of British is now run by these so called hindu nationalists.
The fact is, neither does India require nor is it possible or practicable to have a uniform civil code governing all the communities.
Let alone the minorities, the first to oppose such a common code will be the Hindus. Nevertheless, one wonders how the unity and integrity of the country will be affected if Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Parsis or for that matter any other people marry, divorce and inherit in accordance with their respective personal laws.
A comparative study of the personal laws of the Hindus, Muslims and other minorities will reveal that the sheer diversity of these laws, coupled with the dogmatic zeal with which they are adhered to, cannot permit uniformity of any sort. In fact, the heterogeneity of the Hindu law itself is such that even the possibility of a uniform Hindu code is ruled out.
Please refer http://www.hinduonnet.com/op/2003/08/19/stories/2003081900050200.htm for more details.
Laws, however, have not reformed societies; child marriages take place despite the Sharda Act and dowries have not stopped in spite of the strict penal provisions. Thus Hindus are as much in need of effective reforms as Muslims; their opposition to any change may not be as articulate but their resistance will be no less real. In the early 1950s, the enactment of the Hindu Code, despite the best efforts of Jawaharlal Nehru for almost five years, had to be ultimately abandoned; its greatest opponent was the first President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad. So the actual passing of a uniform civil code by our Parliament, if and when it comes about, will not be a smooth affair; it will be bogged down by amendment after amendment by various religious sects and groups.
Open your eyes and mind and look out of the box for reforming yourself.
May Allah guide those who seek righteousness.
Aftab Alam H Gokak
Reply | | Report Abuse
yes, thanks for the correction
~CB
Reply | | Report Abuse
But this one i expected!!!!
Reply | | Report Abuse
scribbly,
I am sorry. however, do i send invite to every blog of mine? i dont think so!
Reply | | Report Abuse
thank you CaravanBpl, it was nice.
however, i think it should be "....we've not been able to provide...."
Reply | | Report Abuse
- 1
- 2
Displaying 1 - 10 of 16 Blog Comments