Tag: Debate On Uniform Civil Code

Implications of Uniform Civil Code

By Asad Mirza

On 9th December 2022, Kirodi Lal Meena, a Rajya Sabha M.P. of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) introduced a private member bill on India’s Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the Rajya Sabha that fuelled a fresh debate on an issue, which saw no resolution even in pre-Independence India and continues to haunt the political climate of India even today.

The sensitive nature of the issue besides giving political mileage to the BJP, affects various political parties, with respect to their stand on the issue. Plus, it also puts various religious communities coming under the purview of the UCC to give up their respective Personal Laws, particularly the Muslims, which are the largest religious minority in the country.

Let’s dissect the political motives first and then the response of the affected communities.

First, the audacious move of tabling the Private Member Bill in the Rajya Sabha came just one day after the BJP secured victory in the Gujarat assembly polls in December last. It reinforced the BJP’s political manifesto of enforcing Hindutva, which may also serve as the lynchpin of its political strategy for the upcoming general elections in 2024, by polarising the public.

Further, the second move to seek public opinion on the proposed UCC, in absence of any Draft of the proposed Bill, was a very astute move by the BJP. As it came within a week of the opposition parties’ meeting in Patna in June to formulate a united front and strategy to counter the BJP in the upcoming 2024 elections. As expected the move sowed division within the opposition’s ranks. Further, it saw an immediate half-baked response from the so-called leaders of the religious minorities – particularly the Muslims.

Muslim religious and community leaders without batting an eyelid immediately started opposing the UCC, and didn’t stopped to dwell on what grounds they were protesting and we saw a plethora of sentimentally rich and logically poor responses coming forth from them. The only common stand they took was that they oppose any interference in the Muslim Personal Law.

But I’m sure, neither the leaders nor their supporters know which Muslim Personal Law they are talking about. The one codified by any Muslim rulers like the Mughals, the Khiljis or the Tughlaqs or the ones before them? The answer is NO. In fact, the British colonialists codified the prevailing Muslim Personal Law, without any consultations from any Islamic jurist or scholar.

Before 1937, Muslims of all denominations, all over India, followed the uncodified local Hindu customs, practices and usages in addition to their personal law as per the Sharia. So the British just concurred on codifying the prevalent practices relevant to the marriage, divorce etc., but changed the ones relating to succession and division of property, in the case of Muslims.

It would be interesting to know at whose behest the colonial rulers codified the Muslim Law of Succession and Inheritance. It was none other than MA Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League.

The Shariat Act of 1937 was imposed on Indian Muslims as a win-win political deal between the British, keen to divide Hindus and Muslims, and the Muslim League, keen to lure the Muslims away the Congress. In a manner this also suited Jinnah’s political strategy on how to secure a separate country for the Muslims, but it had an added personal angle also to it.

MA Jinnah’s daughter Dina married Nevile Wadia – a Parsi, against his wishes, though he himself had married a Parsi lady, Rattanbai Petit. To disown Dina and leave no inheritance for her, Jinnah made use of the recently introduced Shariat Act 1937 and nominated his sister Fatima as his successor. The Act, a joint strategy of the British and the League, contained provisions to sabotage the Islamic Sharia, by secretly smuggling the Hindu customs and usages into the 1937 Act to save the property rights of the Muslim leaders, Jinnah and the zamindars from harm by the Islamic Sharia. Did the Shariat Act of 1937 — now acclaimed as the holy law of Islam — contain Hindu law provisions to secure the property rights of the League leaders? Yes, it does.

Historian, KK Abdul Rahiman in The History of the Evolution of Muslim Personal Law in (1986) says the British gave strength to customs and usage that had long been adhered to particularly in matters of succession by sections of Indian Muslims.

Further, we have to realise that the UCC would not only affect Muslims but also Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Jews, Parsis and other minorities and scheduled tribes in the country. And at the moment it is just a political gimmick of the government to polarise the electorate and also sow seeds of discord amongst the unified opposition. Muslim leaders need to bring other communities leaders at the same platform and also inform their Hindu brethren that the UCC will abolish the HUF provisions for filing Income Tax, thus it would increase the tax liability of Hindus also.

The UCC Bill has been introduced as a political reform by the BJP, guided by principles of Hindutva, as a response to replace the existing complicated set of personal laws. These personal laws are so complicated that even the Britishers didn’t dare to interfere with them. Further, the Constituent Assembly, besieged by two schools of thought, one supporting the UCC argued that it provided for the emergence of a secular and progressive nation, while the opponents felt it to be conflicting with the ideas of inclusiveness and pluralism, deemed it fit to circumvent the issue and leave it at the moment and thus chose to include it under the Directive Principles of the constitution, under Article 44 of the Constitution, and leaving it for the future generations to sort it out.

A realistic and practical understanding of how personal laws operate will indicate that the state’s organs and the Indian society are yet not ready, even after 73 years for the substantial revamp that such legislation would bring. Instead of gunning for political gains we should try to reflect the rich Indian diversity of traditions and their importance in common Indians’ daily life.

Lastly, the manner in which the Muslim leadership responded to the government’s move, shows its complete immaturity and the set manner of its traditional, out of touch with reality reactive response, completely bereft of any political nuances and strategy, which was also evident during the Babri Masjid movement, Triple Talaq issue etc.

Though it is high time but still there is time for the Muslim leaders to formulate a Unified Strategy and response to the UCC, in consultation with leaders of other religious minorities and political parties, so that this time they don’t get defeated by the government in its anti-Muslim campaign, though the chances of any such endeavour seem very remote.

(Asad Mirza is a Delhi-based senior political and international affairs commentator)

‘Raking Up Uniform Code Issue Is The Newest Ploy To Target Muslims’

By LokMarg

Sheeba Aslam, a Delhi-based writer and research scholar, says creating a Uniform Code for a country as diverse as India is neither feasible nor desirable. Her views:

Hindutva votaries are gleefully sustaining on the vicarious pleasure of seeing the Indian Muslim population trapped eternally in government-inflicted hurt and humiliation. Team Modi, backed by the foot-soldiers of the RSS and a capitalist media, have created a populace that simply does not want anything for itself — they don’t want health, employment, education, career opportunities, jobs, food, and basic law and order. Rather, they seem to only take great pride in the absence of these conditions and point at the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, getting a Supreme Court verdict in favour of Ram Mandir in Ayodya, the Triple Talaq law, the CAA-NRC, and ‘Love Jihad’ laws.

They also seem to rejoice at the Bilkis Bano case and several other cases of rape, murder and mass murder as in the Gujarat genocide, 2002. They seem to celebrate the convicts being set free, and position it as a Hindu triumph over Indian Muslims, who, according to them, should have left India for good during the Partition in 1947!

The raking up of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) by the PM, soon after coming back from America, is definitely meant to-kick start the BJP election campaign for 2024, and the crucial assembly polls in the Hindi heartland before that, where it finds itself on a sticky wicket. It is, in fact, another attempt to placate his voters with another hurt and humiliation phenomena — directed towards Indian Muslims — who are, certainly, India’s most wretched in terms of socio-economic parameters, and the human development index, along with Dalits, the most backward castes and adivasis.

Since there is an obvious, hollowed emptiness that Modi and his team are facing in terms of actual performance on the ground, while facing people for votes for the third time, hence, in order to kick- start an aggressive electoral campaign, he is yet again using the trump-card of communal polarization in terms of UCC. Surely, he has no achievements to show; therefore, his attempt is to snatch away the socio-religious identity of the Indian minorities, and particularly that of Muslims, as the next item to please his fanatic supporters.

Sheeba Aslam has been organising events to promote Urdu literary culture in the Old City of
Shahjahanabad in Delhi.

I don’t see much of a USA-angle to it, but this angle is in his vacuous call about the Pasmanda Muslims, where he tries to tell the world that the caste gentry of Indian Muslims have kept the OBC Muslims down-trodden, and that he is going to pursue their cause. However, he is not telling as to how is he going to pursue the Pasmandas’ welfare, when, apparently, 90 per cent victims of mob-lynchings, bulldozer justice, fake encounters, assaults on women, arson and love-jihad are largely Pasmanda Muslims only?

ALSO READ: ‘Let There Be A Debate First On Uniform Code’

So far, he has not announced any policy or scheme to uplift them, neither has he assured an equal compensation amount to the victims of Hindutva hate crimes; nor has he assured the country-at-large of equality before law. Hence, in the stark absence of these basics, what is his offer to them?

As long as Modi and his cohorts, including compromised institutions like a big section of the mainline media, the Election Commission of India, and Enforcement Directorate, etc, are there, he just might continue to win. With no accountability of his government and party whatsoever, the issues of electoral Bonds, the PM Care Fund, with multiple conflicts of interest, will definitely be buried under the carpet.

The mammoth exercise of creating a UCC for such a diverse and large nation as India is not only impossible, but, also takes away the enforceable, constitutional guaranties that form the basis of any emancipatory document. Indeed, the Constitution of India upholds the accepted customs, traditions and cultural practices, the essential unity in diversity, across the multiple regions, identities and geographies of this pluralist and secular nation, as worthy of preservation. 

The laws against domestic violence, Triple Talaq, Halala, polygamy, child-marriage, and the right to- education, employment, a life-partner and ancestral property, if enforced in their letter and spirit, are not going to take care of the deeper and inherited concerns of the weaker and oppressed communities. There can be more specific laws to weed out unjust and obscurantist practices, just like the law against the instant Triple Talaq, practiced among a section of the Sunni Muslims.

However, the truth is, in an atmosphere of fascist leanings when even the criminal penal code seems to be applied selectively by the Indian courts, envisaging a fair UCC is being much too optimistic. Undoubtedly, it cannot really discover any practical realism on the ground.

(The narrator is an Old Delhi-based writer, Islamic feminist, research scholar, gender-trainer, and literature enthusiast. She has extensively written on identity formations through cultural markers such as language, culture and cuisine in the modern, democratic Nation-State. She has been organising Adabi nashists, mushairas, kitabi tabsira, Dastangoi and musical events to promote Urdu literary culture in the Old City of Shahjahanabad in Delhi. The penetration of high culture of Turkiye, Iran, Uzbekistan and the rest of Central Asia is in focus in her academic research. She is currently pursuing her doctoral research on ‘Social Movements of Muslim Women in India’ in JNU, Delhi)

As told to Amit Sengupta

Patience Not Speed is Needed on the Path to a Uniform Civil Code

By Sanjoy Narayan

It is likely that a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill will be introduced in India’s Parliament when it convenes for its Monsoon session, which begins on July 20. The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a proposal in India to formulate and implement personal laws of citizens which apply to all citizens equally regardless of their religion, gender and sexual orientation. The UCC covers areas like marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and succession of the property. Article 44 of the Indian Constitution mentions the UCC as a directive principle of state policy. The objective is to promote gender justice and equality.

In late June, Prime Minister Narendra Modi mentioned the intention of adopting the UCC. According to him, it was not sustainable for the country to have separate sets of laws for different sections of the Indian community. He stressed the need for having a single set of laws for the entire country. However, the proposal has met with apprehension, opposition and dissent from various sections of Indians, particularly the minority Muslims who account for 15% of India’s population, and from Modi and his party, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) political rivals. They argue that the UCC would impinge upon many Indians’ religious and personal freedom and rights.

The controversy around the UCC stems from the fact that India is a diverse country with different religious communities having their own personal laws based on their scriptures. Some groups oppose the UCC as they fear it would infringe on their religious freedom and identity, while others support it as they see it as a way to ensure uniformity and secularism in the country. 

Muslims in India are governed by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. This law deals with marriage, succession, inheritance and charities among Muslims. In many respects, such as womens’ rights, and divorce procedures, the provision of the Shariat differs widely from the civil laws that apply to non-Muslims, such as the majority community of Hindus who account for nearly 80% of the Indian population. The rights of women under Shariat are different, and construed by many as being restrictive and discriminatory. 

The UCC is a complex and sensitive issue that is also divisive. In a country as diverse in terms of religion, language, and culture as India, the UCC requires debate and involves a fine balance between India’s constitutional values of secularism, plurality, equality, and justice. 

The idea of implementing the UCC as India approaches the next parliamentary elections, scheduled for 2024, is seen as the Modi regime’s attempt to strengthen its base among the majority Hindu voters. The BJP in its election manifestos–at the national level in the past, and for recent state elections–has promised implementation of the UCC. 

The BJP is aligned with right-wing politics, and its policies adhere to what is called Hindutva, interpreted as a Hindu nationalist ideology. The BJP has close ideological and organizational links to the Rashtiruíya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which advocates a “Hindu Nation” and is opposed to Muslims and Christians. Hence, minority communities in India fear that a law that overrides those based on religious scriptures may be aimed at obliterating their practices and heritage.

On the flipside of that argument is the fact that some personal laws followed in India, say, among Muslims, can be interpreted to be at odds with India’s constitutional values and objectives of equality and freedom, particularly on the basis of gender.

While many Muslims feel that some policies adopted by the current regime, which has been in power since 2014, have been discriminatory (the Citizenship Amendment Act, the National Registrar of Citizens in Assam, and, the construction of a Hindu temple in Ayodhya, to cite a few), many provisions of the Shariat are viewed by many Indians, including those professing secularism and pluralism, as unrealistic and out of sync with modern society. 

Mr Modi is right when he says separate laws to govern different communities based on their religious beliefs is unsustainable but implementing a UCC should be carefully undertaken. Religion is a sensitive issue in India and in recent years it has been the cause of serious divisiveness. It has led to the rise of hardline majoritarian spirits and, consequently, to apprehension and insecurity among India’s minorities. The 15% of India that is composed of Muslims accounts for 210 million people, a number much bigger than the population of many countries in the world. 

That does not mean that all the provisions of Muslim personal law should be preserved–many of them are regressive and highly discriminatory. But when millions adhere to them, any move to change the laws that govern the system must be fraught with caution. Patience and public debate is needed on the path to a Uniform Civil Code.

Barbarism raises its head in India… yet again

A shocking video surfaced recently showing a man in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh urinating on a tribal worker. The urinating man, identified as Pravesh Shukla, was  charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, a law that is aimed at protecting India’s historically oppressed communities. The authorities also demolished Shukla’s home, which was believed to be an illegal construction.

Later, the chief minister of the state, Shivraj Singh Chouhan, who belongs to the BJP, was shown in another video of washing the feet of the tribal man and then sitting down for lunch with him, ostensibly as a symbol of equality and non-discrimination.

The fact is that the caste system in India, decades after the Constitution was adopted and whose objectives as its preamble says, are to secure justice, liberty, equality to all citizens and promote fraternity to maintain unity and integrity of the nation, is still alive.

Although India has sought to dismantle caste-based discrimination through affirmative actions such as reservations in education and jobs and laws such as the prevention of atrocities Act mentioned before, the caste system still raises its ugly head and people from the so-called “lower castes and tribes” continue to face exploitation, persecution, and worse. People belonging to these castes were considered as members of the lowest class in the traditional Hindu social hierarchy and were believed to defile by contact with a member of a higher caste. In fact, they were known as “untouchables”, a term that is now considered offensive. 

In the late 1880s, the Marathi word ‘Dalit’ was used by Mahatma Jyotirao Phule, a social activist and anti-caste reformer, for the outcasts and “untouchables” who were oppressed and broken in the Hindu society. Dalit in classical Sanskrit, this means “divided, split, broken, scattered”.

Despite the reforms, in Indian society the caste system lives on–no matter which economic strata you consider. Among the poor and dispossessed as well as the well-heeled and educated, the caste system is still in practice. When it comes to conventional norms, for example in arranged marriages, which account for the majority of Indian matrimonial alliances, it is common practice to insist on caste matches. And instances of discrimination on the basis of caste when it comes to employment or simple things such as renting a home are rife. The caste system is a blight that refuses to die down in India.

India condemns pro-Khalistan protests

On Saturday, Indian diplomats and Indian embassies and consulates in Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia, were preparing for a number of rallies dubbed as “Kill India” protests by Sikh separatists who have been demanding a separate Khalistan state in Punjab and want to raise funds for the terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was killed recently. 

Nijjar, born in Bhar Singh Pura in the Phillaur subdivision of Jalandhar in Punjab, migrated to Canada in 1997 after the quelling of Sikh militancy in Punjab. He later became the head of a Gurdwara there. In 2020 he was designated as a terrorist under India law. Last month Nijjar was killed by unidentified assailants in Surrey, Vancouver where the Gurdwara is located. 

Sympathizers of the Khalistani movement believe Nijjar, 45, was killed because of his political beliefs. The protests are being organized against his killing and against the Indian government. Several Sikh radicals have called the Indian diplomatic establishments in Canada “war zones”. 

Canada has around 770,000 people, or 2.1% of the population, who are Sikhs, according to the country’s latest census. A small but influential number of these Sikhs support the idea of Khalistan.

The Indian government has condemned the protests and urged the governments of Canada and other countries where they are being organized to crack down on the activities.

When the virtual becomes reality

PUBG is a virtual online player versus player shooter game in which up to 100 players fight in a sort of deathmatch where the players fight to keep alive. It is an unlikely arena for cross-border romance but that is what happened recently. Seema Ghulam Haider from Pakistan and Sachin Singh from India met while playing PUBG a few years ago. The connection turned into romance and Haider, a mother of four, soon illegally entered India and began living with Singh in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

Both Singh, 25, and Haider, 30, were arrested by the Indian authorities (Haider for illegally crossing over; and Singh for letting her stay with him). Both have professed their love for each other and have appealed to the Indian government to set them free to live together. Will the Indian authorities be sympathetic to them?

Dutch government falls

Last Friday, the Dutch government fell after failing to reach a deal on immigration policy. The four-party coalition led by Prime Minister Mark Rutte collapsed as two junior parties refused to support his proposals to limit the entrance of children of war refugees and to delay family reunification. Rutte said the coalition had lost its political foundation and tendered his resignation to the king. The move triggered new elections later that year.

Rutte’s government was formed just 18 months ago. His People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy has been under pressure with right-leaning factions within it pressuring him to limit the number of asylum seekers arriving in the Netherlands. 

In many European nations, immigration has become a big political issue as more right-leaning parties gain prominence in governments.

‘Uniform Civil Code Must Initiate a Debate, Not a Knee-jerk Poll Slogan’

By LokMarg

Naved Qureshi, a renowned journalist and editor at NMF News, examines various aspects of the call for a Uniform Civil Code and whether it is just an election gimmick. His views:

The concept of a Uniform Civil Code refers to a set of laws that would govern personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption for all citizens of India, regardless of their religion or community. Its proponents argue that such a code would promote equality and gender justice by eliminating discriminatory practices embedded in personal laws based on religious customs. For, they believe, such a code is essential to achieving a truly secular and progressive society.

The UCC holds significant importance for any country and society. It aims to establish a balance between personal religious laws and the prevailing laws of the land, regardless of one’s religious affiliation, including Muslims. This balance is essential to ensure equality, justice, and cohesion within a diverse society. The UCC promotes a common set of laws that enable citizens to enjoy equal rights and protections, irrespective of their religious beliefs. By harmonizing personal laws, the UCC contributes to fostering social integration, promoting gender equality, and upholding fundamental human rights, ultimately creating a more inclusive and just society.

However, the UCC has faced staunch opposition from various quarters, and reasonably so. One of the primary concerns is the potential infringement on personal religious laws and practices. India is a diverse, pluralistic society with multiple religions, communities, customs, cultures and sub-cultures, each with its own set of traditions and conventions.

ALSO READ: ‘After Love Jihad, BJP Will Rake Up Uniform Civil Code’

Critics thus argue that imposing a uniform code would violate religious freedom and cultural autonomy, undermining the principles of pluralism that the country cherishes and nourishes. The UCC is also seen as a controversial issue due to historical legacies. The idea of a uniform code was first introduced in the directive principles of the Indian Constitution, which urged the government to “endeavor to secure” its implementation.

However, the framers of the Constitution deliberately kept personal laws out of the purview of the UCC, considering the sensitivities involved. This historical context has created a perception that the UCC is an attempt by the majority Hindu population to impose its values on minority communities, particularly Muslims. The potential impact of the UCC on different sections of society is a topic of intense debate.

Critics argue that the UCC could adversely affect religious minorities, by eroding their cultural identity and subjecting them to the dominance of the majority community. There are concerns about the impact on tribal communities and their customary practices as well. It is essential to ensure that any proposed UCC does not ignore the unique needs and traditions of these marginalized groups.

Supporters of the Uniform Civil Code contend that it would empower women and promote gender equality, as it would seek to eliminate practices such as unilateral divorce, polygamy, and unequal inheritance rights that often adversely affect women in certain communities. They argue that personal laws rooted in religious customs often perpetuate patriarchal norms and deny women their fundamental rights.

The question of whether the current push for a Uniform Civil Code is merely an election gimmick is a subjective one. It is undeniable that the code has been a contentious issue, and politicians have used it to polarize the electorate along religious lines in the past. However, the real intentions behind the current push can only be known to those advocating for it. It is crucial for policymakers to approach the issue with sincerity and engage in a comprehensive and inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders to dispel any perceptions of ulterior motives.

In conclusion, the Uniform Civil Code remains a contentious issue due to concerns about potential infringement on personal religious laws, legacies, and the impact on various sections of society. While proponents argue that it would promote equality and justice, critics fear it could undermine religious freedom and cultural autonomy. It is essential to approach the issue with sensitivity, ensuring that any proposed UCC respects the diverse traditions and customs of different communities. A comprehensive and inclusive dialogue is necessary to address the concerns of all stakeholders and promote genuine secularism and gender justice.

As told to Deepti Sharma