Secular Civil Code
By Poonam I Kaushish
“40 crore Indians had a tryst with destiny on 15 August 1947, today 140 crore Indians must work towards Viksit Bharat in 2047,” said Prime Minister Modi in his first Independence Day speech of his third term,11 so far. Making plain its back to business as usual as BJP-led NDA Sarkar begins 3.0, and, yes, Modi continues to have his way and say.
Contrary to popular belief that as BJP lacked simple majority on its own in the Lok Sabha it might put its last ‘core’ issue Uniform Civil Code on the back burner, as it is the only one remaining unimplemented, after building of the Ram temple at Ayodhya and abrogation of Article 370.
Nothing of the sort. In fact he gave it the imprimatur of the Red Fort setting underscoring the need of the hour was UCC as the existing code was “communal” dividing people on religious lines and “discriminatory.” Asserting, every Indian must be the same and equal in the eyes of the law.
But there were three crucial differences. One, realising the Opposition’s pet peeve against it alongside some reservation among his allies, he rechristened UCC as secular civil code (SCC). A statement shift towards a more inclusive stance on secularism. Thereby, taking a dig at Parties which treat the existing code as secular. Reminding them of Ambedkar who advocated “optional” common civil code. Whereby, Parliament in the initial stage makes a provision of the Code being purely voluntary.
Two, Modi spoke of UCC or SCC not as the BJP’s political ideological commitment but as a goal mentioned in the Constitution and underlined by the Supreme Court, times out of number. Three, he called for a wider public debate. That he felt the need to add the force of the Constitution and Court to a BJP promise and invited participatory discussion on it is significant. Given, so far BJP has used “secular” as a label, accusation and derision of the Opposition.
Naturally, Opposition attacked this as symptomatic of Modi’s disregard for India’s diversity saying “good governance and not uniformity should be the objective of a democracy. Modi is tiptoeing stealthily to present us with a fait accompli. He should realize UCC would interfere with the right of religious freedom and in personal laws of religious groups unless religious groups are prepared for change, (sic).
Besides, it violates Constitutional freedom to practice religion of choice which allows communities to follow their respective personal laws. It is a ‘minority vs majority’ issue and the Hindutva Brigade’s policy for Muslims living in India. It would disintegrate the country and hurt its diverse culture, they warn.
Modi made plain Uttarakhand’s UCC would 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 State has brought uniformity in personal laws, like marriage registration, child custody, divorce, adoption, property rights and inter-State property rights regardless of religious beliefs. 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. It also seeks a ban on polygamy, child marriage and registration of live-in relationships.
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) Hindu Code Bill, Shariat law and Muslim Personal Law Application Act (1937). It would ensure all Indians are treated equally, provide gender equality and help improve women’s condition. Tribals’ though have been kept out of its purview.
Pertinently, the need for a UCC arises due to existence of discriminatory practices and is considered crucial to achieving social reform, eliminating inequities, and upholding fundamental rights. Moreover, it provides protection to vulnerable sections and religious minorities, while encouraging nationalistic fervour through unity.
Many whoop for UCC stating it is a comprehensive common law governing personal matters: irrespective of religion, harmonising diverse cultural groups, removing inequalities and protecting women rights.
Further, with India’s political realities changing, modern society becoming homogenous and traditional barriers of religion, community, caste slowly dissipating thereby supporting national integration. Consequently, there can’t be two sets of laws in a house, one law for one and another for the other. Then a house will not function. Similarly a country can’t work with a hypocritical system. Specially, as the Constitution talks of common rights.
Questionably, what is it about UCC that makes the political tribe other than Saffronites see red? Why should it be viewed as encroaching on 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?
Bluntly, UCC spells out that there is no connection between religious and personal law in a civilized society. Moreover in the ever-changing geo-security situation there is need for strengthening the country’s unity and integrity by rejecting different laws for different communities and reforming India.
As things stand Hindus-Muslims have lost sight of the essentials of their respective religions and are largely misled by bigots and fundamentalists. Their stock answer to every critique: Religion is in danger.
Complicating matters there are too many religious practices and beliefs governed by personal laws, and unless we as a society are ready to give up everything that we are used to, then there can be a UCC.
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 religious grounds.
Certainly the path to UCC is sensitive and difficult but it must be taken. Discrimination cannot be justified on 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 to build consensus among people and address their misgivings and concerns before the Code is enacted. Said a senior Minister, “There is need to tackle “delusions” 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. 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 and reform India as one cannot progress riding on past’s wheels. 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. How long will we live at the impulses and fancies of Pandits, Mullahs and Bishops? And secular vs communal. — INFA