[ad_1]
The XXI Law Commission, which was approved by the BJP government, in the year 2018, reached the following conclusion regarding Uniform Civil Code (UCC): “…the diversity of Indian culture should be celebrated, but in the process certain groups or weaker sections of society should not be disenfranchised. Resolving this conflict does not mean abolishing all controversies.” The commission therefore dealt with discriminatory laws rather than introducing a unified civil code , which is neither necessary nor desirable at this point.”
Just three years later, he does Prime Minister Narendra Modi Do you think the social and political situation in the country has changed enough to force UCC on the people?
The prime minister’s strong rhetoric to the UCC holds the potential to widen divisions among different classes of people in the country. The Unified Civil Code will not only affect Muslims and other religious minorities. It will also affect those within the Hindu community due to the difference in cultural traditions across countries, castes and castes. For example, the practices of tribal cultures are very different from those of the urban Hindu family.
The situation of minorities remains the same today as it was in 1954 when India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, judged it was not yet time to advance a common civil bill. India is a welfare state. This is reflected in the Constitution within the guiding principles of state policy. These are aspirational principles that central and state governments must keep in mind as they formulate policy or pass law. The UCC is part of the guiding principles of state policy under Article 44 of the Constitution.
In light of the Supreme Court’s advice, Article 44 vs. Articles 25 and 26 (freedom of religion and freedom to administer religious affairs) will become the subject of intense debate. Introducing a common civil code would contradict Article 25.
Why did the Founding Fathers of our Constitution hold matters so that it would not be introduced in independent India? Why was it included in the guidelines of state policy, which could not be enforced by any court of law? There is no doubt that the founding fathers’ approach was pragmatic.
Partition occurred in 1947. The creation of Pakistan was the result of a psychosis of fear in the Muslim community of losing their identity in India, given that 80 percent of the country’s population is Hindu. A third of the Muslims in pre-partition India remained in their own country because they could not let go of the moral burden of partitioning the country in the face of the stubborn hostility of the Hindu Communists. Even after 75 years of independence, the Hindutva Brigade’s animosity persists. It worsened with the Modi government coming to power in 2014.
In independent India, the issue of Muslims organizing their community as a political party is not raised. But the fear is still there. What if the majority society used its numbers to modify the secularism of the state?
The Founding Fathers of our Constitution were aware of these concerns. That’s why they didn’t charge UCC. They have included it in the fourth part of the constitution as part of the goals and objectives that the state should adopt in governing the country. And for this, no time frame has been set. They believed that the Hindus would never allow this country to become a theocratic state because they were secular. With the passage of time, they imagined that Muslims would quickly change their attitude, political style, and ambition. In independent India, they believed, minorities would leap out of their shells of isolation and break out into a brave new world, challenging orthodoxy. The majority community will assist the minorities in these efforts. Only then will the minorities themselves raise the demand to harmonize their personal laws with the prevailing secular law and thought. In the vision of the founding fathers, this is the time when the state will approach the issue of uniform civil law.
Look at the reality on the ground today. India’s secularism gets lost in the quagmire of realpolitik, leaving minorities insecure and isolated. The ghettos once again became their protective cocoons. Even the most liberal Muslims are forced to view themselves through the lens of their religious identity. So how does one forge a new national identity? The situation is worse today than it was during and immediately after 1947.
A few years ago, the nine-judge Constitutional Council of the Supreme Court headed by Justice S.R. Pandyan: “The Founding Fathers of the Constitution could not have endorsed the idea of treating minorities as second-class citizens. On the contrary, the prevailing thinking seems to be that the majority society, the Hindus, should be secular and thus help the minorities to become secular… The majority society should help the minority realize that its religion and its own social and cultural traits can be safe. The Constitution of India recognized diversity and pluralism among the people of India. Under such circumstances, minorities should be helped out of the quagmire as they can no longer be exploited because of Their insecurity. When they cease to be cannon fodder for political gain, only then will there be no discussion or controversy about the establishment of a unified civil court.”
The Prime Minister makes it seem that implementing UCC is a simple exercise. It seems that he did not see the latest report of the Legal Committee. Having failed to achieve good governance, the BJP is trying to deploy the Unified Coordination Committee to polarize voters in order to win the Lok Sabha elections in 2024.
The writer is former editor, Dainik Statesman
[ad_2]
