[ad_1]
The Constitution of India contains an entire chapter on the guiding principles of the state’s policy relating to the welfare of the citizens. Article 44 is one of the 18 articles of Chapter IV which contains the principles of guidance. From the point of view of equality and non-discrimination, the directive in Article 38(2) to reduce disparities in income and eliminate inequalities of status, facilities and opportunity is important.
The guidance in Article 39 is a fundamental pillar of segregation from the point of view of social and economic justice. Article 43 directs the state to secure a “living wage”, which is the aspiration of millions belonging to the working classes.
Unfortunately, there is hardly any discussion of these guidelines. They are not on the government’s agenda. Article 44 alone has taken up a lot of the political space, thanks to the RSS-BJP agenda and some Supreme Court notes.
Words have meaning
Let’s look at the language of Article 44: “The State shall endeavor to secure a Uniform Civil Code All over the lands of India.” The words have meaning. Contrary to Humpty Dumpty’s answer to Alice, the word does not mean “what I choose it to mean.” “Uniform” is not “common.” Ambedkar and his colleagues are ignorant, they had a deep knowledge and understanding of the history, religions, caste differences, social and family systems, cultural practices and customs of the Indian people, and they carefully chose the words of the fourth chapter.
Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is an acronym for Personal Status Laws. It concerns laws in four areas: marriage and divorce, inheritance and inheritance, minorities and guardianship, and adoption and maintenance. Over the centuries, personal laws for different classes of people and different geographical regions of the country have evolved in different ways. Who ruled the people played an important role in the evolution. Religion played an important role while geography, fertility, conquest, immigration and foreign influences also affected personal laws.
Repairs began in 1955
According to today’s personal status laws, there is gender discrimination in addition to non-gender discrimination, some unscientific and unhealthy practices, as well as reprehensible practices and customs. There is no doubt that these aspects of personal status laws need reform.
Reforming personal status laws is nothing new. It has been on the national agenda since the constitution was drawn up. It was among the major concerns of the First Parliament of India (1952-57). Among the champions of reform are Jawaharlal Nehru and Babasaheb Ambedkar. Four major acts were passed to amend and codify Hindu law defying opposition from orthodox and conservative sections of the people: the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
A young nation has done a great job of reforming the personal laws of the majority of Hindu society. It was revolutionary, but the revolution allowed some aspects to remain. Not all discriminatory provisions have been repealed; The undivided Hindu family, as a legal entity, was recognized; The custom and usage in marriage was recognized as an exception. The latter aspect is important because most marriages in India are contracted according to custom.
Further amendments were made in 1961, 1962, 1964, 1976, 1978, 1999, 2001 and 2003. Between 2005 and 2008, another set of reforms were made by the UPA government. Three of the four laws (described above) have been amended. The revolutionary change was giving equal property rights to daughters and sons. New laws were passed, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act of 2006, and the Parental and Elderly Care and Maintenance Act of 2007. The courts intervened as the legislatures wavered. On August 22, 2017, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of talaq bidat (triple talaq) among Muslims as unconstitutional.
Pay attention to the twenty-first law commission
We stopped when we encountered the personal status laws of the Kabyle people. None of the four laws (mentioned above) apply to the Scheduled Tribes notified under Section 366, Section 25 of the Constitution. Schedule VI of the Constitution was added for the administration of the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram and included a clause granting powers to the district assemblies and regional assemblies of those states to make laws in respect of inheritance, marriage, divorce, and social customs. Special provisions protecting religious or social practices and customary law have been added to Nagaland (Section 371A), Sikkim (Section 371F) and Mizoram (Section 371G). Tribal bodies in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand have raised a demand for similar special provisions.
More reforms in personal status laws are definitely necessary. The XXI Law Commission offered sage advice: “Therefore, this commission has dealt with discriminatory laws rather than providing for the UCC which is neither necessary nor desirable at this point… Cultural diversity cannot be compromised to the extent that urging uniformity itself becomes a threat.” to the country’s territorial integrity.
the His Excellency the Prime Minister made the case In a way that allows only a two-way response – for or against the UCC. This approach treats the people of India as sheep driven by idiots. A careful approach would be to start a meaningful dialogue about the reforms that need to be made in all personal status laws, including Islamic law. The key word is reform, not unification.
[ad_2]
