Will the establishment of a uniform civil code in the present regime create a rift in secular India.
 |
| Photo (https://unsplash.com/photos/eq6EJSdpHUQ) |
Recently, Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami announced the implementation of the state-level Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and suggested how his administration could set an example for others. Within a week of the announcement, Mr. Dhami announced the formation of an "expert committee" via social media posts. Several other Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states have shown their inclination to take the UCC forward. Such a decentralized approach by the BJP-led state governments to legislation and central legislation by deducting their implementation could have far-reaching implications for the country. In light of the development of Uttarakhand, this section looks at how the political controversy surrounding the UCC has developed in India. Moreover, if implemented, what would the BJP-sponsored UCC look like?
Background
The origins of personal law can be traced back to at least the British colonial rule. The British administration was keen to create a Lex Loki for India by 1840. What is special is that they were aware of the 'individual' needs of the community. Although these Lex Loki emphasized the need for codification of laws, they forbade the codification of individual laws.
The dispute of the Muslim members was partly due to concern for their existence as a numerically weaker community remained in India after the bloody partition, and therefore, community protection was needed, even if it was not as justified as the UCC.
After independence, the question of UCC appeared in our Constituent Assembly discussions. Many of the controversies were political in nature. Mohammad Ismail Khan, for example, cleverly tried to awaken the consciousness of the majority community by claiming that he was the same 'beneficiary' of such a provision protecting individual law. Moreover, the dispute of the Muslim members was partly the result of concern for their existence, as a numerically weaker community remained in India after the bloody partition, and therefore, the protection of the community was needed, even if it was not justified. UCC. Chairman of the Drafting Committee B.R. Ambedkar's arguments differ from these more 'religious' and political arguments and reflect sharp legal arguments. This is probably the first time that Ambedkar has confronted individual laws through social justice arguments in the Assembly.
From the Congress statement
Most of the controversy surrounding the UCC can be attributed to constitutional ambiguity. There was a lack of a comprehensive legal framework for future MPs on how to deal with such a question. The section on Indicative Principles will reveal that Article 44 relating to UCC is one of the least explicit provisions in the Indian Constitution. A closer reading of the debates also reveals that the UCC was made unenforceable and thus was part of the indicator principles as a compromise.
The year 1985-86 is important for understanding the dispute. In the Shah Bano case, the Supreme Court directed the husband of an elderly Muslim woman to pay alimony to her after divorce. There was a huge outcry in the Muslim community, especially among the powerful clerics, as this decision interfered with Muslim personal laws. With this in mind, the Rajiv Gandhi government hastily enacted the law with the clear intention of appeasing the Muslim minority. The Hindu-Nationalist BJP saw this move as an inappropriate example of appeasing minorities. Thus, this move by the government through legislation not only politicized the issue, but, as women's rights lawyer Flavia Agnes noted, “set the tone for the racialization of the UCC’s demands by protesting Muslim law as backward and anti-feminist. “
From this information one can reasonably conclude that this case was, in fact, the marriage of two Hindu women to a fanatical Hindu husband.
Moreover, institutions like the Supreme Court are (instead of giving clarity) flirting over the disputed provision. The Supreme Court's method of handling the issue of individual rights in the Sarla Mudgal verdict is an issue. The case was one of two marriages where a Hindu man converted to Islam to legalize his second marriage. In particular, the conversion to Islam after marriage was deceptive, both parties continued to adopt a 'Hindu' way of life, and this was evident from the husband's initiative. From this information one can reasonably conclude that this case was, in fact, the marriage of two Hindu women to a fanatical Hindu husband. However, the verdict of Justice Kuldeep Singh gave a racist twist to the story. Some other communities [Muslims] will not, but the constitution commands the establishment of a "uniform civil code." "For the whole of India." The main implication of such a statement was that it gave further impetus to the already racist discourse.
… BJP's statement
While the UCC remains a major electoral platform for the BJP, it has been at the center since the party won a one-sided majority in the 2014 elections. In all manifestos, since 1998, the BJP has emphasized the need for UCC for national unity and gender justice. On the lines of Hindutva ideology, he has tirelessly promoted the monolithic idea of India, both in thought and action. In that context, what would be the content of an UCC run for ideological purposes?
It must be acknowledged that the BJP is in a position to legislate and establish legitimacy in terms of elections. However, the atmosphere of lack of trust created by the BJP is still showing democratic hesitation. This lack of trust is reflected in the concern of the minority community for their rights as citizens.
The core of the BJP-sponsored UCC is likely to focus on interfering in Muslim personal laws. The triple divorce case is an important step in understanding the relationship between Muslim personal law and the BJP. On December 28, 2017, the Lok Sabha passed a bill criminalizing the practice of triple divorce. It was a victory for the BJP and they hailed it as a milestone in sexual justice.
There is an element of control and encroachment. In some sense, it can be claimed that this was about controlling the agency of the Muslim community and at the same time diabolizing Muslim men.
However, does this law have anything to do with the fact that the 'secular' state has crossed the line of fulfilling individual (community) law? There is a necessary underlying argument that joins the BJP's big narrative of gender justice. Next, there is an element of control and violation. In some sense, it can be claimed that this was about controlling the agency of the Muslim community and at the same time diabolizing Muslim men. Specifically, and from the UCC's point of view, the game seems to be aimed at turning the issue into a zero-sum game by allocating enough power to change the nature of Muslim personal laws. Besides, the triple divorce case was never about women, so it is likely to affect our expectations about the BJP’s UCC. In principle, then, it makes sense to expect it to be against a ‘feminist’ UCC.
Conclusion
The UCC debate has developed significantly in India over the last seven decades. Accepted as an almost harmless compromise, the UCC provision has been politicized since the 1980s. Over time all political dealings with personal laws and the UCC have become trivial. By redefining who can and cannot be part of the collective politics of the future, a new legal system has come into existence that undermines the fundamental foundations of legal citizenship and minority rights. The Citizenship Reform Act (2019) is an issue. In short, while all past dealings have been aligned with the UCC, the tactics of the present regime are more relevant to the majority and deeply diverse country of India due to the majority nature and armament of the provision based on its prevalent unbroken ideology.
Post a Comment