(This essay was originally written for the
Super Brain All India
Essay Competition conducted by the competitive monthly magazine named Competition
Success Review and was published in its January 2006 edition. This
article won the first prize
on all India
level)
“All
for one, one for all”
– Alexander Dumas, ‘The Three Musketeers’
Introduction
Indian humanity, in its dynamic
unity, integrally includes a national plurality of all religions namely Hindu,
Muslim, Christian, Parsi, Buddhist, Sikh etc. constituting in Constitutional
diction ‘We, the people of India’.
The whole populace anticipates a vision of plenary harmony accommodative of
secularism sans which our vibrant democracy will suffer a divisive syndrome and
our many minorities will miss the mainstream of national life – a travesty of
the tryst with destiny India
made during its sustained struggle for Poorna
Swaraj. The mensuration of the quality of our democracy geared to the
preservation of structural integrity and social identity that does not negate
the nationalist commitment of the entire population. This is the materialist
dialectics and moral dynamics of our Democratic Republic, given shape and
beauty by the Founding Fathers as an articulation of the values, which find
finer expression in the Preamble and Articles of the Constitution, liberally
illumined and hermeneutically pragmatised.
One of the major problems, which
have provoked exciting polemics and aggravated Majority pressures, is the
enactment of a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India, as desiderated in the Article 44
of the Constitution. Nevertheless, till today there has no UCC taken shape in
Indian soil except in Goa which is from the times of Portuguese, regulating
family laws, namely, marriages, divorce, adoptions, succession, legitimacy of
children, registration etc. Hindu fundamentalists make a militant demand for a
UCC and in opposition an apprehension for the Muslim minority that Koran is in
danger; that their sacred family law would be jettisoned, and loosing their
identity is too on the increase.
Indian fraternity and human
solidarity have non-negotiable validity, be he a Hindu, Muslim or other
minority member. To behold a human being as human is the best tribute to
secularism as secularism is not, however, merely the broad pattern of
management of equations between politics and religion rather it is a spirit of
tolerance, universalism and freedom equally to all religions. Amid all these in
an Indian family, how could it be fair that there should be one rule for the
mother, one for the father, and one for the children, shaking the epitome of
our national cooperation and warning our national integration itself?
From
precedent to the present
The
founding fathers of our Constitution were all wise men of vision, fired by the
concept of democracy treating everyone equal before law, and for whom
everything subsumed to the fraternity, unity and integrity of the nation.
Unfortunately, some of those founding fathers, it must be accepted in
retrospect, were the proverbial black sheep whose religious faith could not
quite be overcome by national ideals. Thus, some members wanted the Constituent
Assembly to believe that the Muslim Personal Law was an immutable law in India from
ancient times and believed that enactment of a civil code would be oppressive
to the minorities, each of which had a personal law.
It
took Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s and K. M. Munshi’s erudition to demolish the myth of
the immutability of ‘’divine’’ law and to prove that the proposed new civil
code at that point of time would be the most suitable to apply for all
citizens, irrespective of their religion. Ultimately, it was only the personal
laws of the Hindus that were subjected to scrutiny and then altered. However,
the Muslim personal law remained untouched barring a few changes in deference
to evolving legal grammar. The pumpkin was quietly buried under secular rice!
Eventually,
because of discrepancies in the personal law, numerous cases came before the
courts related to Personal Laws. Long years ago, in the Shah Bano Case, the
Supreme Court held that Article 44 has remained as a dead letter. The then Chief
Justice of India
Y. V. Chandrachud observed that, “A
common civil code will help the cause national integration by removing
disparate loyalties to law which have conflicting ideologies”. Raging
controversy demanding the uniform code followed was resisted in full fury by
the Muslim minority, with distinguished exceptions. Many instances the Supreme
Court directed the government of its Constitutional obligations to enact a UCC
like Sarla Mugdal Case, Mary Roy Case V. State of Kerala,
Jordaen Deinddeh V. S. S. Chopra,
Pannalal Bansilal Case etc. The latest reminder of the Supreme Court
setting the cat amongst the pigeons on the matter of a UCC was in the case John Vallamattom V. UOI (AIR 2003 SC 2902). In that case Chief Justice Khare stated
that, “We would like to state that
Article 44 provides that the State shall endevour to secure for all citizens a
Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India. It is a matter of great
regrets that Article 44 of the Constitution has not been given effect to.
Parliament is still to step in for framing a common civil code in the country.
A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing the
contradictions based on ideologies”.
Lamentably,
the concept of a UCC is not made a fundamental right of the citizen but
relegated to the position of a concept desirable but not enforceable by any
court in the country. The world treads frontward, ever forward, while those
damned “secularist” of ours have forced us back to the shameful sinister ages.
‘why’
a uniform civil code?
Secularism, the cornerstone of our
nation and the radical locomotive of social democracy for integration is
confused with and propagated by bigoted extremists as the tombstone of the body
politic – a terrible outrage! If secularism ceases to be the bedrock of our
Republic, Swaraj becomes a mirage. If we, as a people, do not belong to a
single nation, politically cemented by a strong sense of human solidarity, we
will splinter and flounder. Our national campaign is not pampering majority
malignancy or minority prejudices. We must be secular in every cell. There
cannot be democracy if any section of society is discriminated on the score of
religion or inequality. Therefore, a Uniform Civil Code is the way out to avoid
further chaos in the Indian cosmos.
In advanced Muslim regimes around
the world like turkey and Egypt,
the personal laws are being amended in tune with modern times, but secular India remains
cursed to linger in medieval mindset of the Aurangzeb era. The Muslim clergy
had always succeeded in resisting changes under the pretext that Shariat is sacrosanct.
To negate, if you perceive countries like Europe
and United States,
which have a Civil Code, any immigrant has to submit to that Civil Code and
never felt tyrannical. M. J. Akbar wrote: “It
is a myth that Islamic law is not amendable to re-interpretation. Islam has
always been a dynamic faith, not a static one and principles have been placed
in context whenever needed”. If the Shariat is to be strictly observed, a
thief should have his hands cut. Would today’s fundamentalist Muslims in India agree to
this being practiced?
Diversity in personal laws
reinforces gender inequality and injustice. Furthermore, when criminal laws and
some aspects of civil laws were common to the country as a whole why then the
variation of personal laws? Accepting a Uniform Civil Code, the identity of no
Muslim is threatened, only his social well-being is heightened and
strengthened. Moreover, is not that what laws are made for? How Muslims will
lose their identity by the country, having a Uniform Civil Code? How can a common
civil code ever affect faith? What does law has to do with faith? When Muslims
in many parts of India
went by Hindu law in certain matters, did they become less Islamic? Or less
Muslims? In succinct, a Uniform Civil Code is a social imperative, which the
people arguing against it yet have to comprehend forsaking their insular
thinking.
Conclusion
In
future, while implementing the Uniform Civil Code what has to be done, Shourie
nicely paraphrases: “A Uniform Civil Code
should not be put together as the amalgam of, or the common denominator of
personal laws based on religion but as the Code that guarantees the best rights
to all citizens, a code in which each provision has been incorporated not
because it is to be found in the Shariat or Manu or in Christian or Parsi law
but because on that matter it is the most humane and just provision we can
think of, the one that is most in accord with good conscience, the one that is
not likely to induce good conduct and creative flowering of the individual”.
The
melody of communal unity, the beauty of religious amity and the secularity of
Indian humanity by way of Uniform Civil Code for national integration – these
glorious values are the mission and message to the nation. Let us struggle to
sustain this supreme value, lest we, as a people, perish by discordant
ideology.