|
One can go on and on and probably wind
up with the most recent reminder, the third in fifteen years, by the
Supreme Court to the powers that be to give effect to the
constitutional sanction for Uniform Civil Code under the Article 44.
Such regular reminders have become necessary because all rulers of
post- independence India have perpetually been under the influence
of a potent dope called 'Secular Ecstasy', that neutralises one's
concern for the nation's integrity and its majority population even
while enhancing euphoric indulgence towards the minorities at the
expense of the former! Sane voices and even 'loud legal notices' as
above invariably fall on deaf ears guided by mute minds.
There are of course other voices that
the spineless rulers of India have always heard with alarming
clarity and heeded with god-speed. These voices that had
successfully stalled the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code
all these years are back now, at their vintage best, unchanged by
the passage of time or advance of civilisation. Here goes the All
India Muslim Personal Law Board, which claims to be the sole voice
of Muslims and the 'final adjudicator' of all laws governing them: '
...nothing should be imposed in any matter concerning religion'.
That's it! And the spokesperson of the Delhi Catholic Archdiocese
has warned that 'the religious sentiments of any faith are not
hurt'. And we all know how strong and sacrosanct their religious
sentiments are to them no matter even if they infringe on the rights
of the larger mass of humanity outside their faith or impinge on
tenets of equity and natural justice. Rest assured, only these
voices will again rise above the din and prevail! Article 44s and SC
wake-up calls can wait.
The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
Application Act 1937 was passed by the British government to ensure
that the Muslims were insulated from common law and that only their
personal law would be applicable to them. Every religion had its
personal laws which typically dealt with matters concerning
marriage, divorce, inheritance, succession, adoption and such other
societal matters. So there were also Hindu personal laws based on
its Dharma shastras which were also converted into enactments
during the British period at various times. The Hindu personal laws
varied from one area to another and also depended on the differing
religious practices of the various Hindu sects. But the
post-independent secular era brought with it several
double-standards that now form the core of the current stark social
imbalance between different faiths warranting the debate on Uniform
Civil Code. Though the framers of the Indian constitution were
granted the powers to amend any law that was 'in force' at the time
of Independence, it was only the personal laws of the Hindus that
were subjected to such scrutiny and then altered. The Hindu code
Bill brought by Jawaharlal Nehru in mid 1950s, sought to codify and
unify the various Hindu social laws under one nomenclature. This was
opposed by the Hindus generally and the President Rajendra Prasad
declined to give sanction to that Bill. So, the very secular rulers
promptly split the Bills (Hindu marriages Act, Hindu inheritance
Act, Hindu Divorce Act et al) which were all duly passed. But the
Muslim Personal law remained untouched barring a few changes in
deference to evolving legal grammar. The pumpkin was quietly buried
under secular rice!
Minority champions have always
proclaimed that a uniform civil code would be acceptable only if the
move came from them. That is they hold the veto, no matter if the
Constitution itself ordains it. But no such concession was bestowed
on the hapless Hindus of the Nehruvian era; no referendum as is
demanded now was taken about the Hindu views. The move did not come
from the Hindus but was thrust from above. Yet the mute majority of
this land had swallowed it all in the interest of social and
communal harmony and even more specifically, out of their
genetically ingrained spontaneous respect for rule of law. Now, to
contrast this with the intransigence of the minority champions and
their secular backers will only add to the pain. But that is nothing
when compared to the social inequities that the
hands-off-personal-law-policy has set off.
For one, while the Hindu Bigamy act
ensures that a Hindu has only one wife, no such restrictions bother
the Muslims, who can have upto four wives. More wives automatically
mean more children. And combined with their religious distaste for
family planning, which the Hindus religiously follow in due
deference to the government rules, one can guesstimate the havoc
that is going to be caused to the demography of the country. But the
secular Hindus should not be concerned about this. Not that they are
awaiting an amendment that would allow them too to gather spouses by
the dozens and swell their flock but it would indeed be a tragic
irony if they were to pay for their social evolution, while those
who wantonly court backwardness move forward by way of political and
every other kind of domination. Similar perversions pervade other
aspects like inheritance, maintenance, succession, probation of
wills etc, etc and in every case, the Muslims are at a significant
social advantage over their Hindu 'fellow citizens', courtesy their
Personal Laws. The list is inexhaustible and warrants a great
excursion into the legal bylanes.
But forget the Hindu angle. What about
modern concepts of social justice and equality before law? Even in
totalitarian Muslim regimes around the world the personal laws are
being amended in tune with modern times, but secular India remains
cursed to linger in medieval mindset of the Aurangazeb era. Not that
there are no pressures on them, from outside and within, but the
Muslim clergy had always succeeded in resisting changes under the
pretext that it would mean Hinduisation of Muslims and infringement
of their religious rights. But does not succumbing to such threats
and intimidations reflect on the capacity of a 'secular' government
to render justice to 'secular' citizens of a 'secular' country with
a 'secular' Constitution?
Indeed, it is secularism at its
uncivil worst!
Author is Chief Editor, News Today, Chennai |
