UCC - Uniform Civil Code

[jitendershooda]

Sunil Kadian mentioned UCC in the thread regarding Muslims in current affairs. I thought to share some information regarding what it is? and How does it will impact?

Members are welcome to share their views. I agree when Sunil or somebody says that in India the congress who ruled for most of the years have created such a divisive atmosphere by his muslim impeasement policies which should come to an end to protect another divided India.

Why to discriminate people of the same nation on the basis of religion. One person is having different sets of right and other different.

I have made Bold some of the interesting points.

Here is a nice article:

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/ucc.htm
Introduction:
The mere three words and the nation breaks into hysterical jubilation and frantic wailing. These three words are enough to divide the nation into two categories - politically, socially and religiously. Politically, the nation is divided as BJP, which propagates implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as the UCC) and the non BJP including the Congress party, Samajwadi party, who are against the implementation of the UCC. Socially, the intelligentsia of the country, who analyse logically the pros and cons of the UCC and the illiterate who have no opinion of their own and succumb to the political pressure are at opposite poles. And, religiously, there is a dangerous widening schism between the majority Hindus and the minority community mostly the Muslims. Being a law student, I would like to consider the legal implications of UCC.

I strongly support the crusade for the implementation of UCC and homogenising the personal laws. I support it, not because of any bias, but because it is the need of the hour. It is high time that India had a uniform law dealing with marriage, divorce, succession, inheritance and maintenance.

Indian case law:
Recently, the Supreme Court of India again called for a UCC. The Supreme Court first directed the Parliament to frame a UCC in the year 1985 in the case of Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum[1], popularly known as the Shah Bano case. In this case, a penurious Muslim woman claimed for maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[2] after she was given triple talaq from him. The Supreme Court held that the Muslim woman have a right to get maintenance from her husband under Section 125. The Court also held that Article 44[3] of the Constitution has remained a dead letter. The then Chief Justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud observed that,

"A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to law which have conflicting ideologies"

After this decision, nationwide discussions, meetings, and agitation were held. The then Rajiv Gandhi led Government overturned the Shah Bano case decision by way of Muslim Women (Right to Protection on Divorce) Act, 1986 which curtailed the right of a Muslim woman for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The explanation given for implementing this Act was that the Supreme Court had merely made an observation for enacting the UCC, not binding on the government or the Parliament and that there should be no interference with the personal laws unless the demand comes from within.

The second instance in which the Supreme Court again directed the government of Article 44 was in the case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India[4]. In this case, the question was whether a Hindu husband, married under the Hindu law, by embracing Islam, can solemnise second marriage The Court held that a Hindu marriage solemnised under the Hindu law can only be dissolved on any of the grounds specified under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Conversion to Islam and Marrying again would not, by itself, dissolve the Hindu marriage under the Act. And, thus, a second marriage solemnised after converting to Islam would be an offence under Section 494[5] of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Kuldip Singh also opined that Article 44 has to be retrieved from the cold storage where it is lying since 1949. The Hon’ble Justice referred to the codification of the Hindu personal law and held,

"Where more then 80 percent of the citizens have already been brought under the codified personal law there is no justification whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduction of the ‘uniform civil code’ for all the citizens in the territory of India."

The Supreme Court’s latest reminder to the government of its Constitutional obligations to enact a UCC came in July 2003[6] when a Christian priest knocked the doors of the Court challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 118[7] of the Indian Succession Act. The priest from Kerala, John Vallamatton filed a writ petition in the year 1997 stating that Section 118 of the said Act was discriminatory against the Christians as it impose unreasonable restrictions on their donation of property for religious or charitable purpose by will. The bench comprising of Chief Justice of India V.N. Khare, Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice A.R. Lakshamanan struck down the Section declaring it to be unconstitutional. Chief Justice Khare stated that,

"We would like to State that Article 44 provides that the State shall endeavour 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."

Thus, as seen above, the apex court has on several instances directed the government to realise the directive principle enshrined in our Constitution and the urgency to do so can be inferred from the same.

Secularism v/s UCC:
The spine of controversy revolving around UCC has been secularism and the freedom of religion enumerated in the Constitution of India. The preamble of the Constitution states that India is a "secular democratic republic" This means that there is no State religion. A secular State shall not discriminate against anyone on the ground of religion. A State is only concerned with the relation between man and man. It is not concerned with the relation of man with God. It does not mean allowing all religions to be practiced. It means that religion should not interfere with the mundane life of an individual.

In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India[8], as per Justice Jeevan Reddy, it was held that religion is the matter of individual faith and cannot be mixed with secular activities. Secular activities can be regulated by the State by enacting a law.

In India, there exist a concept of "positive secularism" as distinguished from doctrine of secularism accepted by America and some European states i.e. there is a wall of separation between religion and State. In India, positive secularism separates spiritualism with individual faith. The reason is that America and the European countries went through the stages of renaissance, reformation and enlightenment and thus they can enact a law stating that State shall not interfere with religion. On the contrary, India has not gone through these stages and thus the responsibility lies on the State to interfere in the matters of religion so as to remove the impediments in the governance of the State.

Articles 25[9] and 26[10] guarantee right to freedom of religion. Article 25 guarantees to every person the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion. But this right is subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Article 25 also empowers the State to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political or other secular activity, which may be associated with religious practice and also to provide for social welfare and reforms. The protection of Articles 25 and 26 is not limited to matters of doctrine of belief. It extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and, therefore, contains a guarantee for ritual and observations, ceremonies and modes of worship, which are the integral parts of religion.[11]

 

[jitendershooda]

Contd...

UCC is not opposed to secularism or will not violate Article 25 and 26. Article 44 is based on the concept that there is no necessary connection between religion and personal law in a civilised society. Marriage, succession and like matters are of secular nature and, therefore, law can regulate them. No religion permits deliberate distortion[12]. The UCC will not and shall not result in interference of one’s religious beliefs relating, mainly to maintenance, succession and inheritance. This means that under the UCC a Hindu will not be compelled to perform a nikah or a Muslim be forced to carry out saptapadi. But in matters of inheritance, right to property, maintenance and succession, there will be a common law.

Justice Khare, in the recent case[13], said,
"It is no matter of doubt that marriage, succession and the like matters of secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution."

The Chief Justice also cautioned that any legislations which brought succession and like matters of secular character within the ambit of Articles 25 and 26 is a suspect legislation. Article 25 confers right to practice and profess religion, while Article 44 divests religion from social relations and personal law.

The whole debate can be summed up by the judgement given by Justice R.M. Sahai. He said,

"Ours is a secular democratic republic. Freedom of religion is the core of our culture. Even the slightest of deviation shakes the social fibre. But religious practices, violative of human rights and dignity and sacerdotal suffocation of essentially civil and material freedoms are not autonomy but oppression. Therefore, a unified code is imperative, both, for protection of the oppressed and for promotion of national unity and solidarity."[14]

Codification:
The biggest obstacle in implementing the UCC, apart from obtaining a consensus, is the drafting. Should UCC be a blend of all the personal laws or should it be a new law adhering to the constitutional mandate? There is a lot of literature churned out on UCC but there is no model law drafted. Many think that under the guise of UCC, the Hindu law will be imposed on all. The possibility of UCC being only a repackaged Hindu law was ruled out by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee when he said that there will be a new code based on gender equality and comprising the best elements in all the personal laws.
The UCC should carve a balance between protection of fundamental rights and religious dogmas of individuals. It should be a code, which is just and proper according to a man of ordinary prudence, without any bias with regards to religious or political considerations.
Here is an overview of the essentials of the UCC:
Marriage and divorce:
The personal laws of each religion contain different essentials of a valid marriage. The new code should have the basic essentials of valid marriage which shall include:​

(i) The new code should impose monogamy banning multiple marriages under any religion. Polygamy discriminates against the women and violates their basic human rights. Thus, monogamy should be imposed, not because it is the Hindu law, but because it adheres to Article 21 of the Constitution[15] and basic human values.​

(ii) The minimum age limit for a male should be 21 years and for a female should be 18 years. This would help in curbing child marriages. Punishment should be prescribed for any person violating this provision. Also, punishment for other persons involved in such an act, like the relatives, should be prescribed which would have a deterrent effect on the society.​

(iii) Registration of marriage should be made compulsory. A valid marriage will be said to have solemnised when the man and the woman sign their declaration of eligibility before a registrar. This will do away with all the confusion regarding the validity of the marriage.​

(iv) The grounds and procedure for divorce should be specifically laid down. The grounds enumerated in the code should be reasonable and the procedure prescribed should be according to the principles of natural justice. Also, there should be a provision for divorce by mutual consent.​

Succession and inheritance: This area throws up even more intractable problems. In Hindu law, there is a distinction between a joint family property and self acquired property which is not so under the Muslim law. The Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), formed under the Hindu law, run businesses and own agricultural lands. Under the UCC, this institution of HUF, peculiar to the Hindus, has to be abolished. There are also fetters imposed on the extent to which one can bequeath property by will under the Muslim law. Considering all these, the UCC should include:​

(i) Equal shares to son and daughter from the property of the father, whether self acquired or joint family property. There should be no discrimination based on sex in the matters of inheritance. The provisions of the Hindu Succession (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1994 can be taken as guiding principles wherein the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become the coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son, inclusive the right to claim by survivorship and shall be subject to same liabilities and disabilities as the son.
(ii) Provisions for inheritance of the property of mother, which she has self acquired or acquired through her father or relatives.
(iii) The provisions relating to will should be in consonance with the principles of equity. There should be no limitations imposed on the extent to which the property can be bequeathed, the persons to whom such property can be bequeath and the donation of the property by will for religious and charitable purpose.
(iv) The essentials of valid will, the procedure for registration and execution of the will should be provided for.
(v) Provisions for gifts should not contain any limitations, though essential of valid gift and gift deed should be specified.​

Maintenance: The maintenance laws for the Hindus and Muslims are very different. Apart from personal laws, a non-Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. A Muslim woman can claim maintenance under the Muslim Women (Right to Protection on Divorce) Act, 1986. Apart from maintenance of wife, there are also provisions for maintenance of mother, father, son and unmarried daughter under the Hindu law. The UCC should contain the following with regards to maintenance:
(i) A husband should maintain the wife during the marriage and also after they have divorced till the wife remarries.
(ii) The amount of alimony should be decided on basis of the income of the husband, the status and the lifestyle of the wife.
(iii) The son and daughter should be equally responsible to maintain the parents. The reason for this being that if she claims equal share of the property of her parents, she should share the duty to maintain her parents equally.
(iv) The parents should maintain their children - son till he is capable of earning on his own and daughter, till she gets married.
Thus based on these fundamental principles, an unbiased and fair UCC can be framed which will be in consonance with the Constitution.​

 

[jitendershooda]

Contd...

Working of UCC and the Indian scenario:
How foolproof will be the UCC? Will there be more abuse and less obedience of UCC? Will UCC have negative effect on the society? Such questions are bound to be raised after the implementation of the UCC. All laws are formulated to be obeyed, but they are abused. This doesnot mean that law should not be implemented. Similarly, there is a great possibility of the UCC being abused, but this should not eschew the Parliament from enacting the UCC; the social welfare and benefits resulting from the implementation of UCC are far greater.

While explaining the reason for including Article 44 in the Directives Principles, it was observed,
"When you want to consolidate a community, you have to take into consideration the benefits which may accrue to the whole community and not to the customs of a part of it. If you look at the countries in Europe, which have a Civil Code, everyone who goes there forms a part of the world and every minority has to submit to that Civil Code. It is not felt to be tyrannical to the minorities."[16]
Some legal experts argue that progressive law is welcomed but a suitable atmosphere must be created in which all sections feel secure enough to sit together and cull out the most progressive of their personal laws. But this can be answered by an example of Hindu law. When the Hindu Code Bill, which covers Buddhist, Sikhs, Jains as well as different religious denominations of Hindus, was notified, there was a lot of protest. And the then Law Minister, Dr. Ambedkar, had said that for India’s unity, the country needs a codified law. In a similar fashion, the UCC can be implemented, which will cover all the religions, whether major or minor, practiced in India and any person who comes to India has to abide by the Code.​

Not many know that a UCC exists in the small state of Goa accepted by all communities. The Goa Civil Code collectively called Family Laws, was framed and enforced by the Portuguese colonial rulers through various legislations in the 19th and 20th centuries. After the liberation of Goa in 1961, the Indian State scrapped all the colonial laws and extended the central laws to the territory but made the exception of retaining the Family Laws because all the communities in Goa wanted it. The most significant provision in this law is the pre nuptial Public Deed regarding the disposal of immovable and movable property in the event of divorce or death. During matrimony, both parents have a common right over the estate, but on dissolution, the property has to be divided equally; son and daughters have the equal right on the property. As the procedure involves compulsory registration of marriage, this effectively checks child and bigamous marriage. ​

The philosophy behind the Portuguese Civil Code was to strengthen the family as the backbone of society by inculcating a spirit of tolerance between husband and wife and providing for inbuilt safeguard against injustice by one spouse against the other. ​

Commenting that the dream of a UCC in the country finds its realisation in Goa, former Chief Justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud had once expressed hope that it would one day "awaken the rest of bigoted India."[17]​

Conclusion:
The section of the nation against the implementation of UCC contends that in ideal times, in an ideal State, a UCC would be an ideal safeguard of citizens’ rights. But India has moved much further from ideal than when the Constitution was written 50 years ago.
But to conclude, I would like to say that citizens belonging to different religions and denominations follow different property and matrimonial laws which is not only an affront to the nation’s unity, but also makes one wonder whether we are a sovereign secular republic or a loose confederation of feudal states, where people live at the whims and fancies of mullahs, bishops and pundits.
*********************************************
[1] AIR 1985 SC 945
[2] "(1) If any person having a sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate mat from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child refereed to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means."
[3] "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."
[4] AIR 1995 SC 153
[5] "Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
[6] John Vallamattom v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2902
[7] "No man having a nephew or a niece or any nearer relative shall have power to bequeath any property to religious or charitable uses, except by a Will executed not less than twelve months before his death, and deposited within six months from its execution in some place provided by law for sak\fe custody of the Will of living persons."
[8] (1994)3 SCC 1
[9] "(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this Article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law - a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activities which may be associated with religious practice; b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus."
[10] "Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have a right- a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and d) to administer such property in accordance with law."
[11] Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhut v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (1984)4 SCC 522
[12] Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1531
[13] John Vallamattom v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2902
[14] Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1531
[15]"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law"
[16] Constitutional Assembly Debates Volume VII pg. 547
[17] Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum AIR 1985 SC 945​

 

[devdahiya]

Jitu iss deah mein khichaddi khabe ka riwaaz hei............isska smadhhan nahin hei...atleast in near future ..say 100 years at least.A lot has to change before that.A true educated society can undertake reforms more quickly and meaningfully.We are still in the clutches of vested interests and our some of the false traditions......it is near impossible to undertake these insurmountable disease.

 

[jitendershooda]

Jitu iss deah mein khichaddi khabe ka riwaaz hei............isska smadhhan nahin hei...atleast in near future ..say 100 years at least.A lot has to change before that.A true educated society can undertake reforms more quickly and meaningfully.We are still in the clutches of vested interests and our some of the false traditions......it is near impossible to undertake these insurmountable disease.

Dev Ji, par manney nue laggey hai ki majuda haal ko dekhte hue ... chahe te naas hoga tagaje te ee ... er na to kime sudhar honge ... BJP is uttering this word but they are lacking in providing the details and throw a national debate on this issue. By this they will attract the learned ones who found them going towards illogical extremism.

Why we are following muslim impeasement policy for years. This is the main reason why they behaves out of laws now and then.

1) They will keep marrying 4 times the hindus and others.
2) They will have lots and lots of children.
3) They dont have any fear of sharing their property among their wives after talaq.
4) If there would be more children they will not be able to provide them good education and thus they get education from Madarssas making them fanatic/extremists.

I found it not at all illogical if a Hindu extremist says that these muslims have this policy only that they will keep breeding more and more and thus one day they will be in majority.

Why to allow such extremists to utter anything by making all the people in this country equal. Yes, they have right to follow their religion but where ever it creates discrimination among citizens of a country there must be preference to law.
We always refrain to touch such controversial issues and say that this will create agitation among country. By saying or thinking we are neglecting the 80% of the population and thus leading them to extremism. If anything is right that should be implemented without any delay. This should be rather considered as breach of rights of non-muslims.

I always get frawned by BJP who always beet their chests for Hinduism. Why dont they start a nation wide debate on this. Why they are inclined to babri-masjid and temple. Which doesnt provide anything to hindus. They have given a pretty chance to other to call them names after babri masjid. Which was a non-sense. I dont feel any proud to get the temple in place. For me it will be good if they have not demolished the masjid instead they would have created a fabulous mandir nearby.
Instead these are the things that should be highlighed.

 

[brahmtewatia]

The manual of Indian secularism - I

How Hindus have become second class citizens in their own land

In India, Christians and Muslims enjoy extra privileges in the name of ‘minority protection’ and ‘Secularism’. A consequence of this ill-advised step is a distortion of language that has made honest debate all but impossible. The term ‘Secularism’, which means separation of religion and government, has become a tool of discrimination against the Hindus. (Articles 29 and 30 protect linguistic minorities also, but that does not alter the fact that Hindus are discriminated against.) The Indian Constitution draws some of its ideas from the American Constitution but ignores important lessons of history. In framing the Constitution, the founding fathers of the American Republic showed that they had learnt from Europe’s history of religious conflict by excluding the influence of religion on the affairs of the State by adopting the First Amendment. And this is what secularism really means. But the framers of the Indian Constitution failed to draw the same lesson and gave special privileges to the predatory religions of Christianity and Islam, which have been tools of imperialism. These special privileges, which sometimes lead to extra-constitutional demands, are being sheltered in the name of ‘Secularism’. This poses grave threat to the integrity of the Indian Republic. It also makes honest debate all but impossible.

The fact there that have not so far been major religious conflicts in India — other than the Jihad in Kashmir — is due to two reasons: (1) the tolerance of the Hindu community and the readiness of its leaders to compromise and even appease; (2) general ignorance on the part of the Hindus of the discriminatory nature of the Constitution and even the legal system.
To take a concrete example, there are massive subsidies for Haj pilgrims, but little help for Kashmiri Hindu refugees in Delhi. The Gujral Government even provided compensation for the victims of a fire in Mecca, but there was no such help for Kashmiri refugees in India. But with rising levels of education and national awareness, neither unlimited tolerance nor continued ignorance on the part of the Hindus can be taken for granted. The Indian Constitution must be revised to remove this poison seed before its insidious effects reach unmanageable proportions.

 

[brahmtewatia]

The manual of Indian secularism - II

Here are a few manifestations of hypocritical secularism :

· When President George Bush inaugurated America's National Church, he was not called communal; but when President Dr. Rajendra Prasad inaugurated the renovated Somnath Temple, he was dubbed communal.
· President Ronald Reagan proclaimed year 1983 as the year of the Bible but, if Indian leaders were to declare a year of the Gita, it will surely be termed communal.
· The British monarch is considered a guardian of Christianity even though people of diverse faiths live in that country. The same holds good in Europe and America too vis-a-vis the heads of state and the state religion. but if the Indian President were to describe himself as a guardian of Hinduism, he will surely be branded as communal.
· Shrimad Bhagwad Gita is denied entry into Arab States; but questioning this policy will be deemed communal.
· The Indian Army has built several mosques in Jammu & Kashmir; but if Hindus were to request to build a temple, that would be termed communal.
· Detailing India's glorious heritage is considered communal.
· Muslim madrasas, where Hindus are described as kafirs and the students are taught to hate them, are on the increase. This has resulted in communalism gathering momentum and the prospect of a bloody civil war ending in the break-up of India is looming larger. But any talk of reining in such madrasas is considered autocratic and communal.

 

[brahmtewatia]

The manual of Indian secularism - III

The Hindus have the following question for the secularists?

· In India 85% of the population is Hindu. If Hindus are intolerant, how come Masjids and Madrasas are thriving? How come Muslims are offering Namaz on the road? How come Muslims are proclaiming five times a day on loudspeakers that there is no God except Allah?
· When Hindus gave away 30% of Bharat to the Muslims for a song, why do they have to beg now for their three sacred places out of thirty thousand destroyed by the Muslims?
· When the Constitution of India advocates equal rights to all the citizens, then why do we have different laws for people of different religious faiths? Why can't we have a Uniform Civil Code?
· When Haj pilgrims are given subsidy, why Hindu pilgrims to Amarnath, Sabarimalai and Kailash Mansarover are taxed?
· Why are the temple revenues diverted to fund Haj subsidy and the welfare activities of Muslims and Christians?
· Why is post-Godhra blown out of proportion, when no one talks of the ethnic cleansing of four lakh Hindus from Kashmir?
· If Muslims & Christians are minorities in Maharashtra, UP, Bihar, etc. are Hindus not minorities in J&K, Mizoram, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, etc.? Why are Hindus denied minority rights in these states? In what way is J&K different from Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu or Uttar Pradesh to have Article 370?
· Is there one Mullah or Maulvi who has declared a 'fatwa' against terrorists?
· Why did Gandhiji object to the decision of the cabinet and insist that the Somnath Temple should be reconstructed out of public funds, not government funds, when in January 1948 he pressurised Nehru and Patel to carry on renovation of the mosques of Delhi at government expenses?
· When Christian and Muslim schools can teach Bible and Quran, why Hindus cannot teach Gita or Ramayan?
· The percentage of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh after partition in 1947 was 17 and 25 respectively. Today their percentage is almost nil in Pakistan and 10.5 in Bangladesh. What happened to the missing Hindus? Do Hindus have human rights?

 

[brahmtewatia]

where is the political will ?

My Views : where is the political will ?

it may be noted that when the NDA govt. came to power in 1998 with the help of smaller so-called secular parties, the BJP had to omit three items from its agenda as desired by its partners. these were (1) the removal of article 370 of the constitution regarding special status to j&k state, (2) building of ram temple in ayodhya and (3) legislation of a uniform civil code for all indian citizens. now these seasonal croaking frogs are back again with contentious demands for scrapping article 370 and bringing in a UCC from the closet ahead of the forthcoming polls. how much they would be implemented after these hungry wolves come to power is a different matter all together.

on the other hand comes congress, whose policy of "muslim appeasement" has done enough harm to india. after being shaken-up with the series of recent blasts in delhi, they too are convinced to have a federal law against terror, which hitherto they have opposed and were totally against. i am not sure as to what would be their stance on UCC ?

coming away from the perspective of above two key opposition parties, it may be noted that even after over 60 years of the constitution coming into force, nothing has been done towards securing a UCC. what we have today predominantly in indian society... a hindu code, christian code and of course the muslim religious code based on the shariat. the hindu code is not at all hindu... it is based on modern interpretation of the western democracies. the christian code is essentially british in character, and there is not much of a difference between the laws for the hindus and the christians. as such, there would be no general opposition from the hindus and the christians for a UCC. the radical differences are between the muslim personal law and the laws for the rest. after all this briefing, i wud like to draw your attention to jitender's 4 points under heading marriage and divorce. point no. 1 & 2 here would be straightaway rejected by the muslims of india, because they are directly in opposition to muslim personal law. so all in all, the situation comes back to square one.

congress policy of muslim appeasement would never change, so shall we again trust BJP for that ???

 

[sunillathwal]

@ Jitender bhai, Thanx for sharing... really enlightening!!

@Brahm bhai: The manual of Indian secularism Can't agree more on any damn thing!!

 

[pnauhwar21]

Very nice articles Jitender and Brahm. Very difficult subject but before I pour any thoughts does anyone know if Uniform Civil Code is implemented in any other country in the world irrespective of whether its a christian, muslim or hindu majority country? If it is, then what has been the reaction from other religions and specially muslims - do they follow their shariat laws in those countries?

 

[positivelook]

Jitender bhai
The link shows the hypocracy of congress have look.
http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/news/national/general/5_1_4866059.html

and now the other one
http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/news/national/general/5_1_4863015.html

Well bhai now I have been studying Indian politics frm my childhood and gone through books and articles and now eing in abroad frm last 6 yrs i have even gone through the level of International politics and u know wht i find is that if we compare all parties in India i m not saying the best wht i m saying is if we compare all parties in India BJP is the only party which several times come up with the points of national Interest. Well i must say not all of the points of BJP are right but still i say agar thodi bahut Natikta kee baat hai toh BJP mein hai. ( I am not the member of any political party and my views here are totally based on my research).
Baaki bhai tere aur point jo ane yahan bataye unn par dusre members roshni dalenge.

Abhimanyu Phougat

 

[skarmveer]

Very Nicely written by Jitender Jee and Brahm Bhai Sahab.

I am very much agree with Brahm Bhai on each and every point written by him.

In my views Hindus are more seculer then anybody else and any govt. change our belifs on this seculer ground, more or less every educted hindu agree on if the govt. stopped our reguler rituals. But if see the other side wheather the Muslims or any other they have a plee that they are minority hence the govt. doing unfair with them even when they involved in anti national activity.

Most of the antinatinal activities run by muslim organisations but we are not ready to stop them only because this apeasement policy. Every muslim leader said in past we are not abide the indian constitonution and our govts are unable to take any action.

Now in Delhi Blast case Muslim organisations critisice arrest of terrists and the Zamiya University announce that they provide them every legal help
and Cabinet minister Arjun Singh agree with the statement of VC of Univ.
What is the mening of all this.

People like Rambilas paswan, Mulayam Singh, Lalu Yadav and so on are not agree to ban Simi Why ?

 

[skarmveer]

I am Also of the same opnion.

Bhai meree bhee yahi soch hai chahey jo ho per kuchh kadey kadam uthaney jaruree hai specially the implemention of UCC.


[quote=jitendershooda;182798]Dev Ji, par manney nue laggey hai ki majuda haal ko dekhte hue ... chahe te naas hoga tagaje te ee ... er na to kime sudhar honge ... BJP is uttering this word but they are lacking in providing the details and throw a national debate on this issue. By this they will attract the learned ones who found them going towards illogical extremism.

Why we are following muslim impeasement policy for years. This is the main reason why they behaves out of laws now and then.

1) They will keep marrying 4 times the hindus and others.
2) They will have lots and lots of children.
3) They dont have any fear of sharing their property among their wives after talaq.
4) If there would be more children they will not be able to provide them good education and thus they get education from Madarssas making them fanatic/extremists.

I found it not at all illogical if a Hindu extremist says that these muslims have this policy only that they will keep breeding more and more and thus one day they will be in majority.

Why to allow such extremists to utter anything by making all the people in this country equal. Yes, they have right to follow their religion but where ever it creates discrimination among citizens of a country there must be preference to law.
We always refrain to touch such controversial issues and say that this will create agitation among country. By saying or thinking we are neglecting the 80% of the population and thus leading them to extremism. If anything is right that should be implemented without any delay. This should be rather considered as breach of rights of non-muslims.

I always get frawned by BJP who always beet their chests for Hinduism. Why dont they start a nation wide debate on this. Why they are inclined to babri-masjid and temple. Which doesnt provide anything to hindus. They have given a pretty chance to other to call them names after babri masjid. Which was a non-sense. I dont feel any proud to get the temple in place. For me it will be good if they have not demolished the masjid instead they would have created a fabulous mandir nearby.
Instead these are the things that should be highlighed.
[/quote]

 

[jitendershooda]

Thanks All for your replies.

Brahm ji and others, you have very valid points if we talk in terms of religions and the partial behaviour of govt.

But I think it will be very good for this thread too to come up with points of

1) pros and cons of UCC.
2) What each article related to this like 44 mentioned exactly in constitution.
3) What can be done in present scenerio? Looking at the present structure what we can contribute as a JL group? Or to find ways and points to represent how we can present it that samp bhi mar jae aur lathi bhi na toote.

Head on collision cant be only way to come out of a situation. Rather I am sure we can beat the counters with logical reasonings too.

As prasant asked .... very nice question indeed. First we have to find the ways that has been adopted by different countries ..... and you will find strong links to counter the oppositions.

Muslim countries like russian divided khakhistan, turqmenistan etc 11 countries have demolished the shariyat law.

Now each term should be explained fully like what is Shariyat?

Hope you all understand what I wish to say and hope you will agree to take this discussion that way only so that in future something can be gained out of it.

We can present lots and lots of examples where we can catch the sympathy of people but this is the task of present politicians .... rather it will be good to find some key points.

Aisa hona chahiye ki koe bhai law kar raha hai uko bhi healthy info mile iss thread se ....

We cant acheive anything being extremists ... what these muslims acheived in terms of real progress .... nothing much!!!
Rather we can acheive this by having healthy discussion and healthy points with logic and then we can write in mass to news channels to start a debate politician less?

We have lots and lots of educated members out there on JL with different streams cant we get together to form a group with 100 points and ask some news channel to held a debate on this with any muslim educated mass. Why we are always running after these corrupt politicians and also the ulemas. Last month in devils advocate Shabana Ajmi said something about not getting home in Mumbai .... that news was highlighted a lot ... but nobody have heard or highlighted the good things that she said in the same interview like WHY PEOPLE LISTEN TO THESE LONG BEARDED PEOPLE FROM MUSLIMS .... ALSO WHAT SHE HAS SAID TO THE BUKHARI WHEN HE CALLED FOR JEHAD IN AFGANISTAN.

I am sharing two interviews here from muslims, there is light of hope perhaps if we listen to the people who are educated and try to find a solution instead of creating hevoc among other religions by easily available points like BJP is doing. I still feel that they do have their own news channels too and if they are willing seriously they could have started a debate with good points with some educated muslims.

 

[jitendershooda]

Interview: All Muslims not opposed to civil code

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=123482&catID=2&category=Nation&rtFlg=rtFlg

DR ISHTIAQ AHMED is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University. Born in Lahore, Dr Ahmed received his doctorate from Stockholm in 1986. He has been involved in a large number of research projects on Human Rights in Pakistan, and Secularism in India.

What is your understanding of a Uniform Civil Code?
The Uniform Civil Code is a commitment built into the Indian Constitution through Article 44. A democracy must have an inclusive approach on citizenship and rights and the UCC can be the basis for consolidating a nation of equal citizens with the same rights and duties for everyone.

What obstacles does India face in its implementation?
I think the democratic process has its minus sides too even when it is the best way to organise the polity. The minus is that politicians are reluctant to take steps in changing laws if they think such change would affect their chances of winning elections. So, a consensus on the UCC needs to be worked out so that its adoption does not become hostage to electoral politics.

Don’t you feel that it is a little premature on our part to raise a hue and cry on the law that is yet to take a concrete shape? The Indian Constitution has only outlined the law in Article 44, which says that the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.

Depends on whether 59 years is considered too short or too long a period to reach constitutional maturity. I think what needs to be done is to start a discussion at the official as well as civil society level on the pros and cons of a UCC. I am convinced that the pros will outweigh the cons. Also the national press should encourage a free and open discussion on the UCC. After a few months the government can establish a parliamentary party to make recommendations on the UCC. It should have a mandate to talk to the broad section of public opinion and then prepare its recommendations for a UCC.

Going by the figures, UCC faces a major opposition from the Muslim front in the country? What reasons do you see for this? Have other minorities in India like the Christians and the Parsis accepted it?

I think it is an exaggeration or much worse just a prejudice that all Muslims are opposed to the UCC. My own research shows that a substantial number of educated Muslims favour change in the archaic Islamic laws, which apply to the personal matters of the Muslim community. The strategy should be not to confer absolute rights on the ulema or ulema groups to represent Muslims. Even among the ulema there are some who will favour a reform of the Muslim personal law. In any case in a democracy all decisions are made by majority votes and after a protracted discussion and debate it would be perfectly legitimate to approve a UCC through the parliamentary procedure and implement it.


What can be done by our policymakers to allay the fear in the minds of minorities against UCC?

As I said, if before the UCC is adopted proper discussion, consultation and debate is undertaken and the Muslims are convinced that the UCC would be good for them too then no further thing needs to be done. A democracy does not require complete unanimity or consensus on all matters. Also, the eternal Islamic law dealing with worship, burial and charity should not be touched by secular law. On the other hand, with regard to rights of citizens the same laws should apply to all.

Muslim women are increasingly denouncing patriarchal laws that are dictated by Islam? What do you feel about it?

That only proves that it is a myth or a prejudice to believe that Muslims uncritically accept medieval rulings on personal matters. Muslim women need to be assisted in fighting patriarchal oppression as much as Hindu, Sikh and other Indian women.

Do you feel that Shariat suffices as a wholesome Muslim personal law?

No, it does not. Shariat is elaborated in the context of 7-10 century values and social conditions. The world has moved on from there since a long time.

How do personal laws work in other countries?

Islamic organisations in Western Europe have been asserting for a long time that a ‘human rights claim’ to communal autonomy should apply to Islamic law, Shariat, and to their family matters. Marriage, divorce and inheritance are included in family matters. About three years ago, some leaders of Muslim organisations reiterated in a Swedish television programme the same demand but fortunately all Swedish political parties represented in the Parliament are agreed that under no circumstance should such a right be considered a human right. It is important nevertheless to understand what tensions exist between Islamic Family Law and human rights.

The Shariat laws pertaining to family matters differ radically from the European systems. For example, only the monogamous form of marriage is legally recognised in Europe.

Do all Islamic countries follow Shariat?
Among Muslim states there is no agreement on how to apply the Shariat including its rulings on family matters. For instance, Saudi Arabia and Iran apply the Shariat in a complete sense. However, nine countries including Senegal, Turkey, and the former Soviet republics with a Muslim majority including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Azerbaijan have abolished all reference to Shariat.

What kind of civil law is best-suited to a secular country like India?

Between 1948 when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed and now the UN has approved many progressive treaties and conventions on the rights of citizens, minorities, women, children and so on. The government or the legislators should try to incorporate such values and norms in the UCC.

 

[jitendershooda]

Though this guy directly is not in favour of UCC but he is still demanding n number of changes. And I believe that even if this will be debated then it will have lots and lots of improvement.

If Muslim ladies will have their rights then the discrimination will be less and muslim ladies themselves will decrease this polygamy a lot. If the guy has to give a handsome part of his property to his wife then he will refrain from many marriages and thus reduce the exponential population of these. Also this Shariyat will be broken and muslims will come to courts and this will be a great step towards secularism. reducing their kattarpant.

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=123480&catID=2&category=Nation&rtFlg=rtFlg


DR ASGHAR ALI Engineer is a well-known Islamic scholar and
theologian. He heads the two organisations, Institute of Islamic Studies and Centre for Study of Society and Secularism in Mumbai. He has worked for inter-religious harmony and is the author of as many as 44 books on issues such as Islam and communal and ethnic problems in India and South Asia.

What is your understanding of a Uniform Civil Code?
No one in our country, our political leaders or individuals, have ever concentrated their efforts towards defining the Uniform Civil Code. All we know is that some common law covering issues relating to marriage, succession and property is called Uniform Civil Code but what these laws would be is anyone’s guess.

Are you in favour of a Uniform Civil Code?
No. I am in favour of reforms and not the Uniform Civil Code. My objective is to empower women and give them equal status via due reforms in all the personal laws. This method is more acceptable and achievable in a country marked for an excessive plurality of religions.

Are you in favour of deletion of Article 44 from the Constitution, which says the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India?
No. I don’t see any need to delete the article. The need is to work on the existing laws in such a way that they don’t go against any particular faith or religion.

Are you supportive of gender equality?
Yes, totally. In fact I am not just supportive I am actively promoting the cause in our country.

How would you counter the view that Shariat courts are lurching in dark because of a sagging reputation?
I am not very much in favour of Shariat courts. There are secular courts in the country for all. Those who want to abide by the Shariat courts can have their way. But all Muslims should not be forced to knock the doors of Shariat Courts in case of any issue.

Muslim women are increasingly denouncing patriarchal laws that are dictated by Islam. What do you feel about it?
I don’t completely agree with what you said. It is not just Muslim women who are flouting the laws. For that matter, women of all communities, and in general, are trudging on newer territories. I would also want to clarify that Quran does not dictate a patriarchal form of society. The patriarchal interpretation of Islam should be removed. Quran is full of right-based discourses for women and not duty-based dictates. Quran is also very careful with matters like talaq with specific injunctions to a contrary effect.

Is Shariat actually sacrosanct as is generally believed to be?
No. Shariat can be reformed.

How do Western countries like the US and Europe function in terms of a Uniform Civil Code?
See, the situation varies from country to country. You cannot compare India with these countries in this context. India has a long history of personal laws and it cannot be given up easily. The reality in India is much more complex than Western societies which have been totally secularised.

Do you think BJP has made the UCC a Hindutva agenda?
BJP is not at all serious about the Uniform Civil Code. It has been playing up the issue time and again for the sake of anti-Muslim propaganda and not for a pro-women measure.
I believe there are two kinds of people, one, who believe in secularity of state and stand for gender equality and secular laws and two, who are anti-Muslim and eye political benefits resulting from Muslim resentment.
What kind of a common civil law do you recommend for a secular country like India?
To me it comes across as an extremely complex situation. Unless a broad consensus is drawn among different communities, the Uniform Civil Code can’t do much good to the country. The multifarious castes and creeds and their sets of beliefs or practices are bewilderingly confusing. I think the most workable solution in the present scenario is to let people practise their own set of laws without gender discrimination. The thrust should remain on enforcement of reforms that curb gender bias of any form.

 

[skarmveer]

For mee these some of the points are.

Bhai for mee the basic's of democreasy will be cleared as :-

!. Everybody who contest the election must be a Graduate if not more.
2. Right of negative voting is a must(If a contestent gets more negative then positive must black list for futur election)
3. Voting is a must ( No excuse) if not voted the right of voting cancelled for that person.

If we press for these points I think we get a good team to govern our countery and then only we make some good changes in our constitution.

 

[jitendershooda]

Bhai for mee the basic's of democreasy will be cleared as :-

!. Everybody who contest the election must be a Graduate if not more.
2. Right of negative voting is a must(If a contestent gets more negative then positive must black list for futur election)
3. Voting is a must ( No excuse) if not voted the right of voting cancelled for that person.

If we press for these points I think we get a good team to govern our countery and then only we make some good changes in our constitution.

Bhai Saab, I understand and you are right but it will be better if we can only provide key points for UCC on this thread

 

[ram6april]

Jitu

Bhai Saab, I understand and you are right but it will be better if we can only provide key points for UCC on this thread

bhai Jitu sorry ..aa par tu ek baat bataaa.. akk tu aapne dafter me bethyaa bethyaa ye ee baat soche jaa sai... yo itnaa badaa baddaa likh diyaa.. ek kitaab chhap jaa......bhai thodaa saa chhotaa likhyaa kar.. jo mhare jisse bhi padh lein... i mean to say key points... manne te ek-aadhi-ek-aadhi lenn padhiii sai.......pooda padhan me te ek haftaa laagegaa......

well i must say india need HARD & STRONG decision........ somehow like china... first is population and than this religion thing.....plus castism...but its not look coming in near future..

sorry if going off-topic......