India Tomorrow
NEW DELHI—Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist), a Marxist organization, has said that the prevalent situation in India is not ripe for introducing Uniform Civil Code (UCC). It has said that UCC ought not to be enforced to legitimize a key agenda of arch Hindu communal forces to implement their objective of creating a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ and ‘Hinduising’ Muslim or Christian people.
SUCI has made these comments in a letter it sent to the 22nd Law Commission of India in response to the commission’s notification about the UCC.
The letter points out that even the Jains, Parsees, Sikhs and the tribal populace have staunchly opposed UCC at this juncture.
SUCI clearly stated that uniformity did not entail forcible integration of people, but calls for persistent persuasion based on democratic values, ethics, and moralities.
In a letter addressed to The Member Secretary, Law Commission of India, SUCI said that the Hindus communal forces want UCC’s implementation not from the genuine desire of bringing equality, uniformity and amity among the various sections of the people but in the context of intensifying their anti-Muslim hate campaign by riding on the catchy slogan of “One Nation, One Language, and One Law.”
The letter is signed by Provash Ghosh who is general secretary of SUCI.
The letter mentions that as Marxists they earnestly desire a UCC to be applicable to all if and when it evolves with the consent of all sections of the people of the country through a scientific process of democratization of the society but that is subject to creation of a conducive socio-cultural milieu.
The letter discusses the multi-religious and multi-ethnic India full of socio-cultural diversities having different laws for marriage, divorce, adoption, and succession, based on religious affinities and ethnicities.
It says, “Personal laws are those that govern people based on their religion, caste,
faith, and belief. These laws like Hindu Marriage Act, Muslim personal Law etc. have been formulated based on the religious texts and customs. The Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, Parses, and Hindus, and different tribes follow their respective distinct family laws or customs for the purpose of marriage, divorce, adoption, succession, property inheritance, etc.”
It clarifies that even in the Hindu religion, many communities in different parts of the country do not follow the same practices in terms of marriage and divorce.” Also, the tribal communities in India have different customary laws with respect to marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Moreover, certain provisions of Central laws like CrPC-1973 are not applicable to North-East regions”, says the letter.
The letter mentions the case of Goa where Muslims are governed by Portuguese law as well as the Shastra-based Hindu law, and not by the Muslim personal Law. “Similar diversities are seen in Meghalaya and Nagaland also. Even in Jammu & Kashmir, the local statutes governing Hindus differ from the central enactments,” elaborates the letter.
SUCI’s letter says that in this backdrop a ‘so called common law’ cannot be enacted forcibly without being aware of all the relevant critical aspects. It suggests that all the social-cultural differences of the people must be kept in view before bringing in any reform on these vital issues. It cautions that any crucial reform without the consent and full agreement of the concerned people is precluded in democracy.
The letter alleges that instead of coming out from all sorts of religious complexities by rising above religion and all other divisive factors, the rulers of independent India opted to advocate cultivation of Hindu religious values and preached mythological epics for building spiritual basis of Indian nationalism which, because of their failure to rise above Hindu religious practices, turned out to be, what is called, a Hindu nationalism.
The SUCI letter talks about a myth being created by vested interest that the Hindus are governed by one personal law. “But this is not true at all. History is that after independence, a Draft Hindu Code bill prepared by the Hindu Law Committee in 1947 sought to bring many reforms in the then existing practices like polygamy, recognition of property rights of the daughters etc. Under Hindu Marriage act, a marriage is valid even if not registered provided certain ceremonies like saptapadi or saat phere (seven rounds by the bride and bridegroom around fire) are performed”, highlights the letter.
The letter points out that most of the Hindus do not follow the codified Hindu law but the customary laws prevalent in their own kinship groups or religion. “For instance, marriage among close relatives is prohibited in north India but is considered auspicious in some areas of the south. In the name of preservation of purity of Hindu religion and so called ‘parampara’ (lineage), ‘riwaj’ (practice) and ‘sanskriti’ (culture), what is being justified is patriarchal domination and subjugation of women”, says the letter.
The letter puts several questions like “If the kernel of real UCC is correctly understood, can ridiculous narratives like ‘love jihad’, honour killing, prevention of inter-faith marriages even by the state and lynching in the name of cow vigilantism go on unabated? Can open hate campaigns against and persecution of religious minorities coexist in a nation under a UCC which calls for the formulation of only one personal law for India applicable to all citizens equally regardless of their caste, creed, religion, ethnicity and gender?”
It also asks, “Can there be one law applicable to all religious communities in matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption right at this moment? Is it by any stretch of imagination a sound proposal?” Then it says, “We believe it is not.”
It adds more question: “Is the time ripe for UCC when the state of Manipur is witnessing a blood-curdled ethnic violence and sporadic eruption of communal-casteist-ethnic-chauvinist conflicts in various parts of the country?”
The letter says that in the popular imagination, the UCC is supposed to do away with personal laws.
“Can that happen in present India where fundamentalist-communal-casteist-ethnic feuds and religious orthodoxy are ruling the roost? Should not all such malaises, obduracies and aberrations be first removed through the process of democratization?” asks the letter.
The letter talks about the prevalence of growing disunity and asks “how far prudent it is to inject a code of unity?”
It says that the imposition of UCC would only aggravate the disunity and divides, mistrusts as well as disharmony among the various sections of Indian citizens if enforced overriding sectarian interests and motive of the forces of reaction.
The letter says that the framers of Indian constitution discussed the issue of adoption of a Uniform Civil Code and felt that time was not appropriate to adopt such an UCC simply by discussion and voting in the constituent assembly. “In that case, they had rightly apprehended, UCC would be rendered ineffective.”
“Viewing the overall situation, they decided to put it in the category of ‘Directive
Principles of State Policy’.
While formulating the Constitution, Dr B. R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the
Drafting Committee of the Constitution, had said that it is desirable to apply a uniform code throughout the country by first addressing the discrimination against vulnerable groups and harmonizing diverse religious-ethnic-casteist groups across the country through a proper process” elaborates the letter.
The SUCI’s letter recalls that the 21st Law Commission formed in 2016, not only called the UCC “neither necessary nor desirable,” but also recommended ending gender discrimination and doing away with inequality first.
The letter refers to the first page of the consultation paper where the 21st Law Commission made it clear that no consensus could emerge on the UCC, and therefore, the need of the hour was “to preserve the diversity” without contradicting the fundamental rights.
“In the absence of any consensus on a uniform civil code the Commission felt that the best way forward may be to preserve the diversity of personal laws but at the same time ensure that personal laws do not contradict fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India,” mentioned the consultation paper.
The letter mentions’ “We feel the observation of the 21st Law Commission was objective and then puts many questions. “But then why has there not been any discussion on the views expressed by the 21st Law Commission? What has been the pressing necessity to bypass it completely and constitute a new Commission by merely citing the reason that the consultation paper is now more than three-years-old?
What prevented the government to logically prove that the 21st Commission was wrong in its assessment?
What prompted the ruling dispensation to skirt the previous Commission, constitute the 22nd Law Commission which has once again solicited the views on the UCC by issuing a notice on 14 June 2023?”
The letter says that the demand for change must come from within the suffering masses as a conscious urge. “It must dawn upon all of us that it is legitimacy which should prevail over legality.”
The letter mentions that the essential pre-conditions like people’s unity, communal-ethnic-casteist harmony, end of religious intolerance and abolition of regional-linguistic sectarianism are to be fulfilled for UCC. “Uniformity does not entail forcible integration of people but evolving that desired amalgamation through avid pursuit of the historically laid-down course”, says the letter.
The letter solicits that the members of the 22nd Law Commission take a realistic view of the situation in the country, take into account all relevant factors and inhibitions, dispassionately examine the arguments placed above on the anvil of time-tested logic and truth and then come to a rational conclusion free from the influence of any external power.
