Misconceptions about a Uniform Personal Law
India is a secular democratic republic. Unfortunately, the world secular has not been properly understood in India and many people including educated Hindus are of the opinion that a secular state means giving free reign to minorities to practice their own laws. Secular only means the right to worship any religion and the state shall have no say in private beliefs and worship. Recently a very learned person commented that imposing a common civil code means trying to convert the Muslims to Islam. Such a comment can only be termed preposterous. This gentleman failed to realize that India is the only country in the world with a dual personal law. No other country be it the Islamic states or the developed states like USA and Europe, not forgetting China and Japan allow a separate civil code for the minorities. Since there is one uniform code does this mean that these nations have enforced the uniform code to convert the minority to Christianity or Buddhism or Confucian? certainly not and sadly people are NOT aware that in India also in the state of GOA there is a uniform civil code. This code which was enforced by the Portuguese has been accepted by all residents including Muslims and the Sharia has taken a back seat. One thing is clear that enforcing a uniform civil code does not mean that the minority will be converted to Hinduism. It means reforming an archaic law and giving rights to Muslim women.
Since there is one uniform code does this mean that these nations have enforced the uniform code to convert the minority to Christianity or Buddhism or Confucian? Certainly not and sadly people are NOT aware that in India also in the state of GOA there is a uniform civil code. This code which was enforced by the Portuguese has been accepted by all residents including Muslims and the Sharia has taken a back seat. One thing is clear that enforcing a uniform civil code does not mean that the minority will be converted to Hinduism. It means reforming an archaic law and giving rights to Muslim women.
Since there is one uniform code does this mean that these nations have enforced the uniform code to convert the minority to Christianity or Buddhism or Confucian? certainly not and sadly people are NOT aware that in India also in the state of GOA there is a uniform civil code. This code which was enforced by the Portuguese has been accepted by all residents including Muslims and the Sharia has taken a back seat. One thing is clear that enforcing a uniform civil code does not mean that the minority will be converted to Hinduism. It means reforming an archaic law and giving rights to Muslim women.
The personal law does not mean only marriage and divorce but also covers inheritance and property division. Muslims in India are governed by the Sharia in these matters. The Sharia is ancient Muslim Law derived from Muslim scriptures. At one time when it was first propounded, it was a progressive law. It brought in the concept of some rights for women. However over the centuries, this law was not reformed and as it stands it is not in consonance with the genius of modern men and women. The Sharia sanctifies polygamy and allows a man to have 4 wives and any number of "mutta' or temporary wives. It also has a severe divorce law that allows a man to divorce his wife by just uttering the word Talaq 3 times.Incidentally, this triple talaq is not accepted even in Muslim nations let alone its acceptance in the developed countries and any nation all over the world. People will be surprised to know that even in the UAE where I reside and work, triple talaq is not accepted.
In India however encouraged by the Congress party, intent on creating vote banks triple Talaq is valid and the Indian Muslim law board has endorsed it. The Indian Supreme Court is now examining the validity of triple Talaq and we have a bizarre statement by Muslim intellectuals who state that triple talaq and its ramifications cannot be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. I wonder what these worthies have to say about nations like Turkey, Albania and Asian republics which have outlawed Triple Talaq.
The Indian constitution in its directive principles clearly states that the state will endeavor to bring about a uniform civil code that will overstep the Sharia for marriage, divorce, and property.But despite this injunction political parties like the Congress and even now the BJP are averse to the implementation of this aspect of the Directive Principles.
The Congress party had an axe to grind and when Nehru brought in the Hindu Marriage Act in 1955 it is a moot point why he kept the Muslim community out of its ambit. By allowing the Muslims to continue to practice a 6th-century archaic law, Nehru in real terms did great harm to Muslims in general and Muslim women in particular. In all progressive countries, Muslim personal law has been rejected and I am not aware of a single nation anywhere in the world where Muslims are allowed to practice their own personal law. In some nations like China, even Muslims are debarred from fasting during Ramadan on account of its deleterious effect on the health of Muslim children and women. Yet the Muslim world is silent and dare not criticize China.
In India, we have a class of people who I shall refer to as pseudo secularists. These people create a bogey of rights of minorities, in particular, Muslims. They say that enforcing a uniform personal law will go against the concept of secularism. I wonder these worthies realize the harm they are doing to Muslim women. One can recollect that an educated man like Shoib the Pakistani cricket player divorced his first wife by uttering the word Talaq 3 times and then marrying the Indian tennis star Sania Mirza. What a travesty of law and Islamic jurisprudence.
Nehru was a leader who was loved by Indian masses. He had an aura around him as he was the associate of Mahatma Gandhi. One accepted a lot from him to lead India forward. His rousing speech on independence day about India's "Tryst with Destiny" is simply great. But he did not live up to his ideals and created a permanent division in society and relegated Muslim women to the backyard by leaving the Muslims to practice their own personal law. This action of Nehru does not gel with the character of the man who appeared to be a progressive man and had spent donkeys years in England. Perhaps there is a method to the madness, but I am unable to realize the motives of Nehru in not enforcing a single and uniform civil code.
Sadly even the BJP in its earlier stint in power under Vajpayee failed to make any attempt to tinker with Muslim personal law. The advent of Narendra Modi promised much, but manifestos and loud talk lead nowhere and I am constrained to point out that Modi is an abject failure as with a massive majority he has not touched on any issue that he and BJP had promised.
India is the only country in the world with a dual personal law and frankly this is the first step to a deep division in India. It will be sad if India cracks up. I read Bapsi Sidhwa the Pakistani writers novel " Cracking India" on the break-up of India. We must recollect that just 2 years before independence (1945) nobody envisaged a break-up of India and yet it happened.Who can foretell the future?
Like it on Facebook, Tweet it or share this article on other bookmarking websites.