vijay wrote:

The different religious faiths came together in 1947 to form the Indian nation on the mutual agreement that each religion can follow its practices and this is guaranteed by the Constitution. Hindus follow their religious practices like Muslims, Sikhs,Christians follow theirs. All non religious activities are governed by common laws irrespective of one's religion. A uniform civil code can happen when society is more mature than today. The will of some fundamentalists can not be forced upon other religion followers. Secularism means keeping religion away from politics but does not bar one to follow their religion and beliefs including politicians including Indira Gandhi. Rajiv's opening of Ram temple's door and role in Shahbano case were mistakes which should not have happened, but that does not dilute secularism in any way.

 

As regardss common law, this is aleady common for criminal, business and other matters that concern all citizens. In matters of community, that affect only internal matters of community such as inheritance, marriage, divorce etc, separate law such as Hindu law, Muslim law prevail.  There is no need to attempt uniform law in such matters. The Hindutva forces aim at destroying identity of minority communities by forcing Hindu law on them in guise of uniform personal law. This may be their first step towards establishing so called Hindu Rastra. 

It is simply at variance with facts that demand for a uniform civil code is that of any particular political party. Let some ignoramuses claim greater wisdom and superiority in knowledge than that of the founding fathers of our Constitution . What about article 44 of that great document. The supreme need for such a code lies in the fact that all matters hitherto governed by personal laws squarely fall within the charter of basic human rights. With all these sham arguments which can't stand even a moment's scrutiny I am more than confident that scare-mongers can rest assured that if India has managed to remain secular in her more than six decades' existence despite grave provocation both inside and outside she would remain so for ever. 

There is a aw banning dowry which is broken with impunity by all including Hindus.. There is a law providing for equal inheritance rights to girls which is rarely followed in practice including by Hindus. Why because in Hinduism dowry is an  age old internal practice which law has also not been able to break nor education. Similar is case with other religions also. That is why the time is not ripe for a common civil code. Yes certain schools of thought want to terrorize minorities and what pleasure they derive is known to them only.

@Mr. Vijay your stand appears to be inconsistent. On one hand you call Rajiv Gandhi's acts as mistakes which I disagree and would prefer to term as deliberate practice of soft hindutva to gain electorally and now supporting the thorouhghly regressive and undignified existence for Muslim women by proposing an indefinite wait for them for basic human rights. You have cited the ineffectiveness of law in fighting social evil. Does that validate the propositon that we should not have no such law. At least let them come into the legal domain,let them legislate on matters on which other communities have no problems with.

There are laws against robbery, rapes, theft and whatnot but these are still increasing by the day. Does that mean we should abolish these rules because these are not working effective? That is not a proper stand.

chinmoymukherjee wrote:

@Mr. Vijay your stand appears to be inconsistent. On one hand you call Rajiv Gandhi's acts as mistakes which I disagree and would prefer to term as deliberate practice of soft hindutva to gain electorally and now supporting the thorouhghly regressive and undignified existence for Muslim women by proposing an indefinite wait for them for basic human rights. You have cited the ineffectiveness of law in fighting social evil. Does that validate the propositon that we should not have no such law. At least let them come into the legal domain,let them legislate on matters on which other communities have no problems with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The central point I am trying to make is that all religions have practices which appear normal to its followers but may look ridiculous to other religion members.. Even if such practices are banned by law they are followed with impunity because these are considered as part of their religious practices. So by passing a law in favour of protecting Muslim women it maybe as toothless as laws which are flouted by Hindus, simply because  Muslims will continue to follow them as it is their personal or religious practice. How many Hindus are prosecuted for giving dowry or denying daughters their paternal property share. How many Muslims will you prosecute? Why are you quite on Hindus flouting dowry laws but want to pass laws for Muslim women. If it pleases many, a law may be passed but it will be a toothless law . How can a government officer  or police or judiciary prosecute a dowry taker because perhaps all of them have themselves taken it. So it is best to allow society to come to a more mature level when it will be receptive to common civil code and  till then all round development should be the agenda.

ll

 I completely fail fail to comprehend the rationale behind not enacting a law just because of apprehension that it might be ineffective or toothless. It reflects a cynical mindset. A law is not just a mere instrument of social change but also a testament of the firm resolve of a civilized society in relation to a particular problem. 

Talking about maturity of society, no society matures on its own - not a passive process but a proactive and dynamic one. It needs change agents or drivers in the form of strong leaders who do not equivocate, pontificate or prevaricate to delay actions for fear of negative repercussions. Sixty six years are long for a nation to become mature and if it hasn't to implement a constitutional mandate to which all sections of society placed themselves under an obligation it can be reasonably asserted that there are vested interests in keeping it perpetually immature!!

@Usha

A substantial part of modern day laws are nothing but adaptation , modification and adoption in a tortuous and long process spanning thousands of years of customs and usages. Many customs which militate against basic human rights and civilized norm were discarded by advanced societies as basic human rights are inalienable which can not be circumscribed, abridged or abrogated by even religous prescriptions or fatwas by any religion. It might have been the principal reason that wise members of our Constituent Assembly including a person of the stature of M.A.K's schlarship and erudition to advocate a uniform civil code by putting it under 'Directive Principles of State Policy' of the Constituion. Alas, our premature or overmature leaders saw a goldmine in terms  of vote-bank politics in driving a permanent wedge between two communities. 

chinmoymukherjee wrote:

It is simply at variance with facts that demand for a uniform civil code is that of any particular political party. Let some ignoramuses claim greater wisdom and superiority in knowledge than that of the founding fathers of our Constitution . What about article 44 of that great document. The supreme need for such a code lies in the fact that all matters hitherto governed by personal laws squarely fall within the charter of basic human rights. With all these sham arguments which can't stand even a moment's scrutiny I am more than confident that scare-mongers can rest assured that if India has managed to remain secular in her more than six decades' existence despite grave provocation both inside and outside she would remain so for ever. 

 

There were divergent views on most topics in the constituent assembly. So, the controversial matters like uniform personal law, were included in 'directive principles'  which is not obligatory.  There is no reason why e should not present independent views. The demand for  uniform personal law is by the Hindutva forces and not others. This is significant. This is just an attempt to force Hindu traditions on minorities in name of uniform law.