Personal laws are vital for preserving one’s cultural and religious identity, as it is a widely acknowledged fact. Because of this fact, Article 44 of the Constitution in which the UCC is mentioned is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which is only a guideline and not a constitutional obligation. However, in order to deflect public attention from his government’s all-round failures, the Prime Minister raked up so-called UCC and the country was pushed into the unnecessary debate on the issue.
Radiance examined the issue with many religious leaders and activists and got their opinions.
John Dayal, spokesperson, All India Catholic Union, [founded 1919] comments:
“Three issues need mention in the context of the Government’s unholy plan to enforce a Uniform Civil Code on a country of 1.3 billion people and myriad cultures. How urgent are directive principles; how honest is the government’s commitment to gender justice; and finally, how much interference can governments do in personal laws which do not impact public health, morality or law and order.
“For us as one of the minority communities in India, and not the biggest, there is also the consideration of the government’s intention towards the safety, security, and preservation of cultures of all religious minorities on a level playing field.
“The Directive Principles of state policies are just that – they are to guide how government functions, and the laws they make. By themselves, the directive principles are not laws. If the founding fathers and mothers so wanted, they could immediately have translated them into laws, or the government could have brought them into force, or altered them, as it did the important issues of Dalit rights by limiting it to the Hindus through the Presidential Order of 1950. That made religious discrimination acceptable in the Constitution, and in turn led to laws which favour religion or sector community, including such things as the Hindu Undivided Family laws on Income tax and properties.
“Government should ban all personal practices that lead to public health, public order, or to serious crimes. Sati was banned long ago. If there are similar practices in any religion, they too should be banned by law. But religious reforms should be left to the communities themselves, with the government gently preparing ground conditions in which it becomes easier to happen. Communities under threat of violence or feeling majority pressure are less likely to carry out speedy reforms.
“Much as the British government banned suttee, and the Sharada Act was brought in, in the face of opposition from the majority community to fix the age of consent at puberty – though it was a concept accepted long ago by the Aramaic communities across the world – it is possible for the government to bring individual laws to ban anything that comes in such categories of gender justice.
“If the government is really keen to follow directive principles on gender justice, it could bring an omnibus law that includes equal opportunity in employment and salaries for women, 50 per cent reservations in all elective posts in the country including the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, and in educational institutions and scholarship.
“Artificial uniformity and coercion will injure all regions, including the majority one which has the most diversity within it than any other faith.The Christian community also believes in worrying if any other community faces any violence or coercion from any state or non-state actors. Pastor Neumuller articulated it at the height of the Nazi terror.”
The Sikh community accounts for over 24 million or 1.7% of the total population of the country. They have their own personal law called Anand Karaj i.e. Anand Marriage Act but not implemented after Independence.
Sardar Daya Singh, chairman All India Peace Mission states:
“On October 7, 1909, under British Rule, the Government of India approved the Anand Karaj, or Anand Marriage Act.By altering Hindu traditions, the Sikh Rahat Maryadaestablished by the Gurus required both families – boy and girl – in a married couple to take an oath, or four rounds, during which four lavas, or four words mentioned in the Guru Granth Sahib, were pronounced.
“When the SGPC was established in 1925, all Gurdwaras in the Punjab region came under its supervision. This committee then established a Sikh Rahu Riti committee, which authorised the Sikh Rahat Maryada (Sikh Code of Conduct), which provided information on all the rites and customs and its final form.
“Sikhs have been demanding since India gained its Independence and after the adoption of the Constitution of India that Sikhs not be regarded as Hindus because of their rituals and other characteristics that do not align with Hindu beliefs. This demand was made in 2012, then again in 2018, 2020, and again in 2023 to support the Anand Marriage Act. Although debates among Sikhs continue, legislation has been passed in several states that prohibits divorce because, in the words of the Guru Vani, the relationship between a man and a woman is between his wife and his husband as beings and God.
“Since it is evident from the sources that the Sikhs feel Gandhi promised them that no legislation would be imposed on them without their agreement, the SGPC has chosen not to support the Uniform Civil Code.”
- Burhanuddin Qasmi,Director of MarkazulMa’arif Education and Research Centre and Editor, Easter Crescent, Mumbai says:
“Diversity is the beauty of India. The Constitution of India ensures ‘justice, social, economic and political’ to all citizens. One country one law is not possible here. Adivasis have their own customs and cultural mores. A man can have many wives and a woman can have many husbands too. They have different ways of marriage and also different rituals for burying the dead. Many sections of Hindus practise different religious customs in different places.
“A comparative study of the personal laws of Hindus, Muslims and other minorities will reveal that the sheer diversity of these laws, coupled with the dogmatic zeal with which they are adhered to, cannot permit uniformity of any sort in personal laws. In fact, the heterogeneity of Hindu law itself is such that even the possibility of a uniform Hindu code is ruled out.
“Talking of marriage alone, under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, marriages may be solemnised in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of a variety of people who come under the definition of a Hindu. For instance, according to the ‘saptapadhi’‘(seven steps) form of marriage that is followed mostly in northern India, the marriage is deemed to be complete and binding when the couple take seven steps of rounds with the sacred fire – known as ‘saathphere’.
“On the other hand, in the south of India ‘suyamariyathai’ (self-respect) and ‘seerthiruththa’ (reformed) forms of marriage are followed. Under these, the marriage is valid if the parties to the marriage declare in the presence of relatives that they are marrying each other, or if they garland each other, or put a ring on each other’s fingers or if the groom ties a ‘Thali’ or ‘Mangalyam’ (necklace) around the neck of the bride.
“Likewise, in southern India, a Hindu man can get married to his cousin and even to his niece but in other parts of India, Hindu men cannot get married to their cousins and nieces.
“These are just a few examples to bring home the idea that there are enormous cultural, religious, and ethnic diversities within India from state to state and region to region; and these all are within Indian Civil Laws.”
Maulana Mahmood Ahmad Khan Daryabadi, Mumbai, underlines that all of the religious minorities in the country have their own personal laws, and tribal peoples and other religious groups also have their own personal rules and social practices. India is distinguished by the approximately 300 personal laws that are adhered to.
Middle East based Indian author Arshad Mohsin opines:“In India, minorities worry that the government may try to stifle or undermine their cultural customs, particularly their personal laws. This can entail imposing limitations, fines, arbitrary detentions, or harassment of people based on their cultural or religious practices or outlawing specific rituals, religious observances, or practices of minorities by giving the laws of the dominant group preference by altering the state’s legal system. Given the existing circumstances, Muslims have found it challenging to influence or form laws and policies that affect their personal laws due to the minimal or non-existent representation of Muslims in the government or legislative bodies.”
Referring to the USA example, Chicago based Dr Mohammad Qutubuddin Shuja says there is total separation between State and Church.
India shouldn’t be tempted to favour one religion over another if it wants to maintain its claim to be a secular democracy. Unfortunately, recent statements and acts by the leaders of the ruling party in India reveal their mentality.The government should take a lesson from history and recognise that any attempt to impose the laws and traditions of one community on another will seriously compromise the integrity and cohesion of the country as India is the most diverse country on the planet earth.