"Religion must be restricted to spheres which legitimately appear in the religion, and the rest of life must be regulated, unified and modified in such a manner that we may evolve, as early as possible a strong and consolidated nation. Our first problem and the most important one is to produce national unity in this country. We think we have got national unity but there are many factors -and important factors - which still offer serious danger to our national consolidation, and it is very necessary that the whole of our life, so far as it is restricted to secular spheres, must be unified in such a way that as early as possible, we may be able to say, "Well, we are not merely a nation because we say so, but also in effect, by the way, we live, by our personal law, we are a strong and consolidated nation"- These were the words of &nbsp;K.M.Munshi, a distinguished member of Constituent Assembly of India and a leader who campaigned for eliminating caste-based discrimination, promoted women’s education and widow remarriages while addressing the Constituent Assembly debate on the issue of Uniform Civil Code.

According to the Directive Principles of the State Policy in the Constitution of India, “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”

It was the vision of leaders like Munshi, Hansa Mehta, Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Dr BR Ambedkar who keeping in mind the intricacies, variation and dimension of our nation saw the Uniform Civil Code as part of the state’s responsibility’ to establish a single Indian identity instead of multiple religious identities.

The Constituent Assembly sat for the first time on December 9, 1946 and completed its task of framing the Indian Constitution in 2 years and 11 months. The Constituent Assembly had 11 sessions and sat for a total of 165 days. On November 26, the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India which came into force on January 26, 1950.

Uniform Civil Code was debated on December 23, 1948, wherein the Muslim members opposed it and moved amendments to keep personal laws out of the Constitution’s scope and introduce a provision that operationalised the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) only with the prior assent of the community.

In their opinion, the Uniform Civil Code violated freedom of religion and would create disharmony within the Muslim community and will be an interference in personal law without the approval of religious communities.

Members in favour argued that the UCC was important to uphold the unity of the country and the Constitution’s secular credentials.

Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar was of the opinion that differential systems contribute to the differences among peoples of India. He said that by not having Uniform Civil Code we were departing from the goal where we wanted the whole of India to be welded and united together as a single nation. His assertion was that without uniformity in civil code, this country will be kept up always as a series of competing communities.

KM Munshi pointed out that even if this clause (Uniform Civil Code) is not put in, it did not mean that Parliament in future would have no right to enact a Uniform Civil Code and stated that Article 19, accepted by the House unanimously, permitted legislation covering secular activities. “The whole object of this Article is that as and when the Parliament thinks proper or rather when the majority in the Parliament thinks proper an attempt may be made to unify the personal law of the country.”

On the question of it being tyrannical, Munshi pointed out, ‘’Nowhere in advanced Muslim countries the personal laws of minorities has been recognised as so sacrosanct as to prevent the enactment of a Civil Code. Take for instance Turkey or Egypt, no minority in these countries is permitted to have such rights. Munshi further said that when you want to consolidate a community, you have to take into consideration the benefit which may accrue to the whole community and not to the customs of a part of it. It is not, therefore, correct to say that such an act is the tyranny of the majority. If you will look at the countries in Europe which have a Civil Code, everyone who goes there from any part of the world has to submit to the Civil Code. It is not felt to be tyrannical to the minority. 
 
The point, however, is this, whether we are going to consolidate and unify our personal law in such a way that the way of life of the whole country may in course of time be unified and secular. If, however, the religious practices in the past have been so construed as to cover the whole field of life, we have reached a point when we must put our foot down and say that these matters are not a religion, they are purely matters for secular legislation. This is what is emphasised by this article.”

BR Ambedkar made a &nbsp;point that it will not be the first time that Muslims will be governed by a law other than their own. He said, “My honourable friends have forgotten, that, apart from the North-West Frontier Province, up till 1937 in the rest of India, in various parts, such as the United Provinces, the Central Provinces and Bombay, the Muslims to a large extent were governed by the Hindu Law in the matter of succession”.

Hansa Mehta, the member of the Fundamental rights sub-committee, the advisory committee and the provincial constitutional committee, made a significant contribution to the Constituent Assembly debates in trying to make the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) a justiciable part of the constitution. According to her, personal laws were dividing the nation. “It is therefore very essential if we want to build up one nation to have one Civil Code.”

She opined that last rulers (British) created religious and communal minorities in order to help their policy of divide and rule and that policy led to the partition of this country. She said, “We do not want any more partitions. What do the minorities want? What can be their claims? The Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law, equality of status, equality of opportunity; the Constitution guarantees religious rights. What more can the Minorities ask for? If they want privileges, that is not in the spirit of democracy. They cannot ask for privileges”. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

"Religion must be restricted to spheres which legitimately appear in the religion, and the rest of life must be regulated, unified and modified in such a manner that we may evolve, as early as possible a strong and consolidated nation.

"Religion must be restricted to spheres which legitimately appear in the religion, and the rest of life must be regulated, unified and modified in such a manner that we may evolve, as early as possible a strong and consolidated nation. Our first problem and the most important one is to produce national unity in this country. We think we have got national unity but there are many factors -and important factors - which still offer serious danger to our national consolidation, and it is very necessary that the whole of our life, so far as it is restricted to secular spheres, must be unified in such a way that as early as possible, we may be able to say, "Well, we are not merely a nation because we say so, but also in effect, by the way, we live, by our personal law, we are a strong and consolidated nation"- These were the words of K.M.Munshi, a distinguished member of Constituent Assembly of India and a leader who campaigned for eliminating caste-based discrimination, promoted women’s education and widow remarriages while addressing the Constituent Assembly debate on the issue of Uniform Civil Code. According to the Directive Principles of the State Policy in the Constitution of India, “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” It was the vision of leaders like Munshi, Hansa Mehta, Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Dr BR Ambedkar who keeping in mind the intricacies, variation and dimension of our nation saw the Uniform Civil Code as part of the state’s responsibility’ to establish a single Indian identity instead of multiple religious identities. The Constituent Assembly sat for the first time on December 9, 1946 and completed its task of framing the Indian Constitution in 2 years and 11 months. The Constituent Assembly had 11 sessions and sat for a total of 165 days. On November 26, the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India which came into force on January 26, 1950. Uniform Civil Code was debated on December 23, 1948, wherein the Muslim members opposed it and moved amendments to keep personal laws out of the Constitution’s scope and introduce a provision that operationalised the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) only with the prior assent of the community. In their opinion, the Uniform Civil Code violated freedom of religion and would create disharmony within the Muslim community and will be an interference in personal law without the approval of religious communities. Members in favour argued that the UCC was important to uphold the unity of the country and the Constitution’s secular credentials. Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar was of the opinion that differential systems contribute to the differences among peoples of India. He said that by not having Uniform Civil Code we were departing from the goal where we wanted the whole of India to be welded and united together as a single nation. His assertion was that without uniformity in civil code, this country will be kept up always as a series of competing communities. KM Munshi pointed out that even if this clause (Uniform Civil Code) is not put in, it did not mean that Parliament in future would have no right to enact a Uniform Civil Code and stated that Article 19, accepted by the House unanimously, permitted legislation covering secular activities. “The whole object of this Article is that as and when the Parliament thinks proper or rather when the majority in the Parliament thinks proper an attempt may be made to unify the personal law of the country.” On the question of it being tyrannical, Munshi pointed out, ‘’Nowhere in advanced Muslim countries the personal laws of minorities has been recognised as so sacrosanct as to prevent the enactment of a Civil Code. Take for instance Turkey or Egypt, no minority in these countries is permitted to have such rights. Munshi further said that when you want to consolidate a community, you have to take into consideration the benefit which may accrue to the whole community and not to the customs of a part of it. It is not, therefore, correct to say that such an act is the tyranny of the majority. If you will look at the countries in Europe which have a Civil Code, everyone who goes there from any part of the world has to submit to the Civil Code. It is not felt to be tyrannical to the minority. The point, however, is this, whether we are going to consolidate and unify our personal law in such a way that the way of life of the whole country may in course of time be unified and secular. If, however, the religious practices in the past have been so construed as to cover the whole field of life, we have reached a point when we must put our foot down and say that these matters are not a religion, they are purely matters for secular legislation. This is what is emphasised by this article.” BR Ambedkar made a point that it will not be the first time that Muslims will be governed by a law other than their own. He said, “My honourable friends have forgotten, that, apart from the North-West Frontier Province, up till 1937 in the rest of India, in various parts, such as the United Provinces, the Central Provinces and Bombay, the Muslims to a large extent were governed by the Hindu Law in the matter of succession”. Hansa Mehta, the member of the Fundamental rights sub-committee, the advisory committee and the provincial constitutional committee, made a significant contribution to the Constituent Assembly debates in trying to make the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) a justiciable part of the constitution. According to her, personal laws were dividing the nation. “It is therefore very essential if we want to build up one nation to have one Civil Code.” She opined that last rulers (British) created religious and communal minorities in order to help their policy of divide and rule and that policy led to the partition of this country. She said, “We do not want any more partitions. What do the minorities want? What can be their claims? The Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law, equality of status, equality of opportunity; the Constitution guarantees religious rights. What more can the Minorities ask for? If they want privileges, that is not in the spirit of democracy. They cannot ask for privileges”. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Time to honour commitment on Uniform Civil Code

A petition was moved in the Delhi High Court on Monday seeking directions to the Central government and Law Commission of India to constitute a judicial commission or a high-level expert committee to draft a Uniform Civil Code.

The petition, filed by lawyer Abhinav Beri, submitted that the gender justice and equality, and dignity of women guaranteed under various Articles of the Constitution cannot be secured without the implementation of the Article 44.&nbsp;

"The purpose of Article 44 is to introduce a Uniform Civil Code, which is essential to promote fraternity unity and national integration," the petition submitted.

It asserted that the executive branch did not take serious steps to implement the Uniform Civil Code.

The court tagged this petition with a similar petition, which had sought framing of a Uniform Civil Code to promote fraternity, unity and national integration.

The petition, filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, is listed for hearing tomorrow.&nbsp;

All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had on Friday moved an application in the high court seeking to be impleaded as a party in a petition moved by the BJP leader.&nbsp;

It submitted that the petition is not maintainable under the law and sought its dismissal.

A petition was moved in the Delhi High Court on Monday seeking directions to the Central government and Law Commission of India to constitute a judicial commission or a high-level expert committee to draft a Uniform Civil Code.

A petition was moved in the Delhi High Court on Monday seeking directions to the Central government and Law Commission of India to constitute a judicial commission or a high-level expert committee to draft a Uniform Civil Code. The petition, filed by lawyer Abhinav Beri, submitted that the gender justice and equality, and dignity of women guaranteed under various Articles of the Constitution cannot be secured without the implementation of the Article 44. "The purpose of Article 44 is to introduce a Uniform Civil Code, which is essential to promote fraternity unity and national integration," the petition submitted. It asserted that the executive branch did not take serious steps to implement the Uniform Civil Code. The court tagged this petition with a similar petition, which had sought framing of a Uniform Civil Code to promote fraternity, unity and national integration. The petition, filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, is listed for hearing tomorrow. All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had on Friday moved an application in the high court seeking to be impleaded as a party in a petition moved by the BJP leader. It submitted that the petition is not maintainable under the law and sought its dismissal.

Petition moved in Delhi High Court seeking to draft Uniform Civil Code

On the last day of Zee Jaipur Literature Festival, the biggest literature festival in the world, there was a surprise speaker.

Taslima Nasreen, the Bangladeshi writer in exile was in conversation with Salil Tripathi. Nasreen, an advocate of women rights and a vehement critic of religious fundamentalism has long been facing death threats. There is also a fatwa against her. Her presence, therefore, was kept under careful wraps by the organisers of the festival. Nobody knew of this surprise session till Sanjoy K Roy, producer of Zee JLF announced it just before the commencement.

However, the conspicuous presence of the police force in and around the venue was a tell-tale sign of something unusual in the offing.

Speaking at the front lawns, Nasreen expressed her support for Uniform Civil Code in India, her homeland since 1994. She said that the Uniform Civil Code(UCC)&nbsp;was urgently needed for empowering people whose freedoms are denied due to religious dogma. Nasreen rejected terms like &ldquo;nationalism&rdquo; and religious fundamentalism saying, &ldquo;I believe in one world. I believe in rights, freedom, humanism and rationalism.&rdquo; She said that in order to progress the Muslim society needs to take valid criticism in its stride. &nbsp;&ldquo;Whenever I criticise, people want to kill me,&quot; she rued.

Nasreen shared her experiences with both the Hindu and the Muslim fanatics. She recalled the 2007 fatwa against her and criticised the West Bengal government for not practicing true secularism. &ldquo;Hindu and Muslim fanatics have equally attacked me, but they were never punished,&quot; she said.

Speaking on the UCC, Nasreen said, &ldquo;Everyone has a right to believe in their religion and I respect it. The problem is that the state and the society respect the right to believe in a religion, but not the right to not believe in one. The state must not be religious. All laws must be based on equality and justice,&quot; she said. She noted how all religions were misogynistic in nature, denying equality to women.

Speaking on violence faced by secular writers in Bangladesh and elsewhere Nasreen said, &quot;Why are secular writers being forced to leave the country or murdered, while religious fanatics are sheltered.&quot; &nbsp;

A little later, speaking to WION Sadaf Saaz, a Bangladeshi writer, shared how the resurgence of identity politics in Bangladesh is a growing menace. &ldquo;There are some elements in society who do not believe in democracy and syncretic culture. This puts women at a doubly disadvantaged position.&rdquo;

Zee Jaipur Literature festival wraps today after five days of lively engagement on a wide variety of topics.

&nbsp;(WION) &nbsp;&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Taslima Nasreen recalled the fatwa against her and criticised the West Bengal government for not practicing 'true' secularism

On the last day of Zee Jaipur Literature Festival, the biggest literature festival in the world, there was a surprise speaker. Taslima Nasreen, the Bangladeshi writer in exile was in conversation with Salil Tripathi. Nasreen, an advocate of women rights and a vehement critic of religious fundamentalism has long been facing death threats. There is also a fatwa against her. Her presence, therefore, was kept under careful wraps by the organisers of the festival. Nobody knew of this surprise session till Sanjoy K Roy, producer of Zee JLF announced it just before the commencement. However, the conspicuous presence of the police force in and around the venue was a tell-tale sign of something unusual in the offing. Speaking at the front lawns, Nasreen expressed her support for Uniform Civil Code in India, her homeland since 1994. She said that the Uniform Civil Code(UCC) was urgently needed for empowering people whose freedoms are denied due to religious dogma. Nasreen rejected terms like “nationalism” and religious fundamentalism saying, “I believe in one world. I believe in rights, freedom, humanism and rationalism.” She said that in order to progress the Muslim society needs to take valid criticism in its stride. “Whenever I criticise, people want to kill me," she rued. Nasreen shared her experiences with both the Hindu and the Muslim fanatics. She recalled the 2007 fatwa against her and criticised the West Bengal government for not practicing true secularism. “Hindu and Muslim fanatics have equally attacked me, but they were never punished," she said. Speaking on the UCC, Nasreen said, “Everyone has a right to believe in their religion and I respect it. The problem is that the state and the society respect the right to believe in a religion, but not the right to not believe in one. The state must not be religious. All laws must be based on equality and justice," she said. She noted how all religions were misogynistic in nature, denying equality to women. Speaking on violence faced by secular writers in Bangladesh and elsewhere Nasreen said, "Why are secular writers being forced to leave the country or murdered, while religious fanatics are sheltered." A little later, speaking to WION Sadaf Saaz, a Bangladeshi writer, shared how the resurgence of identity politics in Bangladesh is a growing menace. “There are some elements in society who do not believe in democracy and syncretic culture. This puts women at a doubly disadvantaged position.” Zee Jaipur Literature festival wraps today after five days of lively engagement on a wide variety of topics. (WION)

India needs Uniform Civil Code: Taslima Nasreen at Zee Jaipur Literature Festival

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Saturday decided to oppose tooth and nail the Centre&rsquo;s move against the triple talaq and the imposition of Unform Civil Code in the country.

The decision was taken on the second day of the three-day closed door convention of AIMPLB, to discuss issues ranging from triple talaq, Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to other religious matters of the Muslims.

&ldquo;It has been unanimously decided in the convention that we want triple talaq to stay and we will oppose any move by the government against it. We will also oppose uniform civil code.

The triple talaq has been going on for ages and it is part of our religious rights,&rdquo; TMC MP and chairman of AIMPLB reception committee Sultan Ahmed told PTI.

The AIMPLB has already launched a signature campaign opposing the move and more than 10 crore Muslim women from across the country have signed supporting the practice of triple talaq.

The issue of alleged harassment of Muslim youth was also taken up during the convention.

&ldquo;Our President Maulana Rabey Hasani Nadvi, during his speech, has clearly said that the BJP government at the Centre has taken up an agenda of unnecessarily harassing the Muslims of the country especially the young generation. The government has the tendency to implicate the Muslims as anti-nationals and harass them,&rdquo; a member of the AIMPLB told PTI on condition of anonymity.

He said the BJP is trying to infringe upon the religious rights of Muslims and it will not be tolerated.

&ldquo;Muslims are part of this great secular, democratic republic India. We will fight against this communal designs of the BJP government&rdquo;. 
 
(PTI)

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board accused the ruling BJP of trying to infringe upon the religious rights of Muslims

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Saturday decided to oppose tooth and nail the Centre’s move against the triple talaq and the imposition of Unform Civil Code in the country. The decision was taken on the second day of the three-day closed door convention of AIMPLB, to discuss issues ranging from triple talaq, Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to other religious matters of the Muslims. “It has been unanimously decided in the convention that we want triple talaq to stay and we will oppose any move by the government against it. We will also oppose uniform civil code. The triple talaq has been going on for ages and it is part of our religious rights,” TMC MP and chairman of AIMPLB reception committee Sultan Ahmed told PTI. The AIMPLB has already launched a signature campaign opposing the move and more than 10 crore Muslim women from across the country have signed supporting the practice of triple talaq. The issue of alleged harassment of Muslim youth was also taken up during the convention. “Our President Maulana Rabey Hasani Nadvi, during his speech, has clearly said that the BJP government at the Centre has taken up an agenda of unnecessarily harassing the Muslims of the country especially the young generation. The government has the tendency to implicate the Muslims as anti-nationals and harass them,” a member of the AIMPLB told PTI on condition of anonymity. He said the BJP is trying to infringe upon the religious rights of Muslims and it will not be tolerated. “Muslims are part of this great secular, democratic republic India. We will fight against this communal designs of the BJP government”. (PTI)

Will oppose government on triple talaq, Uniform Civil Code: India's muslim body decides at meet

The issue of Uniform Civil Code for Indians is something that doesn&rsquo;t make sense to me at all. I can say this on many counts, but the most important one among them is the fact that this idea goes against the fundamental spirit of the Indian Constitution. Our Constitution negates the principle of &lsquo;one constitution, one personal law&rsquo; and allows for people of different communities and regional identities to maintain and preserve their culture and customs through the maintenance of their personal laws.&nbsp;

It is common knowledge that there are several communities, including those belonging to what is defined as &lsquo;Hindu&rsquo; as well as tribes in India who don&rsquo;t fall within the broad rubric of Hindu law. They are adjudicated according to their specific personal laws. This is good for cultural diversity and the principle of pluralism of which India has always had reason to be proud of. Such a practice ensures the richness of our cultural fabric and prevents the mainstream or influential communities from gobbling up the identities of the less numerable or marginalised communities. India glows with the pride of special rights and privileges given to diverse communities. The non-application of Uniform Civil Code is a victory for plurality.

It, therefore, makes no sense to expect the Muslim community to be brought under the Uniform Civil Code under the pretext of reforming some of the gender-biased practices of a community. This would amount to interfering with a well-developed system of jurisprudence with its own set of highly nuanced checks and balances. Besides, such a step would lead to further insecurity in the Muslim community in their own country as this has been the long-standing agenda of the saffron parties, which have never seen any good in the Muslims of India.&nbsp;

The important thing that needs to be said about unjust and unfair practices in Muslim society is that any reform in the interest of gender parity and women&rsquo;s empowerment should come from within the community. The Prophet of Islam PBUH had given the community the authority to amend and reform laws in the interest of social justice and humanitarian values.&nbsp;

The community has complete authority to draw and execute its own laws; it can also petition the government of the day to acknowledge the changes the community members themselves can make or would like to make in their personal laws. This is apparent in the amendments made in respect of the rules of nikah and divorce that were carried out by many Islamic countries or in such countries where Muslims are in the majority. If such countries can carry out amendments, what prevents Muslims in India from doing the same?&nbsp;

I would take this opportunity to plead with the power banks of Muslim clerics in India to shed their insecurities of identity as well as selfish desires to rule over women. They should come forward with their own moderations of the system, which, in any case, is full of variations and inconsistencies. It also needs to be recognised that our social systems in all parts over the world are anti-woman and there is an urgent need to bring about a change of perspective without arbitrary enforcement of unwanted laws.&nbsp;

The very fact that triple talaq or pronouncing talaq in one go of three utterances without any witness has been rejected by the majority of predominantly Muslim countries is itself proof enough that this is NOT a sacrosanct custom and can be done away with by consensus. The Holy Prophet PBUH declared, &#39;if something is flawed or wrong, my community will always be in disagreement over it&#39;.&nbsp;

Talking of the social system and the Muslims, an important aspect that is often overlooked is that the Muslim marriage gives a woman the right to say yes or no in marriage. Such a right is NOT given to men. They just cannot force a woman to marry them against her will. The woman also has the right to annul her marriage without giving any particular reason.&nbsp;

The right to say yes or no inevitably grants the boy and the girl the opportunity to get to know each other before they marry and explore the pros and cons of the marriage. This ensures and builds confidence and mobility in the female. This is a significant part of the Muslim Personal Law but why does it remain un-enforced? Obviously, the practice or implementation of laws or precepts requires more than passing Bills. It calls for exercises of security building and welfare, respect and positive intent of preservation, not annulment of identity.&nbsp;

I am completely against triple talaq or any other gender unfair practice in my community, but I would want the reform to come from within.&nbsp;

The non-application of Uniform Civil Code is a victory for plurality

The issue of Uniform Civil Code for Indians is something that doesn’t make sense to me at all. I can say this on many counts, but the most important one among them is the fact that this idea goes against the fundamental spirit of the Indian Constitution. Our Constitution negates the principle of ‘one constitution, one personal law’ and allows for people of different communities and regional identities to maintain and preserve their culture and customs through the maintenance of their personal laws. It is common knowledge that there are several communities, including those belonging to what is defined as ‘Hindu’ as well as tribes in India who don’t fall within the broad rubric of Hindu law. They are adjudicated according to their specific personal laws. This is good for cultural diversity and the principle of pluralism of which India has always had reason to be proud of. Such a practice ensures the richness of our cultural fabric and prevents the mainstream or influential communities from gobbling up the identities of the less numerable or marginalised communities. India glows with the pride of special rights and privileges given to diverse communities. The non-application of Uniform Civil Code is a victory for plurality. It, therefore, makes no sense to expect the Muslim community to be brought under the Uniform Civil Code under the pretext of reforming some of the gender-biased practices of a community. This would amount to interfering with a well-developed system of jurisprudence with its own set of highly nuanced checks and balances. Besides, such a step would lead to further insecurity in the Muslim community in their own country as this has been the long-standing agenda of the saffron parties, which have never seen any good in the Muslims of India. The important thing that needs to be said about unjust and unfair practices in Muslim society is that any reform in the interest of gender parity and women’s empowerment should come from within the community. The Prophet of Islam PBUH had given the community the authority to amend and reform laws in the interest of social justice and humanitarian values. The community has complete authority to draw and execute its own laws; it can also petition the government of the day to acknowledge the changes the community members themselves can make or would like to make in their personal laws. This is apparent in the amendments made in respect of the rules of nikah and divorce that were carried out by many Islamic countries or in such countries where Muslims are in the majority. If such countries can carry out amendments, what prevents Muslims in India from doing the same? I would take this opportunity to plead with the power banks of Muslim clerics in India to shed their insecurities of identity as well as selfish desires to rule over women. They should come forward with their own moderations of the system, which, in any case, is full of variations and inconsistencies. It also needs to be recognised that our social systems in all parts over the world are anti-woman and there is an urgent need to bring about a change of perspective without arbitrary enforcement of unwanted laws. The very fact that triple talaq or pronouncing talaq in one go of three utterances without any witness has been rejected by the majority of predominantly Muslim countries is itself proof enough that this is NOT a sacrosanct custom and can be done away with by consensus. The Holy Prophet PBUH declared, 'if something is flawed or wrong, my community will always be in disagreement over it'. Talking of the social system and the Muslims, an important aspect that is often overlooked is that the Muslim marriage gives a woman the right to say yes or no in marriage. Such a right is NOT given to men. They just cannot force a woman to marry them against her will. The woman also has the right to annul her marriage without giving any particular reason. The right to say yes or no inevitably grants the boy and the girl the opportunity to get to know each other before they marry and explore the pros and cons of the marriage. This ensures and builds confidence and mobility in the female. This is a significant part of the Muslim Personal Law but why does it remain un-enforced? Obviously, the practice or implementation of laws or precepts requires more than passing Bills. It calls for exercises of security building and welfare, respect and positive intent of preservation, not annulment of identity. I am completely against triple talaq or any other gender unfair practice in my community, but I would want the reform to come from within.

Triple talaq, Uniform Civil Code and the Indian Constitution

The debate over triple talaq, which&nbsp;allows Muslim men to divorce their wives by uttering&nbsp;the word &#39;talaq&#39; or divorce&nbsp;three times, and the Uniform Civil Code&nbsp;continues to dominate Indian political discourse two weeks after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled Indian government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court opposing&nbsp;the practice.&nbsp;

While the law commission of India later sought a public vote on triple talaq and the Uniform Civil Code --&nbsp;which if implemented would replace the personal laws of religious and social&nbsp;communities&nbsp;based on their scriptures and customs with one common law --&nbsp;the questionnaire prepared by the commission to seek the vote prompted the All India Muslim Personal Law Board &nbsp;(AIMPLB) to accuse the ruling government of singling out the Muslim community in an attempt to polarise society.&nbsp;

The&nbsp;Indian government has maintained that its affidavit in the Supreme Court&nbsp;was filed to ensure justice for Muslim women. The BJP-led government also said the proposal to implement the uniform civil code is aimed at &quot;moving towards a progressive society&quot;.&nbsp;

But it&#39;s not just the Muslim community that opposes implementation of the code. Several leaders from other religious and social groups have also voiced their concerns about the uniform civil code,&nbsp;saying the proposal should not be implemented.&nbsp;

&ldquo;Enforcement of Uniform Civil Code will not impact only one religion. India is a country where people from different religion and social groups live. If Uniform Civil Code is introduced, the first sufferers will be the Adivasis (tribals)&nbsp;as the community will no longer be able to enjoy the customary laws,&quot; says Prem Kumar Gedam, national coordinator of the Rashtriya Adivasi Ekta Parishad, a&nbsp;group that works towards preserving the identity, art, culture, history, esteem, and identity of the tribals.&nbsp;The group has also moved the Supreme Court seeking protection of their customs and traditions and the right to practice polygamy and polyandry.

&quot;When we accepted Buddhism, we left behind old traditions to adopt new traditions. The Uniform Civil Code is a serious threat to us. We strongly object to the idea of homogenisation&nbsp;of this plural society, based on the dominant Hindu culture and tradition,&quot; Professor Babu Haste of Buddhist international circuit, a collective of Buddhist organistaions in India, told WION.&nbsp;

According to Anil Kumar Mane, a member of the National Tribe Communities, implementation of the uniform civil code is a &quot;step towards abolishing the reservations enjoyed by the scheduled&nbsp;tribes&quot;. He also asserts that their practices are very different from those of the Hindus.

&ldquo;Our community follows polyandry as well as polygamy. Our inheritance law is different from the Hindu community. We have our own courts to settle our disputes. We do not even burn the body of our dead but we bury them.&nbsp; Any effort to take away these rights from us in the name of uniform civil code will not go down well with the community and will trigger resistance,&quot; he says.&nbsp;

Kumar Kale, a member of the other backward communities&nbsp;(OBCs), talks about the &quot;politics behind singling out triple talaq from the entire issue of Uniform Civil Code at this point of time&quot;.

&ldquo;It has been solely done with an electoral agenda ahead of the state elections scheduled in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, among other states,&quot; he says. &nbsp;

(WION)&nbsp;

It's not only the Muslim community which opposes the code's implementation but also other religious and social groups

The debate over triple talaq, which allows Muslim men to divorce their wives by uttering the word 'talaq' or divorce three times, and the Uniform Civil Code continues to dominate Indian political discourse two weeks after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled Indian government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court opposing the practice. While the law commission of India later sought a public vote on triple talaq and the Uniform Civil Code -- which if implemented would replace the personal laws of religious and social communities based on their scriptures and customs with one common law -- the questionnaire prepared by the commission to seek the vote prompted the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) to accuse the ruling government of singling out the Muslim community in an attempt to polarise society. The Indian government has maintained that its affidavit in the Supreme Court was filed to ensure justice for Muslim women. The BJP-led government also said the proposal to implement the uniform civil code is aimed at "moving towards a progressive society". But it's not just the Muslim community that opposes implementation of the code. Several leaders from other religious and social groups have also voiced their concerns about the uniform civil code, saying the proposal should not be implemented. “Enforcement of Uniform Civil Code will not impact only one religion. India is a country where people from different religion and social groups live. If Uniform Civil Code is introduced, the first sufferers will be the Adivasis (tribals) as the community will no longer be able to enjoy the customary laws," says Prem Kumar Gedam, national coordinator of the Rashtriya Adivasi Ekta Parishad, a group that works towards preserving the identity, art, culture, history, esteem, and identity of the tribals. The group has also moved the Supreme Court seeking protection of their customs and traditions and the right to practice polygamy and polyandry. "When we accepted Buddhism, we left behind old traditions to adopt new traditions. The Uniform Civil Code is a serious threat to us. We strongly object to the idea of homogenisation of this plural society, based on the dominant Hindu culture and tradition," Professor Babu Haste of Buddhist international circuit, a collective of Buddhist organistaions in India, told WION. According to Anil Kumar Mane, a member of the National Tribe Communities, implementation of the uniform civil code is a "step towards abolishing the reservations enjoyed by the scheduled tribes". He also asserts that their practices are very different from those of the Hindus. “Our community follows polyandry as well as polygamy. Our inheritance law is different from the Hindu community. We have our own courts to settle our disputes. We do not even burn the body of our dead but we bury them. Any effort to take away these rights from us in the name of uniform civil code will not go down well with the community and will trigger resistance," he says. Kumar Kale, a member of the other backward communities (OBCs), talks about the "politics behind singling out triple talaq from the entire issue of Uniform Civil Code at this point of time". “It has been solely done with an electoral agenda ahead of the state elections scheduled in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, among other states," he says. (WION)

Uniform Civil Code row: Social, religious groups voice concerns about 'homogenisation' of India's plural society

Eight months ago, I met a woman in Uttar Pradesh. She was helpless and poor. She had been divorced thrice. She also had three children from two different husbands and had never received a single dime in alimony. She lived near a religious place and was hoping that she would be able to spend the rest of her life there. I was shocked that she had been abandoned and she would have to survive on alms. She was incapable of fighting her battle.

Is it really a secular democracy

If India is truly a secular democracy, then the civil code will have to be truly secular. Whichever religion one belongs to, the same yardstick should apply to all. A marriage is a marriage and a divorce is a divorce. The sensitisation of religions does not need to be a part of the state, it is part of the temple/mosque/church/synagogue. It needs to stay that way. If religion can play a role in helping families live in harmony, that should be a welcome move. But when they decide to marry or divorce, it should be handled by the courts.

Promise of the constitution

During the framing of the Indian Constitution, it was widely debated that a secular republic needs a common law for all citizens rather than differentiated rules based on religious practices. Eventually, the Uniform Civil Code was put under Article 44 of the Constitution. However, this article comes under the &#39;Directive Principles of the State Policy&#39; and thus, it is not enforceable by any Court of Law. The Article says, &lsquo;The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.&rsquo;

Several members of the Constituent Assembly disagreed with this compromise. Among them were Minoo Masani, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Hansa Mehta. Kaur argued: &#39;One of the factors that have kept India back from advancing to nationhood has been the existence of personal laws based on religion which keep the nation divided into watertight compartments in many aspects of life.&#39; Later, BR Ambedkar also fought hard for the passage of the Hindu Code Bill as it was an opportunity to empower women.

It may all get political

The reality of this situation is that the present government has always talked about the idea of a uniform civil code. It is part of their DNA. They believe in the idea that it is only possible to build India if it is not divided into multiple ideas and identities. The layered divisions create more chaos than creating a multicultural society.

The discussion on the uniform civil code is beyond religion. It is about political and moral conviction. Truly the debate is about gender equality. Women and men have raised their voice for gender equality and, if at all, it ever has a chance of making it through, it is when the present government is in place. If it is scuttled, then it may be a long time before this would see the light of day.

&nbsp;

The author writes here in a personal capacity.

If India is truly a secular democracy then the civil code will have to be truly secular

Eight months ago, I met a woman in Uttar Pradesh. She was helpless and poor. She had been divorced thrice. She also had three children from two different husbands and had never received a single dime in alimony. She lived near a religious place and was hoping that she would be able to spend the rest of her life there. I was shocked that she had been abandoned and she would have to survive on alms. She was incapable of fighting her battle. Is it really a secular democracy If India is truly a secular democracy, then the civil code will have to be truly secular. Whichever religion one belongs to, the same yardstick should apply to all. A marriage is a marriage and a divorce is a divorce. The sensitisation of religions does not need to be a part of the state, it is part of the temple/mosque/church/synagogue. It needs to stay that way. If religion can play a role in helping families live in harmony, that should be a welcome move. But when they decide to marry or divorce, it should be handled by the courts. Promise of the constitution During the framing of the Indian Constitution, it was widely debated that a secular republic needs a common law for all citizens rather than differentiated rules based on religious practices. Eventually, the Uniform Civil Code was put under Article 44 of the Constitution. However, this article comes under the 'Directive Principles of the State Policy' and thus, it is not enforceable by any Court of Law. The Article says, ‘The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.’ Several members of the Constituent Assembly disagreed with this compromise. Among them were Minoo Masani, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Hansa Mehta. Kaur argued: 'One of the factors that have kept India back from advancing to nationhood has been the existence of personal laws based on religion which keep the nation divided into watertight compartments in many aspects of life.' Later, BR Ambedkar also fought hard for the passage of the Hindu Code Bill as it was an opportunity to empower women. It may all get political The reality of this situation is that the present government has always talked about the idea of a uniform civil code. It is part of their DNA. They believe in the idea that it is only possible to build India if it is not divided into multiple ideas and identities. The layered divisions create more chaos than creating a multicultural society. The discussion on the uniform civil code is beyond religion. It is about political and moral conviction. Truly the debate is about gender equality. Women and men have raised their voice for gender equality and, if at all, it ever has a chance of making it through, it is when the present government is in place. If it is scuttled, then it may be a long time before this would see the light of day. The author writes here in a personal capacity.

Discussion about uniform civil code is beyond religion, it's about gender equality

Shiv Sena, a&nbsp;Hindu right-wing&nbsp;political party,&nbsp;today said that All India Muslim Personal Law Board&#39;s (AIMPLB) opposition to uniform civil code (UCC) is not in favour of the nation.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&quot;In the interest of the nation and in the interest of the Muslim community Indian civil code must be imposed in the country, only then the nation will agree that the Muslim people are true citizen of this country and they want to be included in the contrived decision and abide by the Constitution of India,&quot; Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut told Indian news agency ANI.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Muslim personal law board on Thursday announced its decision to boycott a Law Commission of India questionnaire that sought a&nbsp;public vote on whether uniform civil code (the proposal to replace the personal laws based on the scriptures and customs of each major religious community in India) should be imposed in the country. The questionnaire also sought a public opinion on triple talaq, &nbsp;which according to Islamic law based on the Quran permits a husband to pronounce talaq three times to instantly divorce his wife.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Raut further stressed that unless the Muslim community continues to follow the strict rules and regulation of other Islamic countries, people of India will continue to look upon them with suspicion, ANI reported.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&quot;To the government also, I want to say that their decision should not be based on the fact as to what will these Muslim organisation think regarding this. This is the issue of national interest. The government should take a decision on this,&quot; he was quoted as saying by the news agency.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Last week, an affidavit was also filed in the Supreme Court by India&#39;s law ministry that said that triple talaq violates women&#39;s rights.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Religious persecution will not be tolerated in India: India&#39;s interior minister&nbsp;

As the Muslim community continues to accuse the Narendra Modi-led Indian government of violating their rights by trying to impose a uniform civil code, India&#39;s interior minister said today that &#39;religious persecution will never be allowed in the country&#39;.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Speaking at a meeting of Christian leaders organised by India Christian Council, interior minister Rajnath Singh described India as a &#39;university of tolerance&#39;, Indian news agency PTI reported.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&quot;Tolerance is essential for peaceful existence. People from all religions live peacefully in India and practise their religion without any fear of discrimination. That is why India is a university of tolerance,&quot; Singh was quoted as saying.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&quot;All important religions find place in India,&quot; he said and added that people from all religions get respect and it is the only country where all sects of Islam are found.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

He also referred to the incidents of attacks on churches in the&nbsp;national capital of Delhi ahead of assembly elections last year.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&quot;There were incidents of attacks on churches in Delhi which came up in the run-up to elections (to Delhi Assembly). &nbsp;But I would like to say that religious persecution will never be allowed in India whether it is before or after the (upcoming) elections (in several Indian states including northern Uttar Pradesh and Punjab).&quot;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Targeting Pakistan he said: It is very unfortunate that some countries make terrorism a state policy. There can be differences between people that can be resolved through dialogue but not by taking up guns.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&quot;The nation (Pakistan) separated from it declared itself a theocratic state. That country uses terrorism as a state policy,&quot; &nbsp;PTI quoted him as saying.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Amid remarks by the Hindu right-wing party, Indian interior minister Rajnath Singh said, 'Tolerance is essential for peaceful existence'

Shiv Sena, a Hindu right-wing political party, today said that All India Muslim Personal Law Board's (AIMPLB) opposition to uniform civil code (UCC) is not in favour of the nation. "In the interest of the nation and in the interest of the Muslim community Indian civil code must be imposed in the country, only then the nation will agree that the Muslim people are true citizen of this country and they want to be included in the contrived decision and abide by the Constitution of India," Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut told Indian news agency ANI. The Muslim personal law board on Thursday announced its decision to boycott a Law Commission of India questionnaire that sought a public vote on whether uniform civil code (the proposal to replace the personal laws based on the scriptures and customs of each major religious community in India) should be imposed in the country. The questionnaire also sought a public opinion on triple talaq, which according to Islamic law based on the Quran permits a husband to pronounce talaq three times to instantly divorce his wife. Raut further stressed that unless the Muslim community continues to follow the strict rules and regulation of other Islamic countries, people of India will continue to look upon them with suspicion, ANI reported. "To the government also, I want to say that their decision should not be based on the fact as to what will these Muslim organisation think regarding this. This is the issue of national interest. The government should take a decision on this," he was quoted as saying by the news agency. Last week, an affidavit was also filed in the Supreme Court by India's law ministry that said that triple talaq violates women's rights. Religious persecution will not be tolerated in India: India's interior minister As the Muslim community continues to accuse the Narendra Modi-led Indian government of violating their rights by trying to impose a uniform civil code, India's interior minister said today that 'religious persecution will never be allowed in the country'. Speaking at a meeting of Christian leaders organised by India Christian Council, interior minister Rajnath Singh described India as a 'university of tolerance', Indian news agency PTI reported. "Tolerance is essential for peaceful existence. People from all religions live peacefully in India and practise their religion without any fear of discrimination. That is why India is a university of tolerance," Singh was quoted as saying. "All important religions find place in India," he said and added that people from all religions get respect and it is the only country where all sects of Islam are found. He also referred to the incidents of attacks on churches in the national capital of Delhi ahead of assembly elections last year. "There were incidents of attacks on churches in Delhi which came up in the run-up to elections (to Delhi Assembly). But I would like to say that religious persecution will never be allowed in India whether it is before or after the (upcoming) elections (in several Indian states including northern Uttar Pradesh and Punjab)." Targeting Pakistan he said: It is very unfortunate that some countries make terrorism a state policy. There can be differences between people that can be resolved through dialogue but not by taking up guns. "The nation (Pakistan) separated from it declared itself a theocratic state. That country uses terrorism as a state policy," PTI quoted him as saying. (WION with inputs from agencies)

Abide by uniform civil code to become true Indian citizens: Shiv Sena tells Indian Muslims

uniform-civil-code

Uniform Civil Code, News on Uniform Civil Code, stories on Uniform Civil Code, articles on Uniform Civil Code, Uniform Civil Code stories at Wion, Uniform Civil Code news, Uniform Civil Code latest news

uniform civil-code