Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar pressed for a Uniform Civil Code, but had to back off due to opposition from all religious quarters. Nehru pushed, however, for a Hindu Code Bill, which was to “erase distinctions within the Hindu community and create Hindu social unity,” as a first step towards a UCC for all citizens at a more propitious time.
India is the homeland of four world religions — Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. The ancient sages have from time to time formulated different conceptions of the Almighty. Almost all the non-Indian religions set foot on Indian soil right from their very beginnings. Even in their own land of origin Christianity and Islam had to fight stiff opposition in the battle for survival.
In contrast, in India, those two religions received hospitality and were promptly accepted. The mainsprings of India’s emotional unity did not arise from its religions, but from its very powerful cultural base. The cultural superstructure was supremely capable of containing within itself all religious systems in all their genuine fullness and grandeur.
This is part of the background in which the debate over the Uniform Civil Code must be viewed. While the founding fathers of the constitution desired such a code, they ultimately accepted the compromise of placing it under Article 44 in the Directive Principles of the Constitution, making it the duty of the State to implement it.
The debate, however, has become one of the most controversial topics in contemporary politics following the 1985 Shah Bano case. Yet, in order to realise the constitutional objective of equality of all Indian citizens before the law, the criminal and civil statutes must be universally and equally applicable to all citizens. If there is any hint that any one religious community is immune from the nation’s laws, the unhealthy impression will grow that all Indians are not equal after all.
It has to be remembered that religious laws were promulgated in the special socio-political circumstances in which respective religions came into being. Islam, for instance, exercised political control over societies from the very early stages of its beginnings. Islamic civil and criminal laws thus took shape and form in the social context of the particular social background of the region in those days.
No modern secular State can accept the argument that these laws hold legal sanction for all times, in all nations, and in all societies, but that’s the argument that religious fanatics and fundamentalists of all denominations make. According to Roman Catholic tenets, a sinner obtains remission of sins he committed through confession. Against the background of this Church law, a criminal who is a Catholic is entitled to receive religious pardon at the confessional. Does it follow that the criminal law of the country is not applicable to such a person? The government must seriously ponder about the consequences of pandering to religious extremism.
(The writer is founder, Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue)
