Uniform Civil Code: a Fascist Weapon Towards Hindurashtra?
P J James
In view of Modi’s pitch towards Uniform Civil Code (UCC) at Bhopal on June 27 following 22nd Law Commission’s June 14 invitation to public seeking opinion on UCC, on June 28 itself, exposing and resolutely condemning the majoritarian fascist agenda behind it, CPI (ML) Red Star had issued a press statement. While exposing the anti-Muslim content of this move, the statement, among other things, said:
“India being a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, and multi-religious country, rather than a super-imposed pan-Indian identity, pluralism and diversity are the essence of Indian Union. Many tribal communities with varying personal, customary and inheritance laws are there in India. Hence religion is just one of the factors that come in the way of a UCC… the essential prerequisite of a state/regime that strives for a UCC is its secular credential itself. Obviously, the Modi regime that follows Hindu puja and all Vedic rituals for inaugurating even the parliament building has no such credibility… as evident from the Hindurashtra approach towards denying citizenship to Muslims, stigmatising and even eliminating them along with subjugating other religious minorities, a UCC can be nothing except a Hindu Civil Code, where all other religious practices, especially those linked with Islam will be illegal and anti-national…”
Today, within two months, despite the emergence of serious differences on UCC among Sangh Parivar outfits themselves, the Modi regime has not backtracked from its UCC offensive, since it is specifically targeted against the Muslim community. For, along with abrogation of Article 370 relating to break up of J&K and its forcible integration into unitary Indian state in tune with majoritarian agenda and construction of Ram Mandir at the very site of Babri Masjid, UCC has been one of the election planks of BJP, the political tool of RSS. However, now, apart from the wide spectrum of opposition to UCC comprising non-BJP parties and many organisations representing oppressed peoples and minorities, recently, the Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram, one of the biggest RSS outfits with its tentacles in most the 705 tribal communities in India has come forward against UCC that deals with marriage, divorce and property relations including inheritance. Many tribal organisations in Chahttisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and elsewhere have protested against a UCC that will infringe their customary laws, socio-cultural practices and land and property relations that have constitutional safeguards at present.
Even many BJP leaders from North-East have raised apprehensions regarding a UCC, though the Modi government has not yet released even a draft in this regard. Meanwhile, the “double engine” governments (state regimes led by BJP) of Gujarat and Uttarakhand have declared their intention to proceed towards UCC, since Constitution gives concurrent power both to parliament and state assemblies to deal with different aspects of the personal law. On the other hand, recently, the chief minister of Meghalaya has categorically expressed his opposition to a UCC in the state, while the Kerala Assembly has unanimously passed a resolution against UCC. Home minister Amit Shah’s revealing statement regarding government’s intention to exclude the tribals and Christians from the ambit of the proposed UCC, the sole target of which now being Muslims, is to be viewed in this context.
The Background of UCC Debate
The 21st Law Commission led by Balbir Singh Chauhan, which went into a detailed evaluation of the entire issue regarding UCC, in view of its potential repercussions which remain untested, and based on the innumerable suggestions received by it from well-meaning sections, has put forward a Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law, instead of a draft UCC. In this Consultation Paper released towards the end of its tenure in 2018, the 21st Law Commission sought for a “uniformity of rights” (rather than that of laws) of all people, a reform of family/personal laws of every religion to make them “gender-just”, need of achieving equality within communities rather than equality between communities, etc. The Commission which took an independent position based on the concrete Indian situation thus found that UCC was far-removed from reality. Rather than serving the political interests of those at the helms of power, the 21st Law Commission even suggested for a repeal of the colonial Sedition Law too. Of course, there is nothing unusual in this, since even Dr. Ambedkar who took a favourable approach towards UCC during the debates in the Constituent Assembly, was of the firm position that it should be optional rather than coercive. And that is why, UCC was mentioned in Part 4, Article 44 of the Constitution and incorporated as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy which is not enforceable or justiciable in a court of law.
On the other hand, Dr. Ambedkar, the architect of Indian Constitution, was very adamant in the case of Hindu Code Bill which aimed at emancipation of ‘Hindu women’ condemned to live in subhuman conditions as per the diktat of Manusmriti, which Ambedkar burned on December 25, 1927. Ambedkar initiated the Hindu Code Bill as part of his uncompromising fight against the inhuman caste system in Hinduism and for reforming the anti-women Hindu personal/family laws and customs since he considered Hinduism a “veritable chamber of horrors”, “a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity” and “incompatible with democracy”. However, both RSS and Hindu Mahasabha vehemently opposed the Hindu Code Bill drafted by Ambedkar. The RSS, which through the two Issues (November 30, 1949 and January 11, 1950) of Organiser, its mouthpiece, pleaded for adoption of Manusmriti as Indian Constitution, organised a public meeting on December 11, 1949 at the Ram Lila Grounds in Delhi against the Hindu Code Bill and called it “an atom bomb on Hindu Society”, and comparing it to the 1919 colonial Rowlatt Act, on December 12 burned the effigies of both Ambedkar and Nehru.
The Hindu Code Bill being perceived as an attack on the Brahmanical, patriarchal Hindu family system, the Sankaracharya of Dwaraka even issued an encyclical against it. Swami Karpatriji Maharaj directly accused Ambedkar and declared an “untouchable” had no business of meddling in matters normally the preserve of the Brahmins. He said that Hindus follow Shastras or Manava Dharma Shastras (which meant Manusmriti). And, even a section within the Congress including Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India was also vehemently opposed to the Hindu Code Bill drafted by Ambedkar. Finally, under pressure from within the Congress prompted Nehru to go for a compromise resulting in the adoption since 1952 onward of a series of Acts with diluted provisions, compelling Ambedkar to resign from the post of Law Minister on September 27,1951 in protest.
Today it is ironical and strange indeed that the RSS which in the 1950s vehemently resisted Ambedkar’s initiative to reform personal laws of Hindu religion which intended to impart justice to women in that community, and the Sangh Parivar forces that in violation of Supreme Court judgement created one of the biggest law and order problems in Kerala for preventing Hindu women from entering Sabarimala, are now using the Modi regime to liberate the Muslim women through UCC. In this context, while the Modi regime through UCC targets Muslims and thus uses it as a political tool in the maddening pace towards a theocratic Hindurashtra, it would be in order here to note Ambedkar’s comment on the “Hindu Raj” as the “greatest calamity” for India.
Now, let us come to the immediate context of the ongoing nation-wide debate on UCC. Though the 21st Law Commission’s tenure ended on August 31, 2018, the country had to wait for more than 4 years for the 22nd Law Commission to start its official functioning. Though Modi government announced the formation of the 22nd Law Commission in February 2020, the Commission was constituted and its work started only a few months before the formal ending of its 3-year duration, as the government was in search of suitable persons for constituting the Commission who would toe the Hindutva line, and thereby undo the recommendations taken by the previous Commission. As such, 22nd Law Commission was constituted with Riju Raj Awasthi as chairman immediately after latter’s retirement as chief justice of Karnataka, who was already known for his anti-Muslim positions through the hijab judgement and the like. For instance, one of the first moves by the 22nd Law Commission was a reversal of the 21st Law Commission’s position on the Sedition Act itself. It was in continuation of that the Commission issued a call on June 14 inviting suggestions from the wider public for preparing a Report on UCC. As per reports, the Commission has received around 80 lakh responses\suggestions within the 30 days stipulated by it.
Regarding the UCC, which the Modi regime is pushing forward, as of now, one thing is clear: that is, as already promised by Amit Shah, by excluding the tribals and Christians, it is envisaged as a unilateral, coercive superimposition on the Muslims. In the forthcoming Assembly and Lok Sabha elections, which will be like a launching pad for achieving the objective of a Hindurashtra as RSS is moving towards its centenary, the aim, as was self-evident in the case of CAA, is to use UCC as a fascist tool for accomplishing extreme, majoritarian, Hindutva polarisation isolating and targeting Muslims in consonance with Golwalkar’s definition of Muslims as enemy number one. It is one of the biggest tragic political ironies of our time that a regime bent on establishing a Hindurashtra, where the prime minister himself leads Hindu pujas and Vedic rituals in the inauguration of parliament building, and the saffron forces who were opposing tooth and nail any alteration in Hindu personal laws and customs by which women are condemned to subhuman conditions, are coming up for liberating Muslim women through UCC.
A regime that embraces Manuvadi Hindutva as its ideological basis and at the same time speaks about UCC itself is a paradox. As the experience of Europe reveals, rather than the superimposition of a common civil law from above, it was the Reformation, i.e., reform within the religion that initiated the process that brought changes in personal laws. It was the Reformation and Renaissance that paved the way towards separation of religion from state, thereby religion becoming a private affair that enabled growth of secularism. It was this long drawn-out process that enabled the secular state to formulate common civil laws for the citizens. There is no short-cut except such a democratisation process from below and from each religion, of course not a text-copy of what happened in the West, but according to the concrete conditions and diversities here, is the solution to the problem. What requires is the emergence of movements for changes in personal laws aimed at abolition of all patriarchal gender-discriminatory practices, initiated by democratic and progressive forces within each religion and community. Most urgent is concerted move towards the abolition of all gender-based (regarding women and all genders and sexuality) discrimination, exploitation, oppression and marginalisation and ensuring of equal rights in all fields such as property, wage, opportunities and above all in conjugal relations.
In this context, as the 21st Law Commission in its Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law (which the Modi government has dumped into cold storage) has suggested, the oppressed castes and the oppressed, especially women, of all religions have to rise up and come forward, joining with all progressive-democratic forces, for drastic changes in personal laws. While upholding this perspective, it is high time on the part of the anti-fascist forces and all concerned to resolutely resist and defeat the divisive and fascist designs behind the coercive super-imposition of UCC by the Modi regime.
