Well, as expected All India Muslim Personal Law Board and its affiliates have opposed the questionnaire on ‘Uniform Civil Code’ by Law Commission. They termed the move by the Government as a ‘war’ against the community. Those few speakers opposing the move termed that all Muslim sects and its women are “one” on these issues.
Well, their rant could be read anywhere. Let us see what this questionnaire consists of.
Q1: Whether ‘Uniform Civil Code’ mentioned under article 44 is known to us.
Well, I don’t know about this article 44, though I am aware that there are many personal laws prevailing in the country. I expect only those who studied Law in colleges knew that this article existed. Normal citizen doesn’t even know full RTO rule book that was thrown at our faces by the traffic constable. Expecting us to know of one article is too much. Too typical of bureaucracy.
Q2: A list of various religious denominations that are governed by personal laws and customary practices on matters of family law. The question is should any or all of these be included in Uniform Civil Code?
List: Marriage, Divorce, Adoption, Guardianship and Child custody, Maintenance, Successions and Inheritance.
First I feel denomination is a strange law term to note the ‘items in the list’; I only knew denomination used in currency.
Well, frankly why the government that is supposed to be secular tries to bring ‘religion’ into these family affairs. Religion is the relationship one person has with God. Yes? So, these denominations that don’t involve God have nothing to do with religion. Only case where God is referred is during ‘Marriage’ when people may promise to live with one another – in the name of God. I don’t think God would like to get involved in Divorce and Maintenance type issues. Adoption, Guardianship are purely emotional aspects while Maintenance, Succession and Inheritance are simply financial aspects.
Then, how one can argue that having a common code violates these aspects violate his or her religion. At the best, they can ask marriages may be governed by the customs or practices – rather than bringing religion into it.
Q3: A question about whether codification of existing personal laws and customary practices would benefit people.
I never knew that ‘Law’ was about ‘customary practices’ that vary for every hundred miles in a country like India. Really the questionnaire is a must read for self-enlightenment.
Strangely, choice of answers include whether all these personal laws be replaced by Uniform Civil Code. Answering this question is like ordering a “mild black coffee with cream and brown sugar, shaken and not stirred”.
Q4: To appease to feminists the question enquires the respondent whether Uniform Civil Code or ‘codification of personal laws’ ensures “gender equality”.
It is high time for the government to consider rights of males when they enforce this Uniform Civil Code.
Q5: Should the Uniform Civil Code be optional?
Now, I started liking Nitish Kumar for not asking drunkards of his state before enforcing the draconian ban on alcohol in Bihar. And here the law commission wants to know whether Uniform Civil Code be optional or not. Why don’t they make entire constitution optional, for that matter? Every person can declare his home a sovereign country. Then, to avoid such things only constitution was mandatory. Isn’t it? Phew…
Q6: The commission wants to know whether Polygamy, Polyandry, Maitri-Karari (friendship-deed) be banned or regulated.
I am aghast. Too much of democracy. Which male wants to ban Polygamy? They liked it so much they often convert to get more wives. After all, everyone is not Karunandhi to openly defy the law. Polyandry cases are not known, at least publicly.
Live-in Relationships are on the rise and already courts are working overtime, to decide whether the consensual physical relationships that gave birth to more humans can be called marriages or not. Courts are also equally confused as much as the estranged partner when the other partner calls it quits and goes to court and file a cheating case. Rather, the Law Commission should seek opinion on the validity of cases arising out of these type of Live-in Relationships, that were called in old days more clearly – Illicit Relationships. [The point is if one intends to sue the partner, better get registered in the legal binding called marriage].
Q7: This is the question to which AIMPLB objects to. Whether Triple Talaq be ‘Abolished’ or ‘Retained’ or ‘Retained with suitable amendments’.
Well, I wonder what the suitable amendments are. Anyway, when Talaq has nothing to do with the God, why to bind it under religious doctrine. It should be covered in the Law that governs citizens of any nation based on prevailing social practices.
Q8: This question is about steps needed to ensure Hindu Women can exercise their right to property in a better way, especially as people tend to bequeath the property to sons.
I think, the law is clear in this case. Ancestral property is divided amongst grandsons and the father/mother act only as passing on authorities, unless they spend the property and consume it totally. Passing on the self-made fortune was the prerogative of the creator of the wealth.
Needed from the Government is to ensure the inheritance equally distributed amongst sons and daughters, in case there was no written will by the parent.
Q9: Is about Christian women’s right to equality and questions the need for two year period of wait to finalise divorce.
And the answers include whether this be made applicable to other religions also. The commission may decide to have a cooling-off period or not. But, if there would be a wait period it shall be for all those men and women of all religions.
Q10: Whether there should be a uniform age of consent for marriages across all personal laws and customs or not.
This question is a bouncer to all biologists. Marriage being an instrument to have legally establish a family, the minimum age (may be even the maximum age also) should be decided by scientific criteria rather than some prevailing practice, at least to prevent child marriages.
Q11: Should there be (or not) common grounds for divorce across religions.
Is it necessary to comment on this question in particular? It should be common.
Q12: Would Uniform Civil Code aid in addressing the problem of denying maintenance or insufficient maintenance?
It depends on how the law is drafted. Again Babus would twist and turn the phraseology in loops so Advocates can sustain their living by arguing forever on a case till one of the clients dies. But, if they could draft the law clearly, it certainly helps. Isn’t it?
Q13: The commission wants to know ‘Can compulsory registration of marriages be implemented better’.
I consider they were talking about only registration process – for documentation. That is for the government to decide. Legal document only enables for getting Aadhar card, Ration card and so many cards that started guiding our lives in the last two decades.
Q14: What steps should be taken to protect couples enter into inter-religion or inter-caste marriages?
Well, the simple thing the government could do is to put them in jail so that they are safe from the vicious society surrounding them. But, then it is a cost on ex-chequer. Since independence, our governments failed to protect citizens continuously from hunger, road accidents, robbery, dacoits, Bandhs, rapists and scams as well.
Unless the society transforms into a better one, none of these evils would vanish. And transforming the society unfortunately is not the job of the government. Whenever any individual talks about these, they were shouted down citing individual rights. Well, it would call for a full article to answer this question.
Q15: Would Uniform Civil Code infringe an individual’s right to freedom of religion?
If religion is between a person and God, how the hell any law can infringe on religious freedom? If Uniform Civil Code is not implemented some psycho may start a religion where consuming narcotics is a mandatory practice. Will the government oblige?
Well, that’s all folks. I mean on the questionnaire.
Coming to the comments, one member of AIMPLB says Uniform Civil Code is not good for the nation. Well, in a democracy, it is a strong statement coming from minority against the elected government. He questions why India doesn’t follow America where everyone follows their own religion. First, India is not Pakistan to ape it from someone blindly. Adopting good practices is one thing and blind following is another. And, I don’t think Obama can marry another three women, claiming he is a Muslim.
Best of them all, Owaisi considered to reply to the questionnaire, but he too feels Uniform Civil Code will kill the diversity in India. Well, he has a point. I mean it is a fact that culture, practices, language’s slang changes at shorter distances. And it should not be disturbed, but valued. I too agree with that. However, it doesn’t mean in the name of religious practices, there shall not be discrimination against anyone. Owaisi might be forgetting there is a larger Hindu population that is discriminated against. UCC would be equally applicable to all Indians irrespective of their religion and caste and language.
As such, even Hindus themselves are far more diversified into various castes, like Muslims into many sects. Uniform Civil Code would be equally applicable to Hindu Brahmin, Dalit and Buddhist Dalit. It would be equal to Sunni and Shia Muslims. It would be equal to Catholics and Protestants of Christian faith. It would be equal for Sikhs and Jains.
It may be noted when Jawaharlal Nehru changed Hindu Personal Law to ban polygamy that was till that time legal, no one opposed to the change. If someone is opposing any change in their personal law only to have more wives or exploitation of women, perhaps the inherent insecurities may be blamed. However, one observation of Owaisi that the questionnaire is heavily loaded towards Uniform Civil Code is correct. Having said that I question even having a questionnaire itself. Uniform Civil Code (and Criminal Code also) should be something that should be applicable to the entire nation. Respect each and every religion. Kick out bad practices in all religions.
And as being questioned by other religions about the tax benefits Hindus are enjoying by exercising the right to have a Hindu Undivided Family, the government should note that this too shall be abolished in one go, as financial benefits also are out of the realm of God. It shall be same law for one and all.
As people tend to violate law doesn’t mean laws should not be made or enforced. At the same time, the dismal record of law adherence in India is alarming. India falls under the category of nations where laws were strict but enforcement is lax. Most of developed nations have laws not so firm, but enforcement is strict, to encourage adherence to the law. Though it is the prerogative of the parliament to enact laws, it is time they show same vigour in enforcing laws that were enacted.
May be this is a small and first, but correct step in the right direction in rebuilding the nation.
Link to Questionnaire – http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/quetionnaire.pdf