TeaMuslim Personal Law is an alternative to separate electorates. Therefore, the two-nation theory will remain alive and active until the Uniform Civil Code is brought in to bury it. No wonder the stalwarts of identity politics have been opposing it with extreme religious fanaticism. And their liberal gurus are putting forward a lot of constitutional arguments to create an illusion of secularism. But it is clear that his fancy theories about relativism, pluralism, multiculturalism and postmodernism are in the service of Islamic fundamentalism.
Homogeneity is anathema to identity, and national unity is the exact opposite of identity politics. It values diversity at the expense of unity, and ignores the common thread running across regional and cultural diversities. Instead, it highlights disparities between commoners, magnifies fault lines, and fuels divisive tendencies. The induced excessive emphasis on diversity has practically nullified our old nationalist dictum, unity in diversity.
Uniformity of justice or diversity of discrimination?
Since the opponents of the UCC profess the moral superiority of diversity, let it be made clear that the proposed code is about uniformity of justice and not about the rites and rituals of family gatherings. It is about a uniform law to recognize women as equal to men and to protect their rights in marriage, divorce and inheritance.
By diversity we mean diversity in rituals and customs, languages and literature, songs and dances, food and dress. Discrimination and injustice are not a part of diversity performance. Treating a Muslim woman differently from her sisters in other communities is discrimination, not diversity. It is the worst kind of religious discrimination if a Muslim girl can be married before attaining legal age; If his marriage was not registered; If she has to live with a polygamous man; If he can be granted ex-parte divorce; if he had no right to alimony; if he does not have the custody of his children; And, if her share in the property was only half that of the man. How would it feel if a Muslim man was denied the rights that Hindu men get? Wouldn’t this be gross injustice and unconscious religious discrimination? Then, on earth, in a secular republic whose constitution promises to ensure justice and equality to all its citizens, a Muslim woman not having the same rights as her Hindu sister does not count as religious discrimination?
Such a situation has remained for 73 years, it is strange. This has happened despite Article 44 of the Constitution directing the State to ensure a uniform civil code for all its citizens, and despite Article 13, which repeals all pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights. The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act 1937, with its inherent gender bias, is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Read also: Muslim personal law is an embarrassment. Adapt it to modern life-marriage, divorce, adoption
Legal pluralism or plural communalism?
No law can be beyond the jurisdiction of the Parliament, which not only has the power to amend or repeal the MPL, but also has a duty towards Muslim women to make them equal to men, and another duty towards the Muslim community It is to be removed and integrated better. line of separation. Those who demand reform and codification in MPL but are against UCC are hypocrites. They want to keep alive the ideological boundary of the partition.
They have accepted that MPL is not Sharia, and Sharia is not divine, but they are yet to get rid of the two-nation mentality. They talk of legal pluralism so that their identity politics can flourish. Legal pluralism was the norm in empires made up of diverse nationalities. India is a nation state, which aspires to make all people equal. In the multicultural model, foreign communities are said to remain separate from the mainstream. Multiculturalism is just a catchy name for the ghettoization of minorities. Instead of cultural amalgamation, it promotes plural mono-culturalism where different communities live together but remain unaware of each other like ships passing in the night.
If the advocates of legal pluralism are sincere, why don’t they demand Sharia law in criminal matters for Muslim convicts? Will they agree that an adulterous Muslim should be stoned to death?
fear of reform
The unconstitutional persistence of Muslim personal law, and the state’s reluctance to comply with the constitutional mandate for the UCC, is due primarily, rather than solely, to its Muslim opposition. Despite the fragility of partition and separatist politics, the two-nation ideology, aptly named identity politics, is still so strong that even the indomitable Ambedkar, while considering the viability of the UCC, had to say: “Any No government can use this power in such a way as to incite the Muslim community to revolt. I think it would be a mad government if it did.”
The opposition to the UCC is primarily ideological, viewing India as a federation of religions rather than a nation of citizens. Therefore, the state’s dealings with the citizens, especially those belonging to the minority community, should be only through its gatekeepers, traditional ulemas, pseudo-modern intellectuals and blatantly communal politicians. And, these are the people who have the audacity to legislate in the “internal affairs” of the community.
Read also: Now reform the Muslim Personal Law. It is communal, sectarian and anti-Islamic.
false plea of internal reform
Despite the passage of the Hindu Code Bill in the face of opposition – which Nehru regarded as his greatest achievement – the same was not done for Muslims – which Nehru regarded as his greatest disappointment. This was the inevitable consequence of giving space to Muslim communalists as a consolation for the loss of separate electorates. He was allowed to manage the “internal affairs” of the community in exchange for a vote bank for the ruling party.
Thus, on the false pretext of reforming from within, the reform of MPL was postponed forever. A community whose goal was revival rather than reform, and which saw adherence to Sharia as the formula for the restoration of Muslim rule, could not let go of this last vestige of religious law. No wonder that not a single proposal for reform has been put forth by the self-proclaimed custodians of Muslim Personal Law, AIMPLB or any other organization till date. Reform from within has been an excuse for not reforming. Both the Muslim communalists and their mentors, the Hindu liberals, have been involved in this conspiracy.
One may ask, if reform from within was such a good idea, why was it not considered suitable for the Hindu community, and why was the Hindu Code Bill forcefully passed by the Parliament? It is suspected that the post-independence government considered itself an “interior” of the Hindu community and treated Muslims as foreigners with whom it was best not to interfere. The Muslim leadership also offered nothing more than strategic and technical allegiance to the new state and despite abundant professions of loyalty, a sense of belonging remained missing. Deep down both sides knew the truth. It was a win-win situation where the Muslim leadership kept getting appeasement gifts in exchange for delivering vote banks.
At the heart of what Ambedkar complained about was “preventing the legislature” from interfering in the family affairs of Muslims, the MPL was divine and, as such, only the ulema had judicial competence in it; A non-Muslim legislature, as in India, had no right to legislate in this matter. That is why, ignoring the fact that most of the Muslim countries have reformed their family laws according to modern standards, AIMPLB is opposing the Indian Parliament’s right to reform the MPL or bring in the UCC.
mpl is not islamic
However, the fact remains that MPL is not the same as Sharia. Even if it was so, Sharia is not divine law. It is a concept rather than a code. Its dominant form is the jurisprudential system known as fiqh, the method of making decisions in a way that is consistent with the Qur’an and Sunnah. Islamic law is created by the faqih, the jurist, an individual. If one man can do it, so can another and so can a woman; Especially when family law is updated according to modern secular standards.
UCC will reform Muslims
The Indian state should fully embrace its Muslim citizens like any other people and should provide Muslim women with the same rights that are available to others. There is no better way than UCC to bring Muslims from the fringes of separatism to the mainstream of nationalism. UCC will not only reform the law, but also reform the Muslim community.
Ibn Khaldun Bharati is a student of Islam and looks at Islamic history from an Indian perspective. He tweets at @IbnKhaldunIndic. Thoughts are personal.
editor’s Note: We know the author very well and allow pseudonyms only when we do so.
(Edited by Prashant)