India has a long history of personal law. Before 1935, Muslims in India followed different rules according to customs. Examples are the Muslim Khoja and Kutchi Memon. Kutchi Memona worships the Hindu gods, and Ali is her tenth incarnation, not Kalki. They have inheritance laws for Hindus and marriage laws for Hindus. When general Muslim personal laws were enacted, many Muslim minorities had to pass these laws, although these laws were different from their practices. They are also different in different parts of the country. However, they have seen rapid changes, politeness, and a geographically unified India; child marriage is prohibited, sati is prohibited, widows are encouraged to remarry, divorce is introduced, and inheritance laws are passed. “Narabali” or human sacrifice, regarded by Hindus as a religious practice, is also forbidden.
When the issue of India’s independence and the Unified Civil Code (UCC) came up, the Indian Parliament had a lot of discussions in 1948, and Dr. Ambedkar, the father of our Constitution and Chairman of the Constitution Committee, was a celebrity. Supporting nationalists, such as Gopal, Swami Iyenger, Anantasayam Iyengar, K.M. Munshiji, Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer, etc. advocate the introduction of a unified civil code; Muslim fundamentalists such as Poker Saheb and representatives of other faiths strongly oppose him. On November 23, 1948, a Muslim lawmaker publicly declared that if India tried to establish and interfere with a single civil code, India would never be the same. The Congress had previously promised that it would allow Muslims to exercise individual Islamic rights, so the drafters of the Constitution compromised by incorporating the adoption of the Uniform Civil Code into national guidelines. Politics in the article-44 Dear members such as Shri Minu Masani, Prelate Hansa Mehta, and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur disagree, pointing out that one of the factors preventing India from obtaining citizenship is the existence of personal laws based on religion, which divide the country into Many aspects of water life. Provide a five to ten year guarantee for the Indian people. But even after 61 years, due to abnormal secularism and abnormal communism, the “United Civil Code” has never been formed.
In our country, no one, whether it is our political leaders or individuals, has not concentrated on enacting a unified civil code. We only know that some general laws that regulate marriage, inheritance, and property-related matters are called civil codes. But what these laws are can only be guessed. So, what does our constitution say about the “Single Civil Code”? Article 44 of our constitution clearly stipulates UCC: “The country should strive to ensure that all citizens of India have a unified civil code.” The constitution clearly stipulates that if the unified civil code is not observed, integration cannot begin, but the fact is that this is only a document. The “Guiding Principles” included in the Constitution, and as clearly stipulated in Article 37 of the Constitution itself, the “Guiding Principles” are not bound. Enforced by the court. “However, they are “the foundation of the national government.” This shows that our own constitution believes that the unified U-Civil Code should be implemented in some way, but it is not enforced. Therefore, the controversy over the unified civil code of India continues. The requirement of a unified civil code essentially means that there are many applicable laws. For all Indian citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs.Although the exact structure of such a single code has not yet been elaborated, it aims to cover the most modern and progressive aspects of all existing personal laws, and to abandon the declining aspects.
For more than a century, people have always needed a unified civil code. The country has been hit hard by the lack of a single code that applies to everyone. Unfortunately, this is the longest and most detailed constitution in human history. The Indian Constitution is responsible for the erosion of society. Society is fragmented by religion, sect and gender. Even today, India still has various laws and regulations related to personal or private affairs. Laws on marriage, divorce, alimony, adoption and inheritance in different communities. Therefore, the law governing the inheritance or divorce of Hindus is very different from the law governing Muslims, Christians, etc. In India, most family laws are determined by the religious beliefs of the parties. Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists obey Hindu laws, while Muslims and Christians have their own laws. Muslim law is based on Sharia law; in all other communities, the law is codified by the laws of the Indian Parliament. There are other laws dealing with criminal and civil matters, such as the Criminal Procedure Law (CPC) and Indian Criminal Law. Their beliefs or practices are confusing, and in India, conflicts of different personal laws are not allowed anywhere.
Does India need a unified civil code? Yes of course. This is even true in Italy and other developed countries. It is time for India to enact uniform laws on marriage, divorce, inheritance, inheritance and alimony. However, remember that the situation in India is extremely complicated. India has a long history of personal laws, and it is not easy to abandon them. Unless a broad consensus is reached among different communities, a single civil law cannot do anything. Good for the country. The reality of India is much more complicated than that of a completely secularized Western society. It is important to edit existing laws in a way that does not conflict with any particular belief or religion.
A single civil code stipulates the same secular civil law for different people belonging to different religions and regions, and replaces the right of citizens to be governed by different personal laws because of their religion or ethnicity. The code includes: • citizenship • rights related to the acquisition and management of property • marriage, divorce and adoption.
Uniform civil law guarantees long-term equality. While reforming other personal laws, Muslim laws remain unchanged. For example, it may not make sense to marry a Muslim many times, but persecute Hindus or Christians for doing so. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate a unified civil code for all religions. In addition, UCC will help promote gender equality. Various liberals and women’s groups argue that a single civil law gives women more rights.
However, opponents of UCC believe that the law violates their religious customs. They believe that the code will affect the religious freedom of ethnic minorities. It is not clear how compliance with national laws runs counter to religious principles! The emotions of a few people are not taken into consideration, and the application of common law is incomprehensible. UCC does not insist that people of one religion begin to practice the rituals of other religions. He just said that considering the changes in lifestyles over time, there should be a unified civil code when it comes to social morality, regardless of all religions.
The campaign for the implementation of the Joint Civil Code and the unification of personal laws is justified and should be supported by all indigenous peoples with progressive ideas, not because of any prejudice, but because it is currently necessary. By bringing all communities together on a common platform currently governed by a personal law that is not of any religious nature, a unified civil law is rightly regarded as a necessary condition for Indian integration. Unless unity is established in the form of codified non-religious rational laws, India as a country will not be truly secularized.
One reason for discouraging customary laws based on religion is that religious laws are often very gender specific. Over time, most major religions have developed prejudices against women and regard them as inferior. In Christianity, Eve is destined to be a woman. In Hinduism, sati was practiced in some communities for centuries, until Britain officially stopped it. In many areas, the practice of giving dowries and torturing widows continues to this day. Do not let women travel alone, wear revealing clothes, or go to work. These are just a few examples of the profound prejudices that form the basis of religion. These customs are evidenced by religious texts or simply “must not violate” customs. Changing these religions requires generations of rebellion. In addition, religious laws cannot be viewed objectively.They stem from the feeling that God’s way of thinking is correct. Therefore, to change such laws, it is also necessary to change the concept of fundamental religious foundation. Therefore, real progress in equality may be difficult for many years to come.
The freedom to believe in any religion is enshrined in the constitution. This seems to be a fairly innocent and logical right, but it is a natural result of the promotion and dissemination of religion. An uneducated society can have very serious consequences, especially when the entire game is politicized. The result of politicization is the reassurance of a few people, who ultimately give them certain rights to win votes or to win sympathy. In the absence of a uniform code for all religious groups, the interpretation of the law would prevent other religious groups from participating in legal proceedings calling for the prevention of religious leaders from persecuting members of the group. Friends, organizations, and even brothers do not consider that if she does not belong to this belief, she will become an unjust party. Therefore, the existence of the common code deprived people of the ability to pursue common causes and had the responsibility to conquer reformers in the name of religion in the larger so-called secular state.
In addition, the view that a single civil law will only change Muslim private law is wrong. This may stem from the fact that Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) is the only political party that actively supports it. He will also have to undergo change. For example, the inheritance laws between Hindus are not the same in the treatment of men and women. The concept of “undivided Hindu family” related to inheritance was changed to reflect the civil form. Christian personal laws do not allow the transfer of assets to charitable organizations. According to the Uniform Civil Code, this law can be changed. This also explains why historically not only a community resisted changes in personal laws, but also resisted the prevailing orthodoxy.
In addition, many Islamic countries have codified and reformed Muslim personality rights in order to control its abuse; Muslim countries such as Egypt, Turkey and even Pakistan have reformed their laws. Terence Farias stated in his chapter on the development of Islamic law that the Pakistan Muslim Family Act of 1961 “required that men wishing to marry a second wife must obtain a written statement from the government-appointed arbitration committee. Approve”. An interesting point about Pakistan is that both India and Pakistan ruled Muslims under the Sharia law of 1937 until 1947, but in 1961, the Muslim country Pakistan reformed its Muslim laws more deeply than India, and it does today. in this way. India has no reason to continue to enforce highly discriminatory personal laws. In fact, the reforms in Tunisia and Turkey helped to abolish polygamy. In Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, Iran and even Pakistan, polygamy is prohibited or strictly restricted.And the rest of Europe voluntarily passed a civil law uniformly applicable to all citizens of the country concerned, but they did not feel insecure. So why does India have this feeling? Iran, South Yemen, and Singapore reformed their Muslim laws in the 1970s, although Iran seems to have stepped up and down in this matter. Finally, the reasoning is clear.
If Muslim countries can reform Muslim private laws and Western democracies have completely secular systems, then why should Indian Muslims obey the laws passed in the 1930s?
The real public opposition always comes from the Muslim community, who believe that any attempt to establish UCC is an attack on their religious rights. The Indian debate seems to be following a secularist path in this regard, and the recent Supreme Court’s ruling for the Uniform Code has not witnessed the protests and concerns since the Shaabano case in 1985. Nearly 60 years after India’s independence, the Muslim community may think that the Uniform Code is a fait accompli. This issue is more political than the law. Every time this topic is mentioned, both sides of the discussion will utter angry words.
Religious fundamentalism must disappear, Muslim women and other women must receive social and economic justice, their dignity and quality must be guaranteed, basic human rights must be guaranteed, and the exploitation of Muslim women must end.