RIGHTS-INDIA: Religious Leaders Wary of Unified Personal Law

By Ranjit Devraj Reprint | | Print |

Ranjit Devraj

NEW DELHI, Aug 4 2003 (IPS) - India’s pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has the pious intention of introducing uniform marriage, divorce and succession laws for this country of one billion people with different religions, but has done little to win the confidence of minority Muslims and Christians or even large sections of the majority Hindus.

So when the country’s apex Supreme Court suggested on Jul. 24 that Parliament legislate to meet the constitutional goal of a uniform civil code (UCC) and thereby remove ‘’ contradictions based on (religious) ideology’’, it put the ruling BJP in a deep quandary.

‘’We would like to first build a national consensus on the issue before attempting legislation,’’ BJP spokesman Vijay Kumar Malhotra told IPS, indicating reluctance to move on an issue which has figured perennially in his party’s election manifestos.

The court was acting on a petition by Christian priest John Vallamattom, who was pleading for the quashing of clauses in succession laws dating back to 1865 that prevent Christians – and no other religious denomination – from bequeathing property to charities or religious institutions while on the death bed.

The court saw no justification in continuing with provisions in the colonial Indian Succession Act, which was meant to prevent Christians – Indian or British – from falling prey to what it considered priestly influences to which they became particularly vulnerable when death was at hand.

Similar invidious differentiation based on religion abounds 55 years after the departure of the British. This is because popularly elected governments have shied away from interfering in personal law, except when criminal or commercial issues are clearly involved or where the concerned communities have themselves demanded change.

On their side, wary of changes wrought by government, especially one led by the professedly pro-Hindu BJP, leaders of minority groups have preferred to approach the courts to do away with antiquated personal laws that afflict their respective flocks, as Father Vallamattom has just done.

For far too long, BJP politicians have baited the Muslim community over the fact that Islamic ‘shariah’ laws allow the faithful to take four wives and thereby potentially have more children than Hindu men who could end up in jail for bigamy.

There is no evidence to show that Muslims are multiplying faster than Hindus, but raising the bogey of being swamped by adherents of Islam is handy for BJP politicians during election rallies.

During state assembly elections in western Gujarat, last year, Chief Minister Narendra Modi regaled crowds by saying that while he stood for the two-child norm encapsulated in the official slogan aimed at married couples which says ‘We are two and we will have two,’ some people believed in ‘We are five (a man and four wives) and we will have 25.’

Modi, one of the staunchest of BJP politicians, went on to sweep the Gujarat polls, defying near-universal condemnation for his thinly-disguised role in a pogrom against Muslims in the state prior to the elections that left more than 2,000 dead and 100,000 others displaced.

Small wonder then that people known for their progressive views – and have advocated a secular, common law that would equally govern marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption – are wary of legislation under a BJP government and even of Supreme Court suggestions for a uniform civil code.

‘’The Supreme Court may have overstepped its bounds,’’ well-known political scientist Zoya Hassan said in an interview to IPS. ‘’There is a much bigger debate involved than making minor changes here or there,’’ she said referring to the rulings on bequests to charity by Christians.

Hassan, who teaches at the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University, said that BJP politicians, keen on pushing a ‘Hindutva’ (pro-Hindu) agenda on the country, were reading too much out of a general observation made by the Supreme Court.

‘’No harm in debate and discussion but nothing is going to happen just now because the political situation is not conducive – those advocating a uniform code are not serious about incorporating the Muslims into the national mainstream,’’ Hassan said.

‘’A conducive atmosphere which gives the minorities a strong feeling of security should be created before the government embarks on any move towards a uniform civil code especially in the light of experiences of the minorities during the last few years,’’ said Bishop P Fernandez, secretary general of the Catholic Bishops Conference here.

Before the anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat, the church and its institutions as well as evangelists in remote areas came under a spate of murderous attacks and arson by supporters of the BJP on the grounds that missionaries were effecting large-scale conversions from lower-caste Hindus and tribals.

Said BJP’s Malhotra: ‘’We want a code that would include the best of all religions whether Islam or Christianity… most non-Muslim countries already have a common code and Muslims living there have accepted it.’’

But minority leaders need more convincing. In fact, even close allies of BJP in the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) doubt the BJP’s sincerity on matters that touch upon religion. They have expressed concern at the handling of the Gujarat pogrom and at the BJP’s plans to build a temple at a site in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh where its supporters demolished 10 years ago the 16th century Babri Masjid mosque.

‘’We will oppose any move to build a temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya or bring in legislation for a uniform civil code – what the country needs is unity and not uniformity,’’ said M. Karunanidhi, who has served several terms as chief minister of southern Tamil Nadu state and whose party is a major constituent of the NDA.

Another important constituent, the National Conference in Muslim-majority, northern Kashmir state has already quit the NDA, saying its image has been hurt by its association with the BJP.

The situation has left the matter of changing archaic personal laws to the overburdened courts and in an excruciatingly slow piecemeal fashion.

In May last year, the Bombay High Court restricted the ‘triple talaq’ under which a Muslim male could divorce his wife by simply pronouncing the word ‘talaq’ ( ‘I divorce thee’ in Arabic) thrice. This was long after Islamic countries like Turkey, Algeria, Iraq, Iran and Indonesia slapped restrictions on the unilateral ‘talaq’ which has rendered many a Muslim woman destitute.

Likewise in 1986, the Supreme Court in 1986 allowed Christian women in southern Kerala state to have an equal share of their fathers’ properties as would sons.

Compared to what the courts have done, government or parliamentary legislation has been retrograde. In 1950, the government ordered that Dalits (low-caste Hindus) who convert to Christianity would lose the right to reservations and privileges accorded to them under the constitution meant for their social upliftment.

In 1986, when the Supreme Court upheld the right of divorced Muslim women to receive alimony, religious leaders called it an interference in their tenets and prevailed on a professedly secular Congress party government to turn down the ruling through parliamentary legislation.

‘’At least half of Muslims are badly served by (existing) Muslims Personal Law,’’ writes Tariq Anwar, editor of the ‘Mid-Day’ media group and a vocal supporter of a uniform civil code. ‘’Triple talaq, no rights to maintenance and subordinate rights of inheritance are all examples of how Muslim sisters labour under an unfair and, dare I say it, un-Islamic set of regulations.’’

Gurdip Singh, well-known economic journalist, said most Hindus have been led to believe that Muslims benefit enormously from Muslim Personal Law. But the fact is, he said, that one of the biggest tax dodges is exemptions enjoyed by people getting themselves assessed as members of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).