IN RESPONSE TO DEBAPRASAD BHATTACHARYA'S QUESTION IF IT IS PROPER TO HAVE SEPARATE CIVIL CODES FOR COMMUNITIES IN A SECULAR STATE
Perhaps, they are thus attending to cultural diversity. But, you are right, for there ought to be umpteen civil codes in the polity then to cater to umpteen diversities which would make our polity a civic circus with judges confounded by the jokers' performances and thereby coming to hilarious conclusions instead of ordered judgement.
Partition had taken place along a fractured communal line, based strictly on Islamic incompatibility of coexistence with Hindus in a Hindu majority state. That a huge section of the Muslims could not or did not part from their native homeland and preferred to stay on in India despite an Islamic republic having been made by Jinnah and company for them in the form of Pakistan, paved the way for the requirement on their part of their civil rights to be followed as per their particular scriptural injunction. That it was so accommodated in independent secular India and the Muslim Personal Law [Shariat] Application Act of 1937 was allowed to continue may be construed today as Nehru's appeasement policy of the Muslims fro security of the vote bank or may be interpreted as his liberal attitude towards such matters, especially in the aftermath of Partition when tensions were sought to be eased and the Indian polity preserved from further rupture. However, it would have a long-term effect, as Nehru may have conjectured even then but was either incapable or ill-disposed to preventing, and that is what we are witnessing today when such a Personal Law is keeping the Indian Muslim as an identity apart from the rest of the citizenry in India. Perhaps, Nehru had too many preoccupations at that time to be able to deal with this problem, given the fact that he was a trifle soft in handling grave matters and prone to indecision and inaction in many such matters. However, that the status quo was allowed to continue indefinitely calls for introspection as to the exact character of the polity despite its secular pretensions and needs fresher examination today as to the means and measures that ought to be adopted to render the Constitution truly secular, if even in the Indian sense, for pure secularism has never obtained in India, being antithetical to the very concept prevalent in this country in its name.
Secularism does not admit religious association in the state in any remote manner as well. It separates 'the Church from the State', so to say, and all citizens are treated alike irrespective of their religious affiliations which are deemed personal liberties having neither connection to nor bearing on the state's functioning. However, the queer form of secularism that is in vogue in India is in sharp contrast to this distinctive definition and is a curious antithesis of it which allows the state to foster all religions with equal patronage without privilege afforded to any. However, the Minority Rights Act of the Constitution, perhaps, comes in the way of repealing the Muslim Personal Law [Shariat] Act of 1937 and, thus, through diffidence or lack of daring to forge ahead and enforce the Uniform Civil Code, the Muslim Personal Law [Shariat] continues to this day. And surely this an anomaly for a secular state which India by law is. Should it be so? Certainly not.
Written by Sugata Bose
Perhaps, they are thus attending to cultural diversity. But, you are right, for there ought to be umpteen civil codes in the polity then to cater to umpteen diversities which would make our polity a civic circus with judges confounded by the jokers' performances and thereby coming to hilarious conclusions instead of ordered judgement.
Partition had taken place along a fractured communal line, based strictly on Islamic incompatibility of coexistence with Hindus in a Hindu majority state. That a huge section of the Muslims could not or did not part from their native homeland and preferred to stay on in India despite an Islamic republic having been made by Jinnah and company for them in the form of Pakistan, paved the way for the requirement on their part of their civil rights to be followed as per their particular scriptural injunction. That it was so accommodated in independent secular India and the Muslim Personal Law [Shariat] Application Act of 1937 was allowed to continue may be construed today as Nehru's appeasement policy of the Muslims fro security of the vote bank or may be interpreted as his liberal attitude towards such matters, especially in the aftermath of Partition when tensions were sought to be eased and the Indian polity preserved from further rupture. However, it would have a long-term effect, as Nehru may have conjectured even then but was either incapable or ill-disposed to preventing, and that is what we are witnessing today when such a Personal Law is keeping the Indian Muslim as an identity apart from the rest of the citizenry in India. Perhaps, Nehru had too many preoccupations at that time to be able to deal with this problem, given the fact that he was a trifle soft in handling grave matters and prone to indecision and inaction in many such matters. However, that the status quo was allowed to continue indefinitely calls for introspection as to the exact character of the polity despite its secular pretensions and needs fresher examination today as to the means and measures that ought to be adopted to render the Constitution truly secular, if even in the Indian sense, for pure secularism has never obtained in India, being antithetical to the very concept prevalent in this country in its name.
Secularism does not admit religious association in the state in any remote manner as well. It separates 'the Church from the State', so to say, and all citizens are treated alike irrespective of their religious affiliations which are deemed personal liberties having neither connection to nor bearing on the state's functioning. However, the queer form of secularism that is in vogue in India is in sharp contrast to this distinctive definition and is a curious antithesis of it which allows the state to foster all religions with equal patronage without privilege afforded to any. However, the Minority Rights Act of the Constitution, perhaps, comes in the way of repealing the Muslim Personal Law [Shariat] Act of 1937 and, thus, through diffidence or lack of daring to forge ahead and enforce the Uniform Civil Code, the Muslim Personal Law [Shariat] continues to this day. And surely this an anomaly for a secular state which India by law is. Should it be so? Certainly not.
Written by Sugata Bose
No comments:
Post a Comment