Prime Minister Narendra Modi reiterated his call for a nationwide Uniform Civil Code (UCC) on Saturday (December 14) citing the perspectives of veteran leaders Dr BR Ambedkar and KM Munshi on the matter.
Modi said that the Constituent Assembly had a lengthy and comprehensive discussion on the UCC during a Lok Sabha debate on the “Glorious Journey of 75 Years of the Constitution of India.”
“They came to the conclusion that the UCC should be implemented nationwide by the next elected government. That’s what they wanted. Babasaheb Ambedkar was a strong supporter of abolishing personal laws based on religion,” PM Modi said.
“(Congress leader) KM Munshi talked about the UCC as being essential for national unity and modernisation,” he continued.
He claimed that the administration was making every effort to establish a “secular civil code” while taking into account the opinions of those who wrote the Constitution.
In contrast to the existing system, which places many religious sects in India under several sets of personal laws, UCC advocates for a single set of laws covering personal concerns (marriage, succession, etc.). Since the Indian Constitution’s establishment, there has been discussion over it.
KM Munshi’s View on UCC
A draft article on the UCC that would be included in the “Directive Principles of State Policy” was the main topic of discussion at the Constituent Assembly on November 23, 1948. Although the state would not be required by law to follow them, this section contained the general principles that it should consider when formulating policies.
Draft Article 35 was put to a vote and stated, “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”
Several members of the Constituent Assembly proposed amendments, expressing concerns about how it would be received by religious communities.
Mohamad Ismail Sahib of the Indian Union Muslim League remarked, “Why do people now want a uniform civil code, as outlined in Article 35? Their intention, it seems, is to achieve harmony through uniformity. However, I argue that this is not necessary to regulate the civil law of the people, including personal law. Such regulation would lead to discontent and disrupt harmony.”
Another member, Naziruddin Ahmad, stated, “In fact, every community, each religious community, has certain religious laws and civil laws that are closely linked to religious beliefs and practices. I believe that when drafting a uniform code, these religious or semi-religious laws should be excluded.”
Likely anticipating such opposition, the article was only proposed to be included in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs).
In response to the charge that the UCC was “tyrannical” to minorities, Munshi defended its existence throughout the discussion. “Is it tyrannical? Nowhere in advanced Muslim countries the personal law of each minority has been recognised as so sacrosanct as to prevent the enactment of a Civil Code.”
Addressing Hindus, he said, “I understand that many among the Hindu community oppose a Uniform Civil Code, as they share the same perspective as the honourable Muslim Members who spoke previously. They believe that personal laws regarding inheritance, succession and so on, are an integral part of their religion. However, if that were the case, it would be impossible to grant, for example, equality to women. Yet, you have already enacted Fundamental Rights that address this and there is an article that prohibits discrimination based on sex. Consider Hindu Law; it imposes significant discrimination against women, and if that is deemed a part of Hindu religion or religious practice, no law could be passed that would elevate the status of Hindu women to that of men. Therefore, there is no reason why a civil code should not be implemented across the entire territory of India.”
Munshi also associated national unity with UCC. “There is one crucial thing we must keep in mind and I want my Muslim friends to understand this: the sooner we get over this isolationist way of thinking, the better off the nation will be. Religion must be limited to areas that are rightfully related to religion and the rest of life must be regulated, unified and altered so that we can develop into a powerful and consolidated country as soon as possible. It is far more tyrannical to the majority than it is to the minority, so I hope our allies will not believe this is an attempt to impose tyranny on them,” he said.
Ambedkar’s Outlook
During this discussion, Ambedkar said that he would support Article 35 but would not address the advantages or disadvantages of India having a UCC.
“My friend, Mr Hussain Imam, in rising to support the amendments, asked whether it was possible and desirable to have a uniform Code of laws for a country so vast as this is. Now I must confess that I was very much surprised at that statement, for the simple reason that we have in this country a uniform code of laws covering almost every aspect of human relationship. We have a uniform and complete criminal Code operating throughout the country, which is contained in the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code,” he explained.
He added, “…Members.. say that the Muslim personal law, so far as this country was concerned, was immutable and uniform through the whole of India. Now I wish to challenge that statement… up to 1935 the North-West Frontier Province was not subject to the Shariat Law. It followed the Hindu Law in the matter of succession and in other matters.”
He also provided instances of other areas that have occasionally been subject to Hindu law, including Bombay, the Central Provinces and the United Provinces.
He brought up the subject once more on December 2 when the state’s authority to enact laws pertaining to religion was being discussed.
“I personally do not understand why religion should be given this vast, expansive jurisdiction so as to cover the whole of life and to prevent the legislature from encroaching upon that field. After all, what are we having this liberty for? We are having this liberty in order to reform our social system, which is so full of inequities, so full of inequalities, discriminations and other things… It is, therefore, quite impossible for anybody to conceive that the personal law shall be excluded from the jurisdiction of the State,” he said.
He explained that “having said that, I should also like to point out that all that the State is claiming in this matter is a power to legislate… Therefore, no one need be apprehensive of the fact that if the State has the power, the State will immediately proceed to execute or enforce that power in a manner that may be found to be objectionable by the Muslims or by the Christians or by any other community in India.”
He addressed this by saying that the government’s use of its authority “must reconcile to the sentiments of different communities.”
The Conclusion?
After a vote, Article 35 was approved. It was then renumbered as Article 44 of the Constitution of India.
Constitutional law expert Faizan Mustafa told a section of the media that although Article 44 states that the state shall endeavour, other articles in the “Directive Principles” chapter use words like “in particular strive,” “shall in particular direct its policy,” “shall be the obligation of the state,” etc.
“All of this suggests that the state’s obligation is higher under other guiding principles than under Article 44,” he remarked.
Also Read: Lehigh University Reviews International Applications After Indian Student Forges Docs
