Talk:Uniform Civil Code

As long as the Uniform Civil Code is pursued only by the BJP and its associates (RSS and VHP), the minorities—Muslims and Christians alike—will see it as Hindu law being stuffed down their throat. Have a set of laws that not only shows little respect for Muslims and Christians, but seek laws that reflect Hindu society at its worst, creating a patriarchal, feudal, casteist, set-up. How can it ever be expected that religious heads will make liberal laws? Some years ago, a Shankaracharya even justified the caste system, and in the year 2002 when 2000 Buddhist were reconverted to Hinduism by RSS, they were declared as schedule cast. When people look at the Muslim personal law, they just see a few things. Polygamy, triple talaaq, and not giving maintenance to divorced women, but they don’t see that widows and divorcees don’t commit suicide among Muslims, that Muslims don’t kill their daughters, brides are not killed because of dowry, and they don’t kill their children because of poverty. Enlightened Muslims should come up and speak. They should move with the forces of progress and give up all provisions in the personal laws that are anti-modern and unjust. Uniform civil code can be implemented in India when all religions are considered otherwise it will be a Hindu law for Brahaman supremacy.

According to Hindutva the Constitution of India is not a uniform civil code ("Hindutva also advances a strong critique of secularism in India, which it dubs pseudo-secularism, because of different standards for Hindus, Muslims and Christians. The subject of a Uniform Civil Code, which would remove special religiously-based provisions for Muslims and Christians from the Indian Constitution, is one of the main political planks of Hindutva."), yet according to this article it "lays down the administration of a uniform civil code for its citizens as a Directive Principle." Anyone know whats what? Hyacinth 19:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "Directive Principles of State Policy" in the Indian Constitution is a set of goals (or ideals) that the framers added (and which were impractical at the time the constituion was created) and which the Government should try to achieve through legislation, social change etc. The constitution does not impose a time limit for achieving these objectives, however. In addition to Uniform Civil Code, I think it also contain "Universal Secondary Education". Not sure what else it has though. Shameer 23:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The entire article though very exhaustive and informative is a bit biased.

One important point this the article fails to mention( either deliberately or due to lack of knowledge) is that Hindus are also opposed to the UCC. This is because once the UCC comes into force the tax benifits accuring due to the HUF (Hindu Undived Family) in the Income Tax acts will become untennabe constitutionaly.

Another thing about the subsidies given to Muslims for Haj, there are some Hindu equivalents. For instance Hindu Pilgrims to Amarnath get subsidies amounting to Rs 5000.

POV Concerns and Tone

I have put in the POV and tone tags in response to a scan of the last paragraphs of this article which show a suspected religious and political bias which is against NPOV policy. Statements such as

"As long as the Uniform Civil Code is pursued only by the BJP and its associates (RSS and VHP), the minorities—Muslims and Christians alike—will see it as Hindu law being stuffed down their throat. "

are deceptive in that the speak for large demographics with subjective language. Furthermore, these statements do not have an encyclopediac tone.

The page was written by someone who unfortunatley reveals his pan-islamist bias. Its neutrality should be verified

---

Although it is an extensive and well-done article, there are problems in the tone in certain parts. I am not sure how many people have written this together, so I have referred to only one 'writer' [of the article]. These are the following paragraphs where the writer betrays an antagonism towards both the Congress, and the Muslims.

"The act applied to everyone in India except Muslims, Christians, Parsees, and Jews. Since Jews are a negligible minority and Parsees are as well, and since Christians were governed under an already modern or progressive law, Muslims remained the only community with a distinct religious law that had not been reformed to reflect modern concepts."

It is not true that Parsees and Jews are outside the scope of this article on the UCC, only that no real trouble has ever emerged around their personal laws. But to say that (a) they are 'negligible' is contentious, since Parsees are economically very powerful, and Jews have their own political clout; and (b) Muslims remained the 'only' community, etc., is to overstate things.

"The government of India, which was dominated by the Congress party until the 1990s, has pursued a policy of appeasement towards India's Muslims, hoping to co-opt them in political support. Since the Congress party is leftist and Muslims in India have identified Leftist parties with their best interests, there has been a symbiotic relationship between India's Muslims and what for the most part has been India's ruling elite."

The two main contentious words here: To say that it was merely 'appeasement' towards Muslims is a biased opinion as it can be (and has been) politically and ethically justified. Those justifying arguments have not been provided here. And the Congress is not leftist, it is centrist, and claims to have some socialist ideals, not revolutionary, or those of a completely leftist state. Proof is they liberalized the economy in the 1990s and removed many state regulations over the market.

"Always afraid of appearing too 'racist', the same publication concludes "Nor can their[Muslim women] status be ascribed to some essential Islamic feature." "

Not sure what is implied by 'racist' here; did the writer mean that Shaheeda was trying to balance the opinion towards Muslims, and that is an attempt to not be racist? A better word to use would be 'communalist' in this respect. And balancing the opinion, is not being 'afraid of appearing racist', or a kind of 'appeasement'. She may have meant many things by the statement quoted. (a) the status of women in the Indian subcontinent in general is bad, and it cannot be ascribed to their being Muslim alone. (b) considering the context of her study, perhaps she was also implying the class and caste discrimination that women have to particularly suffer, which again is not restricted to their being Muslim.
So, citing the line out of context to show that she too is biased in favour of the 'backward' Muslims, is problematic.

"Therefore, according to groups such as this, it is the BJP that is to blame for "its inherent link between politics and religion has threatened India's secular fabric." Furthermore, "Right wing ascendancy with its authoritarianism…and its views on women, bodes ill for all Indian women." The position of women's rights activists, especially those from The West is clear. The right wing parties, who campaign for equal rights, are unacceptable whereas the Congress party which has done little in 50 years of leadership to reform Muslim Law is called upon to "adhere to international human rights standards and its own constitutional provisions safeguarding the interests of women." "

The right wing's claim to fight for 'equal rights' of Muslim women is highly suspect, when their position on many things modern is clearly antagonistic. For example, regarding the celebration of Valentine's Day in India, women wearing 'western' clothing, and their general moral instructions to women and men, Hindus included. The question is correctly posed as to why the Hindu right wing is devoted to the cause of 'uplift' of Muslims, that too of women.
And, while it may be true that the Congress has shown little genuine interest in 'emancipating' the Muslim community, especially women, it has been generally more tolerant of non-violent 'western' influences in India, which the right wing vehemently opposes.
'The West' is not a single unified identity, and is divided viz. its positions on moral and ethical issues, esp those related to women. Take the abortion issue in the US which is not as much a problem in Europe.

"Rather than following the timid approach of Dr. Ambedkar, scarred as he was by the communal fighting in 1948 that left 500,000 Indians dead, it might be worthwhile to analyze the feelings of Nehru, another curmudgeon when it came to implementing article 44."

Both these strong adjectives again betray a bias in favour of immediate imposition of the UCC, notwithstanding the complicated issues of trust, communal harmony, and political mileage, that engulf it.

"Among all the problems of the vast diverse, overcrowded country lies the inherent problem any country deals with when it has a significant Muslim minority—the calls by that community for special rights. . . . Other minorities were brought into line along western standards of secular and equal rights. . . . The British had done the opposite. In implementing the Mohammedan law, the British were actually raising the standards of many of the customary laws of Indian Muslims."

The first line is clearly biased, in fact communal in tone. The Muslims are an 'inherent problem', especially as a minority, and clearly too demanding for the taste of the writer.
'Other minorities are brought in line' shows the authoritarian and judgmental tone.
The eulogy of what the British had done also shows a pandering to colonial sentiment and the imperialist project. The claim that the British law raised the standards of all customary Muslims laws is a sweeping statement. All the laws that they enacted will have to be enumerated and justified for that claim to be made.
Moreover, the British gave India some awful and by now antiquated Victorian laws—that they themselves have done away with—which the Indian state continues to uphold and endorse. For e.g., the anti-sodomy law. That is a western imposition as well, and not 'secular' or 'equal' in any way.

"In the end, the same people who should have been on the side of reform, namely the Western liberals, have turned on the idea of a Uniform Code because they fear that it is being peddled by the right wing. . . . The idea that the supposedly chauvinist Hindu Nationalists care about Muslim women is seen as "disingenuous or comical". The Congress party and its appeasement of the Muslim community is directly at fault for allowing the issue to be taken up by the right wing. Had Congress acted in the 1970s or as late as 1985 to reform Muslim Personal Law, which even Dr. Ambedkar conceded the government had the power to do, the issue would not have become an election winner for Vajpayee and the BJP.

The BJP is now a major force in many parts of India, particularly the 'Hindi Belt' that runs across North and central India. Islamic Law thrived in India for 850 years. The advent of a Hindu Majority professing secular values should have ensured that Islamic law would be relegated to the Mosque and the ceremony. . . . Today the Muslim community stubbornly rejects reform, and in essence its rejection may ensure that its privileged position is simply done away with."

The term 'western liberals' again is used too loosely; it is not clear who/which body or group is being referred to.
The Hindu Nationalists are chauvinist as can be exemplified by their various acts of vandalism and curbing of freedom of expression of women throughout history and even now in India. The latest being the attacks on Christians in Orissa, which is well-documented in the Indian press.
The idea that they care for Muslim women is not only disingenuous or comical, it in fact is something akin to black humour. Case in point, the well-documented and proven attempt at genocide of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 by the ruling Hindu BJP govt., and the horrific torture committed on Muslim women within the span of a week.

Again, the use of the word 'appeasement'; and the lack of enforcing the UCC by the Congress was not the only reason for the BJP coming to power later. This is too far-fetched an argument. The phrase 'advent of a Hindu Majority' comes after declaring that 'Islamic Law thrived in India for 850 years', thereby positing them vis-a-vis each other and then giving more credence to the former's claim of having 'secular values'. Islam at least has never professed to be secular in any sense of the word. But such a claim by the Hindu right wing cannot be taken seriously, when it is emerging as the majority of a religious community.
The 'Muslim community stubbornly rejects reform', somehow follows into 'its rejection may ensure that its privileged position is simply done away with': is this some kind of a prophecy by the writer? Can he/she apprehend that this will happen. And if there is such a chance, at least there should be a qualifier added after this that it may be perceived as an authoritarian ruling. Sanya Wiki (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

References

I truly wish that whoever added the extensive list of references had cited them in the text. Would it be appropriate, in light of them, to remove the original research tag? If not, perhaps someone could point out the parts that are original research and unverified claims. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a anti-hindu sentiment running through the article and it needs to be checked for its neutrality.Most of the references provided are from muslim speakers and personalities. there is no reference from a christian or a hindu or a buddhist. The talk page is testament this . There are no tax benefits for hindus seperate from muslims. Unfortunately civil laws regarding income tax are more or less the same. The only fair point toward a uniform civil code that was made was the subsidy of hajj while hindu pilgrimages are not given the same consideration. The article lacks encyclopedic tone and reads more like a tabloid. Please do the needful Drarvindr (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)drarvindr 21/10/08

Clarify meaning and article title

The first sentence in the History section contains this phrase. "... it inserted a colonial administration the seeds... "". Could original editors please clarify this as the meaning is unclear. On looking at the article for the first time, I think that the title should indicate that the Uniform Civil Law being described is that of India. Colinvlr (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Copy edits to history section

Made grammar and sentence structure edits. Will wait for feedback on these changes and proceed from there with further edits. Tried not to alter original meaning and I express no opinion on the veracity of the claims edited.