Dr Manoj Kumar Sinha
BJP has been persistently demanding common civil code since jan sangh times. The promise of implementing a Uniform Civil Code is one of the core issues of BJP and finds mention in its manifesto. Due to lack of BJP’s own majority in  parliament, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government was not able to introduce uniform civil code due to strong pressure from NDA allies. General election (2014) gives majority to BJP.  NDA allies are also not strong enough to oppose uniform civil code. In fact, most NDA allies like Shiv Sena, Akalis, are also supporting common civil Code. Under this situation, Narendra Modi Government can bring common civil code which will applicable to all citizens of India irrespective of their religions. So, the media feel that uniform civil code now is not a distant matter for India. The questions like, what is uniform civil code and how it is important for India, comes into my mind.
There are five broad sets of personal laws in India based on the religions professed by   different communities. Hindu law governs all Hindus, including Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. Muslim law applies to Muslims, Christian law governs Christians, and Parsee law applies to the Parsees. Jews have their own personal law. These personal laws cover property and personal matters like marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption and inheritance. The different laws are governing these aspects differently for different communities in India. Thus, the laws governing marriage, inheritance or divorce among Hindus are different from those pertaining to Muslims or Christians and so on.
Uniform civil code is supposed to replace these personal laws based on the scriptures and customs of each major religious community in the country, with a common set governing every citizen in India. These laws are distinguished from public law and cover marriage, divorce, inheritance, maintenance, guardianship and adoption. Article 44 of the Directive Principles in India sets the implementation of a uniform civil code throughout the country as duty of the State. Article 44 says: “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” The objective of this article is to effect an integration of India by bringing all communities into a common platform which is at present are governed by personal laws and which do not form the essence of any religion. Article 37 makes clear that  the directive principles “shall not be enforceable by any court”. Nevertheless, they are “fundamental in the governance of the country”. The Supreme Court has expressed itself in favour of the enactment of a uniform civil code in the Shah Bano case and the Sarla Mudgal case. The Supreme Court in Sarla Mudgal judgement had observed that “the Government would be well advised to entrust the responsibility to the Law Commission to bring about the comprehensive legislation in keeping with modern day concept of human rights.” However, none of these comments are binding on the executive or the legislature and do not amount to orders. At best, they exert some moral pressure on the Indian state to move towards formulating a uniform civil code.
As women’s organisations and others have repeatedly pointed out, personal laws governing different communities in India have a common feature – they are all gender-biased. The personal laws are designed to keep women forever under the dominance and control of men. Women undergo many difficulties and experience severe trauma in matters concerning their marriage, divorce and inheritance. Polygamy, desertion, triple divorces are just a few examples to show the possibilities of harassing women. Indian women are formally granted equality in political rights through the Indian Constitution. Due to the different personal laws, women experience inequality, deprivation and violence. Gender issues need to be addressed very seriously. There is a need to reform the personal laws and bring about a uniform civil code to ensure not only equality between men and women but also to bring about gender justice. If it is implemented it will lay the foundation for women to overcome many social evils like dowry system, bigamy etc. which makes a woman feel inferior and degraded.
Another issue, the personal laws are the main cause of communal conflict among people. The absence of a Uniform Civil Code goes against the concept of equality which is one of the basic tenets of our Constitution. The different personal laws for different religions are undermining the credibility of the secular ethos of India. A Uniform Civil Code will also simplify legal processes involved with the matters governed by personal laws. It will also go a long way in promoting the causes of secularism, equality and national integration. It will also make the separation of the State from the religion more complete and meaningful.
Fundamentalists supporting personal laws and opposing uniform civil code say  that imposition of uniform civil code will be a violation of fundamental rights envisaged by the Constitution. Article 26(b) says, “Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.” The supporters of personal laws and their blindly followers believe that matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance are religious affairs and the Constitution guarantees freedom of such activities and therefore the Uniform Civil Code will be a violation of that. Their argument is that this code will affect the religious freedom of minorities. However, the Supreme Court has observed that marriage, succession and the other matters of a secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Article 26 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court said that the right to follow one’s personal law is not a Fundamental Right.  However, the political parties like congress claim that the sentiments of the minorities will be adversely affected while implementing a common law. There are political parties and leaders who are always eager to hijack such burning issues to improve their vote banks.
The uniform civil code will ensure equality, unity and integrity of the nation and justice for both men and women. We must depoliticize the uniform civil code. The secular country like India needs a uniform civil code.
(The author is Assistant Professor, PGDAV College, University of Delhi)

Religion is a birth-mark one generally carries till death, if only in name.  Great minds have said what it meant to them.  Napoleon Bonaparte opined it was religion that kept the poor from murdering the rich.  Dalai Lama revealed: ‘This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.’ And Desmond Tutu had this to say on religion, ‘When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said ‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.’
We have our own conscience to tell us the good from bad, we have society’s code of conduct to govern our every-day behaviour, there are laws proclaimed by the Government to keep our baser instincts in check; and the more evolved among us have their spirituality to elevate them to the higher planes of existence. Where is then any need to bind ourselves with yet more trappings of this or that religion?
‘Has the stuffy heat of a dry July day gone to your head, son, that you are asking such a foolish question?’ caw-cawed an enraged Kaga Bhushundiji. ‘It is religion that sets apart man from the rest of animals!’
‘Ram, Ram, Kagaji,’ I said with excessive show of courtesy, ‘do cool down.  It ill behoves a celestial being of your lofty stature to lose temper.   You have appeared before me of your sweet will to answer my queries, Most Venerable One.  Now be good enough to disabuse me of my doubt.’
Kagaji cooled down.  In a tone befitting an icon of wisdom he began, ‘Dharma is the step-ladder that takes a person from the lowliness of bestiality to the heights of a pious living and upon her death to the Param Dham, the House of Ultimate Bliss….’
‘But Kagaji,’ I interjected ‘you are mixing up ‘Dharma’ with ‘religion’. The one enjoins upon the mankind duties that are essential for a peaceful and orderly coexistence on the earth, while the other divides man from man.     Dharma is all inclusive, embracing not only mankind, but birds and bees, beasts and trees and all that exists in this world of ours.  Religion is exclusive – only those who believe are saved, the non-believers are either brought somehow into the fold, or to put it mildly, despised altogether.  Religious zealots don’t spare even their co-religionists who are seen to go astray from the narrow path. ‘
‘May be you are right, son.  What you call ‘religion’ is not the same as the Dharma of the yore.  O, the despicable Kaliyuga!’
‘Indeed. Look at what is happening in Iraq in the name of religion.  Four of our own young men from Mumbai have flown on the sly to Iraq to fight by the side of Sunni militants. For them it is the cause of ‘defending’ their faith, though the whole world knows what brutality the ISIS has let loose in the land.  In India itself Shias and Sunnis are confronting each other for what is happening among the peoples of their sects in Iraq. Why talk only of the rift between the two factions of Islam, even Sanatana Dharma, reputedly the oldest way of life in the world, is in turmoil.  Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopananda Ji Saraswati of Dwarka has said that Hindus who believe in Saibaba should refrain from following Hindu rituals such as bathing in the Holy Ganga – drawing a line between the Hindus who believe in Saibaba and their brethren who don’t.  As could be expected, the followers of Saibaba are up against the 90-year old seer and have filed three cases in different parts of the country against him.    Swamji’s own supporters, the Naga sadhus among them – have declared that they will take to streets in support of the Shankaracharya ji.  Couldn’t this unnecessary bitterness have been avoided?’
‘But, tell me, son, wasn’t Saibaba a Muslim?  I heard somebody saying that he was a maans bhakshi – meat eater – and lived in a mosque.’
‘I am not sure, Kagaji, of Saibaba’s origins or how he kept his body and soul together.  So what if he was born a Muslim? Don’t Hindu men and women, their heads covered reverentially; stand patiently every Thursday evening to pay their respects to the neighbourbhood Peer’s mazaar?  Do they cease to be Hindus then?’
‘Shankaracharya ji is not against people worshipping Saibaba.  His objection is to the Saibaba being worshipped as one of gods of the Hindu pantheon.  It is strictly a question of religion, son.  Why don’t you understand?’
If that be so, I would rather not remain in the confines of such a religion.”

Kaga Bhushundi SpeakEth
Suman K Sharma
‘Do you abjure religion then?’
‘I do.  Save me from a religion that spreads discord between one man and the other.  I have my Dharma to follow and would rather stick to my humanity,  what all that means.

Prof Ramanuja Devanathan
The recent incident of preventing a Judge from entering the Tamilnadu Cricket Association Club at Chennai as he wore a  Dhoti shocked the Indians who respect the tradition and dress of India. A sitting judge of the Madras High Court, Justice D.Hariparanthaman went to attend a book release function organized by the TN Cricket Association Club and was prevented from entering the club quoting the reason that he is wearing Dhoti and as per the Club rules only persons with pant and suit would be permitted. Along with him two other advocates R.Gandhi and G.R.Swaminathan both practicing at Chennai and Madurai High Courts were also denied entry. Though the Judge told the person who was at the gate that he should not be prevented as he was invited by the members of the Club saying the dress code should not be imposed on the guests who turn out for the function. The more irony is the  that function was organized by a former Chief Justice of the High Court, the book was released by a former Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court and the first copy was received by a former Chief Justice of HP High Court.  This is not rare incident that occurred in the world. In the 80s former Supreme Court Judge V.R.Krishna Iyer was also denied entry in the Gymkhana Club, Chennai as he was wearing Dhoti. When he was prevented, even after disclosure of his identity, he recorded his anger in the Guest Book. In USA also a night club in Minnesota posted a dress code. The attire the club advised it members not-to- wear was tacitly targeted to prevent the Blacks from entering the club. Here, the case is different as the club proposed a not-to- wear dress code for its members instead of routine what to wear attire. This instigated the blacks to protest against the vented dress code as this was targeted against Blacks. Last year on 3rd August 2013, in Dubai Metro an Indian was prevented from entering a local train as he was wearing a Dhoti which gave rise to a controversy. However, later on an official of the Roads and Transport Authority of Dubai, Ramadan Abdullah clarified that the RTA of Dubai has not prescribed any dress code and urged the victim to lodge a complaint against the incident so that the RTA could take necessary action in this regard. However, these stray incidents take place here and there and they serve as negative  publicity for Indian attire.
Whenever, the Indian traditional dress was denied its place, we all rise and echo our voice together against such incidents. It is quite right. Our emotional voice is to be honoured. But at the same time how far we guard our tradition of wearing traditional dress? Wearing a dress is a personal matter and comfort and one cannot be compelled to wear this and that dress. Do we compromise this personal comfort in our life? Of course, the European taught us to wear pants and suits. We followed it and still we follow the same as it is comfortable. If the case is so why should we become agitated if a club or association prevents us for not wearing certain pattern of dress? After all we have compromised many things in our life including the dress habit.
This does not mean that we never protest against dress code. In our day-to-day life we compromised for our grown up children to wear miniskirts and half shirts with neck tie for going to school. We wish that child gets admission in a particular school and we are ready to follow any rule though how non-sense they are, for the sake of getting our child admitted in that particular school and we even prefer such schools that impose such non-sense dress code on our child than to a school that prescribes Indian Traditional Dress Code. Further, we are prepared to wear pants of certain colour say it a cocky or blue, for the sake of getting service in an organization or factory. Even our people are prepared to change their dress  pattern for the sake of money and facilities to be received from the missionaries of any religion. If this is the case, why are we very much worried about the denial of a person on the basis of dress code from entering into a particular place?
This is because; we are unconsciously controlled by the National habits. Each Nation has its own tradition and way of expressing emotions. In a single State there are persons of different emotions at the same situation, some are polite, others are rude, and few are moderate in nature according to the so-called quality of water and Earth. This is the case with India also. Each person is proud of his culture and heritage of the part he belongs. We Indians become emotional if something adverse happens to our tradition. We do compromise our tradition knowingly and on compulsion. But one cannot impose non-sense conditions on us that are detrimental to our independence or against our culture and tradition. We compromised to wear even unsuitable uniform consciously. If we become a member of a club accepting all the conditions of the club then we have to follow the rules and regulations including dress code of that particular club. But if we are invited as the Guests in that club we are not supposed to follow the rules or the dress code of that club. The club should also think over this aspect and treat the invited non-members with dignity and honour. If we are employed in a foreign country accepting its immigration laws enforced there, it is binding on our part to follow the rules of that country. But if we are invited by a foreign country, we are not bound to follow the laws of that country. This is the difference between the members and invitees. The same thing happened in the case of TN Cricket Association Club that the club should not have insisted the dress code for the invited guests who are not members of that club. Another argument in this case is, that the obsolete rules prescribing dress code which was prevalent in English period should not be followed blindly even after their exit. A tiny Nation Bhutan follows strictly its traditional attire whenever their diplomats visit other countries. This sort of decisiveness is required in us. If we are determined in our perception and behavior, nobody can prevent us from expressing our National thought or wearing traditional attire. First we must feel proud of our tradition, culture and heritage, rest is assured undemanding.