Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the master of coining terms, proposed a new policy from the ramparts of the Red Fort on Independence Day — Secular Civil Code — leaving many wondering about the meaning of the nomenclature.
So far, India was familiar with the Uniform Civil Code. However, PM Modi described the current civil code as “communal” and advocated for a “secular” alternative.
“The present civil code appears to be communal. India needs a secular civil code. It is the need of the hour to have a secular civil code and do away with discriminatory communal civil code,” he said, as Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud listened in the audience.
PM Modi mentioned the already long deliberations that had happened over the issue. “Supreme Court has held discussions regarding Uniform Civil Code again and again, and it has given orders several times. A large section of the country believes – and it is true, that the civil code that we are living with is actually a Communal Civil Code in a way…I would say that it is the need of the hour that there be a Secular Civil Code in the country…only then would we be free of the discrimination on the basis of religion…”
Naturally, there are some legitimate questions: Has the prime minister repackaged UCC as Secular Civil Code? If not, what’s the fundamental difference between UCC and Secular Civil Code?
SECULAR CIVIL CODE VS UCC
BJP’s minority wing chief Jamal Siddiqui says both are the same but the approach is different.
“Both are the same, but the way it is said is important. It helps people understand better. I laud the prime minister for making the civil code discourse people-friendly,” he told News18. Siddiqui added that the country is secular and hence, any civil code should also be “secular”.
The term Uniform Civil Code is mentioned in Part 4, Article 44 of the Indian Constitution which states: “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”
The authors of the Indian Constitution left the making of the code for the future, but it never became a law. UCC is meant to be a set of uniform civil laws regarding various matters like inheritance, marriage, adoption, succession, and divorce applicable to all citizens, irrespective of their religion, community, race, sex and caste. But, right now, there is a religion-specific civic law in India, which the BJP has been aiming to club under a common umbrella. Siddiqui thinks the endeavour is a secular approach and hence, the name.
SOME THINK IT’S DIFFERENT
There is a school of thought that believes what the prime minister intended to mean by the Secular Civil Code was a proposed law whereby only religion-based discrepancies are addressed. But it doesn’t refer to traditions of tribal communities who too have been opposing UCC.
“We welcome this nomenclature. It will end any religion-based discrimination, as the prime minister has said, which is the need of the hour. But I think the BJP has already made its position clear that traditions of tribal communities won’t be harmed,” says Swadeshi Jagran Manch’s national co-convener Ashwani Mahajan. Mahajan is referring to claims by Nagaland CM Neiphiu Rio last year when he claimed Amit Shah assured UCC will not be applicable for STs in the Northeast where a large section of tribes reside.
Moreover, the late former Bihar deputy chief minister Sushil Modi also advocated for keeping tribals of the Northeast out of the purview of UCC. Even RSS affiliates like Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram had expressed their apprehensions. So, a school of thought believes that by calling it Secular Civil Code, PM Modi referred to a proposed law where religion-based differences alone will be streamlined, keeping the different tribal norms unchanged. For instance, Santhals and Kol women have no rights to property, while among the Garos, there is a long-standing custom of the youngest daughter becoming the family heir.
For now, the prime minister has just introduced the phrase and called for “discussion” about “the need of the hour” to end the “discrimination on the basis of religion…”.
Comments
0 comment