Hindus Losing Benefits due to Uniform
Civil Code
There
was an ingeniously written article by someone who is revered for his
scholarship. Titled ‘If Uniform Civil Code Means Hindus Losing Benefits Like
Hindu Undivided Family, So Be It, the arguments offered were acceptable, articulate,
and didn’t fall flat on logic, except that Hindus will have to lose some benefits
for introducing the Uniform Civil Code. Hindus have consistently given what is
rightfully theirs, from the Partition of Bengal in 1905 to the division of the
nation in 1947. For a secular country, the Uniform Civil Code or UCC should be
nothing short of a pinnacle for people. They should welcome it with open arms.
The
Muslim community, is largely, and almost perpetually, against the idea of a
civil code and wishes to preserve their own separate personal law. When
considering the features and pretext of Muslim law concerning Muslim women, the
reality is harsh and a terrible compromise. While a Muslim woman should practice
monogamy, her husband can have up to four wives at a time. He also has the right
to dissolve the marriage at any time he wants. The Muslim wife, on the other
hand, can only divorce after approval from her husband.
She
is also unentitled to be the legal guardian of her underage child. Under
Personal Islamic law, the share of a male heir in property is twice that of a
female heir. Other disconcerting components of the law include Nikah halala and
no maintenance for a divorced woman after the Iddat period is over. For Muslim
women, the question of gender equality has been forever entangled in a complex
web of conservatism, patriarchy, and politics. Thus, these Islamic patriarchal and
archaic laws are in serious violation of equality and social justice for
practicing Muslim women.
Many
women in India are living in appalling situations merely because Muslim personal
laws are not suspected of modern social changes. On the contrary, efforts are
made to reject even the rights and advantages that the Constitution generously
offers them under the pretext of religious freedom. Allowing things to continue
as they are will mean that more and more personal laws will be tested in court to see how well they follow the Constitution.
Religious
leaders have frequently said that Islam gave women’s rights 1,400 years ago,
but they refuse to state whether or not these rights are repressive when they
are seen objectively. As a result, even after Independence, reform in Muslim
family law has not been made. The Shariat Application Act of 1937 governs
Indian Muslims, but it offers no protections regarding marriage age, divorce,
polygamy, child custody and guardianship, women’s share in a property, and so
on. So, practices such as child marriage, triple talaq, halala, polygamy, and no
share of a portion of the property to women have continued, in defiance of the constitution
and as per Quranic gender bias doctrines.
Similarly,
Christian personal laws regarding marriage, divorce, maintenance, and succession
rules appear to be old-fashioned, severe, and discriminatory against women. For
example, section 10A(1) of the Christian Divorce Law, orders a two-year
separation period for any spouse wanting a consensual divorce. Under the 1925
Succession Act, Christian mothers have no right to the property of their
deceased children. The father will inherit all the property.
In
the Hindu religion casteism, superstitions, Sati, child marriage, and other
social evils affected Hindu society in the first part of the nineteenth
century. The need for social reform became apparent in the early decades of the
nineteenth century. There were social and religious reform movements among
Hindus to abolish the caste system, untouchability, Sati, and child marriage.
Over time, Hindu society got rid of such archaic practices for equal rights. But
that hasn't been the case with other religions in India.
Post-Independence,
Hindu Code Bills – which involved the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the Hindu
Succession Act of 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956, and
the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 were the ones to reform the
Hindu personal laws. These rules not only codified Hindu law but also rejected
many Hindu practices and traditions. Muslims, on the other hand, is controlled
by Muslim personal law, which heavily relies on the opinions of Muslim
community leaders.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar once said that rights are protected not by law, but by the social
and moral principles of society. If social conscience recognizes the rights
that the law suggests to enact, rights will be safe and secure. But if the community
opposes fundamental rights then no law, no Parliament, no Judiciary can
guarantee them in the real sense of the word. These words are relevant today,
for they reflect the thinking of Muslim leaders and clerics who should now come
out in support of this initiative. They should start living in the 21st century.