Dr Narinder Singh
Speaking from the ramparts of the historic Lal Qila on the occasion of the 78th Independence Day on the 15th of August, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made mention of a uniform civil code. He said that before 2014 there was in vogue a kind of communal uniform civil code and it was only after the advent of the BJP Government that year that a true Secular civil code came into operation. He argued that reluctance to implement the uniform civil code before 2014 stemmed from a politically motivated communal approach that sacrificed an essential constitutional direction to preserve a vote bank. For nearly six decades, the so-called secular governments avoided the uniform civil code despite it being an integral component of the Directive principles of the state policy which aim to guide India’s Social and economic development.
In the wake of the partition of India and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the leadership of the country that came to power decided to run the country in accordance with the principles of secularism. But, this secularism had a strange meaning and connotation. When the Constitution was being debated upon no attempt was made to make secularism a tool of the state policy. There was, as such, no mention of the word secular in the constitutional document. But the people who were at the helm of affairs in the country continued to run the country with the modified version of Secularism. It was only in 1976 that the word ‘Secular’ was incorporated in the constitution through the 42nd Amendment. In this way, secularism was used as an instrument of state policy for many years without constitutional sanction.
From the very beginning, the people who came to power in the country had their arithmetic clear. They knew very well the art of governance in a complex country with a huge vote bank of the principal minority. The large Muslim population which had to stay back in India was in a state of alienation and despair. The ruling class very shrewdly capitalized on their vulnerability, offering concessions of religious endowments and freedom for religious schools and courts. This tacit arrangement was predicated on reciprocal expectations of electoral support culminating in instances such as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Controversial statement on the floor of the Parliament that Muslims had the first claim over the nation’s resources
While the ruling elite laid much stress on secularism to secure its political agenda, no attempt was made to implement the uniform civil code inscribed in the constitution under Article 44. This was done despite of the clear directions that, the state shall endeavor to secure for the citizens single set of laws regardless of religion, caste or gender. This policy was adapted to please a section of society and out of fear of losing votes in elections. The policymakers forget that the application of a uniform civil code was the pious wish of the fathers of the Constitution. Although non-judicial in nature uniform civil code was in no way insignificant. The honourable Supreme Court in the historic Minerva Mills Case in 1980 emphatically declared that the directive principles of the state policy of which uniform civil code was not mere ornamental suggestions, but essential for the country’s historic progress. Yet, despite constitutional support and judicial affirmation, the uniform civil code was ignored and sidelined due to political expediency.
Unfortunately, the so called secular leadership for about 60 years always showed uniform civil code in bad light and kept it on back burner. Attempts were made to depict U.C.C as something against the principles of secularism. In fact, it was not so U.C.C was perfectly in conformity with the tenants of secularism. Modi’s recent speech makes a departure from this legacy by advocating for a truly secular uniform civil code, urging that the policies proceeding 2014, effectively constituted a communal civil code under the disguise of secularism. He suggested that India’s adherence to secular principles was superficial and inconsistent with the spirit of genuine secularism, which demands equal application of the law to all citizens irrespective of their religions.
(The author is a retired professor
of Political Science)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
