Atinder Pal Singh
In October 1949, the Hindu Civil Code bill was for the first time tabled for debate in the Parliament by a renowned leader of the time, Law Minister Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar. The discussion amid protests proved out to be futile. After the Indian constitution came to force in 1950, the bill was again tabled, this time backed by the interim prime minister of India, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehruji. The provisions of the bill, as alleged by the fundamentalists, were a threat to the customs that had continued since time immemorial and an unnecessary intrusion into the internal family matters of the hindus. Nehru was so particular about the passing of this bill that for once he said in the Parliament, either this bill would be passed or he will retire from active politics altogether.
What was the bill intended to change? Why did Nehru and Ambedkar push it so hard? and the biggest political controversy, why only hindus? That is, why did the congress top brass gave it a communal spin?
Dr.Ambedkar was of the view that political democracy was an empty vessel without social democracy and further he argued that the social democracy in the present hindu society could only be established by a legitimate decision of the soverign of the country on peoples behalf, that is the parliament in our case. Therefore, according to him, it was a moral responsibility of the parliament to ensure social reform in a religion that had been for long guided by biased, exploitative and decaying customs, which the upper caste hindus haven’t dealt with or rather haven’t considered it as a moral obligation to remove them. His view also appealed to the notion of gender equality in the strongly patriarchal society of that time. The fundamentalists outside were questioning the authority of the parliament to induce such a change?
The question of the fundamentalists was bogus as it collided head on with the concept that had been born with the dawn of the modern era, the concept of sovereignty. The concept states that the sovereign(in case of monarchy a king and the Parliament in the case of a representative democracy like India) had absolute and perpetual authority of controlling and guiding the internal and external affairs of the state and once the sovereignty is inducted as in the case of the Indian constitution, it was irrevocable. That is, once we submitted our natural rights to the authority of the sovereign, in our case the natural rights were oppression of the weak by the strong in Hinduism, the patriarchy etc, the sovereign (parliament) had the full authority to make any change what so ever desired, to bring about the social betterment of the society and its decision would not be challengeable and will be binding on all. This is the meaning of the word sovereign written in the preamble of the Indian constitution. The parliament derived its authority from the constitution of India and it has been clearly mentioned in article 44, in directive principles that the state shall endeavour to secure all its citizens, a uniform civil code and this statement brings us to our second question that Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, the founder of the janata dal raised in the Parliament in 1951, ” if the provisions have been laid in the constitution with ample clarity for a uniform civil code, why only Hindu customs are being codified?” In this view, he said the bill was communal.
Nehruji’s answer to this question was quiet obvious, in the light of the partition of the country only on religious grounds, the time was not ripe for a uniform civil code and it would be best at this time to create a platform by passing the hindu code bill and then trying to take the muslims of the country in confidence. But despite the logical testimony of Ambedkar and the support of perhaps the greatest leader of the time Nehruji, the bill couldn’t advance amid protests both in and out of the assembly. The bill was stalled and its considered to be the major cause for Ambedkar’s apprehension and leaving Nehru’s cabinet.
But in the elections the congress got an overwhelming mandate and came to parliament with an absolute majority. The hindu code bill was broken into parts and was successfully sailed across the lower and upper houses of the Parliament. Divorce was declared legal, polygamy abolished and shorty after this in 1956, several other bills including Hindu succession act, hindu adoption and maintenance act, Hindu minority and guardianship act etc were passed. All these acts were aimed at weakening the chains of patriarchy in one way or the other. Thus social justice had been done and social democracy established in hindus. The labours of Ambedkar had borne fruit.
Now 66 years after independence the time has become ripe for the passing of the Uniform civil code bill. The time has come for the sovereign, the Parliament, yet again to clip the wings of obscurantist narrow minded fundamentalists, foster real secularism and to wipe the slur which had been thrown at its face for being communal regarding Hindu Code Bill. Will the Parliament win the battle or will it kneel down as it had in the past during the NDA coalition in this context, to the religious fundamentalists keeping aside its authority as a sovereign, only time will tell.
Follow our WhatsApp channel