On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 16:36, Nikhil Mehra <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't see how the need for a UCC affects a Hindu male. It would be a god
> sent for Muslim women, but a Hindu male pining for the UCC seems like the
> only desire is for a dilution of religious identities. Which is a very
> worthy cause, but the BJP's flaw here is to paint all muslims as being
> anti-UCC and therefore by extension having no sense of India as a nation.
> It's always the subtext with the BJP that bothers and it invariably rears
> it's ugly head in some form or the other.

For more on the BJP's desire for the UCC, see A.G. Noorani's piece in
Frontline, from 2000.[1]  The impression I get from that article is
that "redefinition" of secularism is behind the clamour for UCC.  I'm
sure the Constituent Assembly debates on the matter of the UCC would
be very interesting. (Heck, I googled it, and got this as a hit:
<http://bit.ly/MiP82>).  Noorani says: "For all his quibble about
"uniform justice" it is a uniform civil code that Jethmalani [then law
minister] is clearly after as also a "redefinition" of secularism.
(The Telegraph, January 29). Elected on the Shiv Sena ticket, he wants
'the correct perspective of true secularism'."

In the Google Books link, it talks of the Muslim members of the
Constituent Assembly being against Art. 44.  But as anecdotal
evidence, of the six Muslims on a panel discussing UCC, one was in
favour of a UCC.  Most of the others argued for reform of personal
laws instead.[2]

Additionally, with no research whatsoever to back me up (not even
anecdotal), I've always understood the Hindutva brigade's demands for
UCC as: "if we Hindus have had to put up with reform in our personal
laws, Muslims better do so too!  Damn Nehru!"  That said, I personally
think a uniform/common civil code is a good idea.  Stops people having
to resort to conversion to gain advantages of particular personal
laws, etc., (for instance when we hear stories about a man/woman
converting to marry the person of his/her choice, the Special
Marriages Act be damned).  Gaining the advantage of a more munificent
god is of course acceptable.

[1] http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1704/17040270.htm
[2] http://www.iosworld.org/nov03_3.htm

Reply via email to