Monday, 14 November 2022

MHA empowers two more Gujarat district collectors to grant citizenship certificates to six minority communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan; notification not related to CAA

 MHA empowers two more Gujarat district collectors to grant citizenship certificates to six minority communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan; notification not related to CAA

The notification is not related to the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 that is yet to come into effect

October 31, 2022 11:21 pm | Updated November 01, 2022 09:04 am IST - New Delhi


THE HINDU BUREAU

COMMENTSSHAREREAD LATER

 File image. 

File image.


The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) empowered the district collectors of two more districts in Gujarat — Mehsana and Anand — to grant citizenship certificates to the members of Hindu, Sikh, Parsi, Christian, Buddhist and Jain communities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh.


This is not the first-time the district magistrates or collectors have been delegated such powers by the MHA, similar orders were issued in 2016, 2018 and 2021 empowering District Magistrates in several districts of Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Punjab to grant citizenship certificates to migrants from the six communities who entered India on valid documents. Citizenship is a central subject and from time-to-time MHA delegates State officials to exercise such powers. 


The notification is not related to the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 that is yet to come into effect.


The CAA passed in 2019 seeks to grant Indian citizenship to the six undocumented communities who came to India till December 31, 2014. 


The October 31 notification intends to benefit legal migrants (who entered on passport/visa) from the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who have already applied for Citizenship under Section 5 (by registration) and Section 6 (naturalisation) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.


The only way CAA could have helped the legal minority migrants is in fast-tracking their applications as CAA reduces the mandatory requirement of 11 years aggregate stay in India to five years to be eligible for citizenship by naturalisation. 


The notification said that the application should be made online and and the verification shall be done by the Collector at the district level and forwarded to central agencies.


Indian citizenship can be acquired on eight grounds—on the basis of registration made by a person of Indian origin; by a person married to an Indian; minor child, whose parents are registered as citizens of India; by a person who or either of the parents was a citizen of Independent India; overseas citizens of India; by naturalisation and registration of a child at an Indian consulate.

Saturday, 12 November 2022

మతాన్ని ఛాందసవాదం నుంచి తప్పించలేమా?

 


మతాన్ని ఛాందసవాదం నుంచి తప్పించలేమా?

ABN , First Publish Date - 2022-11-12T01:56:40+05:30 IST


ఇరాన్‌లో నుదుటిపైన వెంట్రుకల వరుస కనిపించిందని ఒక 22ఏళ్ళ అమ్మాయిని అక్కడి రెలిజియస్ పోలీసులు అరెస్టు చేసి చంపటం, దానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా..


మతాన్ని ఛాందసవాదం నుంచి తప్పించలేమా?

అన్నపూర్ణ మ్యారేజెస్ వరల్డ్ వైడ్‌గా తెలుగు వారు ఎక్కడున్నా అన్ని కులముల వారికి పెళ్లి సంబంధములు కుదర్చడంలో టాప్ పొజిషన్

సం|| 93979 79750

ఇరాన్‌లో నుదుటిపైన వెంట్రుకల వరుస కనిపించిందని ఒక 22ఏళ్ళ అమ్మాయిని అక్కడి రెలిజియస్ పోలీసులు అరెస్టు చేసి చంపటం, దానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా వెల్లువెత్తిన నిరసనల్లో ఒక పదహారేళ్ళ అమ్మాయిని అక్కడి పోలీసులు మట్టుబెట్టడం... ఈ ఘటనలతో అంతర్జాతీయ యవనికపై మరోసారి మత ఛాందసవాదం చర్చనీయాంశమైంది. ‘మతం’ అన్నదే ‘ఛాందసవాదా’నికి మారు పేరా, లేక మతమూ ఛాందసవాదమూ రెండూ వేర్వేరు అంశాలా అన్న ప్రశ్నలకు జవాబులను వెతికి పట్టుకోవటం చాలా ముఖ్యం. అప్పుడే సమాజంలో కీలకమైన మతమనే వ్యవస్థ పట్ల ఒక అవగాహనతో వ్యవహరించగలం.


మతమంటేనే ఛాందసవాదం అని తీర్మానించేసే ముందు మనం ఒకటి ఆలోచించాలి. అది స్వతస్సిద్ధంగానే మనుష్యుల మధ్య తారతమ్యాలను– ‘నీ మతం’ ‘నా మతం’ పేరుతో రెచ్చగొడుతుందా? అన్నది. ఈ ప్రశ్న గురించి ఆలోచించనంత కాలం మతాన్ని రూపుమాపాలా, సానుభూతితో అర్థం చేసుకోవాలా, లేక మతానికి రాజ్యపు మద్దతు ఇచ్చి పెంచి పోషించాలా అన్న విషయం అర్థం కాదు.


కార్ల్ మార్క్స్ ‘మతం ప్రజలకు మత్తుమందు లాంటిది. అది అణగారిన ప్రజల నిట్టూర్పు, హృదయం లేని ప్రపంచానికి హృదయం లాంటిది, నిస్సారమైన పరిస్థితులకు సారం లాంటిది’ అని వ్యాఖ్యానించాడు.. నిజానికి ఈ నిర్వచనంలో మార్క్స్ మతాన్ని సమాజంలో ఒక పాజిటివ్ అంశంగానే పేర్కొన్నాడు. ఇక్కడ ‘మత్తు మందు’ అన్నది బాధలను మరిపింపజేసే ఒక అంశం అన్న అర్థంలో వాడాడు. అంతేగానీ అదో మూర్ఖత్వం, వ్యసనం అన్న అర్థంలో వాడలేదు. కానీ భారతీయ మార్క్సిస్టులు ఈ మొత్తం వ్యాఖ్యలోంచి ‘మతం ఒక మత్తు మందు’ అన్న భాగాన్ని మాత్రమే ఎత్తి చూపుతూ, మతం ఒక వ్యసనం, మూర్ఖత్వం అన్న అర్థంలో ఈ మాటకు ప్రాచుర్యాన్ని తెచ్చారు. నిజానికి మార్క్స్ పేద ప్రజలు నమ్ముకునే మతాన్ని సానుభూతితో అర్థం చేసుకున్నాడు. అయితే వర్గ పోరాట దృక్పథంలో అదో ‘ఫాల్స్ కాన్షియస్‌నెస్’ను సృష్టిస్తుందని పేర్కొన్నాడు. ఇక మతాన్ని క్షేత్ర స్థాయిలో ఎలా డీల్ చేయాలో ప్రాక్టికల్‌గా చూపినవాడు లెనిన్. ‘The Attitude of Workers' Party to Religion’ అన్న రచనలో మతం పట్ల సానుభూతిగా ఎలా వ్యవహరించాలో, చర్చితో కలిసి సోషలిస్టు పార్టీ ఎలా పని చేయాలో లెనిన్ విశదీకరిస్తాడు. ఇలా, ఈ సోషలిస్టు సామాజిక శాస్త్రవేత్తలందరూ నాస్తికవాదాన్ని నమ్మినప్పటికీ, ఎవరూ కూడా మతాన్ని పూర్తిగా గర్హించమని గానీ, అది విషపూరితం, దాన్ని నమ్మేవారంతా మూర్ఖులని గానీ స్టీరియోటైపు చేయలేదు.


‘నేను హిందువుగా పుట్టాను, కాని హిందువుగా మాత్రం మరణించను’ అని గర్జించిన ఈ దేశ మహోపాధ్యాయుడు, సామాజిక శాస్త్రవేత్త అంబేడ్కర్ మతం మారి నవయాన బుద్ధిజాన్ని ప్రతిపాదించాడు. అంబేడ్కరుకు మతం అనే భావనతో అస్సలు పేచీ లేదు. అయితే, ‘అది ఒక సామాజిక మార్పు’ను ప్రేరేపించేదిగా ఉండాలని పేర్కొన్నాడు. ప్రతి మనిషికి ‘స్పిరిచువాలిటీ’ అనేది ఒక కోరికగా అంబేడ్కర్ గుర్తించాడు. అయితే మనుషుల మధ్యన అసమానతలకు బీజం వేస్తే అది ఒక ‘వ్యూహం’ తప్ప మతం కాదు అని పేర్కొని, ఆ కారణంగా కుల అసమానతలను ఎత్తి చూపుతూ హిందూత్వాన్ని ఒక మతంగా ఆయన పరిగణించలేదు.


ప్రపంచంలో సామాజిక శాస్త్రంలో పేరెన్నికగన్నవారు మరో ఇద్దరు మ్యాక్స్ వెబర్, ఎమిలీ డుర్ఖీం. వీరిద్దరూ కూడా సమాజంలో మతం కీలక స్థానాన్ని ఒప్పుకున్నారు. మ్యాక్స్ వెబర్ మతంపైన, దాని సమూహ ప్రవర్తన మీద అధ్యయనం చేస్తూ, పాశ్చాత్య దేశాల్లో ‘ప్రొటెస్టెంటు మతం కేపిటలిస్ట్ సమాజం వేపు పురోగమించడానికి ఉపయోగపడింది’ అని పేర్కొన్నాడు. అంతే తప్ప, మతాన్ని విషపు మందు అనో, సామాజిక పీడ అనో పేర్కోలేదు. అలాగే ఇంకో ప్రపంచ ప్రసిద్ధ సామాజిక శాస్త్రవేత్త ఎమిలీ డుర్ఖీం సమాజంలో ఆత్మహత్యల మూలాల్ని శోధిస్తూ, ‘కేథలిక్ సమాజం బలంగా ఉన్న చోట మనిషి ఒక సామూహిక బంధంలో ఆసరా వెతుక్కుంటాడు. అందువల్ల అక్కడ ఆత్మహత్యలు తక్కువగా ఉంటాయి’ అని పేర్కొన్నాడు.


ఈ ప్రపంచ ప్రసిద్ధులైన సామాజిక శాస్త్రవేత్తలు ఎవ్వరూ కూడా మతాన్ని ఒక నిరసించదగ్గ విషయంగా పరిగణించలేదు. మరోపక్క వీళ్ళందరూ నాస్తికులే. ఎవరికీ దేవుడు, ఆత్మ, స్వర్గం, మోక్షం లాంటి విషయాలపై నమ్మకం లేదు. అయినప్పటికీ వీళ్ళందరూ ‘మతం’ అనే భావనపైన ఒక సానుభూతిపరమైన అవగాహనను ప్రకటించారు.


అయితే మతంలో ఈ ‘ఛాందసవాదం’ ఎలా వచ్చి చేరుతుంది? వ్యక్తి ప్రవర్తనను, సమాజ సామూహిక ప్రవర్తనను ఒకటిగా భావించడం; మతం తమ వ్యక్తిగత విషయాల్లోనే గాక రాజకీయ ఆర్థిక రంగాల్లో విస్తరించాలి అని కోరుకోవడం; ఈ ప్రపంచం మొత్తం కేవలం మత గ్రంథాల మీద నిలబడి మాత్రమే నడవాలి అని మొండిపట్టు పట్టడం, భిన్నతత్వాలకు తావులేకుండా కేవలం ఒకే దైవ ప్రతిపాదితమైన ప్రాపంచిక సూత్రంతోనే ప్రపంచాన్ని నడపాలని కోరుకోవడం... ఇలాంటి ధోరణుల వల్లనే మతంలోకి ఛాందసత్వం వచ్చి చేరుతుంది.


మనిషి ఇలా ఎందుకు కోరుకుంటాడు? తాను నమ్మిన భావనల ద్వారా, తన సమూహం ద్వారా ఈ సమాజంలో తన ప్రాధాన్యతను బలిష్టపరుచుకోవడం, అంటే– ఒక మెజారిటేరియనిస్ట్‌గా ఉండాలని కోరుకోవడం, ఈ రాజ్యాన్ని ఏదో ‘వంక’తో అయినా ఆక్రమించాలనుకోవటం... ఈ ధోరణి వల్లనే మతం ఛాందస రూపం తీసుకుంటుంది. అందుకే ఏ దేశంలో ప్రజాస్వామ్యం బలంగా ఉంటుందో అక్కడ మతం పేరుతో జరిగే మరణాలు, చిత్రహింసలు ప్రజల్లో తక్కువ ఉంటాయి. ఎందుకంటే ప్రజాస్వామ్యం భిన్న దృక్పథాలకు తావునిస్తుంది. అంటే– ఏ మతమైతే భిన్న దృక్పథాలకు తావునివ్వగలదో ఆ మతం మాత్రమే సమాజంలో ఒక పురోగతిని సృష్టించగలదు, లేదా అదే పురోగతికి దోహదం చేయగలదు. లేనప్పుడు ఆయా సమాజాల్లో ‘సివిల్ వార్’ అన్నది నిత్యకృత్యం. ఇప్పుడు మనం ఇరాన్‌లో దాన్నే చూస్తున్నాం. స్పిరిచ్యువల్ కోరికలు దాటి సామాజిక–ఆర్థిక–రాజకీయ రంగంలోకి మతం ప్రవేశించడానికి వీల్లేదు. మతం అన్నది సమాజంలో వ్యక్తి ప్రవర్తనను నిర్దేశించేది. నిజానికి అది ఒక ‘కోడ్ ఆఫ్ కండక్ట్’. దీన్ని ‘షరియా లా’ పేరుతోనో, లేదా ‘మనుస్మృతి’ పేరుతోనో రాజ్యాంగంలో భాగం చేస్తే, ఇక ఆ సమాజాలు రోగగ్రస్థమైనట్టే! ఈ మధ్య అమెరికాలో అబార్షన్‌ను నిషేధించడం అక్కడి కేథలిక్ డామినేషన్‌ను వ్యవస్థీకరించడంలో ఒక భాగమే తప్ప, అది కేవలం స్త్రీల హక్కులపై ఉన్న మగదురహంకారమో, లేదా ‘ప్రో లైఫ్ యాక్టివిజమో’ అస్సలు కాదు.


ఈ మత ఛాందసవాదంలో ఇరుక్కుపోయిన దేశాల్లో నిత్యం ఏదో ఒక రాజకీయ సంక్షోభం, నిత్యం పౌరులకు అభద్రతా భావన కల్పించే చర్యలూ జరుగుతుంటాయి. ఏ కొంత అభివృద్ధి జరిగినా అది కేవలం సహజ వనరుల వల్ల కలిగే వృద్ధి తప్ప మానవ వనరుల వల్ల కలిగే అభివృద్ధి కాదు. అందుకే రాజ్యాంగం వేరు, మత గ్రంథాలు వేరు. మనమంతా ఒకరి వ్యక్తిగత విశ్వాసాలను మరొకరు గౌరవించుకుంటూ సామూహికంగా సమిష్టిగా జీవించే విధానాన్ని నేర్పేది రాజ్యాంగం. వ్యక్తిగా ఎదుటి మనిషిని ప్రేమించాల్సిన నైతికతను నింపేది మతం. అలా అయినప్పుడు మతమూ, రాజ్యాంగమూ రెండూ ఒకదాన్నొకటి ‘కాంప్లిమెంట్’ చేసుకుంటాయి.


మతం మనిషికి నైతిక సూత్రాల మీద బతికేందుకు ప్రేరేపిస్తుంది. మనిషికి బతుకుపై ఆశను పెంపొందిస్తుంది. సమాజంలో, జరిగే జరగాల్సిన సాంకేతిక మార్పులను ఆహ్వానించి మరో మెట్టు ముందుకెళ్ళడానికి ‘ఫెసిలిటేట్’ చేస్తుంది. ఒక సమాజంలో ఇద్దరు మనుషుల కంటే ఎక్కువమంది బతికే చోట పరస్పరం ఒకరినొకరు ఎలా గౌరవించుకోవాలో ప్రేమించాలో దాని ప్రాముఖ్యతను నొక్కి వక్కాణించేదే మతం. అంబేడ్కర్ అన్నట్టు – మతం నియమ నిబంధనల మీద కాదు, నైతిక సూత్రాల మీద ఆధారపడి ఉండాలి. నీవెలా గడ్డం గీసుకోవాలి, నీవెలా స్నానం చేయాలి, నీవెలా జుట్టు కప్పుకోవాలి, నీవెలా తినాలి – ఇలాంటి నియమాల సంపుటి కాదు మతం. ఒక మనిషి నీకు భిన్నమైనవాడైనా సరే ఎలా ప్రేమించాలి, సామూహిక జీవనంలో ప్రతి ఒక్కరినీ ఎలా భాగస్వామ్యులను చేయాలీ... ఇలా నైతిక సూత్రాలు కలిగిన జీవన విధానానికి మార్గం వేసేది మతం.


రాజ్యం మద్దతు లేకుండా కేవలం వ్యక్తుల ద్వారా, వ్యక్తిత్వాల ద్వారా మాత్రమే ఎదగగలిగే సత్తా ఉన్నదే అసలైన మతం! మనుష్యులను నిర్దాక్షిణ్యంగా హింసిస్తేనో, చంపితేనో తాను సమాజంలో ఉంటాను అనుకునే దేవుడు మనకెందుకు? మనం ఎదగడానికి ప్రభుత్వం కావాలి. అంతే కాని అత్యంత శక్తిమంతుడైన దేవుడు ఎదగడానికి ప్రభుత్వం మద్దతు ఎందుకు? అలాంటి దేవుడున్న మతాలు మనకెందుకు?


పి. విక్టర్ విజయ్ కుమార్

Friday, 11 November 2022

బెంగళూరులో కమేడియన్ వీర్ దాస్ షో రద్దు

 Comedian: బెంగళూరులో కమేడియన్ వీర్ దాస్ షో రద్దు

ABN , First Publish Date - 2022-11-12T10:18:21+05:30 IST


బెంగళూరు నగరంలో కమేడియన్ వీర్ దాస్ షోను ఎట్టకేలకు రద్దు చేశారు. హిందూ మతాన్ని అవమానిస్తున్నారని ఆరోపించిన హిందూ జనజాగృతి సమితి నిరసనల తర్వాత వీర్ దాస్....


Comedian: బెంగళూరులో కమేడియన్ వీర్ దాస్ షో రద్దు

Comedian Vir Das

అన్నపూర్ణ మ్యారేజెస్ వరల్డ్ వైడ్‌గా తెలుగు వారు ఎక్కడున్నా అన్ని కులముల వారికి పెళ్లి సంబంధములు కుదర్చడంలో టాప్ పొజిషన్

సం|| 93979 79750

బెంగళూరు: బెంగళూరు నగరంలో కమేడియన్ వీర్ దాస్ షోను ఎట్టకేలకు రద్దు చేశారు. హిందూ మతాన్ని అవమానిస్తున్నారని ఆరోపించిన హిందూ జనజాగృతి సమితి నిరసనల తర్వాత వీర్ దాస్(Comedian Vir Das) తన బెంగళూరు ప్రదర్శనను(Bengaluru Show) రద్దు చేశారు. (Cancelled)ఈ షో రద్దు చేసిన కొద్దిసేపటికే వీర్ దాస్ ఓ వీడియోను విడుదల చేశారు.తన షో హిందువుల మనోభావాలను దెబ్బతీస్తుందని ఒత్తిడి కారణంగా రద్దు చేశారని వీర్ దాస్ చెప్పారు.కర్ణాటకలో మతపరమైన సంఘటనల కారణంగా పలు శాంతిభద్రతల సమస్యలు ఎదురవుతున్నందున రద్దు చేయాలని హిందూ జనజాగృతి ఫిర్యాదుతో షో రద్దు చేశారు.తాను కళాకారుడినని, తన కళను ప్రేక్షకుల కోసం ప్రదర్శిస్తానని వీర్ దాస్ చెప్పారు.

Tuesday, 8 November 2022

The BJP is Promising a Uniform Civil Code, But How About a Uniform Moral Code First?

 The BJP is Promising a Uniform Civil Code, But How About a Uniform Moral Code First?

The BJP's purpose behind promising a uniform civil code is to win elections in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh by causing a Hindu-Muslim divide.


The BJP is Promising a Uniform Civil Code, But How About a Uniform Moral Code First?

'This call for a uniform civil code has to be seen for what it is: a constitutional call for equality in all walks of life. The proposed UCC would be effective if, and only if, it is truly a new civil code and not just a mere declaration of rights.'


Support Us

Listen to this article:

GOVERNMENTPOLITICSRIGHTS

19 HOURS AGO

One of the most cherry-picked (especially by the right-wing) segments of the Indian constitution is Part IV. This sets out what is called the ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’.


Although not enforceable by any court, the various clauses of this part encapsulate the egalitarian vision of its drafters, enunciated with the purpose to obtain full “economic, social, and political justice” for every citizen of the republic-to-be.


From the standpoint of economic justice envisioned in the Directive Principles, the heart of the constitution lies in provisions inscribed in Articles 38 and 39.


As can be seen from the text, the ideals of equity enshrined in these Articles are indeed breathtaking.


They speak of all material resources belonging fundamentally to the people; of the injunction to the state that its objective “shall” be to ensure that concentration of wealth in a few hands does not happen; that inequalities of income shall be reduced to the minimum; that measures shall be taken to make a dignified livelihood available to all men and women; that there shall be equal pay for equal work; that citizens shall have the right to food, to work, and to health, and indeed, a great deal more.


Also read: What the Proposed Uniform Civil Code Should – and Shouldn’t – Be


Read that and look around you at the economic philosophy of the right-wing now ruling the stipulated republic – characterised by the rampant transfer of public resources to private hands, yawning disparity in incomes and purchasing power, centralisation of wealth to an obscene degree, denial of the fundamental rights of livelihood as set out in these Articles as mere calls to “freebies”, etc.


This is the reason why Articles 38 and 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy are never invoked by the right wing especially, or indeed have not been invoked by any governments post the declaration of the Washington Consensus of 1990 which, in effect let loose the reign of hot money worldwide in a “neo-liberal” package that made national boundaries secondary to the prerogatives of global finance.


The Articles that, however, are invoked by the right wing are 46 which speaks to the desirability of proscribing the slaughter of cows and calves, and, you guessed it, Article 44, which contemplates a “Uniform  Civil Code”.


Although the Article does not provide any elaboration whatsoever about what that code should be like, or how it might be arrived at, the idea was that just as all Indian citizens, regardless of religion, class, caste, gender, or any other form of discrete identity is subject equally to the provisions of the Criminal Code, so also a uniformity might be achieved in the civil aspects of all community living, such as those that pertain to marriage, divorce, property rights, rights of inheritance, rights of married or unmarried women thereof, matters affecting joint family structures, etc.


The common perception has been that the right-wing insistence on enforcing through legislation this idea of a UCC is primarily yet another ploy to polarise the polity and target Indian Muslims, besides seeking, at the bottom, to obtain the suggested uniformity on principles practised by (caste) Hindus.


Those that see some merit in Article 44 have often proposed that the government of the day, if it wishes to activate this Article, had best formulate a draft that could be circulated and debated by Indians of all denominations; and that, perhaps, the most rational and equitous practices of various religions could be then put together as an agreed text, although how that may then be enforced on India’s Scheduled Tribe communities will still remain an intractable conundrum.


But, no, this is not what any right-wing government wishes to do; to a point where most recently the ruling party has declared that it will put in place a UCC if it wins the Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh assembly elections.



BJP national president J.P. Nadda along with Union minister Anurag Thakur, Himachal Pradesh chief minister Jai Ram Thakur and others release the BJP’s manifesto for the upcoming Himachal Pradesh assembly elections, in Shimla, November 6, 2022. Photo: PTI


Never mind that such powers rest only in the Union government via parliament and not in any state government. But who is listening?


The purpose straightforwardly is to win these states by causing a Hindu-Muslim divide. Given this backdrop, one wonders how about a uniform political and moral code first?


Also read: A Hindutva Model of Uniform Civil Code May Make It Even Worse for Women


While the best constitutional and community minds may well deliberate on how a common civil code may be achieved, albeit with the best cosmopolitan intentions, would it not be first more desirable to strive to arrive at a uniform political and moral code for the nation’s public agents?


What might that entail?


That all poltical forces who participate in Indian democracy have a level playing field in terms of funds commensurate with their voting strength; that similarly commensurate media time is available to them; that excesses committed allegedly by political agents in differently ruled states are named and prosecuted uniformly; that hate speech uttered by one is the same as hate speech by another; that when bridges collapse in two different states run by two different political parties, one is not called an act of god and the other an act of fraud; that the investigative agencies of the state do not discriminate between one accused and another based on their political affiliations; that when parliament is in session, motions moved by the opposition on genuine grounds under legitimate provisions are not rejected one hundred percent; that if is made known to the voting public as to who is buying electoral bonds and for whose benefit; that the numero uno of the executive does not uniformly castigate state governments run by opposition parties on visits to states and uniformly praise governments run by his own party; that the unconstitutional slogan “double engine ki sarkar” implying that states run by the party ruling at the Centre will receive special favours as against those run by opposition parties, be jettisoned forthwith; that a covenant is reached among parties that never shall any ducks and drakes be played with data of any kind bearing on the performance of the state or of individuals, no matter who they be; that just as Article 44 of the Directive Principles is sought to be invoked, all, but all, stipulations of the constitution of India shall be honoured by any and all governments and their agencies with transparent accountability to public scrutiny.


Indeed, the desirable list of uniformities here is far more extended than may be codified in a column.


But can there be any disagreement that were such desirable political/moral uniformities to be codified and practised, the need for resistance to a Uniform Civil Code might of its own gradually wither.


Any provision of the constitution is only as credible to the public mind as the quality of the men and women charged with the responsibility to operate the same.


Thus any demand for uniformity in one sector must remain a matter of dissension should other more urgently required uniformities not only not be envisaged but positively discouraged by rulers who aim brazenly to rule not in uniform but in sectarian ways.


Unless sauce for the goose is seen to be sauce for the gander as well in all matters of governance, the motivated call for a Uniform Civil Code cannot but only lead to further fracturing of the national psyche, rather than obtaining any uniformity.






What the Proposed Uniform Civil Code Should – and Shouldn't – Be

While the reform of laws for the cause of gender justice is welcome, the proposed new civil code can't be another avenue to further communal agenda and narrowly focus on personal laws.


What the Proposed Uniform Civil Code Should – and Shouldn't – Be

'This call for a uniform civil code has to be seen for what it is: a constitutional call for equality in all walks of life. The proposed UCC would be effective if, and only if, it is truly a new civil code and not just a mere declaration of rights.'


Support Us

Listen to this article:

COMMUNALISMGOVERNMENTRELIGIONRIGHTS

04/MAY/2022

What does the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC) look like?


In the popular imagination, the UCC will do away with personal laws. The votaries of the UCC within the Bharatiya Janata Party posit it as a necessary step towards gender equality. This is a thinly veiled reference to personal laws, which have not kept pace with modern times.


Hindu laws have, of course, been updated since the Hindu Code reforms of the 1950s to the extent that Hindu succession and divorce laws are now in a position to be called gender just. On the other hand, Muslim personal laws provided women a much fairer deal than traditional Hindu law, but with the Hindu Code reforms, culminating in the 2005 amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, they are a step behind in terms of gender justice regarding the law of succession.


While the reform of laws for the cause of gender justice is welcome, the form of the proposed UCC remains a mystery, unaddressed by polemical speakers.


What is required to make our laws gender just? A declaration of equal property rights and equal rights to seek divorce, to seek maintenance and adoption are definitely a good start, but are not sufficient by themselves to achieve gender justice. These are reforms to personal laws alone.


Article 44 of the constitution reads as follows: “Uniform civil code for the citizens – The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”


This mandate is not restricted to personal laws at all.


This call for a uniform civil code has to be seen for what it is: a constitutional call for equality in all walks of life. The proposed UCC would be effective if, and only if, it is truly a new civil code and not just a mere declaration of rights.


Need for a comprehensive civil code 


A Joint Hindu family, which is a bit of an anomaly in the current times, is already on its way out owing to the 2005 Hindu Succession Act reforms. Property is now being inherited by women, and they are now equally capable of disposing it off as the men in their families. As such, the family unit continually changes within the rules of the patriarchal system where the woman is supposed to go and live with her husband and his family. A ‘joint family’ is now more relevant to the tax law than property law. Yet, the vast majority of Indians are not heirs to any appreciable amount of property.


Issues of tenancy, access to housing, and access to stable and equal employment are more pressing issues for the vast majority of people than a Joint Hindu family or the proportion in which properties are to be divided under Hanafi jurisprudence.


It is fairly well-known how difficult it is for a single woman to rent a house. It only gets complicated when it is a single mother, or if the woman in question is a Dalit, Muslim, or from northeast India. In the case of such women, the process of leasing a house can further prove to be difficult. Opportunities of employment are heavily slanted against women as is the wage gap.



Women in India at an anti-harassment protest. Photo: Reuters


 


A gender-just UCC has to address such issues, by which landlords are penalised for denying a house to woman, and making our society pay for its bigotry and discrimination against women. An employer practicing discrimination ought to be punished. These are indeed the reforms the proposed UCC ought to focus upon.


Also read: A Hindutva Model of Uniform Civil Code May Make It Even Worse for Women


On the other hand, it should address other inequalities as well. Similar to the law protecting transgender persons was enacted to end discrimination against them in the matter of housing, access to services, employment, among others, a similar raft of protections ought to be extended to other protected categories of people, including women, Dalits, minorities and Adivasis.


Sexual minorities are also a category that deserves special protection, and the present dispensation has been markedly more sympathetic to their cause than to other disadvantaged groups. Some of the challenges faced by them are also faced by other groups as well.


Developing a new code grounded in progressive justice


The political pitch for the UCC seems to be a blatant communal one, albeit one couched in the language of progressive gender justice.


The framers of the constitution included Article 44 as a guarantee of equal citizenship, not in furtherance of any majoritarian principles. The communal pitch has to be countered by a progressive one, which not only exposes the hollowness of the communal demand but shows with clarity the true purpose and benefit of constitutionalism and the rule of law.


A new UCC, aimed at clearing the functional bottlenecks that choke the lived experiences of so many Indians, could be as revolutionary as the reforms brought in by Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. Ambedkar with the Hindu Code.


The Hindu law reforms were an act of imagination that fundamentally changed the nature of Hindu, and consequently, Indian society. Nehru especially faced opposition from within the Congress and had to politically manoeuvre a diluted version of the Hindu Code, which over the decades has expanded its scope to incorporate all that was envisaged originally.


Even this diluted version has set in motion social processes that changed the country. Even for Muslims, the laws have become increasingly gender-just by giving Muslim women an option to adopt remedies under secular laws if they wish.


These reforms opened up possibilities for so many Indians, women in particular, which would otherwise have been unthinkable. An imaginative new UCC aimed at real reform than furthering a communal agenda will be a seminal event in the history of the Republic.


Sarim Naved is a Delhi-based lawyer.



A Hindutva Model of Uniform Civil Code May Make It Even Worse for Women

The hope of a unifying UCC as envisaged by the Delhi high court is absolutely at odds with the Hindutva narrative of ‘love jihad’, which seeks to disempower women. We do need gender justice, and we need it now.


A Hindutva Model of Uniform Civil Code May Make It Even Worse for Women

Representational image. Photo: Khadija Yousaf/Unsplash, (CC BY-SA)


Support Us

Listen to this article:

GOVERNMENTRIGHTSWOMEN

10/JUL/2021

It is a strange phenomenon that the votaries of Uniform Civil Code (UCC) are often great believers in the ‘love jihad’ myth. That ‘love jihad’ is an untruth, is surely known even to those who fulminate most angrily about it. What lies at the foundation of the ‘love jihad’ lie is a fundamental discomfort with modernity. Endogamy is, of course, the backbone of sectarianism. Inter-faith marriages are one of the natural threats to sectarianism.


‘Love jihad’ laws seek to criminalise the act of ‘forced’ religious conversion for marriage. The UCC would bring an end to such laws. Presumably, when the process and legalities of marriage are common to all, there would be no rationale for conversion, no need for 30 days advance notice under the Special Marriages Act or for confusion regarding religious rites necessary for a valid marriage. Into that heaven of freedom, let my country awake. Surely, concerns regarding ‘love jihad’ and the laws designed to prevent this mythical evil would no longer be necessary.


The proponents of the ‘love jihad’ myth, of course, would not be happy with this version of the UCC. The ideas behind the pernicious ‘love jihad’ myth are patriarchal, sectarian, communal and regressive. The Delhi high court has recently observed that “the traditional barriers of religion, community and caste are slowly dissipating” and that the time for the UCC may very well have come. However, the kind of progressive UCC envisaged by the Delhi high court does not seem to be on the horizon.


Also read: For the BJP, ‘Women’s Rights’ Are Really All about the Men


There are views for and against the UCC. The Union government has the UCC as part of its agenda, declared in its manifesto in advance of the 2019 elections. Supporters of the government claim that the UCC is inevitable. Religious minorities largely and some strands of secular thought oppose the UCC, as it would tend to violate the constitutional guarantees given to religious practices of minorities and their personal laws. The debate is well known and need not be rehashed. Assuming that the UCC is coming, what would it look like?


While the supporters of the UCC want to clamour for it rather enthusiastically, there is little, if any, clarity as to what this UCC will be like. From public pronouncements and the general Hindutva tendencies of these supporters, the UCC seems to be taking on shades of Shastric law. Yet, are there takers for traditional Shastric law in modern India?


The pre-1955 position in India, before the Hindu Code was brought in to reform Hindu laws, meant that women largely did not have the right to divorce, to property, or to personal freedoms which have now become irreversible. Considering the fact that the most prominent Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chief minister Yogi Adityanath has publicly stated that women ‘need protection’ and not independence, and another recently removed chief minister expressed great dismay over the national security threat posed by women wearing torn jeans, the BJP does seem to be singularly comfortable with misogynists amongst its ranks.


The BJP’s ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), still does not admit women into its ranks, preferring to maintain a separate women’s wing which does not in any way rival its male counterpart in influence, standing or visibility. The BJP’s women leaders only speak out about violence against women when it is politically expedient, and certainly not when such violence takes place in BJP-ruled states. The possibilities of a gender-just UCC under the BJP are slim to none.


However, assuming that the BJP’s conception of the UCC is indeed gender just and obliterates the realities of religious identity in matters of matrimonial law, succession, maintenance, guardianship and adoption. What does it do to the ‘love jihad’ narrative? Can the ‘love jihad’ myth coexist with a nation under a UCC where inter-faith marriages will just be marriages, without the State recognising any distinction between marriages within a faith or without.



Women in India at an anti-harassment protest. Photo: Reuters


Will the Hindutva model of UCC pass the constitutional legal test?


The UCC as envisaged by the votaries of Hindutva is doomed to fail. It will certainly not pass the constitutional legal test. One can hope that it will not even pass the popular democratic test of elections. We do need gender justice, and we need it now. It is non-negotiable. Yet, we are faced with a government which restricts free speech in the name of freedom, makes us insecure in the name of national security and divides us in the name of unity. This government cannot be trusted with an initiative like the UCC.


Also read: The Modi Cult Is Far from Finished


Under Indian family law, the issue of maintenance, child support and adoption have essentially been secularised. All women are free to claim maintenance and custody under the Domestic Violence Act. All are free to adopt under the Juvenile Justice Act. The lack of uniformity is restricted to certain areas of family law, namely, rites of marriage, proceedings for divorce and matters of succession. These are intimate matters of lived experience, and it may not be desirable or possible to seek to change them at the mere stroke of a pen, especially when the pen is likely to be wielded by a government which has a worldview at odds with progressive principles. It seems facile to expect gender justice from a government where threats of abuse and rape are rained on vocal women on social media every day. The kind of sexual violence against women seen in India, especially in Uttar Pradesh, is debilitatingly terrifying.


The hope of a unifying UCC as envisaged by the Delhi high court, for empowered independent women, is absolutely at odds with the popular Hindutva myth of ‘love jihad’ which seeks to infantilise and disempower women. Women, in India, in any community have it worse than men. The danger posed by the present government and its ruling ideology is that the 66-year-march of steady increase in women’s rights and independence, may yet be reversed. The situation we are in is far from ideal. The Hindutva UCC narrative may end up making it worse.


Sarim Naved is a Delhi-based advocate.

Monday, 7 November 2022

Violence against Muslims in India Incidents

 Violence against Muslims in India Incidents

1948 Hyderabad Massacre

1969 Gujarat riots

1970 Bhiwandi riots

1980 Moradabad riots

1983 Nellie massacre

1985 Gujarat riots

1987 Hashimpura massacre

1989 Bhagalpur violence

1992 Bombay riots

1993 Pangal massacre

1983 Nellie Massacre Assam 2,191 Muslims 

2002 Gujarat riots

2006 Malegaon bombings

2013 Muzaffarnagar riots

2014 Assam violence

2020 Delhi riots

The Uniform Civil Code

 The Uniform Civil Code

What were the Constituent Assembly debates about the UCC? What were the different arguments? Is uniformity even desirable for a nation that is as diverse as India? How have Courts looked upon the implementation of the UCC?

‘Uniform’ diversity: Large number of men and women from various Muslim organisations in a protest against the Uniform Civil Code in 2016. File Photo

THE GIST

Gujarat has joined the list of BJP-ruled States that have called for implementing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). While there is no draft or model document yet for the UCC, the framers of the Constitution envisioned that it would be a uniform set of laws that would replace the distinct personal laws of each religion.

The clause on UCC generated substantial debate in the Constituent Assembly about whether it should be included as a fundamental right or a directive principle. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar felt that while desirable, the UCC should remain “purely voluntary” in the initial stages. He stated that the Article “merely” proposed that the state shall endeavour to secure a UCC, which means it would not impose it on all citizens.

It has been argued that while India does have uniformity in most criminal and civil matters like the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure Code, States have made over 100 amendments to the CrPC and IPC, as well as several amendments to civil laws. Similarly, looking at the codified personal laws of various communities in India — all Hindus are not governed by a homogenous personal law even after the enactment of the Hindu Code Bill, neither are Muslims and Christians under their personal laws.

Diksha Munjal

The story so far:

Ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections, Gujarat on October 29 joined the list of BJP-ruled States that have called for implementing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Gujarat Home Minister Harsh Sanghavi along with Union Minister Parshottam Rupala announced that the State will constitute a committee headed by a retired High Court judge to evaluate all aspects for implementing the UCC.

What did the Constituent Assembly say about the UCC?

Article 44 contained in part IV of the Constitution says that the state “shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. While there is no draft or model document yet for the UCC, the framers of the Constitution envisioned that it would be a uniform set of laws that would replace the distinct personal laws of each religion with regard to matters like marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance. Part IV of the Constitution outlines the Directive Principles of State Policy, which, while not enforceable or justiciable in a court of law, are fundamental to the country’s governance.

The clause on UCC generated substantial debate in the Constituent Assembly about whether it should be included as a fundamental right or a directive principle. The matter had to be settled by vote; with a majority of 5:4, wherein the sub-committee on fundamental rights headed by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel decided that securing a UCC was not within the scope of fundamental rights.

Members of the Assembly took starkly contrasting stances on the UCC. Some also felt that India was too diverse a country for the UCC. Member Naziruddin Ahmad from Bengal argued that certain civil laws in all communities were “inseparably connected with religious beliefs and practices”. He felt the UCC would come in the way of Article 19 of the draft Constitution (now Article 25) which guarantees the right to freedom of religion subject to public order, morality, and health. While he was not against the idea of a uniform civil law, he argued that the time for that had not yet come, adding that the process had to be gradual and not without the consent of the concerned communities.

Member K.M. Munshi however, rejected the notion that a UCC would be against the freedom of religion as the Constitution allowed the government to make laws covering secular activities related to religious practices if they were intended for social reform. He advocated for the UCC, stating benefits such as promoting the unity of the nation and equality for women. He said that if personal laws of inheritance, succession and so on were seen as a part of religion, then many discriminatory practices of the Hindu personal law against women could not be eliminated.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had more of an ambivalent stance toward the UCC. He felt that while desirable, the UCC should remain “purely voluntary” in the initial stages. He stated that the Article “merely” proposed that the state shall endeavour to secure a UCC, which means it would not impose it on all citizens. The amendments to protect personal laws from the UCC were eventually rejected.

What are the various arguments around the UCC?

It has been argued that while India does have uniformity in most criminal and civil matters like the Criminal Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code, and the Contract Act, States have made over 100 amendments to the CrPC and IPC, as well as several amendments to civil laws. For instance, BJP-ruled States reduced the fines prescribed and justified by the Centre under the amended Motor Vehicles Act. Another example could be that the law of anticipatory bail differs from one State to another.

Experts thus argue that if there is plurality in already codified civil and criminal laws, how can the concept of ‘one nation, one law’ be applied to diverse personal laws of various communities? Besides, constitutional law experts argue that perhaps the framers did not intend total uniformity, which is why personal laws were placed in entry 5 of the Concurrent List, with the power to legislate being given to Parliament and State Assemblies.

Looking at the codified personal laws of various communities in India — all Hindus are not governed by a homogenous personal law even after the enactment of the Hindu Code Bill, neither are Muslims and Christians under their personal laws. Even at the time of drafting the Hindu Code Bill, several of its provisions actually sought to locate the complex links between the importance of inheritance, succession rights and the right to divorce. But facing staunch opposition from conservative quarters, it was amended, diluted, and watered down multiple times to finally be separated into four different Acts — the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act — in the 1950s.

Constitutional law scholar Faizan Mustafa notes that while marriages amongst close relatives are prohibited by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, they are considered auspicious in the south of India. Even the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 made several compromises and could not make the daughter a coparcener till 2005. Wives are still not coparceners nor do they have an equal share in inheritance. Similarly, there is still no uniform applicability when it comes to the Muslim personal law or the Shariat Act that was passed in 1937. For instance, the Shariat Act is not applicable in Jammu and Kashmir and Muslims continue to be governed by customary law which is at variance with the Muslim personal law in the rest of the country. The applicability also varies for certain sects of Muslims. Besides, many tribal groups in the country, regardless of their religion, follow their own customary laws

While the Supreme Court in 2019 hailed Goa as a “shining example” of an Indian State which has a functioning UCC, experts point out that the ground reality in Goa is more complex and that the Code has legal pluralities. The Goa Civil Code was given by the Portuguese in 1867; it permits a certain form of polygamy for Hindus while the Shariat Act for Muslims has not been extended to Goa with Muslims of the State being governed by Portuguese law as well as Shastric Hindu law. The Code gives certain concessions to Catholics as well. Catholics need not register their marriages and Catholic priests can dissolve marriages performed in church.

Meanwhile, the BJP’s 2019 manifesto as well as the Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami’s UCC committee proposal argue that the uniform code would be formed by taking the best practices of various religions and tailoring them for modern times. Researchers say this would essentially mean picking up certain Muslim practices and applying them to the Hindu community (or vice-versa), and question whether there would not be any opposition to the same.

What has the Supreme Court said about the UCC?

The Supreme Court in various judgements has called for the implementation of the UCC. In its Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum judgement of 1985, where a divorced Muslim woman demanded maintenance from her former husband, the apex court while deciding whether to give prevalence to the CrPc or the Muslim personal law, called for the implementation of the UCC.

The Court also called on the government to implement the UCC in the 1995 Sarla Mudgal judgement as well as in the Paulo Coutinho vs Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira case (2019)

What has the Law Commission said?

The Modi government in 2016 requested the Law Commission of India to determine how to form a code in the presence of “thousands of personal laws” in the country. In 2018, the Law Commission submitted a 185-page consultation paper on the reform of family law. The paper stated that a unified nation did not necessarily need “uniformity”, adding that secularism could not contradict the plurality prevalent in the country. In fact, the term “secularism” had meaning only if it assured the expression of any form of difference, the Commission noted. While saying that a UCC “is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage”, the report recommended that discriminatory practices, prejudices and stereotypes within a particular religion and its personal laws should be studied and amended. The Commission suggested certain measures in marriage and divorce that should be uniformly accepted in the personal laws of all religions. Some of these amendments include fixing the marriageable age for boys and girls at 18 years so that they are married as equals, making adultery a ground for divorce for men and women and simplifying the divorce procedure. It also called for the abolition of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) as a tax-exempted entity.

What is the government’s stance?

While the UCC is a long-time poll promise of the BJP, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said in Parliament this year that the government currently had no plans to set up a panel to implement the UCC and requested the 22nd Law Commission of India to undertake an examination of various issues relating to the same. The chairperson and members of said Law Commission, which was set up in 2021, have not yet been appointed.

Madrasas face an existential crisis

 Madrasas face an existential crisis

With funds drying up, they are struggling to feed the hungry and impart literacy


Ziya Us Salam ziya.salam@thehindu.co.in


There has been a lot of unhappiness about the Yogi Adiyanath government’s decision to conduct a survey of unrecognised madrasas in Uttar Pradesh. The government’s claim — of the survey being an exercise to help the madrasas and their students — has been less than convincing. In the past, the government has called into question the patriotism of madrasa students by asking their management to hoist the national flag on Independence Day, record the proceedings, and submit the same to the local magistrate.


Yet, the fact remains that unrecognised, irregular madrasas could do with some help. Most are floundering for lack of direction. Many impart elementary theological instruction through semi-educated teachers. If at all there, secular education is, at best, piecemeal. Madrasas depend almost fully on community funding. And with the economic downturn — first post-demonetisation and then post-COVID-19 — that funding has reduced to a trickle. Under normal circumstances, an institute pressed for funds cuts down on expansion plans or puts new courses on hold. Here, it has become an existential crisis for tens of thousands of students. The dwindling community sponsorship has translated into less food to eat and no warm clothes for them. If that makes it seem as though the madrasas’ prime purpose is to feed and clothe the needy, the reality is not entirely different. Most students are first-generation learners. Many of them are sent by parents with the idea that there will be one less mouth to feed at home. For poverty-stricken parents, the madrasas’ free boarding and lodging is a blessing. The education is often considered a bonus. The much-maligned madrasas feed the hungry and impart literacy.


Today, it is becoming challenging to operate madrasas in Uttar Pradesh. For instance, Jamiatul Hamd in Gautam Buddha Nagar district is a rare madrasa which encouraged its students to take the Central Board of Secondary Education exams alongside learning to be Hafiz-e-Quran (one who has memorised the Quran). The madrasa is so short of funds that the management does not know where the next meal for the students will come from. In the past, Good Samaritans sent packs of rice, lentils, wheat flour and cooking oil. Such sponsorship has come down drastically, leaving the students with the prospect of going to bed hungry. Most of them also do not have blankets to cover themselves in the coming winter. Also, 40% of the students in this madrasa who went back home during the COVID-19 pandemic did not return.


The scene is not too different at the Jamia Mahad-e-Noor madrasa in Dadri, where 30% of the students dropped out after COVID-19. Day scholars face an uncertain future. Some teachers could not be retained due to paucity of funds.


Meanwhile, the cash-strapped Jamia Naseeriya Islamia in Ghaziabad closed down its wing for outstation students. In mosques across Uttar Pradesh, community aid is sought for unrecognised madrasas after daily prayers. In almost every madrasa, there are lingering apprehensions about their fate after the survey. Many packed off their outstation students in panic when the survey started. The students may never return.


Incidentally, these schools had also sent back their outstation students after the nationwide lockdown was imposed in March 2020. Many students did not return as their parents got them employed as either farm labourers or at sundry tea shops or eateries. A student who may have at one time dreamed of becoming a scholar of Islam is now a menial worker.


Most madrasas stayed shut for more than 18 months during the pandemic. But unlike public schools, they imparted no online instruction as most children studying in these madrasas had no access to smartphones at home. Even a seminary like Darul Uloom, Deoband could not continue online instruction for this reason.


The fear of the survey has only made things worse. Students of madrasas which do not have an electricity connection and use just a handpump to provide water are particularly vulnerable. Ownership documents are not exactly foolproof. As more and more parents withdraw their children from madrasas, and many seminaries send back outstation students, learning may come to a full stop for thousands of youngsters.