Ufont>
…from previous page
It is argued that if Hindus have their Hindu Code Bill, why can'tMuslims or Christians have their separate personal laws. Here, it should be remembered that the Hindu Code Bill is not a Hindu religious law. It is not based on the Hindu scriptures. It is called Hindu Code Bill, because it is applicable to the Hindus. If it can be made applicable to the followers of other religions like Jain, Buddha and Sikh, why can'tit be applied to Muslims and Christians? If they have an alergy for the name ?Hindu? let it be designated as ?Bharatiya Civil Law?.
Besides, the Shariat Law has not been made by any representative body of Muslim clerics. It was the creation of the then British Government. Some Muslim groups opposed its compulsory application to all Muslims; but their opposition was overruled. They were a minority in the entire Muslim community. Why were their sentiments not honoured? In many Muslim countries, there are religious minorities, are there special laws for them?
In short, I have to emphasise that opposition to the framing of a common civil law is anti-Constitution. What is needed is the will to do it. There should be a common law of marriage and divorce and the Government should enact that law. By doing so the Government would show its regard for the Constitution. It can be termed as one step in the exercise of its endeavour for which there is a mandate of the Constitution. Any hesitation or higgledy?piggledy should be unpardonable. The people should use the force of their will to make the political parties see the wisdom in having a uniform law at least for marriage and divorce. They must bring forth this issue in the coming Lok Sabha election.
(The author is the ex-chief Editor of the Tarun Bharat, Nagpur and ex-RSS spokesman.)
?Whosoever captures power will not be free to do what he likes with it. In the exercise of it, he will have to respect these instruments of instructions which are called ?Directive Principles?.?
?Dr B.R. Ambedkar
Comments