October 31, 2007
Diversity in the Indian Constitution (Guha Chapter 6)History
[Part of an ongoing series on Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi. Last week’s entry can be found here. Next week we will skip a chapter, and go directly to Chapter 8, “Home and the World,” which explains how India evolved its “non-aligned” status.]
I’ve actually written a longish post on the idea of “secularism” in the Indian constitution in the past, but of course there’s more to say. The entire proceedings (more than 1000 pages of text!) of the Constituent Assembly have been posted online by the Indian Parliament here. Guha’s account comes out of reading through those proceedings, and is also deeply influenced by Granville Austin’s classic book, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, which is still as I understand it the definitive book on the subject.
As many readers may be aware, the Indian Constitution was worked out over the course of three years (1946-1949), by a Constituent Assembly that contained 300 members, including representation by religious minorities, members of marginal groups (i.e., Adivasis), as well as a small but vocal group of women.
Three of the profound disagreements that the members of the Assembly had to resolve included: 1) the proper role of Gandhian philosophy in defining the new nation, 2) the question of “reservations” for Dalits and Tribals (Scheduled Castes and Tribes), and 3) the status of Indian languages, and the idea of an “official” language.
1. Panchayats.
Let’s start with the question of the Gandhian idea of village panchayats, which was essentially rejected by the Constituent Assembly in favor of a strong, modern, centralized government. The lead voice in rejecting the Panchayat system was of course the Dalit lawyer and political figure B.R. Ambedkar. Here is Guha:
Some people advocated a ‘Gandian constitution,’ based on a revived panchayat raj system, with the village as the basic unit of politics and governance. This was sharply attacked by B.R. Ambedkar, who held that ‘these village republics have been the ruination of India.’ Ambedkar was ‘surprised that those who condemn Provincialism and communalism should come forward as champions of the village. What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism?’
These remarks provoked outrage in some quarters. The socialist H.V. Kamath dismissed Ambedkar’s attitude as ‘typical of the urban highbrow.’ The peasant leader N.G. Ranga said that Ambedkar’s comments showed his ignorance of Indian history. ‘All the democratic traditions of our country [have] been lost on him. If he had only known the achievements of the village panchayats in Southern India over a period of a millenium, he would not have said those things.’ However, the feisty female member of the United Provinces, Begum Aizaz Rasul, ‘entirely agreed’ with Amdedkar. As she saw it, the ‘modern tendency is towards the rights of the citizen as against any corporate body and village panchayats can be very autocratic.’ (119)
(Incidentally, the entire text of Ambedkar’s speech is at the Parliament of India website, here. Go check it out — it’s a fascinating document.)
I know that there are still neo-Gandhian thinkers out there who value highly decentralized government as a way of preventing tyranny. And it has to be admitted since independence, the Indian “Centre” has often overstepped its bounds, culminating perhaps in Indira Gandhi’s 1975 “Emergency” (many other instances could be mentioned).
But the fact that the most prominent Dalit representative and one of the most prominent women in the Assembly saw the “village” as a site of backwardness and repression, not liberation, cannot simply be ignored. They saw the move to centralization — and a focus on individual, rather than group or “corporate” rights — as a necessary step towards nudging Indian society towards caste and gender equality.
In my view, it’s a remarkable thing that the Indian Constitution essentially rejected Gandhian thinking, especially given how powerful Gandhi’s ideas and political methods had been in achieving the state of independence that led to the writing of this Constitution to begin with. But it may be that Gandhi had too much faith that people were going to be good to one another, and even in 1948 itself some members of the Assembly were aware that something stronger than mere idealism would be required to guarantee the rights of the disenfranchised.
2. Reservations.
Reservations is a huge topic, one that I can’t possibly deal with in a very substantive way right now (see this Wikipedia page for a brief tutorial). Suffice it to say that when the Constitution was ratified in 1950, it contained reservations for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Tribe (ST) groups in Parliament and State Assemblies, but not for what were known as “Other Backward Castes” (OBCs), though reservations for those groups would be recommended later. (And this latter question became a hot issue yet again in 2006, though as far as I know the recommendation for national OBC reservations in Indian higher education has not yet been implemented.)
Guha’s brief account of the debate over this question focuses on an Adivasi (tribal) political figure I hadn’t heard of, Jaipal Singh from Chotanagpur in the southern part of Bihar. Jaipal Singh had been sent by missionaries to study at Oxford, where he became a star at field hockey, and indeed, won a gold medal in the sport in 1928. In the Constituent Assembly, he made the following remarkable speech:
As a jungli, as an Adibasi, I am not expected to understand the legal intricacies of the Resolution. But my common sense tells me that every one of us should march in that road to freedom and fight together. Sir, if there is any group of Indian people that has been shabbily treated it is my people. They have been disgracefully treated, neglected for the last 6000 years. The history of the Indus Velley civilization, a child of which I am, shows quite clearly that it is the newcomers—most of you here are intruders as far as I am concerned—it is the newcomers who have driven away my people from the Indus Valley to the jungle fastness… . The whole history of my people is one of continuous exploitation and dispossession by the non-aboriginals of India punctuated by rebellions and disorder, and yet I take Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru at his word. I take you all at your word that now we are going to start a new chapter, a new chapter in of independent India where there is equality of opportunity, where no one would be neglected.
You can see the anger and the pain — but also the impressive willingnes to turn a new page, and cooperate fully in an “independent India where there is equality of opportunity.”
3. “Hindi imperialism.”
Finally, one of the most divisive questions of all was the status of English vis a vis Indian languages. At the moment of independence, it’s not surprising that a large number of participants in the Constituent Assembly found it galling that the proceedings were occurring largely in English, and some were insistent that the Indian constitution be “primarily” written in Hindi. There was also a strong movement to make Hindi India’s national language, which was of course rejected.
The simple truth is that there is no one, universal Indian language, and the people who were insisting that Hindi should be become that language had to give way, or risk provoking separatist sentiments from South Indians. Guha quotes one particular figure, T.T. Krishnamachari of Madras, along those line:
We disliked the English language in the past. I disliked it because I was forced to learn Shakespeare and Milton, for which I had no taste at all… . [I]f we are going to be compelled to learn Hindi … I would perhaps not be able to do it because of my age, and perhaps I would not be willing to do it because of the amount of constraint you put on me… . This kind of intolerance makes us fear that the strong Centre which we need, a strong Centre which is necessary will mean the enslavement of people who do not speak the language of the Centre. I would, Sir, convey a warning on behalf of people of the South for the reason that there are already elements in South India who want separation… , and my honorable friends in U.P. do not help us in any way by flogging their idea [of] ‘Hindi Imperialism’ to the maximum extent possible. Sir, it is up to my friends in U.P. to have a whole India; it is up to them to have a Hindi-India. The choice is theirs. (131)
What’s interesting about this for me is the way it already shows the contradictions in the desire to have a strongly centralized government — it can’t be done easily in a country with such strong regional language traditions.
For more on how “official language” questions in India have evolved since the writing of the Constitution, see this Wikipedia entry.
People have lots of complaints about the Indian Constitution — it’s ridiculously long, for one thing, and punted on several highly controversial questions (one of them being language, the other being the “Uniform Civil Code”). People who dislike caste reservations also often cite the Constituent Assembly as in effect the starting point for a system they feel has spiraled out of control.
But what I think is impressive about this process is the strong attempt made to include as many of India’s diverse voices as possible, without sacrificing a vision of effective centralized government. By contrast, the U.S. Constitution may be clearer and simpler, but it was written exclusively by property-holding white men who all spoke a single language (early America was actually much more linguistically diverse than people think). Native Americans were not invited, though in fact this was their land before the colonists came. Women were not invited, nor were African Americans. Despite its flaws, India’s Constitution did a much better job at defining the new nation inclusively than America’s did.
amardeep on October 31, 2007 11:51 AM in History · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Amardeep,
I have nothing substantive to add to your post as I haven't read the book but want to thank you for such detailed thoughtful commentary. For me personally these summaries you have written over the past few weeks have been absolutely wonderful in both content and tone.
Amardeep:
Personally, I've been a critic of the Indian Constitution, but the point you bring up is an EXCELLENT one and often overlooked by many (including myself) when discussing the pros/cons. The subcontinent has always had far more diversity than the American landscape did, and many of those groups had some power to project at the table through various champions/leaders - Native Americans and African Americans simply did not. In essense, the constitution was written for a subcontinent vs one for 13 colonies that broke away from their mother nation.
The presence of Jaipal Singh during deliberations on the Indian Constitution, and what he said to the assembled gathering, reading it now totally puts the dilemma of the Amerindian in perspective. That feeling will not and should not ever fade. I'm not sure anything but the time scale was amusing, though.
Guha also compares the quick fix method by which the Japanese constitution was by American military command unfavorably to the longer story of ours. Having take that trouble we know own it and have an allegiance to it, and something vested in it--which doesn't mean that amendments won't be an important part of its future. I think superimposing modern authorities on the functioning of existing panchayats has served women and minorities well.
The language issues seem to be on the back burner these days, or am I imagining this?
Sorry, I meant to say, by which the Japanese Constitution was knocked together in a fortnight. There are still politically active former diplomats extant and roaming about and talking out loud, who believe the virtue of the Japanese Parliament lies in the speed with which it passes resolutions to support initiatives of the Bush Administration!
T.T. Krishnamachari of Madras (TTK as he was known) was a very famous industrialist and politician in those days. TTKs products are still legion in India. He was involved in a scandal while he was Finance minister in the 1960s. Once in parliament, he rebuked Feroze Gandhi stating that he was a "pillar of democracy" and could not answer all allegations of 'barking dogs'. After the scandal came to light, Feroze Gandhi said in parliament that "Since the hon minister has called me a dog before, I will now proceed to do to him what a dog does to a pillar."
Make that 50s
Guha also mentions that Jaipal Singh would not tolerate any dissing of India/Indians from Britishers while at Oxford, so while he may have been "pained," he had a strong sense of cultural nationalism. Interesting figure, he.
The big failure of the deliberations was the lily-livered attitude displayed on Muslim personal law. Many of the constituents felt the Muslims were "not yet ready" for the hard personal reforms that eventually went through for Hindus and brought the Hindus into modernity. The rise of Hindu nationalism can in part be traced to the failure to come up with a Uniform Personal Code. Why in the world would they be so concerned with "Muslim sentiment" when Muslims just got their own country? Beats me.
Overall it must be judged a success. One of democracy's great founding documents.
------
The history of the Indus Valley civilization, a child of which I am, shows quite clearly that it is the newcomers—most of you here are intruders as far as I am concerned—it is the newcomers who have driven away my people from the Indus Valley to the jungle fastness… . The whole history of my people is one of continuous
-------
tribals are children of the indus valley civilization???
AFAIK, migration to India has been a never-ending process.
The Indian constitution has been criticized very directly here (as part of a very thoughtful critique on governance in India)
http://www.sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/breakingfree.html
May have been colonial propaganda-- there's no archaeological evidence to support the Aryan Invasion Theory.
Risible,
One of the reasons that the Constituent Assembly was "lily-livered" about Muslim personal law is that the country was still recovering from the mayhem of Partition. It made sense not to take on religious sensitivities and thus renew the possibility of dissension and civil disorder. "The Muslims got their own country," but millions of Muslims, for reasons practical and ideological, chose not to go to Pakistan. The Muslim population of pre-Partition India was estimated to be about 25% (100 million out of 400 million); after Partition, the percentage dropped to 11-12% (hard to construe exactly given migratory flux). That's still a huge number of people, and punting the religious divide was probably sensible at the time.
Incidentally, the framers of the US constitution had a cakewalk in comparison with the Indian Constituent Assembly -- nothing divides people as much as religion does, and though the US constitution famously guarantees freedom of religion, the founding fathers did not have to deal with the pragmatics of a population divided by religion. If 10% of the US population, even today, belonged to a religion outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the constitutional clashes over freedom of religion would be exponentially greater.
Amardeep -- As a fellow academic who is mostly a lurker, I want to commend you on your posts -- they are invariably thoughful and thought-provoking.
Amardeep - Thanks for summing it up so succinctly.
Thanks Amardeep. This post is excellent.
I'm not sure that having a long constitution is a bad thing. The Indian constitution came late to the scene and had the benefit of knowing the successes and shortcomings of those that had come earlier (US, French, British). Plus they got a complex country to work with. It was only natural that they thought about more scenarios and wrote a long one. True, the common man can't easily just pick up and read the consitution, but how many common people read their constitutions anyway?
Among the real bad things were allowing of the possibility of unending extension of affirmation action (originally, it was to be for 10 years, but the option to extend it was not eliminated) and the lack of a uniform civil code. This was either short sighted social engineering or short term gain in peace. Today, these are the cause of a lot of resentment and turmoil in Indian society and resolution is hard when a lot of electoral politics is based upon promises to either preserve or remove these exceptions to exceptions to uniform status. I don't think the framers had expected that this would be the case at all.
I agree with Texasbrown above that the kind of diverse state that the framers of the Indian constitution had to work with was perhaps unprecedented in history.
Yaay for TTK. TTK maps were the best for geography class.
not to be too pedantic, but britain does not have a written constitution.
Yes, it's not written as one constitution. So what? The laws of parliament regarding the subject serve the same purpose and the Indian framers paid attention. Anyways, most of the it is, in fact, written. Just doesn't look much like the other constitutions. Also there is no special distinction between ordinary and constitutional law ...i.e. they don't need to muster special majorities to effect constitutional amendments like the US or India.
After all that, it was odd to see a different (for the first time) map of India after coming to the US with "Azad Kashmir" and other parts of Kashmir removed.
While discussing the constitution, it might be interesting to read it (just samples).
One of the basic rules of documentation is that one when dealing with if a topic is complex, the more important it is to ensure that there are fewer rigid specifics, with precidence given to broard principles. This applies especially to constitutions, after all other parts of the legal system (laws, criminal code, etc) deal with the specifics.
The US consitution is a good example of a short sweet document that inspires people while laying out basic principles that have remained largely unchanged through
The indian constitution is a wonderful example of how not to write an official document, let alone an official document meant to inspire:
1. It is incomplete -- in the midst of the cacophony of creation many basic principles were missed (An Example).
2. Many terms are badly defined (if at all -- will provide an example later and its repercussions)
3. Many of the terms seem to be thrown in for the sake of satisfying one member or the other without regards to the final result.
4. It goes into unnecessary detail -- as the book notes this was pointed out by many members.
5. It is anti-hindu (I will go into the articles of the constitution that discrminate in detail later .. have to pay hafta with candy to some witches now :-) )
As for participants a delibrate feature was to remove hindu nationalists from the table (It was hippocritical given that the ML was given a large seat) They say a camel is a horse designed by commitee. In the indian constitution it shows.
Thoughtful and very well written post.
From the original article,
--> Gandhi was a master politician and tactician with a good idea of his followers' foibles. I am thankful his vision of village raj didnt take effect after independence. His vision lost out, deservedly, to a more centralized vision propounded by Nehru(no surprise) and Ambedkar.
--> I am curious about the importance of constitution in a country's democracy. (Not arguing one way or the other) Is one of the reasons it is more effective in US because the majority follow a religion of the book ? And because of separation of church and state, one book replaces the less concise and incoherent version ?
As for India's constitution, I like it purely for its incoherence. If ever there was a document that was written as a symbolic showpiece of a new nation's desire to turn a new page, this is it.
#18 DizzyDesi
--> If you are looking for best practices in forming a constitution, I would say it is the wrong place to look. It is a good place to look for results of negotiations between interest groups aware of their newfound power.
"The Muslim population of pre-Partition India was estimated to be about 25% (100 million out of 400 million); after Partition, the percentage dropped to 11-12% (hard to construe exactly given migratory flux). That's still a huge number of people, and punting the religious divide was probably sensible at the time."
Partition was the perfect time to establish uniform civil code. The choice would have been very fair. You want to live under Islamic laws you are free to move and if you wish to live under secular laws you are free to stay in India.
Hindus are the only religious group in India deprived of the choice to live under their own religious law. In addition the constitution gave minority religions right to create institutions with a certain degree of autonomy that Hindus do not have. This is why today you have Hindu temples overseen by government officials many of whom are stridently secular or even Muslim or Christian - these people are also put in charge of Hindu temple funds which recieve donations by Hindu worshippers. These funds are then redirected to by politicians to Islamic and Christian causes.
These are some of the many double standards of the Indian constitution that have caused many Hindus to see secularism as "pseudosecularism" and motivated them to become Hindu nationalists.
Amardeep, that was brilliant. Thank you.
#3 Amrita
--> The language issue, in my opinion, has moved decisively in the favour of the states. I am sure there will be pushes in the future towards one language from the centre but I dont think it will succeed(I desperately hope it doesnt).
#18 DizzyDesi
--> ML didnt assassinate Gandhi, did they ?
But it still would be a good idea to point out what a bad document Many early indian leaders' ideas, particularly Ambedkar continue to wield enormous influence today in the current indian ideology. A realization that these leaders' claim to fame is this ugly document will allow people to rexamine todays ideas without a bias towards these leaders ideas.
The Hindu Mahasabha had provided a lot of help to the refugees, was nationalistic, and represented a significant number of indians. The ban on them reeked of political opportunitism and appeasement.
Besides, for better or worse, the Hindu Mahasabha did not kill Gandhi.
The chorus of aggrieved Hindutvadis is really getting tiresome and predictable. On every major accomplishment, they find a way to sneak in the phrase "anti-Hindu." If Muslims are brutally slaughtered in communal riots, it's justifiable because of what happened at Vijayanagar 800 years ago. I'm waiting for someone to use the phrase "pandering to Muslims," since no comments thread would be complete without it.
JGandhi,
Hindus are the only religious group in India deprived of the choice to live under their own religious law.
Oh, I'm sorry, you want to reinstate the ban on untouchables at the Mandir? You'd prefer it if they reinstated polygamy for Hindus as well? And banning child marriage, what a pseudo-secular disaster that has turned out to be. (Look, if you really want a uniform civil code to ensure human rights for all -- as I do -- then you should be in favor of the reforms to the Hindu Marriage Act that began in the 1950s, and upset that they haven't been implemented across the board. It really is bizarre to want to move society back to the values that prevailed before the modern era.)
DizzyDesi,
I kinda tend to think that the killing of a 80 year old leader
Wow, you really have no respect, do you? It was Mahatma Gandhi, not just some old leader. This was a trauma for the whole nation -- and beyond.
Anyway, as Guha points out, there were conservative Hindus at the table -- starting with Rajendra Prasad.
Good post!
Irrespective of the language, the length and the things that may have got missed, the constitution of India has served the country well. We are still a secular democratic republic and growing stronger and better. Sure we have morons attacking India's secularism but there are plenty of Indians who truly believe in the principle still and deep respect to the founding fathers for that. The constitution gave powers to women, the backward classes among others despite the moronic religion wingers opposing it under the name of Hindu culture (WTF!!). That was significant. The constitution realized the idealism built in the ways of Gandhi and thus moved away from it despite the status of the great man. That was significant. Yes, I too feel that it may have been a good time to introduce the UCC but as Guha points out that there were concerns about minorities being unsure about India being truly secular. Still, that decision is still haunting us and one cannot help but wonder....
As for the language issue, my take is that at that time we had just freed ourselves from British imperialism and thus introducing English as a common language would not have got accepted. Today, when Indian English is a language of it's own and a lot of educated people appreciate all that the English language is bringing to India, I believe the opposition may not be as much. Unofficially it has become the language of use - just look at the DBD circles in the US for a small example, we communicate through English and as Indians, not as Gujjus and Marathis and Tamizhians and North Indians and South Indians despite our individual backgrounds. However, even today if they tried to make English the lingua franca of all things Govt in India, there would be a lot of opposition due to political mileage purposes.
...all things central Govt officially...
Amadeep you are muddying this unnecessarily. This has nothing to do with Aurengzeb or Ghanzni, and everything to do with Ambedkar and the framers of the constitution. Overall JGandhi is accurate in his desciption.
The Indian constitution is not secular in substance, form or intent. The constitution deliberately treats different religions in different ways. The fact that it calls itself secular is merely one of many examples of how badly written the document is.
The next two comments will discuss the specific articles and their impact:
BTW:
This is a red herring. And inaccurate and insulting to boot. Your so called Hindutvadis were reforming hinduism long before Nehru and his ilk did anything more than trek in the Himalayas.
“I visited the RSS camp years ago, when the founder Shri Hedgewar was alive. I was very much impressed by your discipline, the complete absence of untouchability and the rigorous simplicity. Since then the Sangh has grown. I am convinced that any organization which is inspired by the high ideal of service and self-sacrifice is bound to grow in strength.” - A certain half naked fakir (The Hindu: 17th September 1947) The visit he refers to occurred in 1934
Besides untouchability is taken care of completely by an article no-one has a beef with:
Article 17:
Abolition of Untouchability.—“Untouchability’’ is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of “Untouchability’’ shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
Guha is making excuses and so are you. They were there only because they were congressmen first and foremost. If you think that is irrelevant, well there were conservative Muslims in the congress too, so ML should not have been there.
Any way you cut it the fact that ML was represented (esp. after Pakistan) and the Hindu Mahasabha was not, reeks of hypocrisy.
Some respect is there, but it is for some of his personal values and for his value a moral leader. As a political leader he had way too many failures that others had to suffer for. To make things worse, he put Nehru in charge (seriously, look at the list of movements he led, from SA to Quit India, in terms of what their goals were, whether the goals even made sense at times, and what the movements actually landed up doing). I think that India would have been better off without him. Maybe not the world though.
Article 25
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.—(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
Nothing controversial here -DD
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
Give unto Caesar ...etc, nothing controversial here -DD
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
The crucial part of this is that this allows the government to in effect dictate the going-ons, and if so inclined, run Hindu institutions, but not, say Muslim or Christian ones. In a typically sloppy manner what amounts to “social change and reform” is not defined, allowing for exploitation. And over the years governments have exploited Hindu institutions in various ways:
1. Stuffing the board members with political cronies leading to the usual abuses and sloth our politicians are known for (many pearls actually turned to powder in Srirangam because of improper care)
2. Making the temples take up jobs that are the responsibility of the municipality (maintaining roads, etc). At times the temples bring in a lot of wealth to an area and its government due to religious tourism. What excuse does the government of such an area have for making the temple do its work of maintain roads, etc?
3. Marginalizing Hindu religious heads’ influence within the institution (by taking over the running of the institution and dictating the money spent or simply by fiat). This also reduces their influence on society, effectively removing the ability to propagate ones religion. It is particularly grating when someone like YSR (a Christian) can lecture Tirupati officials for asking Sonia Gandhi (another Christian)to follow what all non hindus in Tirupati are supposed to do ( to sign that they believe in balaji)
4. Siphoning off the money, reducing the people who actually carried out the functioning of the temple live in penury
5. Choking off funding and banning for traditional temple activities such as education and promotion of arts. (certainly the Devdasi system was terrible, but the patronage of arts should not have stopped)
6. Stealing temple lands in different ways: (and thereby cutting off the revenue)
a. By selling the land at artificially low prices to cronies/ benami representatives using the position in temple tboard
b. By encroaching upon the temple lands and later declaring
c. By blatantly just selling off temple lands to raise money (as in AP recently)
The state should have business running any Hindu temples or telling Hindus how to run their religion. The fact that the state is doing this is particularly irritating in the case of Hinduism as Hinduism has become so inclusive that it cannot be sticltly called a religion any more
I am not attacking secularism, I am attacking the lack of secularism.
In India the self-proclaimed secularists* support Hajj subsidies, support religious laws for minority communities in lieu of civil law (these laws include polygamy and divorcing a wife by texting her "talaq" three times)and advocate government officials to control mandirs and Hindu institutions. How is this not pseudosecularism? - How is this not theocratic? How can a constitution that permits or even sanctions this be considered secular?
I'm not sure why I am labeled Hindutva. I mainly want government to stop giving preferential treatment to any particular religion and I want the government to give Hindu insitutions the same autonomy other institutions get.
Cultural and Educational Rights
Article 29 Protection of interests of minorities.—(1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.
(2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
Article 30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. — (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Surprisingly there is no such protection for Hindus who want to establish and administer educational institutions . The result has been a lot of interference and manipulation by the government when it came to Hindu educational institutions. Famously this even led to the Ramakrishna mission to try to get itself classified as a minority. A link on article 30 and impact on hindu insitutions is here
Incidentally:
The marriage act was reformed in part because Nehru did not want his daughter to continue having an illegal marriage The Special Marriages Act of 1872 allowed inter religion marriage only if one declared "I am not Hindu, nor a Mussalman, nor a Christian". Indiara Gandhi did not want to give up her religion, so the marriage with Feroz was not legal.
All in all we should just have had a uniform civil law with plain old marriage reform acts. (would have also solved a bunch up problems that came up later)
#28 seems to have been double posted. can one of the posts be deleted?(esp since turned out longer than expected in the first place.
As usual, the topic of the uniform civil code topic results in spectacularly uninformed comments. For JGandhi, here's an old SM comment where I dug up the variety of different personal law systems many different communities live under in India (tribals, Bohras, Goans, muslims, hindus, Parsis, christians). Feel free to click on the links to the various Hindu Laws. Note that since I wrote the comment, Jammu and Kashmir has extended Muslim Personal Law to Muslim Kashmiris (Hindu Kashmiris were always subject to Hindu Law), abolishing its confusing old system of Muslim customary law.
Anglo-Muhammadan Law reform has been almost ignored by the Indian government, but the Courts have been using case law to re-interpret Indian Anglo-Muhammadan law in a more progressive direction. It would be interesting to compare it with Pakistani Anglo-Muhammdan law, which was significantly reformed in 1961, but since then has become less progressive. I think the Indian constitution's dream of a uniform civil code is as practical and desirable as a uniform Marriage ceremony, or a uniform funeral rite. India is not a uniform country, and laws won't make it so.
Anway, on topic, the Indian constitution making process is a marvel of inclusion, especially when compared to the farcical Pakistani constitution-making process, a process which ultimately included only Generals named Ayub Khan.
"I think the Indian constitution's dream of a uniform civil code is as practical and desirable as a uniform Marriage ceremony, or a uniform funeral rite. India is not a uniform country, and laws won't make it so."
No one wants to make the country uniform but true secularism is one set of laws for all citizens regardless of faith.
If this im impractical than I demand Hindus to be given the same prerogatives other communities have in setting up personal laws. Hindus should be allowed personal boards and panchayats staffed by Hindu leaders that formulate Hindu law depending on the strain of Hinduism (Swaminaryan, Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna) parallel to Christian and Muslim boards.
Current "Hindu Law" is really secular law that all members of parliament (including non-Hindus) formulate.
My first preference is secularism, but if we must have religious law than all religions must get equal consideration.
Jgandhi wrote:
Hindus should be allowed personal boards
They are. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board is a private lobbying organization set up in the early 70s. It has several competitors -- a feminist muslim law board, a shia Muslim law board, and a barelvi muslim law board.
Tomorrow, we could set up the "All-India JGandhi Personal Law Board" and lobby for separate divorce laws for JGandhi. You can be President, I'll be the General-secretary.
Current "Hindu Law" is really secular law that all members of parliament
Same for Muslim, Parsi, and Christian family laws. India's Parliament has complete freedom to legislate whatever it wants in these areas (mandatory 6 month alimony for Muslims, mandatory topless marriages for Christians, you name it). However, India's parliament has chosen to leave Muslims with an outdated, uncodified law (barring one law), so the Indian courts have to rely on case law. Also, Anglo-Muhammadan law in India is interpreted by judges who can be of any religion -- and are generally Hindu (one of the more important "creators" of islamic personal law in india is the Keralan former Supreme Court Judge Krishna Iyer).
Together, this means that Muslim law in India is a Hindu's view of how a Christian's 100 year old opinion of the Muslim Quran applies today. A very Indian approach
true secularism is one set of laws for all citizens regardless of faith.
That's a whole different kettle of machli. Secularism can also be different personal laws for each different faith. Or somehwere in between. In practice, things aren't so clear. Even the vaunted secular US constitution has been interpreted to allow certain religious communites, like the Amish, a lot of leeway. In other cases, religious differences have been recognized by not enforcing the law (e.g., fundamentalist mormon polygamy, until recently). There are a lot of different ways to be a secular state.
Ah, that's right. Hindutva types organised the "direct action day" for partition. :-)
Amardeep,
I see that you are concerned about the ban on untouchables in the mandirs. valid concern. Are you equally concerned about the ban on women in mosques/masjids in India. Do you think the government should intervene?
Again, why is it that this topic creates an epidemic of stupids?
Ponniyin wrote:
ban on women in mosques/masjids in India.
What ban? Here's the view of one Tamil Muslim: Jawahirullah, president, Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam says, "Women should have the right to offer prayers in mosques". Here is the famous Zakir Naik: "There is not a single verse in the Qur’an, which prohibits ladies from entering mosques."
But the actual situation on the ground isn't great. Tradition and convention make most Indan mosques male only, unlike in North America and other parts of Asia. But some Indian mosques have designated women's areas, and there is the famous women's only mosque in India. As you might expect, things are worse in the patriarichal, misogynist north as opposed to the South. But things are changing in India:
A few years ago, a young girl of 18, Sadaf Rizvi, broke conventions by praying in a mosque in conservative Lucknow city in northern India... Next day, 150 Muslim women turned up. In Calcutta women like Sameena Ikram, working in a corporate office, declares, ``We have to stand up for our rights and tell the men that they cannot stop us from offering prayers at mosques.'... The majestic Jama Masjid in Delhi, India's capital, has since seen many new entrants - Muslim women are offering namaz (prayer) inside the mosque
In the unlikely event that you are seriously concerned about "Women in Mosques" Ponniyin (as opposed to just trying to needle Amardeep) I can dig up some more links, and a reference good documentary on the issue, and e-mail the info to you. But to be clear, there is no "ban".
I don't want some BS from Quran/Hadiths. Hindutvadis tell the same stuff about there is nothing religious about caste tied to birth. I'm more interested in the reality and the action of the government to remedy it.
I'm concerned about "human rights" whether they be of 'Dalits" / "Muslim women".
Why don't you provide the links?. I have provided some info. on a different blog sometime back. The reality is that women are not allowed to pray in the majority of the mosques in India and typically jamaats are held there where they can't go to argue their cases.. And my question was directed towards Amardeep. Thanks for your views but I'd be interested in what Amardeep says.
The reality is that women are not allowed to pray in the majority of the mosques in India and typically jamaats are held there where they can't go to argue their cases..
I think Jamaats might be restricted to Tamil Nadu or the 4 Southern states at most. Muslims in India when they have disputes over personal law issues typically go to Courts. There is extensive case law on Muslim personal law issues in India.
Also at least in most North Indian states, women are in fact not prohibited from going to the mosques. Traditionally women dont go to the mosques but they are not prohibited per se.
I do think that the state governments in India need to legislate uniform laws on issues of child custody, child support, alimony etc so the less privileged members of the society (women, children) do not get hosed under Sharia law application.
The reality is that women are not allowed to pray in the majority of the mosques in India and typically jamaats are held there where they can't go to argue their cases..
Meddling by the jamaats cannot be proscribed anyway because I dont believe they have legal standing to begin with so how will you do away with them. The Muslims are free to go to Courts to settle issues based on the Sharia law. If some partiarchal fools circumvent the law and go outside the system, no uniform law can solve the problem.
As I stated in my previous comment, the Government needs to step in on issues of children etc. Leave the rest to the people.
It's a good thing they did not stay too rigid on the Hindi issue. Having language based states made sense. It wouldn't prevent further division of a single language state into multiple ones. But it made sense. I think having Hindi as the national language was discriminatory against Southern states.
Just out of curiosity, is Jana Gana Mana Hindi or Bengali?
But most of the mosques also serve as jamaats where the personal issues of property inheritance / divorce cases are decided
Thats simply not true. I am willing to be blown away by evidence to the contrary. Any links?
Ponniyin Selvan: As we discussed in some other thread, I actually have come around to supporting the Uniform laws. As I have become more informed on these issues, it seems to me that the women under Sharia are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to divorce, child custody issues etc. The Indian state governments need to step in to protect those rights. However, the problem is not with these issues getting settled in the mosques all over India at any significant level (thats not happening and cannot be prevented anyway by laws)
The problem is that the judges (Hindu or otherwise) can only engage in that much judicial activism and the application of Sharia in India gives the default advantage to men.
Ponniyin wrote:
The reality is that women are not allowed to pray in the majority of the mosques
Are you a muslim woman, Ponniyin? I know that's a hot topic at Sulekha, but I'm not sure it was ever resolved? I'm sure your views could be correct, possibly gleaned from having visited every mosque in India in a Burka, but as Al-Chutiya mentioned to you in the first Guha thread, woman are allowed in mosques in many places (that he knew of) in India. I'd say the same, and again, my personal experience is limited to North India, the most sexist part of the country. Do you have survey data on the issue? First hand experience? A compendium of first-han reports frm various states? Or just a hunch?
It's true that Indian Muslims are again unreformed when it comes to Muslim practices. A woman could make a fuss, demand her righst as a Muslimah, and pray in a mosque, and some educated women do, but many don't bother. Patriarchal attitudeas are ingrained in the subcontinent.
There is quite a bit the Indian government could do in this regard. First, update and reform Muslim personal law to recognize more recent, more progressive views of the Quran and sunnah. "Judge-made" law is fine, but black letter law is better. There are other, propaganda-type measures that could be taken.
typically jamaats are held there where they can't go to argue their cases..
This is true only in Tamil Nadu.
Remember, formally, masjids in India have no legal authority to resolve disputes. Informally, people go to their Mullah (or, in TN, Jamaat) to get advice, and use Jamaats to hash out arguments. Making the Indian court system more accesible and speedier is the solution. Law is a critical government service.
And my question was directed towards Amardeep. Thanks for your views but I'd be interested in what Amardeep says.
Just needling Amardeep then. OK. Don't foregt to mention that his turban clashes with his Kirpan. And his ear-hair is uncombed. How gauche.
Thanks for your views but I'd be interested in what Amardeep says.
Actually, Ikram and Al-C-f-D know more about the ins and outs of the Indian Muslim community than I do. I'll let their comments stand.
Ikram is being very misleading here.
"Hindu Law" is a secular set of laws that are Hindu in name only and freely legislated on by Parliament. Congress takes extra scrutiny to make sure "Hindu Law" does not have Hindu influence to mantain secularism. Of course anybody can lobby and set up all sorts of lobbying boards for anything but generally Hindu Law is anything but Hindu due to Congress Pary's policies .
Islamic and Christian law in THEORY can be changed at will by the government but in real life the "Secular" Indian Left has an absolutist, noncompromising position of deference to Islamic and Christian clerics who support laws based on orthodox interpretations of their respective religions. In practice these clerics who run the Islamic and Christian boards are more than just lobbyists, they are policymakers. Yes there are occasional interventions in particularly egregious cases, but for the most part deference is given.
The second prong of this "secularism" is government treatment of religious institutions. Islamic and Christians institutions are guranteed autonomy and also provided with government funds. Hindu instiutions are taken over and administrated by government officials and strictly denied access to government funds, instead they are forced to contribute funds to the government!
To sum it up Indian Secularism means (1) government creates and administers secular laws for Hindus and administers Sharia and Christian canon law for Muslims and Christians and (2) Government gives money and autonomy to Muslim and Christian institutions and subsidizes Islamic and Christian practices while takes money and autonomy from Hindu institutions and attempts to reform (change) Hindu practices. My position is this is not real secularism and a Consitution that permits these policies is not really secular.
Amardeep writes: >>Actually, Ikram and Al-C-f-D know more about the ins and outs of the Indian Muslim community than I do. I'll let their comments stand.
Now if you could also say: Actually, Ponniyin, JGandhi and DizzyDesi know more about the ins and outs of the Indian Hindu community than I do. I'll let their comments stand - then it would be true Secularism.
M. Nam
MoorNam: Whats up man? I dont see you around here anymore. We miss you!
Islamic and Christians institutions are guranteed autonomy and also provided with government funds.
I dont believe that the churches, mosques or madrasas get funding from the Government. If they do, any links?
Come'on.. Do you agree with Moornam's comment above?.
I'm just writing with a perspective of a "human rights proponent" / real "secularist". And Ikram and Al-C-f-D did not really negate what I said, but were relying on the typical "hindutvadi" arguments. These are cultural practices and don't have a religious sanction and these practices are prevalent only in particular regions etc..
Do you think maybe you are practicing "double standards" ? .
And Ikram and Al-C-f-D did not really negate what I said, but were relying on the typical "hindutvadi" arguments. These are cultural practices and don't have a religious sanction and these practices are prevalent only in particular regions etc..
Selvan: I actually agree with you on the application of the Uniform Laws when it comes to issues of women and children. However I dont think the impetus for that is because the personal law issues are being settled in mosques. Thats untrue and irrelevant and thats where I disagree with you. The impetus should be because the Sharia itself favors men in the Indian context.
On Hindu personal law (from an article by Guha):
Ambedkar's work on the Constitution is well known. Less well known are his labours on the reform of Hindu personal laws. Basing himself on a draft prepared by Sir B. N. Rau, Ambedkar sought to bring the varying interpretations and traditions of Hindu law into a single unified code. But this act of codification was also an act of radical reform, by which the distinctions of caste were made irrelevant, and the rights of women greatly enhanced.
Those who want to explore the details of these changes are directed to Mulla's massive Principles of Hindu Law (now in its 18th edition), or to the works of the leading authority on the subject, Professor J.D.M. Derrett. For our purposes, it is enough to summarise the major changes as follows; (1) For the first time, the widow and daughter were awarded the same share of property as the son; (2) for the first time, women were allowed to divorce a cruel or negligent husband; (3) for the first time, the husband was prohibited from taking a second wife; (4) for the first time, a man and woman of different castes could be married under Hindu law; (5) for the first time, a Hindu couple could adopt a child of a different caste.
Also: In the vanguard of the opposition was the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In a single year, 1949, the RSS organised as many as 79 meetings in Delhi where effigies of Nehru and Ambedkar were burnt, and where the new Bill was denounced as an attack on Hindu culture and tradition.
A major leader of the movement against the new Bill was a certain Swami Karpatri. In speeches in Delhi and elsewhere, he challenged Ambedkar to a public debate on the new Code. To the Law Minister's claim that the Shastras did not really favour polygamy, Swami Karpatri quoted Yagnavalkya: "If the wife is a habitual drunkard, a confirmed invalid, a cunning, a barren or a spendthrift woman, if she is bitter-tongued, if she has got only daughters and no son, if she hates her husband, (then) the husband can marry a second wife even while the first is living." The Swami supplied the precise citation for this injunction: the third verse of the third chapter of the third section of Yagnavalkya's Smriti on marriage.
***
So the "orthodox" may have hated the laws at the time, but does anyone, including the most recalcitrant of the lot, debate these things seriously today? The constituents blew an opportunity to initiate similarly widespread and potent reforms on 1/10 of the ummah, out of fear more than anything else, imo.
ACfd,
I have read news reports and quoted the link in my previous comments that talks about personal law issues being settled in mosques where women are not allowed. I understand that you agree with the need for the common civil code. if possible can you explain the inheritance laws . I think it is fairly biased against women. While the Hindu personal laws are reformed for giving equal rights to women, the other laws are not. I doubt that many people who oppose uniform civil code really know what they are opposing.
ACFD:
>>Whats up man? I dont see you around here anymore. We miss you!
I restrict myself to two kinds of posts:
1. Funny. Like some of Anna's posts/photo captions
2. Posts that call for or praise expansion of Government control over healthcare, marriage, Hindus, economy and other facets of life.
risible #51, and other posts which say: does anyone, including the most recalcitrant of the lot, debate these things seriously today?
I think most of those who are say this are missing the point.
By all means, the Indian Constitution may have resulted in good results. But the method is flawed, and will not stand the test of time. These changes should not have been brought by Government dictat, but by the maturity of civic society. And yes, if this maturity comes about in the year 3092 AD, then so be it.
What do you think is better: That widows and daughters are given a share of property because they are loved and cared for, or because the Government mandates it? What do you think will happen to those widows and daughters when a repressive regime comes about before a change in civic society? What do you think will happen if it's cheaper to bribe Government employees to look the other way (tamper with records/affidavits) so that the sons can throw out the widows and daughters with impunity? What do you think is happening in India nowadays?
The means are more important than the end.
M. Nam
Risible wrote:
The constituents blew an opportunity to initiate similarly widespread and potent reforms on 1/10 of the ummah, out of fear more than anything else, imo.
Expect that thew Hindu code bill went nowhere, due to the lobbying (in India, the term includes rioting) of Hindus. Real reform of Hindu Law (the kind that upsets JGandhi) took place in the 50s and has nothing to do with the constitution-making process. The constituents blew nothing -- they was no window for reform.
Again, Pakistan got around to reforming anglo-Muhammadan law in 1961, and the orthodox hated it. But (until Zia) they couldn't do anything. But there are important, and tragic, structural reasons why Pakistan and Bangladesh can reform Muslim Personal Law and India can't (remember, this is the same set of case law!).
" A few years ago, a young girl of 18, Sadaf Rizvi, broke conventions by praying in a mosque in conservative Lucknow city in northern India..."
Ikram, do you have the link to that piece of information? I might know her from a long time ago.
Good question.. Maybe you should also ask the same to Amardeep.
And I think, probably Amardeep's answer would be the same as mine.
Expect that thew Hindu code bill went nowhere, due to the lobbying (in India, the term includes rioting) of Hindus. Real reform of Hindu Law (the kind that upsets JGandhi) took place in the 50s and has nothing to do with the constitution-making process. The constituents blew nothing -- they was no window for reform.
You're right. I shouldn't have said constituents. As the article I cited mentioned, the Hindu Laws were passed in 55 and 56.
What do you think is better: That widows and daughters are given a share of property because they are loved and cared for, or because the Government mandates it? What do you think will happen to those widows and daughters when a repressive regime comes about before a change in civic society? What do you think will happen if it's cheaper to bribe Government employees to look the other way (tamper with records/affidavits) so that the sons can throw out the widows and daughters with impunity? What do you think is happening in India nowadays?
Hmm. The South wasn't ready for civil rights. Perhaps we should have waited for an organic change of heart to come over the southern white man before imposing our modernity on them too?
this is from Asra Nomani, maybe Ikram and Al-C-f-d should provide her a list of mosques where women are allowed in India.
Asra Nomani in Washington Post..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50097-2004Jan2.html
Asra Nomani: Dearest friend,
Your point is very legitimate, and one that I have thought about deeply. After all, of the five members on our board, one is from India (my father) and the other from Pakistan. And let's acknowledge that, along with Wahhabis and Salafis, scholars from other schools of jurisprudence have accepted the segregation and absence of women from mosques.
I will tell you why my experience and reporting prompted me to identify Arab culture. In part, Islamic scholars chronicle the introduction of segregation and partition in Islamic history to Arab culture. Also, in talking to so many members of mosques in America, it is with the arrival of students and immigrants from Arab countries that partitions started getting higher and higher in mosques.
You are absolutely right, however, that Muslims of other ethnicities cling to these ideas of separation and silence.
I, too, am very sensitive to the point that you are making for in my travels through India and Pakistan, I was able to enter only three mosques and was not allowed to even enter the mosque next to my ancestral village home.
Ultimately, you are absolutely right. We must liberate ourselves from oppressive thinking expressed quite universally throughout not only the Muslim world, but the larger global community.
Ponniyin wrote:
I doubt that many people who oppose uniform civil code really know what they are opposing.
I think I know what I am opposing.
A UCC is not necessarily more progressive. India could establish the Code of Hamurabbi as a UCC, or declare that all Indians will henceforth be coverd by Saudi law. Neither is progressive. On the other hand, each Indian state could pick the personal laws of a different Scandavian country -- not uniform, very progressive.
Aside from the political difficulties of a UCC (an idea which has been co-opted by communalist and seems to mean extending the Hindu laws to all Indians), there are good reasons why different communities should have access to different laws: they have different views on social relations.
For example, Catholic marriage is a divine sacrament, an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman. Muslim marriage is a revocable contract, a transaction with no divine import. Two fundamentally different views of what marriage is -- and it has practical implications. Muslim marriage contracts are supposed to have enforceable conditions, similar to pre-nuptial agreements. Pre-nups are not supposed to be enforceable in a Catholic marriage.
So, in designing a UCC would the Indian government allow enforceable pre-nuptial conditions? Either way you go, you create a system of marriage that violates the tenets of one faith or the other. And neither is "wrong" or less progressive. It's just a different way of viewing marriage. All UCCs would be non-secular because they would necessarily favour the beliefs of one faith over another.
So what's the truly secular solution? I'm glad you asked, Ponniyin, its freedom of choice in personal law. Allow any Indian citizen to live under any personal law system. Let Catholics have (obviously non-canonical) Muslim marriages with pre-nups. Let Muslims adopt using Hindu laws. And have some system to reconcile those who switch between systems. India's (legal) diverstiy and depth of law is a strength, not a weakness, and shouldn't be discarded.
I, too, am very sensitive to the point that you are making for in my travels through India and Pakistan, I was able to enter only three mosques and was not allowed to even enter the mosque next to my ancestral village home.
Wow, that is shocking.
Either way you go, you create a system of marriage that violates the tenets of one faith or the other.
Why do I need to care about not violating A,B or C faith. As I said before I'm arguing with a "human rights" perspective. Whether we really think men / women are equal before the law or not and whether the inheritance / divorce / etc and other personal laws are "just" .
risible: >>The South wasn't ready for civil rights. Perhaps we should have waited for an organic change of heart to come over the southern white man before imposing our modernity on them too?
We're not talking about freedom of individuals here - that's not debatable. The widows and daughters are free to walk out and earn and keep their own wealth. We're talking about what constitutes just and equitable distribution of ancestral property in various communities in a diverse India.
I'm disappointed at your poor analogy - I've always read your posts with interest.
Ikran #60 - Great post! I completely agree that UCC is anti-individualistic and should be scrapped. Hindus (along with the rest) should have their own personal laws that vary from caste to caste and region to region.
M. Nam
I'm disappointed at your poor analogy - I've always read your posts with interest.
Oh well. We all have up and down days Moor Nam, c'est la vie :-)
So what is your criteria for belonging to a caste?. caste determined by "birth" or determined by the "virtues" of a person irrespective of birth.
aren't we privilaging "groups" here over "individuals"? the implicit assumption in your statement is that people voluntarily choose to live in groups and follow "group values". but this is clearly not necessarily true. many people are born into groups and in such situations the values of such people are formed by this accident of birth. where is "free" choice here? also you seem to be gainsaying the implicit group pressure people feel to adhere to norms that they might find detestable, and that might be just as coercive as state enforced norms and laws. now i am not saying that the state should step in (since like you i too distrust most coercive organizations), but we should not romanticize civil society groups either (here lies the key to ambedkar's animosity toward village life; similar groups pressures are present to a much lesser extent in cities).
spelling typo, should be privileging
#23 DizzyDesi
--> Can you please point out where the constitution discriminated against the majority ?
--> So, you want today's ideas to be examined in a vaccuum ? Without referencing any historical influences ? Would that apply to your approach too ?
#24 DizzyDesi
--> Are we now discussing the role of muslim league in drawing up the constitution after independence in a vaccuum or are we bringing the entire history of muslim league, from its formation, while analyzing their role after independence ? Wouldnt it make sense for you to follow what you pointed out above ?
>>So what is your criteria for belonging to a caste?. caste determined by "birth" or determined by the "virtues" of a person irrespective of birth.
Who am I to decide what caste various people profess to belong to? I have neither the temerity nor interest to step on others' individuality or freedom, and I want others to extend the same courtesy to me.
If someone wants it to be based on birth, so be it. If someone else wants to be included in a particular caste because of his/her gunas, then so be it. If others want to take up the caste of a spouse, then so be it. To each his/her own.
This is where the Indian constitution is flawed. It freezes a person's identity based on his/her birth, and does not allow for personal change unless it comes under the parameters set by the Government. This will end in pain and social unrest. Communal and Caste riots are a symptom of the malaise.
M. Nam
Articles 25 (b) and 30 of the constitution (comments 29, 31)
The wording may have been just another case of badly written requirement, the constitution is littered with such examples, but the consequences have been huge.
This looks like an "yes and no" answer. Since you are advocating the "laws based on caste", don't you think you should define "caste in more concrete terms". Can a person belong to two or more castes simultaneously?. With a billion people and thousands of castes, what is the criteria to be used in solving problems that could arise between two caste groups. Can you clarify your position by giving some examples of real life scenarios?.
PS,
What I'm try to say is, as far as the Government is concerned, the caste of a person should be irrelevant. If there are caste-based laws, then people should be able to move in and out of caste groups (much like we move in and out of stocks) as and when they please.
1. Have thousands of caste-based and religion based laws for inheritance etc. In addition,
2. Have one Uniform Civil Code for everyone.
Let (adult)people choose what they want to when they turn 18 (with the option of switching as and when they please). If there is a conflict between people of two different castes/religions, then the UCC prevails.
M. Nam
#29 DizzyDesi
--> What is it called now ? Way of life ? An amorphous blob entering people's heads without their knowledge at birth ? Did any one tell the practicing hindus that they are not practicing a religion any more ? :)
#30 JGandhi
--> Fair enough. It is high time indian constitution is changed to reflect separation of religion from state. Separating out the poison of (all) religions from state would be a good start.
#53 MoorNam
What do you think is better: That widows and daughters are given a share of property because they are loved and cared for, or because the Government mandates it? What do you think will happen to those widows and daughters when a repressive regime comes about before a change in civic society? What do you think will happen if it's cheaper to bribe Government employees to look the other way (tamper with records/affidavits) so that the sons can throw out the widows and daughters with impunity? What do you think is happening in India nowadays?
--> And after the civic society has matured enough to let widows and daughters share property equally, government employees will stop taking bribes en masse and families will stop throwing out widows and daughters ?
While it sounds ideal to wait for indian populace(or at least a majority of them) to provide a share of property to widows and daughters, wouldnt it be prudent to lay down a marker that it is bad to do that(toss out widows and daughters) and then wait for the society to catch up ? Arent you pointing to the lack of consistency and integrity in implementation(a very common problem in India) to the actual desirability of the law itself ? Isnt one different from the other ?
#60 Ikran
--> If the UCC is declared by fiat, what you say is true. But a UCC arrived at through discussion would require (mostly retrograde) faiths to give and take from each other. And by doing that, maybe the entire edifice of faith might just take a knocking.
--> What about equality before constitution ? Isnt separate but equal in the eyes of the constitution a perverse option ?
Transaction costs ? Having one legal system at least concentrates costs of maintenance(updates, new laws, education, training, standards) while trying to resolve disputes. Having separate but equal personal laws is a recipe for disaster and a financial drain.
MoorNam,
Are you for or against Uniform Civil Code?. In one comment you say "UCC is anti-individualistic and should be scrapped" and in another say "there should be an UCC for everyone and in case of conflicts between groups, UCC should prevail".
Maybe I'm not getting the "nuance" ( because I am stupid as claimed by Ikram. :-) )
Can you explain with a real life scenario of how the "caste based personal laws" can be used to settle disputes within people of same caste and different caste. And if we are finally going to rely on