Re: Please, Please!! What is this UCC?

[Arvind Kumar <arvind.kumar@rocketmail.com>]

---Sanjeev Sabhlok <sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Indranil DasGupta wrote:
>
> > Finally: I would like a debate followed by a
"referendum" on including
> > the UCC in the draft proposal. We can't duck this
issue, even if
> > many would like nothing better. Unfortunately,
the Indian Constitution

How true! Many would indeed prefer ducking this issue.
I hope you noticed how most poeple ducked the issue
of providing education for the minorities despite
involving themselves in esoteric discussions on
religious matters.

>
> I am really tired of listening to this. I want to
know "The Case for
> UCC"

The case for UCC is that law must not place anyone at
a disadvantage. The fundamental reason for having
special laws is to address those areas which cannot
survive under normal circumstances.

> Only a very few things differ: inheritance,
marriage & divorce, etc.

On a case by case basis, if the corresponding law
for a particular group doesn't put them at a
disadvantage, different laws are tolerable.
At the core of this issue is the question of minority
institutions.
Why not extend it to majority too? What do you say to
that? Government to pay for educational institutions
of all communities and not ask any questions.

Paying money to sustain any educational
institution which does not provide modern education
is a waste. I do not see any point in sustaining
any religion using public money.
Recently, BJP tried to extend it to the majority
community too. Note that this doesn't trample on
the so called minority rights. Would you accept that?
I wouldn't for the simple reason that religion
should be a private affair.

Please do not bring in the issue of marriage, divorce
and inheritance. That is a totally different issue.
It can be dealt with separately.
Even there, if you are going to treat women as third
rate citizens, the law should step in. I do not
see why medieval laws should hold in a progressive
society. If religion says X should inherit so much
while Y should not because Y is a woman, RELIGION
IS WRONG. Chuck it out.
If you can criticise laws made in 1860s, why do you
accept laws made 100s of years ago? Why uniformity
only in civil laws? Why not in criminal laws too?
Shall we chop off the hands of a pickpocket if he
is a Muslim? If we can do away with that law, why
not with the laws oppressing women?
We need laws to protect its citizens, not to protect
religions.
Please note that I do not advocate UCC. there will
be discrepancies which should be dealt on a case by
case basis. I have merely addressed the issues which
have been highlighted in India by the UCC squabble.

-Arvind


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------