Opinion View From The Right: Bengal Problem

New code

Another article in the Organiser argues for the uniform civil code. Pointing out that “non-discrimination on the basis of religion is the precondition of a ‘liberal secular democracy’ ”, the article says this principle is thwarted in the name of secularism. On May 12, the Supreme Court, while questioning why a Christian couple has to live separately for two years to seek divorce by mutual consent when the period is just one year for couples from other communities, once again underlined the need for a common civil code in the country, it states. “A bench of Justices Vikramajit Sen and A.M. Sapre, while examining the validity of a 146-year-old provision, said that one ‘secular law’ should be made applicable to all people cutting across communities and religions all over the country. The problem in our country is that whenever there is a discussion about a common civil code a section of people start confusing religion with personal law. The debate on the uniform civil code needs to be brought out of the secular-communal discourse and deliberated on with a ‘gender justice’ perspective,” the article argues.

The author, Vikramjit Banerjee, a Supreme Court advocate, also questions the argument that any interference with family law or the law of succession is effectively a violation of the right to religion of the person concerned. “This is an obvious and fallacious argument. Everybody knows that historically laws of succession have always been governed by the rules and regulations imposed by the state,” he says, adding that succession law in India was extensively changed both during the time of the Mughals and the British. He says: “It is high time that we approached the debate about the uniform civil code afresh, without the blinkers of religion… For a truly prosperous, cohesive, progressive India… we need a comprehensive uniform civil code. Not only would it be in consonance with the fundamental fights and directive principles of state policy but it would go a long way towards excluding religion from public life, or in other words, bringing in true secularism.”

The real enemy

The latest issue of Panchajanya has a report on a talk by Tarek Fatah, a Pakistan-born Canadian writer, organised by the Bhartiya Vichar Manch in Ahmedabad. It states that Fatah has said that Muslims are not the enemies of India, but Pakistan is. Indians are looking for Dawood Ibrahim, but there are several of them present in Pakistan. Quoting him, the article claims that Pakistan is the real source of assistance to the ISIS and all the jihadis get support from it.

According to the article, Fatah argued that Aurangazeb, who killed his father, son and sister, cannot be called a leader. Recalling that it was a Hindu king who had given permission to construct a masjid in India even before the mosque in Medina, he said Aurangazeb, however, was an enemy of India. “There should not be any place in this country in his name,” Fatah is quoted as saying.

Compiled by Liz Mathew.