Truth that cannot be debated, can harm the country, RSS ideologue S Gurumurthy said, batting for a Uniform Civil Code in the country in an interview to News18. Explaining the origins of separate laws for Muslims in certain matters, Gurumurthy said the ruling BJP must bring to light how The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1937 led to Partition.
“It was not that the 1937 legislation was to legislate for the contemporary need of the people. It was to incorporate the religion of Islam. The difference between the Hindu Code 1956 and Shariat code in 1937 was that the latter wanted to incorporate the religion as legislation, but the Hindu Code was made to modify the religion to suit the contemporary times,” he explained.
Edited excerpts
You have penned two very interesting articles around UCC. You look back into history to explain the genesis of the UCC. So let’s start there. What’s the basis of it?
See, the UCC debate that is going on today is actually without the background of ‘why the UCC’. Particularly in constitutional India, why a legislative power should be given that elevated importance. It’s part of the legislative powers of any Parliament-united civil code.
But what is the need for such a serious debate in the Constituent Assembly and for a part of the mandate to Parliament? Once you answer this question, much of the confusion will clear.
The UCC is not written on a clean slate. It is not like passing, for example, the Hindu Code which was passed in 1956. It was on a clean slate. It had no earlier legislation. It was all practices. And practices varied from regions to regions, community to community, so they are codified. The Hindu law was a codified legislation. There were many issues which were not in-tune with the contemporary times, which were departed from.
The Hindu Code Bill faced a lot of criticism and objections. It was piloted through because, if we are a nation, we cannot have conflicting practices, and particularly practices which are not in tune with the contemporary needs and compulsions.
So the Hindu code was written on a blank paper which had no previous legislation. This is the most important thing. But if you look at UCC, which has been written, there are other communities also. There are Christian communities which have a legislation; for Muslim communities also there is a legislation. The most important thing is the legislation of 1937 which has not been discussed at all.
It was not that the 1937 legislation was to legislate for the contemporary need of the people. It was to incorporate the religion of Islam. The difference between the Hindu Code 1956 and Shariat code in 1937 was that the latter wanted to incorporate the religion as legislation, but the Hindu Code was made to modify the religion to suit the contemporary times.
That is why the Constituent Assembly felt that that legislation had a specific background and it resulted in the creation of Pakistan.
There are two dimensions to human life. One is religion and the other is economics. The 1937 law followed religion and, in economic level, they satisfied the need of the Muslim leaders.
You have also written that one of the most ardent advocates of UCC among our founding fathers was BR Ambedkar himself. All those who are today saying that we need to save democracy are also opposing the UCC.
The opposition to UCC is to be looked at from two angles. The ones who are opposing and are illiterate, I can challenge them for a debate with me. They are illiterate because, as I said, the mandate for UCC in the Constitution is in the background of a legislation which has serious adverse consequence for India. This has not been debated.
In fact, this is taken as the basis. The seriously wrong legislation which was passed in 1937 — the All India Shariat Act, which created Pakistan — created Islamic separatism.
The second thing is, of course, the wrong legislation has no acquired legitimacy due to vote bank politics. So it is now very necessary in the competitive vote bank politics. In opposing UCC, you are perpetuating a wrong which was done and divided the country in the post-independent period also.
In 1937, there was common civil law basis for Muslims and Hindus. They shared a common civil law so far as economic system and social practices affecting the economic system were concerned. But there are social practices that are affecting the family circumstances. For example, the Shariat Act itself was passed on the demand of all-India president of Muslim League Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He demanded that there should be Sharia law which will govern Muslim Civil Code. Period.
But it left out certain matters. That was the deal. To leave out certain matters that are contrary to Sharia and Quran. These are:
- The right to will your property away which is neither available in Sharia nor Islam
- The right to adopt children, which Prophet Mohammad condemns. The Shariat law 1937 does not stop adoption, it adopts the Indian Law of adoption for Muslims. Why? Because many Muslim zamindars who could not have a male child should be able to adopt
Around 70-8% of Muslims were landlords. They backed the Muslim League and therefore agricultural land was left out of Shariat law and it remains left out even today. Jinnah said in 1935 that the entire Northwestern province of what is today Pakistan followed Hindu law not only in economics but also in customs.
The mystery of the 1937 law which led to Partition is still working because that separatist mentality created is still working. The immoral failure of successive governments (after Partition) was that they did not create public opinion that this law created Pakistan and we cannot have it. They raised it to the level of Right to Religious Freedom. It has nothing to do with religious freedom.
If that is the case, then why is nobody talking about it? It has not been highlighted by the ruling disposition.
The BJP is failing in its duty by not bringing back these facts to the public domain, because these are not facts that happened 2,000 years ago. You can’t rewrite history. It happened. It created an enemy country that has become a permanent problem for India and it all happened from within.
You know who was Jinnah. Jinnah was a Khoja Muslim. You know Khoja Muslims have one of the most codified laws. Their origin is proven. Khoja Muslims’ history has been uncovered in Aga Khan’s case in 1866 in the Bombay High Court. Aga Khan claimed that he is the descendant of Ali who is the son-in-law of the Prophet.
Pir Sahab Pir Saddruddin was the descendant of the Ali. And Aga Khan said he was the descendant of Pir Saddruddin. The question that arose was what is the law of these people? Jinnah was born in 1876. They found that Pir Saddruddin had written a book called Dasha Avatara in which nine avatars were common between the Khoja Muslim and Hindus; that is till Krishna.
It was only the 10th avatar, which we call Kalki and Pir Saddruddin called Ali. Jinnah, who might not have read Quran at all, was the one who led this and got a law passed by the British. The British were keen to create a separate Islamic identity to put a hook on Mahatma Gandhi.
In just 60-70 years, Tiger Menon and Yaqub Menon, those who had Hindu base, bombed Bombay and killed 900 people, maimed 2,000 people. This mind shift was achieved by the 1937 law. This is what the framers of the Constitution were worried about. Otherwise, this was just a legislative power.
Do you believe the BJP needs to bring the 1937 Act and this basis into light more actively to get more people onboard?
It is the BJP’s national duty. The BJP is in power and has righted many wrongs of the past. Unless you get rid of the baggage of the past, how can you develop as a respectable nation? The psychology is that if you speak the word of Hindu in India, you are communal. You can’t talk about Ram Janmabhoomi, Article 370 is part of Islam.
It is political, it is fraud. This would have never become an issue. I would like to congratulate the PM as he himself mentioned it and it was debated. Otherwise, it would be undebated even now. The truth that cannot be debated, can harm the country.
Comments
0 comment