Image Courtesy: cjp.org.in

Late last month, on October 26 and 27, a two-day conference  organised by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) in collaboration with National Law University of Law, Delhi; World Organisation against Torture (OMCT); People’s Watch; Quill Foundation; and the International Commission of Jurists. The conference was deliberating over the latest report of the Law Commission. Experts present specifically criticised the Law Commission of India, for recommending a Draft Anti-Torture Bill (in its273rd report, 2017) which, in their view, fell way short of bare essential requirements for a robust law. They also expounded on structural problems plaguing the system, and deliberated on reformative and corrective measures which need to be undertaken at the earliest.

What has been the record of the Modi government on custodial death and torture over the past close to five years?

 On May 4, 2017, when India’s then Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi speaking on India’s human rights record under the Universal Periodic Review Process at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva claimed “torture is completely alien to Indian culture”, human rights experts and anti-torture activists gasped in disbelief. They wondered how the Modi government’s top law officer could tell such a blatant lie, especially when it is an open secret that torture is endemic in India.

According to the data collated by the Asian Centre for Human Rights, a total of 1,674 custodial deaths, including 1,530 deaths in judicial custody and 144 deaths in police custody, took place from April 1, 2017, to February 28, 2018, translating into five torture deaths a day. Despite this, India remains strongly recalcitrant and refuses to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) which it had signed in 1997, while numerous modes of custodial torture- by the police, army and paramilitary forces, are still prevalent in the country.

Criticism of the Law Commission’s Draft Bill
In 2010, a select committee of the Rajya Sabha came up with a Draft Bill which was comprehensive in its scope and application, because it grasped the reality of how torture by state and non- state actors played out and manifested itself in India. But this Bill was not tabled in the Lok Sabha and thus lapsed.

Justice A.P. Shah, who served as a counsel to the Select Committee, said that the 2017 Bill did not even meet the expectations halfway. It talked only about compensation, and not reparations, a key requirement of many international law documents and instruments against torture. Reparations means that the victim is not only appropriately compensated in monetary terms, but also in terms of help and rehabilitation and the perpetrator is made to pay.

Moreover, it did not talk about command responsibility- that is, the responsibility of superior officials who in fact order torture to be used as a tool of law implementation, and makes only lower-rung police and military and paramilitary officials the scapegoats. He gave the example of Ankit Garg, who had ordered violent sexual torture to be inflicted against Adivasi activist Soni Sori and despite protests from many quarters was awarded a gallantry medal.

Also, the limitation period of three months to complain against torture is too less and cruelly ignored the reality of many torture victims who take a long time to come out of the trauma and pain and lodge a formal complaint. He recalled that the select committee had recommended a limitation period of two years.

Devika Prasad, Coordinator of the Police Reforms Programme of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) in her presentation said that the law commission had significantly diluted the provisions of the Bill recommended by the Select Committee and listed the glaring flaws.

First and foremost, the Bill didn’t include mental injuries inflicted by torture though they are known to have a debilitating effect on victims’ lives. Second, it imposed a very high threshold to prove torture- grievous hurt, severe and prolonged pain – this is incompatible with the definition given by the UN Convention . Third, the Bill did not disallow evidence collected by torture to be taken on board by a court of law, thus in a way legitimising the use of torture, and runs contrary to Article 15 of the UN Convention which prohibits the use of such evidence. Most important of all, the Bill had not taken into account legislative consultation and public discussions, Prasad said.

Sanction for Prosecution, Stonewalling Information
Noted criminal lawyer and human rights activist Vrinda Grover said that the Bill doesn’t address the issue of sanction for prosecution for acts of torture. She recounted how Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)has historically been used to protect errant police officials and their cruelty, and had enjoyed judicial indulgence and benevolence since the days of the British Raj- from the Pollard case decided by the Federal Court to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Shankaran Moitra v Santana Das case, in which police’s high-handedness was not punished because the officers were ostensibly carrying out their legal duty.

This was repeated as recently as 2007 in the Masooda Parveen case in which the apex court decided to completely overlook, nay, in a way, endorse and condone the acts of custodial torture for the sake of national security. Whose national security is it, when citizens are being subjected to acts of depredation by state agents, she asked.

Grover accused the government of stonewalling the disclosure of information on torture. She said she had filed a series of RTI applications to get the file noting on the discussion on the Bill in official channels, but had met with no success till date. She also filed an application with the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Home Affairs to know in how many cases, since 1990 to 2011, had sanction for prosecution been granted in cases involving torture, especially in Kashmir. The MoD replied, while the MHA did not. The reply revealed that only 44 applications had been received so far, 33 of them rejected, and 11 are pending, essentially meaning that sanction to prosecute has been given in zero cases!

Magisterial Inquests and Autopsies- A Sham
Ravi Nair, Executive Director of the South Asia Documentation Centre for Human Rights, spoke about how the provisions of Section 176 of the CrPC, which details the procedure to be followed for conducting ‘inquests’ on corpses to determine the cause of death, where the person died in police custody, was being reduced to a sham and blatantly violated in cases of torture involving police officials.

As per Section 174 CrPC, it is the police who normally conduct inquests. However, for certain kinds of deaths the law also empowers a magistrate to conduct the inquest.

Before the Amendment Act in 2005, Section 176 CrPC stated many kinds of cases in which a magistrate could conduct inquests. However, for none of these cases did the magistrate replace the police power to conduct an inquests. Moreover, these inquests could be conducted by both Executive and Judicial Magistrates alike. But Nair said that in many cases, Executive Magistrates are none other than police officers, and in even more cases, revenue officials are called in to conduct the inquests. In such a scenario, how will the truth be detected and accountability established, Nair wondered.

Regarding inquests and post-mortems, Jayshree Bajoria of HRW and Sangeeta Rege of CEHAT (Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes) dwelt on how post-mortems were shoddily done. Very few states even follow the minimum standards laid down by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in a skeletal document dating back to 2003. There is no definition of torture in the forensic medicine textbooks used in medical colleges, and in most cases, doctors believe it is their duty to aid the police, even in cases of custodial torture. Quoting from a Mint investigative report on how basic cautionary principles for conducting autopsies are thrown to the wind, Bajoria and Rege called for a radical overhaul of the system, with the NHRC leading the way, now that the Medical Council of India has been disbanded.
Some participants in the conference pointed out that police reforms- a concept ushered in by the Supreme Court in 2006 on the basis of a PIL filed by top cop Prakash Singh- could end torture and the impunity around it in India. However, both Justice Shah and Grover objected to this proposal, saying that the schemeproposed by Singh meant that the police would be a force it itself, with nil political and civilian oversight or accountability.
 
 

The post Law Commission Report on Torture Criticised: Experts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

मुंबई स्थित फोरम अगेंस्ट ऑप्रेशन ऑफ विमेन (एफएओडब्ल्यू) ने एक हस्ताक्षर अभियान शुरू किया है। फोरम ने विधि आयोग (लॉ कमीशन) से उसकी ‘अपील’ और ‘प्रश्नावली’ को वापस लेने की अपील की है। फोरम ने देश भर के महिला समूहों और नागरिकों से समर्थन मांगा है। फोरम ने वो वजहें गिनाई हैं, जिनके आधार पर विधि आयोग को इस ‘अपील’ और ‘प्रश्नावली’ को वापस ले लेना चाहिए।

‘अपील’ और ‘प्रश्नावली’ को वापस लेने की जो वजहें गिनाईं गई उनमें कहा गया है कि विधि आयोग ने कानून बनाने से पहले सलाह-मशविरे की निर्धारित प्रक्रिया का पालन नहीं किया है। फोरम ने कहा है कि भारत सरकार ने 5 फरवरी 2014 को 12 ऐसे दिशा-निर्देश जारी किए हैं, जिनका कानून बनाने से पहले होने वाले सलाह-मशविरे में पालन किया जाना चाहिए। इनमें सबसे अहम वो निर्देश है, जिसमें कहा गया गया है कि कानून का प्रस्ताव करने वाले सरकार के सभी विभाग या मंत्रालयों को कानून के मसौदे को सार्वजनिक या प्रकाशित करना चाहिए। इन विभागों और मंत्रालयों को कम से कम प्रस्तावित कानून, इसके औचित्य और आवश्यक तत्वों को जरूर प्रस्तावित करना चाहिए। इसके साथ ही कम से कम 30 दिन तक इसके व्यापक वित्तीय प्रभाव के अलावा पर्यावरण, संबंधित लोगों की जीविका, मौलिक अधिकारों और जिंदगी पर पड़ने वाले इसके असर के बारे में सार्वजनिक सूचना प्रकाशित करना चाहिए। लेकिन मसौदे के बारे में सार्वजनिक सूचना देने के बजाय इसने एक प्रश्नावली पेश करने का फैसला किया। फोरम के मुताबिक कानून के मसौदे के बगैर इस तरह की प्रश्नावली का जवाब देना नामुमकिन है। इसके अलावा जब जेंडर जस्टिस के सवाल पर कई सारी याचिकाएं सुप्रीम कोर्ट में लंबित हों तो मौजूदा सामाजिक संदर्भ में बगैर कोई मसौदा सार्वजनिक किए प्रश्नावली प्रकाशित करना लैंगिक सवालों पर भ्रम पैदा करना है।

फोरम की ओर से भेजी गई चिट्ठी में कहा गया है कि मौजूदा सांप्रदायिक उत्तेजना के माहौल में इस मुद्दे पर बेहद संवेदनशीलता अपनाए जाने की जरूरत है। कुछ आदिवासी संगठनों ने तो समान नागरिक संहिता की धारणा को सुप्रीम कोर्ट को चुनौती दे भी डाली है।

फोरम ने विधि आयोग को भेजी अपनी चिट्ठी के लिए व्यापक समर्थन की अपील की है। जो लोग समर्थन करना चाहते हैं

वो faowindia@yahoo.co.in(link sends e-mail)  sandhyagokhale@yahoo.com(link sends e-mail). पर मेल कर सकते हैं।

Image: Getty Images

विधि आयोग को फोरम की ओर से भेजी गई चिट्ठी का पूरा पाठ  

इस चिट्ठी के नीचे उल्लिखित संगठन 21वें विधि आयोग की ओर से जारी 7 अक्टूबर 2016 को जारी अपील का जवाब दे रहे हैं। ताकि समान नागरिक संहिता की संभावना पर एक स्वस्थ बहस शुरू हो सके। –
 
हम सब जानते हैं कि भारतीय संविधान के आधार पर कोई कानूनी प्रस्ताव तैयार करना श्रमसाध्य काम है। संविधान के सेक्यूलर, लोकतांत्रिक समाजवादी ढांचे को बनाए रखने के लिए काफी प्रयास और प्रतिबद्धता की जरूरत पड़ती है।  

संविधान का मसौदा तैयार करने के लिए 29 अगस्त, 1947 को डॉ. बी आर अंबेडकर की अध्यक्षता में संविधान सभा का गठन किया गया। सभा ने 166 दिनों तक कई सत्रों में इसके लिए विचार –विमर्श किया। यह काम दो साल, 11 महीने और 18 दिनों तक चला। इसके बाद संविधान सभा के 308 सदस्यों ने 24 जनवरी 1950 को संविधान के मसौदे पर हस्ताक्षर किए।

वर्ष, 1930 से ही महिला संगठनों ने एक व्यापक नागरिक संहिता की मांग की है। इस अपील को मानते हुए कानून मंत्री डॉ. अंबेडकर की अध्यक्षता में एक कमेटी बनाई गई जिसने 1941 में बने हिंदू कोड बिल को संशोधित किया। लेकिन संविधान सभा में मौजूद कई हिंदू कट्टरवादियों ने इस बिल को पास नहीं होने दिया और विरोध में डॉ. अंबेडकर ने इस्तीफा दे दिया। इसके बाद 1952 से 1956 के बीच जवाहरलाल नेहरू ने चार अलग-अलग हिस्सों में हिंदू कोड बिल को पारित कराने में कामयाबी हासिल की। इतना कहने का हमारा मतलब है कि इतनी कोशिश के बाद ही कोई दूरगामी प्रभाव वाला कानून बनाया जा सकता है। हमें पता है कि कोई भी कानूनी सुधार तीन चरणों से गुजरता है- कानून बनाने से पहले की प्रक्रिया, कानून बनाने की प्रक्रिया और कानून बनने के बाद की प्रक्रिया।

विधि आयोग का जो प्रयास है वह कानून बनने से पहले की प्रक्रिया के दायरे में आएगा। भारत सरकार के कानून और न्याय मंत्रालय ने 5 फरवरी 2014  को कानून बनाने से पहले सलाह-मशविरे की प्रक्रिया के तहत समान नागरिक संहिता पर अपने निर्देश प्रकाशित किए। इसमें कुल 12 निर्देशक सिद्धांत थे।

पहले दो अहम बिंदु इस तरह हैं-

• हर विभाग या मंत्रालय इंटरनेट और अन्य माध्यमों पर प्रस्तावित कानूनों को प्रकाशित करेगा। इन प्रकाशनों को प्रकाशित करने का विस्तृत तरीका संबंधित मंत्रालय या विभाग ही तय करेगा।
• संबंधित विभाग या मंत्रालय को कानून के मसौदे को सार्वजनिक या प्रकाशित करना चाहिए। इन विभागों और मंत्रालयों को कम से कम प्रस्तावित कानून, इसके औचित्य और आवश्यक तत्वों को जरूर प्रस्तावित करना चाहिए। इसके साथ ही कम से कम 30 दिन तक इसके व्यापक वित्तीय प्रभाव के अलावा पर्यावरण, संबंधित लोगों की जीविका, मौलिक अधिकारों और जिंदगी पर पड़ने वाले इसके असर के बारे में सार्वजनिक सूचना प्रकाशित करना चाहिए। कम से कम 30 दिनों तक यह सूचना लोगों तक प्रसारित होना चाहिए।

लेकिन 21वें विधि आयोग की ओर से प्रकाशित ‘अपील’ को देखें तो पता चलता है कि यह ऊपर के दो निर्धारित मानदंडों पर पूरी तरह नाकाम साबित हुआ है।
लिहाजा समान नागरिक संहिता के संदर्भ में हम अपनी चिंताओं से आपको अवगत करा रहे हैं-

1. सवाल, समान नागरिक संहिता के संदर्भ में पूछे जाने हैं। लेकिन अपील में इस संदर्भ में समान नागरिक संहिता का कोई मसौदा नहीं रखा गया है। 
2. अपील के साथ सिर्फ एक प्रश्नावली है। कथित तौर पर इसका उद्देश्य परिवार कानून में संशोधन और सुधार पर व्यापक-विमर्श के लिए व्यापक सुझाव और सलाह आमंत्रित करना है। लेकिन बगैर किसी मसौदे के इनमें से कुछ सवालों का जवाब देना मुश्किल है।
3. ज्यादातर सवाल के बहुविकल्प या हां या नाम में जवाब सुझाए गए हैं। इस तरह की प्रश्नावली ज्यादातर आंकड़े संग्रह की संतुष्टि के लिए की जाती है। हमें लगता कि जिस तरह से सवाल किए गए हैं वे भ्रमित करते हैं। या फिर ये सवाल ऐसे जवाब की मांग करते हैं, जिनमें आंकड़े सहित विश्लेषण की जरूरत होती है। इससे ऐसा लगता है कि इस प्रक्रिया में आंकड़ों के आधार पर समाज के हाशिये पर रहने वाले वर्ग पर बहुसंख्यकों का मत थोप दिया जाएगा। इन सवालों में जो मुद्दे उठाए गए हैं वे हां और ना के दायरे में नहीं आ सकते या फिर एक लाइन में इनका जवाब नहीं दिया जा सकता। ये सवाल लंबी बहस की मांग करते हैं। इन पर विमर्श की जरूरत है।
4. इस तरह की अपील कानून बनाने की पूर्व की प्रक्रिया का मजाक है।  ऐसा लगता है कि देश को आंकड़ो के आधार वाला चुनावी लोकतंत्र बनाने की कोशिश हो रही है।
5. इस वक्त मुस्लिम समुदायों, प्रगतिशील महिलाओं और अन्य संगठनों और सक्रिय पुरुष संगठनों की ओर से सुप्रीम कोर्ट के सामने लैंगिक समानता के मुद्दे उठाए गए हैं। सुप्रीम कोर्ट मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड के कानूनों के संदर्भ में अपीलों की सुनवाई कर रहा है। लिहाजा ऐसे समय में समान नागरिक संहिता पर कानून पूर्व मसौदे से संबंधित अपील कई शक और सवाल पैदा करता है। बगैर मसौदे के इस तरह की अपील और प्रश्नावली पेश करना लैंगिक न्याय पर भ्रम पैदा करता है।
6. मौजूदा सांप्रदायिक उत्तेजना के माहौल में इस मुद्दे पर बेहद संवेदनशीलता अपनाए जाने की जरूरत है। कुछ आदिवासी संगठनों ने तो समान नागरिक संहिता की धारणा को सुप्रीम कोर्ट को चुनौती दे भी डाली है।
7. कानून के मसौदे को सामने रखे बगैर इस तरह की अपील जारी करना निश्चित तौर पर देश के समुदायों के बीच ध्रुवीकरण और इसे जहरीला बनाने की कोशिश है। आने वाले कई राज्यों में होने वाले चुनावों के मद्देनजर इस तरह की अपील पर निश्चित तौर पर शक पैदा होता है।

इन बिंदुओं पर विचार करते हुए विधि आयोग को अपनी अपील और प्रश्नावली को तुरंत प्रभाव से वापस ले लेना चाहिए। 

भवदीय
फोरम अगेंस्ट ऑप्रेशन ऑफ विमेन, मुंबई   
 
 

The post महिला संगठनों की मांग यूनिफॉर्म सिविल कोड पर विधि आयोग की अपील और प्रश्नावली वापस हो appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo: Jagrut Bharat

The Mumbai-based Forum Against Oppression of Women (FAOW) today launched a signature campaign calling upon the Union Law Commission to withdraw the “Appeal” and “Questionnaire” with immediate effect. It has appealed to women's groups and citizens across the country to endorse its statement detailing the reasons why the Commission should do so.

Among the reasons cited for the withdrawal is that the Commission "fails miserably" on all the guidelines stated by the government of  India's “Pre Legislative Consultation Policy” published on February 5, 2014 which laid down 12 guidelines to be followed for the pre-legislative consultation. The most important of the guidelines stipulated that "Every department/ministry concerned should publish/place in public domain the draft legislation or at least the information that may inter alia include brief justification for such legislation, essential elements of the proposed legislation, its broad financial implications, and an estimated assessment of the impact of such legislation on environment, fundamental rights, lives and livelihoods of the concerned/affected people, etc… for a minimum period of 30 days."

Instead of placing a draft the Commission has chosen to put out a 'questionnaire'. According to the Forum, it is "impossible to respond to some of the questions" in the absence of such a draft.

Further, putting out such a draft at a time when several petitions on issues of gender justice are pending before the Supreme Court "without draft legislation in the current social context would in fact confuse the issue of gender justice". 

"In the current communally charged atmosphere this issue requires utmost sensitivity. In fact some tribal organisations have already approached Supreme Court challenging the notion of a “Uniform Civil Code”, says the letter. 

The Forum has appealed for an endorsement of its letter to the Commission. Those who agree to do so are requested to e-mail their endorsement to: faowindia@yahoo.co.in OR  sandhyagokhale@yahoo.com.

The Forum has appealed for an endorsement of its letter to the Commission. Those who agree to do so are requested to e-mail their endorsement to: faowindia@yahoo.co.in OR sandhyagokhale@yahoo.com.

Photo: Getty image

Full text of the letter addressed to the Law Commission:   

We the undersigned organisations and individuals submit our response to the “Appeal” dated 7^Th October 2016, by the 21^st Law Commission to begin healthy conversation on viability of Uniform civil code as below.

We are aware that formulating any legal provision based on foundation of Indian constitution is an arduous task. It requires tremendous effort and commitment to basic tenets of the secular, democratic socialist framework of the Constitution.

For drafting of the constitution on 29 August 1947, Constituent Assembly set up a Drafting Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to prepare a draft Constitution for India. The assembly met in sessions open to the public, for 166 days, spread over a period of 2 years, 11 months and 18 days before adopting the Constitution, the 308 members of the assembly signed the document on 24 January 1950. 

Not only that but from 1930 women’s organizations have put out the demand for a comprehensive code. In response to that, under the chairmanship of law minister Dr Ambedkar, a committee was formed which modified further the first draft of Hindu code bill formulated in 1941. But many hindu fundamentalist voices from the assembly did not allow passage of this bill and in protest Dr Ambedkar resigned as law minister. Thereafter between 1952 to 1956 Jawaharlal Nehru managed to get the Hindu code bill passed in four separate segments.
We state all this to emphasise that no far reaching effective, just legal reform can be carried out without putting in similar sustained and intense efforts.

We are aware that any legal reform follows three phases: Pre-legislative phase, Legislative phase and Post-legislative phase.

This current effort of the law commission will fall within the ambit of Pre-legislative phase. The Law and Justice ministry of the Government of India has published the “Pre Legislative Consultation Policy” on 5^th February 2014, which lays down the to be followed for the pre-legislative consultation. There are total 12 guiding principles laid down in this policy.
The first two important points are reiterated here:

• Every Department/Ministry shall proactively publish the proposed legislations both on the internet as also through other means; the detailed modalities of such publication may be worked out by the Department/Ministry concerned.
• The Department/Ministry concerned should publish/place in public domain the draft legislation or at least the information that may inter alia include brief justification for such legislation, essential elements of the proposed legislation, its broad financial implications, and an estimated assessment of the impact of such legislation on environment, fundamental rights, lives and livelihoods of the concerned/affected people, etc. Such details may be kept in the public domain for a minimum period of thirty days for being proactively shared with the public in such manner as may be specified by the Department/Ministry concerned. 

If we look at the “Appeal” published by the 21^st Law commission of India, it fails miserably on all the guidelines stated by the PLCP referred to above.

In this context hence, we place before you our main concerns regarding your appeal in the context of the “Uniform Civil Code”:

1. The Questions are asked in context of “Uniform Civil Code”. But there is no draft put out of “Uniform Civil Code” referred to time and again in the “Appeal”.
2. The “Appeal” is accompanied by one questionnaire the purpose of which is purportedly to solicit ideas and opinions for a comprehensive exercise of revision and reform of family laws. In the absence of any draft put out, it is impossible to respond to some of the questions.
3. Most of the questions are “multiple” choice or binary in nature. Such kind of questionnaires are normally subjected to statistical analysis. We realise that the manner in which the questions are posed are misleading or at times leading to seek some answer which could then be put to some sort of statistical analysis. This leads us to wonder whether it is process in which some sort of majoritarian view point would get imposed on marginalized section of society based on the quantitative result. In fact, most of the issues raised in the questions do not confine to a yes-no/ one word/ multiple choice answers, but should be part of long debates, and consultative processes which should follow from detailed presentation of some existing draft.
4. This kind of an appeal makes a mockery of the pre-legislative process, which is not to be equated with “electoral” democracy based on numerical equations.
5. At this moment, many from the Muslim community, progressive women’s collectives and other organizations which also have men in forefront, are raising issues of gender equality before the Supreme Court. Given that the Supreme Court is hearing petitions challenging some of the gender biased aspects of Muslim Personal law, the timing of this “Appeal” and questionnaire raises many doubts. Introducing this “Appeal” and “Questionnaire” without draft legislation in the current social context would in fact confuse the issue of gender justice.
6. In the current communally charged atmosphere this issue requires utmost sensitivity. In fact some tribal organizations have already approached Supreme Court challenging the notion of a “Uniform Civil Code”.
7. This “Appeal” without a draft legislation would definitely be used as a tool to vitiate and polarize communities given the fact that elections are soon to be held in some states.

Taking into consideration our submissions above, we respectfully request the Law commission to withdraw the “Appeal” and “Questionnaire” with immediate effect.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Forum Against oppression of Women, Mumbai
 

The post UCC: Women’s Forum Launches Campaign for ‘Immediate Withdrawal’ of Law Commission’s ‘Appeal’, ‘Questionnaire’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: newsnation.in

The latest controversy over the Law Commission questionnaire eliciting responses over the viability of a uniform civil code has raised many questions. But at the outset, it should be made clear that there is nothing wrong in the commission asking for opinions from the general public about something which is important not just for Muslims but for a host of other communities in India. Those who are seeing a sinister design behind the questionnaire are plainly wrong. The questionnaire also elicits opinions about reforms in other communities, not just in the Muslim community. Those who are reducing it as a Muslim issue must answer the charge of communalising and trivialising an otherwise serious issue.

The responses from various political parties have been along expected lines. The so called parties of social justice have been quick in condemning the law commission outright and declaring it as an infringement on the rights of minorities, particularly Muslims.

There is some merit in the argument that the law commission questionnaire dovetails neatly with the upcoming UP elections. It can also be safely argued that the BJP’s desire in fostering a debate on uniform civil code is not about any genuine attempt to have a dialogue on the merits of the proposed legislation but is more driven with a desire to paint the Muslims as the other: as a community which is perpetually inclined to block reform within its ranks and choose to be socially conservative and regressive. The ironical problem however is that amidst all this debate, it is the BJP which is coming out as a supporter and champion of gender justice.

The position of AIMPLB is only furthering the agenda of the BJP. If the BJP wants to portray the Muslims as the regressive minority, the AIMPLB is more than willing to act like one.

The position of AIMPLB is only furthering the agenda of the BJP. If the BJP wants to portray the Muslims as the regressive minority, the AIMPLB is more than willing to act like one. By not engaging with the questionnaire of the law commission, it does not realise that it is sending a wrong message to other communities that Muslims remain committed to be wedded to the norms of a bygone era and refuse to come out of it. Granted that BJP might be willing to polarise society for electoral purposes, granted that it has a hidden agenda; but the fact remains that it the party of ruling dispensation and that Muslims need to engage with the government. The wholesale refusal of the AIMPLB to junk the questionnaire shows them in a particularly bad light.

On a more theoretical plane, one needs to rethink the relationship within the individual and the community in so far as the Muslim community is concerned. The received wisdom that group rights are inalienable to the Muslim community needs to be rethought. What we are confronting today is that the defined religious rights of the community are coming in the way dissenting opinions not just from specific individuals but also from within minority groups within the larger Indian Muslim community. Democracy and justice demands that these voices need to be heard and their demands be taken seriously. There cannot be a situation where in the name of rights of minorities, right of dissent should be taken away from smaller groups and individuals. Given the nature of Muslim religious organizations, this situation is hardly going to change: the power asymmetry within the Muslim community will only end up silencing the critics of the existing religious authority.

Therefore the role of the state becomes important here. Without the state support, one cannot conceive that Muslim women’s group challenging the patriarchal Islam of AIMPLB will ever succeed. Those questioning the motive of these women's organisations must understand that historically, all voices of reform have succeeded because the state has stood solidly behind such demands. If the Muslim women’s bodies today seek the support of the state, there is nothing wrong with it. Moreover, to be fair, their campaign was first targeted at the Muslim religious establishment. It was only after the refusal of the custodians of Islam in India, that these women rights activists decided to move court and they are absolutely well within their right to do so.

It is agonizing to see that the Muslim religious establishment is not even ready to grant very basic changes within the existing personal law. All that the Muslim women’s groups are demanding is the abolition of triple talaq. This in itself is a very conservative demand. In no way, this demand is questioning the unilateral right of divorce granted to Muslim men by Islam.

All that they are arguing is that instead of one sitting, talaq should be pronounced in three sittings as is the Quranic norm. By no measure does this demand question the basic asymmetry of power in Islam between men and women. And yet for the AIMPLB, this demand becomes akin to questioning the very basics of Islam. But perhaps the problem is different. And it has to do with the non-Islamic nature of Indian courts. And yet they have no problem in seeking relief from the same courts to protect their conservative interests. Such hypocrisy has been the distinct nature of Indian Muslim leadership for quite some decades now. And that’s why it suits them not to talk about reforms and the issues raised by women’s groups but to talk about a uniform civil code so as to deflect attention from real issues. It would be advisable for women’s groups and all concerned that they stay focussed on their demand for the abrogation of triple talaq and not fall for a pseudo debate on the viability of a uniform civil code.

This article was first published on New Age Islam.

The post Uniform Civil Code or Islamic Reform? appeared first on SabrangIndia.