#Dr B.R. Ambedkar controversy | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

news365timesindia · 3 days ago

Text

[ad_1] Paromita Das GG News Bureau New Delhi, 21st Dec. The recent uproar over a manipulated video clip of Home Minister Amit Shah, purportedly insulting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, has once again brought the late Dalit icon into the center of India’s political maelstrom. In the ever-polarized environment of Indian politics, Ambedkar’s legacy has been weaponized by rival camps to either assert ideological supremacy or expose alleged hypocrisy. While the BJP has tried to appropriate Ambedkar into its Hindutva fold, the Congress has leveraged his image to project itself as the defender of social justice. The debate, however, runs deeper than party lines, exposing layers of historical, ideological, and political contradictions. The Context: A Video and a Political Storm The controversy began with a 10-second clip of Shah, taken out of context, sparking accusations that he insulted Ambedkar. Congress seized the opportunity, with Rahul Gandhi amplifying the narrative to attack the BJP’s supposed anti-Dalit stance. The BJP, in turn, countered with historical records that show Congress’s longstanding hostility toward Ambedkar, particularly during the Nehru era. The debate has since spiraled into a broader examination of Ambedkar’s position vis-à-vis Hindutva, caste politics, and his nuanced critique of Hinduism. Congress’s Contradictions Congress’s newfound veneration for Ambedkar is riddled with historical contradictions. During Ambedkar’s lifetime, the party actively marginalized him. Jawaharlal Nehru’s private letters reveal his contempt for Ambedkar, and Congress stalwarts worked to defeat him in elections, both in 1952 and 1954. Even after Ambedkar’s passing, Congress delayed recognizing his contributions, with the Bharat Ratna being awarded to him only in 1990 under a non-Congress government. Now, however, Congress positions itself as Ambedkar’s natural heir, branding the BJP as anti-Dalit and accusing it of perpetuating caste inequalities. Rahul Gandhi’s use of Manusmriti as a rhetorical tool in Parliament further illustrates the party’s strategy to frame the BJP as regressive, despite Congress’s own troubled past with caste dynamics. BJP’s Dilemma: Reconciling Ambedkar with Hindutva For the BJP and its ideological fountainhead, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the incorporation of Ambedkar into their narrative is both a necessity and a challenge. Over the past three decades, the Sangh has sought to align Ambedkar’s vision with its reformist interpretation of Hindutva. The argument is that both Ambedkar and Hindutva thinkers like Vinayak Damodar Savarkar shared a common goal of eradicating caste divisions and strengthening Indian society. However, Ambedkar’s scathing critique of Hinduism, particularly his rejection of its caste hierarchy and his eventual conversion to Buddhism, poses significant hurdles to this narrative. Ambedkar’s “22 vows,” taken during his conversion, explicitly rejected Hindu gods, rituals, and scriptures, including the Manusmriti. This rejection is often cited to argue that Ambedkar cannot be reconciled with Hindutva, which, despite its reformist claims, is rooted in a broader Hindu cultural identity. Nevertheless, BJP leaders often highlight Ambedkar’s critiques of Islam and his warnings against mass conversions to Christianity or Islam as evidence of his alignment with Hindutva’s civilizational goals. Ambedkar’s choice to embrace Buddhism—a faith with Indic roots—rather than an Abrahamic religion is also portrayed as a testament to his cultural affinity with India’s indigenous traditions. Ambedkar and Hindu Reformism A significant thread in the debate is whether Ambedkar can be considered a reformer within the Hindu fold. Advocates of this view argue that Ambedkar’s critique of Hinduism was aimed at reforming it, much like the efforts of Savarkar, Arya Samaj, or Brahmo Samaj. While Ambedkar’s rejection of Hinduism was absolute, his emphasis on liberty, equality, and fraternity resonated with certain Vedic principles, as he acknowledged in his Annihilation of Caste.

Critics, however, contend that Ambedkar’s identity as a Hindu reformer is untenable, given his explicit disavowal of Hinduism. They argue that equating Ambedkar’s critique with Savarkar’s reformism dilutes the radical nature of his rejection and oversimplifies his complex relationship with the religion. The Larger Battle: Ambedkar as a Political Symbol At the heart of this debate lies the transformation of Ambedkar from a historical figure to a political symbol. For Congress, Ambedkar is a tool to challenge the BJP’s claim to social justice and to consolidate Dalit support. For the BJP, embracing Ambedkar is essential to counter allegations of casteism and to broaden its appeal among marginalized communities. However, this politicization risks reducing Ambedkar’s legacy to mere sloganeering. The manipulated video of Shah exemplifies this trend, where outrage is manufactured not over substantive issues but over symbolic gestures. This shift from intellectual engagement to political exploitation threatens to obscure Ambedkar’s actual contributions and ideas. Conclusion: Bridging the Divide The current debate over Ambedkar’s legacy reflects a deeper crisis in Indian political discourse. As parties compete to claim Ambedkar, they risk distorting his message to fit their narratives. For Congress, reconciling its historical treatment of Ambedkar with its current rhetoric requires introspection and honesty. For the BJP, integrating Ambedkar into its Hindutva framework demands a nuanced understanding of his critiques and contributions. Ambedkar’s legacy is too significant to be reduced to a battleground for political one-upmanship. His vision for social justice, equality, and constitutional democracy transcends partisan divides. As India grapples with questions of caste, identity, and nationhood, engaging with Ambedkar’s ideas in their entirety—not as tools for political gain—offers a way forward. The challenge lies in honoring his legacy without appropriating or deifying it, ensuring that his contributions remain a source of inspiration rather than contention. The post B.R. Ambedkar: Icon of Social Justice or Political Prop? appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

0 notes

news365times · 3 days ago

Text

0 notes

mega-delicatelysuperbcollector · 1 year ago

Text

KarusaaVerse---Dr. B. R. Ambedkar---Controversial Trailblazer

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Controversial Trailblazer in India’s History

View On WordPress

0 notes

sameerabrahamthomas · 4 years ago

Text

20 Books to Read Against CoViD-19

Thank you to my ex-student Svetya for the idea.

Why 20? Because we should always be one step ahead of the enemy. Why Books? Because they allow you to escape the world we’re in while also expecting your mind to do some of the heavy lifting. Why “Against”? Because whether it’s against the backdrop of the virus or a handy weapon against it, this list should hold you in good stead. So here it is, in no particular order:

1. Dragon Rider by Cornelia Funke

A beautifully illustrated fantasy of escape and adventure involving dragons, mushrooms and other magical creatures. Perfect for days when the news is only making you wish you were somewhere else.

2. 2666 by Roberto Bolaño

A long, dark read about rapes, murders and mysterious authors. Definitely a commitment, but one worth attempting even if the book was never completed. Worth reading when you start thinking things couldn’t possibly get any worse.

3. His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman

Technically cheating, since it’s three books and not one, but my list, my rules. Magical, controversial, beautiful and haunting. If you want to question the powers that be but wish you had people to help you on your journey, read this for inspiration. There’s a sequel book series and a TV adaptation in the air, so this is as good a time to pick these books up as there ever was.

4. Harry Potter series by JK Rowling

Cheating again. If you haven’t read them already, give it a go. A lot of pop culture references will make a lot more sense. Magic, love, and solidarity wrapped up in a story that’s as much a meme as it is a series. I hope you find something worth bringing home after reading it.

5. Hopscotch by Julio Cortázar

A book written to be read two ways – the normal way or the hopscotch way. Read chapters in order or jump from one chapter to another according to the author’s rule, or your own. A perfect book for reminding you that you can have agency even when it doesn’t feel like you do.

6. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter

One of the most mindbending and revelatory books I’ve ever read. If you’re interested in music, mathematics, lithographs, philosophy, artificial intelligence, genetics, Lewis Carrol, and/or human consciousness, this is the book for you. Open yourself up to strange new experiences now that you have some time.

7. A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking

Speaking of time, read the book that starts off with CBSE +2 physics and chemistry syllabus and ends with questions of black holes and dimensionality. Great for learning about physics whether you identify as a science enthusiast or not. Go for it. A wizard in Harry Potter did (true story, Google it).

8. Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

One of the few books that has made me laugh out loud in a manner that exceeds the usual nose exhalation that LOL-worthy content actually inspires (or expires, or respires). Do you hate the system? Does everything seem like a trap? Read Catch-22 and learn to fight the power and lose, but with a smile on your face and joyful insanity in your heart.

9. Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell

A book I prescribed for my LAA course but didn’t end up teaching. Read it anyway. A touchstone when it comes to dystopian fiction, it’s a primer for what not to do when the State has you in lockdown.

10. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

If you’re going to read Nineteen Eighty-Four, read the other prophet of dystopia too. Brave New World might convince you that we’ve always lived in a dystopian future, with or without the coronavirus. Read for context to the debate surrounding dystopias that you might not know existed.

11. Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie

A magnum opus with a sprawling narrative that follow the history of our country with more than a pinch of what literature types like to call “magical realism”. If you think it’s overhyped, here’s something to lure you in: it’s basically X-Men: First Class set around the time of the Emergency. Not even kidding.

12. Em and the Big Hoom by Jerry Pinto

A heartbreakingly honest look at loving people with atypical states of mind and how to deal with loss and mourning. Not all of us will come out of this lockdown unscathed. Jerry Pinto shows us we can still laugh and cry and live, even if our loved ones can’t anymore.

13. The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy

Another book that you might think is overhyped, but I assure you, it’s worth the read, if not for Roy’s lush, vibrant prose, then for the unflinching gaze it casts at the cruelty of family and the realities of caste oppression, both things that some people are grappling with more than ever during the lockdown.

14. Annihilation of Caste by Dr B.R. Ambedkar

If you’re interested in questions of caste, go to the source. Ambedkar is a titan when it comes to anti-caste literature, but he’s also a keen student of history and sociology. Read the speech he never got to give and try to find reasons why his argument doesn’t hold water. Whether you succeed or not, you will have learnt something crucially important to the world around us.

15. The HarperCollins Book of English Poetry, edited by Sudeep Sen

A book I’m currently reading, so take my recommendation with a grain of salt. Poetry is something we don’t read as much as we should and anthologies are a great way to start getting into poetry, especially this one, with its special focus on Indians writing poetry in English. If nothing else, read the poems in this collection by Jeet Thayil. Maybe they’ll inspire you to read the whole book, as they did for me.

16. London ki Ek Raat by Sajjad Zaheer

Translated into English as A Night in London, Sajjad Zaheer’s novel is a masterpiece of modernist fiction set before Independence. Reading it certainly made me aware of how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Read it for the way in which people belonging to your grandparent’s generation echo the exact same sentiments you might have, only in a different context.

17. The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexander Dumas

I’m a sucker for melodrama, and Dumas is its master. Read the book in its unabridged form to cry, rage and experience the rollercoaster of emotion and revenge that Dumas creates. If nothing else, it might offer you a little catharsis.

18. Any book you've already read

My list, my rules. And here’s the rule: re-read something. We often don’t get the time to but you’ll be amazed at how much different a book can feel the second time over. If you’ve never read a book before, pick up the first book you see and read it again if you liked it the first time. You’ll thank me later.

19. Any book you've been meaning to read

Tsundoku is the Japanese term for the act of buying books and never reading them. Whether they’re physical books or e-books, whether you obtained them or someone else did, if it’s there and it’s waiting for you, let it wait no more. Get into reading, now.

20. The book you're about to write

“If you find a book you really want to read but it hasn’t been written yet, then you must write it.” – Toni Morrison, speech at the annual meeting of the Ohio Arts Council, 1981.

This was the quote that convinced me I wanted to be a writer someday. Let it inspire you too. We are living in strange times and if there’s one thing that such times give birth to, it’s strange narratives. Be the midwife to the tales of the new world we are living in. Add to this list. Add to my list. Add to your list. Be the writer the world wants to read. Be the writer you need to be. Good luck.

4 notes · View notes

ledxlaw · 2 years ago

Text

42nd Amendment of the Indian Constitution (Mini Constitution)

For every law professional, law student and all those persons who are appearing for the government exams, it is necessary to know all amendments happened in the constitution, especially the one which has brought some drastic changes in India and Indian Judicial System. One such amendment is the 42nd amendment of the Indian Constitution, this amendment is also known as the “Mini Constitution”, in this Blog we will find out why and why this amendment holds such importance. But in the history of Constitutional amendments, this one is the most debatable as well as a controversial amendment, also the father of the Indian Constitution Mr B.R. Ambedkar opposed the amendment in the constituent assembly. Any institution which is offering online law certification courses in India on constitutional law teaches their learner about this mini-constitution.

History of the Amendment:

The history behind this amendment is quite interesting, as it is related to one of the most tragic times in India and also includes abuse of power and authority. After winning the election in 1971 and becoming prime minister of India, Smt. Indira Gandhi was accused by her opponent Mr Raj Narayan, of election fraud, and using her power to manipulate the voters, by either threatening them or giving them money. For the first time in Indian history a prime minister of India was summoned to the court, and the case was filed in Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad HC, in 1975 delivered the judgement in which Indira Gandhi was found guilty, her government was announced null and void, and she was banned from participating in the elections for the next 6 years. After the judgement was passed, the case was appealed to the supreme court, but the result was the same. Although she was permitted to be working as Prime minister till the next election happens. But this decision caused chaos in the whole country, also the opposition protested against this and started showing their aggression due to which Indira Gandhi with the permission of the President imposed an emergency in India.

During the emergency, many fundamental rights were violated and many amendments were made to the constitution i.e, 38th amendment, 39th amendment, 40th amendment, 41st amendment and 42nd amendment. In all these amendments, the 42nd Amendments bring changes to most parts of the constitution and it has also introduced duties in the constitution for all citizens. To learn more about the amendments law learners opt for online legal certification courses.

Mini Constitution:

The reason behind calling this amendment the Mini constitution of India is that, this amendment aims to change the whole basic structure of the Indian constitution. This amendment also tried to overturn the supreme court decision on Keshvanda Barti vs State of Kerela. The extension of the Lok sabha period from 5 to 6 years happened due to this amendment. The judicial review power was also limited by this amendment. This amendment affects the article; 31, 31C, 39, 55, 74, 77, 81, 82, 83, 100, 102, 103, and many other articles, also inserted many articles in the constitutions, and amend the schedule 7.

Provision added by the 42nd Amendment:

There were many provisions which were added to the constitution through this amendment which affected many aspects of the Indian judiciary and administrative system, below are mentioned some of them:

Preamble:

This amendment affects the introductory statement of the Indian Constitution, Few new words were added to the preamble. This can be divided into two-part. Firstly, the representation that was originally India as a” Sovereign Democratic Republic” through this amendment became India's” Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic”. Then Secondly, “Unity of the nation” was replaced by “Unity and Integrity of the Nation”.

The changes in the preamble were heavily criticized, The head of the Drafting committee Dr B.R Ambedkar, opposed the addition of the word Secular and Socialist as these words represents different meaning across the world.

Fundamental Duties:

42nd amendment introduced Article 51 A in Part IV(A) of the Indian Constitution on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Mehta Committee. Before the amendment, the “Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of State Policy” already existed in the constitution, but the government believed that there should be certain duties imposed on citizens of India. But these duties are not law enforceable. At the time of the amendment there was a total of Ten Fundamental duties introduced, but through the 72nd amendment Eleventh Fundamental duty was introduced, so at present, there is a total of 11 Fundamental duties. The introduction of Fundamental duties in the constitution was not criticized as their main objective of them is in favour of the public interest.

7th Schedule:

This amendment transferred 5 subjects from the State list to the concurrent list, the following are the subjects; Education, Forests, Weights & Measures, Protection of Wild Animals and Birds, and Administration of Justice.

Parliament:

Through this amendment there were certain changes in the parliament of India, some of them are mentioned below. i,e.

The president was bound to follow the advice of the cabinet.

Speaker of Lok Sabha and Prime mister were given discretionary powers.

Allowed the Centre to position forces in the state to restore law and order during any conflicts.

The Directive Principles should outweigh fundamental rights and any legislation enacted by Parliament to this effect was kept beyond the court’s judicial review.

Judicial Power of High Court:

This amendment curtailed the judicial review power of the High Court was curtailed.

Addition of Articles:

Article 323 A and 323 B, and Part XIV, i.e, “Tribunals for Administrative Matters” and “Tribunals for Other Matters”, were added to the Constitution.

Directive Principles of State Policy:

Three new DPSPs were introduced to the existing list of DPSPs in Part IV and one DPSP was changed. They are as follows;

Article 39; To provide an opportunity for Children’s growth.

Article 39A; To promote fair justice and to provide poor people proper free legal assistance.

Article 43 A; Take measures to ensure that workers are involved in the management of industries.

Article 48A; To safeguard forests and wildlife, and to protect and improve the environment.

Conclusion:

Law is an extensive branch of study, Indian Constitution which is the base of the Law in India is an important document that every law aspirant must know completely. Every amendment in Indian Constitution is equally important to learn and understand the need behind it and also know the consequences of it. Compared to them, the 42nd Amendment is a little more important due to its interference in most parts of the constitution and its consequences as well as the criticism. Many legal learning institutions providing online law certification courses teach this topic at least once, as it has vital importance in Indian Constitutional history.

#onlinelawcertifcations

0 notes

pyotra · 7 years ago

Text

UNDER THE PROVIDENCE OF MR. GANDHI

How did Mr. Gandhi fare as a statesman and a politician? At the close of the first session of the Round Table Conference there were three questions which had not been settled. The question of minorities, the question of the Federal structure and the question of the status of India in the Empire, were the three outstanding problems, which were the subject matter of controversy. Their solution demanded great statesmanship. Many said that these questions were not settled because the wisdom and authority of the Congress was not represented at the Round Table Conference. At the second session, Mr. Gandhi came and made good the deficiency. Did Mr. Gandhi settle any of these unsettled problems? I think it is not unfair to say that Mr. Gandhi created fresh disunity in the Conference. He began the childish game of ridiculing every Indian delegate. He questioned their honesty, he questioned their representative character. He taunted the liberals as arm-chair politicians and as leaders without any followers. To the Muslims he said that he represented the Muslim masses better than they did. He claimed that the Depressed Class delegates did not represent the Depressed Classes and that he did. This was the refrain which he repeated ad nauseum at the end of every speech. The non-Congress delegates deserve the thanks of all honest people for their having tolerated this nonsense and arrogance of Mr. Gandhi and collaborated with him to save him and to save the country from his mistake.

Apart from this discourtesy to fellow-delegates, did Mr. Gandhi stand up for the cause he came to champion? He did not. His conduct of affairs was ignominious. Instead of standing up and fighting he began to yield on issues on which he ought never to have ceased fire. He yielded to the Princes and agreed that their representatives in the Federal legislature should be nominated by them and not elected, as demanded by their subjects. He yielded to the conservatives and consented to be content with provincial autonomy and not to insist upon central responsibility for which many lakhs of Indians went to gaol. The only people to whom he would not yield were the minorities — the only party to whom he could have yielded with honour to himself and advantage to the country.

Nothing has helped so much to shatter the prestige of Mr. Gandhi as going to the Round Table Conference. The spectacle of Mr. Gandhi at the Round Table Conference must have been painful to many of his friends. He was not fitted to play the role he undertook to play. No country has ever sent a delegate to take part in the framing of the constitution who was so completely unequipped in training and in study. Gandhi went to the Round Table Conference with a song of the saint Narsi Mehta on his tongue. It would have been better for him and better for his country if he had taken in his arm pit a volume on comparative constitutional law. Devoid of any knowledge of the subject he was called upon to deal with, he was quite powerless to destroy the proposals put forth by the British or to meet them with his alternatives. No wonder Mr. Gandhi, taken out of the circle of his devotees and placed among politicians, was at sea. At every turn he bungled and finding that he could not even muddle through, he gave up the game and returned to India.

-- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Essays on Untouchables and Untouchability: Political

#b.r. ambedkar #babasaheb ambedkar #gandhi #round table conference #the if he had taken in his armpit a volume on comparative constitutional law part was hilarious loool #there's so much snarky and funny things in some of his writings #i love it

28 notes · View notes

obedmanwatkar · 5 years ago

Text

#POONAPACT : Setting the records straight.

The Poona Pact refers to an agreement between Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and M.K. Gandhi signed on 24 September 1932 at Yerwada Central Jail in Pune (now in Maharashtra), India. It was signed by Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and some Dalit leaders to break the fast unto death undertaken by Gandhi in Yerwada jail to annul Macdonald Award giving separate electorate to Dalits for electing members of state legislative assemblies in British India.

To draft a new Constitution involving self-rule for the native Indians, the British invited leaders of different parties in the Round Table Conferences in 1930-32. Gandhi did not attend the first and last but attended the second of the Conferences. The concept of separate electorates for the Untouchables was raised by Dr. Ambedkar. Similar provisions were already available for other minorities, including Muslims, Christians, Anglo-Indians and Sikhs. The British government agreed with Ambedkar's contention, and British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald's Communal Award to the depressed classeswas to be incorporated into the constitution in the governance of British India. Gandhi strongly opposed the Communal Award on the grounds that it would disintegrate Hindu society. He began an indefinite hunger strike at Yerwada Central Jailfrom September 20, 1932 to protest against this Award. A compromise was reached on September 24, 1932.

Mr. M.K. Gandhi (The ideological Father of Adolf Hitler) the Greatest Liar, Manipulator, Racist/Casteist, Sexual predator ever born in 3000 years of history of humankind. Me. Gandhi who was a staunch Sexual predator from the beginning of his life he was a staunch racist in South Africa, and when he came to India he never repented but became more worse he Became CASTEIST.

Many writers, journalists, Socialists, Congress party Dalits, entire Christian theologians as well as the Church from India and overseas still defend him, the greatest escape they use it "Gandhi was assassinated by RSS (KKK of India ) guy, that's why he was a good man, and there are many good things to learn from him, Millions Hate Gandhi because of jealousy and misunderstandings". Some academicians and activists come up with the Idea that "Don't want to get into any controversy..... or I 'll be hated by the Followers of Phule - Ambedkar or put to jail by the Gandhian government of India." BLA BLA BLA.

However, After Reading this post many will title me as " HATE CULTIVATOR" cause criticizing Gandhi is like Criticising "Non-Violence", MY FOOT.

Gandhi who is still titled as "Padre de la Nacion" (father of the nation) in India used to fast unto death at the drop of a hat (especially against the civil rights of his own country people & Hindu Muslim riot), conveniently forgot to fast when partition happened, India was being divided on grounds of Caste, Race, Gender, Religion & millions were being Butchered. STRANGE NA???? The great saint himself used to sleep naked with young girls including his grand-niece Manu Gandhi to practice brahmacharya (celibacy).

It is just like saying that "I want to abstain from the temptation of pornography. So let me watch as many porn Movies".

Still, respect the Great Saint? Disgusting!!!!!!!!

DUMP GANDHI!! SCREW GANDHI!!

#GandhiMustFall #AbolishRacism

#AbolishCasteSystem

Obed Manwatkar

https://obedmanwatkar.wordpress.com/2019/09/24/poona-pact-dump-gandhi/

0 notes

todaybharatnews · 5 years ago

Link

via Today Bharat nbsp; The awards are to be given to meritorious students in Andhra Pradesh on National Education Day on November 11. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy on Tuesday scrapped the order to rename a state award. The order sought to rename the award from ldquo;Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Pratibha Puraskar Awardsrdquo; to ldquo;YSR Vidya Puraskarsrdquo;, and created massive outrage, with people calling it an insult to the former President of India. A day after a government order (GO) was issued changing the "Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Pratibha Puraskar Awards' to "YSR Vidya Puraskars", the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) government came under attack from various quarters. According to officials, Jagan Mohan Reddy ordered scrapping of the order after it came to his notice. "He warned the officials and firmly said that the awards should continue in the name of Dr APJ Abdul Kalam," they said. The awards are to be given to meritorious students on National Education Day on November 11, the birth anniversary of India's first Education Minister Moulana Abul Kalam Azad. The Chief Minister also ordered officials to present awards in the names of Mahatma Gandhi, B.R. Ambedkar, Jyotirao Phule and Babu Jagjivan Ram. The education department had on Monday issued an order renaming the awards after late Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy. Popular as YSR, Rajasekhara Reddy was the father of Jagan Mohan Reddy. Ever since YSRCP came to power in May, many welfare schemes were renamed. Most of the schemes are now named after YSR. However, for the latest order, the YSRCP government came under criticism from opposition parties, netizens and Abdul Kalam's admirers. Leader of opposition and former Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu tweeted the controversial order with the hashtag #YSRCPInsultsAbdulKalam. "Dr Kalam has accomplished much for the nation with his pioneering work and inspiring life. Jagan's government changing 'APJ Abdul Kalam Pratibha Puraskar" to "YSR Vidya Puraskar" is a shocking method of self-aggrandisement at the cost of disrespecting a much-venerated man. Shameful!!" tweeted Naidu. This was followed by tweets by many others, criticising the government for the order. nbsp;

#IFTTT #Today Bharat

0 notes

news365timesindia · 13 days ago

Text

[ad_1] Paromita Das GG News Bureau New Delhi, 11th Dec. At a time when the Congress party in Karnataka finds itself grappling with mounting governance challenges and allegations of corruption, it appears to have fallen back on divisive and deflective tactics to appease its voter base. The recent decision to remove the portrait of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, better known as Veer Savarkar, from the Assembly Hall of Belagavi’s Suvarna Vidhana Soudha, has reignited a heated debate over history, ideology, and political priorities. Installed in 2022 under the BJP-led Basavaraj Bommai government, Savarkar’s portrait stood alongside those of iconic freedom fighters such as Mahatma Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. However, the Congress government has chosen to target Savarkar, citing a controversial and intellectually dishonest portrayal of his role in Bharat’s freedom struggle. The State Minister Priyank Kharge, son of Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, went so far as to label Savarkar a symbol of inequality, questioning his contributions and challenging his celebrated title of “Veer.” Predictably, this decision has not only drawn sharp criticism from the BJP but has also divided public opinion across Karnataka. To justify its move, the Congress has leaned on the oft-repeated claim that Savarkar’s ideology allegedly contributed to Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. This argument, however, has long been discredited as political propaganda designed to tarnish Savarkar’s legacy. Such narratives ignore the undeniable sacrifices Savarkar made for Bharat’s independence, including 11 years of grueling incarceration at the Cellular Jail in the Andamans and a total of 27 years spent in prison for his patriotic activities. These are sacrifices that cannot be diminished by selective historical revisionism. What adds further irony to the Congress’s decision is Savarkar’s historical connection to Karnataka. In 1950, he was detained in Hindalga Jail in Belagavi for protesting against the visit of Pakistan’s Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan to New Delhi—a testament to his lifelong commitment to the nation. Yet, the Congress government’s move to erase his presence from the Assembly Hall reveals a deliberate intent to sideline his legacy while pandering to their ideological base. The BJP has seized this opportunity to frame the Congress as anti-Hindu and politically opportunistic, accusing it of selectively undermining Hindutva figures like Savarkar while glorifying controversial historical personalities such as Tipu Sultan. BJP leaders have argued that this decision is yet another example of Congress’s appeasement politics aimed at courting its Muslim voter base, often at the expense of broader societal unity. The saffron party has also pointed out Congress’s apparent double standards, contrasting its reverence for Tipu Sultan—a ruler with a documented history of forced conversions and Hindu persecution—with its refusal to honor Savarkar’s contributions. Adding to the controversy, Ranjit Savarkar, the great-grandson of Veer Savarkar, criticized the Congress for its selective recognition of Bharat’s freedom fighters. He accused the party of distorting history to glorify the Nehru-Gandhi family while ignoring the sacrifices of other stalwarts like Savarkar. According to him, the Congress’s actions reflect an ideological bias that prioritizes political convenience over historical accuracy. The controversy surrounding Veer Savarkar is not new in Karnataka’s political landscape. In recent years, the state has witnessed several flashpoints over his legacy. Clashes erupted in Shivamogga in 2022 over a Savarkar poster at Ameer Ahmed Circle, which Islamists opposed by demanding a Tipu Sultan poster in the same location. Similarly, the naming of a flyover in Yelahanka after Savarkar in 2020 and controversies surrounding textbook depictions of him have consistently placed him at the center of Karnataka’s ideological battles. The Congress’s decision

to remove Savarkar’s portrait not only disrespects a national icon but also undermines the spirit of inclusivity that should guide the acknowledgment of Bharat’s diverse freedom struggle. By prioritizing polarizing politics over governance, the Congress risks alienating a significant section of the electorate. The BJP’s pointed criticism underscores how such moves could backfire politically, strengthening the narrative that Congress lacks a cohesive vision for governance and is instead relying on divisive tactics to mask its failings. The broader question this controversy raises is whether political parties in Bharat are capable of respecting the multiplicity of perspectives that shaped the nation’s freedom struggle. Veer Savarkar’s life is a testament to courage, sacrifice, and patriotism. Despite ideological differences, his contributions to Bharat’s independence are beyond dispute. The Congress’s attempt to question his legacy not only insults his memory but also sets a dangerous precedent for how history is weaponized for political gain. As Karnataka grapples with pressing issues of governance and development, the Congress’s preoccupation with ideological posturing does little to inspire confidence in its leadership. In an era where voters are increasingly demanding accountability and progress, such deflective tactics risk undermining the party’s credibility further. The legacy of Veer Savarkar deserves respect, not political vilification. If the Congress wishes to regain its stature, it must rise above divisive politics and focus on the real issues that matter to the people of Karnataka. The post Karnataka Congress Sparks Controversy: The Savarkar Portrait Debate appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

0 notes

news365times · 13 days ago

Text

0 notes

news365timesindia · 1 month ago

Text

[ad_1] Paromita Das GG News Bureau New Delhi, 22nd November. History often bears witness to periods of immense suffering that shape the identity and resilience of communities. One such chapter is the brutal atrocities committed against Hindus during the Razakar movement under the Nizam of Hyderabad. These events, exemplified by the harrowing tale of Mallikarjun Kharge’s family tragedy, represent the immense violence that Hindus and Dalits endured. Despite such tragedies, successive Congress governments have been accused of failing to confront or even acknowledge these historical atrocities, prioritizing political expediency and vote-bank politics over justice and truth. This article explores the impact of Muslim atrocities on Hindus, the silence of leaders like Mallikarjun Kharge, and how Congress’s policies have historically sidelined the Hindu majority. The Razakars’ Atrocities: A Historical Overview The Razakars were a paramilitary force loyal to the Nizam of Hyderabad, determined to resist Bharat’s integration and maintain the princely state’s independence or merge it with Pakistan. Led by Qasim Rizvi under the banner of Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (MIM), their campaign was marked by: Widespread Violence: Hindus and Dalits faced large-scale massacres, rapes, and arson. Entire villages were destroyed. Targeting Dalits: Dalits, particularly resistant to religious conversion and Nizam’s rule, were often singled out for brutal attacks. Cultural and Religious Oppression: The atrocities extended to temples, cultural institutions, and symbols of Hindu identity, erasing centuries-old heritage. Mallikarjun Kharge’s Personal Loss Kharge’s family was among the many victims of these atrocities. His mother, three sisters, and extended family members were burned alive when their home in Bhalki, Karnataka, was attacked by the Razakars. This tragedy left Kharge and his father to rebuild their lives after fleeing to safety. His story underscores the suffering endured by countless others during this period. Dr. Ambedkar’s Resistance to Religious Conversion Amid the violence, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emerged as a powerful voice against forced conversions. He urged Dalits to flee the Nizam’s rule rather than submit to conversion. His call emphasized resilience and the preservation of religious and cultural identity, becoming a rallying cry for Dalit empowerment against communal oppression. Mallikarjun Kharge’s Silence: Political Expediency? Kharge’s refusal to explicitly name the perpetrators of his family’s tragedy has sparked controversy. Critics argue that his silence is motivated by: Vote-Bank Politics: A fear of alienating Muslim voters, who form a significant bloc in the Congress’s electoral strategy. Congress’s Narrative: Aligning with Congress’s approach of avoiding issues that might disrupt their positioning as champions of minority rights. This perceived silence does little to honor the memory of victims like Kharge’s family and others who suffered similar fates, leading to accusations of betrayal by segments of the Hindu and Dalit communities. The Congress party’s history is riddled with examples of policies and actions that have been interpreted as favoring minority appeasement at the expense of the Hindu majority. These include: Partition and Its Fallout Congress’s acquiescence to the partition of Bharat on religious lines resulted in one of history’s bloodiest mass migrations, disproportionately affecting Hindus and Sikhs. Refugee crises in Punjab, Bengal, and other regions left millions displaced and killed. Special Provisions for Minorities in Congress’s regime Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir provided special privileges to a Muslim-majority state while marginalizing Hindu communities like the Kashmiri Pandits. The Minority Commission and Waqf Board created exclusive privileges for Muslims, sidelining the needs of other communities. Discrimination in Temple Governance Hindu temples remain under Congress government control, with their

funds often diverted for purposes that include subsidies for minority-specific initiatives, such as the Hajj pilgrimage. Legislative Measures The Places of Worship Act and the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill were seen as biased toward safeguarding minority interests while ignoring the rights and grievances of Hindus. The Implications of Congress’s Approach These policies have fostered resentment among Hindus, who view Congress as a party more concerned with securing minority votes than with ensuring equitable governance or addressing historical grievances. The Danger of Historical Amnesia Failing to acknowledge atrocities like those committed by the Razakars creates a dangerous precedent of historical amnesia. It prevents justice for victims and emboldens forces that thrive on erasing or distorting history. For instance: The atrocities by the Razakars have often been overshadowed by Congress’s reluctance to revisit such episodes, leaving younger generations unaware of these critical events. The legacy of the MIM, which originated as a cultural and political organization under the Nizam and later metamorphosed into a party with a communal agenda, remains unaddressed. Confronting the Truth Bharat’s political leaders must rise above narrow political interests to address painful chapters of history honestly. While the Congress party’s strategy of appeasement has yielded short-term electoral gains, it has come at the cost of eroding trust among large sections of the population. Leaders like Mallikarjun Kharge owe it to their constituents to speak the truth about their experiences and the historical context of communal atrocities. Breaking the Cycle True reconciliation requires acknowledging past injustices, fostering an environment where all communities can coexist peacefully, and ensuring that no group is allowed to act with impunity. Conclusion: A Path Forward The story of Mallikarjun Kharge’s family tragedy is not just a personal tale of loss but a reminder of the communal fault lines that have shaped Bharat’s history. To move forward as a nation, political parties like Congress must abandon their vote-bank politics and focus on equitable governance that respects all communities. The acknowledgment of Hindu suffering, such as the Razakar atrocities, is not about fostering division but about ensuring historical truth and justice. Only by confronting these truths can Bharat hope to heal its wounds and build a future rooted in mutual respect and unity. The post Muslim Atrocities on Hindus: Unveiling a Dark Chapter and Congress’s Complicity for Political Gains appeared first on Global Governance News- Asia's First Bilingual News portal for Global News and Updates. [ad_2] Source link

0 notes

news365times · 1 month ago

Text

0 notes

loyallogic · 5 years ago

Text

Laws Governing Union and its territories under the Indian Constitution

This article is written by Mariya Paliwala of the seventh semester, a student at Mohanlal Sukhadiya University College of Law, Udaipur, Rajasthan. This article throws light on the Constitution of India with special emphasis on Part I i.e. Union and its Territories.

Introduction

It is very difficult to govern a vast nation like India, so the mechanism of federal governance was adopted. The heading in Part I i.e. Union and its territory reflects the unitary biasness of the federal structure as a union is considered to be the center and it comprises of states which is termed as territory. The country is divided into various states just for the sake of smoothing the administration. The Part I of the constitution pertains to the union and its territories and it comprises of Article 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Name and Territory of the Union

India is described as the “Union of states” and not “Federation of states”. The drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly deliberately used the word union and not federation. This can be interpreted as the union of India means the nation as a whole, it is not the result of any agreement between the states. Whereas, federation means the nation is constituted in accordance with the agreement and in future any state or group of states may secede from the union and demarcate the boundary on their own free will.

The Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the constituent Assembly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar stated the reason for the question that why the drafting committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, that federation was not the result of agreement by the states to join federation and that the federation not being the result of agreement no state has the right to secede from it. The federation is a union because it is indestructible. Though the country and people can be divided into different states for the convenience of the administration the country is one integral whole, its people are the single people living under a single imperium whole from a single source. Just a change in word and the Americans had to wage civil war to establish that the states have no right to secession and that their Federation was indestructible. The drafting committee thought that it is better to make it clear in an initial stage rather than leave it for the speculation leading to future controversies and contingencies.

Therefore, Article 1 says pertains to the above ideology whose essentials are:

Union of States

Article 1 says that India will also be known as Bharat and it shall be the ‘Union’ of states. Moreover, it also states that the states and union territories are mentioned in the 1st Schedule of the constitution.

Indian territory will comprise of:

The state territories.

Union territories.

Territories which may be acquired by the government of India.

To acquire any foreign territory no parliamentary legislation is required as the sovereign state has an inherent power to acquire any territory.

Meaning of Acquisition

The expression ‘acquisition’ means by any notifications, declarations or assertions by which the government of India has declared and treated as a part and parcel of India, then the courts will be bound to recognize an “acquisition” as having taken place the consequence that territory would be the part of the union. Acquisition may be brought about in the following manners:

Conquest

Cession following treaty

Occupation of territory hitherto unoccupied by any recognized ruler

Accretion

The annexation of Sikkim, Daman & Diu, Goa, Dadar and Nagar Haveli, and Pondicherry are examples of acquisition.

Further, Article 2-A which elaborated on Sikkim to be associated with the union. However, this article was repealed by the Constitution (36th Amendment) Act, 1975.

Admission and Establishment of New States

Article 2 of the Constitution empowers the parliament to make new rules to admit any territory into the union or establish a new state on the basis of any terms as it thinks fit.

The main highlights of Article 2 are:

To admit any new state in a Union (admission of organized political communities).

Power to make or establish new state (existence of no political communities).

Article 2-A state that Sikkim was to be associated with the Union of India which was later repealed by the Constitution 36th Amendment Act, 1975.

Formation of New States, Alteration of New Areas, Boundaries or Names of Existing States

Parliament is empowered under Article 3 of the constitution to:

Either from a new state by separation of territory from any state or by merging two or more states or by uniting any territory to a part of any state.

Increase in the area of any state.

A decrease in the area of any state.

Alteration in the boundary of any state.

Alteration in the name of any state.

This can be done if no bill for the purpose is introduced in the parliament except on the recommendation of the President of India.

A bill to become a law under Article 3 of the constitution need to fulfill 2 conditions. Firstly, the bill must be introduced in either house of the parliament only on the recommendation of the President of India. Secondly, where the proposal in the bill affect or change the area, boundaries, or name of any states, after this, the President must refer the bill to the legislature of the state which is going to be affected by the bill to express its will on matters pertaining to any alteration, formation or the name of that state.

Click Above

Legislations under Article 3

Assam (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1951: This altered the boundaries of the state of Assam consequent on the cession of a strip of territory, which was comprised in the state of the Government of Bhutan.

Andhra State Act, 1953: Under this new state of Andhra Pradesh was formed by separating it from the State of Madras.

Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act, 1954: This Act merged the two former parts of the States to form one state of Himachal Pradesh.

Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer of Territories) Act, 1956: Under this Act certain territory was transferred from Bihar to West Bengal.

States Reorganisation Act, 1956: This Act recognizes the boundaries of the different states. It establishes the new state of Kerala and merged the former states of Madhya Bharat, Pepsu, Saurashtra, Travancore-Cochin, Ajmer, Bhopal, Coorg, Kutch, and Vindhya Pradesh in other adjoining states.

Andhra Pradesh and Madras (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1959: This Act altered the boundary of the states of Madras and Andhra Pradesh.

Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh (Transfer of Territories) Act, 1959: This Act allowed the transfer of certain territories from the state of Rajasthan to the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Bombay Recognition Act, 1960: This Act divided the state of Bombay in order to establish the state of Gujarat and the state of Maharashtra.

Acquired Territory (Merger) Act, 1960: This Act merged certain territories into the state of Assam, Punjab, and West Bengal, certain territories acquired from Pakistan under the agreement entered into by the government of India and Pakistan.

State of Nagaland Act, 1962

Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966

State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970

North-Eastern Areas (Recognition) Act, 1971

Haryana and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries Act), 1979

State of Mizoram Act, 1986

State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986

Goa, Daman, and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987

Bihar reorganization Act, 2000

Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000

Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000

Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014

Ram Kishore Sen V. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 644, 648: (1966) 1 SCR 430

This case has clarified the term ‘State’. The word State is inclusive of Union territories this can be derived from the Explanation 1 of Article 3. However, since there is no such necessity with regards to the proviso to Article 3, it is also provided that the term ‘state’ shall not include a word Union Territory.

Rationale: The reason is that in the case of alteration of boundaries of the state, it is very important to take the opinion of the affected state. However, the union territories are governed by the Parliament itself. Further, the inclusion of the word “Union Territories” in the term “state” occurring in the proviso would have been redundant. Explanation 2 further clarifies that the parliament has the power under clause (a) of Article 3 to form new states or union territory by uniting a part of any state or union territory to any other state or union territory.

Therefore, these two explanations are added to Article 3 with the help of the Constitution (18th Amendment) Act, 1966.

Laws made under Article 2 and 3 provides for amendment under First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, Incidental, and consequential matters.

In case parliament of India makes a law under Article 2 or 3, the law must include all the necessary provisions for amendment of the first and fourth schedules of the constitution.

The first schedule: It specifies all the states which are a member of the Union and their representative territories.

The fourth schedule: It specifies the number of seats to which each state is entitled in the council of states.

Further Article 4 enables the parliament to include supplementary, incidental and consequential provisions.

Clause 2 of Article 4 expressly provides that changes made in the constitution by such law will be deemed to be an amendment of the constitution under Article 368, which specifies the procedure to make amendments in the constitution. The consequence is that alteration in the constitution coming within the purview of Article 4 may be carried out by a bare majority, subject to the requirements laid down by the proviso to Article 3 if such alterations relate to the matters specified in that article.

Mullaperiyar Environment Protection Forum V. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 643: AIR 2006 SC 1428

In this case the validity of Section 108 of State Reorganisation Act, 1956 which provides for the continuity of the existing agreements between the then existing states. The court held that the law-making power under Article 3 and 4 are supreme/ paramount and are not subjected to nor fettered by Article 246 and the List II and III of the seventh schedule. Further, it held that the constitutional validity of law made under Article 3 and 4 can not be questioned on the grounds of lack of legislative competence with reference to the list of the Seventh Schedule.

Ram Kishore Sen v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 644, 648: (1966) 1 SCR 430

The Constitutional (18th Amendment) Act, 1966 adds two explanations to Article 3, incorporating the decision of the Supreme Court in this case which clarified the term “State” in the term “State” includes “Union Territories” but since there is no such necessity with regard to the proviso to Article 3, it is also provided that in the proviso, the term “state” shall not include “union territories”. The reason is that in the case of alteration of boundaries of the state, it is necessary to elicit the opinion of the affected states; but since the Union Territory is governed by Parliament itself, the inclusion of Union Territory in the term “State” occurring in the proviso would have been redundant. The second explanation further clarifies the power of the Parliament. It provides that the power of the Parliament under clause (a) of Article 3 includes the power to form a new state or Union Territory by uniting a part of any state or union territory to any other state or Union Territory.

Conclusion

Wherefore, it can be said that the Constitution is the paramount law of the land. The Parliament is a body empowered to make laws for the welfare state but while making them the members of the Parliament need to ensure that the law which is presented and enacted must not be in derogation with the constitution and above all it does not have to be in violation with the basic structure of the constitution of India.

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skill.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

The post Laws Governing Union and its territories under the Indian Constitution appeared first on iPleaders.

Laws Governing Union and its territories under the Indian Constitution published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

0 notes

loyallogic · 5 years ago

Text

The legal odyssey of the Uniform Civil Code

This article has been written by Hitul Sehgal.

Introduction

“Wisdom alone can take your firm hand towards a common civil code, a more progressive civil code so that we can achieve more brotherhood, more intimacy.”[1]

-Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer

The preamble of our constitution guarantees us the liberty of thought, expression, faith, and worship. Throughout our constitutional history, the courts have contemplated, scrutinized and expanded upon the meaning of these words. The importance that our state granted to religion while attempting to remain secular, was perhaps the masterstroke of our lawmakers. It was a justified necessity to unite the myriad groups of people that inhabited our country. It will be a huge error to classify this move as mere appeasement, as it helped forge the unique identity of our nation that balances the separation of religion and state, while at the same time respecting the various religions that are a part of it.

However, balancing these two positions has time and again and proved to be rough terrain, full of unforeseen calamities. The unbelievably complex nature of the thousands of religious practices has resulted in a storm of conflicting legal issues, at the heart of which lies the question of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The oft-debated provision enshrined in Article 44 of our constitution that states, “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India[2]” remains untouched and the position of our Parliament almost unchanged.

What is a Uniform civil code?

In its most rudimentary sense, UCC refers to a unilateral system of civil laws for all citizens of a country. Although this might seem a gross oversimplification, it helps us understand a basic question, that was also alluded to by the father of our constitution Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in the constituent assembly debates on Article 44[3], that if our country already has a Civil Procedure Code that does apply to all civil matters and extends to all citizens, and there exists a Contract act as well as various other provisions in Civil Law such as the Indian Partnership Act that apply uniformly to all our citizens, where exactly does Article 44 endeavors to provide uniformity? The answer being the kaleidoscopically complex provisions of our family laws, and this is where the debate gets heated. The personal laws of the various communities, whose cultural and religious beliefs our constitution guarantees to protect have been scrutinized, codified and legislated into several detailed and sometimes conflicting enactments. Moreover, even in our modern constitutional democracy, orthodox personal laws that originate from ancient sources like the Manu Smriti or The Holy Qur’an have not entirely lost their validity, and still, exist to provide validation to malignant patriarchal value systems.

Battling Discrimination Through Legal Challenges

Amendments to Christian Law

One only needs to turn the pages of our constitutional history, and therein he can find a labyrinth of cases that highlight the misogynistic and conservative characteristics of our personal laws. Here the Indian Courts and Law Commission have always proved to be a beacon of light, especially when faced with the challenges of rectifying historically discriminatory provisions such as Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act[4], which the Parliament amended through the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act[5], after a string of decisions by the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, and Kerala[6].

Gender Discrimination under Muslim Law

Perhaps, the most controversial of these challenges was the well-known case of Shah Bano[7] and the ensuing chaos which led to the passing of the ironically titled The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act[8], that overruled the judgment. The Supreme Court once again came to the rescue of Muslim women and the dignity of our society through its decision in Danial Latifi,[9] by upholding Muslim women’s right to maintenance after the period of Iddah is over. More recently, in Shayara Bano[10], the Supreme Court once again restored our faith in the ideals of equality and justice that it seeks to uphold by abolishing the highly contentious provision of talaq-e-biddat, paving the way for the Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Bill, 2019, that criminalizes the practice[11]. An interesting point that emerged in the above case that is worth mentioning here is the Attorney General’s contention that talaq-e-ahasan and talaq-e-hasan, the other two modes of divorce available to Muslim men were also unconstitutional due to their arbitrary and unilateral nature[12]. But even if the arbitrariness is remedied in matters of divorce, the truly controversial provision of polygamy for men would still prevail.

Patriarchy in Hindu Law

Coming to Hindu law, which applies to more than 80% of the country’s population[13], it still continues to have glaringly unequal provisions. For instance, the discriminatory wording of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act[14] challenged in Gita Hariharan’s case[15] which gave mothers, a secondary position as guardian. Similarly, until the 2005 amendment[16], the Hindu Succession Act[17] was also filled with various handicaps for women coparceners, and widows who wished to remarry. And while we are still on the issue of marriages, a major handicap in our personal laws is that the registration of marriages is not a mandatory provision under most personal laws. As the law commission judiciously pointed out in its 2017 report[18] that making registration compulsory, “would also aid in eliminating practices such as early and forced marriages. It can be helpful in achieving gender equality and empowering women. (270th Law Commission of India Report, 2017)”[19]

Miscellaneous inequitable provisions under personal laws

Another serious matter is the unbelievably discombobulating stance of our country on child marriage laws. Even after lengthy pieces of legislation, and acts passed by the Parliament[20], in an effort to eradicate this evil, the real blow has come, once again, in the form of a successful writ petition[21], that finally criminalized intercourse with a minor wife.

Even now we have barely scratched the surface of the problem, there are still a number of inconsistencies that need to be remedied. For example, the adoption laws of our country which vary from religion to religion. Under Hindu law, the adopted child has the same rights as a biological child, but Islamic Law does not even recognize the status of an adopted child. Only through a 2014 judgment[22] of our apex court, Muslims have been granted the right to adopt through the provisions of Juvenile Justice act[23].

Oppositions to a Uniform Code

It would be prejudicial to ignore the contrary view about the UCC. The first opposition comes from religious activist groups, devoted to safeguarding their traditions from invasive law reforms. For the fundamentalists, unifying our personal laws will be a death blow to diversity. But if in the name of culture and custom, all they want is the perpetuation of their hackneyed class traditions of patriarchal dogma, it will perhaps be in the best interest of the principles of equity and justice to do away with such traditions.

The second and more reasonable objection came from the law commission itself, when in its recent report it declared a UCC to be, “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage.” (Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law, 2018)[24]. Further suggesting, that small amendments, and codification of existing personal laws will be the better way forward. Indeed, the position seems to be the golden mean for two extremely polarizing opinions. The suggestion will definitely preserve the dignity and diversity of our religions, while also changing their more draconian aspects in accordance with the changing status quo. However, the problem with this approach is evident, as these amendments and reforms take years to shape and successfully implement, and while no one is arguing that the change should come with a finger snap, the piecemeal approach does seem to be an elaborate way of saying that the Parliament and Supreme Court should keep following its current one at a time method of correcting injustices.

Constitutionality of a Common Civil Code

Courts and the UCC

The whole Common code conundrum, in the simplest of terms, seems to center around two often conflicting fundamental rights- the Right to Equality[25] and the Right to freedom of religion[26]., both unequivocally inalienable in nature. In Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt[27], the question arose about the distinction between religious and secular affairs. The question, in the above context was perhaps best answered in Sarla Mugdal’s case[28], where the honourable court expressly stated that “Marriage, succession and like matters of a secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Articles 25, 26 and 27”[29], while questioning Parliament’s incompetence in implementing a Uniform Civil Code. Two years later, while rejecting the petitions filed under Ahmedabad Women Action Group’s case[30], our apex court clarified that a Uniform Civil code could only be introduced and implemented by the Parliament. The ratio behind the verdict comes from cases like Narasu Appa Mali[31] and Krishna Singh[32]where the courts have held that personal law, which exists through tradition cannot be constitutionally challenged, as it is outside the ambit of Part III our constitution. But only very recently the scales of justice tilted in the favour of transformative constitutionalism when our honourable Judges in their infinite wisdom finally eroded the constraints of this regressive precedent, when they finally allowed women to walk the grounds of Sabrimala.[33] The historical judgment has definitely moved us one step closer towards ending the injustices ingrained in our personal laws.

The Shining Example of Goa

It would be criminal not to mention the example of Goa in a discussion about the UCC, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court judgment[34], in which the court praised the state’s unique position of being the only Indian province with a Uniform personal law, albeit with some concessions. While mentioning the fact that it is the only state where verbal divorce and polygamy cannot be practised by Muslim men the court once again highlighted our Government’s failure of fulfilling the expectations of our founding fathers. But even the Portuguese Civil Code[35] is filled with inconsistencies such as limited polygamy and adultery as a fault ground, available only to men.[36]

Parliament and the Uniform Civil Code

From the above discussion, it becomes conspicuous that not only do our courts ardently support a Uniform code, but they also have time and again called for it to be implemented. But unlike a Fundamental Right, Article 44 is a provision under Directive Principles of State Policy, is non-justiciable in nature. In John Vallamattom[37], the Supreme Court once again lamented the forgotten wording of Article 44 and asserted its importance in bringing about national integration.

Unfortunately, the legislature seems to be the sole authority that can make it a reality, and so far, the courts’ wishes have fallen on deaf ears. However, it would be unwise to be utterly pessimistic about its prospects. As mentioned above, the changes the courts and Parliament together have made in the personal laws, have removed various outdated provisions and the existence of acts such as The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, [38] The Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act[39], The Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act [40], and the amendments to Indian Divorce Act[41], have had the combined effect of homogenizing our personal laws. But still our lawmakers have a long way to cover, and several promises to keep.

Given our religiously fueled political climate, it may seem hopeless that the only way to uniform personal laws is through our legislature and our courts can only urge the government for its implementation. So, one might rightfully ask this, historically what has been the stance of our Parliament on committing towards this radical change? The answer would definitely not raise any eyebrows. When the legislature decided to codify existing religious laws, it unwittingly set our country on a course that would have never led to a common civil code. It made the thought of a uniform code seem poisonous, so much so, that in the past when the calls for a uniform civil code arose from various opposition parties, instead of feeling reformatory, their motives felt vindictive and mala fide. In its 2019 manifesto, the BJP government has once again promised to deliver the nation a Uniform Civil Code[42], it is yet to deliver on this promise.

Conclusion

The quest towards a Common Civil Code though incomplete has served as a real test of the true nature of our democracy. Hindered by-laws that reek of appeasement and politicians who owe their entire existence to the cataclysm of religious wars, this quest has been guided by the pole star of our judiciary. The vision of our founding fathers is still an aspiration to be achieved.

A personal law system based on religious principles is unable to function under a secular democracy. It is fundamentally against any notion of a just society, a concept which John Rawls once defined as “In a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.”[43] (Rawls, 2005). One might wonder, for how long the citizens of this country will have to bear the law’s delay and the insolence of political offices, in failing to secure for them the ideals of our own constitution.

Endnotes

[1] [1] Iyer, V.R. (1986). Strategy Towards a Uniform Civil Code: Journal of Dharma: Dharmaram Journal of Religions and Philosophies, [online] 11(3), p.226. Available at: https://ift.tt/2Mm5Wmp [last seen on 20 Sep. 2019].

[2] Article 44, The Constitution of India, 1950.

[3] See CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA DEBATES (PROCEEDINGS)- VOLUME VII, 23rd November 1948, speech by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar 25, Available at: http://164.100.47.194/loksabha/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C23111948.pdf.

[4] 1869.

[5] 2001.

[6] See Raj Kumar Gupta v. Barbara Gupta, AIR 1989 Cal 1, Ammini E.J. And Etc. v. Union of India (Uoi) And Ors., AIR 1995 Ker 252 and Mrs. Pragati Varghese And Etc. v. Cyril George Varghese And Etc., AIR 1997 Bom 349.

[7] Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Ors, AIR 1985 SC 945.

[8] 1986.

[9] Danial Latifi & Anr v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740.

[10] Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

[11] S.4, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

[12] See Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1, pg. 119.

[13] Censusindia.gov.in. (2019). Census of India: Religion. [online] Available at: https://ift.tt/Zha321, last seen on 24 Sep. 2019.

[14] 1956.

[15] Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr v. Reserve Bank of India, AIR 1999, 2 SCC 228.

[16] The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

[17] 1956.

[18] 270th Law Commission of India Report, Government of India, Compulsory Registration of Marriages, available at: https://ift.tt/33wo4zy, last seen on 24 Sep. 2019.

[19] Ibid. pg. 5-6.

[20] For example, The Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929, The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

[21] Independent Thought v. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online SC 1222.

[22] M/S Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 1.

[23] 2000

[24] LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law, pg. 7, available at: https://ift.tt/2Bin1aB, last seen on 24 Sep. 2019.

[25] Article 14, The Constitution of India, 1950.

[26] Article 25, The Constitution of India, 1950.

[27] Sri Lakshmindra theertha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt and anr. v. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras and ors., (1952) IMLJ 557.

[28] Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531.

[29] Ibid. pg. 11.

[30] Ahmedabad Women’s Action Group v. Union of India, AIR 1997, 3 SCC 573.

[31] State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, Air 1952 BOM 84.

[32] Sri Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir And Ors., AIR 1982 SC 686.

[33] Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 of 2006 (Supreme Court, 28 September, 2018).

[34] Jose Paulo Coutinho V. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira & Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7378 OF 2010 (SUPREME COURT, September 13, 2019).

[35] 1867.

[36] Feminism In India. (2019). Is Goa Civil Code The Answer To India’s Sexist Laws? | Feminism In India. [online] Available at: https://ift.tt/2SXxcZx, last seen on 24 Sep. 2019.

[37] John Vallamattom & Anr v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 242 of 1997 (Supreme Court, 21/07/2003).

[38]1939.

[39] 1986 and 2019.

[40] 2006.

[41] 2001.

[42]BJP Election 2019 Manifesto English. [online] Documentcloud.org. Available at: https://ift.tt/31n3aS6 [Accessed 25 Sep. 2019].

[43] Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp.3-4.

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skill.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

The post The legal odyssey of the Uniform Civil Code appeared first on iPleaders.

The legal odyssey of the Uniform Civil Code published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

0 notes