Enlightened Secularism and Common Heritage continues..

Hence, in the Constituent Assembly it was made clear that in a secular state personal laws relating to such matters as marriage, succession and inheritance could not depend upon religion, but must rest on the law of the land. A Uniform Civil Code was accordingly necessary for achieving the unity and solidarity of the nation [K.M. Munshi, VII C.A.D., 547-48]. Every time subsequently the question of Uniform Civil Code was raised by anyone in Parliament, the Government of India opposed it on the ground that to achieve it would be to hurt Muslim ‘sentiments’ and that no implementation of this Directive of the fundamental law could be made so long as the Muslims themselves would not come forward to ask for it. [see the statement made by former Prime Minister Mr. Rao in his Independence Day Speech at Red Fort on 15-8-1995. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has recommended, more than once, that early steps must be taken towards the formulation of a Uniform Civil Code [Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) 3 S.C.C. 635 — Kuldip Singh & Sahai JJ].

That the Shariat is not infallible or immutable is evidenced by the patent fact that it has been discarded or modified in many respects by various Muslim States. And this has been achieved in an orthodox Muslim State such as Tunisia, through the process of liberal or progressive interpretation of the scriptures.

Advocates of immutability should be silenced by the following observations of a Muslim Judge of Pakistan, Huq, J., of the Lahore High Court—
“it would not be correct to lay it down as a positive rule of law that the present day Courts in this country should have no power or authority to interpret the Quran in a way different from that adopted by the earlier Jurists and Imams. The adoption of such a view is likely to endanger the dynamic and universal character of the religion and laws of Quran.”

to be continued.. .

( This account is maintained by Har Anand Publication)