The second Fundamental: Enlightened Secularism and Common Heritage continues..

In this context, one critic has pointed out that in Goa, from the days of Portuguese rule, the people have been governed by a uniform civil code, but Goanese Muslims have not lost their identity or culture. Hence now Parliament must legislate a Uniform Civil Code.

The Parliament of India has already superseded the Hindu law of marriage and succession, in the teeth of opposition from an enlightened section of Hindus. It was opposed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad himself on the grounds that Art. 44, being applicable to all persons in the territory of India, should not be imposed on the Hindus alone and that the Government who sponsored the Hindu Code Bill to replace the personal law of the Hindus had no mandate from the electorate in this behalf.

Above all, the Muslims who remained in India after the Partition did so with the full knowledge that divided India was going to adopt a Parliamentary system of democracy and not any Muslim system of the Middle Ages where Shariat would be the Supreme law of the land. They should also have known that a personal law founded on the religion of different communities was incompatible with the very concept of a ‘Secular’ State on which the new India was based.

Factually also, the assumption of the Government of India that the entire Muslim community is opposed to the implementation of Art 44 is not correct. The Shah Bano case demonstrated that it was only a section of the Sunni sect amongst the Muslims which was vehemently opposed to the judgement.

to be continued....

( This account is maintained by Har Anand Publication)