Secularism and Uniform Civil Code

The perversion of secularism, which has resulted in non-implementation of Uniform Civil Code, has not done good to anyone.

India is probably the only country, wherein the concept of secularism is most perverted, both in principle and practice. After Independence, India, first borrowed this alien principle, without giving a thought regarding its necessity and applicability in Indian society, and then perverted it beyond measure to selectively implement it for petty political ends, with disastrous results.

Secularism, in simple terms means ‘separation of State and Religion’. That is, religious concerns will not dictate State policies and the State will not interfere in religious activities. This concept of secularism originated in the European society, necessitated by the constant struggle for power between the Church and the Monarchy. Secularism was thus, a unique solution in response to unique challenges prevalent in Western civilization in general and European society in particular.

Since, Indian civilization, being rooted in the concept of Dharma, wherein even a ruler is subjected to its tenets and answerable to his citizens, no dichotomy between religion and government ever existed. More importantly, the very concept of religion as understood in Western (Abrahamic) civilization is alien to India. Sanatana Dharma is not merely a religion bound by certain principles of faith, instead it is a way of life based on eternal principles that sustains all life- individual, social, ecological, and universal. Thus, sacred as well as secular, social and political as well as religious and spiritual, all aspects of life derive their sustenance from Dharma. Thus, dichotomies like religion vs. science, state vs. church, etc., which were an important force in the European society, never even sprouted in India.

Yet, ignoring these realities of Indian civilization, the Indian leaders, after independence, first imported secularism into India and then perverted its tenets and selectively implemented them in appeasement of certain ‘minority’ communities, all the while being discriminating towards the majority community. How else, can one explain contradictory actions of various state and central governments during the last seven decades?

Let’s take the example of religious institutions like places of worship belonging to various religions. Various state governments, especially in South India have taken control over Hindu temples and are earning crores of rupees from them. This, is a clear violation of secularism, which mandates no interference of governments in religious activities. Add to this the fact that out of the crores that these state governments are earning from temples, only a fraction of the amount is set aside for the maintenance of temples, and the rest is diverted to the government’s coffers. How is it secularism? Now, consider this, the same state governments have allowed a free functioning of Christians and Mosques, without any state intervention in the name of ‘secularism’. Moreover, crores taxpayers money are spent by some of the state governments to help ‘minority’ communities to renovate and build their places of worship.

In other words, the state governments have encroached upon places of worship belonging to the majority Hindu community, all the while allowing churches and mosques a free run. They are, further, looting the money from the temples and then spending taxpayers’ money on the churches, mosques, and the like. This is how secularism- the separation of religion and government- is being practiced in India. But, this perversion of Secularism and discrimination against the majority is, perhaps, most visible in the case of religion-specific personal laws enshrined in our constitution, despite the fact that the Directive Principles call for the eventual adoption of a Uniform Civil Code.

The presence of numerous personal laws goes against the very essence of secularism. Add to this, the fact that the way these personal laws have been enacted, they are completely discriminatory in nature. On the one hand, the Muslim community is governed by the laws, which are largely derived from Sharia and Islamic jurisprudence. Similarly, Parsis have personal law rooted in their tradition. The Jews are not governed by any personal laws, but instead are governed by the dictates of their religion. Christian personal laws are also in sync with their religious tradition. On the other hand, the majority Hindu community is governed by secularized Hindu laws, which are de-rooted from Hindu tradition and practices. Though, custom and usage have been deemed important in the Hindu personal laws, yet through passage of various civil laws like Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Succession Act 1956, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, etc. the rules governing Hindu marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. have been thoroughly secularized. Regarding the Hindu Code Bills of 1950’s, Dr. Parminder Kaur, Assistant Professor, Guru Nanak Dev University Regional Campus, Gurdaspur, writes in her article thus: “The Hindu Code Bills were a series of laws aimed at thoroughly secularizing the Hindu community and bringing its laws up to modern times, which in essence meant the abolition of Hindu law and the enactment of laws based on western lines that enshrined the equality of men and women, and other progressive ideas.”

Thus, the Hindu community has been forced to shed its centuries-old customs and traditions, whereas minority communities like Muslims are freely allowed to retain their practices. Add to this, the fact that Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, etc. all come under these Hindu personal laws, and thus are denied personal laws based on their own traditions and practices. It is a different issue that Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists share a common framework of Dharma with mainstream Hinduism and are deeply rooted in Indian culture and tradition. The point is, just like various communities within mainstream Hinduism have their unique customs and practices, even Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists have their unique customs and practices, all of which have been discarded and replaced by secularized Hindu personal laws. This is a classic case of discrimination, in the name of ‘secularism’.

The argument here is not that the present secularized Hindu laws are bad for the society, or that Hindus must imitate the customs and practices prevalent in Hindu society many centuries ago. The issue here is one of fairness and equal treatment. Either there should be a Uniform Civil Code keeping with the true notion of secularism, wherein all citizens are treated as citizens, without reference to their religion in civil issues, or there should be as many personal laws as necessary to cater to various local customs, traditions, and practices. Even, if one were to have a uniform Hindu personal law in such a scenario, then it must have enough flexibility and space to accommodate diverse local beliefs and practices among various communities, and these are to be framed after discussions with various religious authorities and community leaders from across the country and be rooted in Hindu religion and traditions. This is definitely not the case in the present scenario, wherein ‘minority’ Muslims are allowed to follow religious principles, whereas majority Hindus, including Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists, are forced to follow secularized personal laws.

More importantly, there was no necessity to secularize Hindu laws and Hindu society to usher in positive changes that were necessary, according to changing times. These positive changes could have been evolved from within Hindu tradition and culture itself. Hinduism has always been an evolving religious tradition. The presence of numerous Smritis, Dharmashastras, and many other texts, with each putting forward different viewpoints suitable to their own time and space, is the best evidence regarding flexibility and continuous evolution of Hinduism. Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, who was instrumental in bringing Hindu Widow Remarriage Act of 1856, accomplished it by putting forward evidences, illustrations, and arguments from within the Hindu tradition. Thus, genuine Hindu personal laws, suitable for present times, rooted in values like righteousness, duty, fairness, equal opportunity to women, etc. could have been easily evolved from within Hindu philosophy and culture, through a consensus arrived after discussions and debate among various religious authorities and representatives of various Hindu communities belonging to different geographical regions. But, short-sightedness and a romance with western ideals and systems of governance, made our Indian leaders ignore Indian ideals and models present within Indian civilization.

This import of secularism, and later its perversion in the form of discriminating personal laws, have done not much good for the minority communities, especially women of those communities, either. Polygamy is prevalent and legally sanctioned under Muslim personal laws, whereas it is prohibited for everyone else. A Hindu woman has an absolute right over maintenance from her husband upon divorce, but a Muslim woman will not get maintenance beyond the period of iddat. Similarly, the grounds of divorce have been detailed and the elaborate legal process have been thoroughly established in the case of Hindus and Christians, but a Muslim woman could be divorced merely by a repetition of ‘Talaq’ thrice by her husband. The Hindu undivided family gets tax rebates, but others are bereft of this benefit. Similar discriminations exist in the case of adoption laws as well.

The gist is, the perversion of secularism, which has resulted in non-implementation of Uniform Civil Code, has not done good to anyone. On the one hand, the Hindu personal laws have ushered in equality and fairness in certain spheres of social life in Hindu society, but have done so at the cost of uprooting Hindu society and legal system from the foundations of Dharma, which is bound to have adverse effects over a long term; on the other hand, presence of separate personal laws for minority communities, has kept them away, especially Muslim women, from gaining any benefits that are available for Hindus.

Ideally, India should have evolved an indigenous social and legal system rooted in Dharma (righteous duty) and Indian civilization. Such, a social and legal system would have developed unique responses to challenges that are unique to Indian society; would have been fair and righteous towards everyone, irrespective of their affiliations; and would have been, at the same time, firmly rooted in Indian civilization. But, since, we have already imported an alien system of secularism, it would do us good if we remove the prevalent perversions and implement it in its true sense by enacting a fair Uniform Civil Code.

Disclaimer: The facts and opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. IndiaFacts does not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article.
With a degree in civil engineering, and having worked in construction field, Nithin Sridhar passionately writes about various issues from development, politics, and social issues, to religion, spirituality and ecology. He is based in Mysore, India. His latest book “Musings On Hinduism” provides an overview of various aspects of Hindu philosophy and society. Tweets at @nkgrock
  • IndiannotAmused

    Fucking Nehru was an Anglo plant. How long more will we continue to pay for that rascal’s machinations?

  • Excellent piece Nithin and you have wonderfully captured the moral corruption of the Indian state when it comes to implementing “secularism”. I slightly disagree on one point – I personally believe that the present secularized Hindu laws are bad for the society.

    I would like to add a few more points on the origin of “secularism” which many of IndiaFacts reader may not know:
    a. Secularism started out essentially as a (Christian) Protestant criticism of (Christian) Catholicism and later of Jews.
    b. Secularism was historically the solution to prevent Catholic-Protestant conflict among Christians.
    c. Secularism is essentially a Christian concept embodying the European experiences of dealing with various cultures on an equal basis and not as slaves or lower category people. It is in fact referred to as the “hard core of Christianity”.

    Even the foundations of our secular holidays are Christian in origin. Sunday is a holiday because Christian God rested on the 7th day in the Bible.

    In other words, secularism is neither universal nor a golden standard, and had limited validity in the European Biblical context. Yet our Indian state with visheshagyas (or vishesh-agyas as I like to call them) like Nehru and Ambedkar, talks about secularism, demonstrating their ignorance, and thereby unintentionally internalizing the European Christian experiential challenges.

    There is a video called “Europe, India, and the Limits of Secularism” – Jakob De Roover of Ghent University, Belgium where he talks about this. He explain the origins of secularism Europe among Protestants, how it was transported to India, the meaningless doctrine of “essentially religious” of Ambedkar, and how it has been misused by the State to control Hindu and Jain temples, the moral vacuity of Supreme Court judges in interpreting Hindu texts and laws through western Abrahmaic lens.

    For example in one case filed by Jains on temple control, the SC judge defined “essentially religious” as mans’s relationship with God. On being pointed out that there is no concept of monotheistic God or any god for that matter in Jainism, the definition was quickly changed to man’s relationship with his Conscience. Laughable and painful at the same time.

    Secularism must go from India, because it is a Christian solution to a Christian problem and has ZERO relevance to India. India was always an inclusive society, and Christian Europe and US, and Islamic middle-east must learn “inclusiveness” from us.

    • IndiannotAmused

      Good video.

  • Birdseye

    One glaring fact absent in this article is education. There is no Government interference in the setup and administrationt of schools, colleges and universities for non Dharmic communities. Hence they have no responsibilities towards Hindu interests in enrollement opportunities and selection of teaching staff, all of which are heavily skewed in their favour. Not just that religious educations of Dharmic traditions are totally forbidden in Govt run institutions without similar restrictions on the non Dharmic communities. Any wonder that seven decades after independence, Dharmic communities are so ignorant and misinformed of their legacies as against powerful non Dharmic lobbies.

  • Rangaesh Gadasalli

    Good article sir but you missed a very important entity called Jawahar lal Nehru who had used all his powers and influence over Gandhi to become PM after dividing India. Now Hindus were attacked and got divided soon after Gandhi’s murder and Nehru went on finishing off one by one, He attacked, Morarji desai, Sardar patel and many others for doing nothing to prevent Gandhi’s assassination. He gave this Uniform civil code and gave a completely misleading meaning dharam nirapeksharata– not seeking religion but in practice encouraged and supported separate identity of Muslims. Congress has been winning elections all these decades with a divided Hindu vote and a united Muslim vote.Now is the time to make this issue public and get all the people’s support for UCC, no country can have two different laws. one vote,one law,one country and one constitution should be our agenda.

  • Suresh Vyas

    Yes, Hindus, the majority demand, need to demand strongly, for uniform civil code.
    Additionally, the Hindus need to join movement to make Bhaarat a Vedic State, not secular.
    The rationale for this is provided in short article at below link.
    https://skanda987.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/india-s-secularism-is-anti-majority.pdf
    Basically, Vedic is universal dharma for mankind. It is not a religion in the sense Islam and Xianity are.
    It is inherently tolerant of all the tolerant religions and ideologies. Therefore, Hindustan does not need secularism, which is European medicine against Xianity.
    jai sri krishna!

    • Satyawani Bondalpaty

      Stop faking..! I am sure you have not read even two lines from Vedas. Nautanki

  • Shreevalsan

    Perverted secularism was cunningly introduced in post-independence India by Nehru with the aim of intellectually browbeating gullible Hindus and endlessly appeasing Muslims and Christians, both sworn enemies of Hindus. Sadly, the concept of secularism (or ‘sickularism’ as Internet Hindus call it) was never challenged by the sangh parivar, known for its intellectual poverty and sentimental buffoonery. Only a very few like the great writer and historian Sita Ram Goel did. India and Hindus are even today paying a very high price for Nehruvian secularism. Even Modi, for all his oratory, has never uttered a word against secularism which remains a millstone around the neck of the country’s peaceful and law abiding majority community. Few Hindus, with the exception of a few like Smt Radha Rajan, are intelligent enough to see that the nation’s Constitution itself is anti-Hindu and needs to be torn up before Hindus are at least given a level playing field. And that day seems far off.

    • Satyawani Bondalpaty

      Haww…! Ask your Modi to write few laws.. two lines atleast and you will see him fail miserably. Indians then lacked IQ to develop their own constitution is the reason they copy pasted from constitution of other countries. Whatever Nehru did was more than any Indian could do for our country that time. So stop complaining….! He alteast started with something but you guys cannot even refine it…!