NEWS DESK, NEWSPRISM
NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent proposal for a “secular civil code” during his Independence Day speech has sparked significant controversy and criticism from various political, religious, and civil society leaders. Modi’s use of the term “secular civil code,” as opposed to the traditionally used “uniform civil code,” has been interpreted by some as a strategic shift aimed at garnering broader appeal.
Critics argue that the rebranding of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as a “secular civil code” is a tactical move designed to address previous objections while maintaining the same underlying agenda. Political leaders have expressed concern that the timing of Modi’s remarks, just before key state elections, could exacerbate religious divisions among voters.
Civil Society Reactions
According to a report published by Indiatmorrow.net, Veteran journalist Prof. Pradeep Mathur cautioned against being misled by the new terminology, stating, “The use of ‘secular’ is a superficial change meant to distract from the unchanged core intentions, which remain sectarian and divisive.”
Dr. Ram Punyani, a noted activist, also criticized the terminology shift, suggesting it repackages a concept that has faced significant resistance. “The change from ‘Uniform’ to ‘Secular’ seems aimed at rebranding rather than addressing core issues. The opposition to such a code remains substantial,” he noted.
Advocate Sanjoy Ghose questioned the government’s actions, particularly in Uttarakhand, suggesting that the changes implemented there are not reflective of a genuine “secular civil code.”
Prof. Apoorvanand Jha, a civil rights activist, expressed skepticism about Modi’s use of the term “secular,” recalling previous instances where Modi had dismissed secularism.
Praveen Davar, editor of ‘The Secular Saviour’, highlighted practical difficulties, stating, “A secular civil code is impractical given the widespread opposition from various communities, including Muslims, Christians, and tribal groups.”
Reactions from AIMPLB
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has strongly rejected Modi’s proposal. Dr. SQR Ilyas, spokesperson for AIMPLB, criticized the use of the term “communal” to describe religious personal laws, asserting that the proposal undermines constitutional protections for religious practices. He described the initiative as a “well-thought-out conspiracy” and stressed that Muslims will not compromise on Sharia Law.
Political Leaders’ Responses
Opposition leaders have also weighed in on Modi’s remarks. Congress leader Kapil Sibal criticized the Prime Minister for failing to specify which laws were being referred to and accused the BJP of neglecting secularism in practice.
Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav redirected the focus to pressing national issues such as inflation and employment, urging the government to prioritize these over controversial proposals.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh accused Modi of insulting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s legacy by suggesting that India has operated under a “communal civil code.” He also pointed out that the 21st Law Commission, appointed by Modi, had deemed a uniform civil code “neither necessary nor desirable.”
RJD leader Dr. Manoj Kumar Jha criticized Modi’s rhetoric, linking it to previous controversial statements and accusing him of failing to embrace true secularism.
Regional parties have also expressed concern. In Tamil Nadu, Manithaneya Makkal Katchi leader M.H. Jawahirullah condemned the Prime Minister’s proposal as a political maneuver aimed at targeting religious laws rather than promoting national unity.
Legal Perspectives
Legal experts have raised concerns about the constitutional implications of Modi’s proposal. They argue that while the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution mention the Uniform Civil Code, these principles are non-enforceable and cannot override fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. AIMPLB’s Dr. Ilyas reiterated that these principles are merely directives and do not have the power to supersede constitutional rights.