Commentary/Varsha Bhosle

WANTED: A Hindu bigamist

And here's more insight from the Non-Hindu-Bashing Corner on the mindset of us columnists. Like, there's this holy concept called "the peg" – a topical event on which one fixes one's semantic Monet – which each of us abhors and religiously sticks to. Here's this week's: It has finally dawned on the press that since 1995, the Centre has been roosting on four Bills passed by the BJP-SS government of Maharashtra. All four have been upheld by the state legislative assembly *twice* (since the Congress-dominated Upper House had rejected them), and were referred to Delhi as their provisions were in conflict with Union laws. For two years, the home ministry has been chewing its secular nails in fear that the Bills would hurt the daisy-delicate sentiments of minority communities by ushering in a uniform civil code. Yes! The UCC! My Monet!

One Bill seeks to extend adoption facilities to all persons irrespective of caste, religion or sex. It makes sweeping changes in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1959 by which only Hindus are legally allowed to adopt children; raises the age of the adoptable from 15 years to 18 years; allows parents to adopt their illegitimate children – either as individuals or as a couple; allows an unwed mother to put up her child for adoption without consent of the father; and provides for licensing and supervision of adoption agencies. Social workers state-wide have welcomed the bill… but I'm convinced there's something nefarious about it. Surely, Abdullah Bukhari and Syed Shahabuddin must have valid objections to the betterment of children.

The second Bill deals with – drum rolls – bigamy: It allows divorce under the provisions of a person's personal laws, but condemns as a culpable offence a second marriage while the first wife is surviving. And it seeks to redress the misuse of the Saptapadi provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby a marriage is recognised only if the Saptapadi ritual is completed. Yes, it certainly does target only non-Hindus. But what's that you said about womankind…?

The third Bill seeks to ban the slaughter of cows in the state. This one is beyond my ken; it's patently ridiculous, redundant and obscurantist, and serves no purpose I will justify. Yup, love my steak… and bacon.

The fourth Bill provides for amendments to the Bombay Municipal Act, the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, and other panchayat, samiti and township Acts, disqualifying people with more than two children from contesting elections to these bodies. Hmmm… clearly, this is the worst sort of incentive to control the population growth and should forthwith be junked. Much better that politicians set a shining example with a mewling brood of mini-polticians

Now that I've driven in the peg, let me philosophise: Hinduism evolved without holy decrees and does not proscribe polygamy, alcohol or even beef. Indeed, the plausible effects of the properties inherent in foods were recorded, and the lot was left to the discretion of the consumer. Actually, for lack of a pervasive code a la Semitic scriptures, Hindus take an oath over a war manual. Nevertheless, the Hindu soul yielded to the fathers of the Constitution when the barbarity in certain traditions was stressed, be it untouchability, child marriage or multiple marriage. Which is not to say that Hindus are paragons of virtue (thank god).

Rare is the man content with one woman; even the Anglican bishop of Edinburgh concedes that "God has given us our promiscuous genes". Thus, naughty Hindus convert to Islam, re-marry, and for all other purposes remain Hindu. But whatever the loopholes, and there are many, the crux is that Hindus freely opened the gate for law and coercion to curb the vices and corruption in human nature. The point is, if she so wills, the Hindu wife has recourse to justice.

In the other corner, the Muslim leadership, spurred by our beloved secularists, defends the Shariat as the sole Muslim personal law – equity for women be damned. At the height of the UCC debate, the People's Democratic Party's Ashraf Ali declared that "by touching the Shariat, they (Hindus) are pushing our backs to the wall", that it was a move to "systematically erase the identity of Muslims." Then, how does Islam-dominated Turkey reject the Shariat? It follows that the identity of the male Indian Muslim depends upon the ability to secure four wives and the easy disposal of the same. How very manful.

I am told ad nauseum that Hindus are secure in their numbers and so can take liberties with their heritage, but Muslims, being a minority, should be "understood" for having a persecution complex. Hogwash. If Muslims are so insecure and hence vigilant over any move to invalidate a part of the Shariat, why don't they clamour for the Quranic code of criminal justice, too? Simply put, because it will affect far too many Muslims adversely – as will the barring of polygamy, talaaq and, above all, the instating of alimony. I am most willing to concede that the divorce/marriage laws of Muslims should not be touched – if Muslim offenders are stoned to death, lashed, beheaded or have their hands lopped off as called for by the Shariat. But then, all Muslim detenues implicated in the Bombay blasts may have to be freed as they can claim immunity by jihad against kafir mosque destroyers. Not to worry… there will never be a cry to adopt all Quranic concepts – Indian Muslims like their heads attached to their necks.

The amazing thing is that though Article 44 of the Constitution mandates the enacting of the UCC, our secularists say that "the time is not ripe." Like, there's a right time and a wrong time for institutionalising equality between citizens… More fantastic is the belief that a common code should not be forced upon Muslims, that they should agree to it voluntarily. I'm sure there are pigs with wings and I'm bound to see them fly sooner or later, but doesn't this suggest that a Muslim is not bound to obey the laws of India? We do not live in Utopia: legal coercion is the only and necessary remedy for social evils. Did the British wait for all Hindus to welcome the abolition of Sati? Did Raja Ram Mohan Roy go around asking every Hindu to consent to his stand on it? Sheesh.

This permissiveness towards the minorities's famous "hurt feelings" is lethal because it opens the door for all kinds of minority veto rights which, in turn, could make a farce of the Constitution (I mean, what's left of it). Democracy means that decisions are taken by a majority vote; but by secularists's logic, if minorities ever feel insecure enough to demand a special government within the government, by precedent, the majority must defer (read: Kashmir). Fact: yielding to pressure makes the bully stronger and his demands more frequent. Turning the other cheek has never been feasible in governmental affairs anywhere.

It's interesting to note that Parsis and Jews, the forgotten minorities of India, should harbour no such fears in a Hindu milieu. They have merged with the national fabric and yet keep their cultures distinct and alive. Perhaps, it's because they don't ram their separateness down the national throat. Perhaps because there's no militant pan-Zoroastrianism or pan-Judaism from which to draw the nerve for one-upmanship. Perhaps because they don't resent the change from Mughal times.

Islam is not in danger from Hindutva as Nehruvians will have us believe. Muslim fundamentalism itself creates the conditions which support the arguments of Hindu hard-liners. Pressurised by Muslim leaders, Rajiv Gandhi fiddled with the Constitution to nullify the Supreme Court's verdict for Shah Bano, which led to awareness and resentment among Hindus, which led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid, which fueled the Bombay blasts, which spurred riots, which killed innocents. While secularists play havoc with political ethics, it's only the common man – Hindu and Muslim – who suffers from the domino effect of backlashes. But does even the educated Muslim learn? Yeah right. That Hindus and Muslims are separate nations to be governed by separate laws are Mohammad Ali Jinnah's words – and they seem to hold true today.

A secular State is based on the principles of equality and freedom of religion, which means that a citizen is free to practise the religion of his choice – in his home and in places of worship. It does not mean he's free to live by special religious rules running contrary to democratic principles. And it certainly does not mean he can elicit favours denied to other religions: India pays salaries to imams, while priests and pundits are denied them.

A civil code determines the norms for civilised behaviour, but by itself does not guarantee rectitude. Despite criminal laws, murders and thefts occur – but is that a reason to reject the penal code? The purpose of any body of laws is to decide how deviations should be dealt with, and it ensures that the State does not act capriciously. Of course we need the UCC! How long are we going to live the lie that India is a secular country when it doesn't even have uniform laws free of religion? Hindus and Muslims *need* to stand in the same docks.

Hmmm… come to think of it, when the State refuses a Hindu a bigamous marriage, he should jolly well move the court and demand that right by invoking the Constitutional guarantee against legal discrimination. After all, it isn't forbidden to him by religion, but it's granted to only some citizens. That should throw a spanner in the rantings of intellectuals and roil women's fora into action. Let us then see if the secular government can do without the votes of Hindu women, and the course Constitutional amendments take. Is there a macho Gopal or Ranjit out there who will sacrifice his domestic peace for the State? Hey, I'm ready!

Tell us what you think of this column