.svg)
Hindu code bills: Difference between revisions
→Uniform civil code
>Mandarax m (Add missing space(s)) |
->Meno25 |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2013}} | {{Use dmy dates|date=March 2013}} | ||
The '''Hindu code bills''' were several laws passed in the 1950s that aimed to codify and reform [[Hindu personal law]] in India. Following [[Indian Independence Act 1947|India's independence]] in 1947, the [[Indian National Congress]] government led by Prime Minister [[Jawaharlal Nehru]] with the help of Dr.B.R . Ambedkar | The '''Hindu code bills''' were several laws passed in the 1950s that aimed to codify and reform [[Hindu personal law]] in India, abolishing religious law in favor of a common law code. Following [[Indian Independence Act 1947|India's independence]] in 1947, the [[Indian National Congress]] government led by Prime Minister [[Jawaharlal Nehru]] with the help of [[B. R. Ambedkar|Dr. B. R. Ambedkar]] completed this codification and reform, a process started by the [[British Raj]]. According to the British policy of noninterference, personal-law reform should have arisen from a demand from the Hindu community. That was not the case, as there was significant opposition from various conservative Hindu politicians, organisations and devotees; they saw themselves unjustly singled out as the sole religious community whose laws were to be reformed.<ref>Williams, p. 18.</ref> However, the Nehru administration saw such codification as necessary to unify the Hindu community, which ideally would be a first step towards unifying the nation.<ref name="Rina Williams 2006. Pg. 107">Williams, p. 107.</ref> They succeeded in passing four Hindu code bills in 1955–56: the [[Hindu Marriage Act]], [[Hindu Succession Act]], [[Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act]], and [[Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act]].<ref name="Rina Williams 2006. Pg. 106">Williams, p. 106.</ref> They continue to be controversial to the present day among women, religious, and nationalist groups.<ref>Williams, p. 28.</ref> | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
In 1921, the British Government had already gone so far as to welcome individual Members' efforts at piecemeal codification, a limited but significant shift in policy.<ref>{{cite book|last=Legislative Assembly|first=British Indian Central|title=1601, 1603|year=1921}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Council of States|first=British Indian Central|title=DEB 620–621|year=1921}}</ref> According to Levy, that year, "two Hindu legislators, one a lawyer in the Central Legislative Assembly (the lower House), the other an eminent scholar of Sanskrit in the Central Council of States (the upper House), initiated resolutions seeking Government support for a Hindu Code of family law."<ref name=LEVY>Harold Lewis Levy. "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/3053005 Lawyer-Scholars, Lawyer-Politicians and the Hindu Code Bill, 1921–1956]". ''Law and Society Review''. November 1968. Vol 3, issue 2/3. pp. 303–316.</ref> In the next two decades many such fragmentary measures were enacted, modifying the Hindu law of marriage, inheritance, and joint family property. As a whole, the enacted bills carried further a modest trend toward increasing property alienability, reducing the legal importance of [[caste]], sanctioning religious heterodoxy and conversion and, most significantly, improving the position of women.<ref name=LEVY/> However, it was the passing of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act (Deshmukh Act) in 1937, which had given the widow a son's share in property that was one of the most substantial steps towards the Hindu Code Bill.<ref name=DERRETT/> | In 1921, the British Government had already gone so far as to welcome individual Members' efforts at piecemeal codification, a limited but significant shift in policy.<ref>{{cite book|last=Legislative Assembly|first=British Indian Central|title=1601, 1603|year=1921}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Council of States|first=British Indian Central|title=DEB 620–621|year=1921}}</ref> According to Levy, that year, "two Hindu legislators, one a lawyer in the Central Legislative Assembly (the lower House), the other an eminent scholar of Sanskrit in the Central Council of States (the upper House), initiated resolutions seeking Government support for a Hindu Code of family law."<ref name=LEVY>Harold Lewis Levy. "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/3053005 Lawyer-Scholars, Lawyer-Politicians and the Hindu Code Bill, 1921–1956]". ''Law and Society Review''. November 1968. Vol 3, issue 2/3. pp. 303–316.</ref> In the next two decades many such fragmentary measures were enacted, modifying the Hindu law of marriage, inheritance, and joint family property. As a whole, the enacted bills carried further a modest trend toward increasing property alienability, reducing the legal importance of [[caste]], sanctioning religious heterodoxy and conversion and, most significantly, improving the position of women.<ref name=LEVY/> However, it was the passing of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act (Deshmukh Act) in 1937, which had given the widow a son's share in property that was one of the most substantial steps towards the Hindu Code Bill.<ref name=DERRETT/> | ||
==Uniform | ==Uniform Civil Code== | ||
{{further|Uniform | {{further|Uniform Civil Code}} | ||
In December 1946, the [[Constituent Assembly of India|Constituent Assembly]] convened to devise a Constitution for the soon-to-be-independent India. Some argued that India's various personal laws were too divisive and that a uniform civil code should be instituted in their place. And once the notion of a uniform civil code was put forward, it soon became accepted as an important part of the effort to construct an Indian national identity, over the separate identities of caste, religion and ethnicity.<ref>K. C. Markandan. ''Directive Principles in the Indian Constitution''. 1966. Bombay. pp. 104–110.</ref><ref>Syed Tahir Mahmood. ''Muslim Personal Law: Role of State in the Subcontinent''. 1977. pp. 77–78.</ref> Some resistance to the code was on the grounds that its imposition would destroy the cultural identity of minorities, the protection of which is crucial to democracy. Certain feminists thus argue that the uniform civil code debate balances on the polarity of the state and community, rendering the gender-based axis upon which it turns, invisible.<ref name=MENON>Nivedita Menon. "[http://www.epw.in/review-political-economy/state-gender-community-citizenship-contemporary-india.html State, Gender, Community: Citizenship in Contemporary India]" [subscription needed]. ''[[Economic and Political Weekly]]''. 31 January 1998. Volume 33, issue 5. Reproduced on [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4406347 JSTOR]. Retrieved on 15 April 2012.</ref> | In December 1946, the [[Constituent Assembly of India|Constituent Assembly]] convened to devise a Constitution for the soon-to-be-independent India. Some argued that India's various personal laws were too divisive and that a uniform civil code should be instituted in their place. And once the notion of a uniform civil code was put forward, it soon became accepted as an important part of the effort to construct an Indian national identity, over the separate identities of caste, religion and ethnicity.<ref>K. C. Markandan. ''Directive Principles in the Indian Constitution''. 1966. Bombay. pp. 104–110.</ref><ref>Syed Tahir Mahmood. ''Muslim Personal Law: Role of State in the Subcontinent''. 1977. pp. 77–78.</ref> Some resistance to the code was on the grounds that its imposition would destroy the cultural identity of minorities, the protection of which is crucial to democracy. Certain feminists thus argue that the uniform civil code debate balances on the polarity of the state and community, rendering the gender-based axis upon which it turns, invisible.<ref name=MENON>Nivedita Menon. "[http://www.epw.in/review-political-economy/state-gender-community-citizenship-contemporary-india.html State, Gender, Community: Citizenship in Contemporary India]" [subscription needed]. ''[[Economic and Political Weekly]]''. 31 January 1998. Volume 33, issue 5. Reproduced on [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4406347 JSTOR]. Retrieved on 15 April 2012.</ref> | ||