>16.35 hrs
Title: Further consideration of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 1999 (Omission of Article 44, etc.) moved by Shri Yogi Adityanath on 19 July, 2002 (Continued- Not concluded.)
MR. CHAIRMAN : Now, the House will take up Item No.30. Shri G.M. Banatwalla to continue as he was on his legs.
Shri G.M. Banatwalla – Not present.
SHRI E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN
(SIVAGANGA): Mr. Chairman, Sir, this Bill is a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy. Except a new word `secure’, rest of the things are all part of the article 44 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, the Directive Principles of State Policy is a solemn promise given by the Constituent Assembly and the forefathers of our nation had got a very great dream of India as a secular country. They were having a feeling that there will be a nation which would have no division among the human being on the basis of religion. They dreamt that there will be a day where everything will be controlled by the rule of the law and especially every people will have a single religion, namely, no religion, which is secularism. But we cannot attribute any motive to a Member when he comes up with a Private Member’s Bill. But at the same time, we feel that this time is not good for bringing this type of amendment to the Constitution of India. No doubt, there were about four amendments to the Directive Principles of State Policy. All the four amendments were brought by Shrimati Indira Gandhi for bringing new force into the Directive Principles of State Policy and for enabling the Government to bring forth any law in the name of the Directive Principles of State Policy. That was a revolutionary step taken by Shrimati Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister of India. It enabled us to make a lot of new legislation to have better participation of the people in the day-to-day life. For example, there was an amendment to article 38 – State to secure a social order for the promotion and welfare of the people. In the same way, article 39A provides equal justice and free legal aid that has brought a new phase in the legal system itself in India. In the same way, article 43A provides participation of workers in the management of industries. Article 48A provides for protection and improvement of environment and safeguard of forests and wildlife. These are some of the new initiatives made during 1976 and subsequently also. But the forefathers of the Constitution had brought forward the article 44 with a great dream that there will be a nation where there will be no division on the basis of religion or caste or any such thing.
Since our Independence, we have evolved a new system for having equality as per the law as well as social structure. But are we in a position to bring a Uniform Civil Code now? Are we in a position to prepare people mentally to have Uniform Civil Code? Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, as the first Prime Minister of India, brought forward the Hindu Marriages Act and the Hindu Succession Act. So many other revolutionary steps were taken. But at that time itself, he was opposed by many people. People asked him as to why he was bringing such a novel and progressive thinking in the Hindu religion. He made the Hindu society to think in a modern way and the joint families were created. That is the strength of India. Nowhere in the world, there is a joint family system. This is the strength of our nation. We have created this strength from ancient and Vedic period.
We have faced so many problems during these fifty years. There have been economic problems, problems at the border, there have been wars, droughts, floods, etc. At the same time, our society did not change at all because of these problems. There have been linguistic problems and internal fights in the social structure. There have been religious fights also. Even then our structure remained in tact. India has been strengthened everyday and every minute of its existence as a nation.
Our social structure right from the village level largely belongs to the middle class. This class is having the largest number of people and it is now coming out of backwardness. As Lenin once said, the middle class segment should be abolished because there can be only two classes; one is the working class and the other is the elite. Now we are trying to go to the elite group also. At the same time, we are afraid that we may fall down to backwardness. We are living in an insecured society. The Indian society is now passing through a very strange situation where the middle class is swelling in its number everyday.
Even the former President of the United States of America in his address to the Indian Parliament in our own Central Hall said that the middle class in the Indian society has to be taken into consideration because they are the people who are very much threatened by the new structural changes. They are ready to go up the ladder. But they are also afraid of the depth from which they have come up. Therefore, this structure is changing itself. It is in this structure that you are witnessing today inter-caste marriages, inter-religious marriages, inter-State marriages and international marriages also. When this becomes universal, that is the time when you can bring the Uniform Civil Code. For this to happen, there should be no religion, there should be no caste, no division of State, no division of language, no division of any sovereign State. When the society reaches that level, that will be the time when we need the Uniform Civil Code. Till then we are bound by certain differences.
Now we have religious feelings here. Many people are roused and frustrated by various democratic set up. We are afraid of them. People are going in large numbers, in crores and crores, to temples, mosques and churches. It is because they feel that the structure which has been built up in India as a democratic set up is not helping them and is not answering their call. It is not giving them social security, employment, proper education and a better living. That situation can be overturned by the Government of the day only.
These are the reasons why this social structure is changing itself. People are migrating to various countries and people are also coming back from various countries. Today, this structure is identified with the variety of people who have got no religion, no sectarian feeling and no language. They are a new people who are evolving as a new Bharat.
There should come a day when all the people in India would themselves ask for the Uniform Civil Code. There will be larger number of such people at that time. There will not be any division in the name of religion and there will be no fanaticism. There will not be a particular limited place, only where you will have to pray. You can pray anywhere. You are the atman as the vedic scriptures suggest. God is one. Universe is one. Universe is a part of the human being and the human being is a part of the universe. That is what Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad-Gita.
When that day comes, the Uniform Civil Code can be brought up. Till then why should we divide people by telling them that they are going to have a Uniform Civil Code? It means you are making certain groups of people – who may be Muslims, Christians or Buddhists – think that they are not secure in this nation. There is something that they are afraid of losing. There is no uniform set up now. When there is no uniform set up, when there is no uniform law to be implemented, what is the purpose of bringing this law?
A law has to be followed, a law has to be acted upon and a law has to be executed. Only then, it will have the force. Otherwise, it will be a part of the law of dead books and it will not have life or dynamism. Therefore, I request, at this juncture, Shri Aditya Nath that bringing forward this constitutional amendment is not the correct way and correct timing. I do not want to comment upon individuals but, at the same time, the person who is bringing in this amendment should have a feeling that we should not divide the nation again. Already some injuries and wounds have been caused in certain areas of our nation. People are having a feeling that there should be one religion. People are asking where our forefathers were born, what is our place of birth and whether our blood is the Indian blood or not. How can we find it out?
India is a union of many States. It is not an individual State. It is a nation where plenty of cultures, plenty of religions and languages have come up. It is not a single nation. It is a union of States. The Indian National Congress had created history when it united different people, different areas of people, people of different religions and languages into one nation, that is, Bharat or India. We have done it. By bringing this type of an amendment, kindly do not hurt the feelings of the people and take them to the pre-Independence period.
Before our freedom, there were divisions of nations, there were plenty of kings in India and there were in-fights. All those things have been forgotten now. We now feel that Indians are having their own religion, their own praying methods, succession methods of their own property, whether it is ancestral property or self-acquired property. We are safe with our own law and our own system of justice.
Therefore, I request that when this constitutional amendment is brought forth at this hour, the situation should be viewed in a proper way. We are not wearing any colour glass to look at other people. But are we in a position to create certain steps when the Constitution of India is amended like this? There is no need for this amendment. We can bring forth laws under article 44 of the Constitution of India. But is it necessary to bring forth even that law of uniform civil code? We are going towards globalisation. There is no demarcation of a sovereign State even now. We have lost our sovereignty in trade and commerce and even in citizenship. Any person can go anywhere in the world. They can do trade and commerce, produce new materials, sell them, do service, bring forth money anywhere, purchase property and settle there, marry and create a family there, live and die there. That is the society in which we are living now. In Tamil, there is a saying like this: “Yaadum oore, yaavarum kezhir”. It means that every village is our own village and everybody is our own brother. In the same way, we are living in a society where we do not feel whether we are a Hindu or a Christian, whether we are bound by a uniform civil code or by a Muslim law or whether we are bound by the Hindu Succession Act or any other Act.
At the same time, we are living in the world of credit cards. The society is moving on the expenditure side. We are not stable. Assets are not created. Assets are enjoyed. Society is going back to the level of Western countries. The Hindu system of living in India is for savings. We used to have savings of property for the old age. But now the society is saying that you can deposit money and can enjoy life at old age. At the same time, you need not bequeath it to anybody else. This is the society in which we are living now.
Therefore, I request the hon. Member not to press this constitutional amendment because it is part of the Constitution and article 44 of the Constitution can be followed by legislative system and bringing forth new laws.
We can have uniform civil code when majority of the people forget about religion, when they forget about the divisions amongst themselves, and when they feel that they are one in India. Till then there is no need to have it. It is because it will only open the injuries or the wounds which have already been healed.
With these words, I request the hon. Member to withdraw this Bill because we should not hurt the future generation.
(BALASORE): I rise to support the Motion moved by Yogi Adityanath. I was listening with rapt attention to what Shri Sudarsana Natchiappan was saying. He agreed that the proposal that has been made through this Bill does exist in the provisions of the Constitution. But he said that it is not the right time to adopt it. Who had initiated and introduced the Constitution in India? Was it not the Congress Party, which had done that? It was a political movement once upon a time. It was a movement to free India from the bondage of British rule. I am very surprised that the proposals of the Congress Party, which had introduced the Constitution to the people of India, are being opposed by persons of the same Party.
He said that India is a secular country. Who denies that? He said that there is a rule of law. I agree with that. Everybody agrees with that. But I am asking him whether we are having rule of law or rule of laws. Should we have rule of law or rule of laws? There is a separate law for Muslims; another law for Hindus and another law for some other religion or community. If you say that it is a secular country, why not a single law for all? Go to the West. Tell me which country in the West has so many types of laws? Do they not have Muslims in the United States of America? Do they not have Muslims in Great Britain? There are three million Turks, that is, Muslims, in Germany. Five million Algerians, that is, Muslims, are there in France.
All the countries have minority population. The Europe and the America have sizeable Muslim population. Do they have several types of laws in their country? Why have the Muslims in those countries not demanded a separate law for them there? So, if nobody is demanding such a law in those countries, then why in India should we have so many laws? Why do you say that the time is not appropriate? I do not know why. Probably, Shri Natchiappan was carried away by emotion when he said that India is not a single nation. He said that it is a combination of nations. Their Deputy Leader, Shri Shivraj Patil is present here. Does he believe in what Shri Nachiappan said that India is not a nation but it is a combination of nations? Does he believe that? If it is so, then do they believe in the two-nation theory?
Do they believe that India is a secular country? Do they believe that the Muslims constitute a separate nation and the Hindus constitute a separate nation? Did Mahatma Gandhi believe in this? Why did he resort to fasting the day when India was divided into two? Why did Mahatma Gandhi not support the division of this country? Shri Natchiappan, how can you say that India is not a single nation?
If we say that nationality pertains to a religion, then why Pakistan and Afghanistan are two separate countries? They are the Islamic countries. They should combine together to become one country. Why is Afghanistan a separate country? Why had Iran and Iraq fought a war for eight years? Why did Iraq invade Kuwait? Why is Kuwait a separate country? Why is Saudi Arabia a separate country? There are so many countries in Europe which are all Christian . Why did England have a hundred-year war with France? Why did Napoleon of France or Hitler of Germany attack Russia when they were all Europeans, when they are all Christian countries? If you say that all the persons of all the religions form a separate country, then, will Nepal be a Hindu country amalgamated with India? Will they agree to that proposition?
Sir, nationality does not pertain to religion. It is an identity. It is a geographical identity. Culture is a totally separate thing. There are so many Muslim ladies in West Bengal who put on sindhur,thevermilion on their forehead. I have seen that there are so many Christian ladies who put the vermilion. The very perception that the marriage isसात जन्म का बंधनis a peculiar Hindu concept which has been accepted by everybody, by the Muslims, Christians etc.
Now, I am asking this question. In any religion, is there any distinct mark between a married woman and an unmarried lady? The distinct mark is prevalent only among the Hindus. How to distinguish between a married woman and an unmarried lady? It is not there in the case of others. But in India this practice has been accepted by the non-Hindus also because we belong to the same culture. So, I wish to say that this very notion that India is not a single nation is not correct. I very strongly oppose that theory. The Congress Party has opposed it. They have not believed in the two-nation theory. But I am very surprised today when the Congress Party people say that India is not a single nation. … (Interruptions)
SHRI E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN : Kindly do not create a new notion that the Congress Party has got the two-nation theory. That is your theory. That is the theory of the BJP. I never mentioned any party’s name. I want to have a civilised way of talking here. I have not indicated any party. Now, you want to bring new theories to my talking. I told that India is a Union of States; the States were having plenty of Kingdoms and those Kingdoms were having plenty of cultures, religions and linguistic differences. I further told that all these were united by the Congress Party and brought into being a new nation, that is, the Union of States, that is, Bharat, that is, India. I have never told that there is a difference between the people. Please do not put such words into my mouth. I want to give this reply to you.… (Interruptions)
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN : I am not yielding.
Mr. Chairman, Sir, I would request you to go through the speech made by Shri Natchiappan. You will see whether what I say is correct or not. He may now correct it because he has understood that he has committed a mistake. You could just go through it.
My point is this. I mean to say that you take the examples of the Christians. Some months back, a Bill was passed in this very House. Why was that Bill passed which was about the Christian Marriage?