The Uniform Civil Code - A Hindu Supremacy ?

Uniform Civil Code – Hindu Mahasabha ?

Pluralism, a system in which multiple ethnic groups coexist, respecting all traditions and beliefs respectively. India is said to be the living embodiment of this definition. However, incorporating all of these beliefs into the Indian constitution would double its already colossal size. Considering this, Our Indian government allows its citizens to preach their respective personal laws, leaving religious governance to the people themselves. However in case of religious conflict the state government intervenes and passes a substantial resolution. But were the makers of the constitution pluralistic? The makers of the constitution incorporated the principle of state intervention in case of religious turmoil, implying an active relationship between the people and their respective state governments. India is a secular country, but the Hindu population vastly outnumber other religious population, the same can be said about the places of exponential difference, by proxy the Hindu religion will become the primary importance of the state government. Doesn’t this automatically assume a Hindutva form of government regardless of the ruling party? However if the state intervention principle is scraped, religious conflict will not witness any form of intervention. This will amplify problems and lead to the formation of violent extremists. The very strength of a religious majority invites challenge, challenge incites conflict, conflict breeds catastrophe. This is the beauty as well as the burden of secularism and by extension, Democracy itself 

Let us take into consideration the Uniform civil code, this is a neo-political and religious initiative, establishing a single codified law governing all religious matters. As previously mentioned, Hinduism takes primary importance, in our otherwise ‘Secular’ country, it is only logical to assume that the, ‘Uniform Civil Code’ will mainly address the Hindu population, struggles from the other religious populations will promote amendments, but the irony is, these amendments will be against the Hindu majority, but will be deliberated on and furthered only with Hindu support. Why must other ethnic communities kneel down to a potential Hindu majority? We are after all a democracy, or at least claim to be.

Therefore, the implementation of the Uniform Civil code would have no significant impact on India.  

Islam, a reverent religion currently riddled with a numerous problems, particularly with the younger generation. This generation reinterprets the Quran, Answering questions and propagating their millennial views through different media. On the other hand, views of terrorism and violent extremism still reverberate in the minds of a few in our country, both these populations look at the essentially the same thing - change - but with different perspectives. This will lead to widespread conflict, one which cannot be contained and can spread, such tension can push a government to the brink of collapse. This leaves two options, a Hindu Mahasabha or a Government collapse? Which is better? Well that’s up to the people.  

link to entire document:


Views: 217


You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Carnegie Council

A Case for Giving Climate Migrants Protected Legal Status

With climate change already affecting vast regions of the planet, Bard College's Brian Mateo makes the case for expanding legal protections for refugees to include people displaced due to environmental issues. Whether by updating the 1951 Convention or working on a new global agreement, Mateo writes that this an urgent human rights issue for vulnerable populations today and future generations.

Need for a New Consensus

Foreign policy experts are having diffuclty linking the negative implications of a shift towards trasactionalism for U.S. foreign aid to voters. This begs the question: Should there be a clear quid pro quo for U.S. assistance?

The End of the U.S.-Taliban Talks? with Jonathan Cristol

Despite progress over the last year, Donald Trump effectively ended the latest round of U.S.-Taliban negotiations with a tweet earlier this month. Will talks continue in a more understated way? Does this change anything on the ground in Afghanistan? And what is the Taliban doing in Moscow? Jonathan Cristol, author of "The United States and the Taliban before and after 9/11," discusses all this and more.





© 2019   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.