-Yashita Ugavekar
The discussion opened up describing the UCC, its meaning and aim. Why should this law be amended, who and what led to the formulation of such law?
Then an overall idea regarding the pros and cons were discussed, which explained this law from both perspectives. The response from people from different communities were discussed, in order to understand the oppositions faced by imposing this law.
The following questions were presented towards the end of the discussion:
Does this uniformity actually help in improving the biased conditions of the country’s laws?
What about other communities (like LGBTQ)?
Could amendment of unjust laws in each religion help instead of the UCC?
What is the idea of UCC, beyond the 3 presented cases, which are observed to be targeted or spoken off ? Since UCC speaks about personal law, the idea of personal law was questioned. What is the definition of personnel? The idea of drawing boundaries and the identity were broadly the two spoken aspects of the personal that came up. The law thus attacks the personal. Personal act is at stake. Personalism is defended by various acts of different sects, like land divisions, resolution of conflicts, etc. What is the difference between personal and private? How does personal become private? Trajectory in uniform is short, uniformity requires clarity and clarity requires just. This clarity is required for enforcing laws/ taxes/ rules. Clarity thus affects the personal, making it anti-personal. Personal is protected when there is no clarity.
The discussion then deviated to other kinds of laws in the state, other states, countries (Maharashtra, Goa, Bangladesh). Maharashtra being the only state to implement the right of habitation. Basically, preference and importance should be given to history, otherwise the outcome would be very less effective, which is just to accomplish something for a short duration… This controversial law has been discussed from the early 1930, the discussion is currently being hyped up due to the upcoming elections, next year. But as observed in the past, this could gradually dissolve and wouldn't be taken forward due to various reasons. What law should be imposed is decided by whom, and for whom. Like a law should be imposed by immediately affected people for a similar situation
The central core of the discussion focused on understanding the personal aspect. What affects this personal realm? Through the personal, you define yourself, which keeps changing. Thus, How can uniformity in this personal law be defined, when this idea keeps changing for every individual, every community, every state.
Comentarios