समान नागरिक संहिता पर श्रमिक वर्ग का परिप्रेक्ष्य- bigul

मानव इतिहास में सबसे उन्नत वर्ग के रूप में, श्रमिक वर्ग को समाज के हर क्षेत्र में आधुनिक मूल्यों, मान्यताओं और कानूनी ढांचे के समर्थन में मजबूती से खड़ा होना चाहिए। यदि पूंजीवाद आधुनिकता को बढ़ावा देगा तो इससे समाजवादी समाज की नींव मजबूत होगी। इसके अतिरिक्त, श्रमिक वर्ग को महिलाओं सहित सभी उत्पीड़ित व्यक्तियों के साथ खड़ा होना चाहिए, ताकि वे कंधे से कंधा मिलाकर शोषण के खिलाफ लड़ सकें। उल्लेखनीय है कि शरिया जैसे धार्मिक कानूनों का उद्भव सातवीं शताब्दी के अरब प्रायद्वीप के आदिवासी समाजों के दौरान हुआ था और वे कानून आधुनिक पूंजीवादी युग की जटिलताओं से निपटने में असमर्थ हैं। उस युग के मानदंडों के अनुसार, ऐसे कानून कभी भी महिलाओं को समान अधिकार नहीं दे सकते क्योंकि वे समाज पितृसत्ता पर आधारित थे। 

Sharia and gender equality शरिया और लैंगिक समानता

यही कारण है कि कई इस्लामी देश इन शरिया कानूनों से दूर हो गए हैं और भारत में विभिन्न राजनीतिक दल धर्मनिरपेक्षता और धार्मिक स्वतंत्रता की आड़ में इन प्राचीन कानूनों के संरक्षण की वकालत कर रहे हैं। 

यह सामान्य मुस्लिम आबादी, विशेषकर मुस्लिम महिलाओं के हितों के खिलाफ है, और इसलिए श्रमिक वर्ग के हितों के खिलाफ है। आबादी का केवल एक छोटा सा हिस्सा, जिसमें मुस्लिम वक्फ बोर्ड, ऑल इंडिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड के अधिकारी, पादरी और इस्लामी कट्टरवाद के राजनीतिक नेता शामिल हैं, को इसका लाभ मिलता है। इसका प्रत्यक्ष लाभार्थी भाजपा और संघ परिवार की हिंदू राष्ट्रवादी फासीवादी राजनीति है।

Today, if the Sangh Parivar succeeds in finding the Hindu-Muslim angle in any issue, it is partly due to the fact that non-BJP parties have been promoting Muslim identity politics since independence. The traitorous revisionist parties of the labor class have also promoted identity politics rather than class politics, and they continue to do so. As a result, the issue of the Uniform Civil Code, which should have been raised by the left, is being taken up by the BJP under its fascist strategy.

Congress, socialist, and revisionist leaders and intellectuals have been propagating the issue of the Uniform Civil Code as a violation of religious freedom for minority communities. They argue that any changes in personal laws would be an attack on the religious freedom of Muslims. However, if the yardstick for Muslim religious freedom is the existence of Sharia laws, then they should also advocate for the application of Sharia in criminal cases as well as in civil cases such as land transactions, renting houses, contracts, societies, trusts, and so on. However, these cases have been heard by modern courts since the time of the British, and the Muslim population has never had any issues with them or demanded the implementation of Sharia in these matters. The highest courts have ruled against personal laws in several cases (such as Sarla Mudgal, Daniel Latifi, and Shabana Hashmi), and the general Muslim and other minority populations have not been affected by these rulings.

कई नारीवादियों ने भी समान नागरिक संहिता को आगे बढ़ाने के बजाय मौजूदा व्यक्तिगत कानूनों में संशोधन करके महिलाओं के अधिकारों को बढ़ाने की वकालत की है। हालाँकि, वे भूल जाते हैं कि किसी भी धर्म के व्यक्तिगत कानूनों में किए गए संशोधनों के बावजूद, जब तक धार्मिक कानून मौजूद हैं, वे कभी भी महिलाओं के लिए समानता हासिल नहीं कर पाएंगे। लैंगिक समानता सुनिश्चित करने का एकमात्र तरीका आधुनिक, प्रगतिशील मूल्यों और सभी नागरिकों के लिए समान अधिकारों पर आधारित समान नागरिक संहिता है, चाहे उनका लिंग या धार्मिक संबद्धता कुछ भी हो।

https://www.mazdoorbigul.net/archives/15825

समान नागरिक संहिता पर मज़दूर वर्ग का नज़रिया क्या होना चाहिए? आनन्द

Main points:

The labor class should support modern values and legal frameworks in society.

Capitalism promotes modernity and can strengthen the foundation of a socialist society.

The labor class should stand with oppressed individuals, including women, against exploitation.

Religious laws like Sharia emerged in tribal societies and are inadequate for the complexities of the modern capitalist era.

Many Islamic countries have moved away from Sharia laws.

Political parties in India advocate for preserving ancient laws under the guise of secularism and religious freedom, which is against the interests of the labor class.

The beneficiaries of preserving ancient laws are officials of Muslim organizations, Islamic fundamentalists, and Hindu nationalist fascist politics.

Non-BJP parties have promoted Muslim identity politics instead of class politics, allowing the BJP to exploit Hindu-Muslim angles.

Congress, socialist, and revisionist leaders argue that the Uniform Civil Code violates religious freedom, but this is not supported by the Muslim population's lack of issues with modern courts.

Feminists advocating for amendments to personal laws overlook the fact that religious laws will never achieve gender equality.

Gender equality can be achieved through a uniform civil code based on modern, progressive values and equal rights for all citizens.

Xxxxxxxx

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar advocated for the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code in India to bring uniformity and unity in society.

The idea of a Uniform Civil Code was strongly opposed by other members of the Constituent Assembly, who argued that it would infringe upon the right to freedom of religion and the right to manage religious affairs.

The Uniform Civil Code was added under Part IV of the Constitution as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Currently, Goa is the only state in India where a Uniform Civil Code is applicable, while many religious groups in the rest of India doubt its authenticity.

The topic of a Uniform Civil Code has been debated both during the pre-independence era and the post-independence era.

In the Shah Bano Case, the Supreme Court recommended the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code to bring uniformity in personal laws and address the degradation of women's status in society. However, a separate law for maintenance of Muslim women was enacted due to criticism and opposition.

In the case of Smt. Sarla Mudgal, the court called for the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code to ensure uniformity in succession and maintenance laws throughout India. This judgment also received criticism from the public, with minority groups seeing it as an attack on their freedom of religion and the freedom to manage religious affairs.

The Supreme Court stated that the codification of a common Civil Code was not a directive issued by the court, but rather expressed the views of judges in specific cases.

The gradual and progressive change towards a Uniform Civil Code is considered necessary in a pluralist society like India to preserve unity and integrity.

The rights to freedom of religion and the freedom to manage religious affairs are subject to public order, morality, and health, and can be regulated by enacting laws.

There is distrust among religious minority groups regarding the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code, fearing a bias towards the laws of the majority community and the loss of religious identity.

The solution proposed is to enact a Grundnorm Uniform Civil Code that focuses on abolishing or replacing laws and practices that degrade women's status and do not provide equality in society, while preserving the diversity of Indian culture and religion.