Like I had said earlier, why don’t they just stop their tirade against something sensible? Although Swami Agnivesh isn’t really in the class of Praful Bidwai, the lie-generating machine, he comes close. But I don’t understand myself: why don’t I tire of venting my angst against each such tirade? Sigh! Anyway, here goes.

The same needs to be done in respect of the constitutional mandate to ’secure for all citizens a uniform civil code’, that is, if we are at all serious about it.

What do you mean, “if we are all serious about it?” Sorry, but it escapes me. Of course I’m interested to see all of us governed under one law that cuts across religious and/or other boundaries. Aren’t you?

First, enunciating and implementing a uniform civil code is not an essential constitutional mandate. That mandate is the creation of a just, egalitarian and modern society free from discrimination.

I haven’t read the part of the Constitution which says so; granted that you aren’t lying off the lid. However, logic asks me to say this: if it isn’t, then it should be made essential to achieve what you just say in your next line–creation of a just, egalitarian, blah blah society free from discrimination. How else would you create a discrimination-free society other than removing all barriers that serve to discriminate–in this instance, the Muslim Personal Law? Also, please define these words for me: “just,” “egalitarian,” and “modern.”

The uniform civil code is only one of the instruments to attain this goal.

Pray tell me, what are the other instruments? Practice of caste-based politics? politics of vote banks? Caste over merit? Closed..errr…Socialist economics?

We can’t afford to mistake the means for the ends. The goal of evolving and implementing a uniform code must be seen as an integral part of a commitment to create a just and egalitarian society. So long as the keenness to midwife a common code is separated from a matching concern to make justice available to all without fear or favour, this initiative could aggravate psychological anxieties and communal fissures.

Sorry, but I couldn’t figure out what the authors are trying to say here.

Sadly, the larger ambience in which Justice V.N. Khare made his observation includes events like the post-Godhra riots and the acquittal of the accused in the Best Bakery case.

Again, sweeping generalizations! How do you define the “larger ambience?” Is it, as you say, restricted only to “post-Godhra riots and the Best Bakery case?” In which case, the “larger ambience” and “post-Godhra riots” also includes the attack on Akshardham Temple (all right, it was done by Paki terrorists. But plenty of records–in fact, it’s an open secret that many Islamic outfits in India openly harbour Paki terrorists.) and the daily massacre in Kashmir.

…and Muslims, in particular, are losing faith in the system.

Ah! and herein lies the authors’ main grouse. Kill a million hindus, but spare the poor “minorities.” Appease them at any cost. Stop the implementation of the UCC. Give ‘em more subsidies. I’m not tired of repeating that Muslims are Indians first and then the rest.

If the civil code discourse is divorced from an uncompromising commitment to uphold the rule of law, it cannot count on receiving voluntary acceptance by the minorities or by fair-minded people.

Definitely. I’m all for upholding the rule of law provided the law is one for all in the country.  If you don’t have that, then fair-minded though I am, I shall cease to be fair-minded in your “secular” lexicon.

The second serious issue is that of the fallacy, acute especially in the Muslim context, of constructing religious identity almost exclusively on the pillars of personal laws.

Have you read the Koran, Mr. Agnivesh? And have you interpreted as it should be? In language and in spirit? Closer home, have you taken a look at the laws existing in Islamic countries? They’re ruled exclusively, yes, exclusively by Islamic personal laws, the Shariat. How else would you like us to construe their religious identity unless they consciously come forward and wholeheartedly abide by the law laid down by the Indian Constitution? Have you forgotten the Shah Bano case, in which our beloved Chachaji’s grandson reversed the Court’s judgment, a judgment delivered in accordance with the laws laid down constitutionally? Reversed, in favour of the personal law. With instances like these, what other pillars/bricks/stones can we use to  construct religious identity?  If I were to extend the “pillar” logic to Hindu laws, I’d begin at Manusmriti, then our compendium of Dharmashastras which elucidates, logically, about aspects such as property division (Daya Bhaga), matrimony, and other stuff related to personal laws. However, the “majority” community has wilfully accepted our legal system and constitution that is modelled after the British constitutional system. What would you say if Hindus failed to recognize the existing personal laws and demanded a Hindu-equivalent Shariat? This is not to say that Muslims do not at all adhere to the nation’s legal system, but the existence of separate sets of laws should be done away with.

The over-reaction to the prospect of a uniform civil code is based on the anxiety that any reform in personal laws will undermine Muslim identity, which is felt or feared to be already under siege.

When I say UCC, it means one law applies throughout the entire land. Right? Then by definition, how will it undermine anybody’s identity? If anything, it’ll help remove discrimination. If it is “under seige,” how is it that the SIMI managed to blast a bus in Mumbai recently? And despite the bundh in Bombay, no violence was perpetrated against the “minority” community.

…the contentious issues in this respect are polygamy, triple talaq and the refusal to pay adequate maintenance to divorced women. For any Muslim to assume —  or argue — that these unjust practices are basic to the ‘profession and practice’ of Islam is to insult the great faith.

Aha! Negationism at its very best (worst?)! These “unjust practices” are precisely the pillars on which Islam is constructed. In fact, if you suggest any Muslim (Ok. Not “moderate,” but devout, orthodox) that these are wrong, you won’t be in a shape to say (or write) the same words again. The “great faith,” in case you didn’t know, regularly sends its Messengers of Peace to Israel (not to mention India), equips children with stenguns, and commonly brainwashes thousands of people to wage perpetual war against the Infidels of the World. All this is explicitly laid down in the Scriptures of the Great Faith.

Given the limitless polygamy in practice at the time of Prophet Mohammad and the numberless war widows, it was a piece of progressive reform on his part to permit up to four wives per husband. It is unfair to turn an instance of reform in the past into an argument against reform in the present.

Can these authors be taken seriously? Calling this piece of shit (sorry, but I lost it) intellectual dishonesty is an understatement, nay, milder than calling it an understatement. “Instance of reform?” Incredible! @#$@#$@$ (The choicest of invectives)

If the Prophet were to legislate today on the matter, his verdict would have been vehemently in favour of monogamy.

Ah! So the authors know the Prophet’s mind so well! I have nothing to say. If Agnivesh and his ilk, mere outsiders to Islam, are so sure of the Prophet’s verdict, how come no one of the Prophet’s current disciples/ardent followers/believers thought about it? Brilliant! Why don’t you enlighten the devout of the Religion of Peace about this “reform?”

At any rate, monogamy rather than polygamy is the norm in the Indian Muslim community today. Only 5.2 per cent of Muslim men have two or more wives.

Again, sweeping generalizations! Norm? I suggest the authors be careful about their choice of words. Each word conveys a meaning, an idea, in case the authors didn’t know. The 5.2 percent figure runs to lakhs in real numbers. Personally, I know a Muslim garage mechanic who has married 6 women and has up to 20 children.

The corresponding figures, as per official statistics, for tribal communities, scheduled castes and high-caste Hindus are 14 per cent, 9 per cent and 5.8 per cent respectively.

Classic tactic. Show the “majority” community as more evil. By the way, where did you get these statistics? I’d like to know the source. I’m entitled to it.

Justice is one of the cornerstones of Islam.

You bet! A law, a faith which makes it mandatory for a victim of rape to summon in her support, four male eye witnesses to the act. Pure justice.

A patently unjust and discriminatory provision like polygamy must be seen as a blot on that faith, especially because Muslim personal laws disallow polyandry.

This continues on the lines of the Prophet’s “reform.” I seriously wonder if these authors have their brains in the right place. That a religion that treats its women so cruelly could ever dream of allowing polyandry?!

First, the concern for and commitment to national integration has been weakening steadily over the last two decades.

Only 2 decades? It began the moment Nehru adopted the Socialistic Pattern of Society and continued with vigour during Indira Gandhi’s practice of vote bank politics.

…but only to insist that this sensitive task be carried out with due preparation. Part of that preparation is asserting the rule of law uniformly and uncompromisingly.

To assert the rule of law uniformly, the law should first be uniform.

An all-out effort to reassure the Muslim community that their human and constitutional rights will be protected at all costs needs to be made.

Appeasement. Pure. Unadulterated. “At all costs.” Interesting! Muslims set fire to train coach. The majority community should remain silent. That is the real meaning of “at all costs,” as we know it to mean over the past 50+ years.

The proponents of Hindu Rashtra must not be allowed a free run to fly in the face of the Constitution and the mores of a modern, civilised society.