People's Democracy

 Thinking Together

What are the criteria to become a "Left" political party?  Is there any historical background of the term "Left"?

S.R. Laskar, West Bengal

HISTORICALLY, the term "Left" derives from the traditional seating of radical representatives in that part of the Parliament which is on the Left side of the presiding officer. Historically, this evolved through the practice initially in France following the French revolution. Those holding revolutionary or radical positions are often referred to as "Leftists" and political parties espousing such policies are called Left Parties.  

However, not all opposition parties can be called "Left". There may be many opposition parties who subscribe to the existing class rule in a society and hence do not work for the replacement of the existing exploitative class rule by a more radical rule of the exploited people. Such parties in India are usually called "bourgeois opposition parties".

On the other hand, the Communist parties seek to replace the existing exploitative class rule by the rule of the exploited led by the working class.  Even amongst the Communist parties, the perceptions on what should constitute the new class rule and perceptions concerning the existing class rule can differ. This is the case in India.

However, in scientific terms, parties that seek to replace the existing class rule and, therefore, transform the socio-economic political order may be considered as Left political parties. 

I can't understand why CPI(M) is opposing the uniform civil code so vehemently?  Uniform civil code must not be opposed at any cost that’s my view….how can a Communist party support different civil codes on the basis of quantity of religion.  Islamic law for Muslim, Christian law for Christians, Sikh law for Sikh, Hindu law for Hindu and Communist law for Communists? (Of course, we don't need BJP's certificate).

Regi and many others (through e-mail)

THROUGH the columns of People's Democracy, we had, in recent weeks, given our opinion as well as that of many others concerning the issue of a uniform civil code.  Since many queries have come on this issue, we are reiterating certain fundamental aspects of the CPI(M)'s position.

Ideally, in a secular country, there should be a common law for all citizens of that country. In a country of immense diversity and social plurality, which is not confined to different religions alone, the evolution of such a common code is a complex process. 

Vast numbers of people constituting the religious minorities have their own laws, customs and traditions. For all of them to accept a common code, it is necessary to create the atmosphere and ambience where all minorities -- religious or otherwise -- have the confidence that their traditions, customs etc are not only safeguarded but allowed to flourish. Such a situation can come only by strengthening the secular content of the polity where all minorities are guaranteed of their existence and rights.  

The campaign for a uniform civil code spearheaded by the Hindu communalists, far from generating the needed environment for the movement towards a common code, on the contrary, creates a great sense of   insecurity amongst the religious minorities. The aggressive activities of Hindu communalists pushes religious minorities into ghettoisation, thereby making them more insecure and insular in their thinking. The fundamentalist response from sections of religious minorities to Hindu communalism reinforces such tendencies  which make the movement towards a common code more difficult. 

Even amongst those embracing Hindu religion, there are vast differences and practices which could be difficult to be brought under a common code.  For instance, from the part of India that I come from, if I was born a female instead of a male, I would have been married to my mother's younger brother. This is the normal practice amongst the large sections of people in the south. The same practice would be considered blasphemous and incestuous in the north. How are these practices to be reconciled? This is only one example. 

Since much on the civil code is related to property, the marriage laws and customs are also determined by this. The issue of women getting equal share of the property as men has been a contentious issue all along.  Surely, a common code will have to ensure this.  Those who are not even prepared to concede reservations for women, would they be prepared, by law, to concede this right universally?  Further, there exists in our country an Act called the Hindu Undivided Family Act. Through this, huge amounts of tax evasion take place. Under a common law would the Hindus be prepared to forego this facility which is not available for people belonging to other religions? It is precisely for some of these reasons that when the first attempt was made to reform the Hindu code, it was vehemently opposed by the Hindu Mahasabha and the Jan Sangh. During the debates of the constituent assembly that drafted the Indian Constitution and subsequently in the Indian Parliament, the Hindu Reform Bill brought during Nehru's time was not allowed to be implemented and the then President, in fact, refused to sign the bill. 

Those who had opposed the Hindu Reform Bill are the ones who are crying hoarse for a common code today. Clearly, their objective is not to evolve a common code. Their objective is to use this as an issue of communal polarisation by generating a wrong impression that Muslims are opposed to it while the Hindus want it. As with everything else, the RSS-BJP raise issues not on their merit or on their worth, but they raise them to advance their political agenda which can survive only on the basis of deepening communal animosity and hatred.