New Delhi, Aug 15 (IANS): Political analysts on Thursday questioned Congress' claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's "communal civil code" remark made during his Independence Day speech was a "gross insult" to B.R. Ambedkar.

They argued that it was the Nehru-Gandhi family which undermined the Constitution shaped by Baba Saheb Ambedkar.

The debate heated up following Prime Minister Modi's Independence Day speech from the Red Fort on Thursday, wherein he criticised the existing civil codes as "communal" and "discriminatory", making a compelling argument for adopting the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

On social media, critics and experts are pointing out that it was the Congress government which overturned the Shah Bano case judgment and imposed Emergency, which many view as a flagrant disregard for the Constitution.

“Babasaheb Ambedkar’s Constitution was always secular. It was the way Nehru-Gandhi Parivar implemented it that converted the lived-reality into a ghastly communal experience,” said an expert in a post on X.

“Was it Ambedkar who overturned the SC judgement in the Shah Bano case? Was it Dr. Ambedkar who mangled the Constitution during Emergency? In fact, it is Dr. Ambedkar’s Constitution which has Article 44 as Directive Principles - something which successive generations of Nehru Parivar have scuttled,” the post added.

The X post went on to say, “Here is what Dr. Ambedkar said when the provision for a Uniform Civil Code was being debated - 'My friend, Mr Hussain Imam, in rising to support the amendments, asked whether it was possible and desirable to have a uniform code of laws for a country so vast as this is. Now I must confess that I was very much surprised at that statement for the simple reason that we have in this country a uniform code of laws covering almost every aspect of human relationship. We have a uniform and complete Criminal Code operating throughout the country, which is contained in the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. We have the Law of Transfer of Property, which deals with property relations and which is operative throughout the country. Then there are the Negotiable Instruments Acts. I can cite innumerable enactments which would prove that this country has practically a Civil Code, uniform in its content and applicable to the whole of the country. The only province the Civil Law has not been able to invade so far is Marriage and Succession'.”

“So Jairam, better start schooling third time fail Rahul Gandhi on true history of his family rather than continuously feeding him with venomous lies,” the expert pointed out.

Earlier, Congress' Communications chief Jairam Ramesh wrote on X, “The non-biological PM's capacity for malice, mischief, and maligning of history knows no bounds. It was on full display today from the Red Fort. To say that we have had a "communal civil code" till now is a gross insult to Dr. Ambedkar, who was the greatest champion of reforms in Hindu personal laws that became a reality by the mid 1950s. These reforms had been bitterly opposed by the RSS and the Jan Sangh.”

Ramesh also quoted a 21st Law Commission’s consultation paper on reform of family law dated August 31, 2018, which said UCC “is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage”.

“While diversity of Indian culture can and should be celebrated, specific groups or weaker sections of the society must not be disadvantaged in the process. Resolution of this conflict does not mean abolition of all differences. This commission has therefore dealt with laws that are discriminatory rather than providing a Uniform Civil Code which is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage. Most countries are moving towards recognition of differences and the mere existence of difference does not imply discrimination, but is indicative of a robust democracy,” Ramesh wrote quoting the consultation paper.

Earlier, Prime Minister Modi said during his address from the Red Fort, “In our country, the Supreme Court has repeatedly discussed the Uniform Civil Code. It has given orders many times because a large section of the country believes, and there is truth in it, that the civil code with which we are living is really a kind of communal civil code, a discriminatory civil code."