Overall, a Uniform Civil Code promotes equal treatment under the law to all.
Given the imminence of the Lok Sabha polls, it is to be expected that political parties seeking to dislodge the BJP and specifically Prime Minister Narendra Modi from power automatically condemn almost every action taken by either the central or the state governments, if the latter are run by the BJP. Add to that the fact that post-Partition, the very term secularism has been deployed to define a policy that continued with the colonial legacy of separating citizens on the basis of the religion they followed. Instead of a uniform policy applicable to all citizens, the exception being sufficient provision for affirmative action to assist the segments that require such a boost, the citizenry was divided into a binary “Majority” and “Minority” classification, with the former comprising the Hindu community and the other getting used to describe those of other faiths. Given that the billion-plus Hindus of India are a hugely diverse group, exhibiting substantial variations in culture, belief systems and attitude, putting them all together in a single catchall category represents not acceptance of reality, but the absence of connect with reality seen in leaders who assumed for purposes of policy that all of the billion plus Hindus should be counted as a monolithic entity. Is a Hindu in Uttar Pradesh, who is Malayalam-speaking, part of the “majority” in a state where they form a handful compared to the “minority” population, which is largely composed of Muslims? Do not Malayalam-speaking, or Bengali-speaking, citizens feel close to each other, sometimes more than they may to those of the same faith but who have a different mother tongue? Why make religion the central pillar of classification, ignoring the congruence and the similarity of interests, across the spectrum of the 1.4 billion citizens of India? And what precisely defines a “minority”? Should as many as the 210 million citizens and counting of India’s Muslims be regarded as a “minority” even in places where they form the majority, as in Malappuram district in Kerala? If such a binary is to be used, should not differences in language and other such attributes get added while determining who is part of the “minority” population anywhere in the country?
Considering that the country was partitioned on the basis of religion, it appears to have been tempting the fates to continue with the British practice of separating individuals in India principally on the basis of the religion they follow. Such a move ensured that the legacy of a Partition based on the absurd Two-Nation theory in a way continued into the post-Independence era, whereas what ought to have been done from 15 August 1947 itself was to have done away with any differentiation on the basis of faith where government policy is concerned. As an example of misplaced nomenclature, how can it be called Secularism when the provisions of the UPA-era Right to Education Act apply only to those setting up educational institutions who are Hindu? As a consequence of the coming into effect of the RTE, it has perhaps inadvertently made it more difficult for a Hindu than for a person belonging to another faith to set up an educational institution. Only if he or she is a member of a “minority” community can a builder of educational institutions escape the very specific and substantial responsibilities imposed on the institution by the RTE. In fact, such discrimination ignores the fact that not just Hindus but Muslims, Christians and those of other faiths are equally eager to ensure that education becomes a right availed of by all. Hence, there was no need whatsoever to pass a law that mimicked the British era policy of discriminating between citizens on the sole ground of religion.
Equal treatment under the law is the foundational principle of secularism, and by this yardstick, much of what has been termed “secular” in India actually goes against such a principle. It is as a consequence of the unique way secularism has been defined in post-Independence India that the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) that has now been enforced in Uttarakhand is being opposed as being “anti-minority”. Or in other words, the claim by those opposed to the UCC is that the new law is directed against residents of Uttarakhand who are not Hindus. In fact, the new law impacts individuals of all faiths to some degree.
Variations in the treatment of the rights of women are present in all communities in India, including among Hindus, where for a long time, several sections discriminated against daughters in matters of responsibility, education and inheritance. Such regressive behaviour was not unique to Hindus. In the 1980s, Mary Roy (the mother of writer Arundhati Roy) fought in the courts against inheritance practices within the Christian community that discriminated in favour of sons at the cost of daughters. The excuse given by patriarchal-minded individuals within Mary Roy’s community for such asymmetric treatment between sons was that the latter were given a dowry. In fact, the illegal—repeat, illegal—payment of such money almost always went to the family of the groom rather than remain in the hands of the wife as proponents of discrimination claimed. Mary Roy won her case, as did a Muslim lady, Shah Bano, in 1985. In the latter case, the at the time popular Prime Minister, Rajiv Ratna Birjees Gandhi, was strongly and wrongly advised by some friends that the Muslim community would en bloc oppose the Congress Party, were the Shah Bano verdict to set a precedent for a woman getting a fairer amount of maintenance after a divorce. Much earlier, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru ignored the need for reforms in the Muslim community and introduced reforms only in the case of Hindus. Reform is needed by all, not just by some, but such a fact was ignored. Despite the reformist stance taken at the time by Arif Mohammad Khan, then a central minister in the Rajiv Gandhi government and an authority in the teachings of the great religion of Islam, the passage of the Shah Bano Act began the downward trajectory of the Congress Party that culminated in its defeat in the 1989 Lok Sabha polls. As for the Muslim vote, that has never come back to the party in the way that had been the case until the passage of the Shah Bano Act. This despite the central government pandering through that regressive law to patriarchal elements in the Muslim community rather than to the moderate, modernising majority within the community.
Returning to the Uniform Civil Code Act now in force in Uttarakhand, it is a welcome step, although modifications such as prison being made the punishment for some of the offences rather than options such as community service need a relook. Registration of live-in relationships may encourage several of such pairings to evolve into marriage, which would be desirable. This is especially so in a context where there remain predators who prey on unsuspecting women and lure them into live-in relationships that they terminate as soon as they locate another victim of their lust. Registration would provide a record where such predators are concerned. As for some of the punishments prescribed under the Uttarakhand UCC law, when harsh new laws were introduced by the UPA after the rape and murder of Nirbhaya in 2012, this writer had warned that such laws would not succeed in stamping out such predatory behaviour, and they have not. Which is why, in cases not involving acts of violence, substitutes such as community service or other such substitutes to prison need to be devised. Overall, a Uniform Civil Code promotes equal treatment under the law to all, and in a democracy, such an outcome is what needs to be achieved. Sabka saath, sabka vishwas, sabka prayas, sabka vikas.