The Modi Government recently asked the Law Commission to examine afresh the entire gamut of issues involved in enacting a uniform civil code. This is most welcome. Several times in the recent past the highest court in the land has expressed the desire for the Government to examine the question of framing a uniform civil law.
But for wholly extraneous reasons various governments have refrained from implementing the reform. More famously, in the Shah Bano case in the mid-80s the Supreme Court had suggested that the Government enact a uniform civil code. But instead of moving towards a uniform civil code, the Rajiv Gandhi Government had reversed the apex court order which had ordered Shah Bano’s former husband to pay her a measly Rs. 13 per month as maintenance allowance. It is, therefore, good that the debate over a uniform civil code has again been revived.
At a time when a number of progressive Muslim women have openly sought an end to the cruel and arbitrary practice of triple talaq, the need for the Law Commission to look afresh at the question of uniform civil code cannot be exaggerated. As it is, in a self-avowedly secular country personal laws based on the practices of various religious groups militate against the basic idea of secularism. The State should not distinguish between citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices.
The first elected government of free India had shown the requisite courage and determination to do away with the personal laws of the majority community. At that time, conservative Hindus were up in arms against the reform of the Hindu personal law. Even in the face of stiff opposition from these groups, the Government had successfully enacted the Hindu Code Bill, thus, at one go, updating the personal laws of the majority community. One of the biggest positives of that law was the empowerment of Hindu women, bestowing on them the right of equality at par with men, giving them equal share in paternal wealth and generally voiding various anti-women practices such as dowry.
More than half a century later, no Hindu, conservative or liberal, complains against the modernisation of their personal laws. And by and large Hindus have embraced it in actual practice as well. Unfortunately, the first elected government after independence missed the opportunity to reform the personal law of Muslims, the second largest religious group in the country. A concern about not hurting the feelings of Muslims was premised on the false notion that conservative Mullahs and Imams represented the entire community.
And even now politicians opposing a common law do so fearing that the sentiments of Muslims would be hurt. Change is always led by the reformed, not by those who are rooted in obscurantism. By conceding the mullahs and the imams a veto on the modernisation of the Muslim personal law, the secularist politicians do the community a great harm.
Denying Muslim women the right to gender equality, and an equal say in such matters as marriage, divorce, property rights, etc., opponents of a common law only perpetuate a great injustice. Notably, the founding fathers had enjoined thus upon the successive rulers of free India to enact a uniform civil code: “The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”
Admittedly, the Modi Government will need to engage the Muslim opinion before moving ahead with the enactment of a common civil code. Even those Muslim leaders who might otherwise be in favour of such a law will tend to be suspicious of its intentions. They need to be reassured. Paradoxically, while the proposed reform aims at abolishing a religion-based division, critics will see the move as divisive, meant to drive a wedge between the communities. It is most unfortunate. It stems from the perverted political discourse which has come to view every issue through the prism of partisan politics.
Indeed, government’s critics suspect that the move towards uniform civil code has been revived with an eye on the UP Assembly poll next year. So long as the objective is laudable, no purpose is served by nit-picking on the timing of the move. Secularists should have no reason to complain that the draconian personal laws of the Muslims are sought to be modernised. They should prioritise the wellbeing of Muslim women rather than the political motives behind the move to secularise the personal laws of Muslims.
