UCC: Civil Treatment to All

One objection against UCC is that it will lead to abandoning of traditional beliefs and practices. But this is a very facetious arguments. — Dr. Jaya Kakkar

No sane person can challenge the viewpoint that uniform laws in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. are desirable, indeed imperative, in a civil society. Our constitution itself puts the objective of formulating a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the list of the directive principles of state policy. Only the multiplicity of interests and needs in India has so far come in the way of having a UCC. There were three core electoral promises of the Bharatiya Janata Party – abrogation of article 370, building of Ram Mandir, and having a uniform civil code. Having fulfilled the other two now the govt. has articulated the need for the third loudly and clearly. It is unfortunate that some – though only some – believe that it will lead to erasure of customs and practices of certain – majority and minority both – segments; this in turn, these protesters allege, would destroy the sense of identify and independence. But this is an ironical fallacy. 

India is a declared secular country. So all of us should welcome Modi’s call for a UCC which aims of governing the personal law of all religious groups, not excluding Hindus and including Muslims and Christians, in a uniform manner. Remember the first aim was taken in 1950, when Nehru reformed Hindu Personal Law. He should have worked in the direction of implementing a UCC then itself. But better late than never. It is ironical that most ‘secular’ parties have been dragging their feet on the issue – ostensibly to appease the minority segments; both Congress and Communist parties were having in mind the valuable Muslim votes. While progressive Muslims would have supported reforms in their traditional laws, these parties never worked in the direction since in their thinking traditional mullahs (and their followers) counted for more favourable votes. Muslim women be damned in the process! Only the BJP has advocated for UCC. Lest it should be forgotten Indian constitution is a secular document and does not allow any religious discrimination. That’s why it favours a secular code. No one can deny that in this debate the BJP is on the secular side. 

Uttrakhand has recently made the draft UCC (for the state) public. This panel – which prepared the draft – went through the practices followed in other nations on family laws as also the related reports of the law commission. According to Justice Ranjana Desai, head of the drafting committee, the draft, if implemented, will strengthen the secular fabric of the country. This draft includes proposals to raise the marriageable age for women, legitimizing live in relationships, issue of inheritance laws, discouragement of practice of polygamy and polyandry, among others. To take one example, the objective of increasing the marriageable age of women across religion is to bring uniformly across religions and faiths to ensure greater women empowerment. Now who can find fault with such a code, barring perhaps the orthodox practitioners of religious practices that frown upon such attempts to uplift the lots of women. The time has indeed come to pursue the desire expressed in Article 44 of the constitution of India that we must have a UCC. The matter needs to be supported wholeheartedly. Though admittedly it needs to be discussed rationally too so as to avoid it to be given unnecessary political dimension. 

One objection against UCC is that it will lead to abandoning of traditional beliefs and practices. But this is a very facetious arguments. All traditions (sati pratha, female infanticide, etc. – among Hindus) are not necessarily worth following. Similarly, at one time sharia governed not only personal (civil) law but also criminal laws of Muslims. Under this law the punishment for theft was chopping oft of thief’s fingers, and a person could be stoned to death for adultery. Now we have a uniform criminal law where such barbaric practices have no place. On the same lines why can’t be abhorrent traditions abandoned; in their place instead we can have a uniform civil code which ensures, irrespective of religion and other dividing lines, a fair and equal treatment to each living being – male or female, of whatever sexual orientation, from whatever religion? 

The UCC debate itself has a long history. Its origin lies in the perfectly logical desire that all citizens in a country should be governed by a single civil code – just as they are governed by a single criminal code. When in the mid-1950s the then Congress government brought about changes in Hindu laws of marriage, divorce and succession to property, it stepped back from bringing similar reforms in other religious laws, mainly to preserve the Muslim vote back, though ostensibly the argument put forward was that India did not want to be a majoritarian state and wanted to reassure its minorities. However, millions of Muslims staying in many other countries (US, UK …) face uniform civil laws, and don’t agitate for a separate personal law. Then why not in India? In fact our constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste, gender, religion or place of birth. Only a UCC can actually ensure that religious discrimination practices of all – Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Parsi – religious vanish. In a state like Goa, which gained independence from Portugal (which had implemented Portuguese codes while in power) uniform civil laws, as practiced during Portuguese rule, and not Muslim personal law, apply. If  there the Muslims have accepted such laws of inheritance and property rights, why not elsewhere?

Two factors – BJP’s alleged with Hindutva politics and the conservative Muslim leadership’s resistance to reform have given the debate an unnecessary political colour. The UCC does not affect Muslim alone. It affects the Hindu majority (example, the provision for Hindu Undivided family) as well as other minorities. Fundamental issue is that of ensuring gender equality and justice. Certainly it is a thorny issue with lots of constitutional, legal social, political, and economic ramifications. It touches all citizens, bar none, and reaches deep inside their ways of life for generations, even their personal spaces. There are no easy answers to the complex issue. The idea of a UCC has always polarized the nation right from the days of the Constituent Assembly debates. But we cannot turn our eyes away from the fact that there is a constitutional direction on having such a code; now is the time to catch the bull by horns. Article 44, as a Directive Principle of state policy – as all other such directives – forms the compass envisioned by the makers of the constitution to guide us. That’s why the Supreme Court too has upheld the idea of such codification in many of its rulings. But as the Court said UCC can come into effect only when “statesmen amongst leaders who instead of gaining personal mileage rise above …. to accept the changes.”    

Share This