UNIFORM CIVIL CODE

It is said that when the BJP came to power in 2019 with a thumping majority, there were three main things on its agenda. The first was the abrogation of Article 370 which gave special status to Jammu & Kashmir. The second was the construction of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya. And the third was the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code. The first goal was achieved in 2019 itself. The second will most likely become a reality by the beginning of 2024. As for the third goal, however, there are roadblocks, with several opposition parties opposed to the idea of a Uniform Civil Code that they say will destroy India’s diversity.

The main purpose of the Uniform Civil Code seems to be to make Triple Talaq illegal, and prevent Muslim men from taking up to four wives. Yet I have heard Islamic scholars point out that, in reality, it would be hard to come by an Indian Muslim who has four wives. This provision, if at all, may exist in the books, but not in lived reality. On the contrary, given that India’s Hindu population far exceeds that of its Muslim population, we are much more likely to find Hindu men who illegally practice bigamy. This would include not just men who have more than one wife, but also men who have mistresses and concubines.

There are other things concerning Hindus that we are not sure the Uniform Civil Code will address. For example, taking refuge under the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) law, I know of old-fashioned Hindus who still believe that only sons and not daughters should receive a share of their parental property. This is clearly discriminatory. Among other things, it fails to liberate and bring succour to daughters trapped in bad marriages. Will the introduction of the Uniform Civil Code mean that punitive action will be taken against Hindus who think of their daughters as paraya dhan?

The biggest contradiction as far as the Uniform Civil Code is concerned is the government’s stand on same-sex marriage. If the government is serious about implementing the Uniform Civil Code, it will first of all have to change its stand on same-sex marriage. Thus far, the government has made its opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage abundantly clear, even going to the extent of pointing out that adjudicating on it is parliament’s business, and not the business of the Supreme Court.

But if the so-called right of Muslim men to take four wives makes them more equal than others, doesn’t denying the LGBTQIA+ community the right to marry people of their choice make us less equal than others? As Pulapre Balakrishnan says in an article, “To be credible, the current debate on personal law must include the LGBT [community], for the questions of civil partnership, inheritance and adoption are as relevant to them as to other Indians. Mundane acts, such as opening a bank account or purchasing life insurance would make one aware of this...The combination of gender unjust personal laws and a disempowered LGBT population points to the advantage of having a universal civil code [sic] which encompasses all Indians.”

Critics of the Uniform Civil Code have pointed out that its implementation will be especially detrimental to India’s already invisible tribal communities that frequently have their own customs and traditions. It is unclear whether these communities will even be on the radar of the Uniform Civil Code, or if the law is mainly meant to ensure that Muslims fall in line.

As far as the LGBTQIA+ community is concerned, it isn’t rocket science for our lawyers to argue that if the Uniform Civil Code is implemented, the case for the legalization of same-sex marriage, currently awaiting judgement in the Supreme Court, itself becomes redundant. For, if heterosexuals have the right to marry people of their choice, the same right must also automatically be extended to the LGBTQIA+ community. The scope of the term ‘choice’ will thus have to be extended to include not just race, caste, class, religion, and so on, but also gender.

Speaking of religion, should the Uniform Civil Code be implemented, another favourite law of the ruling dispensation which will come under the scanner is Love Jihad. This law currently exists only in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, but there is no telling when it might be extended to all of India. As such, films like Kerala Story have done their bit to poison the nation’s mind. But if the Uniform Civil Code allows people of other faiths the right to have inter-religious marriages, how can it deny that right only to Muslims? In a recent case, Love Jihad subsumed even same-sex love when a Muslim woman was accused of Love Jihad for eloping with her Hindu girl-friend.

The implementation of a Uniform Civil Code may be one of the government’s three pet projects. But this is going to be harder than the abrogation of Article 370 and the construction of the Ram Temple. The government may have to put the idea on hold, or abandon it altogether. It’s not as if the government hasn’t had to jettison laws that it wished to implement. The farm laws are a case in point. Even the CAA and NRC show few signs of seeing the light of day.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that it’s funny how one man’s meat is another man’s poison. Where the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code can come to the rescue of the LGBTQIA+ community, it can harm the interests of tribal, ethnic and other minority communities.

 In the 21^st century, words like pluralism, multi-culturalism, intersectionality and diversity are synonymous with modernity and post-modernism. In attempting to destroy these, isn’t India slipping into a pre-modern age? Of course, there are many who will argue that India has never ceased to be pre-modern in the first place. So there’s no question of talking about modernity and post-modernism.

Still, what I’d like to say to the powers that be is: one size does not fit all.