“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: and 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” — Dr Babasaheb B R Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates On November 23, 1948
Since the Law Commission of Bharat has solicited the views of religious organisations and the public about the Uniform Civil Code, the political atmosphere has been taken by storm. The topic of applying the same civil code to all citizens is not becoming controversial for the first time. Right from the Constitution-making process, this has been the topic of debate and discussion. Unfortunately, absurd apprehensions based on the flawed concept of ‘secularism’ and imposed ‘uniformity’, are not allowing any civil discussion on the issues related to gender justice and child rights to take place.
In the Constituent Assembly, as the entire debate about having a common law for all individuals, irrespective of religion, suggests, there was almost a consensus that a democratic country should have such a law. Time is not ripe for the implementation was the only argument that prevailed. As Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar argued, all other laws have already been uniform, then what is the problem in having common civil laws? For him, introducing the Hindu Code Bill was also a reformist step for gender justice, paving the way for the future Common Civil Code. Regrettably, the name of Dr Ambedkar is misused to misguide and misrepresent the entire discussion on civil code as anti-backwards castes and Scheduled Tribes. The civil code debate is mainly about marriage and succession-related laws. It will neither affect the reservations of any community nor forest laws as projected by some misguided missiles.
The most absurd ground for not even discussing civil laws is ‘secularism’. If a State being secular means implementing laws without religious consideration, how could a standard civil code for all undermine secularism? On the contrary, having a religion-based code is against the spirit of secularism. Self-declared contractors of Muslim rights like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), which is just a non-governmental organisation, are playing usual tricks in the name of minority rights and Sharia laws. Why do they want to put religion above the Constitution? A typical patriarchal organisation like AIMPLB had held the entire country to ransom when the Supreme Court pronounced judgement in the Shah Bano case way back in 1986. Since then, ‘secularism’ has been the bandwagon under which Islamist thinking above the Constitution is protected and promoted. They tried the same when instant triple talaq was declared illegal by the Parliament’s act. How do they forget that most Muslim countries have moved away from the Sharia Laws regarding civil life? Why don’t they also demand that the same Sharia Laws be applicable in criminal cases? How come religious leaders of the largest minority, which is a majority in many constituencies, have objections over seeking suggestions on Uniform Civil Code and not other minorities? Survey after survey suggests overwhelming support of Muslim women for reforming Muslim Personal laws as they are the biggest victims of the religious laws implemented by clergies. Shouldn’t this be more of a women-centric rather than a religion-centric debate?
The Law Commission has just asked for suggestions from the stakeholders. The Government has not proposed any draft yet, though some legal experts with political intent are in fear mongering mode over the imposition of the Hindu Laws on others. Some are even trying to point out the limitations of the Civil Code that is in force in Goa. No one has claimed that any code is perfect or, through UCC, the Government will impose one code over others. We need a civil debate on marriage, divorce, succession, inheritance and adoption reforms. The initiative of the Law Commission has given us that opportunity. Instead of getting into absurd arguments over imposed uniformity, we need a civil discussion over ensuring women and child rights for all, irrespective of religion, while celebrating the diversity of faiths, customs and traditions.
