UCC: What PM Modi — and could only say

In his 15 August address, the prime minister said his government would work towards changing India’s personal laws. He said, “After 75 years of a communal civil code, it is crucial to move towards a secular civil code. Once this shift takes place, it will eliminate religious discrimination and will bridge the gap felt by ordinary citizens.”

Personal laws govern marriage, divorce and inheritance in India. The BJP has had a curious relationship with this subject, from the very founding of the republic. Dr B.R. Ambedkar had proposed modest changes to Hindu personal law, especially on the question of inheritance by women. He identified the two dominant forms of traditional inheritance law and modified one of them to make inheritance fairer to women. This was not acceptable to the RSS’s political ideology.

In its 1951 manifesto, the Jana Sangh opposed the Hindu Code Bill, saying social reform should not be imposed from above but emerge from within society. In 1957, it said that such changes were not acceptable unless rooted in the ancient culture. ‘Riotous individualism’ would result. In its manifesto of 1958, the party wrote: ‘Joint family and indissoluble marriage have been the basis of Hindu society. Laws that alter this basis will ultimately lead to the disintegration of society. Jana Sangh will therefore repeal the Hindu Marriage and Hindu Succession Acts.’

Over time, as nuclear families became common and divorce became acceptable in society, the party dropped this position without explaining why.

In its 1967 manifesto, the Jana Sangh called for a uniform civil code. From here, it has appeared in all the party’s manifestos. The party promised its voters it would enforce it if it came to power. The BJP had an absolute majority in 2014 and 2019. In both elections, it had promised a uniform civil code in its manifesto but it did not legislate one or even produce a draft of it.

Now that the party has been reduced to 240, the promise has been made again; but who is to fulfil it? Where is the draft law from Modi and his ministers? It does not exist, of course. In the 15 years that this country has seen a BJP government, there has been no draft, only speeches.

The reason no draft exists is that it is not an easy problem to solve. For the BJP and its votaries, the ‘uniform civil code’ or ‘secular civil code’ is a placeholder for the abolition of polygamy. But to get rid of it, the BJP will have to target more than just Muslims. Conundrums relating to the Hindu Undivided Family are not the only ones that must be resolved.

Most citizens are now familiar with Article 370, which the BJP had long targeted and has successfully gutted in 2019; but fewer pay attention to the very next article, 371, which says ‘no Act of Parliament in respect of religious or social practices of the Nagas (and) Naga customary law and procedure… shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides’.

What, then, happens to a ‘secular civil code’ that is against Naga custom? We do not know. The BJP doesn’t either.

In March 2018, the Nagaland Bar Association submitted a memorandum to Nagaland chief minister Neiphiu Rio, saying several central laws pertaining to personal law in the state are ‘badly contradictory and opposed to the Naga social customs and practices. Apart from the provisions of Article 371A of the Constitution of India, legislative power in matters of personal law is vested with the State Legislature’.

The laws mentioned were the Indian Succession Act, 1925; the Special Marriage Act, 1954; the Indian Divorce Act, 1869; the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886; the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; and the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Bar Association said these laws ‘are required to be substituted by our own state acts’.

Similar provisions in Article 371 safeguard customary law for Mizos (371G).
Two things need to be considered now. First, there is no point in opposing or even commenting on the prime minister’s call for a uniform or secular civil code till he produces a draft. He must be encouraged to show it, even if he is not pressed to explain why he didn’t write and pass the law in the 10 years that his party had a majority in Parliament.

The Opposition and the communities threatened by the speech should consider holding back their response till they see what, if anything, he actually produces other than talk.

The second thing to consider is why he is raising the topic again at all, given that his party is now in a minority.

Why, similarly, was the Waqf Bill introduced when it was obvious that a BJP at 240 seats could not get it passed and that its allies were not interested in furthering its Hindutva agenda? Why was a Broadcast Bill — aimed at throttling such people as Ravish Kumar and Dhruv Rathee — written when, again, it was clear that it would run into trouble?

Both these proposed laws have run headlong into the reality of India after 4 June 2024. The speech on a secular civil code shows no understanding of the meaning of this last election and rather highlights the fading of the prime minister’s halo.

It shows no acceptance of the real new India, and so the government continues writing cheques its parliamentary minority cannot cash.

Views are personal. Read more of Aakar Patel’s writing here.