Uttarakhand UCC is not uniform, targets Muslims

The Uttarakhand government promulgated a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) on January 27, becoming the first state to do so since Independence. Goa follows a UCC that dates to colonial rule and is based on the Portuguese Civil Code of 1967. We need to take a look at this significant postcolonial development from two perspectives: one, its contextual significance; and, two, the ‘merits of the case’.

Let's begin with the context. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) set out a core agenda from its very foundation, one inherited from the parties of the Hindu Right that preceded it. This core agenda has been the glue of the neo-fascist entity which is now loosely called the Sangh parivar. Alongside the construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya, the imposition of a UCC countrywide has been an important item in the BJP's to-do list.

While Uttarakhand has implemented the UCC, other BJP-ruled states have either expressed the intention of imposing or initiated steps towards implementing one. Among them are Assam, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh.

There is an obvious purpose in mentioning this. In a state as small as Uttarakhand, the BJP has not been able to implement a uniform civil code at all. The UCC exempts from its operation people belonging to the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Let's look at the demographic composition of the hill state: over 80% of the population are Hindus; about 14% are Muslims; Buddhists, Christians, Jains, and Sikhs together constitute ~3%; and the STs constitute the proverbial microscopic minority. Yet, the Uttarakhand government has thought it fit to make allowances for their sensibilities. We are not aware why that has been the case.

Obviously, however, electoral compulsions are not in the equation. In states with large tribal populations, where people will be less than enthusiastic about any attempt by governments to reform their traditional social practices on a grand scale, a UCC would appear logically to be dead in the water. Indeed, the current regime signalled its support for a separate code for tribal people, when Union Home Minister Amit Shah said on November 3, in the run-up to the Jharkhand elections, that the BJP would consider putting in place a Sarna religious code.

This leads to one clear conclusion: the UCC is just one more tactic used by the majoritarian and divisive BJP to target and harass the largest minority in the country: the Muslims. BJP governments in various states have similarly enacted draconian laws against ‘forced’ conversions to mainly target the Christian minority.

What about the ‘merits’ of UCC? The big takeaway is ‘women's empowerment’. The “UCC is not aimed against any religion or individual…It is a major step towards women's empowerment,” Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami said as he promulgated the UCC. By banning polygamy, providing a uniform process for divorce, and equal inheritance for men and women, Uttarakhand has taken a step forward, though inheritance and divorce laws have already largely been made gender agnostic.

The major advance is that the concept of ‘illegitimacy' of children has been removed by providing for equal inheritance rights for children of cohabiting couples, but this advance has been negated by the insistence that ‘live-in’ couples have to register with the state authorities. Dhami’s defence, that this is to prevent violence within relationships, is risible. In fact, it appears to be an unconscionable attack on citizens’ right to privacy. In terms of the injunction for registration, marriage and cohabitation cannot be equated.

It is obvious, however, that only the rights of Muslims in terms of their personal code have been curtailed. While streamlining inheritance laws, for instance, the privileges embedded in the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) have not been touched. The claim that no bias has been at work is demonstrably false.

To return to the larger context, clearly bringing about a sweeping uniformity is neither possible nor desirable. The 21st Law Commission headed by Justice B S Chauhan (2015-2018) when tasked with exploring the idea of a UCC, labelled it ‘unnecessary’ and ‘undesirable’, because it would militate against India’s diversity.

Nothing has changed since it gave its opinion. It is true that women's empowerment must be pursued, but there is no need for a UCC to pursue that aim. Much greater consultation is needed to make a UCC a practical compendium of best practices, keeping in mind the plurality of the nation.

(Suhit K Sen is author of ‘The Paradox of Populism: The Indira Gandhi Years, 1966-1977’.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.