Strike a fine balance and have a just civil code
Context:
- Recently, the Law Commission of India decided to seek the public’s feedback and suggestions on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). After a brief hiatus of barely five years, when the Commission had proclaimed that the “UCC is neither necessary nor desirable,” the action today keeps the flames going on one of India’s most ideologically and politically divisive subjects.
Autonomy versus authority:
- Personal laws fundamentally boil down to a decision between a person’s right to personal and religious freedom and the state’s ability to alter family dynamics. It is consequently argued that since each religious institution has cultural sovereignty, the community should lead the way in seeking reforms. The introduction of voluntary UCC or internal law reform is justified by this.
- Despite the fact that the newly approved laws prohibiting interfaith weddings effectively go against the spirit of the Special Marriage Act, both the Special Marriage Act of 1954 and the Indian Succession Act of 1925 were willingly adopted under the UCC.
- Jews, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis, and even Jains are today all governed by their own set of laws in addition to Muslims. So, believe it or not, a group of people’s legal status hinges on their religious affiliation.
- The Constitution was not the start of India’s long-standing integrative traditions; rather, it was the end of them. The clauses of the Indian Constitution that prohibit discrimination in all of its forms as well as the virtually absolute fundamental right in Article 29(1) that is dedicated only to maintaining the distinct culture of all citizens demonstrate the Constitution’s commitment to cultural adaptation.
Unity is superior to uniformity:
- The Commission must, however, take into account its recommendation that the proposed UCC act as a representation of India’s “mosaic model” of multiculturalism for a heterogeneous and multiethnic democracy like India.
- In the end, unity is far more important than uniformity. The British brought homogeneity among Hindus and Muslims by flagrantly undermining variation within the two religious groupings.
- The Indian Constitution promotes the multiculturalism paradigm in the nation and protects the right to cultural individuality.
- The 21st Law Commission (2015–18) decided to focus on gender equality within communities rather than equality between groups in light of this. A just code should be the primary goal since they are more important than a single universal legislation.
- India frequently faces a choice regarding ideas like secularism as it fights to preserve its own uniqueness. Despite secularism being a primary tenet governing the Indian government, India decided not to adopt the French model of lacité, which strictly outlaws wearing any religious clothes or insignia in public and regards religion in public as a threat.
- Indian civilization “accommodates” rather than merely “tolerates” the numerous racial and ethnic differences as a result.
Barriers in the way:
- The community’s members become significantly more intertwined with one another, and their devotion to the community is dramatically strengthened, when it feels threatened in any way, whether lawfully or unjustifiably.
- As a result, it is reasonable to assume that the Indian Law Commission won’t support the establishment of reactive culturalism among India’s Muslim populations.
- Additionally, the Muslim community has to understand that Islam and Muslim Personal Law (MPL) are two distinct religions. The MPL is a judge who is given the law, yet he or she is not entirely divine.
- Allow the Muslim clergy to lead MPL reform by exposing the issues with oppression and discrimination and embracing modern legal theories.
Conclusion:
- The Commission advises changing and secularising a variety of socio-religious-cultural practises that have served as the cornerstone of hundreds of religious and ethnic communities since time immemorial, thus the path ahead won’t be without challenges.
