The Government of West Bengal is preparing to introduce a Bill in the State Assembly to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The State Cabinet has approved the constitution of a committee under the leadership of former Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, on the lines of the committees formed in Uttarakhand, Assam and Gujarat. This committee will examine the draft Bill on the Uniform Civil Code.
The governments of Uttarakhand, Assam and Gujarat had earlier constituted commissions headed by Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. The Government of West Bengal has now appointed the same individual to head its own commission. Therefore, it is not difficult to anticipate the likely direction in which the proposed legislation may proceed.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has opposed the implementation of the UCC not merely today, but since the early 1970s. In fact, when the national debate over the UCC first gained momentum during that period, the AIMPLB was established at its Mumbai convention. Several of India’s leading religious and socio-cultural organisations became associated with the Board, and many continue to remain affiliated with it. Prominent leaders representing both Sunni and Shia schools of thought have worked together within the Board in a spirit of unity.
The nationwide controversy intensified following the Shah Bano judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in 1985–86. When the Court ruled, under Section 125 of the CPC, that a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance, the Muslim Personal Law Board launched a democratic and constitutional movement in opposition to the verdict. The issue soon sparked intense debate across the country.
Political parties with secular ideologies, Western liberal thinkers, and organisations and Hindutva forces all entered the debate, arguing in favour of a UCC. At that time, even sections of the Communist movement, including the CPI(M), expressed support for the proposal.
The government of then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi did consult different stakeholders before taking its decision. Muslim intellectuals and leaders of the Board met the then Prime Minister and explained the rights that Islam grants to women.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in 1986 was passed in Parliament. Soon afterward, the Sangh Parivar launched an aggressive campaign around the issue. The BJP entered the political arena, attempting to give the matter a distinct political colour. During that period, L.K. Advani stated in an interview with a newspaper that the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid controversy had been revived because of the passage of the Muslim Women Bill. The Sangh’s agenda consisted of three principal objectives: the introduction of a UCC, the construction of a Ram Temple at the site of the Babri Masjid, and the abrogation of Article 370 relating to Kashmir.
The Sangh Parivar’s advocacy of the UCC is rooted in its concept of cultural nationalism. It represents an attempt to dismantle India’s pluralistic social fabric and reshape it according to a single cultural template. India has existed for thousands of years as a civilisation characterised by diversity and pluralism. The Sangh Parivar, particularly the RSS, seeks to reconstruct the country’s social order within the framework of one dominant culture. Such an approach is not only ethically questionable and impractical but also contrary to the spirit of the constitution and India’s long-standing traditions and heritage.
Even within the Hindu society, there is no single uniform law of inheritance. Southern and Northern India follow different legal traditions. Some adhere to the Mitakshara system, while others follow the Dayabhaga system. This itself demonstrates the diversity that exists within Hindu personal law. Christians have their own personal laws, while the Sikh community has consistently demanded recognition of its distinct personal law. The customs, traditions, and lifestyles of Adivasi and tribal communities are also different, which is why the UCC is not being imposed upon them. Nor does the BJP appear willing to do so. This clearly demonstrates that diversity cannot simply be erased through the force of majoritarianism. Against this backdrop, the persistent attempt to bring only Muslims under the ambit of the UCC raises legitimate questions about the BJP’s underlying political motives.
The Law Commission of India has not yet issued any definitive recommendation or directive in favour of implementing the UCC. Therefore, the question naturally arises: why should the UCC be introduced in the absence of such a recommendation? This is both a democratic and a legitimate question.
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of religion. In contrast, Article 44, contained within the Directive Principles of State Policy, merely speaks of the State’s endeavour to secure a UCC. It does not create a legally enforceable obligation. In other words, Article 44 is not a mandatory legal provision. This raises an important constitutional question: where there is tension between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, which should carry greater weight? Constitutional jurisprudence suggests that Fundamental Rights deserve greater protection.
The BJP government continues its efforts to implement the UCC. Meanwhile, the positions of the Congress, various regional parties, and even the Communist parties have evolved over time. This does not necessarily mean that they support the UCC. Why, then, is the BJP so determined? As noted earlier, its position is shaped by the Sangh Parivar’s ideology of ‘cultural nationalism’. Throughout India’s ancient, medieval, and modern history, society has never been organised around a single, homogeneous culture. The European model of the nation-state cannot simply be transplanted onto India. When nation-states emerged in Europe during the modern era, most of those countries were overwhelmingly inhabited by people sharing the same language, ethnicity, religion, and culture. Those who differed generally constituted only a very small minority, often immigrants from other countries.
India, by contrast, has for centuries been home to Hindus and Muslims living side by side. Their religions, cultures, customs, family traditions, and social practices are distinct. The country also has a significant Christian population, alongside Sikh, Buddhist, and Jain minorities. Sikhs have long demanded recognition of their separate religious identity through a distinct personal law, although their demands have largely gone unheeded. Adivasis continue to seek recognition of the Sarna faith. India is home to Adivasis, Kurmis, tribal communities, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and followers of various indigenous and nature-based belief systems. This diversity is precisely what gives Indian society its unique unity. No community should be treated as ‘the other’.
If the Sangh believes that all citizens should be moulded into a single cultural identity, it should clearly explain the basis of such a proposition. The Sangh Parivar’s attempt to describe everyone as ‘Hindu’ merely because they are inhabitants of Hindustan is unlikely to receive universal acceptance. The slogan ‘One Law, One Nation’, reflects a coercive theory of nation-building based on majoritarianism. Such an approach may rely on political power, but it is neither realistic nor scientifically grounded.
Shariah law in Islam is rational and compatible with human nature. It is regarded as a system that does not impose rules that would place people in undue hardship. According to Islamic belief, the fundamental source of Shari’ah is God (Allah), who, being the Creator, knows human nature best and has prescribed laws that are in harmony with it. The logical and philosophical foundations of these laws have not always been examined impartially. Those who habitually evaluate everything through the lens of Western thought may find it difficult to appreciate the distinctive principles and values of Islam.
Islam regards divorce as undesirable, but it also recognises that when every sincere effort at reconciliation between husband and wife has failed, separation may become the most appropriate course of action. Both men and women are granted the right to dissolve a marriage. Compelling two incompatible people to remain together against their will may result in prolonged emotional suffering, turning the family into a place of conflict and misery. Such circumstances may encourage injustice, disorder and moral and sexual misconduct, ultimately leading to the breakdown of the family. Therefore, divorce is permitted as a means of preventing greater harm by accepting a lesser one.
In matters of inheritance, Islamic law does not always allocate identical shares to men and women. This is based on the principle of equity rather than absolute numerical equality. In some areas, Islam grants men and women equal rights and dignity, while in others it distributes property according to what is considered a balanced relationship between rights and responsibilities. The responsibility for providing financial support, ensuring security, and protecting the honour and welfare of women is assigned primarily to men. Consequently, inheritance shares are structured in accordance with these obligations. From this perspective, equal distribution in every situation is not regarded as either logical or consistent with the principle of equity. Rights and entitlements are linked to corresponding duties and responsibilities.
Furthermore, there are situations in which a Muslim woman may inheritmore wealth than a male relative. She may receive shares from theestates of her deceased father, mother, brother, child or husband and incertain combinations these shares may exceed those inherited by a man.At the same time, Islam does not place the primary burden of financialresponsibility upon women. That responsibility rests with fathers andother male family members. In the absence of the father, a brother islegally responsible for the care and maintenance of his sister, includingher education, health, moral upbringing, marriage expenses and generalwelfare. If the father is deceased or unable to fulfil these obligations, thebrother assumes them. It is in light of theseresponsibilities that a sister’s share in her father’s inheritance is determined. Moreover, if a sister isdivorced or abandoned by her husband and has no children to supporther, her brother is again obliged to provide for her. Therefore, those whoadvocate absolute numerical equality in inheritance overlook the legal philosophy underlying the Islamic system.
Today, those who seek to grant legal recognition to live-in relationshipsthrough a UCC aremoving toward weakening the traditional institution of the family. Developments in Europe and North America demonstrate theconsequences of such changes, where the family as a social institutionhas significantly declined in many places. In some countries, thedeterioration of family life is said to have reached in a major crisis,contributing to broader social challenges. Falling birth rates and shrinkingworking-age populations are viewed as potential long-termconsequences, with implications even for national security and economicstability. Thus, legalising live-in relationships under a UCCcould lead to a moral and social crisis in the future. Actions contrary to the natural order ultimately carryconsequences for both individuals and nations, and that the people ofIndia should therefore carefully consider the direction in which thecountry should move.
[The writer is Editor of Mizan weekly, Kolkata, and President of JIH West Bengal]