Uniform Civil Code for National Integration The feasibility of a uniform civil code for our country has

been debated ad naus eam, yet it continues to be a hot topic and seems to evolve passionate and extre me reactions from the general public, political parties and the judiciary. There is little understanding of the implications of a uniform code. The debate is ta ken to a higher level beyond political and religious agendas. Writers of the constitution envisaged that in a secular state, various religions would exist, but the law must be uniform and identical, and that all people sho uld be under one legal system, thus fostering national integration. These views have been calcified over decades without the framing of such a code out of fear that it may evoke a serious outburst in the minority communities. Despite this i deal, Article 44 has so far remained dormant. The Supreme Court has once again set the cat amongst the pigeons on the matter o f a uniform code, by underlining the need for the legislature to enact a uniform civil code to end discrimination between various communities in the areas of ma rriage, succession and property. It is time our politicians come out of their narrow political grooves and declar e their unstinted support for the enactment of a common civil code. Regular remi nders from the judiciary have become necessary; because all rulers of post-indep endence India have perpetually been under the influence of a potent dope called s ecular ecstasy that neutralizes one s concern for the nation s integrity and its majo rity population even while enhancing euphoric indulgence towards the minorities at the expense of the former. The message is clear that if the politicians in po wer fail to implement the constitutional manifesto, the judiciary will be constr ained to step in. The constitution made two provisions which distinguish religious and personal la ws: One which guarantees religious freedom (Article 25) and the other stresses t he need for a uniform civil code (Article 44). It held that laws governing marri age and successions cannot be brought within the fold of the constitution that g uarantees freedom. Article 44 is not a dictate to eradicate personal laws. It sh ould be interpreted in the light of larger constitutional scheme and in tune wit h basic human values. Indian constitution has accepted the challenge of a most modern experiment with the vision that difference would be recognized and valued rather than denigrated or eradicated. Legal pluralism, the bedrock of the Indian Constitution, paves a way to fortify national integration. Article 14, the finest argument in favour of legal pluralism, states that right to equality to all people irrespective of their religion, caste, creed etc. is the endorsement of plurality as well as leg itimacy. The spine of controversy has been secularism and the freedom of religion enumera ted in the Constitution. Constitutionally, there should be no discrimination aga inst anyone on the grounds of religion. It means that religion should not interf ere with the mundane life of an individual. Deft politicians twisted this humanistic idea into a convenient jargon, implying not an anti-religious, or the extra-religious, but a multi-religious approach. Personal laws dealt with matters concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance, succ ession, adoption and other social matters. The existence of various schools of p ersonal law in a broader religious framework bears testimony to the pluralism th at has been fundamental to Indian society. They only bolstered the obscurantist and orthodox forces. Sheer diversity of these laws, coupled with the dogmatic zeal with which they ar e adhered to, cannot permit uniformity of any sort. There is nothing primordial or pristinely apolitical about these laws. Though the framers of Indian constitution were granted the powers to amend any l aw that was in force at the time of independence, it was only the personal laws of the Hindus that were subjected to scrutiny and then altered. For generations, minorities have been marginalized and ghettoized. Any attempt t o implement a code at this juncture may deepen the suspicion among minorities th at there is a conspiracy to tamper their identity.

Even in totalitarian Muslim regimes around the world, personal laws are being am ended in tune with modern times; but secular India remains cursed to linger in m edieval mindset of Aurangazeb era. The Muslim Women Act, 1986, was passed by the Rajiv Gandhi government to override or bypass the court s verdict on divorce in t he famous Shah Bano case. This act had pleased only the most reactionary element s of the minority community. Muslim personal law supports polygamy while others oppose it. There were also in stances in which Hindu husbands converted to Islam to justify bigamy legally. Mi norities exhibit their religious distaste for family planning, while the Hindus religiously follow in due deference to the government rules. One can guesstimate the havoc being caused to the demography of the nation. Despite providing a tax shelter, Hindu Undivided Family hurts Hindu women Since times immemorial, women have always had a raw deal. Law, irrespective of w hich religion or community it belongs to, was framed by a patriarchal society an d is often anti-woman in perspective. All laws on marriage, inheritance and guar dianship of children discriminate against women. Religious laws are to be interpreted in the spirit of gender justice. The ambit of uniform civil code should be broadened so as to cover not just communities al one, but genders also. India cannot claim to be truly gender-just as long as dis criminatory personal laws exist. Though people have to serve the dual loyalties to the religion and the Constitut ion, no retrogressive religious practice should be allowed to overlook constitut ional directives. Freedom of religion is the core of our culture. Even the slightest of deviation shakes the social fibre. Religious practices, violative of human rights and dign ity and sacerdotal suffocation of essentially civil and material freedoms, augur oppression. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which India is a party, declares t hat men and women are entitled to equal rights as to during marriage and its dis solution. Even if one forgets Article 44, the Union of India cannot evade its in ternational obligation to make laws. The talk of a uniform civil code, in the absence of uniformity in most of the ot her prevailing laws is absurd. It may be surprising to know that even the Crimin al and Civil Procedure Codes are not uniform throughout the country as they have been amended and modified by various State governments. There is also an argument that the most sensible way out of this conundrum is to sidestep the issue of a uniform civil code, for the moment, and work toward evo lving laws in those areas that have remained unlegislated. Legal reforms should be encouraged from within. The challenge before the nation really is to move out of the fractious bi-polar responses of yore and search for new ways to ensure an individual s rights, even a s community identities continue to be protected. Whether the new law should replace the existing or the latter should be reformed , is a matter on which a consensus has to be evolved. This matter should be unde rstood in its entirety, away from the hysterical jubilation and frantic wailing of communalists on both sides. New code should not be put together as the amalgam of, or the common denominator of personal laws based on religion but as the Code that guarantees the best rig hts to all citizens, a Code in which each provision has been incorporated not be cause it is found in the Shariat or Manu or in Christian or Parsi law but becaus e on that matter it is the most humane and just provision we can think of, the o ne that is most in accord with good conscience, the one that is most likely to i nduce good conduct and creative flowering of the individual. It should not be op posed to secularism or will violate Article 25 and 26. Monogamy should be imposed, not because it is the Hindu law, but because it adhe res to Article 21 of the Constitution and basic human values. Age limits prescri bed for marriage should be strictly implemented to curb child marriages. Registr ation of marriage should be made mandatory, thereby validating every marriage. T here should be a provision for divorce by mutual consent. The institution of HUF, peculiar to the Hindus, has to be abolished. There shoul

d be no discrimination based on the sex in matters of inheritance. Provisions re lating to the will should be in consonance with the principles of equity. The es sentials of valid will, the procedure for its registration and execution should be provided for. Uniform fiscal code is also essential. Regarding maintenance, the amount of alimony should be decided on the basis of t he income of the husband, the status and the lifestyle of the wife. A husband sh ould maintain the wife during the marriage and also after they have divorced til l the wife remarries. Disagreement and divergences of various communities should not be allowed as a j ustification to delay its implementation. The need of the hour is to explain why separate personal laws are anachronistic today and how removing them will bolst er national integration. One people, One law.