The Law Commission of India has recently opened up the public responses to the Uniform Civil Code. The portal opened up on June 14 and has since received an overwhelming response from the public and requests for an extension of time; therefore, the deadline for responses which was earlier supposed to end on July 14, has been extended till July 28. Currently, no drafted legislation or guidelines have been developed. In its research and deliberation, the Law Commission considers how citizens and affected organizations might interpret such a code. The statute does not define the term “Uniform Civil Code.” However, it is commonly considered as a standard set of rules that govern sectors such as marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, guardianship, and so on. Currently, these rules are governed by several personal laws, both religious and non-religious.

In 2016, the government asked the Law Commission of India to explore how to create a code in the face of thousands of personal laws in the country. In 2018, the Law Commission issued a 185-page consultation paper on family law reform. According to the publication, a unified nation does not necessarily require “uniformity,” and secularism cannot contradict the country’s plurality. The term “secularism” was only meaningful if it guaranteed the expression of any kind of diversity. Articles 25 and 26 ensure freedom of conscience, the free profession, practice, and promotion of religion, and the right of every denomination or branch to govern religious matters. It was stated that Article 25 itself accommodates various religious practices for various groups of citizens.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has submitted its response to the Law Commission’s public notice regarding the Uniform Civil Code, stating that Muslims in India reasonably believe that the raking of the topic of UCC is intended to jeopardize the system of Muslim personal law. They believe that Muslims’ interpersonal relationships are governed by personal laws derived solely from the Holy Quran and Sunnah and that this feature is linked to Muslims’ identity in India. Muslims in India will not accept losing this identity, for which there is room in our country’s constitutional framework. National integrity, safety, security, and brotherhood are best protected and maintained if we retain our country’s variety by allowing minorities and tribal communities to be governed by their laws.

It would be unreasonable to ask ordinary citizens to set aside their religious identities while making life-changing decisions, especially when ostensibly responsible holders of the highest public posts publicly display their religious connection. If the occupants of high public posts had followed the ideal of secularism, the idea of a uniform civil code would have become a viable option. The common civil code is a contemporary way of living. It can achieve stability if its rulers recognize that modernism, reason, scientific temper, respect for diversity, discussion, and tolerance are required for social harmony and the preservation of diversity. Otherwise, what will soon be offered as a national civil code could lead the country into unprecedented civil turmoil. It is not unusual for more people to become agnostic when the gods they worship disappoint them.

The argument for a UCC is made to protect the nation’s integrity, which is seen to be threatened by the plurality of legal systems and the very existence of differences from the Hindu/Indian norm. In contrast, the UCC is opposed based on community cultural rights. Thus, the Hindu right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) stands unambiguously for a UCC because its national integrity argument is based on the claim that, while Hindus have willingly accepted reform, the “other” (minority) communities continue to cling to diverse laws, refusing to merge into the national mainstream.

The issue that comes up with a Uniform Civil Code, as has been discussed by scholars like Nivedita Menon has highlighted how implementing a Uniform Civil Code does seem consistent with feminist goals in matters related to marriage, property inheritance, and guardianship of children. The dispute over the uniform civil code (UCC) best exemplifies the politics of religious group identity. The argument over the UCC stems from a conflict in the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which balances women’s rights as individuals against the rights of communities that have the right to their personal laws. Because these personal laws govern marriage, inheritance, and child guardianship, and all personal laws discriminate against women, the women’s movement demanded a UCC as early as 1937, long before independence. However, the UCC has rarely been raised publicly as a feminist problem. It has always been framed in terms of national integrity against the cultural rights of a community. Some version of the argument that India needs a UCC to be truly secular circulates in the public domain. In contrast, from a feminist perspective, the idea of a UCC is less about “secularism”—the relationship between religious communities and the State—and more about gender injustice—the constitutionally enshrined inequality between men and women.

The women’s movement has shifted from a strong demand for a UCC, articulated since the 1930s, to a distrust of uniformity by the 1990s, drawing a cue from the Hindu right’s support for a UCC. The women’s movement’s rejection of uniformity in the 1990s was significant because it signaled a knowledge of the requirement to reconsider the nation and religious groups as homogeneous entities. Each religious community is diverse, and “Hindu,” “Muslim,” and “Christian” practices vary greatly from region to region and sect to sect in India. Some of these practices are healthier for women than others, and intra-community efforts to homogenize are just as problematic as inter-community efforts. The focus of the women’s movement is currently on gender-just laws. When reform is launched “top-down” by the state amid the current climate of antiminority politics in India, minority populations fear that reform of personal laws will be used to erode their identity. This is why continuing reform initiatives within communities have a better chance of succeeding.

Pressing upon implementing a Uniform Civil Code throughout the nation would be against the equality provisions enshrined in the Constitution as it would favor the majority on certain aspects and undo the years of reform that have been brought to undo the oppression and discrimination faced by the minority. A blanket of uniformity throughout the nation cannot be adopted, and the plurality of the religious and legal systems must be advocated for. As a nation that prides itself upon the diversity of culture that is observed from place to place, the success of a uniform code would bring about a downfall of its minority communities and erode their identity. It is true that to forego the majorly patriarchal rules, laws, and customs followed in the majority of the nation, a uniform code seems to be the most practical way of bringing about reforms that can undo gender injustice. But this cannot be done at the cost of cutting out religious minorities.