Uttarakhand becomes the first Bharatiya state to pass the Uniform Civil Code. The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill was passed in the State Assembly on Wednesday. It would be enacted as a law upon securing approval from the Governor and the President.
As the debate on UCC rages in Bharat with Muslim organizations across the country calling it an onslaught on the freedom of religious expression, guaranteed by the Constitution, it’s perhaps time to examine similar laws in other countries. The Lutyens media has largely presented UCC as a first-of-its-kind radical measure that will end up destroying the secular fabric of the country. But is UCC really that radical and first-of-its-kind? After all, it proposes to do what many countries have already implemented, enact a set of common civil laws for all citizens, irrespective of their religious background.
These laws are broadly concerned with marriage, divorce, property, and inheritance rights. Nowhere does the UCC in the Bharatiya context infringe on the rights of people to follow religious rituals of their choice, conduct prayers, take out religious processions, or even set up religious educational institutions. It just envisages a common set of laws in civil matters, thus facilitating administrative convenience and also doing away with archaic laws governing matters about marriage, divorce, and property inheritance in some religions that are highly discriminatory against women. Then, what is the issue in UCC?
Most western democracies already have certain elements of the UCC in their legal framework. Many countries across the world have a prescribed minimum age for marriage for men and women, and everyone has to follow these rules, irrespective of their religion. For example, the legal age for marriage in England and Wales is 18. In some of these countries, marriage below 18 years of age is allowed with parental consent. But in countries like Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany, nobody is allowed to get married if they are below 18 years of age, parental consent or not. In Bharat, the legal age of marriage is 18 years for women and 21 years for men.
Yet, certain religious communities like Muslims continue to make this into an issue demanding that they be allowed to marry as per the provisions of the Muslim personal law, where a girl is considered eligible for marriage upon attaining puberty. This clearly stands at odds with child protection laws, and encouraging such customs in the name of freedom of religious expression would be equivalent to promoting child marriage. That’s why a UCC Bill needs to be introduced at the center so that it can be implemented uniformly across the country. As of now, laws setting common parameters for certain civil matters might exist here and there, but in the absence of a consolidatory framework, there is no mechanism to implement such laws.
The Uniform Civil Code Bill, passed in Uttarakhand imposes a complete ban on child marriage, and polygamy, and introduces a uniform procedure for divorce. The code provides equal rights to women of all religions in matters of their share in ancestral property. Child marriage is categorically banned in many countries. Norway has an exclusive law banning child marriage. The Supreme Court of Tanzania has declared child marriage unconstitutional. Malawi has officially banned child marriage.
Many western democracies might not have separate laws banning child marriages but the minimum age of marriage is fixed at 18, implying child marriages get automatically banned. Yet, it’s only in Bharat that the country’s apex court feels obliged to hear pleas and petitions advocating child marriages in the name of freedom of religion. Such is the extent of damage to the “secular” fabric of our country due to decades of minority appeasement. The real meaning of the term secular is treating all religions equally. By that definition, there is nothing more secular than the practice of doing away with archaic 14th-century laws governing marriage and divorce and demeaning women to enact a common set of civil laws for all citizens.
Registration of marriage is mandatory in almost all western democracies. In the US, the couple must obtain a marriage license by getting their marriage registered. The compulsory registration of marriage is also a part of the Civil Codes of countries like France, Italy, Brazil, and Germany. In all these countries, you are free to hold religious ceremonies to solemnize your marriage, but your marriage won’t be legally recognized unless you get it registered. For example, in Germany, you can only get legally married only at the “Standesamt” (Registry Office / Registrar). Yet, we still don’t have a central law calling for mandatory registration of marriages in Bharat. This leads to many crimes regarding marriage where an individual can marry multiple times without the fear of prosecution by the law (since marriage registration is not mandatory, it gets difficult to track the culprits or marry again without necessarily divorcing their first partner.
The Uttarakhand UCC makes it mandatory for marriages in Uttarakhand to be registered within 60 days of the ceremony, failing to do so will attract a maximum fine of Rs 20,000. However, I would again emphasize that implementing the provisions of UCC would get tricky unless it’s implemented uniformly throughout the country by enacting a law at the central level. Nevertheless, the passage of the UCC Bill by the Uttarakhand State Assembly sets a good precedent. The mandatory registration of marriage will go a long way towards safeguarding the rights of married women in Bharat and drastically reduce the crime of married men abandoning their wives illegally, refusing to give them maintenance or marrying a second time without divorcing the first wife.
The UCC comes under Article 44 of the Bharatiya constitution which declares that the state shall endeavor to secure the citizens a uniform civil code. It finds a place under Part IV of the constitution, which deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy. Now, the Directive Principles of State Policy are not per se enforceable in a court of law. Nevertheless, these serve as guidelines for framing adequate laws to govern the country. Thus, the constitution, in essence, very much calls for the enactment of UCC laws, which is why the opposition parties can’t create a ruckus regarding UCC. It’s very much in the spirit of the constitution and they know that, so they don’t have much ground for opposing UCC.
An article published by the think tank Observer Research Foundation in January 2022 gives an overview of the historical trajectory of the constitutional validity of the demand for UCC in Bharat. “Post-independence, against the backdrop of Partition, which resulted in communal disharmony and resistance to remove personal laws resulted in accommodating the UCC as a directive principle as discussed above. Although, the writers of the constitution attempted to bring a Hindu Code Bill in the Parliament that included progressive measures like women’s equal rights of inheritance, unfortunately, it could not see the light of the day.
It was only on 5th September 2005, when the Hindu Succession (Amendment Act 2005 received assent from the President of India that the discriminatory provisions regarding property rights in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 were removed. In this light, from a judicial perspective, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of having a UCC in several cases that needs to be analysed, starting from the Shah Bano Begum case to the recent Shayara Bano versus Union of India case that questioned the legitimacy of the practice of talaq-e-badat (triple talaq) and declared it unconstitutional)”, says the article.
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/uniform-civil-code-ucc-in-india-an-overview
Triple Talaq is already banned in Bharat but the Muslim clerics and even the so-called secular intellectuals repeatedly criticize the Modi government’s move to ban triple talaq. They regard it as an onslaught on the rights of minorities, whatever that means since all that banning triple talaq does is protect the dignity of Muslim women. The outdated practice of triple talaq is even banned in Islamic countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia, and Iraq. Yet, Bharatiya seculars want the government to “not interfere” in the Islamic practice of triple talaq, as if this practice were the epitome of secular emancipation.
In Bharat, the practice of polygamy is prohibited under Hindu law, which also applies to Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists, besides Hindus. Polygamy in the Hindu law is also punishable under the IPC. However, the Shariat Protection law in Bharat exempts Muslims from the ban on polygamy. It’s shocking to even acknowledge that there exist such anti-women and bigoted provisions in the 21st century in the name of secularism.
Polygamy is banned in most of the countries of the world. In the US, having spouse-like relationships with more than one person under the same roof was criminalized way back in 1882. Polygamy is being regulated in many Islamic countries as well. In Turkey, polygamy is banned and punishable by law. In Egypt, a new law has been reportedly introduced to regulate polygamy. Even in Islamic countries where polygamy is legal, it is often subject to strict conditions essentially meaning that the law discourages polygamy.
In most western democracies, polygamy is illegal and punishable by law. For example, it’s illegal in both France and Germany. Polygamous marriages are also not recognized under UK law, although they do recognize polygamous marriages if the concerned parties are domiciled in a country where such marriages are legally valid and must have entered into the marriage in such a country that permits polygamy.
Bharat is a modern and progressive democracy. The Hindu law governing marriage, divorce, property, etc. has been tremendously reformed over time, doing away with most of the archaic provisions. Therefore, there is no logical reason to continue giving special rights to Bharatiya Muslims in the name of freedom of religion. The outdated, draconian, and feudal Shariat laws just continue to perpetuate the hegemony of the Islamic clergy and exploit common Muslim citizens of Bharat, especially women, in the name of religion.
The Uttarakhand UCC proposes to ban most anti-women practices of Muslim personal law such as polygamy, polyandry, halala, iddat, triple talaq, etc. Understandably, there is furor amongst the Islamic clergy regarding the passage of the UCC in Uttarakhand. All other religious minorities in Bharat – Christians, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, etc. don’t seem to have any issue with the Uniform Civil Code. Only Muslims or rather the Islamic establishment in Bharat have issues with UCC. The reason is simple. If UCC gets implemented across Bharat, the Islamic clergy and all their bodies will lose power and clout. At the moment, they enioy an unprecedented level of political power by regulating the legal aspects of the lives of Muslims in Bharat. The moment there is a common civil code in Bharat, they lose that power.
Unabated minority appeasement has already put the western world in a crisis. Look at the condition of UK. A western, progressive democracy like UK continues to entertain the existence of Sharia courts.
Sharia courts in the UK, known as Sharia Councils have been in existence in the UK since the early 1980s. The Islamic Sharia Council, located in Leyton, East London was established in 1982. The Islamic Sharia Council was reportedly formed to address the matrimonial issues of Muslims living in the UK under the provisions of Islamic family law. But the Sharia courts of the UK, over years, have become a Frankenstein monster of sorts, wielding enormous power with scandalously patriarchal, primitive, and anti-women provisions.
Although Sharia councils aren’t officially recognized as courts in the UK. These are rather informal mechanisms for Muslims to solve their family matters and disputes if they prefer this mechanism over a formal court of law. But they don’t have any legally binding power which essentially means that if a Muslim is dissatisfied with the ruling of a Sharia court, they can approach the UK courts with their grievances which will then settle the matter according to the UK’s civil laws. This obviously becomes a potential source of conflict in cases where Muslims hold the ruling of these informal Sharia courts over and above the verdict given by the UK’s legal courts.
That’s why it’s high time UCC is implemented throughout Bharat to prevent such a scenario. As it is, the provisions of UCC in the Bharatiya context, I emphasize are quite mild in comparison to the strict regulation of religion in many western democracies. In France, for example, the display of religious symbols in public is strictly prohibited. That’s why the ban on sporting turbans in public and the hijab ban. France reportedly doesn’t even make note of the religious background of its citizens in its annual census measures. This is what “real secularism’ is like. Not like the minority appeasement pseudo-secularism peddled by the left-liberal cabal of Bharat.
