In recent times, Indian socio-political edifice experienced a major change. It witnessed the issue of uniform civil code being brought at the centre of arguments and debate on matters like gender empowerment, religious freedom inter alia.

Before delving into the meaning & insight of Uniform civil code in Indian perspective, we first need to understand the scope and structure of secularism from Indian and western occidental points of view. Subsequently we will be able to appreciate the importance and relevance of the code.

The Uniform civil code debate in India revolves prominently around the articles 14, 15, 21, 25 and 44 of the Indian constitution. The most important ones are the Article 44 which asks the state to establish an uniform civil code for all its citizens as a part of its directive principles of state policy, Article 21 which defined right to life and liberty and Article 25 which guarantees the freedom of conscience, practice and propagation of any religion of choice of the citizenry.

The definition of secularism with which the issue of uniform civil code is often intertwined got a visible mention in the Indian constitution in the 42nd amendment act of 1976 in the preamble. Indian definition of secularism entails that the state and its institutions should recognise and accept all religions which is the implicit meaning of the laws formulated read with article 25 and article 21. This is a kind of positive secularism. But, nowhere does the Indian constitution define the explicit relationship between the state and the religions.

The definition of the secularism in the western democracies is based on the premise of separation of state and religion. This definition entails that state has no business with the religion of the people. The apt example of this principle is the Separation of Churches and states act of 1905 of France.

The land of the enlightenment-age philosopher –Voltaire, who vouched for separation of church and state, follows Lacite, which is a version of secularism where any person who is a part of the governance structure cannot show his or her religious identity, views or proclivities. The Lacite specifically prohibits the French government to identify any religious groups.

During the time of drafting of the Indian constitution, the debate on the uniform civil code gained much prominence with leaders like K.M. Munshi pushing for the uniform code. Munshi said, “the idea that the specific traditions and practices of the citizenry have their genesis in the religious doctrines was propounded by the British to further their interests for the idea of divide et empera, since an ideologically divided India would be ripe for further fracturing which culminated in the gruesome partition in 1947”.

The constituent assembly debates had not escaped the veiling of the avoidance of adopting the uniform civil code under the garb of protection of religious freedom. The members of the assembly who rebutted this notion clearly stated that Shariat law was not only negotiable during the times of british but also during the sultanate times of the rule of Alauddin khilji.

The colonial masters enacted the remarriage act for the hindus (1856) and the shariat law (1937) for their own ulterior benefits. The divisive caricature of these enactments were best understood by leaders like Subhash Bose, C.R Das, Lala Lajpat Rai , and Maulana Azad. K.M Munshi stated during the constituent assembly debates on the article 35 (of initial draft of the Indian constitution) that Indians need to grow above the limitations set forth by the colonial masters which had already by then taken a huge toll on the very attainment of independence.

Certain practices cannot simply become the matter of specific religions and become a centre point of argument against implementing the uniform civil code. Nehru mentioned during the formative years of Indian republic that time was then not ripe for implementation of the uniform civil code. The currently prevalent idea that India is still not ready for uniform code is a matter of serious concern as it is essentially the oldest surviving civilization which has imbibed the best features of all religions.

In 1984, in the Shah Bano case, where the lady by the name of Shah Bano in Indore was denied alimony by her divorcee husband. The parliament stated in the case that the alimony has to be given by the husband. The Supreme Court in its 1985 judgement of the Shah bano case, opined that the absence of uniform civil code creates confusion because of the disparate loyalties to law due to conflicting ideologies.   But, the then regime at centre had made the 1985 judgement redundant by passing the Muslim women (protection of rights on divorce) act 1986.

This led to massive furore across the country on matters relating to uniform civil code and gender empowerment. The Supreme Court had asked the then government whether the time had yet become ripe for implementing the uniform civil code supposedly taking a jibe at the statement made by the first PM. The passing of the Muslim women (protection of rights on divorce) act 1986 had diluted the judgement of the supreme court in the Shah Bano case.

In later cases, like the Shamina Farooqui  vs Shahid khan case and  Daniel latif case, the Supreme court interpreted the Musilm women (protection of rights on divorce) act 1986 in such a way that it upheld the previous decision in the Shah bano case. The various pressure groups had diverse inputs towards the debate on the uniform civil code. The AISPLB (All India shia personal law board) and bharatiya muslim mahila andolan group(BMMA) had supported the later judgements of the supreme court. The shia personal law board had accepted the stance that right to alimony for the divorced wife is an absolute right.

The BMMA has been aggressively advocating the implementation of the uniform civil code and has asserted that this can be a way of salvation for the numerous women who are suffering because of careless traditions. The AIMPLB (All India muslim personal law board) has always maintained its stance that the uniform civil code will be an encroachment upon the territory of the muslim personal laws.

They argue that the personal laws are part and parcel of the freedom of religion under article 25.  The obvious question arising in this context is that what defines the boundary of religious activities and/or traditions that are supposed to be guarded by the freedom to practice profess and propagate article 25. The answer to this question lies in the rider of morality which acts as one of the controllers on the rights expressed in part III of the constitution.

Even the Durga committee vs Syed Hussain Ali case of 1961 has specifically mentioned about the outer boundary of the religious activities. The activities within this boundary cann’t be subjected to any examination and any practice outside the said boundary is liable to be examined judicially.  The article 25 -2(a) itself defines certain economic, financial, political or secular activity associated to religious practices which can be regulated by the state. So, the part itself which is referred to by the people opposing the uniform civil code has the sub section giving a window of argument in favour of the civil code.

This actually certifies the stance of the main authors of the Indian constitution, that political unity can be a successful endpoint only after there in a social unity in the nation which can be achieved by the means of uniform civil code. Bengal Sati regulation act 1829 was probably the first legislation in this direction, but since the implementing authorities were colonial masters, their altruistic goals can be doubted, as those were the times of evangelical expansion in India being funded by London.

The thread of thought that the personal laws of religions are not to be interfered with has its genesis in the Government of India Act of 1858 which was implemented immediately after the 1857 revolt was crushed. This chain of thought has in some or the other way survived till this day. This forms a major chunk of the opposition to the uniform civil code.

There are many perspectives of the support for and opposition to the civil code. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, leaders like Rajendra Prasad had argued that if only hindu laws are subjected to amendments and the muslim personal laws are kept untouched, that would be unfair. Then, the AIMPL Board has been opposing the civil code on the premise that it will be interference in the personal laws.

On the other hand there are examples of writers and researchers like Tahir mehmood who in his book-the Muslim personal laws 1977 had argued in favour of an uniform civil code and gave instance of the Islamic countries where polygamy was banned. For example, Turkey was the first country to ban polygamy in 1926. Scholars like Asaf ashar ali fyzee had suggested after the legislation of the hindu code bills that the muslim personal laws should be examined by a special committee through the lens of modern conditions of the society. They also gave crucial inputs that in countries like Greece, Indonesia, UAE, Thailand, Nigeria different regions have different set of application rules for the Shariat law.

Age old dicta under the garb of religious identities should not keep certain groups of people in eternal darkness. To go ahead with something as foundational as uniform civil code, political will is of paramount importance.

The civil code is not a solution but a start point of making all the citizens treat each other equally. It can have that teleological utility of providing social unity in the country over a period of time.