The cornerstone of a democratic society is equality. Without equality, there can be no justice, just as without justice there can be no equality. True justice cannot be based on unjust laws, though it is possible to have a law-abiding society with the most unjust laws in place. Just as laws are a pre-requisite for a democratic society and, therefore, a just and orderly society.
The concept of justice also changes with the dynamics of the times. Laws evolved and deemed sacred in more primitive times cannot continue to be considered so, if they do not satisfy the conditionalities of the doctrine of equality.
Much of the legal argument by those still in favour of the existing system of separate personal laws on the basis of religion and custom derive from the premise that these “personal laws” are part and parcel of the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. This is despite the fact that Clause 2 of the same article specifically saves secular activities associated with religious practices from the guarantee of religious freedom.
While most of those who still oppose a common civil code do so on the grounds that this is not the right time as the minorities, especially the Muslim community, as spoken for by its self-declared leadership, are not ready for it. A “theological” argument has also been advanced, that these existing laws are God-given and, therefore, cannot be tampered with. The rationality of such an argument, and of the persons who advance them, does not deserve any serious attention in this day and age. This is the same logic that wants us to suspend reason and believe that a particular God was born at a particular spot just because it is commonly believed to be so?
All laws, even the eternal ones, are man-made and reflect the level of thinking and advancement of human knowledge and civilisation at that moment of time. If we have to accept what law-givers like Manu evolved in the period before the Gupta Empire or in medieval Arabia as sacrosanct, then we will forever be condemned to be governed by archaic, unequal and unjust laws. In the age of reason, the demand that people obey laws must be rooted in reason and not sentiment.
The task of modernisation entails the destabilisation of many institutions. Our founding fathers -- Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Dalits alike -- in the process of seeking to modernise India, had destabilised and uprooted many traditional institutions. They destabilised the manner in which much of Hindu society was organised. They destabilised the hierarchy of castes. They also outlawed many discriminatory practices, apparently ordained by Hindu religion and custom.
But not enough. The process must be ongoing.
Since the process of equalisation, so essential for modernisation and development, cannot be endlessly delayed, we cannot wait forever for a reformist, sectarian leadership to emerge. Given that even in predominantly Islamic countries like Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia and even Pakistan, the constitutional authorities enacted several measures to reform their societies, there is no reason why we cannot do so.
Unfortunately, the calculus of electoral politics dictates the response of those who oppose the reform of personal laws. It might also be true that those who are most vocal for the reforms are dictated by similar motives. Do the RSS and BJP want the emergence of a truly just and secular society when they advocate a Common Civil Code? It often seems that to them it’s just another stick to beat Muslims with. And when the so-called secularists take to the trenches to safeguard the undesirable status quo, it is also a just another way to curry favour with the Muslim community. Democratic politics is after all a competition for power.
The traditional objections of a uniform civil code hark back to the argument posed when the matter was debated in the Constituent Assembly. The two main objections then were that it would infringe on the fundamental right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25, and that it would constitute the tyranny of the majority. The first objection is misconceived because the directive in Article 44 does not infringe the religious practices as stated under Article 25.
The second objection would be valid, if the laws of one community were made incumbent on the rest. However, if a common set of laws for inheritance, marriage, divorce, custody, adoption and guardianship were to be framed with a special emphasis on gender equality which neither resembled any existing personal law nor sought to impose any one personal law on the rest, it would simply be a common and secular civil code.
Such a common and secular civil code, while not interfering with any of the rituals and many practices of the various religious and caste groups, would seek to merely legitimise the larger precepts of law that are being made secular. For instance, a Hindu from Kerala many marry his niece under the Marumakkathyam law, whereas it would be decreed as a voidable marriage for a Mitakshara Hindu.
Under a common and secular civil code, the validity of a marriage would begin with the age of consent and end with a legitimate registration or certification by any authorised person or body like a priest or local elected officials or even traditional village elders.
By applying the doctrine of equality, all grounds of divorce, such as adultery, desertion and cruelty, will be equally available to husband and wife. Thus, if a concealed pregnancy by another man before marriage is a ground, so will the concealed pregnancy of another woman by the man. If bigamy is to be a ground for divorce, so will polyandry. Naturally, divorce by mutual consent will be allowed to the husband and the wife jointly.
When the equality doctrine prevails, it will entail that in matters of maintenance and alimony, it will become the duty of the spouse with the greater or only income to maintain the other. A similar application of the doctrine on the questions of inheritance, maintenance of children, custody and guardianship and adoption will result in a dramatically different and more egalitarian social scenario.
It is this more equal society that all religious obscurantists fear the most. Unfortunately, the political parties that profess to be secular and those who profess to oppose pseudo-secularism pander equally to obscurantists the most. That seems to be the real problem.
