The implementation of Uniform Civil Code has become a hot discussion topic in our country, especially in the last couple of years. At first I was surprised to even hear about this. This changed everything that I learnt about India as a child. We take pride in ‘Unity in Diversity’. Our culture and traditions are our strengths. We have existed as a united country for over 70 years now without an Uniform Civil Code. Then why do we need it all of a sudden? Does the constitution even allow for such a thing. I have studied that the constitution is here to protect our cultural and religious rights? Won’t implementing a uniform civil code change it all? Uniformity destroys diversity and our diversity has been our strength. It is the beauty of India. That’s when I learned that article 44 of the Indian constitution states that, ‘The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.’
I was shocked and confused to see this. Now, I am just a normal person living in a country which promotes diversity and takes pride in its rich and varied heritage. So I did a bit of research on this. I came to know that this article 44 belongs to Part IV of Indian constitution called as the Directive Principles of State Policy or DPSP in short. The concept of DPSCP of Indian constitution was derived from the Constitution of Ireland which in turn was inspired by the Spanish Constitution of 1931 and Catholic Social Teaching. The thing about DPSPs is that they are non-justiciable, meaning government is not compelled to implement them. If the government is not compelled to implement them, then why are they part of the constitution? This is because they are like a set of moral and ethical guidelines for governance that have to be gradually realised to bring social and economic equality to achieve the vision of a welfare state. So although they are not legally enforceable, they still influence the kind of laws and decisions made in the country.
Let’s go a bit deeper to understand this now. One of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) is Article 39(b) and 39(c), which direct the state to ensure that “the ownership and control of material resources are distributed in a way that best serves the common good” and that “the economic system does not result in concentration of wealth to the common detriment.” Although these principles are not enforceable by law, they have deeply influenced the formation of key legislations in India.
An example that underscores this influence is the nationalization of banks in 1969. The government, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, decided to nationalize 14 major banks, arguing that it was necessary to ensure that banking facilities were available across the country, especially to the rural and underprivileged sections of society. The motivation behind this decision was to reduce concentration of wealth, to make credit accessible to weaker sections of society, and to promote equitable distribution of resources—an idea very much in line with Article 39(b) and (c).
Though these articles were non-justiciable, they provided a powerful framework and moral authority that shaped the government’s decision to nationalize banks. It underscored the Indian state’s commitment to reducing inequalities and achieving social and economic justice, even though citizens could not approach the court to directly enforce the DPSPs.
Another example can be seen in the implementation of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, which was launched to fulfill the objective of providing nutritional support to school children, in accordance with Article 45, which directs the state to provide free and compulsory education for children. Although this article was not enforceable by itself, the spirit of the DPSP led to the creation of supportive programs and schemes that improved both educational outcomes and child nutrition in India.
So, implementation of Uniform Civil Code is also a part of this DPSP in the Indian constitution. The government will slowly try to implement all the DPSPs gradually and I think now is the time for the UCC. Now, as an individual, I believe that a UCC will definitely affect the fabric of the Indian society, but despite this, the educated minds of Indian history have decided to put this in the Indian Constitution. Therefore I think we should try to understand why they have done so, and in order to do it we have to go back to the Constituent Assembly debates. The makers of the Indian constitution debated extensively on each and every article that was put in the Indian constitution. The following is the summary of the discussion that happened on Uniform Civil Code. I have categorised it into various subtopics for the ease of understanding.
1. National Unity and Integration:
Advocates for the UCC, such as Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and K.M. Munshi, argued that a unified civil code was essential to creating a strong national identity. They contended that a singular set of civil laws would promote a sense of unity among all Indian citizens, transcending religious and communal lines. The idea was that legal uniformity in personal matters (like marriage, divorce, and inheritance) would diminish divisions based on community-specific laws and would help solidify India as a single nation.
2. Secular Nature of State and Law:
Another key argument centered on the secular foundation of the Indian state. Proponents of the UCC argued that personal laws related to family matters should be viewed as civil rather than religious. They emphasized that a truly secular state should ensure that laws governing civil matters are uniform for all, irrespective of religious affiliation. In this view, secularism required treating all communities equally under the law, which would be best achieved by moving beyond religious-based personal laws to a single civil code.
3. Modernization of Personal Laws
Shri Munshi argued that personal laws are not static; they have evolved over time, particularly during British rule, which made gradual adjustments to personal laws through legal reforms. For example, British laws gradually integrated certain secular principles into Indian law while respecting community-specific customs. Munshi posited that a UCC would simply continue this progression, reflecting contemporary values of equality and justice. This adaptability, he suggested, was in the spirit of making laws relevant to the needs of a modern and independent India.
4. Inspiration from International Examples
Munshi and other proponents referenced international examples, noting that many countries with diverse populations have enacted unified civil laws without infringing on religious freedoms. For instance, Turkey and Egypt, both Muslim-majority countries, enforce a common civil code that applies to all citizens. This was highlighted as a successful model of civil unity that had not only strengthened national identity but also promoted social cohesion by not allowing separate personal laws for minority communities.
5. Incremental and Voluntary Approach:
To address concerns about imposing a UCC abruptly, some Assembly members, including Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, suggested that the initial implementation of the UCC could be voluntary. This approach was modeled on the 1937 Shariat Act, which allowed Muslims to opt into the law rather than mandating it. Advocates felt this gradual, consent-based approach could build trust among communities and gradually increase acceptance of the UCC across diverse social and religious groups, providing a less disruptive path toward unification.
6. Equality and Social Reform:
The UCC was presented as a way to address gender inequalities deeply rooted in certain personal laws. Assembly members argued that unequal provisions in marriage, divorce, and inheritance laws needed reform to ensure justice for all citizens, especially women, who were often disadvantaged by traditional laws. By adopting a UCC, advocates argued, India would demonstrate its commitment to social justice and gender equality, which were essential components of a modern and progressive nation.
7. Opposition and Concerns of Minority Communities:
Minority representatives like B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur and Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur expressed significant concerns, viewing the UCC as a potential infringement on religious and cultural rights. They argued that personal laws were an integral part of religious practice, especially within the Muslim community, where laws on marriage, divorce, and inheritance were derived from religious tenets. These members feared that a UCC would effectively force minorities to abandon their traditions and adopt practices alien to their beliefs, thereby infringing upon their cultural and religious freedoms.
8. Fear of Loss of Identity:
The argument of cultural and religious identity was deeply voiced by minority leaders, who believed that a UCC would dilute the distinct identity of minority communities. B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur argued that India’s strength lay in its diversity, and the coexistence of different personal laws was a testament to this diversity. Implementing a UCC, they argued, might create resentment and distrust, as it could be perceived as an attempt to impose the majority’s customs and beliefs on minority communities.
9. Caution Against Haste:
Several members of the Assembly, including Hussain Imam and Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur, advocated for a cautious approach to the UCC, emphasizing that India’s unique social and cultural landscape necessitated patience. They argued that implementing a UCC without achieving a societal consensus would be premature and could disrupt social harmony. They recommended allowing India’s diverse communities to voluntarily adopt civil unification over time, thus preserving social stability while gradually promoting uniformity in personal laws.
10. Historical Flexibility in Personal Laws:
Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar noted that religious personal laws had already undergone reforms under British rule. For example, laws concerning contracts and property were secularized, and yet community-specific practices were still respected. He argued that similar flexibility could be applied to bring personal laws under a unified framework gradually, showing that religious laws were not entirely rigid and could adapt to new national values.
11. Existing Secular Legislation as Precedent:
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized that India already had uniform laws in areas like contracts, property, and criminal justice, which demonstrated that a unified legal system did not undermine religious freedoms. By citing the success of these secular laws, he argued that extending this uniformity to personal laws was a logical next step for an independent and secular state. This approach, he suggested, would not only unify but also strengthen the consistency of legal standards in India.
12. Tyranny of the Majority vs. Social Integration:
Some members, particularly from minority communities, warned that the UCC could become a “tyranny of the majority” without minority consent. They argued that democracy entails the protection of minority rights and feared that the UCC could marginalize minority voices by prioritizing majority norms. Advocates for a UCC countered that the code would not target specific communities but rather encourage social integration and equality, though they acknowledged the need for sensitivity to avoid perceptions of coercion.
As we can see that the makers of our constitution have properly analysed both sides of the argument and come to a conclusion of keeping the aspiration of UCC in the Indian constitution. So implementing UCC is a service we are doing to realise their dreams. But at the same time the arguments of B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur and Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur resonate a lot with me. Uniformity often leads to the loss of individuality. We have clearly seen the impact of uniformity in case of languages. English has replaced most of our mother tongues in everyday use. It has become a part of our everyday life and this has reduced the growth and proliferation of most of our native languages. The process is slow but steady. UCC in the long run will do the same thing to our rich culture.
The argument is that we try incorporate all the important and core principles of all the religions to make the UCC, but that is practically impossible. Let’s take a simple example. Let’s say that there is a group of 100 students in a class. Now the school has only one playground and they have to choose the games they want to play. If 90 students in the classroom want to play football and 5 want to play hockey and the remaining 5 wants to play cricket, the most logical solution will be to go with the decision of 90 students who chose football. Since there is only one ground, it is not possible to accommodate all the three games. Now the majority decision will prevail over the minority even though it is not the intention of the majority of the students to take away the choices and freedom of the minority section of the class. This exact scenario will happen in the country as well. India has multiple religions and each religion has multiple sects and sub sects. Hence it is practically impossible to create a uniform civil code that can satisfy everyone, preserve everyone’s core religious practices that has defined their way of living for centuries.
The UCC sure has many advantages like elevating the position of women, creating equality, uplifting weaker sections of the society, etc, but I am sure that we as a country can come up with more innovative solutions to tackle these problems. One size fits all is never the true solution. But, if UCC is the best solution to these problems, then I can confidently say that India is not ready for it yet. With so much communal tensions, hate and clashes happening throughout the country, the efforts to implement UCC will be looked upon with great scepticism by the minority of the country as an attempt to destroy their culture and traditions. India is known for the peaceful co-existence of its diverse population and I want my country to be known for it for the rest of the human history. I have always taken great pride in the phrase ‘Unity in Diversity’, and I don’t it to fade away as a mere slogan of the past.