The need for a uniform civil code is said for nation building and national integration in India. But in order to change the customs of any society, the authority-establishment should strengthen its credibility, because the system of marriage has been the responsibility of the society and the interference of authority-establishment in it raises doubts. India is also no exception. The religious freedom assured in Articles 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution conflicts with the responsibility of creating equal civil law and order as directed in Article 45. Here we should also remember that in 1954, when Law Minister Babasaheb Ambedkar, with the support of Jawaharlal Nehru, proposed a reform of Hindu social laws, radical Hindu discontent spread to the Congress itself. Then, in 1956, this effort was presented in four pieces and some solutions were found to the questions of Hindu marriage and property sharing. If seen, foreign regimes have been more capable of such changes. That is why, in 1856, widow marriage was allowed and in 1928 a law could be made for Hindu women to share in husband’s property. It was during the British rule that Sharia law was implemented in 1937.
We should also know that Goa is a state in India where the Uniform Civil Code has been in force since the time of the Portuguese Raj. Goa is polytheistic like other states of India, but there is no dispute among Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs etc. regarding Uniform Civil Code. So should the whole of India follow the path of Goa and implement Uniform Civil Code? In contrast, it is to be reminded that India has a Special Marriage Act since 1954, under which two adult men and women can marry without any religious customs and restrictions. And such marriages are also recognized by the government.
In fact, there have been disputes in our country over the marriage laws of Muslims since 1937. The male dominated system has been blamed for this. The wife is forced to live in terror and uncertainty for the rest of her life because of the husband’s arrangement for instant divorce. The husband retains the theological right of further marriages while a wife is not divorced. Providing alimony to a divorced woman can be said to be a human responsibility, but it is clearly forbidden in Sharia law.
This male-dominated marriage system received special attention after independence in 1985 after the Supreme Court’s decision on the complaint of a 72-year-old woman named Shah Bano. Shah Bano was ordered by her lawyer husband to break the relationship without maintenance after five decades of marriage. Shah Bano got relief from the court, but the progressive voices of the time started stammering because the fundamentalists started calling this decision a threat to the existence of Islam. The then Rajiv Gandhi government did not have enough self-confidence to stand with the Supreme Court. Since then the issue of Uniform Civil Code has become synonymous with protecting women’s interests in the Muslim marriage system.
The institution of marriage has a major role to play for the sexual relations and family-system among the adult members of the society. That is why this system is varied according to the country, time and characters. Indian society is divided into different castes, religions, regions and classes, and the peculiarities associated with these diversities are evident in the institution of marriage and the rituals associated with it. The institution of marriage has alternated between male dominance and female dominance. Its existence in a structure during the British Raj sent the message that it was the establishment of a Brahmin oriented system by ignoring the marriage rules of tribals and different castes. There are still variations in the Hindu marriage system according to region and caste. It should also be remembered that when efforts were made to end the dreadful traditions like child marriage and sati, there were more voices of protest than consent. Even in the eyes of heroes like Lokmanya Tilak, the foreign rule had no right to reform Indian society. Keeping this history in mind, we should think about the system called marriage present in Muslim society.
The problem is that the religious image of the current BJP government is well known. Because of this, the Uniform Civil Code is rarely seen in relation to the needs of the society. In such a situation, one has to think whether the government, despite its bad reputation, should make Parliament a platform for a Uniform Civil Code targeting Muslims? In the name of protecting religion, most people often get carried away by emotions. Therefore, on the one hand, the gathering of people in the nook and corner of the villages and towns with the slogan ‘Islam is in danger’, on the other hand, there is a possibility of instigating the rioters advising those opposing ‘one country, one law’ to send them to Pakistan. Will be By the way, it has become clear that with the expansion of education and scientific approach, Muslim men and women will sooner or later accept the necessity of marriage laws. That is why showing power on behalf of the power on this question will not be the right path for nation-building.
Even tribal India will not accept the pressure of Uniform Civil Code. More than 100 million tribal Indian men and women Hindu, Muslim, Christian etc. accept family system with local laws and customs beyond marriage laws. Their disputes related to marriage are resolved by the local tribal community. Therefore, in the charge of implementing the Uniform Civil Code, the central government will spontaneously open a front with the tribals as well.
(These are the author’s own views)