THE CPI(M) has said that the Law Commission seeking opinion of political parties on the viability of a uniform civil code is ill-timed and smacks of a politically motivated agenda.     

In a letter to Law Commission Chairman Justice B S Chauhan on December 17, 2016, Party general secretary Sitaram Yechury said, “At the outset, it is to be stated that the CPI(M) is constrained to observe that the exercise undertaken by the Law Commission to ‘engage’ in a ‘healthy conversation’ about the ‘viability of a uniform civil code’ smacks of a politically motivated agenda. The imposition of this agenda is ill-timed in the background of the offensive of communal politics unleashed by the Hindutva platform backed by those in power and the ensuing insecurity among the minorities, particularly the Muslim minority.”

Further, we consider that the Law Commission does not have the mandate to conduct such an exercise. The CPI(M) reiterates its stand for reforms in personal laws through discussions with all stakeholders.

The Law Commission’s appeal reflects a distorted understanding of India’s pluralistic cultures. Instead, it appears promoting the view of ‘one nation, one culture’, he said.

Referring to the Law Commission statement which states that the objective is to “harmonise the various cultural practices”, the Party said, “This is an objective with which we strongly differ as it has little to do with women’s rights or protection of ‘vulnerable groups’ and everything to do with the imposition of the view that the ‘cultural practice’ of ‘others’ have to be subsumed under the Hindutva culture.  

The Law Commission questionnaire itself is confusing and loaded with a bias. This is reflected in the omissions and commissions in the very choice of questions and the format of the questions. In other words, political parties have been given “terms of reference” for their replies in the name of a debate. This is highly objectionable. It is difficult to recall any other exercise of the Law Commission using such a format earlier.

“The questions do not give any scope for a ‘healthy conversation’. The yes/no format in fact stifles debate and is quite objectionable. Political parties are not sitting for an examination set by the Law Commission to answer yes or no,” Yechury wrote.

Such bias is evident from the fact that certain specific practices have been referred to as to whether they should be banned or not, and not others. What about the practices of ‘Kanya Daan’ or bride price or the practice of child marriage in the form of “gauna”? There are numerous such examples which are being questioned by women’s organisations as being demeaning to women in practices of different religious faiths. It seems the Law Commission is selective in pointing to only certain practices of certain communities.

The issue of instant and unilateral ‘triple talaq’ is now before the courts through petitions raised by Muslim women themselves. For the Law Commission to raise such questions for a public debate can also be taken as interference in matters of judicial consideration. In fact, the question itself shows that the Law Commission deliberately does not differentiate between the practice of ‘triple talaq’ and ‘unilateral and instant triple talaq’ which is what is being questioned.

In contrast, the way the questions are posed as far as inter-caste and inter-religious marriages are concerned is as though the commission is totally unaware of the violent role of ‘khap panchayats’ and the like as there is no mention whatsoever as to whether the ‘khap panchayats’ should be banned.

There are also glaring omissions on the scope of the questions being asked by the Law Commission. The Law Commission, it would seem, has no interest in delving into the vicious propaganda against the minority communities creating an environment in which members of the minority communities believe they are under siege. There is no reference whatsoever as to whether the sharpening of communal polarisation has any bearing on why the Directive Principle -- Section 44 of the Constitution (the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India) -- has remained on paper.

In addition, the Law Commission questionnaire uses the terms ‘uniform civil code’ interchangeably with ‘common civil code’, whereas the Directive Principle of the Constitution uses only the term uniform civil code. There are many who interpret the uniform civil code and common code in different ways, such as “different laws being applied to different communities uniformly across India” or the “common code which has been codified to be applied commonly for all citizens”. The phrasing of the questionnaire leads to total confusion.

This process undertaken by the Law Commission appears to be tainted by factors entirely extraneous to the struggle for gender equality and women’s rights and may, in fact, be detrimental at the present juncture to the efforts being made to establish laws on the principle of equality, not uniformity alone. “On these and many other grounds, we are unable to participate in this clearly biased and motivated exercise undertaken by the Law Commission,” the CPI(M) general secretary said.