-- Flavia Agnes
The
recent revival of the discussion on enacting a Uniform Civil Code,
which its proponents believe will give all women equal rights, overlooks
the reality of the discrimination that Hindu women continue to face
despite amendments in Hindu personal laws, including on issues of
maintenance and inheritance. Rather than uniformity in law, women need
an accessible and affordable justice system.
Flavia Agnes (flaviaagnes@gmail.com) is a women’s rights lawyer and director of Majlis, which runs a rape victim support programme in Mumbai.
An
influential, senior criminal lawyer of the Bombay High Court, a member
of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and, on his own admission, a close
associate of the Prime Minister, spelt out the agenda of his party to
enact the Uniform Civil Code at a recent lecture. He made it sound so
simple: just abolish polygamy and triple talaq, and he added as an
afterthought that Christians should be granted the right to divorce by
mutual consent (they had already secured this right in 2001 by amending
their own personal law). A moment later he added that Parsi matrimonial
courts should be abolished. And then, he said, India would be able to
enter the comity of nations that follow a uniform secular and civil law,
a symbol of modernity, progress and development and finally shed the
colonial baggage of dividing people along religious identities. He
claimed that this would promote communal harmony and bring about
national integration. The task of the judiciary would become simple: one
law for all. Then he looked at me, his co-panellist, and commented, “Ms
Agnes, you should welcome this move, after all you stand for gender
justice.”
He
went on to say that “we” had abolished sati, female infanticide,
polygamy, child marriage, and dowry and liberated “our” women. Now we
need to do the same for other women, liberate them from their oppressive
laws. If only it was that simple — to liberate women, irrespective of
whether they are Hindus, Muslims or others! Perhaps the lawyer needs to
be excused for his ignorance about the complex mosaic of personal laws
in our country. After all, this was not his area of legal expertise. He
was only articulating his party’s position.
As
I heard him, my concern was less for minority women, and more for
Hindus, who are under the erroneous belief that they are governed by a
“modern, uniform, secular and gender just law.” Since this popular
fiction gets constantly projected in the media in defence of enacting a
Uniform Civil Code, it needs to be examined against ground realities.
