Colour coded responses

The irony, however, is that the BJP-RSS-VHP’s naked glee over the latest SC observation definitively ensures that no other political formation will ever support a uniform civil code publicly. Not on grounds of merit but of circumstance.

That is why the communist parties, whose members eschew religious rites for marriage and death, are the first to oppose a uniform civil code. Says CPI(M) MP Somnath Chatterjee, ‘‘It is a most inappropriate time to talk of such a code. When the country is facing a widening communal divide, such talk only helps the fundamentalists out to dominate the minorities. Forget the minorities, vast sections of Hindus are opposed to the bigotry and fundamentalism of these people. How can they be trusted to draw up the code?’’

The Congress stand is simple: No code can be imposed on religious groups through a fiat. ‘‘We believe that in the matter of personal laws of religious groups,’’ explains party spokesman S Jaipal Reddy, ‘‘we should not bring about change unless the concerned community comes forward and agrees to it.’’ It is a view shared by ‘‘secular’’ parties across the spectrum, including current allies of the BJP.

It is easy though for the BJP to accuse the Congress of practising ‘‘minoritysm’’. In 1986, the Rajiv Gandhi government’s decision to overturn the Shah Bano judgement through the Muslim Women’s Bill not only provoked a Hindutva reaction, but is also repeatedly cited as an example of the party’s double standards on the issue of a common civil code.

Arif Mohammad Khan, who quit Rajiv’s ministry over its handling of the Shah Bano issue, insists the issue had nothing to do with the uniform civil code. Shah Bano, he explains, had been given maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and it was a social welfare measure unrelated to personal laws on marriage or divorce.

‘‘Unfortunately, in 1986 the government of the day extended the scope of personal laws even to social welfare measures,’’ says Khan, who sees himself as a crusader against Muslim communalism.

It is a measure of the worsening communal climate over the past decade that Khan today speaks the same language as Syed Shahabuddin on a uniform code. Both point out the SC has merely made an observation, one not binding on the government or Parliament; both believe there should be no interference with personal laws unless the demand comes from within; and both agree that the suggestion is ill-timed.

The subtext of the secular discourse is that unless minorities become economically, politically and socially secure, they will cling to their personal laws. A state and civil society that cannot provide even security of life — let alone education, employment and justice — to Muslims cannot expect them to embrace a uniform civil code.

And when VHP leaders exult over the code — and threaten to drive out ‘‘Babar ki aulad (Babar’s progeny)’’ in the same breath — even well-meaning advice from the apex court is unlikely to make an impact.

In ideal times, in an ideal state, a uniform civil code would be an ideal safeguard of citizens’ rights. But India has moved much further from the ideal than when the Constitution was written 50 years ago.

As one cynical politician points out, ‘‘In the past 10 years, we have regressed to the 15th century, when places of worship were destroyed for political reasons. How can you then talk of a code fit for the 21st century?’’