Start with the individual

That a common code does not go against religion is seen, for example, in Goa that has a big Christian population but has lived with a common civil code since 1910. Some Muslim majority countries 8212; like Egypt, Syria and Pakistan 8212; have banned polygamy and some others have enacted a common code.

The first step towards such a code is a review of all personal laws from the perspective of justice to women. No existing law is just from that perspective. The 2001 amendment to the Christian Marriage Act, for instance, grants equality to women on conditions for divorce. A just code has to go beyond that to treat the poor as equal. All laws fail on this count.

During the Lok Sabha debate on Hindu personal law in 1956, secular elements within the Congress suggested the registration of births, deaths and marriages, while the communal group opposed it on the plea that priests could be trusted. Experience has proved them wrong. In case of polygamy, a woman often has a slim chance of proving she is married to the man who betrays her. The failure to register marriages has grave implications for poor women. In Orissa and Jharkhand, merchants or officials on transfer marry tribal girls and abandon them after a few years, sometimes after gaining control of their property. Some Northeastern states do not allow non-tribals to own property but most business is in the hands of outsiders who 8220;marry8221; tribal women and run businesses in their name. Such use of women as puppets would not be possible if marriages were registered.

The problem is, Hindutva forces want consensus around the Hindu personal law and others view it as a votebank issue. That, for example, was the basis for the Muslim Women8217;s Act 1986 which the then ruling party adopted with the hope of getting the conservative Muslim vote. The Muslim leadership went along because it had gone on the defensive after the Supreme Court verdict. Till then there had been a healthy debate among Muslim intellectuals on the need for a common civil code but such an imposition stopped it and fundamentalists prevailed.

In other words, a common civil code has to evolve from within. Debate among Muslim, Christian and Hindu progressive elements is in that direction. They speak of a common, not a uniform code, while fundamentalist forces demand uniformity around themselves. That puts minorities on the defensive. Uniformity and unity rarely go together. So the minorities should not be afraid of a common code but only of uniformity. A point made by progressive groups is that the journey towards a common code should be slow and deliberate. Its first step should be for all religious bodies to reform their own personal laws from a gender and class perspective in order to bring them as close as possible to a just law. One can then bring them slowly together into a common civil code.

Some such efforts have already been made, amendments to Hindu and Christian laws being good examples. Another example is the draft law on marriage, inheritance and adoption that all Christian denominations formulated in 1990. After a long debate they drafted what they considered a just law from the woman8217;s perspective. It was then debated and accepted by the supreme decision-making bodies of all their denominations and presented to the Government of India in 1992. It has been gathering dust there ever since.

To arrive at a just law, civil society and religious leaders should prepare a draft after a transparent debate and present it to the state which should get away from its votebank mode of taking decisions.

The writer is director, North Eastern Social Research Centre, Guwahati