Uniform Civil Code: Modi's concern for Muslim women lacks sincerity
History was made when the Supreme Court declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional. Moments later, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy told a television channel (and the entire nation), "Uniform Civil Code (UCC) should be the next step."
Celebrations over the Supreme Court verdict had not even ended when the landmark judgment was reduced to a decoy for a larger political agenda.
This was not the first time the Hindu Right had piggybacked Muslim women to carry out its agenda. The trend is as old as the movement itself. So, while it was gut-wrenching to see bhakts hailing BJP for the verdict, it wasn't shocking at all.
Modi ji's promise to his Muslim sisters had reached the perfect climax, one that would have been predictable had we paid more attention.
In 1987, when Shah Bano, a poor and desolate woman, sought maintenance and failed, BJP called for a UCC.
In 2005, when Imrana sought justice for being raped and instead received a fatwa, BJP called for a UCC.
In 2017, when the entire gamut of Indian Muslim women sought equality and won, BJP called for a UCC.
On October 7, 2016, less than 10 months before the passing of the judgment, the Law Commission of India released a "Questionnaire on Uniform Civil Code" under an order issued by the Law Ministry.
This controversial questionnaire sought public opinion on personal laws in an attempt to gauge if India was ready to be homogenised. That the current chairman of the law ministry is senior advocate Ravi Shankar Prasad, the lawyer in the Ayodhya Ram Temple case, might be purely coincidental.
The minorities have been suspicious of the UCC from the very beginning. Their suspicions are not ill-founded. To begin with, the order that was issued to the Law Commission mentions three major impediments to the successful implementation of UCC - separatism, conservatism and misconceived notions of personal laws.
Albeit ambiguously, the order seems to be targeting Muslim Personal Law. Even back in the 1990s, the argument that had been pushed forward was that since Hindu laws had successfully carried out many reforms internally, unlike the Muslim laws (which remain uncodified), the former was the right basis for a UCC.
The dubiousness surrounding a UCC - with no other drafts except a schematic one in the BJP manifesto - its legality with respect to the constitutional confusions that arise from the challenges that article 25 poses to article 44 and its repeated use by the Hindu Right to undermine Muslim Personal Law in its half-baked effort to uphold constitutional morality, are all part of a necessary but different debate.
Giving Modi credit for the verdict on triple talaq is problematic. As Hasina Khan, an important leader in the Muslim women's rights movement said, "The jingoistic congratulations of the ruling BJP government for its univocal support to the cause of Muslim women feels like an appropriation of the decades-long struggle by grassroots women's groups who worked with the Muslim community. After all, it was women, not the government, who went to the judicial system to seek redress in the courts."
It doesn't take a genius to understand BJP's support for Muslim women and see its dirty political game. The question that needs to be asked here is, how long can Muslim women be treated merely as baits of the saffron brigade?
A quick look at the history of the Indian Muslim women's rights movement amply clarifies the reasons for some of its failures. The primary amongst them is the continued pitting of Muslim women against the rest of the community, to further majoritarian agendas.
It is true that Modi ji's support was missing when it came to Bilkis Bano and the widowed and harrowed wives of Pehlu Khan and Mohammad Akhlaq. If he truly is on our side, then how is it that his selectively liberal shoulders are only there for women to cry on as long as they are complaining about triple talaq? The PM's sworn allegiance to Muslim women has been questioned on innumerable accounts and while all these questions are valid, I have a new one to ask.
If you are with us then why is your government pushing for a legislation that has been unanimously denied by all Muslim women and Muslim women's rights groups? The truth is we didn't want triple talaq and we do not want a UCC.
The history of women's rights movement in India resembles one that is not only scattered but also for the most part exclusive. However, it was during the 1980s and the 1990s that women's rights movements gained some uniformity, if not in terms of ideology, then at least in terms of organisation.
Together, the growing forces of regionalism, majoritarianism and democracy contributed to the beginning of a new era in Indian women's rights movements, generally and Indian Muslim women's rights movements, specifically. With the passage of time, the movement bifurcated into what Mogadham explains as 'Muslim' feminists and 'Islamist' feminists. While the former seeks to find redressal outside Muslim Personal Laws, the latter seeks it within the tenets of Islam.
These two sects find semblance in groups such as the AeN (Awaaz-e- Niswaan) and BMMA (Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan) in India, both of which have played different but equal roles in the larger movement for women's emancipation.
So, whether it is a more traditional approach as say the BMMA partakes in, which has pushed for reform within the MPL or the more liberal perspectives, as adhered to by AeN, which wants to do away with the MPL, neither have ever wanted and equivocally denied the UCC.
Even groups such as AeN that have lost hope in reforming the MPL have demanded a new body of gender-just laws, sharing the same insecurity with respect to UCC.
The continuing tussle between Muslim women's rights vis-à- vis minority identity has amply contributed to the impasse the movement has reached. But the vile and vicious manner in which this impasse has been fanned and protected by the forces of Hindu majoritarianism, would have perhaps been more bearable, had it not been for their perfunctory support.
Calling the triple talaq verdict a necessary move for the 'way ahead' might serve the needs of your bandwagon, dear Prime Minister. But with this verdict, we have carved nothing more than the pathway for our eventual and total freedom and not a legislation we do not want. We will get our freedom with or without your bogus and phony support.