The time has come to say it without euphemism: no religious community can claim a veto over the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Not clerics, not personal-law boards, not self-appointed community leaders and certainly not political parties seeking to turn religious sentiment into a permanent obstacle to legal reform. Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s announcement that BJP-led governments in 21 States will work towards implementing the UCC before 2029 is therefore not something that should frighten anyone. It is a declaration that a constitutional objective cannot remain hostage to organised resistance indefinitely. For decades, successive governments have hesitated whenever the subject of UCC has arisen, fearing political consequences. That era of political appeasement must end. Bharat is a constitutional republic, not a federation of religious legal systems. Article 44 of the Constitution directs the State to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for all citizens. The word “citizens” is crucial. The Constitution does not say that one community can have one civil law and another community another, indefinitely, merely because religious authorities object to uniformity. The Muslim Personal Law Board and other clerical bodies are perfectly entitled to express their views. They are entitled to argue, protest peacefully and participate in the consultation process. What they are not entitled to demand is a permanent exemption from a law enacted constitutionally by the elected legislature. That distinction must be made absolutely clear. Religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 is fundamental, but it does not establish the sovereignty of religious institutions over civil legislation. The freedom to practise one’s faith cannot be converted into a constitutional right to insist that personal laws remain immune from reform. If that principle were accepted, every religious group could demand a separate legal regime, and the very concept of equal citizenship would be weakened. The UCC debate is ultimately about one Constitution, one citizenship, and equal civil rights. Why should marriage, divorce, inheritance, maintenance or adoption be governed by different standards merely because citizens profess different religions? Why should women be expected to accept unequal treatment in the name of preserving personal law? And why should elected governments repeatedly retreat whenever clerics threaten political consequences?
That is not secularism. It is appeasement. True secularism means that the State neither imposes a religion nor permits religious identity to determine unequal civil rights. Faith belongs to the individual and the community; civil law belongs to the constitutional State. Those opposing the UCC also need to abandon the convenient argument that it is merely an instrument of “majoritarian politics”. If that were so, the constitutional discussion surrounding UCC would have no relevance. The demand for a common civil framework has existed for decades and has repeatedly figured in judicial and public discourse. The answer to a proposed law must be to challenge its provisions through democratic and judicial mechanisms—not to declare beforehand that an entire community will not accept it. And this is where Amit Shah’s 2029 announcement assumes importance. It tells the country that the political leadership intends to move from perpetual debate to legislative action. States governed by the BJP and its allies may adopt their respective frameworks after consultation and constitutional scrutiny. That is how a democracy functions. There can be arguments over the precise provisions of a UCC. There can be consultation over customary practices. There can be safeguards where constitutionally justified. There can be judicial review. But there cannot be a religious veto. Muslim citizens, like every other citizen of Bharat, have every right to debate the UCC. But Muslim clerics cannot claim that their opposition alone can prevent its enactment. The same rule must apply to every religious denomination. The message should therefore be unequivocal: respect every faith, but privilege none in civil law. Bharat has moved far beyond the politics of appeasement. A modern constitutional democracy cannot indefinitely postpone equal civil standards to preserve the comfort of religious establishments. UCC is not about making Muslims less Muslim, Hindus less Hindu, Christians less Christian or anyone else less faithful. It is about making every citizen equal before the same civil law. That is not majoritarianism. That is constitutionalism. And no clerical establishment has the right to say otherwise.
