Assam to Ban Polygamy, but Will Other States Follow?

Soon after Prime Minister Narendra Modi advocated for the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) during a meeting in Bhopal, India, the nation began to debate the "one nation, one rule" policy aggressively. PM Modi strongly argued that two laws in one house should not be accepted, and the nationalist leader even linked it with the rights of Muslim women.

As the state assembly elections are due in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Telangana early next year, PM Modi's argument was denounced by the opposition parties, who questioned the government's intentions.

Ahead of the general elections, opposition leaders from the Congress, DMK, AIMIM, Janata Dal (United), Rastriya Janata Dal, Bharat Rashtra Samiti, and Trinamool Congress have criticized the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party-led alliance for promoting the UCC with the aim of gaining undue electoral benefits. They argued that the UCC would destroy India's diversity and pluralism, and that its implementation is therefore unnecessary.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board strongly opposed the UCC, claiming that it was only intended to target India's Muslim population. Even though the UCC remains a preferred issue for saffron leaders, many politicians from the northeastern Indian states of Mizoram, Nagaland, and Meghalaya (who are even political allies of the ruling BJP) have expressed dissatisfaction with the development.

The Union government in New Delhi is expected to introduce the bill in the ongoing monsoon session of Parliament.

The Law Commission of India gathered suggestions from organizations and citizens on the proposed UCC, and by the closing date of July 28, it had received an overwhelming response of over 8 million submissions.

Earlier, the office of the President of India received over 0.3 million suggestions, and the Prime Minister's Office received over 0.2 million responses.

The law panel is expected to prepare a draft for the government and also organize discussions with select parties as well as public debates and seminars. Once implemented, the uniform law will be applicable to every Indian citizen regardless of their religion, community, or gender. It would thus supersede religion-centric personal laws.

However, many political observers are not convinced that the federal government will introduce the bill in the current parliamentary session, which is scheduled to conclude on August 11.

They believe that the government is more interested in banning the practice of polygamy first (which is considered an important component of the UCC), which would boost their electoral benefits among Muslim women in particular.

Moreover, a large section of Indian society also believes that polygamy (bigamy) has no place in a gender-sensitive modern society and should therefore be outlawed immediately.

Amidst the intriguing debates, the Assam government in the northeastern region plans to go ahead with a new law banning polygamy.

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma revealed that his government is planning to introduce a bill in the upcoming state legislative assembly session scheduled for September with the aim of banning the practice.

Insisting on prohibiting polygamy so that a male, regardless of his religion, can be prevented from marrying more than one spouse at the same time, the BJP leader revealed that it is almost non-existent among educated families (comprising indigenous Muslims) in the state.

Days ago, Sarma constituted a committee to examine whether the state legislature has the authority to ban polygamy. He reiterated, however, that the initiative is not intended to target any community. Men having multiple wives (definitely not vice versa) was a common practice in ancient India.

From the emperors to kings and landlords to influential individuals, all enjoyed the practice (though with guidelines that wives should be treated equally) as it was not prohibited in earlier days.

However, after India's independence in 1947, voices were raised against the practice in the largest democracy in the world, and then came the Special Marriage Act 1954 and Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which outlawed polygamy for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs (with exceptions to some tribal communities and residents of Goa).

However, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937 allows a Muslim man to marry up to four women at a time.

Even the conversion to Islam (from other religions) permitted a man to have more than one wife. The Supreme Court later declared this kind of religious conversion as unconstitutional in 1995.

Earlier, the apex court outlawed the practice of triple talaq (under which Muslim men used to divorce their wives by pronouncing the word "talaq" three times), terming it as unjustified for Muslim women as they could not raise legal voices against the decision of their husband. The historic verdict in 2017 also paved the way to challenge polygamy as being unilateral and unconstitutional.

Among Muslim-dominated countries, Turkey and Tunisia have already banned the practice of polygamy. Some nations, such as Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Cameroon, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, allow polygamy with restrictions. However, nowhere on Earth is a woman known to be allowed to have more than one spouse. The only exception is the great Indian epic Mahabharata, which describes a divine lady named Draupadi who was married to five men, the Pandavas. She lived with each of them for one year, according to specific arrangements.

Months ago, the Assam government cracked down on child marriages and arrested thousands of people. It came to light that many elderly Muslim men had been taking advantage of their socio-economic status to marry young girls. While this drive was logically supported by every conscious citizen, it ironically invited public outrage from opposition parties, who called it an abuse of power. Unmoved by criticism, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma stated that the drive against child marriages must continue and that legal procedures will be followed against polygamy.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the views of Northeast Now.