I am unsure if Prime Minister Narendra Modi is aware of former Defence Minister VK Krishna Menon's remarkable eight-hour speech at the United Nations General Assembly. If he knew, Modi might have attempted to surpass that record in one of the many forums available to him. At the Red Fort, he has already set new standards, surpassing the records of all previous prime ministers.

Menon's ability to speak at length on a topic as complex as Kashmir always intrigued me. Years later, I discovered that by the end of his marathon speech, only one or two individuals remained to listen. I hope such a scenario does not happen to Modi. It is crucial for him to understand that brevity is key to effective communication.

On Independence Day, Modi delivered a lengthy speech addressing numerous issues, particularly policy-related ones. His intention was to assure the public that, despite not securing the overwhelming majority he had hoped for in the last elections, everything was progressing smoothly, and his plans were still on track.

Modi's expression of concern over the horrific rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata was appropriate and resonated with many. Such an incident naturally evokes widespread agitation, as the safety of women is paramount and should be ensured everywhere, not just in West Bengal.

On the same day as the brutal assault and murder of the doctor in Kolkata, another gruesome crime occurred in Madhya Pradesh, where a woman's body was dismembered and discarded in various locations. Despite the heinous nature of this crime, there was a noticeable absence of protest or outcry regarding the breakdown of law and order in MP. This disparity highlights how our concerns over such issues are often politically motivated.

Consider the uproar over the rape and murder of a woman on a moving bus in Delhi, which led to significant changes in rape laws. The intense reaction stemmed from the fact that the victim's situation was relatable to many of us. Meanwhile, there have been numerous equally horrifying incidents involving women that have failed to elicit a similar response, particularly from the elite, indicating a troubling selectivity in our collective outrage.

The demand for a uniform civil code has been a longstanding agenda for the BJP, dating back to its earlier incarnation as the Bharatiya Jan Sangh. However, Modi seems to overlook the significant transformations that personal laws have undergone over the past seven decades of Indian independence—transformations that have occurred without any major public uproar.

Take, for example, the Syrian Christians of Kerala, who were governed by the Travancore Christian Succession Act of the early 20th century. Under this law, a daughter could only inherit up to Rs 5000 or her share of her father's property, whichever was lower.

While this amount was substantial when initially set, it should have been adjusted for inflation at a rate of 12 per cent every five years. Had that been the case, the amount would have significantly increased over time. Unfortunately, it remained unchanged.

Mary Roy, the mother of the acclaimed writer Arundhati Roy, challenged this outdated law in the Supreme Court. Her case garnered widespread support from both women and men. The Supreme Court ruled in her favour, rendering the Travancore Christian Succession Act obsolete.

Consequently, Christian women in Kerala now enjoy the same rights and privileges as Hindu women. Remarkably, there was no backlash from the Christian community; instead, they welcomed this change. This so-called "communal" law was effectively and peacefully abolished.

An interesting consequence of this legal reform involved the dowry system. Under the old Christian law, a woman was entitled to reclaim her dowry if her marriage ended. The dowry was publicly acknowledged and legally sanctioned.

Today, although dowry is illegal, it remains a pervasive practice, with substantial sums exchanged discreetly during marriages. If a marriage fails now, a woman cannot legally reclaim her dowry. This unfortunate reality underscores a broader issue: the practice of dowry has not only persisted but has also spread to non-Christian communities.

The evolution of personal laws, as seen in the case of the Syrian Christians of Kerala, demonstrates that change is possible through the judiciary and societal support, ensuring that women's rights are progressively enhanced.

Christians in India face legal restrictions that need reform. Currently, they cannot adopt children; they can only act as guardians. This limitation should be addressed. Additionally, Christian priests and pastors who solemnise marriages in churches used to provide certificates that were equivalent to marriage certificates.

Now, couples must register their marriages with civil authorities for the marriage to be valid. This requirement applies to all communities, and there has been no significant protest against this legal change; it has been widely accepted.

One issue that concerns the BJP is the right of Muslim men to marry up to four women. However, the reality is that most Muslims in India are too poor to support multiple wives. Moreover, Muslim government employees risk losing their jobs if they marry a second time. Government rules apply equally to all citizens.

One of the first laws Modi enacted after his re-election in 2019 was to abolish triple talaq. This step was somewhat redundant since triple talaq was already illegal, and instances of it were rare. Despite this, there was no significant protest from the Muslims. In fact, many Muslim-majority countries have already banned triple talaq.

In contrast, during Rajiv Gandhi's tenure, there was significant protest over the Shah Bano case. Shah Bano, a Muslim woman, was divorced by her husband and filed for alimony. The Supreme Court ruled in her favour, granting her the right to alimony. This verdict sparked outrage among some Muslims, leading the government to amend the law, effectively nullifying the Supreme Court's decision. In retrospect, if the SC verdict was more sensitive to Muslim sentiments, the uproar could have been averted.

Since then, the legal landscape has evolved significantly. Numerous court rulings have mandated alimony payments to divorced Muslim women with no means of support. These changes illustrate the gradual evolution of personal laws over the years, negating the need to label them as "communal." Reform in personal laws, including those affecting adoption and marriage, should continue to be guided by principles of equality and justice for all communities.

The Supreme Court has unequivocally ruled that when personal laws conflict with secular laws, the latter will prevail. This means that secular civil laws take precedence over personal laws. For instance, the court has extended benefits to women from minority communities under secular laws, benefits that could have been denied under their personal laws.

Only undivided Hindu families receive tax exemption benefits, and no other community has sought this advantage. It's important to understand that the obsession with uniformity won't propel the nation forward. A garden's beauty lies in its diversity of plants and flowers. For example, Chandigarh's rose garden is stunning because it features roses of various sizes and colours.

Alan de Lastic, a Catholic bishop of Delhi, tragically died in an accident in Poland. He once posed a rhetorical question about who qualifies as an ideal Indian, challenging the notion of a singular identity.

Consider this: do you see yourself as the ideal Indian? How does Modi compare himself to an average Tamil, Malayali, or Manipuri? For instance, a Manipuri Meitei can instantly distinguish between a Kuki and a Meitei, something outsiders might struggle with.

Unlike the British or French, who may share common physical traits and language, Indians exhibit vast diversity. An average Bengali is quite different from an average Punjabi, yet both are quintessentially Indian. This diversity, not forced unity, is India's true strength.

A Muslim journalist friend who visited Pakistan once shared his observations. He said everything in Pakistan was fine, except for the lack of diversity—it had too many Muslims. This anecdote underscores that India's strength lies in its diversity. Whether linguistic, cultural, or religious, this multiplicity enriches the nation. Uniformity, while seemingly efficient, would strip away the rich tapestry that makes India unique and vibrant. Diversity is indeed our strength.

Modi aims to introduce uniformity across various aspects of Indian society. In Palitana, a municipal town with a population of less than 100,000 in Bhavnagar district, Gujarat, a significant step was taken when non-vegetarian food was banned. This ban makes the selling, cooking, and eating of fish, meat, and eggs a punishable offence.

The decision was made to honour the wishes of the Jain community. Ahimsa, or non-violence, is a core principle of Jainism, which even prohibits eating root vegetables like onions and potatoes to avoid harming microorganisms.

In 2014, about 200 Jain monks fasted to demand the closure of nearly 250 shops selling non-vegetarian food items. Their agitation succeeded when, in July 2024, the Gujarat government, which promotes vegetarianism, enacted this ban. However, this decision ignored the livelihood concerns of those who relied on selling fish and meat.

While Palitana's religious character might make the ban acceptable to some, it undermines the freedom granted by the Indian Constitution, which allows citizens to eat and sell any food of their choice, subject to reasonable hygiene restrictions.

The enforcement of non-vegetarian food bans is spreading to more towns. In Kurukshetra, Haryana, an informal ban on such food has existed for decades. Kurukshetra, believed to be the site of the Mahabharata's epic battle, upholds a ban on slaughtering even chickens.

This practice of banning non-vegetarian food is increasingly observed in towns like Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh, Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh, and Haridwar in Uttarakhand, which attract Hindu pilgrims. The bans are seen as traditional and cultural practices, making them difficult to challenge legally.

Following this trend, the Uttar Pradesh government recently ordered eateries and shops on the route to Haridwar to display the names of their owners and employees, ostensibly to identify Muslim shop owners and discourage Hindu pilgrims from patronising their establishments. This order, against the constitutional right to equality, was stayed by the Supreme Court, but not before police in places like Muzaffarnagar enforced it, forcing Muslim shopkeepers to reveal their identities.

In a country prone to religion-based riots, these measures threaten the safety and livelihoods of Muslim communities, undermining the constitutional principles of equality, religious freedom, and the right to practice any religion.

Modi has rechristened the uniform civil code as the Secular Civil Code. This terminology is likely a political strategy, as he lacks majority support in the Lok Sabha and needs allies like the Janata Dal. However, just as a leopard cannot change its spots, Modi's so-called Secular Civil Code is essentially the same as the uniform civil code.

There are other pressing issues that need attention. In the recent Paris Olympics, India won only six medals. In contrast, the US and China won over 200 medals combined. A country of 1.4 billion people failed to produce a single gold medalist. Vinesh Phogat, a promising contender, was disqualified for being 100 grams overweight after struggling to lose 2.5 kilograms, which left her in hospital care.

Rather than accepting this unfortunate reality, the Indian state enlisted the services of renowned lawyer Harish Salve to argue that Phogat, who competed in the semi-finals within the 50 kg limit, should be awarded a silver medal. This argument was fundamentally flawed. The Olympic Committee would not award a medal to someone disqualified for failing to meet weight requirements. Granting an exemption for a 100-gram excess could set a precedent for demanding exceptions for even larger weight discrepancies, undermining the integrity of the competition.

Modi, a proponent of yoga, must consider how his claims about its benefits are perceived when India fails to win even one gold medal. Instead of pursuing lost causes, he should focus on improving the standards of Indian sports. However, he seems more preoccupied with pushing for uniformity in various aspects of Indian life, such as a single code, food, and dress.

This obsession raises a critical question: has he ever considered how monotonous the country would become if every Indian adult male dressed, believed, ate, and had the same fads as Narendra Modi? The richness of India lies in its diversity, and striving for uniformity risks erasing India's unique cultural identity. Modi should prioritise addressing the real issues facing the people, like improving sports standards, rather than fixating on homogenising Indian society.