An unexpected expression may mean one of two things. Either it is a slip, exposing what is better left unsaid, or it is deliberately placed, suggesting firmness in the face of possible opposition. So when the Centre told the Supreme Court that personal laws were an ‘affront’ to the nation’s unity, it could be read in a number of ways. The impact of the word turns on the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government’s notion of unity. Underlying it is the principle of regimentation: unity in diversity is, in effect, the steamrolling of all differences into a singular ideal — probably defined by Narendra Modi, his associates and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Naturally, the diversity of personal laws would be an ‘affront’ in such a case. Given the Centre’s gift of planning, it is likely that the word was used deliberately and the tinge of offensiveness about it was intended. The context was the formulation of the uniform civil code. Because of the sensitivity of the issue, the constitutional direction for an UCC has been evaded by successive governments. Mr Modi’s government, having triumphed in pushing through many of its policies against opposition, may now wish to proceed with the UCC.

But even this government knows this is not a simple matter. The word ‘affront’ may just represent a toe dipped in troubled waters. The stage was laid by the lawyer and BJP leader, Ashwini Upadhyay, who asked the court that orders be given for a UCC to be formulated according to Article 44 of the Constitution. Petitioners for the UCC appear very concerned about gender justice. Personal laws hurt women; they must be rescued — perhaps as Bilkis Begum has been by the release of her rapists. Since the BJP does not brook any criticism of Hinduism, it must be assumed that its laws are fair to women. The Centre, however, appeared to have opposed Mr Upadhyay, insisting in its affidavit that it is not the court but the legislature that must formulate the UCC in its own time. Since the Supreme Court had earlier said this already, what was the point of the highpitched statement? Was it to establish that once the legislature has formulated the UCC, bringing all communities to a ‘common platform’ with regard to property and matrimonial laws, no one can have a say?