Pallavi Ishpujani, Amity Law School, Noida
Introduction
Speaking about religion and gender equality typically implies speaking about conflict, regardless of whatever faith or section of the globe you look at. In this struggle, culture, tradition and freedom of religion are underlined, while the other side underlines the right to equality between men and women. One of the areas of special visibility in this struggle is the Indian "personal law system," according to which a person is ruled by the family law of his or her religious group. The personal laws of India are a controversial terrain in which religious freedom is not just opposed to gender equality, but also linked to discussions about identity, nationalism, modernity, and secularism. While commonly referred to as the "gender element" of personal laws in a manner that provides a cohesive approach on this subject from a point of view of women's rights, the paper will demonstrate that there is one such feminist stance towards personal laws, but that there are multiplicity of feminist perspectives. Many feminists and women's rights activists in India encounter a conundrum when they position themselves on the question of personal laws. On the one hand, it has caused feminists to criticise these legislation as oppressive, and reform-necessary, since personal laws sometimes discriminate against women. Many Indian feminists, however, do not wish to imitate their Western counterparts' secular objective when thinking about reforming personal laws, but want to accommodate their own religious and cultural identities. This document outlines the diversity of feminist encounters with personal laws, within the context of greater Third World Feminism,1 intersectionality, legal universality and cultural relativism. I shall distinguish between two primary perspectives based on feminist scholarships and publications by Indian activists and women's rights organisations. The first is the demand for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and other
fundamental changes under the government. Specific notions for modernism, secularism, constitutional requirements and international human rights legislation are used for this approach. However, its concentration on a 'perfect legislation' is in danger of not implementing the requirements on paper on the ground. The second strategy requires adjustments in the community. This stance recognises the realities of legal plurality and the junction of religion and sex. While this strategy is more rooted in Indian women's 'actual world,' it undermines the goal of gender equality.
