Last week, the Indian state of Uttarakhand passed a bill to adopt a controversial Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which will bring an end to religious or personal laws governing marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance, among other issues. The change will bring all communities together under a common law to regulate those practices. The new legislation has already faced pushback from Muslim leaders and other members of India’s political class.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) hope that Uttarakhand will serve as a model for the introduction of a UCC across India, or at least across BJP-ruled states. Some of these states, including Assam and Modi’s home state of Gujarat, are already considering their own UCC bills and are keen to use the Uttarakhand code as a template, although they may tweak the legislation to address local needs. Despite its seeming impartiality, the UCC pushed by the BJP would be a threat to India’s religious pluralism.

The idea of a UCC has long caused consternation among India’s religious minorities, especially Muslims. Muslim politicians and religious leaders have suggested a UCC would amount to unwarranted interference in their community’s norms, especially when it comes to specific legal protections related to marriage, divorce, and inheritance. The Uttarakhand code even regulates live-in relationships—a clear nod to conservative Hindus, many of whom frown on such arrangements.

These critics’ misgivings are not without merit. The BJP has long pursued three contentious goals that impinge disproportionately on the interests of the Muslim community: the abolition of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted special autonomous status to the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir; the construction of a Hindu temple in the city of Ayodhya on the site of a mosque demolished by a Hindu mob in 1992; and the adoption of a nationwide UCC. It achieved the first goal in 2019, and the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya is not yet complete but was consecrated last month.

However, the idea of a UCC goes back decades to India’s foundations as an independent state. The subject was extensively debated by the constituent assembly that helped forge India’s constitution in 1949, but it was not resolved. Owing to the sensitivities of religious communities, most notably Muslims, no government was willing to tackle the politically fraught question. So why is it the unabashedly pro-Hindu BJP government—and not one controlled by the Indian National Congress party, which is committed to secularism—that has taken up the issue of the UCC? The answer requires a bit of historical exegesis.

Those who drafted the Indian Constitution debated the necessity of a UCC, with most Muslim members against it. One of the principal architects of the constitution, B.R. Ambedkar, argued that if India could have a common criminal code, it could also have common personal laws, and suggested that a uniform civil code initially be voluntary. The framers instead settled for Article 44, a set of non-justiciable directives that range from prohibiting cow slaughter to curbing liquor consumption. It also called on the Indian state to endeavor toward a UCC for its citizens.