UCC Push Before 2029: Allies TDP, Shiv Sena Back Amit Shah, But JD(U) Says 'Not In Bihar' - News18

**UCC Push Before 2029: Allies TDP, Shiv Sena Back Amit Shah, While JD(U) Draws a Line in Bihar**

New Delhi – With the 2029 general elections on the horizon, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government is accelerating its campaign to introduce a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) through legislation. Home Minister Amit Shah has repeatedly urged the cabinet to table a UCC bill before the next Lok Sabha session, arguing that a single set of civil laws would reinforce national integration and gender justice. The move aligns with the BJP’s long‑standing manifesto pledge, but it also risks reigniting communal and regional fault lines that have long resisted a pan‑India civil law framework.

The BJP’s coalition partners have offered mixed signals. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and Maharashtra’s Shiv Sena have publicly endorsed Shah’s call, citing the need for legal uniformity and “development‑driven” reforms. By contrast, the Janata Dal (United), led by Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar, has taken a conditional stance: while the party accepts the principle of a UCC, it has categorically ruled out implementation in Bihar, warning that any forced adoption could trigger social unrest. Opposition figures have seized on the discord. Former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah challenged the BJP to actually introduce the bill in Parliament, accusing the government of “political grandstanding without legislative follow‑through.” The National Conference, a regional party in the former state, reiterated its opposition, calling the UCC an “instrument of cultural homogenisation” that disregards Kashmiri personal law traditions.

Analysts say the intra‑alliance divergence underscores the political calculus ahead of 2029. For the BJP, a UCC could consolidate its secular, development‑oriented narrative, yet the resistance from key regional partners like JD(U) may limit its legislative viability, especially in states where personal law is deeply entrenched. Moreover, the public debate is likely to polarise voters along religious and regional lines, potentially reshaping coalition dynamics. If the government proceeds without broad consensus, it could face legal challenges in the Supreme Court and heightened protests, jeopardising the very electoral advantage it seeks to secure.