The Times of India had the opportunity to interview Shri Nitin Gadkari towards the end of the second session of the Lok Sabha. The interview was a strained one, as there were multiple instances where Gadkari forgot/feigned ignorance about some of the comments he made during the session (and also instances where he claimed his quote was misinterpreted): but he’s a pretty old guy, so we can probably forgive him for that.
When questioned about his comment on “wanting the members of the Lok Sabha to be the jurists responsible for the UCC”, Gadkari went off on a tangent about how modern India was on verge of a breakthrough which he believed the UCC could provide. He also claimed that there was a massive amount of “extraction” on small religious communities, and he only wished to protect human rights and not encroach them.
But there were doubts raised regarding the possibility of bias, as Gadkari had made some ignorant comments in the media – notably, he had called the hijab row “a small matter”. When asked about this, he initially mentioned not remembering his words, and then arguing that his words were “misinterpreted”. He then mentioned how he “trusts the opposition more than himself to correct him” (whatever that means)
Gadkari also vehemently argued against the fact that determining and removing “unfair and evil” practices was a subjective and controversial issue, as he felt that the laws which needed to be removed were mostly “black and white”.
However, this was refuted when the issue of the beef and hijab bans were brought up. Gadkari claimed that the hijab ban was only introduced as there was a “large percentage” of Muslim women who did not wish to cover their face and felt oppressed by this act (which is incorrect, as 89% of Muslim women voluntarily wear hijabs). He also did not wish to comment on the beef ban.
Later, Gadkari was also asked about his comments about how “Bihar would not get priority on UCC implementation as it is not a BJP-ruled state”. Gadkari’s response was how he merely wished to correct Nitish Kumar’s logical fallacy on the matter. He also claimed that it was a logical observation to note that there was a higher chance of UCC being passed in BJP-ruled states.
Gadkari was the first MP to bring up a state-wise implementation of UCC. But weirdly enough, he denied this as he thought Amit Shah brought it up earlier (another instance of foggy memory). He only “relented” when confronted with proof about the timings of the statements.
When questioned about how a state-wise implementation of UCC would contradict the fact that it was meant to be a “uniform” code, Gadkari was unable to provide a proper response, merely stating that the laws would be the same for the states.