Uniform civil code: Can AI help India find a real consensus?

In a blurry mix of grief and awe after I lost my mathematician father recently, I asked OpenAI’s chatbot about the big head-spinner he shared credit for: The Shirali-Ford Theorem. ChatGPT said something foxing about what makes a “real linear algebra” a “division algebra.” 

An itchy thumb asked MetaAI next. It spoke mysteriously, though at least in English without Greek squiggles, of a graph and its ability to take on all values between two points in its range. 

My addled grasp of college math will not allow me to grade chatbots, but what AI-aided Google put into a nutshell left me struck. “…hermitian implies symmetry.” That did it. The idea of a test for Generative AI began to buzz around till the point of haunting me.

Almost every chat with a chatbot whets my hunch that no matter how smart AI gets, and even if bots begin to view humans “like we see ants,” to cite a Chinese academic’s caution, or start impressing us with flashes of ‘wisdom,’ as science-fiction envisions, it would let us down on complex matters of deep consequence. Like human affairs, in general. Or the vexed question of Indian family laws in particular.

Here’s what struck me: One could bet AI won’t be able to help India find a consensus on a “secular civil code,” no matter how comprehensively it is fed with data on marriage, divorce and inheritance.

Yet, it’s not as if this is a doomed project for, say, a legislative bot dreamt up by legal-eagles to take up. After all, a key challenge we face is one of symmetry: Equality as a basic right demands that we address gender asymmetry—or skews. 

And to the extent AI has some mastery over stuff that uses concepts from axiomatic math, its chances need not be negligible. Hence, for whatever it’s worth, here’s my GenAI prompt:

Inheritance: Under succession laws, we inherit what’s willed in bequests. This makes sense. But should it fall upon the state to split assets among inheritors, then even-handed justice calls for equity to prevail over various forms of man-made asymmetry.

Divorce: Apart from male and female agency needing to be at par, it’s not always obvious what aligns well with the equality that “We the People” pledged to secure. Take alimony. 

Are monthly transfers better than, say, pre-nuptial deals that promise a lump-sum adjusted for inflation? What would a global study of all pre-nups show? And when will India acquire the fiscal space to offer divorced dependents a safety net?

Marriage: Even more research will be needed before we frame rules for this public memo on the most private of human relations: conjugal. Low levels of recourse to India’s Special Marriages Act and the Supreme Court’s recent refusal to widen this law’s ambit to cover a wider spectrum of sexuality reveal the power of inherited norms.

Taken as a sacrament, bond or seal of love, the typical Indian wedding invokes divine blessings. For most, it’s a religious event.

To mull marriage, does the likely path taken by our evolution hold any relevance? Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha’s Sex at Dawn holds up exhibits of anthropology that speak of a ‘wild’ lifestyle, polyamoury and all, before the advent of farming. 

If this book has a leftish whiff, given the role it assigns private property in curbing female agency for the sake of lineage trails (to pass assets along), try David Baker’s The Shortest History of Sex. Focused on facts, it also notes evidence of pre-historic sexual diversity. Any unbiased look back at sapien sexuality would argue it’s far too intimate for rigid regulation.

That’s an argument of ‘nature.’ But what about ‘nurture’ and the human urge to be better beings? Even if our marital codes were originally forged by the need for asset control, then as creatures of a capitalist zoo today, we’d have little or no incentive to undo marriage as a social institution (sorry, Groucho Marx).

Romantic or economic, it is a worthy innovation. What goes missing all too often is marital equity. With patriarchy a constraint across contexts, how realistic is an Indian consensus on gender justice? 

Customs that vary by faith loom large on Indian wedlock, so shifts in outlook could prove to be a long haul. The debates we will need to broach, as befits a democracy, would need to stay civil. Spare the political context a thought, and it’s easy to see what’s at stake.

Essential practices of religion have had judicial protection under Article 25 of the Constitution. Clarity on what qualifies for this status could outline what’s legally open to a jurist-level dialogue on gender skews. Broadly, though, such a democratic discourse will probably need a society that’s more open than what we have right now.

This is not to suggest bleak prospects for a common civil code that’s truly fair. But for even modest odds of success, we must focus on everyone being alike as a species (and unalike in our passions), so that asymmetry can be tackled (and the state doesn’t get too intrusive). 

All in all, it’s a quest that looks way beyond the ken of AI. And if some chatbot comes along to help us evolve equitable family laws, it’ll make me eat my words.