Decades before multiculturalism emerged in the West, India recognised group rights for dalits, adivasis and minorities within liberal democracy India's Constitution can be seen as a prescient model of political pluralism. Several decades before multiculturalism emerged in Western democracies, our Constitution instituted group rights for dalits, adivasis and minorities within a broadly liberal democratic framework.The Indian Constitution recognises multiple groups defined by religion, language, caste and tribe. It also offers different approaches to the accommodation of the same group (for example, Scheduled Tribes have reservations as a disadvantaged group, as well as self-government rights for cultural protection).Group rights in the Indian Constitution include self-gover nment rights for linguistic and tribal groups, legal pluralism in personal law for some religious groups (Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis), as well as reservations in legislatures, government jobs and educa tional institutions for dalits and tribal groups.The Indian Constitution was framed in the backdrop of the violence of Partition. Several obstacles that have prevented the adoption of pluralist policies in other postcolonial countries were also present in India. Minority rights were associated with colonial divide and rule. Minorities were seen as a potential threat to security on account of supposed loyalty to an enemy state. Yet, although minority rights came to be restricted during constitution-making, key provisions were retained.How did India come to have a pluralist Constitution? The presence in key positions of power of leaders such as the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the Chair of the Drafting Committee Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who were strongly committed to the rights of minorities and dalits, played a key role. However, the ideological legacy of India's national movement, and its commit ment to decision making by consen sus rather than majority-rule, were as important. Public discussion of conflicting views, the willingness of powerful leaders to concede on crucial points to achieve consensus (reservations were not the first preference of either Nehru or Ambedkar), to avoid majority decision-making in order to secure agreement of affected parties, underpin the enduring achievement of the Indian Constitution.Conflicting views regarding the recognition of religious difference existed within the Constituent Assembly as well as the Congress party , which were expressed and publicly debated. On the question of religious personal laws, for instance, the majority view in the Assembly was that these detracted from national unity and conflicted with the state's commitment to eliminate discriminatory socio-religious practices against women and `untouchables'.Nationalist concerns regarding unity were paramount in this period. Staunch advocates of a uniform civil code Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Hansa Mehta and Minoo Masani argued in their note of 1947 that that the existence of religious personal laws had kept `the nation divided into watertight compartments in many aspects of life'. Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar, KM Munshi and Babasaheb Ambedkar all argued for restricting the scope of religion. Nevertheless, Muslim leaders argued that a secular state implied religious freedom for citizens of different communities to follow their personal law, that doing so would advance national unity . In forging a broad-based national movement, the Congress had earlier promised that minority personal laws would be accommodated.In the end, the constitutional provisions that were adopted represented a compromise. On the one hand, in keeping with the concerns of minority leaders, Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Parsi reli gious laws were retained. A broad definition of the right to religious freedom was adopted, which included the right to practice and propagate religion for all residents, not just citizens. On the other hand, proposals for constitu tional guarantees for religious personal law were rejected. State intervention in religion was explicitly permitted, for reasons among others, of upholding fundamental rights such as those of non-discrimination and equality for all individuals. A uniform civil code was recognised as an aspiration in the non-justiciable Directive Principles.Liberals are rightly concerned about protecting vulnerable individuals from oppression by the society and the state. Religious personal laws, including the reformed Hindu law, discriminate against women. From this it does not follow that a uniform civil code would provide a just or lasting solution. In any society , the norms and practices that prevail are those of the majority .Minorities are at a disadvantage relative to citizens from the majority in terms of the protection of their culture, which is not supported by state and social practices. As such, treating minorities as equals requires differential treatment in some areas. Muslims in India today routinely face harassment and discrimination in employment, education, housing to mention a few areas, as well as violations of their rights to life and liberty by state agencies. A uniform civil code if imposed by the state on minorities would compound these injustices.The recent Supreme Court verdict against triple talaq that endorsed the reform initiative led by Muslim women, without pushing for a uniform civil code, is therefore a step in the right direction. With regard to legislation for protecting vulnerable individuals, the anti-discrimination bill tabled by Shashi Tharoor in March addresses an important lacuna where Indian practice lags behind liberal democracies.Without government support, however, it is unlikely to be enacted into law.The writer is associate professor in politics at SOAS, University of London, and is the author of `Debating Difference: Group Rights and Liberal Democracy in India'Next: How Hindu personal law can be reformed