Jump to content

Is India ready for uniform civil code?


retired_hurt

Recommended Posts

I am going to highlight two instances :

 

1) When Soumya Swaminathan refused to wear headscarf and withdrew from the chess event in Iran, she received lot of backlash from Indian Muslims. They seemed to have taken it personally and abused her a lot on social media.

 

2) Sikhs refuse to wear helmets despite it being for their own protection, and if forced, perceive it as an attack on their religion.

 

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/sikh-debarred-from-sports-event-for-refusing-to-wear-helmet-can-t-claim-discrimination/731508.html

 

I think uniform civil code will get support from people, until it contradicts their religious beliefs and practices. I dont know whether there will be riots or civil war, but I believe that Indian public isnt yet mature enough for UCC to be implemented.

 

What are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Yes it is needed. BJP is trying to revise the minimum age of girls to marry from 18 to 21. Without UCC, it will not apply to Muslims as they have their own family laws.

 

 


https://www.shethepeople.tv/news/india-revise-legal-marriage-age/

Indian Government may revise the Legal Age of Marriage for Women

Will be the death knell for Hindus in Bengal, Assam, Kerala. Why is Modi so desperate to wipe us out? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gollum said:

One community is not ready, never will be ready. 

Can award winning atheists ask for a fatwa to set the min age to 21? 
 

so, it is still not done, hope there is a campaign to stop the revision.

 

https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/government-set-to-revise-womens-legal-age-for-marriage-95664?__twitter_impression=true

 

Edited by coffee_rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard Advocate Sai Deepak’s take on this . If you are not familiar with him, check him

out on YouTube. He is a brilliant orator and a proud  “indic”.  
 

I believe he is the Supreme Court lawyer trying to free Hindu temples from the government control. Anyways he has an interesting take on Uniform civil code.
 

He thinks it will be the majority that will be at a bigger loss if it is enforced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, maniac said:

 

So, we should start somewhere, instead of worrying about a broader civil code. Have the same family laws for all - marriage, Polygamy,  divorce, alimony etc. let’s not confuse with religion in these matters at all. That is UCC for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Can award winning atheists ask for a fatwa to set the min age to 21? 
 

so, it is still not done, hope there is a campaign to stop the revision.

 

https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/government-set-to-revise-womens-legal-age-for-marriage-95664?__twitter_impression=true

 

90% Hindutva affiliated people are more rational, scientific in their thinking, humane and tolerant compared to award winning atheist. Just because JA is more sensible than most Muslims doesn't mean we put him on a pedestal. It is like celebrating and overhyping Brazil's best cricketer or India's best ice hockey player.....andhon me kaana raja. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love if this could be shoved down the throats of the junta as a necessary measure of population control, inclined to think the supreme court would be in its favor given its tendencies to be so proactive.

 

However, this isn't just a problem with minorities. Even the majority community which is broadly secular isn't gonna like the govt telling them that their daughters shouldn't marry until 21. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Gollum said:

90% Hindutva affiliated people are more rational, scientific in their thinking, humane and tolerant compared to award winning atheist.

I wish it would have been true. But it is not. 

 

If it would have been true, then we would not have the blasphemy laws due to the cows and millions of stray cows would have not been walking in the Indian cities, and millions of farmers would have not been burdened to feed the cattle they don't use. 

 

Quote

Just because JA is more sensible than most Muslims doesn't mean we put him on a pedestal. It is like celebrating and overhyping Brazil's best cricketer or India's best ice hockey player.....andhon me kaana raja. 

No one is perfect.  And the best thing about atheism is this that we don't have any central authority or book which could tell us to stick to cow/Muhammad blasphemy laws, but we all use our human brain and try to come to the best possible conclusion.  There may be difference of opinions among us, there may be mistakes by us, but overall an atheist/religion free society will always perform better than any religious society who are stuck to any so called divine book and laws. 

 

Remember, Hindu religious society was not even able to abolish the caste system for thousands of years. It does not show the high level of rationale and scientific thinking, but it shows that religious community are also not prone to making the mistakes despite their claims of having a divine guidance. 

 

Moreover, in Europe the religion free states have already achieved the UCC in matters like divorce, marriage, alimony etc. 

 

I myself differ from JA on this matter and don't consider marriage, divorce and alimony to be a "personal" matter, as there are 2 Parties involved in it. For me, personal matters are only those which involve a single individual and all the issues related ONLY to him, like way of worship etc. 

 

Therefore, it may be that Indian atheists may be making a mistake in determining the level of dangers from Islam, but as whole I firmly believe that as a matter of fact, atheist community is overall more rationale and scientific oriented. And also they are much better than any religious community when it comes to the human rights and being humane and tolerant. 

Edited by Alam_dar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Clarke said:

I'd love if this could be shoved down the throats of the junta as a necessary measure of population control, inclined to think the supreme court would be in its favor given its tendencies to be so proactive.

 

However, this isn't just a problem with minorities. Even the majority community which is broadly secular isn't gonna like the govt telling them that their daughters shouldn't marry until 21. 

Apart from population control is there any reason to increase the age to 21?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Clarke said:

I'd love if this could be shoved down the throats of the junta as a necessary measure of population control, inclined to think the supreme court would be in its favor given its tendencies to be so proactive.

Do we have the exact stats of how many percent of children are being born by the girls under the age of 21? 

 

I am not sure about supreme court in this matter. If secular population resist against it, then it may be that supreme court also consider it against the basic human right. 

 

Quote

However, this isn't just a problem with minorities. Even the majority community which is broadly secular isn't gonna like the govt telling them that their daughters shouldn't marry until 21. 

What about the religious Hindu families? I could imagine that they may also dislike it, especially those who are living in the villages areas. 

 

What about the girls and boys themselves? 

 

If the religious Hindus consider sex before marriage a sin for their sons and daughters, then it will bring the young Hindu girls and boys under tremendous pressure to abstain from having any kind of sex till the age of 21 (especially those boys in the villages). It may bring the sex related crime rate higher and more frustration in the society. 

 

Alternatives:

 

It may be better to go direct for the laws like China, where it was allowed to marry at age of 18 and have a child, but it should only be ONE child, and you will go to the jail  if you go for the 2nd child. 

 

Otherwise, may be we have to study the Iranian model. Despite being a religious Islamic country, their birth rate is much less than India and they successfully introduced the family planning system. Unfortunately, I don't have any much information regarding how their family planning system works. 

 

In fact, even Bangladesh also achieved good success in it. Perhaps something positive and good could be learnt from them. 

 

And if nothing works, then go for the 21 years age limit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Apart from population control is there any reason to increase the age to 21?

I would hope the move is accepted in the right way and improves hdi with more daughters being able to focus on  schooling & some more attending college instead of marrying early.

Edited by Clarke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, maniac said:

I have heard Advocate Sai Deepak’s take on this . If you are not familiar with him, check him

out on YouTube. He is a brilliant orator and a proud  “indic”.  
 

I believe he is the Supreme Court lawyer trying to free Hindu temples from the government control. Anyways he has an interesting take on Uniform civil code.
 

He thinks it will be the majority that will be at a bigger loss if it is enforced. 

He argues strictly from a 'civil liberties' perspective. He's questioning the inevitable eroding of religious autonomy that would come with the implementation of a UCC. His argument make sense, as does his prediction of the outcome.

 

For people like myself, who have no issues with the eroding of religious autonomy - who would prefer a more authoritarian government capable of setting the boundaries for behavior within society - this is not a reasonable position. A stronger, authoritarian government would be better able to guarantee welfare and individual prosperity for the masses, free from any annoying religious entanglement and obligation. Religious institutions should function as a branch of the state, and should primarily exist to serve state interests.

 

For india specifically, the prioritization of individual welfare (and prosperity) over individual freedom or 'civil liberties' is absolutely crucial. The 'freedom' to vote and worship counts for nothing when you're unable to put food on the table. If the outcome i'm trying to achieve is poverty eradication, then this is the fastest way to do it

 

While i agree with his point on indian society currently being a 'tapestry of multiple faiths and subcultures' - i don't consider this to be a feature worth preserving. A society that is overtly dharmic in character, can only be achieved by a government machinery that imposes a certain set of conditions. Saffron socialism makes the most sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, maniac said:

He thinks it will be the majority that will be at a bigger loss if it is enforced. 

So who is the majority in this case?

 

His argument doesn't even acknowledge the minority or majority. He never mentions hindus or muslims.

 

He's claiming that india is too 'diverse' and heterogeneous for a UCC. I disagree completely, i think the 'diversity' exists as a result of a century-old colonial era legal system which sought to provide separate treatment on the basis of religion, caste and language. It was state sanctioned segregation under the assumption that india is a 'union' and not a nation.

 

India could EASILY be one nation, with one law, and one language.  Indians could easily be one people. That's not difficult to accomplish. And a strongly enforced, all-encompassing UCC will bring the country one step closer to becoming like any other nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Do we have the exact stats of how many percent of children are being born by the girls under the age of 21? 

I am not sure about supreme court in this matter. If secular population resist against it, then it may be that supreme court also consider it against the basic human right. 

Oh boy, here comes the padosi genius. If you'd know your country and a bit of mine, it would be plenty obvious there's a double digit percent of girls being married and going into motherhood in their teens or by 21. 

 

You continue to prove yourself a big arse moron since you think India is so much like Pakistan in every facet. Yes, your courts bow down to your peaceful awam and allow paedophilia against kafirs or terrorists to roam freely after committing many murders. On the other hand, Indian courts are the most independent in the world and will give a big f**k you to what the public, the govt or international opinion is, majority or otherwise. They have stood up for their well thought interpretation of the constitution and pushed aside many opinions of democratically elected govts, forget mass opinion.

 

 

Quote

What about the religious Hindu families? I could imagine that they may also dislike it, especially those who are living in the villages areas. 

 What about the girls and boys themselves? 

If the religious Hindus consider sex before marriage a sin for their sons and daughters, then it will bring the young Hindu girls and boys under tremendous pressure to abstain from having any kind of sex till the age of 21 (especially those boys in the villages). It may bring the sex related crime rate higher and more frustration in the society.

 

Another genius idea: Men & women who don't get married and hence laid by 21 often turn into rapists! Are these just guys or girls too ? If not having sex is so frustrating at 20, is supporting a kid or two a bundle of joy at that age ? Have you been off your pills or just skipping the due visit to the mental hospital ?

 

Quote

Alternatives:

It may be better to go direct for the laws like China, where it was allowed to marry at age of 18 and have a child, but it should only be ONE child, and you will go to the jail  if you go for the 2nd child. 

Otherwise, may be we have to study the Iranian model. Despite being a religious Islamic country, their birth rate is much less than India and they successfully introduced the family planning system. Unfortunately, I don't have any much information regarding how their family planning system works. 

In fact, even Bangladesh also achieved good success in it. Perhaps something positive and good could be learnt from them. 

And if nothing works, then go for the 21 years age limit.

 

Yes, some countries have done well with family planning, but your love for current papa China certainly proves your patriotism. BTW what do the masters in China do if those guilty of having a second child have a third one after getting out of jail ? Do they then chop off Alibaba like a sausage or do they seal off the gufa with cement and stone ? 

Edited by Clarke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Clarke said:

Reason being ?

This is not my personal opinion but just my interpretation/ understanding based on what he said-
 

India is not uniform in the sense that you can’t divide India as 80% Majority and 20% Minority. It’s not that simple. There is a lot of diversity even in the 20% minority leave alone the majority.

 

 If I understand his context  correctly I think what he is saying for example: how Muslims and other religions  have their own personal laws, governing bodies and private places of worship. They might have different governing bodies based on their sects or lineage,  however on the other side the majority which is In fact more diverse is already under a uniform civil code, so rather than brining the minority into it, it would help the majority to have similar freedom based on their indigenous cultures.

 

What is considered kosher in Gujarat may not necessarily be applicable to Tamil Nadu or Assam. Even if they worship the same deities.  That’s the point I believe.

 

For example from the top of my head : Jalikattu, consumption of beef in the North East, cousin marriages which are common even in a lot of Hindu communities but considered taboo in others, consumption of cannabis during holy festivals,Animal sacrifice etc etc, some of them may not be as major of an issue as the other but Indian majority itself is very diverse in nature, so uniform civil code will disrupt the majority rather than integrating the minority.

 

 

Edited by maniac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...