Is India ready for uniform civil code?

[maniac]

^ Just to add judiciary and criminal laws are still the same for everyone. Uniform civil code only targets the personal laws from my understanding. In India that usually relates to culture and religion, so rather than tying everyone up, we should free everyone. That’s the premise.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

47 minutes ago, maniac said:

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.

 

 

 

India will be whatever you want it to be. If you want a more homogeneous, 'hindu' nation under 1 common language and 1 system of law. You can make it so.

 

A society's character isn't set in stone. It can be changed. Now, whether this 'new' hindu nation is supported by the rest of the world...whether the social experiment provides greater prosperity to its citizens, whether its a BETTER alternative...that's a different topic of discussion.

 

But this notion of india "being" something by default is pointless. Personally, i think today's 'secular, diverse' india is more of a colonial era, pre-nation construct. It has no relevance in today's age of civilizational states.

[maniac]

52 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

India will be whatever you want it to be. If you want a more homogeneous, 'hindu' nation under 1 common language and 1 system of law. You can make it so.

 

A society's character isn't set in stone. It can be changed. Now, whether this 'new' hindu nation is supported by the rest of the world...whether the social experiment provides greater prosperity to its citizens, whether its a BETTER alternative...that's a different topic of discussion.

 

But this notion of india "being" something by default is pointless. Personally, i think today's 'secular, diverse' india is more of a colonial era, pre-nation construct. It has no relevance in today's age of civilizational states.

That’s the point, Socialism, communism or any kind of “ism” is a western concept including democracy as well obviously.

 

Enforcing a common guideline in itself is a western concept.

You can’t enforce 1 language in our country. A businessman from Gujarat or Punjab will learn the native language out of necessity or vice versa for someone from South India or Eastern India. Usually the argument is South is adamant in learning Hindi but even a state like Haryana picked, was it either Telugu/Tamil as the 2nd or 3rd language to spite Punjabi influence didn’t they?

 

Freedom doesn’t mean doing whatever you want but if you are free enough to do what you want within a framework and guidelines that’s good enough.

 

I like the current process of updating/ altering out dated practices  as we go along be it Triple Talaq or Article 370 or even Sabarimala.

 

I don’t blame the court for making the sabarimala decision because what do you expect the judiciary to say when the premise of the question is women’s equality and discrimination? In that context it is the right thing however the problem stems from people shoving this in the face of our culture. It’s a thin line. 
 

You can’t make rules and then create loopholes as well. Rather, see what’s going on in the country and then update your laws and guidelines accordingly. Not different from what’s happening right now.

 

The North is still ignorant about the South and Vice versa, rest of India is ignorant about North East, Maharashtra politics from ages has been centered around natives vs immigrants argument, even States with common languages and cultures have split because of some differences. In such a vast melting pot it will certainly be impossible to come up with a uniform civil law that might affect people’s personal practices .

 

Sure there are already laws in place to protect Child marriages, Triple Talaq and there are  other common laws applicable to everyone. I would say the approach should be to identify social evils and injustice and eliminate them as we go along rather than come up with one uniform guidelines.

 

Even in the USA the native Americans have their own law based on their tribal traditions  and the rest have a common law.  However USA is unique because the natives of the land are the minority and it’s the opposite in India.

Edited June 15, 2020 by maniac

[Manny_Pacquiao]

14 minutes ago, maniac said:

That’s the point, Socialism, communism or any kind of “ism” is a western concept including democracy as well obviously.

 

Enforcing a common guideline in itself is a western concept.

You can’t enforce 1 language in our country. A businessman from Gujarat or Punjab will learn the native language out of necessity or vice versa for someone from South India or Eastern India. Usually the argument is South is adamant in learning Hindi but even a state like Haryana picked, was it either Telugu/Tamil as the 2nd or 3rd language to spite Punjabi influence didn’t they?

 

Freedom doesn’t mean doing whatever you want but if you are free enough to do what you want within a framework and guidelines that’s good enough.

 

I like the current process of updating/ altering out dated practices  as we go along be it Triple Talaq or Article 370 or even Sabarimala.

 

I don’t blame the court for making the sabarimala decision because what do you expect the judiciary to say when the premise of the question is women’s equality and discrimination? In that context it is the right thing however the problem stems from people shoving this in the face of our culture. It’s a thin line. 
 

You can’t make rules and then create loopholes as well. Rather, see what’s going on in the country and then update your laws and guidelines accordingly. Not different from what’s happening right now.

 

The North is still ignorant about the South and Vice versa, rest of India is ignorant about North East, Maharashtra politics from ages has been centered around natives vs immigrants argument, even States with common languages and cultures have split because of some differences. In such a vast melting pot it will certainly be impossible to come up with a uniform civil law that might affect people’s personal practices .

 

Sure there are already laws in place to protect Child marriages, Triple Talaq and there are  other common laws applicable to everyone. I would say the approach should be to identify social evils and injustice and eliminate them as we go along rather than come up with one uniform guidelines.

 

Even in the USA the native Americans have their own law based on their tribal traditions  and the rest have a common law.  However USA is unique because the natives of the land are the minority and it’s the opposite in India.

 

The situation you describe relates to the autonomy enjoyed by the states, the so called 'federalism' that would define the relationship between a state government and the centre. The autonomy is what gives India it's state-sanctioned 'diversity'. I'm not sure this is still worth 'retaining' or conserving in an era of civilizational states. This is something we can change by reducing the autonomy and making states answerable to the centre. For instance, NRC has to be implemented, there's no getting away from it, no exceptions. The supreme court, thankfully, is slowly changing it's own impression of india. Law-makers have to control and dictate what's going on in the country, instead of simply 'seeing', 'reacting' and 'updating'.

 

The current model of governance served the purpose of tying a rope around a fragile union of divided territories to hold it together. At the time, this was the best possible solution to prevent further partitioning, and it calmed any secessionist ideas.  I'm not sure it's needed anymore. The country - as it stands today - shows states being more strongly 'subsumed' into a unified ideal.

 

The situation you describe - of the difference between a gujarati/punjabi and a south indian - is less likely to create friction in today's india. People from all over the country are comfortable with the 'idea' of being indian - which definitely was NOT the case 30-40 years ago. Don't you think times have changed? We're more connected than ever before, with technology and migration patterns taking inter-state interaction to an all-time peak. There wouldn't be a question of "imposition" if the centre guarantees prosperity and security. Don't indians feel comfortable changing their 'native habits' and character to earn money in foreign countries? Whether this is actually possible, is a different discussion. I think it is.

 

I'm fine with the debate, i think its important to ask questions of whether a one state, one language, one system of law is feasible. The debate is a necessary one. But with a stronger private sector, 70+ years of 'nationhood' and a overtly majoritarian government in power for the foreseeable future, the arguments in favor of saffron socialism are stronger than the ones against it. What was unthinkable in 1980 looks much more feasible in 2030.

 

I'm sorry if my vision seems very authoritarian. Probably more than what many educated indians would appreciate. But i never believed in the idea of democracy being a viable system of government for a poorer, 'third world' country like india. Its not a good fit.

[maniac]

@Manny_Pacquiao When we talk about uniform

civil code, what exactly are the guidelines we are talking about?

 

If we are talking about Polygamy in Indian Muslims then absolutely that needs to be addressed individually just like triple talaq.

 

Dowry is illegal as per law but not sure if it is applicable to the minority community, so absolutely it needs to be eliminated.

 

I think the approach should be to individually eliminate social evils as a case by case approach rather than enforcing all at once. That would be a huge problem in a country like ours.

[coffee_rules]

I follow Sai Deepak , concur with all his views except on this and reservations. When BJP or any party has spoken about UCC, it was always about family laws for marriage , divorce etc. it was never about civil liberties enjoyed by religion and culture. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom to maintain indigenous cultures. UCC was never going infringe these liberties enjoyed by majority or minority. Polygamy and TT were held and fortified by AIMPLB because Nehru called it the Hindu Marriage Act and codified family law based on Religion - Muslims and Non-Muslims. That had to end. Nor UCC is about one language and one culture for all. 

[Manny_Pacquiao]

On 6/15/2020 at 12:10 PM, maniac said:

@Manny_Pacquiao When we talk about uniform

civil code, what exactly are the guidelines we are talking about?

 

If we are talking about Polygamy in Indian Muslims then absolutely that needs to be addressed individually just like triple talaq.

 

Dowry is illegal as per law but not sure if it is applicable to the minority community, so absolutely it needs to be eliminated.

 

I think the approach should be to individually eliminate social evils as a case by case approach rather than enforcing all at once. That would be a huge problem in a country like ours.

It's really complex. I have thought about this a lot and have some well-formed opinions, i'll get back to you with a proper response later.

 

In short, 'this case by case' approach only widens fault-lines while creating needless social unrest.

[coffee_rules]

BJP Govt wants to raise girls’ marriageable age to 21, but HC says one community can do what they want. High time India has UCC for personal and family laws related to marriage, property rights of women and divorce 

 

https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/muslim-law-allows-minor-girls-to-marry-on-attaining-puberty-high-court-1767740-2021-02-10?__twitter_impression=true

Edited February 10, 2021 by coffee_rules

[urbestfriend]

Foolish idea to increase the marriageable age to 21 for girls.

[Tibarn]

IDC, UCC is a red herring meant to distract Hindus from meaningful issues.  

Edited February 10, 2021 by Tibarn

[dial_100]

I support this idea.

 

Girls are married because they are considered bojh by parents. They are not allowed to continue education beyond highschool because its of no use as she is going to be married so they are not encouraged to go to college. Here is my take.

 

1. Unless legally forced, girl child will be married away by 18
2. Because of tender age, she wont be able to make her own decision about her marriage. 
3. With less education, she will be burdened with mundane responsibilities before developing her personality
4. With less education, exposure and experience, she will never feel empowered
5. She is more vulnerable and will be considered only worth producing more kids (Population control)
6. With less education, she will not be able to make important decisions in her family
7. Unlikely to add in country's economy in significant way.
8. Childhood is spoilt since the age of 15
9. If such girl separates from her marital bondage, she is not ready for outside world

[Clarke]

13 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

BJP Govt wants to raise girls’ marriageable age to 21, but HC says one community can do what they want. High time India has UCC for personal and family laws related to marriage, property rights of women and divorce 

 

https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/muslim-law-allows-minor-girls-to-marry-on-attaining-puberty-high-court-1767740-2021-02-10?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

If puberty is proven and consent is available then marriage at the age of 12-13 is ok ?

 

WTF!

[urbestfriend]

42 minutes ago, Clarke said:

 

 

If puberty is proven and consent is available then marriage at the age of 12-13 is ok ?

 

WTF!

  That ridiculous. Why is some Mullah's law book is used for Muslims?