Uniform Civil Code can be the real unifying force in India. Critics must think again

[iamnobody]

That Ship has sailed.


Time for 0 child policy for Muslims.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Yes ugly Hindu men will marry 4 beautiful Muslim women from higher caste and Muslim men will marry 4 ugly Hindu women

That could be love jihad, which would be applied only against the Muslim. So much for uniformity. Their use of Islamic terminology has an obvious intent to mock and implies a religious motive.

The US gives rights to religious practise and outlaws religious discrimination. Recently, a city council in America allowed Azaan on a loudspeaker. And, Trump had to say he isn't speaking against American Muslims.

Harmony is created by accepting diversity and human rights. Uniformity is promoted in totalitarian societies like North Korea.

 

[wildlens]

That could be love jihad, which would be applied only against the Muslim. So much for uniformity. Their use of Islamic terminology has an obvious intent to mock and implies a religious motive.

The US gives rights to religious practise and outlaws religious discrimination. Recently, a city council in America allowed Azaan on a loudspeaker. And, Trump had to say he isn't speaking against American Muslims.

Harmony is created by accepting diversity and human rights. Uniformity is promoted in totalitarian societies like North Korea.

Hmm ironic.. India has diverse cultures with many gods . Why try to apply one faith one god in this land

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Hmm ironic.. India has diverse cultures with many gods . Why try to apply one faith one god in this land

Some can cover their heads with a turban, but others can't cover theirs with a scarf. What an irony.

Why not force every male to wear a turban in exactly the same style for the sake of uniformity. That way everyone will be a clone of the other, feeling exactly the same way, so happy, very happy, very, very happy, singing and clapping in unison like in North Korea.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Happy, Happy, Harmony. May the great leader be praised, or else .

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

I do strongly support 2 child policy,

and a man can marry a woman only.... A man can marry another woman only after she dies or the divorce papers is signed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Not sure what these are, but we should do away with those 2 too.m and make one rule for all.

You are helping me make two essential points.

First, these things shouldn't be discussed or raised, without people discussing or raising them having adequate knowledge about the matter.

Second, indeed it may - or may not - require consolidation, but how can that be done by an airy wave of the hands?

Hmm ironic.. India has diverse cultures with many gods . Why try to apply one faith one god in this land

Think of Bengali Shakta people reacting to upcountry, UP or Bihari bhaiyyas chanting Jai Sri Ram in Bengal when the elections were going on, of Modi getting onto the rostrum, and groaning aloud in mockery, "Didieeeeeeeeee, O Didieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee". Then think how the elections went, how the voting went.

India is a million different cultures coexisting; the Hindu-Muslim bit is a minor separation, there are hundreds and thousands of others. Those who try to unify with bulldozers do so at their peril.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I do strongly support 2 child policy,

and a man can marry a woman only.... A man can marry another woman only after she dies or the divorce papers is signed.

And can you see what that has done to the demographics of the PRC?

Do you realise that it would be a damn' good thing for governments to get out of thinking for its citizens, to get out of deciding what emotions are appropriate, what clothing is appropriate, what speech is apparent, and what manner of interaction is appropriate?

 

[wildlens]

Some can cover their heads with a turban, but others can't cover theirs with a scarf. What an irony.

Why not force every male to wear a turban in exactly the same style for the sake of uniformity. That way everyone will be a clone of the other, feeling exactly the same way, so happy, very happy, very, very happy, singing and clapping in unison like in North Korea.

? I don't think you understood my point. Anyways the turban is different because it's an intrinsic part of their religion. my last post on this.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

And can you see what that has done to the demographics of the PRC?

Do you realise that it would be a damn' good thing for governments to get out of thinking for its citizens, to get out of deciding what emotions are appropriate, what clothing is appropriate, what speech is apparent, and what manner of interaction is appropriate?

You must be aware of what most Indians are tired of hearing: "Name of demographics country!"

If a member of the minority murders a Hindu, no one speaks out; nevertheless, if a member of the minority kills a Hindu, people cry like crocodiles and yell like rivers.

In this case - take the example of the traffic rule.

When traffic regulations first became law, I am sure people like such mentality objected, claiming that they violated residents' rights to choose whether to go on the right or left side, among other things.

Frankly, people with such a mentality should permanently move to an island and live peacefully.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

? I don't think you understood my point. Anyways the turban is different because it's an intrinsic part of their religion. my last post on this.

I pointed the irony.

Scarf can be intrinsic part of someone's faith. Asking them to take it off is not different from asking a man to take the turban off he wears for religious or customary reason.

We should have no business telling others what they put on their heads. Years ago a friend was in traffic court in America. Judge told him to take his cap off. He said he wears it for religious reasons. Judge said, it's okay.

 

[hussain0216]

Not sure what these are, but we should do away with those 2 too.m and make one rule for all.


Are you saying Jinnah was against equality?

He said equality was impossible in India with a Hindu majority with the history of South Asia

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

He said equality was impossible in India with a Hindu majority with the history of South Asia

Is there a law specifically discriminating against minorities in India and favoring Hindus?

However, if people were to properly examine our systems, they would see that many benefits go to minorities while Hindus are left out.

When it comes to Indian systems and what JInnah said, the situation is quite the opposite in India.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

How society becomes totalitarian with an aim of achieving uniformity.

 

[jamahir]

Kedar, you are getting more and more Bhakt. First you legitimized Savarkar, then you posted a song about Tilak and then one song called "Jai jai Maharashtra" and now this OP. Please do a radical change with yourself.

If we are to live in a truly unified and harmonious society, where each person is treated equally, accepting and enforcing a UCC is the need of the hour.

For true harmony in India, if Modi jee is truly sincere and if you are sincere, then other than a UCC devised through discussion among the people like Joe said and led by progressives, there must be a few other things necessary :

1. Abolition of money, abolition of social classes, bringing of true democracy via participatory democracy, abolition of personal land and property including multiple houses owned by one citizen, collective ownership of land and means of production, management of the workplaces by the workers, emancipation of the females ( not that fakery called "Beti bachao, beti padhao" ).

2. From this post of mine from some days ago :

All the ethnic Indian issues exist because of the caste system and because it was foolish to organize states along linguistic lines instead of creating a decentralized, participatory democracy system and using this to create scientifically-drawn districts and doing mass exchanges of population among the different districts thus gradually or immediately erasing clanism, khaap panchaayats, language monopolies, sub-sect monopolies, regionalism and settled religious community oppression including honor killing. This erasure and change to the level of every individual. Participatory democracy will have instilled social responsibility in every individual. Thus enabling real national integration, harmony.

The Uniform Civil Code isn’t merely a political agenda. It caters to India’s unification with a structural change in society to facilitate gender equality. The UCC can be regarded as being against the idea of divisive politics, which has always been the prime agenda of colonial design.

1. The UCC is a political agenda. Drawn up by Bhakts it is meant not to bring progressivism and justice to Indians but arranged in a way to be used as a log to hit Muslims with.
2. What gender equality will be enabled when the current champions of UCC, the Bhakts, believe in Manusmriti ? This is what Yogi jee, the next annointed prime minister of India, believes in, regardless of his annual drama of washing feet of little girls on a certain Hindu festival day :

He believes women need male protection from birth to death and their ‘energy/power’ should be regulated or controlled, lest it become worthless and destructive.

He adds the shastras say that a woman is protected in her childhood by her father, by her husband in her youth and by her son in her old age — so that way a woman is not capable of being left free or independent.

The UCC will ensure empowerment of women in true sense by ending the practice of polygamy, which is currently permitted under Islamic law and is highly unfair and discriminatory to women.

See ? The UCC is being designed to supposedly emancipate Muslim women when without reference to the marital and non-marital oppression that Hindu women face. This is a recent thread about a Hindu woman in Ahmedabad who suicided because she was being compelled by her in-laws to commit Sati. In 2023 ! And then there is the issue of honor killings about which a judge said that hundreds of these happen every year and surely the majority of these murders of children by their own parents happen in Hindu milleu.

OTOH, a female Indian women's rights activist, Audrey D’Mello, has this to say about Muslim marriages :

Married Muslim women, we find, are often on a higher and more secure footing than their counterparts from other religions. In fact, as a Christian marrying a Muslim, I chose to marry under the Muslim personal law, even over the seemingly modern Special Marriage Act, 1954, to better secure my economic rights. My mehr was a house in my name and my nikahnama includes necessary clauses to safeguard my and my children’s rights. My husband’s family members were witness to this document, which is registered and enforceable by law.

The above text is taken from this thread of mine from 2015 whose OP is by that activist. Please read the OP and the discussion there to see the full context.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar had pioneered the cause of gender equality, which led him to create the UCC in the 1950s. He was always a staunch and ardent supporter of the UCC. Followed by stiff opposition from religious conservatives, he had to retreat and re-strategise the bill.

"Stiff opposition from religious conservatives"... May we know their religion ? We know it, yes ? Hindu. The bill was called Hindu Code Bill.

So the authors of your article choose to name Muslims when talking about oppression against females but when it comes to Hindus being opposed to Ambedkar's bill that was meant to bring rights to Hindu females, the authors choose to use a generic set of words "Stiff opposition from religion conservatives". LOL, were Muslims and Christians opposed to this bill ?

WAQF board needs to be disbanded.

Every religious board needs to be disbanded, including Hindu and Muslim. All these theist people must be taxed when they visit their "houses of god". And since money has to be abolished, this tax should be in form of food.

Good idea.
So now every male member of society can marry 4 women?

Let's abolish marriage altoghter. Among the various wrongs of the family system is that people, especially the useless "educated" middle classees, spend their life in looking after their families and don't care for the wider society and humanity beyond their little selfish units called families.

Harmony is created by accepting diversity and human rights. Uniformity is promoted in totalitarian societies like North Korea.

India is a lot more totaliarian and lot less welfare-based than North Korea.

You are helping me make two essential points.

First, these things shouldn't be discussed or raised, without people discussing or raising them having adequate knowledge about the matter.

Yes, there must be discussion through what the Westerners ( since most Indians are largely pro-West ) call as Referendum. But for that either the political system should be made a Participatory Democracy or the intention to do that must be announced.