Uniform Civil Code in India. Is it necessary?

[ex-q-zit]

"Not Against Any Religion Or Sect": Nitin Gadkari On Uniform Civil Code

Union Minister Nitin Gadkari today said all parties should make a collective effort to implement a uniform civil code, which will be good for the nation and humanity.
ADVERTISING

Replying to a question on Uniform Civil Code (UCC) at Agenda Aaj Tak event, he said, "If a man marries a woman it is natural. But if someone goes for four marriages that is unnatural. Therefore the progressive and educated Muslims don't do it."

"There should be a qualitative change in society. It is not against any religion or sect. We should together develop the nation," the Union minister for road, transport and highways said.

Should not women of any religion, be they Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, be given equal rights, he posed. The Union minister also asked which Muslim country in the world has two civil codes.

"If the Central government takes a decision on any issue and the states object, then the message that will go out will not be good as there is a concurrent list. So I think that if the states and all parties take a collective decision that it will be good for humanity and the nation," he said.

Bringing in a Uniform Civil Code was among the major poll promises of the BJP in the recently concluded Assembly polls in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh.

On October 29, the Gujarat government announced that it would form a committee for the implementation of the UCC. The decision was taken in a cabinet meeting that day.

NDTV

 

[ex-q-zit]

A Key Requirement For Divorce For Christians Struck Down By Kerala High Court

Ernakulam: The Kerala High court has struck down a provision of the Divorce Act 1869, applicable to Christians, that mandated a minimum of one year of separation before applying for divorce by mutual consent.

The Act earlier mandated two years but that was read down to one year in 2010 by the same court in a case. And now the court has gone further.

The December 9 verdict brings the law further on a par with other laws that govern matrimony and divorce among other communities, such as the Hindu Marriage Act.

Those acts allow courts to entertain mutual-consent divorce petitions before one has lapsed since marriage, so there cannot be this one-year period in the Divorce Act alone — this is essentially what the court has ruled.

The couple in this case — a 30-year-old man and 28-year-old woman — had gone to a family court, but it refused to even number the case for hearing, "apparently noting the bar in filing a joint petition within one year after the marriage... under Section 10A of the Act".

The couple had got married in January 2022 — "realised that their marriage was a mistake" — and went to the family court in May, just about four months later. refused a hearing, they went to the high court, asking it to altogether declare the waiting period unconstitutional.

The court order noted that waiting period was legislated as one of the "safeguards against impulsive decisions". "In the Indian social context... marriages are solemnized by two individuals, it is seen more as a union for laying the foundation for a strong family and society," it said.

But in this case, the court said, "when the waiting period itself would cause hardship to the parties... can the law command parties to sit at the fence and suffer the agony?"

It referred to a 2010 decision that brought down the original two-year waiting period to one year, as is mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act and the Special Marriage Act. But those acts allow pleas even before that under exceptional circumstances.

In the latest order, the court said it's not constitutionally valid to deny permission to those covered by the Divorce Act 1869 to go to court before the lapse of one year.

"In matrimonial disputes, the law must aid parties to resolve the differences with the assistance of the Court. If a solution is not possible, the law must allow the Court to decide what is best for the parties. The procedure for seeking divorce shall not be to aggravate the bitterness by asking them to fight on preordained imaginary grounds," the order read.

It gave two final decisions.

One, that Section 10A that mandates one-year waiting period "is violative of fundamental right and is declared unconstitutional". And, for the couple who had moved court, it directed the family court to "grant a decree of divorce without insisting further presence of parties".

 

[ex-q-zit]

On Tribal Women's Succession Rights, Court Asks Centre To Bring Parity With Men

Observing that a female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Centre to examine the issue and consider amending the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act so as to make it applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribes.

The top court said when the daughter belonging to the non*-tribal is entitled to equal share in the property of her father, there is no reason to deny such a right to the daughter of tribal communities.

As per Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Succession Act will not be applicable to members of the Scheduled Tribes.

A bench of Justices M R Shah and Krishna Murari said there is no justification for denying the right of survivorship (a right of a person to property on the death of another having a joint interest) so far as the female members of Scheduled Tribes are concerned.

"It is directed to examine the question by the Central Government to consider it just and necessary to withdraw the exemptions provided under the Hindu Succession Act in so far as the applicability of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act to the Scheduled Tribes and whether to bring a suitable amendment or not. "We hope and trust that the Central Government will look into the matter and take an appropriate decision taking into consideration the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India," the bench said.

The apex court said a female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession.

"To deny the equal right to the daughter belonging to the tribal even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which right to equality is guaranteed, it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe," the bench said.

The top court's observations came while dismissing a plea on whether a daughter (belonging to Scheduled Tribes) is entitled to the share in the compensation with respect to the land acquired on survivorship basis under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.

"Therefore, so long as Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act stands and there is no amendment, the parties shall be governed by the provisions of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act.

"Therefore, though on equity we may be with the appellant being daughter and more than approximately 70 years have passed after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act and much water has flown thereafter and though we are prima facie of the opinion that not to grant the benefit of survivorship to the daughter in the property of the father can be said to be bad in law and cannot be justified in the present scenario, unless Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act is amended, the parties being member of the Scheduled Tribe are governed by Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act," the bench said.

NDTV

 

[ex-q-zit]

Rajya Sabha Chaos Over Uniform Civil Code Bill, Move To Block It Rejected

Chaos ensued in the Rajya Sabha today as the Bharatiya Janata Party's Rajasthan MP Kirodi Lal Meena introduced The Uniform Civil Code in India Bill, 2020 in the Rajya Sabha as a Private Member Bill amid fervent opposition. The Code seeks to do away with religion based personal laws.

Three motions were placed to oppose the Bill, stating that it would disintegrate the country and hurt its diverse culture, but were defeated through votes by 63-23.

After stiff opposition from several parties, Union Minister Piyush Goyal argued that it is the legitimate right of a member to raise an issue which is under directive principles of the constitutio. "Let this subject be debated in the House...at this stage to cast aspersions on the government, to try to criticise the Bill, is uncalled-for," he said.

Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar then put the bill to a voice vote where the ayes were a majority with 63 votes against 23 opposing it.

A Bill with such wide ramifications on people's lives cannot be introduced without wide public consultation with various communities, an MP argued, according to legal news website Live Law.

CPI(M) MP John Brittas referred to a Law Commission report, which said a Uniform Civil Code is neither necessary nor desirable.

DMK's Tiruchi Siva said the very idea of Uniform Civil Code is opposed to secularism.

Samajwadi Party's RG Verma also opposed the bill, saying it's opposed to provisions of the Constitution.

BJP MP Harnath Singh Yadav gave a Zero Hour Notice in the Rajya Sabha to discuss the implementation of the Uniform Civil code in the country.

The Bill provides for the constitution of the National Inspection and Investigation Committee for preparation of the Uniform Civil Code and its implementation throughout India.

In the past, although the Bill was listed for introduction, it was not moved in the Upper House.

Every member can bring any Bill in the Rajya Sabha; four Bills are allowed per member in a session.

This is not Government's legislation.

Friday afternoons are marked for Private Member Bills.

Based on a ballot system, Bills are selected for introduction. Kirodilal Meena's Bill was selected in the ballot for today. Some 100 Private Member Bills are introduced every session, and they can be on any subject.

After introduction, this Bill goes to the list of pending Bills.

Another ballot system is then in place -- If this Bill gets selected in it, it would be taken up for discussion in the coming sessions.

The BJP had promised in its Gujarat manifesto to introduce the Uniform Civil Code in the state, and the Bill was introduced in the upper house just a day after their historic win in PM Modi's home state.

The BJP had in its 2019 Lok Sabha election manifesto also promised the implementation of UCC if it came to power.

NDTV

 

[JaDed]

An absolute requirement, the biggest failure of Congress government:

1. Not having one country one law
2. Going towards socialist state model
3. Police Reforms( I blame BJP equally for this one)

 

[Justcrazy]

How is having more than one wife unnatural )

The BJP Minister should be asked all those who did more did unnatural , then big names will be declared unnatural by his logic

 

[cricketjoshila]

An absolute requirement, the biggest failure of Congress government:

1. Not having one country one law
2. Going towards socialist state model
3. Police Reforms( I blame BJP equally for this one)

The constituent assembly wanted to bring in UCC. Nehru opposed it.

He wanted only Hindus to be brought under constitutional law. It was opposed.

Later once Ambedkar left, Mukherjee died, KM Munshi was shunted out did Nehru bring the Hindu Marriage Act in 1955.

 

[Justcrazy]

The constituent assembly wanted to bring in UCC. Nehru opposed it.

He wanted only Hindus to be brought under constitutional law. It was opposed.

Later once Ambedkar left, Mukherjee died, KM Munshi was shunted out did Nehru bring the Hindu Marriage Act in 1955.

Are you in favour of Hindu Marriage act 1955 or against it ?

 

[Local.Dada]

Are you in favour of Hindu Marriage act 1955 or against it ?

It doesn’t matter if you package it as “Hindu marriage act”

Basically having multiple wives is not acceptable in the civil society. How May outstanding and positive contributing citizens out there do you know who practice polygamy?

That’s the whole point of UCC to have one country one law regardless of religion.

In India constitution and civil law should trump over any religion. Period

 

[szrana007]

Basically having multiple wives is not acceptable in the civil society.

Lol polygamy is legal in 58 countries in the world, and is considered to be widely accepted in Muslim societies by both men and women.

 

[Justcrazy]

It doesn’t matter if you package it as “Hindu marriage act”

Basically having multiple wives is not acceptable in the civil society. How May outstanding and positive contributing citizens out there do you know who practice polygamy?

That’s the whole point of UCC to have one country one law regardless of religion.

In India constitution and civil law should trump over any religion. Period

Having multiple wives is not acceptable in the civil society ? Who is this civilized society ?

In a society there are many kinds of people living , with different cultures , languages , caste , religions. How can you say something is not acceptable ? In practical lives , we come across many several different tests tribulation etc where we need to have provisions for exceptions.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

It doesn’t matter if you package it as “Hindu marriage act”

Basically having multiple wives is not acceptable in the civil society. How May outstanding and positive contributing citizens out there do you know who practice polygamy?

That’s the whole point of UCC to have one country one law regardless of religion.

In India constitution and civil law should trump over any religion. Period

Why is it better for a rich man to divorce his wife and marry a younger women, than to have multiple wives if the women are ok with it?

Shahbaz Sharif right now has 2 wives. His son Hamza also has 2. Why is that worse than Trump replacing his wifes with younger women?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Union Minister Nitin Gadkari today said all parties should make a collective effort to implement a uniform civil code, which will be good for the nation and humanity.
ADVERTISING

Replying to a question on Uniform Civil Code (UCC) at Agenda Aaj Tak event, he said, "If a man marries a woman it is natural. But if someone goes for four marriages that is unnatural. Therefore the progressive and educated Muslims don't do it."

The majority of Muslims who engage in polygamy are rich and educated. Its not like the rickshaw driver can afford multiple wives.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Indian Muslims should push for this for the UCC. One law for everyone is the best scenario as right now Indian Muslims are getting the short end of the stick. The religious practices of Hindus/Sikhs are deemed essential and the ones for Muslims are deemed non essential.

Indian Muslims should push for the following:

1 - If you are going to ban religious symbols in classroom/ govt jobs that's fine, but then it needs to be a French style system. Not this hijab haram Sikh turban halal nonsense.
2 - No Kirpan allowed for one community. You apparently can even bring this on a plane. Got to go.
3 - The Hindu Undivided family act needs to go. Or those benefits need to be given to everyone.
4 - No exceptions given to the tribal population. Everyone means everyone.
5 - Beef ban has to go. Hindus don't have to eat beef. Same way Muslims are not asking for pork to be banned.

 

[ex-q-zit]

Supreme Court's Notice To Centre On Uniform Marriage Age For Muslims Plea

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre on a petition filed by the National Commission for Women (NCW) to make the minimum age of marriage for Muslim girls the same as that of persons belonging to other religions.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha sought a response from the Centre within four weeks.

The minimum age for marriage in India is currently 18 for women and 21 for men. However, the minimum marriage age for Muslim women is when they attain puberty and 15 years is presumed to be that age.

The NCW said that allowing Muslims to marry at the age of puberty (around 15) is arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory and violative of penal laws.

The plea said even the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) does not provide for those under 18 to consent to sex.

It said the PIL was filed for enforcement of the fundamental rights of minor Muslim women to bring Islamic personal law in consonance with the penal laws applicable to other religions.

Earlier, the apex court agreed to examine the plea of the National Commission For Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which said a Muslim girl of 15-years-old is competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice under the Muslim Personal Law.

It had issued notice to the Punjab government and appointed senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter.

The High Court in June in its order had cited the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law on marriage to rule that a 15-year-old Muslim girl was competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice.

The NCPCR sought to ensure the proper implementation of statutory laws that are specifically in place to protect children below the age of 18 years.

The Commission highlighted the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA) 2006 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) to put forth its reasons for challenging the High Court ruling.

NCPCR said that the order is violative of PCMA which, the petition said, is a secular law that is applicable to all.

"The provisions of POCSO say no child below the age of 18 years can give valid consent," it said.

The high court order had come on a plea by a Pathankot-based Muslim couple that had approached the court seeking protection after allegedly being threatened by their families for marrying without their permission.

The girl and a 21-year-old man had said that they got married as per Muslim rites and ceremonies.

The High Court had granted protection to the Muslim couple noting that the law is clear that the marriage of a Muslim girl is governed by Muslim Personal Law.

NDTV

 

[Justcrazy]

Why is it better for a rich man to divorce his wife and marry a younger women, than to have multiple wives if the women are ok with it?

Shahbaz Sharif right now has 2 wives. His son Hamza also has 2. Why is that worse than Trump replacing his wifes with younger women?

This is the issue . People who object to Islamic laws , there objection is superficial . There is a reason why Islam allows polygamy. It is necessary in the society. If we think we have better solutions , we should share it here and then we can have discussion.

Criticism should come along with practical solutions , not just criticism with just a purpose to put down Islam. Majority of reverts are women , and in those countries which are considered as developed. Those women are educated , if Islam was against women rights , those women would not have accepted that.

 

[Justcrazy]

Indian Muslims should push for this for the UCC. One law for everyone is the best scenario as right now Indian Muslims are getting the short end of the stick. The religious practices of Hindus/Sikhs are deemed essential and the ones for Muslims are deemed non essential.

Indian Muslims should push for the following:

1 - If you are going to ban religious symbols in classroom/ govt jobs that's fine, but then it needs to be a French style system. Not this hijab haram Sikh turban halal nonsense.
2 - No Kirpan allowed for one community. You apparently can even bring this on a plane. Got to go.
3 - The Hindu Undivided family act needs to go. Or those benefits need to be given to everyone.
4 - No exceptions given to the tribal population. Everyone means everyone.
5 - Beef ban has to go. Hindus don't have to eat beef. Same way Muslims are not asking for pork to be banned.

In a vast country like India , where if you go from one state to another the dialects , environment , culture etc changes , it is not possible to have uniform code . There are lot of hiderences. The issue now in India is that the Goverment is a puppet of RSS , whose purpose is just to propagate against Islam and Christianity . They claim to be greatest nationalists , and there achivement is killing of Gandhi

There founder is said to be great freedom fighter , Veer Sarvarkar , he was so veer that he kept writing mercy petition .

When this Brave freedom fighter , father of all RSS concludes his letter to british he writes , YOUR MOST OBEDIENT SERVANT.

 

[ex-q-zit]

In a vast country like India , where if you go from one state to another the dialects , environment , culture etc changes , it is not possible to have uniform code . There are lot of hiderences. The issue now in India is that the Goverment is a puppet of RSS , whose purpose is just to propagate against Islam and Christianity . They claim to be greatest nationalists , and there achivement is killing of Gandhi

There founder is said to be great freedom fighter , Veer Sarvarkar , he was so veer that he kept writing mercy petition .

When this Brave freedom fighter , father of all RSS concludes his letter to british he writes , YOUR MOST OBEDIENT SERVANT.

How does dialect, environment and culture be parameters in deciding whether UCC is required for India. Muslims from sub-continent (India, Pak and Bangladesh) have no issues accepting polygamy as a punishable offence in western countries and accept their citizenship happily. Also when people can accept criminal law why not civil law? As long as the law doesn't make them forcefully do something that their religion prohibits it shouldn't matter. If a muslim man cannot have multiple lives does that make him a sinner? its a plain and simple NO. If the law asks muslims to eat pork then it can be debated. In a country like India which is not theocratic every cictizen is the same irrespective of caste creed or religion. In fact having the UCC strengthens a feeling that all citizens are the same in the eyes of the law.

There are several instances where polygamy law is misused. When Dharmendra wanted to take Hema Malini as his 2nd wife he nominally converted to islam so that he doesn't go against the law. Once married he is still a Sikh and only used islam to marry a second time.

UCC doesn't affect the five pillars of islam - the declaration of faith (shahada), prayer (salah), alms-giving (zakat), fasting (sawm) and pilgrimage (hajj). Whilst not following polygamy, triple talaq or halala doesn't make them any less of a muslim.
There is a reason polygamy was an acceptable practice in the past whether it was in middle east or in Indian sub-continent. In the past the male population was lesser than the female population as many men lost their lives in war. Hence it made sense to marry multiple women. But today the male-female population ratio is almost same so polygamy doesn't make sense.

 

[Justcrazy]

How does dialect, environment and culture be parameters in deciding whether UCC is required for India. Muslims from sub-continent (India, Pak and Bangladesh) have no issues accepting polygamy as a punishable offence in western countries and accept their citizenship happily. Also when people can accept criminal law why not civil law? As long as the law doesn't make them forcefully do something that their religion prohibits it shouldn't matter. If a muslim man cannot have multiple lives does that make him a sinner? its a plain and simple NO. If the law asks muslims to eat pork then it can be debated. In a country like India which is not theocratic every cictizen is the same irrespective of caste creed or religion. In fact having the UCC strengthens a feeling that all citizens are the same in the eyes of the law.

There are several instances where polygamy law is misused. When Dharmendra wanted to take Hema Malini as his 2nd wife he nominally converted to islam so that he doesn't go against the law. Once married he is still a Sikh and only used islam to marry a second time.

UCC doesn't affect the five pillars of islam - the declaration of faith (shahada), prayer (salah), alms-giving (zakat), fasting (sawm) and pilgrimage (hajj). Whilst not following polygamy, triple talaq or halala doesn't make them any less of a muslim.
There is a reason polygamy was an acceptable practice in the past whether it was in middle east or in Indian sub-continent. In the past the male population was lesser than the female population as many men lost their lives in war. Hence it made sense to marry multiple women. But today the male-female population ratio is almost same so polygamy doesn't make sense.

Yes , Muslims accept polygamy as punishable is other countries because those laws were there right from the first. It does not mean Muslims support that or place man made laws above shariah laws. In India Muslims were given the right to practice own religion through Muslim Personal Laws , which was accepted by Indian Parliament. In the independence of India from British Muslims also contributed.

I presume Article 25 of the constitution gives the right to practice , profess and propagate religion.

Muslim personal laws are a matter of personal beliefs for Muslims . They are injunctions of the Quran , and cannot be changed.

You cannot make a law forcing someone to eat something , you can make a law prohibiting eating of something. For example beef.

Polygamy is not compulsory in Islam , it is there for a purpose. In certain circumstances it is required . Completely shutting it out is not the right way. In day to day practical life there are situations were polygamy is neede , if you shut all ways , it will create issues. Islam and Muslims do not want that , they want practical solutions.

5 pillars of Islam is not part of Quran . For a Muslims entire Quran is authority. Muslims have NO doubt that the Quran is word of God , literal word of God and is superior to man made laws.

The Quran is not time bond , that certain things were allowed earlier , and now it is not required or out of fashion.

The way Hindus look at Vedas or Christian at bible is different to what Muslims consider the Quran. I have seen many hindus , infact priests who perform hindu rituals in marriage or birth etc ceremonies tell me that they consider vedas as old manuscripts written by sages long ago.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes , Muslims accept polygamy as punishable is other countries because those laws were there right from the first. It does not mean Muslims support that or place man made laws above shariah laws. In India Muslims were given the right to practice own religion through Muslim Personal Laws , which was accepted by Indian Parliament. In the independence of India from British Muslims also contributed.

I presume Article 25 of the constitution gives the right to practice , profess and propagate religion.

Muslim personal laws are a matter of personal beliefs for Muslims . They are injunctions of the Quran , and cannot be changed.

You cannot make a law forcing someone to eat something , you can make a law prohibiting eating of something. For example beef.

Polygamy is not compulsory in Islam , it is there for a purpose. In certain circumstances it is required . Completely shutting it out is not the right way. In day to day practical life there are situations were polygamy is neede , if you shut all ways , it will create issues. Islam and Muslims do not want that , they want practical solutions.

5 pillars of Islam is not part of Quran . For a Muslims entire Quran is authority. Muslims have NO doubt that the Quran is word of God , literal word of God and is superior to man made laws.

The Quran is not time bond , that certain things were allowed earlier , and now it is not required or out of fashion.

The way Hindus look at Vedas or Christian at bible is different to what Muslims consider the Quran. I have seen many hindus , infact priests who perform hindu rituals in marriage or birth etc ceremonies tell me that they consider vedas as old manuscripts written by sages long ago.

No religion was brought under the constitutional code by the constituent assembly. All were given the freedom to have their personal laws. That was the status in 1950.

Why? Because Nehru was against a uniform civil code and only wanted Hindus to be under the constitutional code while allowing muslims to remain out of it. This was opposed tooth and nail by Patel and Ambedkar.

Nehru then brought hindus under the constitutional code via laws in 1952. By that time Patel had died and Ambedkar had left congress. So there is no reason why Muslims cannot be brought under the constitution.

All religions contributed to the freedom of India. And all are expected to follow the law.

Article 44 says that the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.

Article 25 doesn't mean anyone can have laws as per religion.

Quran and its teachings and Shariah or any religious text are not law of India and hence discussion on them or their implementation is immaterial.

 

[Sidilicious]

One Country, One Law

Someones religion should not rules apply to you.

 

[Justcrazy]

No religion was brought under the constitutional code by the constituent assembly. All were given the freedom to have their personal laws. That was the status in 1950.

Why? Because Nehru was against a uniform civil code and only wanted Hindus to be under the constitutional code while allowing muslims to remain out of it. This was opposed tooth and nail by Patel and Ambedkar.

Nehru then brought hindus under the constitutional code via laws in 1952. By that time Patel had died and Ambedkar had left congress. So there is no reason why Muslims cannot be brought under the constitution.

All religions contributed to the freedom of India. And all are expected to follow the law.

Article 44 says that the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.

Article 25 doesn't mean anyone can have laws as per religion.

Quran and its teachings and Shariah or any religious text are not law of India and hence discussion on them or their implementation is immaterial.

Nehru was the PM of India , can you erase that fact ? What was done , was done by the ruling party , those who were instrumental in freedom of India.

As per article 25 people have right to practice there religion , how can they practice if you want to keep tampering with that , and want people to accept something completely different ? Muslims are not demanding some new legislation , what they are asking is not tampering with existing laws.

If Quran and religious Texts are not important , why you brought it up in first place ?

 

[Justcrazy]

One Country, One Law

Someones religion should not rules apply to you.

Why you stopped at one law only , why not one language , one education , one benefits etc etc?

 

[ex-q-zit]

No Uniform Civil Code Bill In This Session: Karnataka's Basavaraj Bommai

Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai today said the bill regarding implementation of "Uniform Civil Code" (UCC) in the State will not be introduced during the ongoing winter session of the legislature here.

"There are no chances of tabling it during this session," Mr Bommai told reporters in response to a question whether a bill on UCC will be tabled during this session.

The Chief Minister had recently said serious discussions were going on for implementing the UCC in Karnataka.

He had also said he is gathering information regarding developments in various States and what the Constitution says vis-a-vis the UCC, and any decision on implementing it in the state, will be taken after going through them.

Asked about a BJP MLC planning to introduce a private member bill which reportedly seeks to ban halal certification, Bommai said, "Let's see when it comes; private member bill has its own position. We will see what it is."

BJP MLC N Ravi Kumar had written to the Chairman of Legislative Council, seeking permission to introduce a private member's Bill in the legislature session to amend Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, to ban any private organisation from issuing certification of foods.

The proposed Bill seeks to ban any company from advertising with a claim that a religious institution has certified the food product, sources said.

Some Hindutva groups have been carrying on a campaign against halal certification in recent times.

Responding to a question regarding a Maharashtra MP wanting to visit Belagavi, the CM said, "we have restrained him. Not only that, another three to four people wanted to enter, we have restrained everybody. We will not allow anyone to enter Karnataka unlawfully."

The ten-day long winter session began in this border district by paying obituary to former deputy Speaker of Legislative Assembly Vishwanath Chandrashekar Mamani, Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav, and eight other former MLAs who had passed away recently.

Hoping that the session will be productive and successful with good discussion, Bommai said, the government is ready for any discussion and this is the right forum.

"We are also ready to discuss the issues relating to this (north Karnataka) region," he added.

NDTV

 

[happydavy]

Why you stopped at one law only , why not one language , one education , one benefits etc etc?

Because speaking a different language or creating one, doing MBBS or Engg are all individual choices and foster societal growth. However, different set of laws based upon religions is a medieval practice and has no justification to exist. It goes against the basic tenet of law, which calls everyone being equal in front of it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Nehru was the PM of India , can you erase that fact ? What was done , was done by the ruling party , those who were instrumental in freedom of India.

As per article 25 people have right to practice there religion , how can they practice if you want to keep tampering with that , and want people to accept something completely different ? Muslims are not demanding some new legislation , what they are asking is not tampering with existing laws.

If Quran and religious Texts are not important , why you brought it up in first place ?

If one ruling party can bring in a law, another one can do the same.

Right to practice religion doesn't mean right to have extra rights. If Nehru Government can amend laws, so can every government.

I didn't bring that in, others did. Point is that religious texts have no influence on the laws of a secular country.

 

[ex-q-zit]

Supreme Court Okays Uniform Civil Code Panels In Gujarat, Uttarakhand

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging Gujarat and Uttarakhand's decision to constitute committees to consider the introduction and implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha said that the plea is without merit as they noted the constitution of the committee alone cannot be challenged.

The court rejected the plea filed by one Anoop Baranwal and said that the states have the power to do so.

The plea has challenged the constitution of committees set up by Gujarat and Uttarakhand to frame the UCC. But the court noted that the executive power of states extends to what legislature permits it to. The court, hence, remarked that there was nothing wrong in forming committees by the state governments as the Constitution empowers them to do so.

The court further remarked that they have only constituted a committee under their executive powers.

In October 2022, Gujarat Home Minister Harsh Sanghavi announced forming a committee for implementing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the state. The decision was taken in the cabinet meeting.

In May 2022, the Uttarakhand government formed a committee to examine its implementation in the state.

The Uniform Civil Code is a proposal in India to formulate and implement personal laws of citizens which apply to all citizens equally regardless of their religion, gender and sexual orientation.

NDTV

 

[ex-q-zit]

Supreme Court To Examine Whether Muslim Girls Above 15 Can Marry Willingly

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights' plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order that a Muslim girl can marry a person of her choice after attaining puberty.

The top court said that the High Court judgment, which held that a Muslim girl aged 15 years can enter into a legal and valid marriage as per personal law, should not be relied on as a precedent in any other case.

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha issued notices to the Haryana government and others, and appointed senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao as amicus curiae in the matter to assist the court. "We are inclined to entertain these writ petitions. Issue notice. Pending further orders, impugned judgment (of HC) shall not be relied upon as precedent," the bench said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that Muslim girls who are 14, 15, 16 years old are getting married.

"Can there be a defence of personal law? Can you plead custom or personal law as a defence against a criminal offence?" he asked. The age of attaining puberty is 15 years according to applicable personal laws in Islam.

The High Court had passed the order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a 26-year-old man against the detention of his 16-year-old wife in a children's home in Panchkula.

It observed that 15 years is the age of puberty of a Muslim female, and she can on her own willingness and consent marry a person of her choice after attaining puberty. Such a marriage would not be void in terms of Section 12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006, it said.

NDTV

 

[Obaidd]

I find this obsession with having a uniform civil code absolutely disgusting. If Muslims have their personal law in line with their religious code, how’s that offensive to other communities? Just don’t get why the majority community is hell bent on meddling with the affairs of the Muslim community who are by and large happy with their personal laws. The arguments for UCC are based on hate, prejudice and an urge to dominate in my opinion.

 

[cricketjoshila]

In a vast country like India , where if you go from one state to another the dialects , environment , culture etc changes , it is not possible to have uniform code . There are lot of hiderences. The issue now in India is that the Goverment is a puppet of RSS , whose purpose is just to propagate against Islam and Christianity . They claim to be greatest nationalists , and there achivement is killing of Gandhi

There founder is said to be great freedom fighter , Veer Sarvarkar , he was so veer that he kept writing mercy petition .

When this Brave freedom fighter , father of all RSS concludes his letter to british he writes , YOUR MOST OBEDIENT SERVANT.

Except Muslims no other religion has issues with uniform laws, thing is that Muslims can keep objecting but ucc is coming sooner rather than later. There is no place for separate special laws for any religion and Muslims can no longer politically veto this, as succcesssive elections have shown that a party can win and form government without Muslim votes,

 

[cricketjoshila]

I find this obsession with having a uniform civil code absolutely disgusting. If Muslims have their personal law in line with their religious code, how’s that offensive to other communities? Just don’t get why the majority community is hell bent on meddling with the affairs of the Muslim community who are by and large happy with their personal laws. The arguments for UCC are based on hate, prejudice and an urge to dominate in my opinion.

Your opinion counts for little in India, those with similar opinion were given a piece of land in 1947. That’s where these kind of views should remain. In a secular democracy, special laws for one religion ha no place, millions of Muslims live in Europe uk usa etc, do they have separate laws there?

 

[Obaidd]

Your opinion counts for little in India, those with similar opinion were given a piece of land in 1947. That’s where these kind of views should remain. In a secular democracy, special laws for one religion ha no place, millions of Muslims live in Europe uk usa etc, do they have separate laws there?

Muslim personal law doesn’t exist in those places. India is a different story. It’s a Muslim homeland as far as I’m concerned. These are existing personal laws already in place. They want those laws to stay put.

Even that’s missing the point though. Real question is why is this such a big deal for majority community, how are Muslim personal laws affecting them? What is the obsession to take away these freedoms?

 

[Josh]

Muslim personal law doesn’t exist in those places. India is a different story. It’s a Muslim homeland as far as I’m concerned. These are existing personal laws already in place. They want those laws to stay put.

Even that’s missing the point though. Real question is why is this such a big deal for majority community, how are Muslim personal laws affecting them? What is the obsession to take away these freedoms?

At the time when Indian constitution was written, they wanted to implement a UCC. Those were still darker times and they wanted it to be done in future.Article 44 of the Indian Constitution directs the state to endeavor for a UCC throughout India, as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

This aims to separate personal laws from religious scriptures, aligning with secular ideals of Indian republic where religion doesn't dictate civil matters.

 

[Vikram1989]

Even that’s missing the point though. Real question is why is this such a big deal for majority community, how are Muslim personal laws affecting them? What is the obsession to take away these freedoms?

Bone of contention is the polygamy and divorce. A good number of muslims men are cheating their wives and divorcing them/marrying others through corrupt maulvis.its happens mainly in the backward states of Up and bihar.so the divorced women and younger gen women wants their rights to be protected. They have formed an association and fighting for it.Shias also are not objecting to the law.only few influential muslim men and parties for vote bank politics are objecting it.

Not able to Adopt a child, minimum marriage age (15)for girls , women's property rights ( only half of a son ) are other issues.

Now Tell me which one of the above are wrong as per uniform civil code?.I see all are perfect to protect a 21st century aspiring young women irrespective of religion

 

[Hellion]

I find this obsession with having a uniform civil code absolutely disgusting. If Muslims have their personal law in line with their religious code, how’s that offensive to other communities? Just don’t get why the majority community is hell bent on meddling with the affairs of the Muslim community who are by and large happy with their personal laws. The arguments for UCC are based on hate, prejudice and an urge to dominate in my opinion.

If Muslims are not happy with UCC, they should migrate to Muslim countries where sharia is the dominant law of the land.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Muslim personal law doesn’t exist in those places. India is a different story. It’s a Muslim homeland as far as I’m concerned. These are existing personal laws already in place. They want those laws to stay put.

Even that’s missing the point though. Real question is why is this such a big deal for majority community, how are Muslim personal laws affecting them? What is the obsession to take away these freedoms?

Muslim homeland formed in 1947 is called Pakistan not India.
The obsession is to make the country secular and not give any community special treatment.

Why do some Muslims think that Muslims should have special privileges.

1947: we want separate country, no matter what

2026: we didn’t go to that separate country, give us extra rights here.

Basically non Muslims must keep adjusting for Muslims

 

[cricketjoshila]

If Muslims are not happy with UCC, they should migrate to Muslim countries where sharia is the dominant law of the land.

They should but they didn’t in 1947

 

[cricketjoshila]

Bone of contention is the polygamy and divorce. A good number of muslims men are cheating their wives and divorcing them/marrying others through corrupt maulvis.its happens mainly in the backward states of Up and bihar.so the divorced women and younger gen women wants their rights to be protected. They have formed an association and fighting for it.Shias also are not objecting to the law.only few influential muslim men and parties for vote bank politics are objecting it.

Not able to Adopt a child, minimum marriage age (15)for girls , women's property rights ( only half of a son ) are other issues.

Now Tell me which one of the above are wrong as per uniform civil code?.I see all are perfect to protect a 21st century aspiring young women irrespective of religion

One guy a influential muslim lawyer once told me that Muslims in1948 demanded the constituent assembly to give Muslims separate electorate and when that wasn’t granted the Muslim community in 1952 asked for personal laws, i told him that these stories won’t work because anyone who has read history and read the constituent assembly debates, knows that even secular country was passed after a lot of debate and after nehrus blackmail so Muslims getting any demands for special rights in the constitution had no chance after formation of Pakistan. Nehru played the game of having separate personal laws for al religion and then in1952 just took away the rights of non Muslims. That anomaly is being addressed now

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What's needed in India is a uniform civic code, not a civil code. This would require Indians to have actual standards of hygiene, public welfare and etiquette.

Before anyone accuses me of being racist, I think the public welfare part should apply to Pakistanis as well. Citizens should always have a sense of duty to their public surroundings, so littering, uncouth behaviour and such should be stamped down on.

 

[Obaidd]

At the time when Indian constitution was written, they wanted to implement a UCC. Those were still darker times and they wanted it to be done in future.Article 44 of the Indian Constitution directs the state to endeavor for a UCC throughout India, as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

This aims to separate personal laws from religious scriptures, aligning with secular ideals of Indian republic where religion doesn't dictate civil matters.

Thanks for the historical and constitutional context of this

I am curious still though why is this a concern for the majority community what Muslims do in their personal domain.

The provision for Muslim personal law is also based on the Indian constitution I’d imagine. It’s not about special privileges if they only apply those laws to matters that concern their community.

 

[Obaidd]

Bone of contention is the polygamy and divorce. A good number of muslims men are cheating their wives and divorcing them/marrying others through corrupt maulvis.its happens mainly in the backward states of Up and bihar.so the divorced women and younger gen women wants their rights to be protected. They have formed an association and fighting for it.Shias also are not objecting to the law.only few influential muslim men and parties for vote bank politics are objecting it.

Not able to Adopt a child, minimum marriage age (15)for girls , women's property rights ( only half of a son ) are other issues.

Now Tell me which one of the above are wrong as per uniform civil code?.I see all are perfect to protect a 21st century aspiring young women irrespective of religion

I am not calling any of these as wrong or right as that’s not my point. I can understand that some provisions would be used unfairly by Muslims upon other Muslims. My curiosity is more about how come this is an issue for other communities who per my understanding would be unaffected.

 

[Obaidd]

If Muslims are not happy with UCC, they should migrate to Muslim countries where sharia is the dominant law of the land.

This sounds like fascism to me. As I have said India is Muslim homeland.

 

[Obaidd]

Muslim homeland formed in 1947 is called Pakistan not India.
The obsession is to make the country secular and not give any community special treatment.

Why do some Muslims think that Muslims should have special privileges.

1947: we want separate country, no matter what

2026: we didn’t go to that separate country, give us extra rights here.

Basically non Muslims must keep adjusting for Muslims

Not special privileges but freedom to practise their deen which covers matter beyond prayer and worship. Not extra rights but fundamental rights. For example, a Muslim Keralite who’s indigenous to the land, whose ancestors never even considered migrating to pak, who loves Ind but wants his private matters to be dealt in line with his religious code, what’s his fault? Why cricketjoshila (who’s completely unaffected) wants to take away this right from him in 2026?

 

[Josh]

Thanks for the historical and constitutional context of this

I am curious still though why is this a concern for the majority community what Muslims do in their personal domain.

The provision for Muslim personal law is also based on the Indian constitution I’d imagine. It’s not about special privileges if they only apply those laws to matters that concern their community.

In India criminal law is already uniform, and this is about civil laws mostly. But I don't think it's not just a personal domain. It governs civil matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and maintenance. These aren’t isolated decisions; they directly impact individual rights, especially of women and children, within the same country and legal system.

It’s about legal consistency and equality before the law. If two citizens live under different legal standards for the same civil issue, it raises a basic question -> should rights depend on religion?

Your point is taken but India aspires to be a secular republic. Turkiye,a secular republic with muslim majority, has a uniform civil code. Islamic laws have no authority in civil matters there and these laws are same for all the citizens.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Not special privileges but freedom to practise their deen which covers matter beyond prayer and worship. Not extra rights but fundamental rights. For example, a Muslim Keralite who’s indigenous to the land, whose ancestors never even considered migrating to pak, who loves Ind but wants his private matters to be dealt in line with his religious code, what’s his fault? Why cricketjoshila (who’s completely unaffected) wants to take away this right from him in 2026?

One country one law for all, that’s the point, one community can’t have rules that the court can’t enforce its orders on them



India isn’t run by any religious code and won’t be run by any either

Its a matter of equality

 

[Vikram1989]

My curiosity is more about how come this is an issue for other communities who per my understanding would be unaffected.

In india, I don't think any other community cares.Between communities,its just like an earlier siblings fight pointing each other's mistake and asking more favours from parents.Mostly Its been a govt vs Muslim personal law supporters( from all communities who thinks status quo should continue).

 

[KB]

I think it is useful to provide some historical context. Why was the Uniform Civil Code not adopted after independence? A standard response is that, in the words of the Indian historian, Mridula Mukherjee, “minorities were feeling insecure immediately after Independence,” and so it was “not desirable to impose anything” on them.

Yet, the persistence of separate personal laws was not merely a post-Partition concession to insecurity, but rooted - and deeply rooted - in pre-existing political and religious visions of community autonomy. The idea of specific and separate personal laws for Muslims was a critical component of the ‘nationalist Muslim’ thinking in Colonial India and this made it harder to discount.

Here a distinction between Muslim modernists and ulama is helpful. To be sure, not all ulama were ‘nationalist Muslims’ or sympathisers of the Congress. Nor did all modernists become ‘separatists’ or supporters of the Muslim League. The picture was far messier than this binary would imply. But it is clear that it was the modernists who spearheaded the campaign for Pakistan and it was from the ranks of the ulama - particularly those associated with the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind - that the most vociferous Muslim voices were raised against Partition.

The modernists had a very different understanding of the Muslim community to the ulama. Though of course it is a diverse group, in general we might state that they emphasised the ethical, ecumenical and aspirational dimensions of Islam rather than defining the community in terms of law.

In case of the reformist ulama, in particular those associated with the Deoband movement, the Muslim community was defined above all by the adherence to the shari’a. As western rule entrenched itself, the ulama aimed to create a distinct religious sphere that would sustain an Islamic society in the absence of state power. The ulama by virtue of their expertise in matters pertaining to Islamic law, saw themselves as leaders in the religious sphere as guides of the Muslim community. ‘Correct’ behaviour and belief was essential in this definition of the community.

As some of the ulama became more involved in politics, they saw this as an extension of role as custodians of religious tradition defined by the shari’a. The ulama that became active in the Khilafat movement did so because they believed it “was a matter of defence of the shari’a” in the words of historian Gail Minault who has written a study of the movement. In 1931 at Sahranpur the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind outlined their vision of a future India: substantial autonomy for religious communities and one where there would be an independent system of courts, which for Muslims would operate under the direction of qazis. It was this vision of what Peter Hardy labelled in striking words, “jurisprudential apartheid” that many of the ulama preferred to the idea of Partition.

Indeed, when it came to the Pakistan demand many (though not all) of the ulama denounced it in harsh terms, none more so than Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani. Madani himself had a strong “commitment to a system of separate personal laws,” in the words of historian Barbara Metcalf, who has written a sympathetic study on Madani (with the subtitle: The Jihad for Islam and India's Freedom). As Metcalf writes, “Madani imagined India…as a congeries of communities relatively encapsulated in their individual languages, cultures, education and moral/legal systems…Thus, Muslims would be a ‘community’, guided by religious leadership, following distinctive educational, cultural and legal paths from other religiously defined communities who would do the same.”

In Madani’s own words, where he made strong pitch for ‘Composite Nationalism’ (Muttahida Qaumiyat), he wrote - in 1938 - that Congress policies “make it abundantly clear that there shall be no interference in the religious and cultural affairs of minorities, and they will retain their ‘personal law’ given to them in the Constitution.” (my emphasis)

So, separate personal laws were deeply rooted in the 'nationalist Muslim' ideology rather than just a post-independence concession to insecurity.

 

[Hellion]

This sounds like fascism to me. As I have said India is Muslim homeland.

It's either a Dharmic homeland or a secular homeland for subcontinentals. Not a "Muslim" homeland. There's already Pakistan and Bangladesh for that.

Since uniform civil code is unacceptable, India should give up on secularism become a Dharmic majoritarian state and give Muslims a protected minority status much like Islamic states do.

 

[Hitman]

Addressing an election rally in Dudhnoi in Assam's Goalpara district on Friday, Union Home Minister Amit Shah said the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) would ensure infiltrators would not be able to marry four times.

The minister said Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma have prepared a comprehensive roadmap for tribal development, asserting that its full implementation hinges on the BJP returning to power in the state.

"A roadmap has been prepared by the Prime Minister and the Assam Chief Minister for the development of tribals. Vote for the BJP to ensure it is taken forward and implemented," he said.

Highlighting the BJP's outreach to tribal communities, Shah said it was under Modi's leadership that the country got its first tribal woman President.

"The Congress never made an Adivasi woman the country's President, but Modi changed that and Droupadi Murmu became the nation's first citizen," he said.

Shah also clarified that tribal areas would remain outside the ambit of the UCC.

Referring to recent tensions in neighboring Meghalaya, he alleged that infiltrators had attempted to gain political influence in the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council by "marrying tribal women", which led to unrest.

"Infiltrators tried to capture power in the Garo council by marrying tribal women, and this led to the strife," he said.

Reiterating the BJP's stand on illegal infiltration, Shah said the party would act decisively if voted back to power.

"Give us another five years in Assam, and we will rid the state of infiltrators and send them back," he said.

The Union Home Minister also claimed that the BJP had restored peace in Assam, warning that instability could return if the Congress regains lost ground in the upcoming Assembly polls.

"We brought peace to Assam. If Congress wins even a few seats, the state will witness instability again," Shah said.

Assam will vote on April 9 and counting will be held on May 4.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ass...t-be-able-to-marry-4-times-amit-shah-11306834


​

 

[Hitman]

"Give us another five years in Assam, and we will rid the state of infiltrators and send them back," he said.


​

We've been waiting for the last 10 years.

 

[Mughal]

"Not Against Any Religion Or Sect": Nitin Gadkari On Uniform Civil Code

Union Minister Nitin Gadkari today said all parties should make a collective effort to implement a uniform civil code, which will be good for the nation and humanity.
ADVERTISING

Replying to a question on Uniform Civil Code (UCC) at Agenda Aaj Tak event, he said, "If a man marries a woman it is natural. But if someone goes for four marriages that is unnatural. Therefore the progressive and educated Muslims don't do it."

"There should be a qualitative change in society. It is not against any religion or sect. We should together develop the nation," the Union minister for road, transport and highways said.

Should not women of any religion, be they Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, be given equal rights, he posed. The Union minister also asked which Muslim country in the world has two civil codes.

"If the Central government takes a decision on any issue and the states object, then the message that will go out will not be good as there is a concurrent list. So I think that if the states and all parties take a collective decision that it will be good for humanity and the nation," he said.

Bringing in a Uniform Civil Code was among the major poll promises of the BJP in the recently concluded Assembly polls in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh.

On October 29, the Gujarat government announced that it would form a committee for the implementation of the UCC. The decision was taken in a cabinet meeting that day.

NDTV

Dear ex q zit, kindly see HERE for clarity of all issues concerning humanity and if you have any better ideas please do share them.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It's either a Dharmic homeland or a secular homeland for subcontinentals. Not a "Muslim" homeland. There's already Pakistan and Bangladesh for that.

Since uniform civil code is unacceptable, India should give up on secularism become a Dharmic majoritarian state and give Muslims a protected minority status much like Islamic states do.

I think that's reasonable.

Indian Muslims cannot have their cake and eat it too.

If they want to be equal members of society then there has to be a uniform code.

 

[Red-Indian]

Thanks for the historical and constitutional context of this

I am curious still though why is this a concern for the majority community what Muslims do in their personal domain.

The provision for Muslim personal law is also based on the Indian constitution I’d imagine. It’s not about special privileges if they only apply those laws to matters that concern their community.

I agree with your point partly i.e. Muslim Personal law should not a be a matter for right wing invective or even a political issue since it doesn't impact other communities..

I disagree though that it should not be a matter for the State or Courts. Part of what a modern government strives for (however imperfectly) is fairness. Stuff like polygamy (without polyandry) or unequal inheritance laws cannot be allowed to stand however rooted in tradition or religion they are. It's the State's responsibility to stand up for the voiceless.

 

[Hellion]

I think that's reasonable.

Indian Muslims cannot have their cake and eat it too.

If they want to be equal members of society then there has to be a uniform code.

It's a 2 part equation . UCC implementation is only 1 part. It is then the responsibility of the Indian state to have a zero tolerance policy towards discrimination in housing/violence against Muslims and punish such acts severely.

Also need to demolish juristic ghettos in Indian cities and instead compensate them with flats in high rises which somewhat coerces communities to live together and builds social cohesion.

Tough to do in India compared to a China but it needs to be done imo.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I think that's reasonable.

Indian Muslims cannot have their cake and eat it too.

If they want to be equal members of society then there has to be a uniform code.

Hindudtva Bigot!

@HalBass9 I got you covered bro.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I think it is useful to provide some historical context. Why was the Uniform Civil Code not adopted after independence? A standard response is that, in the words of the Indian historian, Mridula Mukherjee, “minorities were feeling insecure immediately after Independence,” and so it was “not desirable to impose anything” on them.

Yet, the persistence of separate personal laws was not merely a post-Partition concession to insecurity, but rooted - and deeply rooted - in pre-existing political and religious visions of community autonomy. The idea of specific and separate personal laws for Muslims was a critical component of the ‘nationalist Muslim’ thinking in Colonial India and this made it harder to discount.

Here a distinction between Muslim modernists and ulama is helpful. To be sure, not all ulama were ‘nationalist Muslims’ or sympathisers of the Congress. Nor did all modernists become ‘separatists’ or supporters of the Muslim League. The picture was far messier than this binary would imply. But it is clear that it was the modernists who spearheaded the campaign for Pakistan and it was from the ranks of the ulama - particularly those associated with the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind - that the most vociferous Muslim voices were raised against Partition.

The modernists had a very different understanding of the Muslim community to the ulama. Though of course it is a diverse group, in general we might state that they emphasised the ethical, ecumenical and aspirational dimensions of Islam rather than defining the community in terms of law.

In case of the reformist ulama, in particular those associated with the Deoband movement, the Muslim community was defined above all by the adherence to the shari’a. As western rule entrenched itself, the ulama aimed to create a distinct religious sphere that would sustain an Islamic society in the absence of state power. The ulama by virtue of their expertise in matters pertaining to Islamic law, saw themselves as leaders in the religious sphere as guides of the Muslim community. ‘Correct’ behaviour and belief was essential in this definition of the community.

As some of the ulama became more involved in politics, they saw this as an extension of role as custodians of religious tradition defined by the shari’a. The ulama that became active in the Khilafat movement did so because they believed it “was a matter of defence of the shari’a” in the words of historian Gail Minault who has written a study of the movement. In 1931 at Sahranpur the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind outlined their vision of a future India: substantial autonomy for religious communities and one where there would be an independent system of courts, which for Muslims would operate under the direction of qazis. It was this vision of what Peter Hardy labelled in striking words, “jurisprudential apartheid” that many of the ulama preferred to the idea of Partition.

Indeed, when it came to the Pakistan demand many (though not all) of the ulama denounced it in harsh terms, none more so than Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani. Madani himself had a strong “commitment to a system of separate personal laws,” in the words of historian Barbara Metcalf, who has written a sympathetic study on Madani (with the subtitle: The Jihad for Islam and India's Freedom). As Metcalf writes, “Madani imagined India…as a congeries of communities relatively encapsulated in their individual languages, cultures, education and moral/legal systems…Thus, Muslims would be a ‘community’, guided by religious leadership, following distinctive educational, cultural and legal paths from other religiously defined communities who would do the same.”

In Madani’s own words, where he made strong pitch for ‘Composite Nationalism’ (Muttahida Qaumiyat), he wrote - in 1938 - that Congress policies “make it abundantly clear that there shall be no interference in the religious and cultural affairs of minorities, and they will retain their ‘personal law’ given to them in the Constitution.” (my emphasis)

So, separate personal laws were deeply rooted in the 'nationalist Muslim' ideology rather than just a post-independence concession to insecurity.

I have always felt that the opposite was true. Rather than minority insecurity it was insecurity of the Hindu majority that lead to them making concessions to keep others onboard with the post partition India project.

Acceptance of seperate laws was really a sign that the minorities were others, the law of India really applied to Hindus and some concessions were made to what the majority felt were essentially second class citizens to keep them happy.

 

[Obaidd]

I agree with your point partly i.e. Muslim Personal law should not a be a matter for right wing invective or even a political issue since it doesn't impact other communities..

This

I disagree though that it should not be a matter for the State or Courts. Part of what a modern government strives for (however imperfectly) is fairness. Stuff like polygamy (without polyandry) or unequal inheritance laws cannot be allowed to stand however rooted in tradition or religion they are. It's the State's responsibility to stand up for the voiceless.

I have some apprehensions about the Courts and State. Ind courts have become controversial with some of their judgements on religious themed cases. For example the guy who headed the final Babri Masjid verdict became a BJP Rajya Sabha member soon after. BJP as we know has a history of using the Ayodhya case for political reasons. In fact it’s probably fair to say that BJP galvanised support and became a political force to reckon with in the context of Ayodhya case with Advani’s yatra back in the day. For Ranjan Gogoi to deliver that verdict and to join the sitting govt soon after is a matter of suspicion. Trust in Supreme Court of India eroded as a result.

As far as the State is considered, the less said the better. The majoritarian government with BJP as the main party has a history of stoking communal tensions to win support for itself. I fail to take seriously the argument that BJP is standing up for ‘voiceless’ Muslim women. A better way to give voice to the Muslim women would perhaps be to give them representation in the parliament. We all know BJP doesn’t even give tickets to Muslims so when it talks about being their saviour then that has to be taken with a few spoons of salt.

I am not an expert on Ind politics at all so please correct me if I am off here.

 

[Justcrazy]

Because speaking a different language or creating one, doing MBBS or Engg are all individual choices and foster societal growth. However, different set of laws based upon religions is a medieval practice and has no justification to exist. It goes against the basic tenet of law, which calls everyone being equal in front of it.

Criminal laws of India are the same for everyone.

 

[Justcrazy]

If one ruling party can bring in a law, another one can do the same.

Right to practice religion doesn't mean right to have extra rights. If Nehru Government can amend laws, so can every government.

I didn't bring that in, others did. Point is that religious texts have no influence on the laws of a secular country.

So , what does right to practice religion means ?

 

[Vikram1989]

This


I have some apprehensions about the Courts and State.

Let's say in best case, bjp will have 30 muslim mps in 20 years .then muslim mps can propose the changes and get it done in another 5 years .so u prefer all the muslims to suffer for another 25/50/75 years than other community interference.

 

[Red-Indian]

I have some apprehensions about the Courts and State. Ind courts have become controversial with some of their judgements on religious themed cases. For example the guy who headed the final Babri Masjid verdict became a BJP Rajya Sabha member soon after. BJP as we know has a history of using the Ayodhya case for political reasons. In fact it’s probably fair to say that BJP galvanised support and became a political force to reckon with in the context of Ayodhya case with Advani’s yatra back in the day. For Ranjan Gogoi to deliver that verdict and to join the sitting govt soon after is a matter of suspicion. Trust in Supreme Court of India eroded as a resu

You're right to have apprehensions about Indian courts. Indian courts are increasingly politicises especially at the top levels like the Supreme Court. Even so, in a democracy like India, they can only go so far. Within the last 5 years, the Supreme Court has

- Stuck down the electoral bonds scheme denying the ruling governments billions of dollars
- Quashed the release of the 11 Bilkis Bano convicts by the Gujarat Government
- Abolished the criminality of homosexual relationships

None of these were popular decisions and none favoured by the ruling government.

I still have (some) faith in the Indian judicial system to protect rights of minorities whether religious or otherwise. In fact, they've probably been too cautious. In spite of years of struggle by Muslim women, it took the courts until 2017 to declare Triple Talaq illegal because the Ulema were against it.

As far as the State is considered, the less said the better. The majoritarian government with BJP as the main party has a history of stoking communal tensions to win support for itself. I fail to take seriously the argument that BJP is standing up for ‘voiceless’ Muslim women. A better way to give voice to the Muslim women would perhaps be to give them representation in the parliament. We all know BJP doesn’t even give tickets to Muslims so when it talks about being their saviour then that has to be taken with a few spoons of salt.

I am not an expert on Ind politics at all so please correct me if I am off here.

The State is obviously more of a problem and unfortunately it's part of global problem where there's a rightward swing and minorities, immigrants etc. are being unfairly targeted and marginalised.

Luckily, the Indian State has mostly stayed out of trying to 'reform' personal law. Every election since 2014, they've made a lot of noise about the Uniform Civil Code during elections but have not made the slightest move towards it when in power.

I believe they recognise the issue is a sensitive one and a Hindu government's interference can not resolve the problem and can only inflame it. They're (mostly) leaving it to the community and the courts. Muslim women are becoming increasingly socially active and are fighting and winning battles. Triple Talaq was defeated in courts based on a lawsuit by a Muslim woman. I doubt Polygamy will stand too long.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So , what does right to practice religion means ?

A Muslim has every right to go to a mosque and offer namaz etc

Right to practice religion doesn’t mean right to have religious laws in the constitution, Muslims wanting such arrangement. Were given a country in 1947

 

[cricketjoshila]

This


I have some apprehensions about the Courts and State. Ind courts have become controversial with some of their judgements on religious themed cases. For example the guy who headed the final Babri Masjid verdict became a BJP Rajya Sabha member soon after. BJP as we know has a history of using the Ayodhya case for political reasons. In fact it’s probably fair to say that BJP galvanised support and became a political force to reckon with in the context of Ayodhya case with Advani’s yatra back in the day. For Ranjan Gogoi to deliver that verdict and to join the sitting govt soon after is a matter of suspicion. Trust in Supreme Court of India eroded as a result.

As far as the State is considered, the less said the better. The majoritarian government with BJP as the main party has a history of stoking communal tensions to win support for itself. I fail to take seriously the argument that BJP is standing up for ‘voiceless’ Muslim women. A better way to give voice to the Muslim women would perhaps be to give them representation in the parliament. We all know BJP doesn’t even give tickets to Muslims so when it talks about being their saviour then that has to be taken with a few spoons of salt.

I am not an expert on Ind politics at all so please correct me if I am off here.

You have apprehension about courts in India, sorry nothing can be done about that, Indian matters are handled in Indian courts as per Indian law and no lsw prevents a judge from becoming a rs member.

If u use google u wil understand that a judge of supreme court has much more power than any rs member, so its no big deal, compare it to the army chief in Pakistan being made president after retiring.


One nation can’t have two set of laws

 

[HalBass9]

A Uniform Civil Code would mean that if someone chooses to eat beef, they can do so without worrying about being lynched over it. That’s what “uniform” and “rule of law” actually look like, equal protection, not selective outrage.

So maybe begin there. Otherwise, spare everyone the grand speeches about UCC. Just admit the obvious, this isn’t about secularism or equality, it’s about enforcing one group’s preferences on everyone else.

And once you’re honest about that, you can also stop performing for validation from people outside India. It’s getting a bit tired.

 

[Local.Dada]

A Muslim has every right to go to a mosque and offer namaz etc

Right to practice religion doesn’t mean right to have religious laws in the constitution, Muslims wanting such arrangement. Were given a country in 1947

Why are we wasting time explaining Pakistanis “secularism”, their ancestors took the wrong train or maybe right train back in the day for Islamic utopia. Indian Muslims might have 100 issues with the govt just like any other community, it’s between Indian people and govt. in fact Indian Muslims do look at Pak Muslims for right or wrong as those people from a radicalized, bankrupt and failed country. No one is asking for Pakistani support lol.

Don’t need to hear 2 bit nonsense from some radicalized Pakistani (obviously not everyone, the ones know who they are)

 

[HalBass9]

Why are we wasting time explaining Pakistanis “secularism”, their ancestors took the wrong train or maybe right train back in the day for Islamic utopia. Indian Muslims might have 100 issues with the govt just like any other community, it’s between Indian people and govt. in fact Indian Muslims do look at Pak Muslims for right or wrong as those people from a radicalized, bankrupt and failed country. No one is asking for Pakistani support lol.

Don’t need to hear 2 bit nonsense from some radicalized Pakistani (obviously not everyone, the ones know who they are)

Ah yes, the self proclaimed corporate overlord, master of spreadsheets, destroyer of deadlines, and yet somehow, completely unfamiliar with the concept of secularism. Truly inspiring.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Ah yes, the self proclaimed corporate overlord, master of spreadsheets, destroyer of deadlines, and yet somehow, completely unfamiliar with the concept of secularism. Truly inspiring.

Pakistan is the stronghold of secularism

People of a islamic republic talking about secularism. Laughable

 

[cricketjoshila]

People like him try to cover islamist supremacy view with secularism or multiculturalism, this may hoodwink someone in the west but not in the subcontinent

 

[Local.Dada]

People like him try to cover islamist supremacy view with secularism or multiculturalism, this may hoodwink someone in the west but not in the subcontinent

I don’t even think these people are Islamists or uber-religious. These types want a liberal secular environment for themselves and shariah for everyone else. typical , lol. One guy was saying how he ogles at women’s navel and it’s ok because saree is not sharia compliant. For another “Brit” guy 2 piece bikini is direct substitute for Burkha and there is apparently no middle ground to dress respectfully with decorum in any other way.

Imagine being around that mindset in a multicultural society.

I saw recent trend of Pakistanis claiming Indic civilization etc because clearly naming their missiles after Afghan invaders hasn’t worked out too well, so new chooran.

I stick to the cricket topics mostly as to why indulge. There are quiet a few good and decent Pak posters here even the ones I don’t agree with. I will stick to that. These discussions won’t go anywhere.

 

[HalBass9]

Pakistan is the stronghold of secularism

People of a islamic republic talking about secularism. Laughable

Neither Pakistan is, nor does it pretend to be.

Anyone, from Pakistan or anywhere else, is perfectly capable of discussing “secularism.” But you already knew that. You just ran out of arguments, got a bit emotional, and decided to downgrade your thinking to something more, comforting. A cute little coping mechanism, really.

 

[HalBass9]

I don’t even think these people are Islamists or uber-religious. These types want a liberal secular environment for themselves and shariah for everyone else. typical , lol. One guy was saying how he ogles at women’s navel and it’s ok because saree is not sharia compliant. For another “Brit” guy 2 piece bikini is direct substitute for Burkha and there is apparently no middle ground to dress respectfully with decorum in any other way.

Imagine being around that mindset in a multicultural society.

I saw recent trend of Pakistanis claiming Indic civilization etc because clearly naming their missiles after Afghan invaders hasn’t worked out too well, so new chooran.

I stick to the cricket topics mostly as to why indulge. There are quiet a few good and decent Pak posters here even the ones I don’t agree with. I will stick to that. These discussions won’t go anywhere.

Shariah? Boy, asking for the freedom to practice their beliefs and not getting lynched is the text book definition of secularism. No one is making Hindus to not practice Hinduism in India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Neither Pakistan is, nor does it pretend to be.

Anyone, from Pakistan or anywhere else, is perfectly capable of discussing “secularism.” But you already knew that. You just ran out of arguments, got a bit emotional, and decided to downgrade your thinking to something more, comforting. A cute little coping mechanism, really.

Opinion on secularism from Pakistanis is a joke

Secondly I don’t need any argument
Uniform civil code is comical to India and Pakistanis or anyone else can’t stop it.

It’s laughable that you think I need to argue and convince you about laws in India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Shariah? Boy, asking for the freedom to practice their beliefs and not getting lynched is the text book definition of secularism. No one is making Hindus to not practice Hinduism in India.

Freedom to practice religion doesn’t mean having separate laws

Muslims don’t believe in idolatry, tommorow you will say temples should be closed.

You giys got Pakistan, practice your religion anyway you want there.

 

[HalBass9]

Opinion on secularism from Pakistanis is a joke

Secondly I don’t need any argument
Uniform civil code is comical to India and Pakistanis or anyone else can’t stop it.

It’s laughable that you think I need to argue and convince you about laws in India.

Na! your comments have been the biggest joke.

Stop telling other that they can't talk about secularism. This isn't Modi's India.

 

[HalBass9]

Freedom to practice religion doesn’t mean having separate laws

Muslims don’t believe in idolatry, tommorow you will say temples should be closed.

You giys got Pakistan, practice your religion anyway you want there.

Today's Indians is bringing down the Mosques, so relax.

Oh, so over 1.2 billion people in India will closed the temple just because 200 million asked.

You are really desperate.

 

[Local.Dada]

Shariah? Boy, asking for the freedom to practice their beliefs and not getting lynched is the text book definition of secularism. No one is making Hindus to not practice Hinduism in India.

what textbook is Isis, Dawood Ibrahim, LET, ISI etc reading? They seem to have killed more innocent civilians in India than some guy getting lynched for eating beef? Can we compare numbers?

 

[HalBass9]

what textbook is Isis, Dawood Ibrahim, LET, ISI etc reading? They seem to have killed more innocent civilians in India than some guy getting lynched for eating beef? Can we compare numbers?

Religiously driven extremists just as Hindutva.

I hope you are walking around with helmet on, you can't afford to lose any more brain cells.

 

[Local.Dada]

Na! your comments have been the biggest joke.

Stop telling other that they can't talk about secularism. This isn't Modi's India.

Start from home (Pakistan). If secularism means so much to you, that would be the best place to start.

I will tell you why that’s boring for you. You keep using someone having a “job” as a taunt. So maybe something like that which would require a herculean effort and probably you will end up in a ditch somewhere is obviously ruled out.

so of course easy to give hawa-hawai baatein and that too mostly nonsense with 2-3 same old cliched tropes in every topic . So there is that, thanks for playing though.

I know you wont stop responding or tagging me, so , jab chaped marne ka mann karega, tab aa jaunga. Till then you do you, I am outta here.

 

[Local.Dada]

Religiously driven extremists just as Hindutva.

I hope you are walking around with helmet on, you can't afford to lose any more brain cells.

Damage done by Hindutva extremists vs Islamic extremists across the globe or even India?

 

[cricketjoshila]

what textbook is Isis, Dawood Ibrahim, LET, ISI etc reading? They seem to have killed more innocent civilians in India than some guy getting lynched for eating beef? Can we compare numbers?

Why leave out al qaida?