Uttarakhand, a Himalayan state in India, passes landmark civil code amid opposition from Muslims

[Cricket Warrior]

Lawmakers in a small Indian state ruled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Wednesday approved landmark legislation to unify personal laws across religions, a moved opposed by many minority Muslims.

Approval by the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand makes it the first in the country since independence from Britain in 1947 to implement a Uniform Civil Code, a contentious decades-old BJP promise, months before national elections.

Currently, India's Hindus, Muslims, Christians and other minority groups follow their own personal laws and customs, or an optional secular code for marriage, divorce, adoption and inheritance.

The move by Uttarakhand banning polygamy and other Muslim practices is expected to pave the way for other BJP-ruled states to follow suit despite angry opposition from some leaders of India's 200-million strong Muslim minority.

"The Uniform Civil Code will give the right to equality to everyone without any discrimination...We must make history by clearing it," said Pushkar Singh Dhami, the state's chief minister, just before BJP lawmakers and some others voted in favour of the bill.

A political aide to Dhami confirmed that the state assembly, where the BJP enjoys a majority, passed the bill.

Rooted in the framework of the Indian Constitution, the code puts an end to religious interpretation of laws guiding marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, adoption and succession.

Dhami said it "provides security to women and empowers them".

The code sets a minimum marriageable age for both genders. It guarantees equal rights to men and women on issues pertaining to divorce, share in ancestral property and offers rights to adopted children, those born out of wedlock or were conceived through surrogate births.

A legal expert working on the UCC bill in Uttarakhand said Islam's Sharia laws permits polygamy and has no stringent rules to prohibit marriage of minors.

India is around 80% Hindu and about 14% Muslim and is the world's third-largest Muslim country. Muslims accuse Modi's right-wing nationalist party of pursuing a Hindu agenda that discriminates against them and directly imposes laws interfering with their faith. Modi denies this but the situation has led to sporadic violence between members of the two communities.

A regional Muslim politician from south India, Asaduddin Owaisi, said the code was nothing but a "Hindu code of conduct".

"I have a right to practice my religion and culture but UCC stops us from exercising our fundamental rights," he told Reuters.

The new code makes it mandatory for a man and a woman to register their marriages and also submit a notice if they are in a live-in relationship to a government office. Terminations of live-in relationships should also be reported to the police.

"The Uttarakhand UCC is patriarchal to the core," said Subhashini Ali, a senior member of the Communist party of India(Marxist) said on X.

It "denies women the right to choice. An inter caste couple going to register their marriage is inviting death," she said.

A national civil code is one of the three core promises of Modi' BJP and the only one that remains unfulfilled.

The other two were removing the autonomy of the only Muslim majority region of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019 and building a contested temple to Hindu deity Ram, replacing a centuries-old mosque razed by Hindu radicals in 1992.


Source: Reuters

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Great move. One nation one law for all.
Polygamy must be banned in modern times.
Why are Muslims against it?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Great move. One nation one law for all.
Polygamy must be banned in modern times.
Why are Muslims against it?

If I had to guess, probably because these laws are aimed specifically at Muslims in a longstanding hindutva attempt to drive Islam out of Bharat in the same way beef bans, mosque demolitions and renaming of Islamic roads and districts are.

Please note, I am sure some of these measures have merit, but the impression seems that it is driven more by a thirst for revenge for Muslim rule centuries ago and to establish hindu supremacy across the nation.

 

[RexRex]

I hope the Supreme Court strikes down this law. Some ridiculous provisions in it.

 

[sweep_shot]

Great move. One nation one law for all.
Polygamy must be banned in modern times.
Why are Muslims against it?

Would you say the same about Kirpan? Should Kirpan be banned since it is carrying a knife/sword?

 

[anikrc1]

Great move. One nation one law for all.
Polygamy must be banned in modern times.
Why are Muslims against it?

These rules require that a live in couple has to inform the government about their status, and also have to in form in case they break-up. You are okay with the government having that much vigilance over its citizens private life ? What's next:- informing the government before you have physical relation?

 

[IndoorCricket]

Would you say the same about Kirpan? Should Kirpan be banned since it is carrying a knife?

It is required for Sikhs to wear kirpan as part of religious uniform.
Is polygamy required as of part of Islamic religion?

 

[sweep_shot]

It is required for Sikhs to wear kirpan as part of religious uniform.
Is polygamy required as of part of Islamic religion?

Polygamy is an option. Not required.

Would BJP have allowed it if it was mandatory though?

 

[IndoorCricket]

These rules require that a live in couple has to inform the government about their status, and also have to in form in case they break-up. You are okay with the government having that much vigilance over its citizens private life ? What's next:- informing the government before you have physical relation?

This is an overreach by government tbh. But I understand where this is coming from. There are far too many cases where a break-up leads to false cases on either side and suffering ensues for years especially for wen. Because once a women lodges a a case on men, they will first get arrested and then the cases get investigated. Major trauma for men.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Polygamy is an option. Not required.

Would BJP have allowed it if it was mandatory though?

No need to imagine things then. Indian constitution provides fundamental right to practise religion and right to equality. Everyone should be treated equal in eyes of law.

 

[RexRex]

These rules require that a live in couple has to inform the government about their status, and also have to in form in case they break-up. You are okay with the government having that much vigilance over its citizens private life ? What's next:- informing the government before you have physical relation?

Next step will be registering at the local panchayat before going on a tinder date.

 

[big_gamer007]

It is required for Sikhs to wear kirpan as part of religious uniform.
Is polygamy required as of part of Islamic religion?

Laws should be independent of religion. This pick and choosing doesn’t work, if you give levy to one religion the other will ask and nothing will actually be done.

If as per the law weapons are not allowed in public places then if Kripan is considered as a weapon as per law then it shouldn’t be allowed.

Irrespective of religion there should be one common law. I hope the government can achieve it.

 

[Red-Indian]

This is an overreach by government tbh. But I understand where this is coming from. There are far too many cases where a break-up leads to false cases on either side and suffering ensues for years especially for wen. Because once a women lodges a a case on men, they will first get arrested and then the cases get investigated. Major trauma for men.

I'd challenge you to prove that there are "far too many cases where a break-up leads to false cases." This really is an atrocious violation of civil rights. Luckily it's unenforceable and everyone will ignore it. Only pain is that it will lead to a lot of harassment and bribes to cops.

As far as a Uniform Civil Code is concerned, every civilized nation needs to have one. Religions allow all sorts of silly things and a modern society needs to be more rational. It's only suspicious because a rabid right wing government is bringing in the law with minimal civil consultation and most likely as a poll gimmick.

 

[IndoorCricket]

I'd challenge you to prove that there are "far too many cases where a break-up leads to false cases." This really is an atrocious violation of civil rights. Luckily it's unenforceable and everyone will ignore it. Only pain is that it will lead to a lot of harassment and bribes to cops.

As far as a Uniform Civil Code is concerned, every civilized nation needs to have one. Religions allow all sorts of silly things and a modern society needs to be more rational. It's only suspicious because a rabid right wing government is bringing in the law with minimal civil consultation and most likely as a poll gimmick.

There is an NGO called Rights for Men who deals with false cases on men and there are couple of twitter handles who documents false cases against men. I personally know couple of men who are going through this trauma. No way I am supporting this overreach by government I am just saying why they might have introduced this.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Laws should be independent of religion. This pick and choosing doesn’t work, if you give levy to one religion the other will ask and nothing will actually be done.

If as per the law weapons are not allowed in public places then if Kripan is considered as a weapon as per law then it shouldn’t be allowed.

Irrespective of religion there should be one common law. I hope the government can achieve it.

Constitution of India provides fundamental rights to every citizen. One of the fundamental right is right to religion. But there are some clauses where this right might be superseded as you mentioned in public settings. Fundamental rights are individual rights. But they not over public and nations safety.

 

[Statpadder Inc]

Terrible law, don't disagree with it in spirit by this law is terrible.

Especially the part of live in couples informing the govt lol, how stupid can you get.

But expected from a backward state

 

[Statpadder Inc]

Would you say the same about Kirpan? Should Kirpan be banned since it is carrying a knife/sword?

If you ask me, yes

 

[MP2011]

There is no problem in having UCC in India only if the authorities are neutral which everyone knows they aren't. This alacrity in passing this bill is only to show a section of population their place in Indian society.

 

[MP2011]

And what a laughable proposition to register live in relationships with local police station. This will only lead to more corruption at law enforcement agencies' level which is what this regime has promoted ever since it got power.

The basic premise of live in relationships is to keep it private to the consenting couple. But this regime is too bigoted and moral police type to propose such archaic laws only to be blindly espoused by gullible bhakts.

it's being defended by usual suspects. Not surprising in the least.

 

[Statpadder Inc]

And what a laughable proposition to register live in relationships with local police station. This will only lead to more corruption at law enforcement agencies' level which is what this regime has promoted ever since it got power.

The basic premise of live in relationships is to keep it private to the consenting couple. But this regime is too bigoted and moral police type to propose such archaic laws only to be blindly espoused by gullible bhakts.

Even on this thread, it's being defended by usual suspects. Not surprising in the least.

The worst thing about this is that it can invite death threats on the couple.

Wouldn't put it past the officer to refuse to register certain relations too

 

[Varun]

Uttarakhand showing their inner Uttar Pradesh.

Expect to see those anti-Romeo gangs shortly.

 

[JattMaula]

It's Half baked at best.

Have proper civil discourse if you want UCC. We are reshaping our entire civilization. Have some debates.

I support UCC but not like this.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Why would anyone have problems with secular laws?

 

[CricketCartoons]

The worst thing about this is that it can invite death threats on the couple.

Wouldn't put it past the officer to refuse to register certain relations too

So you don't have a problem with legislation for live in relations, but the attention it will get since it is taboo? Every law can be and is misused, does that mean having no law?

Even marriage is a personal thing, then why govt makes laws for marriage registration? Govt legislates everything, from your marriage to your income, and there are good reasons for that.

Live in should not be a hidden thing, it deserves almost every right that married people get. Liberal people should actually support it, that the taboo is being removed from live in, and it is being elevated to almost the same rights as marriage.

And muslims have no problem with this law, as live in is a major sin for them.

 

[Romali_rotti]

So under this new law, people of Hinduism and Abhrahamic faiths all come under a 1 singular law.

So basically everyone is on an equal footing, or am I reading this wrong?

 

[MP2011]

The worst thing about this is that it can invite death threats on the couple.

Wouldn't put it past the officer to refuse to register certain relations too

Yeah, it opens avenues for all sorts of official high handedness.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yeah, it opens avenues for all sorts of official high handedness.

Every law is susceptible to official high handedness. This is a non argument.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

And what a laughable proposition to register live in relationships with local police station. This will only lead to more corruption at law enforcement agencies' level which is what this regime has promoted ever since it got power.

The basic premise of live in relationships is to keep it private to the consenting couple. But this regime is too bigoted and moral police type to propose such archaic laws only to be blindly espoused by gullible bhakts.

it's being defended by usual suspects. Not surprising in the least.

Iran/Saudi Arabia and many other hardline Islamic countries also have special forces policing such matters of morality. Perhaps this is a small step towards ensuring the population of Bharat correctly conveys the indiginous hindu culture of their nation. Many have noted that current Indian authorities seem to be pursuing a hindu version of Taliban roll back to glory years, so from that perspective you can understand where the motivation comes from.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

"also submit a notice if they are in a live-in relationship to a government office. Terminations of live-in relationships should also be reported to the police."

This is wrong

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Great move. One nation one law for all.
Polygamy must be banned in modern times.
Why are Muslims against it?

Tribals are excluded. so its not one law for all.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

It is required for Sikhs to wear kirpan as part of religious uniform.
Is polygamy required as of part of Islamic religion?

That is Irrelevant if you want one law for everyone. Equality is one law are you allowed a weapon in public, yes, or no.

This farce of a bill already excludes tribal, so its not one law for everyone.

France was fair when they banned religious symbols/laws. They did it for everyone, no exemptions.

 

[Varun]

Modi/Shah/Bisht/Dhami etc. have zero experience with women, leave alone something like live-in relationships.

 

[Romali_rotti]

I hope the Supreme Court strikes down this law. Some ridiculous provisions in it.

Since you seem to know a little about this law from reading your post, can you give me a brief run down?

 

[CricketCartoons]

This is wrong

Why is this wrong, and registration of marriage is not?

 

[CricketCartoons]

That is Irrelevant if you want one law for everyone. Equality is one law are you allowed a weapon in public, yes, or no.

This farce of a bill already excludes tribal, so its not one law for everyone.

France was fair when they banned religious symbols/laws. They did it for everyone, no exemptions.

Whether it is farce or not is not relevant, the fact is that the founders of constitution wanted this, and had put uniform civil code as a directive principle. It is a long pending promise of the constitution itself. Any constitution supporting indian would support UCC ( secular laws).

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Why is this wrong, and registration of marriage is not?

In the UK there are some perks to registering marriages in terms of tax, inheritance, purchases and rights regarding children and assets.

Registering with the government is a bureaucratic exercise.

If a person doesnt want to attain these perks they don't need to register.

Assuming it is the same in India then why would a person register if they are just dating or shacking up for a bit? They give up their privacy and get nothing in return.

 

[CricketCartoons]

In the UK there are some perks to registering marriages in terms of tax, inheritance, purchases and rights regarding children and assets.

Registering with the government is a bureaucratic exercise.

If a person doesnt want to attain these perks they don't need to register.

Assuming it is the same in India then why would a person register if they are just dating or shacking up for a bit? They give up their privacy and get nothing in return.

In India, marriage registration is compulsory.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

In India, marriage registration is compulsory.

May be. But marriage isn't compulsory. If two people wanted to indulge in some hanky panky without getting married then that was that.

Howver, once someone registers their marriage they will recieve benefits from the state.

What do they recieve for registering shacking up?

 

[CricketCartoons]

May be. But marriage isn't compulsory. If two people wanted to indulge in some hanky panky without getting married then that was that.

Howver, once someone registers their marriage they will recieve benefits from the state.

What do they recieve for registering shacking up?

It is not may be. It is compulsory.
Live in is not just hanky panky. What about domestic violence, children rights, maintenance, which is extended to married women but denied to those in live in?

My question still stands, why is registration for marriage good and for live in bad? Your assumptions about it being optional in India is wrong.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It is not may be. It is compulsory.
Live in is not just hanky panky. What about domestic violence, children rights, maintenance, which is extended to married women but denied to those in live in?

My question still stands, why is registration for marriage good and for live in bad? Your assumptions about it being optional in India is wrong.

Will registering a non-married relationship in India secure legal rights?
To me that's what makes marriage registration good for marriage. If couples register and subsequently receive tax breaks, incentives and support for living together despite being unmarried then there is some benefit to it. If it is only a mass data collection exercise for state busy bodies then it is bad.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Will registering a non-married relationship in India secure legal rights?
To me that's what makes marriage registration good for marriage. If couples register and subsequently receive tax breaks, incentives and support for living together despite being unmarried then there is some benefit to it. If it is only a mass data collection exercise for state busy bodies then it is bad.

Which do you think will secure more rights: registering live in relations vs not registering them?

 

[Red-Indian]

Any law that peeks into people's bedrooms is wrong whether it's regarding marriage or relationships outside marriage.

Now there's degrees of wrongness and I'd be willing to accept the wrong of compulsory marriage registration because the two folks involved have voluntarily entered into a socio-legal contract and state can legislate legal contracts. This law on so-called live-in relationships is wrong on moral, humanistic and in this context practically stupid.

A general rule of thumb to follow is any laws based on religion are absurd. Separation of church/mosque/temple and state is one of the most human advancements of the last 500 years.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Which do you think will secure more rights: registering live in relations vs not registering them?

Not registering.

By registering the people in the relationship give up their right to privacy but apparently recieve nothing in return.

 

[KB]

Whether it is farce or not is not relevant, the fact is that the founders of constitution wanted this, and had put uniform civil code as a directive principle. It is a long pending promise of the constitution itself. Any constitution supporting indian would support UCC ( secular laws).

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

But, perhaps, it is not also irrelevant to the story that the idea of separate personal law was a key component of the ‘nationalist Muslim’ position 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 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. 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 and encapsulate an Islamic society that did not rely on possessing 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 vision 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 a telling 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 his recent book, Another India: The Making of the World's Largest Muslim Minority, 1947–77, Pratinav Anil has pointed to this “unflinching belief” in juridification as being a fatal attraction for the Muslim leaders in India.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Not registering.

By registering the people in the relationship give up their right to privacy but apparently recieve nothing in return.

By not registering they get more rights? maintenance, child rights are better given when they do NOT register?

Why does right to privacy does not apply to marriage and applies to live in?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

By not registering they get more rights? maintenance, child rights are better given when they do NOT register?

Why does right to privacy does not apply to marriage and applies to live in?

In marriage you give up your right to privacy for legal and financial benefits.

AFAIK this thing that the Indians want to bring in has no benefits to those that register. Please correct me if this is not the case.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Any law that peeks into people's bedrooms is wrong whether it's regarding marriage or relationships outside marriage.

Now there's degrees of wrongness and I'd be willing to accept the wrong of compulsory marriage registration because the two folks involved have voluntarily entered into a socio-legal contract and state can legislate legal contracts. This law on so-called live-in relationships is wrong on moral, humanistic and in this context practically stupid.

A general rule of thumb to follow is any laws based on religion are absurd. Separation of church/mosque/temple and state is one of the most human advancements of the last 500 years.

What do you mean by peeking into bedroom? When marriages are registered, it means govt is peeking into bedroom?

I think people are projecting their views and barking up the wrong tree. They associate live in as something to be hidden, and want it to be seen as a taboo. They should speak against societal norms instead of the laws which is trying to provide the same legal remedies it provides the marriages.

 

[Red-Indian]

What do you mean by peeking into bedroom? When marriages are registered, it means govt is peeking into bedroom?

I think people are projecting their views and barking up the wrong tree. They associate live in as something to be hidden, and want it to be seen as a taboo. They should speak against societal norms instead of the laws which is trying to provide the same legal remedies it provides the marriages.

Let's be more precise. Compulsory registration of marriages is in a sense peeking into people's bedrooms. People have been getting getting married for thousands of years for various reasons. The fact that they have to compulsorily let the government know about it is relatively recent. Now that's a violation but what's worse is that people have been in relationships - marital or otherwise since the first caveman knocked the first cavewoman on the head. That they have to compulsorily inform their ruler about it is atrocious.

You're fighting a strawman in your second paragraph. Nobody is saying we should encourage couples to keep relationships whether live-in or otherwise secret. Just that we shouldn't mandate they can't.

 

[cricketjoshila]

If I had to guess, probably because these laws are aimed specifically at Muslims in a longstanding hindutva attempt to drive Islam out of Bharat in the same way beef bans, mosque demolitions and renaming of Islamic roads and districts are.

Please note, I am sure some of these measures have merit, but the impression seems that it is driven more by a thirst for revenge for Muslim rule centuries ago and to establish hindu supremacy across the nation.

What are Islamic roads and districts?

For more than 80 per cent of Indian population, Cow is a holy animal. So if its killing is regulated its not wrong.

If a country had 80 per cent Muslims, Islamic laws would be imposed on people.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Would you say the same about Kirpan? Should Kirpan be banned since it is carrying a knife/sword?

How is it illegal if its not used? People carry licensed weapons. No?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Polygamy is an option. Not required.

Would BJP have allowed it if it was mandatory though?

Does Canada allow polygamy?

 

[cricketjoshila]

This is wrong

It is not actually.

Indian courts have been treating Live-in relationships as marriage and granting woman maintenance and alimonies.

Women have been filing rape cases after staying years in a consensual relationship.

In many cases the women are filing cases years after the relationship ended.

Now with this law men can actually substantiate their relationship status and the time frame of the relationship.

 

[cricketjoshila]

In marriage you give up your right to privacy for legal and financial benefits.

AFAIK this thing that the Indians want to bring in has no benefits to those that register. Please correct me if this is not the case.

Indian courts grant maintenance and alimonies to women in live in relation too. Some cases have been filed years after the relationship ended.

Under this law men can atleast substantiate when and for how long the relationship last

 

[rpant_gabba]

Let's be more precise. Compulsory registration of marriages is in a sense peeking into people's bedrooms. People have been getting getting married for thousands of years for various reasons. The fact that they have to compulsorily let the government know about it is relatively recent. Now that's a violation but what's worse is that people have been in relationships - marital or otherwise since the first caveman knocked the first cavewoman on the head. That they have to compulsorily inform their ruler about it is atrocious.

You're fighting a strawman in your second paragraph. Nobody is saying we should encourage couples to keep relationships whether live-in or otherwise secret. Just that we shouldn't mandate they can't.

you are one bringing up a strawman argument of cavemen actions

Marriage is human cultural construct with legal implications. the registering of live in relationships protects both partners so it doesn't become a he said-she said situation in case of conflicts. IMO, this is a big step by to recognize live in partnerships.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Let's be more precise. Compulsory registration of marriages is in a sense peeking into people's bedrooms. People have been getting getting married for thousands of years for various reasons. The fact that they have to compulsorily let the government know about it is relatively recent. Now that's a violation but what's worse is that people have been in relationships - marital or otherwise since the first caveman knocked the first cavewoman on the head. That they have to compulsorily inform their ruler about it is atrocious.

You're fighting a strawman in your second paragraph. Nobody is saying we should encourage couples to keep relationships whether live-in or otherwise secret. Just that we shouldn't mandate they can't.

Informing the state about your marriage is "atrocious"? You want humans to have the freedom of cave men? Fair enough, at least your position is clear. But unfortunately in the civilized world, the state has a stake in your life.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Informing the state about your marriage is "atrocious"? You want humans to have the freedom of cave men? Fair enough, at least your position is clear. But unfortunately in the civilized world, the state has a stake in your life.

bizarre take wasn't it. jumped the shark might be correct term here

 

[Suleiman]

So under this new law, people of Hinduism and Abhrahamic faiths all come under a 1 singular law.

So basically everyone is on an equal footing, or am I reading this wrong?

What do you mean “equal footing”? Is this some sort of competition?

Are Hindus at a disadvantage if Abrahamic faith holders are free to practice their religious laws in the comfort of their homes and their relationships?

 

[Varun]

You want to have one law for everyone? Get rid of reservations.

At least that would be something useful.

 

[Romali_rotti]

What do you mean “equal footing”? Is this some sort of competition?

Are Hindus at a disadvantage if Abrahamic faith holders are free to practice their religious laws in the comfort of their homes and their relationships?

I am the one asking the question, I need an answer first before I reply..

 

[rpant_gabba]

What do you mean “equal footing”? Is this some sort of competition?

Are Hindus at a disadvantage if Abrahamic faith holders are free to practice their religious laws in the comfort of their homes and their relationships?

don't you live in colorado? planning to ask for shariah based exemptions there?

 

[Suleiman]

don't you live in colorado? planning to ask for shariah based exemptions there?

Think you’re confusing me with someone else. Nice whataboutism though

 

[CricketCartoons]

What do you mean “equal footing”? Is this some sort of competition?

Are Hindus at a disadvantage if Abrahamic faith holders are free to practice their religious laws in the comfort of their homes and their relationships?

While secular laws have been applied to hindus, muslims can be given exception, that for civil and criminal, if the person is muslim, then only sharia law should be applied. But india muslims neither want secular laws nor full sharia laws.

 

[Red-Indian]

Informing the state about your marriage is "atrocious"? You want humans to have the freedom of cave men? Fair enough, at least your position is clear. But unfortunately in the civilized world, the state has a stake in your life.

Maybe I wasn't clear

The requirement to compulsorily inform (register) the state of your getting married is wrong (not atrocious). People should be perfectly entitled to get married in secret if they want. Of course, they take the risk of losing the legal rights that come with a registered marriage in that case but that's their problem. You chose to enter into a Contract...which is what Marriage is...without registering it.

The requirement to compulsorily inform the state of your relationships is atrocious (not wrong). The two individuals have deliberately not chosen to enter into the Marriage Contract so the state has no business asking to be informed.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Maybe I wasn't clear

The requirement to compulsorily inform (register) the state of your getting married is wrong (not atrocious). People should be perfectly entitled to get married in secret if they want. Of course, they take the risk of losing the legal rights that come with a registered marriage in that case but that's their problem. You chose to enter into a Contract...which is what Marriage is...without registering it.

The requirement to compulsorily inform the state of your relationships is atrocious (not wrong). The two individuals have deliberately not chosen to enter into the Marriage Contract so the state has no business asking to be informed.

People should also be able to earn money in secret, and do financial transactions in secret.

 

[Red-Indian]

People should also be able to earn money in secret, and do financial transactions in secret.

Okay I presume you agree that people are entitled to keep their relationships confidential and want to talk about a different aspect of government.

I fully believe that out Economic contract with the State and Government is entirely different from our Social Contract.

As part of the Economic Contract we enter into with the State by living in a country, we agree to pay for all the services we receive - police, judiciary, infrastructure like roads etc. by following (hopefully reasonably made) laws and regulations with a portion of our income. When you hide that income and do not pay legally required taxes on it, you're breaking the contract and agree to the appropriate penalty.

As part of the Social contract, all we ask for is that the State give us freedom to practice our social/religious pursuits as long they don't impinge on others.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Okay I presume you agree that people are entitled to keep their relationships confidential and want to talk about a different aspect of government.

I fully believe that out Economic contract with the State and Government is entirely different from our Social Contract.

As part of the Economic Contract we enter into with the State by living in a country, we agree to pay for all the services we receive - police, judiciary, infrastructure like roads etc. by following (hopefully reasonably made) laws and regulations with a portion of our income. When you hide that income and do not pay legally required taxes on it, you're breaking the contract and agree to the appropriate penalty.

As part of the Social contract, all we ask for is that the State give us freedom to practice our social/religious pursuits as long they don't impinge on others.

Freedom to practice? State is not prohibiting anything. Just trying to give it the same privileges that married people get.

 

[Red-Indian]

Freedom to practice? State is not prohibiting anything. Just trying to give it the same privileges that married people get.

Sure. And the way to do that is to say that civil unions will now be accepted for registration just like Marriages. If you register them, you get the same rights, privileges and responsibilities that come with a registered Marriage. You don't register them, bad luck...you won't get the accompaniments.

Compulsory registration of relationships is governmental overreach and oppression.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Sure. And the way to do that is to say that civil unions will now be accepted for registration just like Marriages. If you register them, you get the same rights, privileges and responsibilities that come with a registered Marriage. You don't register them, bad luck...you won't get the accompaniments.

Compulsory registration of relationships is governmental overreach and oppression.

Compulsory wearing of helmets is also government overreach and oppression. If you don't wear, bad luck, but who is the govt to impose it on us?

 

[Red-Indian]

Compulsory wearing of helmets is also government overreach and oppression. If you don't wear, bad luck, but who is the govt to impose it on us?

If the government is entitled to impose a fine on you for not wearing your seatbelt, it's also entitled to imprison you for 3 months for not telling it about the secret relationship you're in with an individual of the wrong religion/sex/caste.

If that's the case, I hope you get to live in the nanny state of your choice and I hope such stupid laws don't make it to my state. Luckily so far, the south is still reasonably insulated from this nonsense.

 

[CricketCartoons]

If the government is entitled to impose a fine on you for not wearing your seatbelt, it's also entitled to imprison you for 3 months for not telling it about the secret relationship you're in with an individual of the wrong religion/sex/caste.

If that's the case, I hope you get to live in the nanny state of your choice and I hope such stupid laws don't make it to my state. Luckily so far, the south is still reasonably insulated from this nonsense.

Wonder why those in live in will be against it? Are they ashamed of something that they want to hide it? Or they don't want the responsibility that comes with it and only want to exploit someone till they get bored?

 

[Statpadder Inc]

Wonder why those in live in will be against it? Are they ashamed of something that they want to hide it? Or they don't want the responsibility that comes with it and only want to exploit someone till they get bored?

Absolute rubbish lol
How does being in a live in relationship equate to exploiting someone

They want to hide because they are afraid of getting beaten up by gaawar gundas

 

[CricketCartoons]

Absolute rubbish lol
How does being in a live in relationship equate to exploiting someone

They want to hide because they are afraid of getting beaten up by gaawar gundas

Exploiting because after sometime you may easily ditch the person after promising marriage and what not. The girl is left humiliated and with neither the state or the society being sympathetic to her. Relationship is for responsible people. If Shraddha had registered her relationship, maybe she would not have ended in a refrigerator.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What are Islamic roads and districts?

For more than 80 per cent of Indian population, Cow is a holy animal. So if its killing is regulated its not wrong.

If a country had 80 per cent Muslims, Islamic laws would be imposed on people.

What has Muslim country and it's laws got to do with a hindu state? Are Islamic countries some sort of benchmark?

 

[cricketjoshila]

What has Muslim country and it's laws got to do with a hindu state? Are Islamic countries some sort of benchmark?

There are Buddhist and Jewish states too. Christian nations as well.

So if in a country where cow is holy to Hindus and Sikhs who make 80 per cent of the population, how is regulations on its slaughtering wrong.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There are Buddhist and Jewish states too. Christian nations as well.

So if in a country where cow is holy to Hindus and Sikhs who make 80 per cent of the population, how is regulations on its slaughtering wrong.

So India is a secular state except for the majority where regulations can be brought in to protect their religious sensibilities.

 

[Red-Indian]

So India is a secular state except for the majority where regulations can be brought in to protect their religious sensibilities.

Whether I like it or not, unfortunately India is not a real secular state

- The Satanic verses is banned across the country - my favourite author and one of top 5 books written by him

- Cow slaughter and beef eating in banned in most places - a medium-rare beef steak is the first thing I eat whenever I travel abroad

- Sikhs are allowed to carry swords in public by an article of the constitution. No other religionites are (not explicitly)

No country is truly secular and definitely not India. We have definitely been tilting Hindu over the last few years but there's still a fair bit of sanity and every big shift does still involve a fair bit of public debate.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Whether I like it or not, unfortunately India is not a real secular state

- The Satanic verses is banned across the country - my favourite author and one of top 5 books written by him
- Cow slaughter and beef eating in banned in most places - a medium-rare beef steak is the first thing I eat whenever I travel abroad
- Sikhs are allowed to carry swords in public by an article of the constitution. No other religionites are (not explicitly)

No country is truly secular and definitely not India. We have definitely been tilting Hindu over the last few years but there's still a fair bit of sanity and every big shift does still involve a fair bit of public debate.

I think in this case India should take a leaf out of Pakistan's book and drop the secular crutch. It is a western term in any case, and if India wants to reclaim it's roots as Bharat, then would it not simplify matters to just be open about being a hindu rashtra?

 

[Red-Indian]

I think in this case India should take a leaf out of Pakistan's book and drop the secular crutch. It is a western term in any case, and if India wants to reclaim it's roots as Bharat, then would it not simplify matters to just be open about being a hindu rashtra?

I think millions would support this, a few millions (atheists, other religion folowers and a few Hindus) would oppose it and many more crores of people wouldn't care either way since it wouldn't make of a difference to their lives. It's just not as important for most Hindus to live in a Hindu Rashtra under Hindu specific laws.

I'm personally happy this is the case though. Whether the secular bit in the Indian Constitution is a fig leaf (and I would argue it's still more than just a fig leaf), it's nice to believe that for minorities like me, there are still some constitutional protections.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So India is a secular state except for the majority where regulations can be brought in to protect their religious sensibilities.

Yes. Which is why you can't insult The Prophet(PBUH) in India like they did in Europe and US.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes. Which is why you can't insult The Prophet(PBUH) in India like they did in Europe and US.

So Bharat isn't a secular state then.