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

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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. Muslims seem to have this weird hangup about wanting to live in an Islamic Republic, have their lives tightly governed and follow ancient laws written in a old book.

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.

It's not true. If it was we would have Islamic parties winning elections in Pakistan and the country governed by Sharia law.

 

[Red-Indian]

It's not true. If it was we would have Islamic parties winning elections in Pakistan and the country governed by Sharia law.

Maybe. You know better but it certainly seem that way from the outside. Most religions seem to have come to accept that while of course you want to revere the old "Prophets" and "Holy Books," you don't need to take what's written in them too literally. Otherwise Hindus would still be believing their Prime Minister's wife needed to spend a night with a dead horse in order to assert true rulership and Christians would still be killing people for not observing the Sabbath. Per Polls from Pew Research though, a majority of Muslims (and 84% of Pakistanis) want Shariah to be the law of the land.

As far as Islamist parties winning elections in Pakistan are concerned, I'm not sure that's as relevant as you think. To an external party, it's tough to see a real distinction between say the PTI and JUI. At best, maybe the JUI is single-issue Islamic party while the PTI is a multi-issue Islamic party.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Maybe. You know better but it certainly seem that way from the outside. Most religions seem to have come to accept that while of course you want to revere the old "Prophets" and "Holy Books," you don't need to take what's written in them too literally. Otherwise Hindus would still be believing their Prime Minister's wife needed to spend a night with a dead horse in order to assert true rulership and Christians would still be killing people for not observing the Sabbath. Per Polls from Pew Research though, a majority of Muslims (and 84% of Pakistanis) want Shariah to be the law of the land.

As far as Islamist parties winning elections in Pakistan are concerned, I'm not sure that's as relevant as you think. To an external party, it's tough to see a real distinction between say the PTI and JUI. At best, maybe the JUI is single-issue Islamic party while the PTI is a multi-issue Islamic party.

So if Pakistanis want Sharia law according to your research, the simplest solution would be to vote for the party which promises to deliver on that wholesale. Now you were the one whose contention was that

"Muslims seem to have this weird hangup about wanting to live in an Islamic Republic, have their lives tightly governed and follow ancient laws written in a old book"

In which case why would they vote for anyone other than one of the Islamic parties who promise just that?

Anyway, the subject is not about secular credentials of Pakistan, the topic is India/Bharat, let us get back on track, as in my opinion, Indian constitution should be based on their own values not what is going on in Pakistan.

 

[Red-Indian]

So if Pakistanis want Sharia law according to your research, the simplest solution would be to vote for the party which promises to deliver on that wholesale. Now you were the one whose contention was that

"Muslims seem to have this weird hangup about wanting to live in an Islamic Republic, have their lives tightly governed and follow ancient laws written in a old book"

In which case why would they vote for anyone other than one of the Islamic parties who promise just that?

Anyway, the subject is not about secular credentials of Pakistan, the topic is India/Bharat, let us get back on track, as in my opinion, Indian constitution should be based on their own values not what is going on in Pakistan.

Sure yeah both Pakistan and india like a lot of the world seem to be moving towards laws and rules driven by their majority religion. Pakistan running towards it, India mindlessly strolling towards it.

As I said I'm personally against that...though on the subject of the Thread, on the side of a well thought out Uniform Civil Code in India. Luckily I believe I'm pretty well insulated against it where I live. Declaring India a Hindu Rashtra and bringing Hindu laws would literally be one of the last issues likely to win a southern politician their elections. Hopefully stays that way.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Sure yeah both Pakistan and india like a lot of the world seem to be moving towards laws and rules driven by their majority religion. Pakistan running towards it, India mindlessly strolling towards it.

As I said I'm personally against that...though on the subject of the Thread, on the side of a well thought out Uniform Civil Code in India. Luckily I believe I'm pretty well insulated against it where I live. Declaring India a Hindu Rashtra and bringing Hindu laws would literally be one of the last issues likely to win a southern politician their elections. Hopefully stays that way.

Which laws in India are driven by the majority religion?

 

[Red-Indian]

Which laws in India are driven by the majority religion?

Sorry...I'm sure it would be a good discussion but I don't really want to debate Indian politics with an Indian poster. I was curious about Pakistani politics, economy and social issues and wanted to chat about them with Pakistanis while giving them some perspective about India.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Sorry...I'm sure it would be a good discussion but I don't really want to debate Indian politics with an Indian poster. I was curious about Pakistani politics, economy and social issues and wanted to chat about them with Pakistanis while giving them some perspective about India.

But if you give them wrong perspective about india, you will be challenged and called out. Even pakistanis would like to know if you can back up your perspectives.

So again: which laws are driven by the majority religion? And a bonus question: have you read the indian constitution end to end?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

But if you give them wrong perspective about india, you will be challenged and called out. Even pakistanis would like to know if you can back up your perspectives.

So again: which laws are driven by the majority religion? And a bonus question: have you read the indian constitution end to end?

Banning of cow slaughter in many Indian states is from Article 48 of the Indian Constitution which calls for the protection of cows and calves from slaughter and is directly a consequence of the majority religion .

 

[CricketCartoons]

Banning of cow slaughter in many Indian states is from Article 48 of the Indian Constitution which calls for the protection of cows and calves from slaughter and is directly a consequence of the majority religion .

This in in DPSP, and a gandhian value.

If this is consequence of majority religion, then waqf board, allowing polygamy to only one community, banning of satanic verses are consequences of one minority religion? Which majoritarian country allows such minoritarian laws which go against equality before the law?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

This in in DPSP, and a gandhian value.

If this is consequence of majority religion, then waqf board, allowing polygamy to only one community, banning of satanic verses are consequences of one minority religion? Which majoritarian country allows such minoritarian laws which go against equality before the law?

Oh yeah and Gandhi did not draw his values from Hinduism at all. Totally agree with you.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Oh yeah and Gandhi did not draw his values from Hinduism at all. Totally agree with you.

Even many secular laws draw their values from religion, so your point is moot. And you did not explain how come there are minoritarian laws? Or that is ok?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This in in DPSP, and a gandhian value.

If this is consequence of majority religion, then waqf board, allowing polygamy to only one community, banning of satanic verses are consequences of one minority religion? Which majoritarian country allows such minoritarian laws which go against equality before the law?

I think Waqf board has no power over polygamy on other communities, if hindus or Christians want to practice polygamy, how can they object?

 

[CricketCartoons]

I think Waqf board has no power over polygamy on other communities, if hindus or Christians want to practice polygamy, how can they object?

There is a comma after waqf board. I didnt say what you understood.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There is a comma after waqf board. I didnt say what you understood.

Got it. Anyway, even in the UK previously in cases such as marriage there was exceptions made where some communities were allowed to have their own marriage criteria according to their religion, but this has as far as I know, been stopped. I don't follow this in detail but I do know that all marriages must now follow British registration whereas previously a Nikah certificate was sufficient to count as marriage.

Gradually all religious exceptions are being scrapped other than the Sikh right to carry weapons in their turbans, that one is still dragging for some reason. I expect it may come under more scrutiny as time progresses.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Even many secular laws draw their values from religion, so your point is moot. And you did not explain how come there are minoritarian laws? Or that is ok?

Because I don't have to explain it. You only asked what majoritarian laws existed
.

I pointed it out and now you are talking about other secular laws drawing from religion and indulging in whataboutery with regards to minoritarian laws.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Because I don't have to explain it. You only asked what majoritarian laws existed
.

I pointed it out and now you are talking about other secular laws drawing from religion and indulging in whataboutery with regards to minoritarian laws.

So you agree there are minoritarian and majoritarian laws?

My whataboutery is to find out if you have the same standards. When someone stays silent on one thing and speaks up on another thing, then whataboutery is used to test if they are hypocrites or balanced.

So, which one are you?

 

[Red-Indian]

India needs to move in that direction as well. There are still some antiquated laws that need to be eliminated - mainly Muslim Personal Law that still for example has antiquated rules on male vs. female inheritance and tribal laws that are pretty ridiculous as well. Can't be done in the stupid way Uttarakhand is doing it though. The drive needs to come from the minority communities...hopefully a powerful woman leader or an emotionally sensitive case that forces the Supreme Court to act.

That's not to say religious sensitivities cannot be addressed. That would be impossible in a religious country like ours. So there'll still be beef bannings and Satanic Verses prohibitions but they shouldn't be codified in law.

 

[CricketCartoons]

India needs to move in that direction as well. There are still some antiquated laws that need to be eliminated - mainly Muslim Personal Law that still for example has antiquated rules on male vs. female inheritance and tribal laws that are pretty ridiculous as well. Can't be done in the stupid way Uttarakhand is doing it though. The drive needs to come from the minority communities...hopefully a powerful woman leader or an emotionally sensitive case that forces the Supreme Court to act.

That's not to say religious sensitivities cannot be addressed. That would be impossible in a religious country like ours. So there'll still be beef bannings and Satanic Verses prohibitions but they shouldn't be codified in law.

Why the drive needs to come from the minority communities? To prevent casteism, the drive should have come from those who practiced it? Till then the supreme court would wait for an emotionally sensitive case to act?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

So you agree there are minoritarian and majoritarian laws?

My whataboutery is to find out if you have the same standards. When someone stays silent on one thing and speaks up on another thing, then whataboutery is used to test if they are hypocrites or balanced.

So, which one are you?

I'm against both. Where did i support minoritarian laws?

 

[CricketCartoons]

I'm against both. Where did i support minoritarian laws?

He was saying that indian laws are majoritarian, which is a lie. The truth is that there are laws which are minoritarian which are even denied to the majority.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So Bharat isn't a secular state then.

Secular doesn't mean religion can be insulted.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Secular doesn't mean religion can be insulted.

It depends on your definition of secular. In the west religion is not given any higher protection than other forms of belief or entity so it is considered quite acceptable to satirise religion or religious figures. Obviously in the Islamic world that isn't the case. But then Islamic countries make no claims of secularism.

 

[cricketjoshila]

It depends on your definition of secular. In the west religion is not given any higher protection than other forms of belief or entity so it is considered quite acceptable to satirise religion or religious figures. Obviously in the Islamic world that isn't the case. But then Islamic countries make no claims of secularism.

But India isn't in the West. We are in the East.

Our culture, our people, our history all are different from the west. They have their laws we have ours.

I don't see any reason for us to follow them.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

But India isn't in the West. We are in the East.

Our culture, our people, our history all are different from the west. They have their laws we have ours.

I don't see any reason for us to follow them.

You are already following us by adopting the term secular.

 

[Justcrazy]

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

why should it be banned in modern times?

 

[Justcrazy]

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.

But everyone cannot be treated equally in society !

For example there are different tax slabs , why not be equal there as well?

 

[Justcrazy]

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

To carry Kirpan no license is required.

 

[cricketjoshila]

To carry Kirpan no license is required.

Its not a gun. Its a small knife.

 

[Justcrazy]

Its not a gun. Its a small knife.

That is what I am saying , kirpan does not require license.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Its not a gun. Its a small knife.

A knife is still a deadly weapon. If an enraged Sikh aimed his kirpan at throat I doubt survival chances would not be good.

 

[Red-Indian]

A lot of Sikhs I know have turned it into a ceremonial thing. One of my friends carries a Kirpan about the size of a little finger. I'm not sure it even comes out of it's sheath. I should ask him.

 

[Justcrazy]

But if you give them wrong perspective about india, you will be challenged and called out. Even pakistanis would like to know if you can back up your perspectives.

So again: which laws are driven by the majority religion? And a bonus question: have you read the indian constitution end to end?

Indian constitution has 145000 words !

 

[Justcrazy]

A knife is still a deadly weapon. If an enraged Sikh aimed his kirpan at throat I doubt survival chances would not be good.

yes it can kill , its a dagger . It is used as defensive weapon , so naturally has potential to inflict serious damage.

 

[CricketCartoons]

A knife is still a deadly weapon. If an enraged Sikh aimed his kirpan at throat I doubt survival chances would not be good.

What does it tell that those who are allowed to carry a deadly weapon are peaceful and those who are not allowed to carry a weapon are not? Sikhs have earned their global reputation, which is just a few incidents away from being tarnished, yet they have managed to keep it up.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What does it tell that those who are allowed to carry a deadly weapon are peaceful and those who are not allowed to carry a weapon are not? Sikhs have earned their global reputation, which is just a few incidents away from being tarnished, yet they have managed to keep it up.

Sikhs are a fine people on the whole, but I am sure we can say the same for most people in every community. But carrying a weapon is not allowed for any other community, so if we are not going to allow separate laws for some communities, it is only fair that this law applies to all. That is the argument given for doing away with civic codes for Mulims after all.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Sikhs are a fine people on the whole, but I am sure we can say the same for most people in every community. But carrying a weapon is not allowed for any other community, so if we are not going to allow separate laws for some communities, it is only fair that this law applies to all. That is the argument given for doing away with civic codes for Mulims after all.

UK has the same exception for Sikhs, so there must be some reason for a secular western country which has uniform laws. Since you are a citizen, can you shed some light on the reasons UK allows that?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

UK has the same exception for Sikhs, so there must be some reason for a secular western country which has uniform laws. Since you are a citizen, can you shed some light on the reasons UK allows that?

The UK is also caught in the same dilemma, but nuances are different. Allowing minority religions to have some exceptions was not a problem a few decades ago when there was not much backlash in a relatively stable world. Since the UK has got involved in wars in the middle east, we have seen a rise in hostilities on both sides, which has spilled over into civilian matters which in turn has led to less accomodation for Muslim sensibilities.

If you can imagine in the year 2050 when India will become an alleged superpower, the UK might see them as a rival to our own status as a superpower. At that point negative press will start being drip-fed against Indian ambitions, the dangers of hindu supremacy for the rest of the world etc. Then you might see calls for kirpans to be banned as Sikhs would be seen as the fighting arm of the hindus and thus present a clear and present danger.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

India to enforce migrant law that excludes Muslims

India's government has announced plans to enact a controversial citizenship law that has been criticised for being anti-Muslim.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) will allow non-Muslim religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan to seek citizenship.

The authorities say it will help those facing persecution.

The law was passed in 2019 - sparking mass protests in which scores of people died and many more were arrested.

Rules for it were not drawn up in the wake of the unrest but have now been, according to the country's home affairs minister Amit Shah.

He made the announcement on Monday, writing on social media that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had "delivered on another commitment and realised the promise of the makers of our constitution to the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians living in those countries".

Implementation of the CAA has been one of the key poll promises of Mr Modi's ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the run up to the general elections this year.

It amends the 64-year-old Indian Citizenship law, which currently prevents illegal migrants from becoming Indian citizens.

Under the new law, those seeking citizenship will have to prove that they arrived in India from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan by 31 December 2014.

The Indian government has not given a date for when the law change will come into effect.

India to enforce migrant law that excludes Muslims

Plans for the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act are announced weeks ahead of the election.

www.bbc.com

 

[DeadlyVenom]

If a decent man like cricket cartoons is in support of this law then who am I to argue?

 

[FearlessRoar]

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq raises concern about proposed change to India's Waqf laws​

Any changes to the Waqf laws "will be resisted by Muslims, particularly in the Jammu and Kashmir region," Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said during his Friday sermon at the Grand Mosque Srinagar.

He addressed key issues such as the inclusion of non-Muslims on the Waqf Board and changes in land dispute resolutions.

Farooq indicated that all the changes would "disempower Muslims all over India and in particular in Jammu and Kashmir region."

Most mosques, shrines and khanqas come under the Waqf board and "many controversial provisions have been proposed … which is a direct interference in religious matters," said Mirwaiz.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) proposed amendments to Waqf laws in parliament on Thursday, triggering uproar.

The bill was later sent to a joint parliamentary committee for deliberations.

Experts likened the move to a "takeover" of autonomous bodies by the government.

Several opposition parties, including the main Indian National Congress party, have criticised the federal government’s move and said "they will oppose the bill."

Indian Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government has held multi-layered nationwide consultations on the bill and the opposition was "misleading Muslims."

Waqf boards are responsible for maintaining Muslim properties in India.

There are currently 356,047 registered Waqf estates, 872,321 immovable properties, and 16,713 movable properties in the country, according to the government-run Waqf Assets Management System of India.

Meanwhile, former Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IIOJK) Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, in a letter Friday to Indian Home Minister Amit Shah, sought the resumption of the Line of Control (LoC) trade and bus service between divided Kashmir.

"The move would serve as a significant confidence-building measure for the people and a step towards restoring normalcy in the region," she wrote on X.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq raises concern about proposed change to India's Waqf laws | The Express Tribune

Proposal by ruling Bharatiya Janata Party sent to joint committee of lawmakers for deliberations

tribune.com.pk

 

[Bhaijaan]

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

Of all the reasons why i despise Bharatiya/Bangladeshi Muslims (not to be confused with global Muslims or Pakistani Muslims) , this is surely not one of them.

Polygamy is a personal choice and could be a beautiful thing if managed in the right manner.