Should India have an Uniform Civil code?

[Senator Sbane]

Should India have an Uniform Civil code which applies the same, secular, personal law to all individuals regardless of religion, caste, or tribe?

I think so, yes. Although Hindu law (and Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains are covered under this) has been reformed to modern standards (as well as laws for Christians), personal laws for Muslims are still under Islamic law. This has meant that backward practices like polygamy still live on in India in the name of religious freedom. This has to end. India needs equality for all of it's citizens regardless of their background.

[Sibboleth]

Who's code would it be though?

[Senator Sbane]

I'm guessing it would be something like it is in most of the modern world?

In any case, I would be more interested in the same laws in the case of divorce or in terms of banning polygamy. I would also like to take marriage out of religious hands, but that isn't even the case in the west so there it would be similar to the situation here.

[Sibboleth]

I'm guessing it would be something like it is in most of the modern world?

What do you mean by the modern world?

[Senator Sbane]

I'm guessing it would be something like it is in most of the modern world?

What do you mean by the modern world?

No polygamy. Divorce laws that aren't discriminatory towards women and guarantee alimony and such things.

[Frodo]

I'm guessing it would be something like it is in most of the modern world?

What do you mean by the modern world?

No polygamy. Divorce laws that aren't discriminatory towards women and guarantee alimony and such things.

And no arranged marriages...   

[Senator Sbane]

I'm guessing it would be something like it is in most of the modern world?

What do you mean by the modern world?

No polygamy. Divorce laws that aren't discriminatory towards women and guarantee alimony and such things.

And no arranged marriages...   

More like no forced marriages? Obviously, yes.

There are probably laws against it already, though not properly enforced. Realistically, even passing an Uniform Civil code won't end practices like polygamy, but at least it will be on the books. Reforming the horribly corrupt Indian civil service, police and government workers has to be the next step in the process.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Of course. It's a shame sh*ts like this still exist in 2011.

[Sibboleth]

though not properly enforced.

And there's the whole problem with projects like this. Civil Law that no one actually follows is actively worthless.

[Senator Sbane]

though not properly enforced.

And there's the whole problem with projects like this. Civil Law that no one actually follows is actively worthless.

I wouldn't say it's completely worthless. It might be in the villages with corrupt policeman and ISA officers hanging about. In the city you have many more options, and having laws on the books does help, doesn't it? For example you do keep hearing cases of women getting justice after getting harassed due to not having a dowry. Now, this may be a small proportion of the true number of cases out there, but even if one woman gets justice, I think it's good enough. If even one woman is able to stop a polygamous relationship due to this law, it would be good enough for me.

[Vasall des Midas]

Of course not.

[lowtech redneck]

Ironically, its the Hindu nationalists who are mostly supporting this policy, all for the wrong reasons....still, India should definitely have a uniform, and modern, Civil code.

[Senator Sbane]

The fact that Hindu nationalists can and do exploit this issue should be an even greater reason for the Congress party to pass a sane, secular civil code for all. There is no justification for continuing assbackwards laws in India. Just because the BJP supports getting rid of it is obviously not enough.

You want to hand the BJP another issue to get the urban middle class on their side (reservations for OBC's being the main one), go for it. They aren't so interested in going after Muslims as some of you might think. The middle class likes stability after all....

Sadly the Congress party won't do it either because they need to preserve their vote bank, don't they?

[greenforest32]

Of course. It's a shame sh*ts like this still exist in 2011.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

I'm guessing it would be something like it is in most of the modern world?

What do you mean by the modern world?

No polygamy. Divorce laws that aren't discriminatory towards women and guarantee alimony and such things.

And no arranged marriages...   

Why not?

[Frodo]

I'm guessing it would be something like it is in most of the modern world?

What do you mean by the modern world?

No polygamy. Divorce laws that aren't discriminatory towards women and guarantee alimony and such things.

And no arranged marriages...  

Why not?

Because the concept of not allowing a woman to determine her own mate has no place in the modern world.  In this day and age, feminism (i.e. the empowerment of women) is one of the hallmarks of modern civilization -any practice that harkens back to the day when women were nothing but child-bearing chattel and the property of men will only undermine any society's claim to modernity.  

Do you disagree? 

[Senator Sbane]

But what if the woman wants to get an arranged marriage? You are ok with that, no? I mean this is a cultural thing that is ingrained into many people. You would be taking away their freedom of choice!!

For example one of my cousins is probably going to get married in a year or two. Her parents are showing her pictures of guys and their profile on some matrimonial site. So it's a mix of online dating and blind dates. Cute, isn't it?

[Judäischen Volksfront]

If anyone thinks that changing a law is going to change thousands of years of accumulated beliefs in one stroke they need their heads checked.

[Frodo]

If anyone thinks that changing a law is going to change thousands of years of accumulated beliefs in one stroke they need their heads checked.

No, but it's a start.  The least India can do is not to sanction these practices, even if they continue. 

[Judäischen Volksfront]

If anyone thinks that changing a law is going to change thousands of years of accumulated beliefs in one stroke they need their heads checked.

No, but it's a start.  The least India can do is not to sanction these practices, even if they continue. 

Who is "India"? If it's the central government in Delhi then how is it remotely possible that the state and local governments and all their associated bureaucrats will bother to do more than pay lip service? I suspect that the average Indian who lives in an isolated village will not even care whether a new, sweeping law is passed, and even if it somehow is enforced by the courts (and remember, the Indian legal system isn't known for its efficiency), there will still be plenty of ways to get around the statute.

[Vasall des Midas]

Remember that the Civil code bans people from marrying until age 18... which according to the government's own estimates is above the average age at marriage for women in many states. (And was until recently in the others.)

[Senator Sbane]

I still don't see why we shouldn't have the laws on the books though. Because unless you don't, a girl won't be able to appeal to the police if she is being forcibly being married off underage. Of course in most rural areas that is a laughable proposition but still.....

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why do Westerners get boners from banning polygamy?

[Senator Sbane]

Why do Westerners get boners from banning polygamy?

Theoretically, polygamy would be fine if it was all consenting adults and the one controlling the harem could be male or female. It rarely works like that though.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Yeah just because a law will often go unenforced is no reason to not have it on the books. Similar to honor killings in Muslim countries.