jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (10 posts)

Uniform Civil Code in India

  1. sepiaprince profile image59
    sepiaprinceposted 7 years ago

    Constitution of india directs the Indian Govt. to implement Uniform Civil Code meaning all the citizens of india will be bounded by same laws(Including Matrimony,Property and other things).Its a directive and hence govt. is not binded to implement.Please put your views.

  2. profile image45
    ravindranath raiposted 7 years ago

    in my opinion the civil dress code for all in india is a very interesting and good thought , by it every indian looks like same , no any rich or poor person all is same ,this will increases unity in diversity which is the most importent part of india.

  3. SIVAGNANAM, V. profile image55
    SIVAGNANAM, V.posted 7 years ago

    Uniform civil code is very important for India. It is included in the Indian constitution as a directive. The government is responsible to implement all the directives in the constitution. Taking exception that it is only directive and not necessary to implement is meaningless. Only in jungleraj, such thoughts will arise. If people are let as they like in such things, other people will have to suffer.

    If a Sikh is allowed to carry a kirpan (sword) with him, others around him will be in danger. If a muslim can marry any number of girls, others will temporarily convert to Islam, marry girls and revert to his original religion.

    The Radio station in Kashmir calls itself "Radio Kashmir". All other stations are called "All India Radio". Outsiders cannot buy land in Kashmir. But Kashmiris can buy land anywhere in India. While major portion of defence expenditure goes to Kashmir, others cannot have all the due privileges there.

    There are a number of peculiar cases for every group or religion. Only if uniform civil code is implemented, there will be peace in society.

    1. ledefensetech profile image71
      ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Or it could cause more strife.  What does it matter how many women a Muslim marries or if a Sikh carries a sword?  If the Sikh uses the sword in an unlawful manner, for instance murder, then will that person not be taken into custody and put on trial?  As a social good, will not an armed Sikh make a potential criminal think twice before committing a crime?

      It would be a shame to see the increasing prosperity of the Indian peoples hamstrung in an attempt to make everyone the same.  Learn from the West, we're doing that very thing and it's destroying us, slowly but surely.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I think you miss the point, or maybe I do.  If no one can have more than one wife why is the muslim exempt from the law?  If no one can carry a sword, why can a Sikh?

        If laws apply only to a select few, then those few are set aside as somehow "special" just as whites were (as opposed to blacks) in America, causing dissension in society.  It's not a matter of making everyone the same, but no one is "better" somehow than others - all should obey all the laws.

        1. ledefensetech profile image71
          ledefensetechposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          If I remember correctly a Sikh carrying a sword has a special significance to a Sikh.  It would be like, oh I don't know, stripping a citizen of the gun he or she owns.  As for the polygamy thing, well don't the Hindus and Islamic have enough problems without trying to stir up religious tension amongst one another.  Look at France, mark my words, nothing good will come from their assaults on the hijab.

          I was talking more like the freedoms we have here, or are supposed to have at any rate.  How many states allow concealed carry now?  The reason he gave for keeping Sikhs from their swords is the same reason some people want to strip us from our guns.  It might make someone uncomfortable.  It's that stupid kind of liberal nonsense that is strangling the freedom of people around the world. 

          India has had a hard enough time getting rid of the legacy of their flirtation with Communism, they don't need to ape the failing policies of the West. 

          The reason our laws created dissension was because they were designed to put a people in down and inferior, they violated basic human rights in other words.  That is what made Jim Crow laws unethical.  Besides the most harmonious societies are those with basic laws that protect the liberty and property of its citizens.  Anything more causes strife.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "Besides the most harmonious societies are those with basic laws that protect the liberty and property of its citizens."  The liberty to carry a sword, but only if a Sikh.  The liberty to own property, but only for Kashimir residents.  The liberty to have multiple wives, but only for muslims.  When "liberties" apply onto to a select few it causes strife, not harmony.

            No, laws need to apply equally to all.

  4. SIVAGNANAM, V. profile image55
    SIVAGNANAM, V.posted 7 years ago

    India is not a new country like America. Its culture and civilisation have weathered all storms. The English, the French, the Portugese, the Dutch, and before all muslims came to India and tried their best to change us. But no one can change Indian way of life. If all the countries follow Indian path, the whole world will become a heaven. A day will come for it.

    Carrying swords was very much Indian way of life in ancient times. But those periods were very dangerous environmentally. People were subjected to attack by wild life. By carrying swords, they prevented foreigners from entering India.... untill the English people came for trade and changed their priority to colonisation.  But now, there are security forces, to protect people from danger. So, it is unnecessary to carry kirpans by Sikhs. Their headgear and kirpans were meant for destroying the muslim invaders in ancient times. Things have changed entirely now. Muslims have mixed with others and enjoy every privilege of an Indian

    Our ancient civilisation has never seen a man with multiple wives. They used to live together for decades. Casting an eye on another women is one of the five great sins here. So, multiple marriages should be banned.

    India has never flirted with communism.. India is a land of saints and gods... Indians never need "isms" to learn. The root cause of rising of communism never existed here. But some erratic people in India follow communism and a handful of "leaders" go here and there causing inconvenience to daily life. As its purpose does not exist in India, it should be banned.

  5. SiddSingh profile image61
    SiddSinghposted 7 years ago

    All things considered, Uniform Civil Code needs to be implemented.

    The Constitution of India guarantees both "Equality before law" and "Equality to freedom of religion".  I do not understand how they cannot co-exist together.

    1. SIVAGNANAM, V. profile image55
      SIVAGNANAM, V.posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Every one can coexist if religion does not mix with politics.  Politics leads to power while religion leads to peace of mind and heart.  When religion enters politics, its main purpose gets defeated... No peace...