Anupam Kher hits back at Naseeruddin Shah - Page 4

Originally posted by: flipfl0p

On bold. I don’t think so. I think till 50s or 60s, all religions had their own rules. (Like Hindus also had polygamy earlier). A bill was brought in to put all these religions under a constitutional rule and constitution banned polygamy for Hindus. Most religions came under this act (including Christianity). But this law was not extended to Muslims.

In 80’s, court was dealing with a triple talaaq case where a man was paying very meagre amount to his ex wife (Shanbano case; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohd._Ahmed_Khan_v._Shah_Bano_Begum ). First it ordered the man to pay alimony for the rest of her life. Later the government changed the bill because, Islamic organisations opposed court order (saying court is intervening in their religion).

Since then, this demand is present. To put Muslim community also under same rules as other religions.

Nope. That was Hindu Marriage act where they banned bigamy for Hindus. Google it yaar. Parsis have The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 which has been amended time to time but not repealed. Christians have Indian Christian Marriage Act of 1872. Sikhs have their own Anand Marriage Act of 1909.

Originally posted by: RegressiveThug

So controlling tomorrow's population will solve today's unemployment?

Not today's but things will get worse in future. Studies are already showing that by 2030 there will be shortage of drinking water and all. Imagine what planet we are giving to our successors.

Originally posted by: Padfoot_Prongs

Nope. That was Hindu Marriage act where they banned bigamy for Hindus. Google it yaar. Parsis have The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 which has been amended time to time but not repealed. Christians have Indian Christian Marriage Act of 1872. Sikhs have their own Anand Marriage Act of 1909.

You are correct. There are different acts for different religion. I was partially correct when I said, religious practices came under government. When I read about it now, I just realised, there was a stiff resistance from Hindu community too when Hindu marriage act came. Their main resistance was the provision of divorce, as that was not present in Hinduism. It also wanted laws like monogamy to be extended to Islam, divorce laws to be extended to Catholics etc.

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/Is-govt-ready-for-uniform-civil-code-after-63-yrs/articleshow/6316723.cms

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/uniform-code-nehru-okayed-principle-but-didnt-make-it-a-directive/amp_articleshow/60183225.cms

Originally posted by: Tinaa11

There is this highly educated person on here who posted an article saying this was the most shocking moleation case she's ever heard. I read the article and told her right away that the lady officer is misusing her position and framing an innocent guy.

Turns out, I, an uneducated person belonging to small town was right about it. Even a leftist portal like Theprint.in dismissed lady's version. Leftist messiah Shekhar Gupta even tweeted about it.

I hope you got the point.

It's all about the ideology. Atleast for certain section.

you are not uneducated, so your whole point is invalid.

Originally posted by: flipfl0p

No. But it might control the further deterioration. Also it might ease out sharing of natural resources (Water scarcity is real, if you know how deep the bore wells are dug and how often rivers go dry). .

It is nothing to do with Hindu-Muslim. It is just the need of hour. But as usual, it might again become a Hindu-Muslim issue if BJP implements it. (Even if government builds a toilet, it is getting converted into Hindu-Muslim, tolerance-intolerance debate these days).

See if we are going to bring up the population control, bringing the two child rule isn't beneficial given the huge population, and it needs to be one child. Which will eventually lead to the a negative growth rate in further future. And also the sex ratio will be effected, given the Indian society and its preference of son over daughter.

Also the scarcity of resources around the world, the bigger problem is mismanagement of resources, even bigger than the population growth rate. I don't get it why a right wing party is giving so much thoughts to leftist policies like PCA.

If you think I am against this because of Muslim thing, than no, I am not. I don't take the idiots that are Islamist fundamentalists and the bhed bakri chutiyas Left seriously, I don't care about the "PCA is to control Muslim population" fear mongering they are doing, and even if it is the truth, I don't care much, because Abrahamic religion majority nation aren't good for others religious groups given their religious motives(converting everyone), I am sorry if it hurt any Muslim or Christian over here, but it is true, you maybe not like that, but the religious leaders and workers of your religion are always funding for the converting others into your religion either by force or by money.

Originally posted by: Padfoot_Prongs

bold- why? India needed it kn 90s actually because that would have made population growth stable in another decade. Now at earliest in 2070s, our population growth will be stable. We really can't sustain that. We don't have technology and natural resource tk sustain 150-170 cr population. We need to check the growth.

I am not getting your point how it will be detrimental.

Are you thinking about sex ratio because I don't think govt will bring one child policy. They have seen its result in China. It will be two child policy.

BTW I do think BJP will bring UCC and Pop control act soon. May be next year or after UP election.

See simple thing is if government is gonna implement the two child policy, toh kiya faida huwa, it should be either one child plan or else this is just useless.

Also it is detrimental in long run, because it will lead to population decline after a long while, increase the dependant population and decrease the productive population, and there is no garuntee that population control will lead to economic prosperity of today's over populated youth.

Originally posted by: Sunflower234

I have asked this question earlier also but no one answered?

How uniform civil code is good ? I mean economically as well as socially?

It is good socially because it gives equal justice and law for everyone.

Economics toh waise bhi theek honge, or social front is strong.

Originally posted by: Anachronist

Naseer said it was in Anupam blood . I dont see it as a joke

Naseer is good act but a frustrated soul aise chaman dusre ko dekh fukte rehtey hai jalte rehtey hai kudte rehtey hai

Originally posted by: RegressiveThug

you are not uneducated, so your whole point is invalid.

You said basically villagers are uneducated and know nothing better. So when I say I am uneducated, you say, no you are not.

Basically, you are refuting your own point. Why so confused?

Originally posted by: RegressiveThug

See if we are going to bring up the population control, bringing the two child rule isn't beneficial given the huge population, and it needs to be one child. Which will eventually lead to the a negative growth rate in further future. And also the sex ratio will be effected, given the Indian society and its preference of son over daughter.

Also the scarcity of resources around the world, the bigger problem is mismanagement of resources, even bigger than the population growth rate. I don't get it why a right wing party is giving so much thoughts to leftist policies like PCA.

If you think I am against this because of Muslim thing, than no, I am not. I don't take the idiots that are Islamist fundamentalists and the bhed bakri chutiyas Left seriously, I don't care about the "PCA is to control Muslim population" fear mongering they are doing, and even if it is the truth, I don't care much, because Abrahamic religion majority nation aren't good for others religious groups given their religious motives(converting everyone), I am sorry if it hurt any Muslim or Christian over here, but it is true, you maybe not like that, but the religious leaders and workers of your religion are always funding for the converting others into your religion either by force or by money.

Having one child policy will definitely have adverse affect in 50-60 years as it is happening in China now.

I had watched a documentary. A boy or girl in their twenties have to feed 2 parents and 4 grand parents each. If they get married, they have to look after 8 grand parents, 4 parents and their child/children. India looked much better in that, when the narrator said it has got one of the largest young population.
But I felt, how is it going to look after 50-60 years? India will have one of the largest old population. By then, China would have got rid of this skewed population ratio. (They are now having two child policy). Current old generation will be no more. After 50-60 years, it will have a healthier society with reduced population.

To see the effects of population reduction, we need minimum hundred years. It may be large for our life span, but nothing for a country’s life span (which will have history of thousands of years). But it is difficult to implement that in India as governments/policies keep changing every 5 year.

Resource management is needed, but that is a temporary solution. Hindu-Muslim issue. I did not say, it was you. I just said, how it is played in media now a days.