Upcoming Elections - Vote with a conscience - Page 116

Originally posted by: Kyahikahoon

Its not ‘lesser evil’ . Its not evil. U can say NDA is delaying on their promise, not performing as per expectations etc. But saying its the lesser evil is a wrong statement 

That is subjective.  There are a lot of things the NDA has done that some people may consider evil, but are still supporting for the reason that @Wistfulness mentioned above.  I think you're better off just agreeing to disagree on this one, & just accepting their lukewarm support as is

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

This I completely agree. While I understand that a late marriage is better than a late marriage, but the way people are bringing up is like marriage in 20s is some kind of regressive mindset., Not saying people should marry in 20s just for the sake of it even if the partner isn't worth it, but marrying in 20s if you find a right match is a bliss.

Demographic change is very real and its affects are being observed too.

Saying population control bill, it wont serve any purpose. You would see only majority community following it

Not sure whether this is the right thread to discuss population control, but since it has been raised, I will respond here itself

I used to be in support of marrying late, near ~30.  However, looking at collapsing birth rates, & also reading/listening to what a lot of people both in India & US have had to say, I have changed my views on this:

• A man who marries late usually gets a wife who does not appreciate the struggles he's gone through in getting where he is, & is therefore tends to tax his earnings more, be it in terms of lavish lifestyles, or other ways that the money is spent.  He's also likely to get abandoned if he falls on hard times (like I was)
• A woman who marries late (or even early but decides to freeze her eggs to go IVF) finds that it's harder to have kids after that.  First of all, infant mortality is higher w/ older mothers, and also, IVFs have a very low success rate.  That's the story of collapsing birth rates worldwide, including India
• A couple that marries in their early 20s goes thru the ups & downs of life while they're still navigating it, & are thereby more likely to have a durable marriage.  They don't have to have kids before they can afford it, but they certainly shouldn't delay marriage before they have made good money

I believe that once this happens, the trends towards high divorces & lower birthrates are likely to be reversed.  I married when 30, but am now divorced, but looking back, I should have looked for a date in college.  That's when people have the free time to really find out about their potential future spouse - most importantly her/his value system, beliefs & so on (which are more important than "What's your favorite color/food/ice cream flavor")

Also, the reason we have a population issue in India is higher life expectancy - people living longer.  But the solution to that is not having fewer kids: that will only result in the same situation in Europe, Canada and Japan.  In fact, even Japan & Korea have started having muslim immigration issues like Europe as a result of taking in muslims in response to their collapsing population - something we need to avoid.  We need to change हम २, हमारे २ to हम २, हमारे ३, but then implement that strictly for all people.  Maybe we could have Hungary like policies that gives citizens certain perks for every kid they have, w/ the difference being that we stop at #3.  That way, we can start stabilizing the young working population again

One last point: I would not jump on the UCC bandwagon.  Like J Sai Deepak pointed out, I need to see what's in it b4 determining whether it is worth supporting.  Not Nancy Pelosi's "We need to pass the bill to see what's in it"

https://x.com/PoliticalKida/status/1784109358353387810

But then can we have something strictly applicable to all without UCC?

Originally posted by: Kyahikahoon

But then can we have something strictly applicable to all without UCC?

Afaik, most laws do apply to all.  Exceptions are civil matters like marriage, inheritance & a few related items, which in some cases are governed by their community specific laws, like Shariah.  Actually, I think that only muslims have that: I have never heard of Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Jews, Buddhists have separate marriage, inheritance or other civil laws of their own

My fear about UCC is that in order to get a muslim buy-in, it will incorporate elements of sharia into the mainstream common code that Kafirs will then have to obey.  Instead, what should happen is that certain common principles should be mandatory in any civil law that any community has:

• No polygamy
• Minimum marriage age of men & women be 21 across the board*
• Equal inheritance for all next-of-kin, in the absence of wills
• Minors don't get to change their religions
• ......... (Anything I may not have thought of)

* Right now, one of the main issues affecting Kafirs is that muslims under muslim personal law have a minimum marriage age of girls at 14 or 15, rather than 18.  So a Hindu girl of 14 or 15 gets kidnapped, converted & then married under muslim law, & they hold that as legitimate.  Ignoring the fact that a minor can't decide what religion she is: she belongs to the faith of her parents/guardians.  I recall the supreme court a few years ago equalizing the minimum marriage age for men to be 18 instead of 21.  Instead, a law should raise it for both men & women to 21

I also don't see how UCC would at all tackle the issues of lj.  I've seen some states adapt laws outlawing post-marital conversion of faith, but I don't see a proactive campaign to discourage muslim men from going after kafir women of all ages.  In any case, those laws ain't a part of UCC

https://twitter.com/sdeo76/status/1784181229094601174

And no, I'm not calling for any "genocide", just pointing out what things were before and after 2014.  Also note: the minority recipients of any govt largesse has been exclusively muslims, not Jains, Parsis or Jews

This is the reason some people are turning away from BJP: they're turning out to be Congress version 2

Originally posted by: Vr15h

Afaik, most laws do apply to all.  Exceptions are civil matters like marriage, inheritance & a few related items, which in some cases are governed by their community specific laws, like Shariah.  Actually, I think that only muslims have that: I have never heard of Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Jews, Buddhists have separate marriage, inheritance or other civil laws of their own

My fear about UCC is that in order to get a muslim buy-in, it will incorporate elements of sharia into the mainstream common code that Kafirs will then have to obey.  Instead, what should happen is that certain common principles should be mandatory in any civil law that any community has:

• No polygamy
• Minimum marriage age of men & women be 21 across the board*
• Equal inheritance for all next-of-kin, in the absence of wills
• Minors don't get to change their religions
• ......... (Anything I may not have thought of)

* Right now, one of the main issues affecting Kafirs is that muslims under muslim personal law have a minimum marriage age of girls at 14 or 15, rather than 18.  So a Hindu girl of 14 or 15 gets kidnapped, converted & then married under muslim law, & they hold that as legitimate.  Ignoring the fact that a minor can't decide what religion she is: she belongs to the faith of her parents/guardians.  I recall the supreme court a few years ago equalizing the minimum marriage age for men to be 18 instead of 21.  Instead, a law should raise it for both men & women to 21

I also don't see how UCC would at all tackle the issues of lj.  I've seen some states adapt laws outlawing post-marital conversion of faith, but I don't see a proactive campaign to discourage muslim men from going after kafir women of all ages.  In any case, those laws ain't a part of UCC

itnaaa saaraaaa leekh detey ho over self made fears 

UCC = uniform civil code…it means one set of laws for every citizen. End of story. So fears of sharia law remnants or any other fears you have can be put to bed. It will be one set of laws and what is not perfect (no such thing) will eventually be modified…

Kuch bhee cheez main opposition aur fear. 

Originally posted by: Vr15h

Afaik, most laws do apply to all.  Exceptions are civil matters like marriage, inheritance & a few related items, which in some cases are governed by their community specific laws, like Shariah.  Actually, I think that only muslims have that: I have never heard of Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Jews, Buddhists have separate marriage, inheritance or other civil laws of their own

My fear about UCC is that in order to get a muslim buy-in, it will incorporate elements of sharia into the mainstream common code that Kafirs will then have to obey.  Instead, what should happen is that certain common principles should be mandatory in any civil law that any community has:

• No polygamy
• Minimum marriage age of men & women be 21 across the board*
• Equal inheritance for all next-of-kin, in the absence of wills
• Minors don't get to change their religions
• ......... (Anything I may not have thought of)

* Right now, one of the main issues affecting Kafirs is that muslims under muslim personal law have a minimum marriage age of girls at 14 or 15, rather than 18.  So a Hindu girl of 14 or 15 gets kidnapped, converted & then married under muslim law, & they hold that as legitimate.  Ignoring the fact that a minor can't decide what religion she is: she belongs to the faith of her parents/guardians.  I recall the supreme court a few years ago equalizing the minimum marriage age for men to be 18 instead of 21.  Instead, a law should raise it for both men & women to 21

I also don't see how UCC would at all tackle the issues of lj.  I've seen some states adapt laws outlawing post-marital conversion of faith, but I don't see a proactive campaign to discourage muslim men from going after kafir women of all ages.  In any case, those laws ain't a part of UCC

The Hindu marriage act covers the followers of the four Indian faiths. Muslims, Christians, and Jews also have personal laws but only the Muslim community leaders are on the forefront opposing every proposed development be it the UCC or raising the legal age of marriage to 21. The legal age of marriage for women is 18 in the whole country and for all communities irrespective of their personal laws, but Muslims are exempted. Prevention of child marriage act doesn't criminalize them for an obvious crime of marrying 15 year old girls. 

I'd judge anyone who would oppose the UCC because it would mean supporting legal immunity for filthy men marrying minors. There was a huge hue and cry over Assam scrapping the muslim marriage act. 

Regarding the last point, it's true that the UCC won't help lj victims. What they need is a massive awareness campaign, stringent laws, and fast convictions. So far, only two have been convicted. One is the Tara Shah case culprit, while another probably got convicted because the case was in the SC/ST category.

Edited by Wistfulness - 10 days ago

https://twitter.com/MeghUpdates/status/1784122541851942970?t=yLic4MWG4HPWPEgbiNwfwQ&s=19

Originally posted by: KJasoosChulbulP

itnaaa saaraaaa leekh detey ho over self made fears 

UCC = uniform civil code…it means one set of laws for every citizen. End of story. So fears of sharia law remnants or any other fears you have can be put to bed. It will be one set of laws and what is not perfect (no such thing) will eventually be modified…

Kuch bhee cheez main opposition aur fear. 

The problems always arise in the details.  Which is why it's not a good idea to have just a simplistic expectation of what that law will be.  Just watch YouTube videos of Sai Deepak on this issue.  He openly states what I have stated - that w/o reading it, it's not worth supporting.  Sanjay Dixit as well - pointed out the impracticalities of such a law itself, but recommended  underlying common principles, such as ban on polygamy, etc.  It's not the panacea that people think it'll be

The INDIA alliance's reasons for opposing this would be completely different from what Sai Deepak or Sanjay Dixit reasons for doing it.  There are good as well as bad reasons for opposing something