It’s sheer nonsense to invoke “diversity” as a justification for polygamy, triple talaq and other antediluvian family structures and practices. Shall we invoke a “diversity of working conditions” to justify bonded labor?

@Ikram

Notwithstanding the validity of your criticism of India or Hindu RW, your criticism of UCC (incl the Auzy analogy) is questionable to say the least.

Here’s a good write-up on the common errors of judgement regarding UCC:

https://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/2003/07/30/stories/2003073001431000.htm

Why do criticisms of India lead to Indians looking for faults in what they believe is the commentors home country?

Is “I know you are but what am I?” Considered the height of sophisticated argument in the Indian education system?

Would a graduate level treatise at an IIT be entitled “I’m rubber and you’re glue…”.

C’mon people, you can do better. If India is worth defending blindly and with no thought, then try harder!

Violet, legal pluralism in India means multiple parallel legal systems, not a legal system that allows for a pluralistic society.

The USAhas only one legal system — Anglo American common law. The fact it allows for gay marriage and disallows child marriage (mostly), does not make is plural.

Canada has two legal systems — Anglo-American common law and (in Quebec) French civil law. All federal laws are reviewed by bujuralists to ensure they work in both systems.

Different systems can achieve fair outcomes. The French inquisitorial legal system, and the American adversarial system both provide justice, but in very different ways.

India is so amazingly diverse, trying to force everyone to use one system seems like a fool’s game.

The last guy to aim for a Uniform Civil Code in India was Aurangzeb. Didn’t turn out so well for him.

Yes he is, and the two pieces are entirely consistent with each other. In fact they mirror my own positions on the topics of discussion.

Scroll piece is excerpted from his book, and I agree with it with the caveat hindsight is 20/20. The founders of the new, fragile republic were well intentioned. Besides Savarkarite extremism had already killed Gandhi and “were distributing sweets in their district offices” (to quote someone) before the first sentences of “Nehruvian” history books were drafted.

He’s a guy who will be whatever you pay him to be.

Satyamev Jayate, as they say…

The secularists lied by feeding us claptrap about Hindu-Muslim syncretism and harmony, while eliding a reality of subjugation and destruction. That provided an opportunity for the nationalists to disrupt the narrative (though their replacement has its own flaws). Eventually we will have reconcile the two frameworks and arrive at something closer to the truth.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/21/five-more-years-narendra-modi-india-dark-place

Isn’t he the same guy?

“It’s definitely a very north Indian thing, but far from being restricted to the Gangetic plain. ”

…Just like the Hindu religion won’t you say? 😛

I should clarify that my issue is less with cow-slaughter being banned, and more with how its used to brutalize Muslims (vigilantes in the rural North accusing Muslims of cow-slaughter whenever they feel like attacking them).

Similar to blasphemy in Islam, and how what could ideally be a restriction on intentionally hateful/communal speech, has basically turned into an easy way to make a non/secular Muslim’s life hell, should they sufficiently annoy you (its quite easy in some countries to file a blasphemy charge against your neighbor without any evidence, at which point they are facing both mob-justice and an adversarial law-system).

Otherwise I’d be fine with cow-slaughter bans, with the possible exceptions being made for those too poor to subsist any other way.