Re: [IAC#RG] Definition of "Hindu"

Dear Ravi

Where is the "corruption" element in not having a Uniform Civil Code ?

1) the Const of India has listed UCC in the Directive Principles of State Policy (saying it is highly desirable but cannot be enforced). The courts have also said the same repeatedly.

2) It is only due to the tolerance of Mughal emperors like Jahangir (whose mother was originally a Hindu) that Hindus were allowed to have their own civil law during Muslim rule - or have you forgotten that ? The British carried on with that policy by adding Christians to the list of persons allowed their own personal law.

3) IAC's position is very clear since 1924.  If Muslims want 4 wives for their males (this is a gross over-simplification) then let them have it   How does it affect you ? Similarly nobody is forcing you to eat Kutha meat nor can you force a Muslim through law to eat Jhatka. In fact if having 4 wives is so very good for Muslims then more Hindu males will start demanding it for their own community. Let there be hearty and organic union (marriages) between Hindus and Muslims when all the good things of each community are exchanged between them.

Sarbajit

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Ravindran P M <raviforjustice@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr Deepak Verma

If you do not see corruption in not enacting a Uniform Civil Code, a sine qua non for a society truly ruled by law, then you can definitely opt out of any discussion on corruption. It is my opinion that all rules must be neutral-gender, religion, community, region etc wise. The specifics in any case will have to be considered by courts which should have judges of impeccable integrity, competent, transparent in their dealings and accountable.

regards

ravi