Talk:Uniform civil code of India
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uniform civil code of India article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
As long as the Uniform Civil Code is pursued only by the BJP and its associates (RSS and VHP), the minorities—Muslims and Christians alike—will see it as Hindu law being stuffed down their throat. Have a set of laws that not only shows little respect for Muslims and Christians, but seek laws that reflect Hindu society at its worst, creating a patriarchal, feudal, casteist, set-up. How can it ever be expected that religious heads will make liberal laws? Some years ago, a Shankaracharya even justified the caste system, and in the year 2002 when 2000 Buddhist were reconverted to Hinduism by RSS, they were declared as schedule cast. When people look at the Muslim personal law, they just see a few things. Polygamy, triple talaaq, and not giving maintenance to divorced women, but they don’t see that widows and divorcees don’t commit suicide among Muslims, that Muslims don’t kill their daughters, brides are not killed because of dowry, and they don’t kill their children because of poverty. Enlightened Muslims should come up and speak. They should move with the forces of progress and give up all provisions in the personal laws that are anti-modern and unjust. Uniform civil code can be implemented in India when all religions are considered otherwise it will be a Hindu law for Brahaman supremacy.
According to Hindutva the Constitution of India is not a uniform civil code ("Hindutva also advances a strong critique of secularism in India, which it dubs pseudo-secularism, because of different standards for Hindus, Muslims and Christians. The subject of a Uniform Civil Code, which would remove special religiously-based provisions for Muslims and Christians from the Indian Constitution, is one of the main political planks of Hindutva."), yet according to this article it "lays down the administration of a uniform civil code for its citizens as a Directive Principle." Anyone know whats what? Hyacinth 19:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The "Directive Principles of State Policy" in the Indian Constitution is a set of goals (or ideals) that the framers added (and which were impractical at the time the constituion was created) and which the Government should try to achieve through legislation, social change etc. The constitution does not impose a time limit for achieving these objectives, however. In addition to Uniform Civil Code, I think it also contain "Universal Secondary Education". Not sure what else it has though. Shameer 23:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The entire article though very exhaustive and informative is a bit biased.
One important point this the article fails to mention( either deliberately or due to lack of knowledge) is that Hindus are also opposed to the UCC. This is because once the UCC comes into force the tax benifits accuring due to the HUF (Hindu Undived Family) in the Income Tax acts will become untennabe constitutionaly.
Another thing about the subsidies given to Muslims for Haj, there are some Hindu equivalents. For instance Hindu Pilgrims to Amarnath get subsidies amounting to Rs 5000.
It is not just that subsidies are given to Muslims or Hindus alone, Indian secularism, as it is based on the principle of Sarva Dharma Samabhav (all religions are equal) provides equal promotion to all the religions. Case in point is Maha Kumbh Mela and Amamrnath subsidies along with security arrangements provided by the Indian government, as well as subsidy for Shri Nankana Sahib Yatra for Sikhs.   It seems the article is edited by both Hindu and Muslim rightists, and it requires a thorough overhaul. Shanukk (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Moreover, under the title Muslims and Uniform Civil Code, it says "However, in response to this, there exist Article 14 which guarantees the Fundamental Right of equality before law,Article 15 which prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth and Articles 25-29 providing religious and cultural freedom", which is half-baked truth. Article 15(1) says that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them. The word only is specifically mentioned because the discrimination should not be on the basis of these criteria alone, but it can be one of the criteria for discrimination. For example, State has provided reservations for women in public employment. This is not based on the sex alone, but due to the fact that women are not adequately represented in public employment. Likewise, a Muslim has a different personal law not because he/she is Muslim alone, but due to his/her belief. Here being a Muslim is not the only criterion, his/her belief is another criterion. Shanukk (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
POV Concerns and Tone
I have put in the POV and tone tags in response to a scan of the last paragraphs of this article which show a suspected religious and political bias which is against NPOV policy. Statements such as
"As long as the Uniform Civil Code is pursued only by the BJP and its associates (RSS and VHP), the minorities—Muslims and Christians alike—will see it as Hindu law being stuffed down their throat. "
are deceptive in that the speak for large demographics with subjective language. Furthermore, these statements do not have an encyclopediac tone.
The page was written by someone who unfortunatley reveals his pan-islamist bias. Its neutrality should be verified
I truly wish that whoever added the extensive list of references had cited them in the text. Would it be appropriate, in light of them, to remove the original research tag? If not, perhaps someone could point out the parts that are original research and unverified claims. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a anti-hindu sentiment running through the article and it needs to be checked for its neutrality.Most of the references provided are from muslim speakers and personalities. there is no reference from a christian or a hindu or a buddhist. The talk page is testament this . There are no tax benefits for hindus seperate from muslims. Unfortunately civil laws regarding income tax are more or less the same. The only fair point toward a uniform civil code that was made was the subsidy of hajj while hindu pilgrimages are not given the same consideration. The article lacks encyclopedic tone and reads more like a tabloid. Please do the needful Drarvindr (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)drarvindr 21/10/08
- How odd. I didn't see the anti-hindu sentiment at all, I thought it was vaguely pro-hindu. Indeed, I thought it tried very hard to wind its way through a complex topic that involves the personal lives of millions and millions of people, their property, sex lives and marriages without too many neutrality problems. Of course, when it comes to gendered relationships, it is sometimes hard to find neutrality - so I will try, once the copyedit is done, to get rid of any blatantly pro-feminist or anti-hindu or anti-muslim tone. I think the tone issue is almost fixed, and the neutrality issue can still be focused on.Levalley (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Clarify meaning and article title
The first sentence in the History section contains this phrase. "... it inserted a colonial administration the seeds... "". Could original editors please clarify this as the meaning is unclear. On looking at the article for the first time, I think that the title should indicate that the Uniform Civil Law being described is that of India. Colinvlr (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Copy edits to history section
Made grammar and sentence structure edits. Will wait for feedback on these changes and proceed from there with further edits. Tried not to alter original meaning and I express no opinion on the veracity of the claims edited. Marginalman (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I too have applied copy edits, and think the article is beginning to read very clearly. I think the article reads as fairly neutral, given the complexity of the subject (it's an excellent article), but that the part about polygyny being so harmful to women should be taken out. It may or may not be. Maybe marriage in general is harmful to women. Maybe polygyny (what in this article is called polygamy, as that's what's allowed in India, although in practice it is of course polygyny) is detrimental to some men, too. This article shouldn't get into the psychological or other evaluation of the practice - only focus on the maze of laws and inequities established by "personal law" in India. I am confused as to whether UCC should be capitalized or not - it is, through part of the article, and it isn't, in part of the article. To me, it should be capitalized if one exists, but not if one is only proposed (the capitalization makes it refer to an actual code, not a proposed one). We copyeditors can't help you there. When I finish my pass through, I'm going to take down the copyedit part and allow the neutrality part to be worked on.Levalley (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The title is in error. This article is not about "Uniform civil code" in general, it is about Uniform civil code in India (as it states in its body). I'll try to learn how to fix that. Probably not as easy as it should be, but good learning experience for me.Levalley (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems proper to use lower case "uniform civil code" when speaking of a non-existent, potenteial civil code, and to use upper case Uniform Civil Code for a code that exists. I am not expert in this field at all, so I can't always tell which is intended, and it would be great if one of the original editors could fix that. I'm going to go through it one more time and do my best at figuring out which might apply. It seems to me that since the article is about both things (the emergence of one out of the other - first a non-existent code, then a code arises), that the main title is correct (especially since Wikipedia titles tend to have only the first letter capitalized most of the time, unless a proper name is involved).Levalley (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I found lots of little (minor) editing problems, fixed them. I used Article with a capital when a specific legal provision was mentioned. I fixed what I believe are the tone problems; the neutrality problems I cannot fix - but I believe the article is relatively neutral on a subject that is by its nature controversial and complex. I really like this article. I'm going to make sure it's not orphaned as well. I added links to the Dowry Act page, and one citation. I added fact tags in several places, trying to place them where one citation would help out an entire set of assertions. I believe the cited works provide all those facts - but inline citatations of some sort are needed. There does not appear to be opinion in this article as much as there is logical thinking (the conclusions drawn are logical, not opinion). I am going to remove the copyedit flag, as I do not think there's any more that can be done in terms of pure copyediting - the rest is about neutrality, although I've weighed in with my view, and I do know a little about the subject (I teach a college class on the anthropology of gender).Levalley (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The article appears to be a bit too pro-UCC. Firstly, the section title 'Towards a Uniform Civil Code' and most of the content clearly reveal an overwhelming bias. Secondly Wikipedia is no place for biased, unverifiable, inaccurate phrases such as 'Despite these reasoned arguments...' and 'The debate in India itself seems to have gone the way of the secularists' and 'The code creates equality. While other personal laws have undergone reform, the Muslim law has not. The Hindu Nationalists contend that it makes little sense to allow Muslims, for example, to marry more than once, but prosecute Hindus or Christians for doing the same', et cetera.
Maybe users who identify as 'Hindu Nationalists' (or any other '[Religion] Nationalists') shouldn't be allowed to impose their views upon 'the FREE encyclopaedia', the articles of which should be NPOV and of NEUTRAL perspective.Hendrick 99 (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It's funny Hendrick because yes, there are clearly NPOV issues but at the same time this is one of the best written Wiki articles I have ever read, it reads like a well written academic monograph (absent a few obvious insertions by the usual wikipedia morons). But the fact that it is so smooth and well written actually makes me mildly suspicious: was it copied from a book? 126.96.36.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've read through it, article is quite neutral and informative. I suspect that it might be based too closely based on the number of references which have been provided. Also the lack of inline citations is the biggest problem here as well as authoritative tone, I've replaced the tags accordingly. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm planning to go WP:BOLD in the near future and remove these entire unsourced chunks of original research as per WP:BURDEN. This article has remained unsourced for long enough and I will put whatever I remove here just in case, and try to, if possible, make a way smaller sourced and informative article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that this entire article was written like this in March 2006 with this edit.
- Redid the entire article here and unfortunately, I had to remove a lot of content which lacked any inline citation, seemed closely paraphrased to the original references and lacked an encyclopaedic tone. These links can be used to find anything useful and sourceable from the older revisions. With whatever resources I could find, the article is now much smaller and comprehensive but there is room for expansion. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)