[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Administrative Note:

Week's Agenda: Social Conditions

  Minimum Wage
  Rules regarding Safety of Personnel at work to be made clear
  Introduction of Social Security Net
  Introduction of identity card
  Removal of Age discrimination at work
  Creating conditions so that reservations will no longer be necessary

I agree with the fundamental point raised by Indranil. The point is not
just what is there today (though admitedly there are discrepancies in
the civil code today), but what we are projecting to have. How can we
have different set of LAWS based on the choice of ones religion? If so,
a group can come up with their belief (religion) that requires a certain
code from its members. Is the government to allow them facilities that
abide by the requirements of that belief? Not to blame/ridicule a
religion or another, we need a uniform set of LAWS for all (irrespective
of race, religion). A law must be something ALL citizens of that
contract abide by. 

That brings me to some of the other topic of the week (yes we are
supposed to be discussing those!): reservation. Where do we stand on
that? Do we go by 'ideal' or practical means to resolve differences in a
society? Do we use statistical data on policies from past or what is
considered an equal opportunity approach? And how are we to define equal
opportunity? If I'm a forward class from the poorest state or a backward
class from the richer ones? Can we really have equal opportunities? How
far does government needs to intervene to makes opportunities equal for
all? Why should I care for a government that works more for minorities
than the majority? What good is the contract if its unfair to me? And me
happens to be the majority; i.e the majority of people are not happy
with the contract. Why is government in the businees of reserving the
percentage of a class, sex of society in jobs, parliament? 


On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Indranil DasGupta wrote:

> the UNIFORM CIVIL (NOT religious) CODE or the UCC which seeks to
> establish ONE legal standard for civic life in India ...


What is NOT common/ uniform today? Contracts, torts, criminal procedure,
penal code, civil procedure, are common. Marriage law is personal, based
on religion. What is wrong with that? Since statements of this type
"clapping with one hand," etc., are quite charged, I would urge that a
clear statement is made about what exactly is MISSING in the civil laws
that is hurting your personal interests as a citizen? We can build a
theory and debate on that. Not on a vast generalization as if there are
communities which are are somehow trying to cheat others. 

The principle of choice implies that you can choose howsoever you wish
marry. My marriage has no externalities on you. So what is the issue?
Please make clear. I don't see any relationship between "UCC" and moving
into the 20th century. Please enlighten me. This was a point on which
consensus so far was that people would have a choice to be governed by
personal laws. I see that it is not on the web yet, however.


This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/