0:00 foreign [Music] for organizing this wonderful three-day Festival and as expected this is the last panel of the cultural Fest and this is the grand finale and we have a very Grand panel with us so we have a very interesting topic with us as you know that it's about one nation one law and we are going to specifically discuss the uniform civil court and this is a very pertinent question because see if you look at the India's history India has never been governed by a high-end state which has uniform which has created or implemented uniform laws all across the country you
0:46 had great Empires the maurians the guptas in different kinds of Empires but they were very decentralized in their functioning so in India we never had this entire system of uniformity One Nation one law kind of a system where you have social laws cultural laws being governed by a centralized Authority in a uniform manner so I want to start this debate for by asking this fundamental question to sign Deepak so why do you think that suddenly in the modern era that we need to have this entire concept of one nation one law do you agree that this is the part of the India's historical tradition to have uniformity in the social laws in the cultural laws in the religious laws and is it desirable so I don't think uniformity as far as the personal realm
1:33 or the cultural realm or even the religious realm for that matter is the norm in Bharat that has not been the case this is largely a consequence of a nation-state-based approach where eurocentrism effectively tells you that if you happen to be a single nation then there must be homogeneity at least with respect to a certain set of laws and personal laws being a part of it it makes sense to have that assuming that the population is homogeneous but if that's not the case I'm not sure it's a welcome move at the very least I'd like to know the basis of it my position has been that if the uniform civil court as and when a draft is released is based on bharatiya ethos I would certainly support it but if it requires any further concessions from the majority Community I may not be able to support it
2:19 in principle I don't know what I'm going to support at this point because I have not seen a document yet and as a lawyer I've said this before that I don't think it uh it is in common sense to support a document which you're yet to see you can't sign on a blank check or a blank piece of paper so as long as there is no document on the basis of which a discussion can happen on an intelligent basis I don't think it's possible to take a position so I remain considerably agnostic at this point if at all I'm I'm pushed to taking a position the position will be if it is based on bharatiya sanskriti then I might consider and I might get on board that's my position thank you Sai Anand coming to you uh PSI made a very valid point that you have no draft as of now you have no
3:05 idea what we are talking about we just here's a blank idea about the uniform civil code or similar kind of uniform kind of social laws or the cultural laws maybe in the Realms of succession marriage and other things but you tell me one thing India is a very diverse country there's so many communities costs religious Traditions tribes they have their thousands of years of history of evolution the social system the cultural norms why should they surrender their rights to the modern secular Republic which came into existence in 1947 first of all thank you very much to abhinav and the organizers uh this really is a very large panel and reminds me of the 8 PM debates uh although uh arnab has gained a lot of weight since I saw him last you have 60 seconds now
3:55 but I I must also say this at the outset abhinav that I am really proud to be Indian proud to be one amongst you because sitting next to me is a gentleman who is so safe and sound he is [Applause] here is [Music] safe and sound and he's here with me remember that always don't forget that all those who think that this is not a democracy remember that that there is a woman poor woman all she
4:42 did was just quoted some scriptures and her life has been ruined number one number two it's very important to State abhinav just to let's not indirectly let's not interrupt each other by image on the basis of a falsehood that's why energy let's focus let's focus on the topic itself it was not a personal remark I was proud to be Indian how is that personal yes I am proud that you are safe how is that personal absolutely let's refocus on the topic yes
5:29 but let me know if this is the if this is the way of this debate at the outset targeting your personality then I have so many things to say for so many people but I don't want to I don't want to continue with that I can leave this debate if you have to insult me over here I'm not interested rumors against me and you are trying to demonize my personality this way that I object to it foreign
6:17 [Applause] UCC is concerned I just want to say two things you are right as to say why should communities suffer for the greater good for that abhinava I have to say this that there are some Universal Goods right there are some things that are good proven scientifically or otherwise philosophically that are good universally and one universal good that we have him buy from our civilization Hindu civilization Indian bhartiya civilization is the equality of man and woman there are like that there are so
7:04 many and there are societies that have rules that sometimes do not conform to those Universal goods for example it is scientifically proven that you will severely damage the body of a woman if you marry her upon puberty this is scientifically proven so to say that if you were to remove that if you were to ban child marriage you would make a society suffer I'm sorry you are reforming that Society you are going towards progressiveness you are going towards what is scientifically proven to be correct so we must remove discrimination like that we must remove polygamy we must remove child marriage we must remove the
7:49 fact that in some religions it is ordained that a woman would get half The Inheritance that a man would how is this Justified so I am absolutely for removing things that are patently wrong they are anti-woman they are discriminatory they are patriarchal and I am for adding things that go for the universal good and that is why we need uniform civil court thank you thank you Anand and request my panelists that let's focus only on the topic and we should avoid unwanted comments on each other going forward let me come to you [Applause] when we talk about uniform civil court often it becomes a debate about Muslims
8:37 and the Hindus but beyond this Hindu Muslim binary day lots of diversity in the country the different tribal communities the different Regional culture variations so do you agree that a modern state should overwrite their cultural concerns and social concern and create a uniform law so firstly good evening thank you so much Earth and Vikram sampaji for having me over for such a pertinent discussion so well uh the topic today is UCC and whether I am for it or not so my previous panel speaker said that he is ambiguous on the topic and he's neutral on the topic I would say the same we are not against it and we are not for it because here when you're talking about personal laws I
9:22 think talking whether a 15 percent is bothered or whether a 10 percent of the population will bother or whether five percent of the population of is bother not is not the is not the contention the contention here is the majority Community which comprises of 80 percent of the population are they okay with tweaking their laws are they okay with tweaking their personal loss because here if you look at the constitution of India it is said that the state is in it is the UCC is not enforceable however it is recommended so here we let's look at the sale of alcohol right so it says that the alcohol consumption uh would not be encouraged you know or usage of drugs or
10:07 consumption of any intoxication in toxic in but we see that alcohol is readily available across India so isn't it available because here the state very clearly says that consumption of alcohol cigarette smoking should be avoided but we see the sale of alcohol cigarettes so I think here we need to look at the larger picture because here it is not that the Muslim Community is getting affected the Muslim Community is not getting affected firstly we need to know whether you the larger Hindu majority Community is okay with tweaking the Hindu succession Act the adoption uh issue the marriage issue and there's so many other Bindings that
10:55 come in the Hindu personal law that governs various aspects of the life so I think here this document needs to be discussed with the various stakeholders of the different communities and we need to ask them whether they are okay with tweaking their personal personal laws then it comes to the Muslim Community then we can ask them whether they are all right or not because here the UCC has been under the directive principles of State policy and it very clearly says it is not enforceable it is recommended so I think I would go by it we are not against it it can be recommended but I again I trade that we need to take all the various stakeholders of all the communities in account make a formidable
11:42 document and see whether it is enforceable or not because India is too diverse a country is so many religions so many bother if you see the British I would say were rather lazy it it would have been implemented long time ago but the British didn't want to uh unsettle the apple cart it was such a complex issue so they let it be in the directive principle of State policy and they said that let it not be a mandate let it evolve let the document evolve let it kind of uh get uh justifiable and once it is justifiable then we can Implement and make it a law so it still remains in the directive principle of State policy and I think it needs to be debated it need to be discussed we need to take everyone into account that's what I want
12:29 to say at this moment I'll come back to you Sai Anand and everyone let's first have the opening remarks by all the panelists Vishnu shankarji she made a very important point that this is a very complex project this is not a very simple thing of just creating a draft about the Civil laws and the social laws what's your strand on the uniform civil court foreign [Applause] would like to thank Vikram sampaji and Earth for organizing such a beautiful event and for creating such a panel so that we can have diverse views first of all I would like to say that as a right wing Hindu intellectual
13:17 I do not believe and I strongly am saying this I do not believe in the concept of uniform civil code uniform civil code is completely a hoax and I'm today telling it on your panel that if uniform civil code is implemented many of the provisions of uniform civil code will go against the majority Community as my friend Sai Deepak has told and I would also like to tell you I would also like to tell you that in 2018 the law commission had returned the proposal of uniform civil code because we do not know as say Deepak has rightly told the areas on which there has to be uniformity first of all we have to understand that
14:02 when we are talking about uniform civil code we must ask ourselves this question that what are the subjects on which we are asking for uniformity and through my study and research and as far as my knowledge goes I personally believe and feel that there is one area where I as a citizen of this country need uniformity and let me put it in perspective and I want to ask a question to all of you foreign
15:15 section 494 of the IPC May if a Muslim is having more than one marriage it's not an offense it's Exempted under Section 494 IPC while if a Hindu is marrying more than once it's an offense under IPC by chemic offensive so I personally believe when I filed a petition also in the Supreme Court the five judges of the Supreme Court I wish you notice in the matter and I am only saying that please bring uniformity in the penal laws if I if biogame is an offense it has to be an offense for a Hindu also it has to be an offense for a Muslim also for a Christian also you cannot have this kind of an exemption on the basis of religion and apart from that apart from this uh number of marriage apart from number of
16:01 marriage I do not see any area where I feel or believe that there has to be uniformity as I am not here to sort out or make the things of Nicki foreign [Applause] what's your take on the entire concept of uniform civil code why we do we see a section of Muslim intelligencia opposing the concept of equal social loss for the women irrespective of their religious identity you see the debate of uniform civil code was concluded in on 23rd November
16:48 1946 in the constituent assembly itself and the ball was set in into the court of the central government for last 75 years article 44 says that it's the duty of the government it's it too and keep an endure to bake a consensus on the uniform civil court and more than a dozen time various High Courts at Supreme Court of India has directed the government of India to come out with a uniform civil court no government has replied and very recently this January 2023 itself is the Supreme Court of India this the our government has said that this is the prerogative of
17:34 the legislation and this is a very complex issue we will take our own time and Judiciary has no right to interfere in they are in my brother has said every Indian brother of course he is my brother so he said they were beautiful the law commission has recommended that before considering any uniform civil court you have to make the codification of each and every religion of the country this was the recommendation in 2018 by the law Commission of India our institutory body of our government still so this is not the issue of a public debate the
18:22 public debate is over in 1946 itself now this is the duty of the central government to come out with a legislation some state governments lost during the last election particularly the BJP governments in their manifestos they have mentioned that they will come out with a uniform civil code like in uttarakhand like so many other other states but they did not so keep keeping on a debate in the public trainer is another thing and those legislative debates bringing those debates inside the parliament And discussing those debates with the legislature is quite different so I think this is not more than a political issue rather than a social issue the every
19:08 successive government made it a political thought to score the political browning points and nothing concrete they did and as far as me as Indian Muslim as a proud Indian Muslim my strength is concerned as a Cooperative person I will say what shall I oppose foreign
20:17 this point is coming up again and again there is no blueprint we don't know what we are talking about I think this has become Escape Route in this panel this question let's discuss the idea of the uniform civil court whether it is desirable or not desirable do you support it or do you oppose it is foreign [Music]
21:10 foreign [Music] [Applause] foreign [Applause]
22:01 foreign hello
22:57 [Applause] maintenance foreign [Applause]
23:47 criminal code also if Ramesh and Ananda caught stealing they will be given one punishment if taslim is caught stealing his hand will be chopped off please tomorrow morning tell me tasleem are you ready for it you're ready for it okay [Applause] we will come back that's the last point last point uniform civil court but is [Applause] foreign
25:27 [Applause] [Music] foreign
26:21 is left let's come back to you and you know uh can you could you please give us a legal perspective of the entire debate because we are talking on the political aspect we are talking on the emotional aspect of the UCC the religious aspect but what exactly is the legal aspect of the entire exercise yes good evening everyone uh now there was a lot of discussion with respect to article 44 of the Constitution but if we read the exact wording of article 44 it states that the state shall Endeavor to secure for all its citizens a uniform civil court now compare that with article 43 of the Constitution the article 43 of the Constitution says with suitable legislation so my point is article 44 of
27:08 the Constitution does not direct the state that you have to bring about a suitable legislation so as to realize a uniform civil code so the point is if the state indeed wants to realize a uniform civil code all across the territory of India then introducing a law is not a necessity it's not the only way secondly when you are talking about the Constitutional framework so over here I need to we all need to keep in mind the Minerva Mills case judgment that there has to be a balance between the directive principle of State policy and the fundamental rights there also has to be an understanding of the SR Bombay case 1994 whereby secularism forms the basic structure of the Constitution and while we consider article 44 we also
27:56 need to understand article 25 tell Article 28 article 29 article 30 with respect to equality article 14 15 16 and also the fundamental duty of promoting Brotherhood amongst all its citizen Article 15 1A over here it becomes important for us to understand that all these articles are aiming at preventing India from becoming a Theocratic state we have to make sure that India continues to function as a secular state and if the Primacy is to preserve the secular fabric of the or the secular identity of the nation then over here if one law such as introduction of uniform civil code
28:41 it sounds more like unconstitutional civil code over here because if you look at the legal the Constitution and the framework within which it is being introduced and the manner in which it is being introduced it does not fall in line with the Constitutional ethos secondly now we have seen all through this time period there are debates that there are there is some form of a non homogeneity now the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 if you consider Section 5 Clause 4 of this Hindu Marriage Act even over here it gives a significant room for different forms of Customs to Prevail along with a uniform form of a marriage all across the country in fact Hindu Marriage Act was for the benefit of the Hindu Society
29:27 and when we are talking about marriage amongst the Muslims or any Community for that instance so we must bear in mind marriage has different meaning for different person a woman or a man might consider marriage as a sacrosanct as a sacred ceremony in which teacher ceremony or as a sacred institution which might have a religious significance and if that person wants to live this particular institution as a religious matter of fact enjoying article 25 right freedom of professing that religion then why how can a state stop that particular individual from practicing and living in that particular religious life it's not about Hindu versus Muslim it's not about pitting one religion against the other it is about drawing a balance between State and Society
30:13 giving the right space to religion where it is required and even with respect to family law over here the legal Provisions the penal code are all active in fact when he said about a article 9 4 94 498 a with respect to domestic violence uh crpc section 125 crpc section 127 they are still applicable in fact in the dhania latifi case the Supreme Court lightly interpreted the Muslim women protection act 1986 and liberal light it's not about communalizing the issue we need to understand Although our head is safe over the head but we also have to take care what is inside this head are we trying to Simply radicalize and uh is Hinduism into bringing Out Sports and trying to imitate the West no we can
31:00 teach West what is non-violence how to coexist together what peace is secularism and the basic structure of the Constitution Well India I think has six Classical Languages and there is no word for secularism in any of the India's classical language because concept itself was absent throughout the civilizational history of India but still India was the most diverse most tolerant most plural society without the concept of secularism so how
31:47 do you respond to this idea that we have to have a uniform civil court because of secularism is there any other rational behind it or do you really want to go back to the old system where different casting communities can follow their own tradition like the opponents of the UCC are talking about so let me start first of all by wholeheartedly endorsing the opening remarks of my dear friend Anand raganathan uh in letter in spirit second I think it's important to understand that we are beating around the actual issue here under the under the pretext of uniformity which community in this country has a problem with equal treatment is the specific question that you must ask what are the issues and what are the areas one on the question of polygamous marriages
32:33 or monogamous marriages two on the question of succession three on the question of Maintenance and any other issue such as style marriage or forced circumcision so to speak okay these are the issues if these are the issues which is the group or the community under question which has a problem with this so when people start using my opening remarks as a way of getting out of this debate I might as well bring the issue back to the center of the table and say sorry the issue in question is Muslim exceptionalism I don't wish to beat around the bush and if that is the issue it makes very little sense for certain panelists to hide behind other communities in my position or vishnu's position to say no since look at them since they have not committed why should we commit and the argument that is being
33:18 presented is well Hindus are not open to uniformity let's see if you're okay with interference with your personal loss aren't our personals have already been interfered with since 1955. we were never consulted with this the majority Community was never asked any kind of questions today the Supreme Court says that the new law apparently according to the Supreme Court is before you pass a legislation you're supposed to have a discussion with the community that too with respect to Farmers and farm laws where we afforded this kind of an opportunity if that is not the case we are actually speaking with a victim majority here which is already suffering the consequences of nehru's forcible introduction of the Hindu Court in the 1950s so I don't think anybody has the moral authority to pontificate to Hindus with respect to State intervention if there
34:03 is a community in this country that has been constantly interfered with by the state regardless of who's in power it is the Hindu community that is a fact second look here's the important issue you want to address these issues I think whichever government is interested in in discussing uniform civil court must actually drop the discussion on the uniform civil court and must grow a spine to discuss the issue of Muslim exceptionalism as opposed to sending Chargers to ajmer okay that is something for the government to do three the next question will be well is this consistent with India's commitment to secularism sorry India is equally committed to the question of Human Rights and India's equally committed to the question of gender justice and
34:48 social justice it is possible for this country to take a position against polygamous marriages child marriages first circumcision and even with respect to succession without having to resort to uniform civil court because the moment you start talking about uniform civil court their argument is going to be it's unenforceable it needs to be done this needs to be done that needs to be done sorry I don't need to go the path of uniform civil code to enforce any of these aspects the state has the power to interfere with any kind of social injustice that is the precise reason that article 17 was introduced in the Constitution for what to abolish untouchability then should the state have actually indulged all those people who opposed this particular issue and and kept its hands holding with respect to abolition of untouchability when article 25 2B was introduced with respect to the entry of former Untouchables into temples the state has
35:34 taken a particular decision and that was a Hindus specific intervention that was a community specific intervention did secularism come in the way of this kind of intervention because it's a Hindu Community you know it did not so if the Constitution has shown the way that this Indian State reserves the power constitutionally speaking to interfere with a single Community provided there are legitimate grounds to do so why should we resort to uniform civil court to interfere with Muslim exceptionalism on these specific areas let's have a discussion on this so now uniform civil court is no more of the discussion let me see what that position is on Muslim exceptions thank you you know my good friend lokesh abhinav started off that he's a lawyer he is a lawyer he's a very dear friend in audience
36:21 foreign [Applause] proud of the fact s let me quote quote this is what Mahatma Gandhi said Hindus should not Harbor anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely and if they establish their rule after killing all Hindus we would be ushering in a New World by sacrificing Our Lives unquote
37:11 this is unfair this is like a real TV debate give me 30 seconds or my my brother I just want to ask kim ki does he want Muslims to not uh practice polygaming or does he want Hindus to practice when a Muslim says I am against discrimination he is against discrimination practice in all other religions except Islam when a Hindu says like I am saying I am civilizationally a Hindu I might be a divanian atheist but I am civilizing all of us are you are a nasty could
37:58 Pride with pride or uh it's a fact name them foreign [Applause] fact or the matter is that a Hindu wants discrimination to be removed from everywhere this is the difference please remember as ramani Saab he can marry a child
38:45 he can marry four wives it is another matter if four women would like to marry him but that's another matter third third issue so the the daughter will get half The Inheritance as his son and yet discrimination I can have a Hindu undivided family and take benefit of tax take tax benefit that is available to Jan's Hindus and Sikhs but not Muslims I think I'm against that we need to avoid being personalized not to get personal here because here the topic is UCC you you speak
39:43 [Music]
40:32 when we are talking about secularism here it is in the 42nd Amendment right because the constitution of India is a living document it is not a dead document it's a living document it is forever evolving right so when the makers of the Constitution decided that they will amend and bring in that word secular because they felt that India is onto a path where State and religion should be separate here there is no particular priority even if you even if the Hindu Community is in a majority but there would be no preference so I think this is very Progressive now coming back to UCC we need to look at it in a pragmatic manner in a detached Manner and understand that the document is is under
41:19 the directive State uh you know what you call of State policy and let the draft come out and then we need to look at a detached way and it needs to be addressed in a phased manner in an informed manner taking the stakeholders into account because once you trust something for example and then you need to revoke it we saw what happened during the farmers protest during the farming uh you know when the farming Community went hammer in tongs against the bill that was passed so we don't want a revocation we want a very uni uniformed and a very a principal stand on it making the accountability of all the stakeholders that's what I want to say no no no personality
42:27 foreign we the people of India having solved me resolved to constitute India into a sovereign social secular Democratic Republic on 26 November 1949 just a minute let me
43:14 put it back to the secular uniform civil court arguments [Music] energy [Music] [Applause]
44:11 there's a very fundamental question here and that question is the conflict between modernity and the tradition the rise of nation states in the last 200 years have also created the requirement this need for creating uniformity uniform laws because societies are much more integrated than they were 200 years back but there's also the question of survival of the old traditions people right to choose their culture their traditions and different kinds of things so why is there an opposition from one side to the tradition and from the other side to the modernity and how we can resolve it just 20 seconds and then the remaining time can be given to us is my elder sister coach please the age right
44:56 [Music] all of this argument one agrees with we have to also see our Traditions Etc should we if nobody is imposing anything on anybody uniformity doesn't mean that you will lose what is essential to your faith or your practice or your beliefs or your Traditions but if those particular aspects are incompatible with what we believe constitutes a society that is governed by rule of law and Constitution then it must be moderated like it was done for the Hindus 1955. all we are saying is this that look I am very happy when a sabrimala verdict comes out but my party opposes the triple tala
45:44 verdict from Supreme Court foreign the uniform civil code is the biggest tool to ensure gender empowerment and women's rights but it is unfortunate that today those who said who or some of its versions are today at the Forefront of one second sir I'm not even taking on him or at the Forefront of sacrificing women's rights at the altar of World Bank politics that is the fundamental problem and I have only one question to ask lokesh I know because he and I have appeared on television debates lokesh did you support the sabrimala verdict of the Supreme Court Diddy did he
46:29 he did support it he said it is absolutely right but lokesh tell me then do you say that the Prime Minister who overturned the Supreme Court verdict on shabbanu is wrong today I ask you with all your integrity to answer that question I'll answer this question see first of all when we talk about what happened in the answer the question answering the question I'm doing so when I when you are talking about the 1985 case and the subsequent Muslim act that was introduced in the parliament over here we have seen that over a period of time this Muslim women act has strengthened women's rights [Applause]
47:16 as per the Muslim women act two thousand as per the Muslim women act 1986 now the Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance During the period of idat itself that is 90 days and the Supreme Court has rightly pointed out that's not 127 involves and why not Beyond has to give it man has to give him lacks of rupees whatever has to be the maintenance for the rest of her life during the period that's the question here that's the question of uniform civil code but why why only certain period for one section of the community and why lifetime I see we are having the special marriage act 1954. as per the special Marriage
48:02 Act it is the uniform civil court in the country a person belonging to any religion I mean it's free for all any person belonging to any relationship and some marriage registered you're not a special Marriage Act and have all the benefits of divorce succession in that special message but now in front of you you are seeing the difference between the mindset of a JSI Deepak and a Vishnu Jan on one side who may have a a particular point of view and a location because you know and people who gain knowledge from WhatsApp University without knowing the conceptual basis of it lyrics
48:53 no but we cannot have a debate on the conceptual basis when you're taking different strands on different communities [Applause] take our credit card let me let me keep it very simple you see people accuse me because they fear facts
49:38 benefits I ask a very simple question to my friend lokesh are you for or are you against child marriage yes or no I'm against childhood but but please let me complete but let me complete let me complete consent at 1894 do you know it took more than 150 years for our reformers so as to do away with the children evil of child marriage what I'm saying is it your case at the Muslim Community of India is 150 years what I say is when child marriage
50:26 so what I say is over here if at all reforms are to be carried out there is an important need for civil society to act why aren't you creating necessary and sufficient conditions for Muslim Civil Society what are the necessary conditions for stocktile marriage what are the necessary conditions to stop silent let's elaboration because you please answer this question it's an Indian Muslim I also want to know what are the necessary conditions law Commission in 2018 recommended that the nikanama must outrightly condemn polygamy and all such practices which are derogated to women and all such social levels that's the constructive way but that is not enforceable under any subjects what I'm saying is that is
51:28 [Applause] foreign key why do the clerics have the right to interpret everything and Supreme Court should not exactly okay um
52:53 foreign
53:51 [Applause] foreign there we go it is so easy to expose him
54:36 um that a daughter should get half The Inheritance as the son he said yes did you not say yes one-third so you are for unequal inheritance being given it described law by whom is
55:22 [Applause] foreign but I think you know that in this country in this time in age
56:08 apparently when you speak and when you ask for the objective answers you are a righteous and you are an extremist but that's fine with me sorry Anand did not answer that question the conflict between modernity and the tradition and what can be the way forward see first of all on the three specific issues that I spelled out this much is clear that someone has said that they're okay with their daughters getting one-third the share of the succession on child marriage we are being told that the bulk of the Muslim Community is opposing it in which case it should not have a problem with that being brought by way of Allah through codification so that admission must be taken now with respect to this conflict between modernity and tradition tradition certainly has its space and I
56:55 certainly stand by the particular position however the state equally has a call to take it has the right to take the decision with respect to which of these practices can or cannot survive in the current day and age that right remains with the state most importantly what is the realm in which the state wants to operate here is it saying that we will change the way you read the Kalma is it saying that notwithstanding the fact there is a law with respect to decibel levels and the number of times you can actually shout on the rooftops nobody is following it right the state is only asking for intervention with respect to three sensitive areas gender justice pedophilia that's what I would call it and three is with respect to succession
57:41 if the state does not have the right to take a decision with respect to pedophilia which is being justified in the name of a particular document what is it that the state is useful for and what is what would he call such a state I would call such a state a soft State because it constantly buckles and bends the moment somebody comes out on the street so as much as I hold certain groups for holding back their own communities with or without the consent of the community let the community have the discussion on that but the state is also buckling Under Pressure unfortunately on this particular issue I would have to agree with someone who I thought I would never agree with which is Mr Amani which is that this discussion would must certainly happen in the parliament but this much is clear that even in the
58:26 so-called Elite group they are trying to look for justifications and context to protect child marriage we've just seen that and we are also looking at justifications with respect to why women must be treated not at par with women with men on the issue of succession if this is what is to be expected from this Elite panel what discussion are we supposed to be having with the larger masses from that particular Community discuss this this entire allegation of being a soft state and who should have the right to interpret tradition the state that does away with article 370 can hardly be characterized as a soft State I think that if you have done away with article 317 due course of time whatever are the committed positions of the party and because the party is the
59:12 political vehicle in which the instrument of the state is operating I think it can be taken without any kind of doubt that this party and this government is committed to whatever it has written in the manifesto yes of course it's a democracy a democracy means that you bear with all kinds of elements you take them along you give them an opportunity and if they still are unwilling then you do what you have to do and I think that was amply clear in article 370's case including Farm laws I agree no including Farm loss no no I completely agree that's the difference between being an armchair critic and somebody who has to run a country of 140 crore people I am sorry to say you're my friend but that's the difference between technology just one second it's easy it's easy
1:00:00 one second now uh both of you guys can't condom me now it is it is yeah correctly whatever is written in the Constitution sooner or later has to be you know listen to has to be you know whatever implemented he talked about uniform civil code you must not allow cow slaughter there are enough BJP rule states that allow cow slaughter Implement current directive principles [Applause]
1:00:53 give me all the states in one go what we will do is that we will have a different discussion on this also please don't be an armchair critic now foreign [Applause] which till date has not condemned the
1:01:38 kind of genocide of the yoga Muslims that we see taking place in the name of a philosophy that they continue to espouse in their own political party even today and she's sitting on my right she has contested on the ticket of CPM it is not personal it is a position here I am personally against deriding or making any personal attack my friend my elder brother Mr ranganathan he's about eight nine years older but every TV show he says I'm his elder sister so again I'm saying he's good about eight nine years mental mental mental yeah so again I'm saying he's eight nine years older than me but he it likes to please his mainly go so in every TV show he calls
1:02:23 me his elder sister so again I'm saying please you know don't be so sexist you know don't assume just because a lady is married she's older than you okay now coming back here I'm again saying that the British found the UCC very complex in 1835 so they never even tweaked the religious laws Madam so the British are very clear they will only tweak take the codification as far as crimes is returned as far as evidence is written as concerned as far as contracts is concerned but they never tweak the the religious laws of any
1:03:08 religion and my friends here who are from the majority Community have more problems with their personal laws being altered than the Muslim Community or any other minority Community as my panda said that he is a very proud Hindu but he has big problem with UCC didn't you say that sir so again the topic comes that let us not be in such a hurry because what happens is when you thrust down a law without proper consultation as you saw in the farm loss it had to be revoked so let it be something that can be debated discuss letter let the whole Draft come about let the stakeholders be asked and then we will see what needs to be done I would see that as a whale
1:03:54 threat being issued to the Indian government that if you come out to the UCC we'll come out of this on the streets like the farm loss second all I would say is I am grateful to Earth for giving me an opportunity to see the slimji and sairaji fight amongst themselves thank you okay always happy to take the people fighting so you love fighting Vishnu janji last remarks closing remarks last minute
1:04:49 difficulties we can take an audience question the times is up but we can take audience question anyone in the one audience question no okay so let me ask audience a question how many of you are in the favor of one nation one law and how many of you are against it oh there are people but an absolute minority okay but thank you thank you panelists for being such a wonderful discussion and thank you audience for being so wonderful it was it is a very strong debate it's a very long binding debate I don't think we can end it in just one panel but looking to see you forward thank you and thank you
1:05:43 [Music]
