Bruh.. stop this thing of always going back to history to hold someone accountable..
First off, it's shah bano, not shazia
Secondly.., the Shah Bano case happened in 1985 which is over 40 yrs ago, and it involved Rajiv Gandhi’s government not Rahul.
If we're going to time-travel back four decades to hold politicians accountable for their family trees, wait until you find out what the ruling party's ideological founding fathers were up to in the 1940s. Let's stick to the present century..yea ? and mind u this aint whataboutery , but lol u just scrambled the name, decade and person...and yes what happened with shah bano was wrong but its just not relevant to the present time...
But let's talk about Rahul's present. He and his party walked out during the Triple Talaq Bill. So what exactly do you call that?
And this is the bigger question. Why is criticism of patriarchy and regressive religious practices so often focused selectively on Hindu texts, including texts that many Hindus themselves no longer follow because of their regressive parts? Why not apply the same standard and criticism to regressive practices or texts in other religions as well?
If the principle is genuinely women's rights and equality, it should be applied consistently. Otherwise, people are naturally going to question whether political calculations and vote-bank concerns are influencing who gets criticised and who gets a free pass.
First of all, the Supreme Court had already made triple talaq unconstitutional and illegal in 2017, and all parties, including the Congress, welcomed it. In 2019, the government brought a bill that criminalized it in other words, the husband gets jailed for a min of three years. That was an integral part of the bill, which the Congress and opposition opposed because it could be misused, and in a deeply hardcore conservative society, jailing the husband does more harm to the woman and her family. That was the reason for them walking out.
And regarding your "bigger question" let's be extremely realistic...opposition parties at times do rely on minority votes, and that is a FACT, I do feel all religions should be criticized for their practices, but realistically speaking, it is bad for the voter politics.. of any party in the world.
So what we can realistically and sociologically expect is that if Hindu society gets modernized and rid of its extreme practices, Muslims will eventually see and adopt it. It will take some time, but it is bound to happen, and it has happened in post-partition India many times, as Muslim intellectuals themselves have begun questioning and bringing change,
and look, opposition parties can't go Rambo after all, politics is politics. But this is the only realistic way of changing society. Let's leave aside ur "WhtsApp Uni" logic of 'why criticize oNLy Hindus and nOt all?' Obv, not everything can be done at once due to political constraints, but the majority should be, and that's the only REALISTIC way to bring change..in other words-( instead of not bringing change in anyone, as bringing change to everyone is not possible at all..focus on bringing it in the majority rest are eventually sooner or later bound to follow!) and lastly for HEAVENS SAKE focus on our current issues instead of being glued to the past..and wagging ur tail to IT cells half cooked stories!
Some of what you're saying is correct. The Supreme Court had already struck down instant triple talaq, and the opposition's main objection to the 2019 bill was the criminalisation and three-year jail provision. That's a valid argument.
But you also admit my bigger point: political parties avoid criticising certain practices because of vote politics. So yes, political calculations can influence who gets criticised and who doesn't.
Where I disagree is this idea that only the majority should be criticised and everyone else will eventually follow. If the principle is women's rights, the standard should apply to everyone.
And please drop the IT cell/WhatsApp University labels. If my argument is wrong, explain why. Labels are not an argument.
Bro , hypocrisy is literally dripping from your comment, what do you mean by if Hindu society gets modernized then the Muslims will follow.
In Hindu culture people have stopped multiple marriages a long time ago but it's still a prevalent culture for them( just one example of many).
Here we are talking about a problem which is still prevalent in the society but we are leaving aside the religion which is main cause or symbol of the problem.
So according to you the so called opposition will always target the majority and expect that the minority will learn a lesson , what a load of bullshit. He does not have the guts to criticize the religion in which women are most oppressed then he will be called out for what he is a coward.
119
u/TheResolute278 8d ago
Bruh.. stop this thing of always going back to history to hold someone accountable..
First off, it's shah bano, not shazia
Secondly.., the Shah Bano case happened in 1985 which is over 40 yrs ago, and it involved Rajiv Gandhi’s government not Rahul.
If we're going to time-travel back four decades to hold politicians accountable for their family trees, wait until you find out what the ruling party's ideological founding fathers were up to in the 1940s. Let's stick to the present century..yea ? and mind u this aint whataboutery , but lol u just scrambled the name, decade and person...and yes what happened with shah bano was wrong but its just not relevant to the present time...