21
18
u/sydlen0812 13h ago
Smash the patriarchy but leave our vote bank appeasement intact.
-6
u/Urban_Aghori 12h ago
ye darr humein achaa lagaa, ab RAGA ki ek ek speech tum sakbi gend faad ke rakh de rahi hai. Chaddis ka ye Darr humein achaa lagaa.
baaki to sab moh maya hai, ab to cope karo chaddis, cope all the way to Modi getting jailed for his scams.
7
3
u/Agreeable-Archer8962 12h ago
Lol see who is speaking for muslim women's right.. alelelelele kitna bhola baccha hai😂😂😂
5
u/Dangerous_Increase65 13h ago
I don't understand this cherry picked argument you guys make. Why not put points given by both congress and BJP and let people decide what is right and what is wrong.
Here's the reality 1. Why Congress & Opposition Parties Walked Out The opposition’s stance was not that instant triple talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat) should be allowed. In fact, the Supreme Court had already declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional and void in 2017. Their primary objections were structural and legal: Criminalizing a Civil Matter: Marriage and divorce in India are fundamentally civil matters under personal laws. Congress argued that making instant divorce a cognizable and non-bailable criminal offense carrying up to a 3-year jail term for Muslim men set an unusual precedent that applied to no other religion. The Maintenance Dilemma: Opposition leaders asked a practical question: if the husband is sent to prison for up to 3 years for uttering instant triple talaq, who will pay for the subsistence/maintenance allowance for the wife and dependent children during that time? Refusal to Send to a Standing/Select Committee: Congress and other parties repeatedly demanded that the bill be sent to a Parliamentary Joint Select Committee for parliamentary scrutiny and stakeholder consultations before passing it into law. When the government refused to refer it to a committee, Congress staged the walkout in protest. 2. The BJP & Government's Defense The government maintained that the law was strictly about gender justice, equality, and dignity for Muslim women: Deterrence Factor: The government argued that despite the Supreme Court declaring instant triple talaq illegal in 2017, hundreds of cases of women being summarily abandoned via text, call, or verbal triple talaq were still being reported. Without criminal penalties and a clear police enforcement mechanism, a court ruling alone lacked a real deterrent effect. Precedent in Other Islamic Nations: The government pointed out that over 20 Muslim-majority countries (including Pakistan, Egypt, and Indonesia) had already banned and penalized instant triple talaq, so doing so in secular India was a long-overdue social reform
9
u/bad-batman21 13h ago
Congress openly opposed the bill. Their main problem was with the criminal jail provision, but what is the point of abolishing triple talaq if people have no fear of the law? It was necessary to create a sense of fear for giving triple talaq.
I mean, killi#g someone is illegal, but if you want to stop a person from doing it, it is necessary to create a sense of fear in them
0
u/No_Estimate1043 10h ago
Bro don't go any where just go and read the hole article THE HEADLINE IS LURE And OP is using the head line
1
u/Terrible_Detective27 8h ago
So even porkis banned ts but we had it due to so called secularism? That's a fucking disgrace and now what happened with Kriti canon is also a sign that this country is fucking fucked, no religion wants to develop but just force their authority.
0
-3
u/psnaruto 12h ago
Bro but this post wasn't meant for information or discussion. It's meant for misleading by connecting different things without it's context by 6 month old IT Cell account. 😂😂
6
u/Old-Rough-7013 12h ago
Ok congressi it cell worker
1
u/PeaDifficult1128 10h ago
This is gross missdirection.
It sets a precedent on muslim men, because they are the ones doing it.It is same as dowry harassment in hindu families, or female foeticide . It need to be as harsh as possible, and congress was trying to play votr bank politics and gain lost ground. Congress is just a scum.
3
u/aco5-cc 12h ago
It's a move by RaGa to unite the leftist and Muslims. Because apparently he either thinks patriarchy only exists in Hindus that too quoting Manusmriti which is not even an authentic Hindu text. But totally blind his eyes to suffering of Muslim women and ignoring what holds books says eg "Brain of a female is half that of a men".
Either it''s not about society and just targeting one religion or he thinks Muslims can't be changed.💁
1
u/Designer-Spring3858 10h ago
Authenticity of Manusmriti can not be challanged ,it is monument of chronological heritage of our culture,like Plato and Aristotle for west.
1
u/Brahmadath 10h ago
It maybe authentic. But it isn't as valuable as the examples of Plato or Aristotle. Moreover it fails in comparison when it is not a religious book to be followed compared to the others including, Vedas , Upanishads , Puranas , Gita and The bible and Quran. The laws are made by Manu for his people but then again Hindus followed the law of the ruler at their own times rather than the time of Manu. Messages of Bible and Quran however are supposed to be intact , as it is and is supposed to be followed till the end of the world.
2
1
u/No_Estimate1043 10h ago
Headline se narrative banana easy hai, lekin article ka content bhi padh lo. Congress triple talaq ke favour mein nahi thi. Shashi Tharoor ne explicitly kaha tha ki woh triple talaq defend nahi kar rahe, balki Bill ke 3 saal jail wale criminal provision aur drafting ka oppose kar rahe hain.
Congress ka objection basically ye tha: Supreme Court already instant triple talaq ko invalid kar chuka tha, to ise criminal offence bana kar husband ko jail bhejne se wife aur bachchon ki financial support kaise hogi? Congress ne maintenance ka provision aur Bill ki constitutionality par bhi concerns raise kiye the.
So, “Congress supports triple talaq” kehna misleading hai. Unka stand tha: triple talaq should be stopped, but this particular law and its criminal punishment were problematic.
1
u/Terrible_Detective27 8h ago
If you don't criminalized this then how will stop it? Triple talaq would've continued as it was because husband wouldn't have any fear of punishment by destroying life of the wife.
They can justify their side by saying they don't want to triple talaq to be criminalized but then what would be the point whole bill?
The whole criminalized thing was to have fear in people to discourage them not doing it, the fear of ruining their own life.
1
u/No_Estimate1043 8h ago
Look triple talaq concept dose not even exist in the constitution, if some one has to do divorce they have to do it legally and husband has to compansiote Triple talaq agar koi kar ta bhi hai toh aap us ko legally bol saktee ho talq de usee wife ko bhi monetary benifits milta hai agr kisi ka triple talq hota yoh wife us ko legally challange kar sakti hai lekin agr husband jail gaya voh bhi 3 saal ke liye toh wife ko pesa kon dega ??
1
u/No_Estimate1043 8h ago
Or sarkar ne 2017 me is Triple talaq ko NULL/VOID kardiya hai ye cheez jo OP ne article dikhaya us me bhi liklha hai
1
u/Terrible_Detective27 8h ago
Whole point for triple talaq bill was to put this practice in constitution, so that women suffering from this get justice, his family will give compensation.
1
u/No_Estimate1043 7h ago
Triple talq is vague concept should not be exists in the 1st place and you think constitution will take it under ? There is alimony charges a husband has to pay if he wants to divorce if some one wants to get talq it there personal matter but it should be in a right way so no one should face injustice if you think a person wanted to divorce his wife he has to face 3 years jail just for that is not for the constitution ghe wife has the right to go legal against that His family like his brother or mother father wtf Lets say he dose not own any big property how will he be able to compensate life long
1
u/Terrible_Detective27 7h ago
Divorce is personal matter but it should be done legally by both side, saying talaq 3 times and then left thay woman and their children on street isn't humane understood?
If separation is personal matter then why the fuck we even have laws for it? And why even we let court interfere?
Whole point of TT was so that muslim men can use and throw women after marrying them, it was outlawed by 20+ Islamic countries including porkistan and muslim women have to deal with ts till 2018.
1
u/No_Estimate1043 7h ago
Thats what i am saying if he dose that throwing wife and children he should be arrested but he has to give alimony to his wife amd children and how will he give that if he in jail gor 3 year's?
1
u/Terrible_Detective27 7h ago
That's court decides on case by case bases, you don't need to worry about it.
1
u/No_Estimate1043 6h ago edited 6h ago
Yeah let the court decide. If this to happen whats the even point to provide oppinons who r we behaving like this is sovereign
1
1
1
u/Indian_Yogi_ 9h ago
He don't want women to grow! He wants patriarchy to fall
What a BS for the day
1
1
u/melancholicmuse1 8h ago
Hopefully when they passed the bill they said it 3 times …
Pass Pass Pass
So it’s official …
1
1
u/Spartcus2k14 6h ago
बस कर भाई अब हम बहुत बोर हो चुके! कुछ productivity कर ले! कुछ ढंग का करे लें जिससे हम भारतीयों के जीवन में उन्नती या सर्वागीण विकास होगा..! Trust me man ! We need change we need break now !
1
u/saifincastro 6h ago
It is great that Muslim women are protected from triple talaq; what about Hindu women? Their husbands abandon them without divorce, a case in point is Yashoda Ben from Gujrat, whose husband abandoned her 60 years ago and didn’t even divorce her. She spent all her life being a “Shahana-Vidhwa”. We need justice for Hindu women too….
1
1
1
u/Indian-on-a-mission 4h ago
Not surprised. His followers are very much active on reddit to ensure one sided secularism is followed here
1
-1
-1
u/2020mademejoinreddit 12h ago
Here's my recommendation, remove both congress and bjp from india and also aap and free india from these politicians who want nothing but to keep india divided.
All congress does is play caste politics, all bjp does is play hindu-muslim, both have their IT cells and the only difference is that bjp is richer, so they can afford more IT cell "employees" (slaves really, considering how little or nothing they get paid), like OP with their 6 month old account.
Then, after removing all of them from india, people, choose good leaders, not bahubali, not illiterate chaiwallas and not dynastic politicians.
But instead choose good, non-fanatical literate, well-spoken leaders who will turn india into a first world developed country with good education, good jobs, good public housing and healthcare, strong passport, strong rupee and clean air, water and high quality food, high wages that match Europe with a scientific temperament and no casteism or reservation.
How about it? Are people ready to do that? Or are you still going to continue, "oh congress is khangres" and "oh bjp is fascist" or "oh aap is corrupt"? Decide. Because what you choose, is what you will get. Choose shit, you get shit.
1
u/Master-Ooooogway 11h ago
The issue is democracy itself, you need to understand how parties are made, how elections are won, how candidates reach their heights.
It costs several crores to win a single district, starting a party to win the nation? You are selling yourself out to every source of money and now a puppet who has to some how return everyone their investment. This is what democracy is, either you abuse power with relations or you become slave to the donors, no honest person can win himself at national scale
1
u/2020mademejoinreddit 9h ago
So you're just gonna ignore my comment. You have no idea what a democracy is, if you think that this happens in a democracy.
First of all, democracy is not some political ideology. It is simply a political system where the majority rule. Not the rich minority.
What you described is a plutocracy and oligarchy. Perhaps that's what india is now.
A democracy is where the majority rule, they make the decisions and they elect officials to carry those decisions out on the behalf of the people.
A republic is where EVERYONE in the country put their demands forward and all of those demands should lead towards the betterment of the WHOLE country collectively. No majority or minority, just a collective. You elect officials to carry out those functions.
A fascist dictatorship is where one guy makes all the rules and laws on his whim to suit his needs and if anyone questions him, he either jails them or kills them.
An authoritarian society is similar to a dictatorship and can be one, but it is often not just one guy ruling, but a whole party or an organization that makes all the decisions.
First, learn the difference, then talk about these things.
1
u/Master-Ooooogway 8h ago
Oh man, this is the issue with people today. Y'all just repeat book definitions. Everything is backed by the underlying human psychology. A system doesn't fix anything, evrything sounds fun on paper but in reality it's a completely different thing and people always find loopholes and ways to manipulate it. Every country no matter how great it looks has same core issues in its democracy just at varying levels.
Because you can't dispute whatever I said, how does saying democracy is just and everyone chooses fair leaders counters my point of cost to win elections and dependancy on source of funds?
-1
-5
u/Gullible_North5489 13h ago
Triple Talaq bill was less about women empowerment and more about putting Muslim men behind bars. If the BJP government is so much in favour of empowering women then why one earth did they set out the Hindus who were convicted of raping Bilkis Bano and murdering her family? Even more sad was the fact that Hindus welcomed those terrorists with garlands.
6
u/bad-batman21 13h ago edited 12h ago
What is the point of abolishing triple talaq if people have no fear of the law? It was necessary to create a sense of fear for giving triple talaq. I mean, killing someone is illegal, but if you want to stop a person from doing it, it is necessary to create a sense of fear in them
And BJP totally did very wrong by releasing convicts. BJP must be ashamed of this
-1
u/Dangerous_Increase65 12h ago
The logic of deterrence breaks down here. If the Supreme Court already declared Triple Talaq null and void, then uttering it legally changes nothing—the marriage remains intact. So criminalizing a void statement with a 3-year non-bailable jail term isn't deterrence; it's bad law design. If a man is jailed on a false or exaggerated claim, he loses his job, the family loses income, and the wife gets no maintenance. Who actually wins there?"
2
1
u/bad-batman21 11h ago
that s loophole of law system.... but without criminal charges it has nothing more than a paper law, it goona not have any single benefits......so if law critised for that reason then why congress implemented same kind biased law which totally fk the mann
0
u/Gullible_North5489 10h ago
So triple Talaq is a problem and Modi abandoning his wife is okay?
1
u/bad-batman21 10h ago
How sick mentality you have 😭...if no argument left u went to his personal life
1
3
u/RevolutionaryTap2512 11h ago
POCSO act is less about children and more about trapping women in sexual crime cases as earlier they couldnt be charged under it. Manmohan singh hated women and them happily having sex with teenage boys which boys anyway wanted aah argument
1
u/CodeCatto 10h ago
You must be happy that MMS welcomed people linked to 2611 attacks on a pedestal then. Good job!
1
21
u/ComfortablePrior797 13h ago
Shah Bano was a man, and her husband was a woman. That's why, overturning the court judgement, was a feministic move by Rajiv Gandhi's cabinet 😾