Look, we got one set of laws for traffic, one set for taxes, but when it comes to marriage, divorce, and inheritance, we're running a dozen different rulebooks depending on your religion. That's not fair to anyone. A uniform civil code just means everybody plays by the same basic rules. It doesn't take away your right to practice your faith—you can still have religious ceremonies, still celebrate your traditions. But when you're dealing with legal stuff like property rights or child custody, there shouldn't be one law for Hindus and another for Muslims. That's not equality, that's chaos. And it especially hurts women, who often get the short end under personal laws. I get that people worry about losing cultural identity. But we're talking about basic legal protections here, not forcing everyone to live the same way.

Alright, let me give you a real scenario. My cousin’s wife got divorced last year under Muslim personal law. She walked away with barely anything—no alimony, no house, and a custody battle that dragged on for years. Under a uniform code, she’d have had basic protections, like a fair split of property and clear child support rules. That’s not abstract, that’s her life. You’re worried about your neighbor, but that’s a strawman. A uniform code doesn’t mean we copy one religion’s rules—it means we write new ones that work for everyone. Your neighbor’s pension wouldn’t be illegal; we’d just make sure all widows have the same rights, regardless of faith. Traditions are fine for ceremonies, but legal stuff shouldn’t be a lottery based on birth. Look, diversity is great. But when diversity means some people get the short end of the stick legally, that’s not something to protect—it’s something to fix.

Yeah, but comparing burial customs to inheritance laws is a false equivalence. Nobody's getting evicted from their home because of how they bury their dead. Legal rights over property and children? That's a whole different ballgame. You mention those 200 tribal protections—I'm not saying we scrap those overnight. A uniform code can have reasonable exceptions for communities that genuinely need them, especially tribal groups. But the core framework should be the same for everyone. That's not bulldozing, that's building a baseline. And Goa's code? Sure, it's imperfect. But that's an argument for doing it right, not for giving up entirely. We've had decades of personal laws failing women, especially in divorce and inheritance. A uniform code gives us a chance to fix that, not just trade one set of problems for another. Let's write laws that put people first, not religious labels.