Let me start by defining what we're actually talking about. A Uniform Civil Code means one set of personal laws—marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption—applying to all citizens regardless of religion. Right now, we have separate systems for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and others. That's the status quo my opponent is defending. Here's what the other side gets wrong: they frame this as an attack on religious freedom. It's not. Religious freedom means you can worship how you want, believe what you want. It doesn't mean your religious leaders get to write civil law for everyone else. We already have secular laws for crimes, contracts, property—nobody says those violate religious freedom. Why should marriage and inheritance be different? Look at the practical reality. Under Muslim personal law, a man can divorce his wife by saying "talaq" three times. Under Hindu law, daughters had no inheritance rights until 2005. Christian women face different divorce grounds than Muslim women. That's not religious freedom—that's a patchwork of unequal treatment based on your birth. If you're born into one religion, you get different rights than someone born into another. How is that fair in a modern democracy? My opponent will probably argue that personal laws protect minority cultures. But protecting culture shouldn't mean protecting discrimination. A uniform code can still respect religious practices—just not when they override basic equality.