I was at a family wedding last month, and my cousin—she's Muslim—was joking about how her brother got twice the inheritance she did. She laughed it off, but it wasn't funny. I get why UnderDogU brought up Goa, and yeah, that's a decent example. But here's the problem: Goa's UCC isn't some magic fix. It works because it's a small, homogenous state with its own history. Try imposing that on a massive, diverse country like India, where personal laws are deeply tied to community identity, and you'll get chaos, not equality. Let's define terms first. A uniform civil code means one set of laws for marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption for everyone. UnderDogU calls it a "baseline," like traffic rules. But traffic rules don't tell you how to raise your kids or who gets your property when you die. That's personal. Religious personal laws aren't about discrimination—they're about communities governing themselves. We already have a common criminal code, so the slippery slope argument isn't about that. It's about forcing a one-size-fits-all solution on deeply personal matters. And here's the thing: reform is possible without a UCC. Look at the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act—that banned triple talaq. You can fix unfair practices within personal law systems without scrapping them entirely. So why burn the whole house down when you can just repair the leaky roof?