Here's a fact that gets ignored: India already has multiple civil codes. Christians have their own marriage laws, Muslims have theirs, Parsis have theirs. So when people say we need a "uniform" code, they're actually asking for a Hindu-majority code to be forced on everyone else. The real question isn't whether we want equality—it's whether we want top-down uniformity or bottom-up reform. A uniform code sounds clean in theory, but in practice it would steamroll minority practices that people genuinely value. Even the Law Commission said we should focus on reforming discriminatory practices within each community first, not imposing one-size-fits-all rules. Look, I'm not defending every tradition out there. Some customs are genuinely oppressive. But the way to fix that isn't by telling millions of people their personal laws are now invalid. That breeds resentment, not equality.

Take a look at what happened when Turkey imposed a uniform civil code. They forced secular Swiss law on a deeply religious society. Did it create equality? No. It created resentment, underground religious marriages, and women ended up with no legal protection at all because they couldn't openly register their unions. Sam, you're assuming a uniform code automatically means more rights for women. But that's only true if the code is actually progressive. What if the compromise version ends up being less protective than some existing personal laws? Look at how alimony debates play out in courts. A uniform code could easily become a race to the bottom. You say gender shouldn't determine legal rights. I agree. But forcing uniformity ignores that different communities need different paths to reform. The goal is equality, not sameness. Let communities reform from within, with state pressure where needed. That actually works.

I was at a friend's wedding last month — Hindu ceremony, all the rituals. His sister's marriage was under Muslim personal law. Both Indian citizens. But here's the thing: neither family sees the other's traditions as oppressive. They just see different ways of doing things. Sam, you keep pointing at Turkey and Tunisia like they're success stories. But Turkey's code created a system where religious marriages happen outside the law entirely. That's not equality — that's pushing problems into the shadows. And Tunisia? They're a small, relatively homogenous country. India has 29 states and dozens of major religious communities. Apples and oranges. You say bottom-up reform hasn't worked in 75 years. But that ignores the Hindu Succession Act amendments, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. Change happens incrementally, but it happens. A uniform code isn't a shortcut — it's a sledgehammer.