Look, I know pushing for a uniform civil code sounds like I'm ignoring India's diversity. But here's the thing—we already have a uniform criminal code that applies to everyone, regardless of religion. Nobody argues that's unfair. So why should civil matters be different? The current system treats women differently based on their religion. A Muslim woman can't get the same maintenance rights as a Hindu woman. That's not respecting diversity—that's creating second-class citizens based on birth. And let's not pretend personal laws are some ancient, unchanging tradition. They've been reformed multiple times by colonial and post-colonial governments. A UCC wouldn't erase religious practices. People can still marry, divorce, and inherit according to their faith if they choose. But it'd give every citizen a baseline of equal rights. That's not tyranny. That's fairness.

You make a fair point about Shah Bano—that case shows how political pressure can override even Supreme Court rulings. But that actually strengthens my argument, not yours. If we had a uniform civil code, that political override would've been much harder to pull off. You'd need a majority to change the entire code, not just carve out an exemption for one community. And yeah, cultural friction exists. But we're not talking about banning religious ceremonies or forcing everyone to eat the same food. We're talking about basic rights—maintenance after divorce, inheritance, adoption. These aren't cultural quirks. They're legal protections that shouldn't depend on your parents' religion. The criminal code works uniformly because we agreed some things are universal, like murder being wrong. Why can't we agree that women deserve equal rights regardless of community? That's not a rigid box. That's a floor of decency we guarantee everyone.

Fair enough on the criminal code analogy—it's not perfect. But here's the thing: that's a difference of degree, not kind. Marriage and inheritance aren't some mystical zone beyond law. They're already regulated, just inconsistently. So the question isn't whether the state intervenes—it already does. The question is whether it intervenes fairly. You say a UCC would just shift the battleground. But that's actually a step forward. Right now, women like Shah Bano have to fight their own community first, then the state. A uniform code means they'd start with equal rights under the law. The political fight would be about tweaking a single code, not preserving separate, unequal systems. And "imposing one cultural framework"? Come on. We're not talking about banning religious weddings. We're talking about ensuring every woman gets maintenance after divorce. That's not cultural imposition—that's basic human decency. The current system already imposes inequalities. A UCC would just level the playing field.