Inherent Of Formal Ans Informal Organisation: Fill & Download for Free

Original question: Are Indian Muslims in favour of uniform civil code?By and large, they are not! Let me enumerate the reasons:-(i) Religiosity: The biggest reason for opposition to UCC is rampant religiosity among Muslims in India. I will not go into the theological aspect of this because they are redundant in today’s society. If Islam is a religion for eternity, it has to evolve with changing times otherwise it is just another conservative ideology stuck in a time warp (7th century in this case).Note: Many aspects of Islam are universal like charity and truthfulness and need not be altered but the ones that do not make any sense in a modern society have to be re-thought.Besides this, polygamy and triple talaq are not a general occurrence for the vast majority of Indian Muslims (also because they are seen as undesirable practices from a religious POV itself). Therefore, it becomes even more important to ban these practices so that people do not abuse the privilege extended to them in the guise of religious traditions. The argument put forth by most in opposition to UCC is that we cannot outlaw practices that are allowed as per the Quran. They do not see the flip side though. Is discrimination and injustice allowed then as per the religious scriptures? Most will say, “No”! Now it is a fact that polygamy and triple talaq are essentially discriminatory practices at least in modern times. You can’t say that men and women have equal rights in Islam until and unless women also have the option of polygamy and triple talaq.Polygamy does not make sense in a country where the sex ratio is skewed (1000:940 in favour of the men). Even in the community it is 1000:951. Also widow re-marriage is allowed in Islam. So, there can be no rational argument in favour of polygamy now.Triple talaq can be dismissed directly as being discriminatory as women do not have the right to “triple talaq” their husbands. It contradicts the assertion made by most that Islam gives “equal rights” to women.So, the most important reason for opposition to UCC by Muslims is blind religiosity.(ii) Ridiculousness: This might seem ridiculous but I’ve heard statements to the effect that implementing UCC would essentially disallow divorce (which is obviously not desirable). So, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs etc. do not get divorced right? If the divorce law under UCC grants equal rights to men and women for getting a divorce, there should be no opposition to it. Therefore, the second reason is ignorance or utter ridiculousness!(iii) Irrational Fear: Another reason is fear and insecurity over losing ones religion under the influence of non-Muslims. This fear clearly clouds their judgement on what is fair and rational in a modern society. An attempt to push UCC is seen as an attack on Islam. Once this mental victimisation is established, all rational arguments in favour of UCC fall on deaf ears. The priority now is to save the religion even if it means allowing discriminatory practices to survive.(iv) Absence of an official draft and rise of hindutva politics: There seems to be no official draft of what the UCC would look like if implemented (In case I’m wrong, please direct me to one). We simply do not have enough information on how other aspects of the personal law like inheritance, adoption and maintenance would be affected. This causes a sense of distrust among the rationals in the community especially when we see laws like “beef ban” which are implicitly based on religious grounds. Also, further addition to the law like life sentence and calls for death penalty (I’m not kidding) for slaughter intended for consumption does not help the cause. If the nation demands secularism from Muslims, the same has to apply to Hindus. Period! I, personally, however can overlook this travesty if a just UCC is implemented as it would benefit almost half of the Muslim populace (read: women) which would in turn help the community come out of the mess it is currently in.(v) Male chauvinism: This may be hard for many to hear but let me say it nonetheless. Many Muslims do not think that giving equal rights to women is a good idea. They are inherently sexist and actually believe that the existence of women is just to lend support to the men as they indulge in their daily activities. That women should not be part of decisions-making bodies related to governance or neither should they be “leaders” are views held by many in the Muslim community. These are the fanatics. Having said that, let me add a special note to the browbeaters from other communities, “No, not all religious Muslims are fanatics!”.PS: I’ve tried to substantiate point (i) as I feel that majority of the Muslims (or at least those who matter) fall in that category. They desperately need to rationalise their religious practices. Point (ii) and (v) are for the lost causes. Point (iii) and (iv) are somewhat reactionary but we can find a solution to them in a secular democracy. It is upto the govt to instill confidence among the folks falling under these two categories. Also, I’ve consciously stayed away from the theological aspects as I am not an Islamic cleric and also because I do not have much respect for vast majority of theologians out there. Most of our problems (especially related to civil and personal laws) can be solved by rationality. Nothing else is required. Cheers and thanks for the A2A!Edit: Headings have been added to each point as per suggestion from Kashif Islam ! Thanks for the suggestion bruh!

Institutional racism is a stupid concept. What it means is that its organisational processes are inherently disadvantageous to certain races or classes of people. It doesnt mean that all police officers or even a high proportion of them are racist.The phrase was conjured up following the tragic, racist, murder of Stephen Lawrence. The Metropolitan Police had stopped first aid training for fear they would get sued if their officers gave first aid and subsequently caused more injury. As a result the first officers on the scene didn't know what to do.The second element was the appalling investigation by the Met Area Major Incident Team. It is alleged that one member of the team was passing information to the father of one of the offenders who was a local criminal. The Senior Investigating Officers simply did not know the law. As a result opportunities to secure evidence were lost and the desire for a cast iron case delayed arrests. The Lawrence family lost patience and took a private prosecution that failed.The Stephen Lawrence enquiry was a farce. The parents naturally needed someone to blame and the police were the obvious scapegoat with term “institutional racism" being the buzz word from then to now.It should be noted that the Met reopened the case and achieved convictions on 2 out of the 5 offenders. Perhaps if the original team had been allowed to do their job all 5 would have eventually ben charged and convicted.Having dealt with the meaning of institutional racism let's look at the realities away from the stupid rantings of David Lammy,Diane Abbott et al.Police work on an intelligence led policing model. Basically the monitor crimes committed over the whole of the force area. This highlights hotspots where each type of crime is prevalent, description of offenders, how the offences were committed, type of property taken etc. Particular attention is given to crimes of violence such as wounding, robbery, assaults because that is what people tell the police they are worried about. Surprisingly burglary of dwellings doesn't rate highly.Now it is unfortunate that in the Met a large proportion of these crimes are committed by young black men in areas with a high visible ethnic street population. As a result police tend to check people that fit the intelligence gleaned. Young black menIt's also the case that many of the offences are drug related. Either gangs protecting their turf so they have the monopoly on supply or users trying to fund their next hit.For some reason we have a number of high profile politicians and celebrities who feel that responding to both intelligence and data is a bad thing. I can only presume that such people would rather see these young black men killing each other rather than stopped by police doing their job.Getting stopped is frustrating and can be frightening. If you feel an officer has been rude or aggressive the street is not the place to complain. Be compliant. Make a note of the officers number and make a complaint at your local police station. If you behave aggressively you'll probably be arrested for a public order offence.It wasn't unusual for my white, then teenage, scruffy sons to be stop checked 4 times in a weekend. They were always compliant and polite and never used my name asa get out of gaol free card. (I'd have killed them)

First let me start with how information flows in world media.Associated Press and Thomson Reuters are two major news disseminating organisation which are relied upon by many news channels and newspapers across the world including Indian news media.Other players being CNN ,BBC ,NYT ,AL JAZEERA ,RT etc.Almost all of these channels are western based ,owned by white jews or christians.They carry an inherent bias towards their country, their religion ,their race although most will vehemently deny any bias in its coverage.This bias flows as favourable support to issues involved in following descending order of support .1 support for own country2 support for countryman of majority religion with racial bias3 suport for own citizens of minority religions of dominant race4 support for own citizens of minority religions of minority race4 support for other countries having same majority religion and race as theirs5 support for other countries having same religion as theirs but of different race7 support for friendly countries8 support for countries with abrahmaic religions.9 others as per situation and time.This pecking order is set by the news organisations while determining whom to show in favourable light on a given issue.So if there is issue between USA and Britain ,AP will show USA positively.However if there is same issue between India and Britain,British position being same as in earlier case of USA and Britain,AP will present news favourably for Britain.This is how it works mostly.Indian news organisations broadly copy what feed comes from AP or Reuters without investing effort in going into detail and presenting an Indian perspective to the story.Secondly western nations have budgets channelled through NGO’S and embassies which go into buying editors and news organisations in rest of the world.This is also possible in India.This is why we get newsfeed which is pro western or carries western bias.Hence ,in India if anything bad happens to christians that news is highlighted and splashed across the world.If this story is negative for christianity it is discounted ,not highlighted,blame is subtly shifted ,diluted through clever word play.In recent John Chau case,the missionary became a martyr to the western media despite being in wrong.Tempo was raised to arrest sentinel tribesman who were shown in negative light.When it comes to Putin ,west calls him dictator despite being democratically elected.They have to make the story stick.So lies are peddled in the hope that gullible will buy it.If you listen to RT and BBC you will get different perspective on the same issue.Hope this answer covers CIA and missionary angle as well.It is upto us to separate chaff from the grain.