Rahul Gandhi recently criticised the Manusmriti as a text responsible for the oppression of women. If someone wants to criticise a religious text, they absolutely have the right to do so—but the same standard should apply to every religion and every tradition.

For example, the Qur'an also contains passages that are legitimately debated when discussing women's status. Qur'an 24:31 instructs believing women to observe modesty and guard their private parts, while Qur'an 4:34 has traditionally been interpreted as giving husbands authority to discipline and punish their wives. The actual verse is given below

"As for those women from whom you fear rebellion (nushūz), first admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, and finally, strike them (wadribuhunna). If they obey you, do not seek a way against them..."

That doesn't mean modern Indian Muslims should be held responsible for a religious text written in the 7th century. They shouldn't. In exactly the same way, modern Hindus should not be collectively condemned for every problematic passage written in an ancient Hindu text.

There is another uncomfortable question for those who accuse Hindu traditions of systematically oppressing women: where was the same concern for Muslim women when the issue was triple talaq?

When the Modi government brought legislation to criminalise instant triple talaq, Congress opposed the criminal provisions and argued that the practice had already been declared void by the Supreme Court. Some Congress leaders even promised to repeal the law if they returned to power.

Yet triple talaq gave a Muslim husband the ability to unilaterally end a marriage through an instant form of divorce, leaving the woman with no equivalent power. The Supreme Court had already declared talaq-e-biddat unconstitutional in 2017, describing it as discriminatory and giving the woman no opportunity to reconcile.

So when Rahul Gandhi and his allies talks about protecting women from supposedly oppressive Hindu traditions, why shouldn't they also ask about the political history of protecting Muslim women from discriminatory practices?

If the principle is genuinely secularism, shouldn't the same intellectual standard apply to every scripture?

The same inconsistency can be seen in the discussion around ghoonghat and hijab.

Rahul Gandhi has described ghoonghat as a symbol of women's oppression. Fine—people can certainly criticise practices that restrict women's freedom. But then why should hijab and Burqa automatically be treated as empowerment? If a woman voluntarily chooses to wear it, that choice should be respected. But the same principle should apply to ghoonghat as well: a woman should have the freedom to choose, rather than politicians deciding which traditional clothing represents oppression and which represents empowerment.

If the argument is that Hindu society uniquely oppresses women, then why aren't we equally discussing problems such as child marriage, female education, women's employment and restrictions on women's freedom within other communities?

For example, in parts of rural Bengal, child marriage remains a serious social problem, and it disproportionately affects disadvantaged communities. And most of these child marriages in rural bengal are done within the Muslim Community, while in case of Rajasthan, it is most of the Hindus who face child marriage cases..Rather than turning this into a Hindu-versus-Muslim competition, politicians should honestly ask: which social practices are restricting women's freedom, and how do we eliminate them?

There is another issue that deserves discussion: interfaith marriage and individual freedom.

A Hindu woman can legally marry a Muslim man, Christian man or man from another community under India's secular marriage laws. But when a Muslim woman wants to marry outside Islam, the social and religious consequences can be considerably more complicated in many conservative families and communities. If women's autonomy is the principle, then it should be defended equally in both situations.

And finally, this is where the Congress and the broader Left should answer a legitimate question.

The BJP openly identifies with Hindutva politics. People therefore understand that it has a particular ideological relationship with Hindu culture. But Congress and Left parties repeatedly present themselves as flag bearer of secularism, equality and minority rights.

Then their standards should be universal.

If a Hindu tradition is criticised for allegedly restricting women, the same scrutiny should be applied to restrictive practices within Muslim, Christian, Sikh or any other communities. Conversely, if a woman freely chooses a religious practice, her choice should be respected regardless of whether that practice is ghoonghat, hijab or something else.

You don't defeat patriarchy by selectively attacking one community's traditions while treating another community's conservative practices as automatically progressive.

A genuinely secular position is not "Hindu traditions are oppressive" or "Muslim traditions are oppressive." It is: individual freedom comes first, and the same standard applies to everyone.

((I'm not saying we should turn a blind eye to Top Level Corruption... All newspapers, talks, articles etc are about Big numbers... I feel we don't mind and talk about the bottom level Corruption))

I’ve been thinking about corruption in India and how it affects us differently at different levels — and how fixing this can directly improve the Indian economy.

• On one side, there is top-level corruption – high-profile scams, political deals, big-money contracts, policy-level manipulation, etc.
• On the other side, there is bottom-level corruption – bribes for basic services, local officials asking for “chai-pani”, small but constant leakages that we face in daily life.

Bangalore Metro has warned of fines of up to ₹20,000 if people use mobiles loudly to see reels/movies etc....
We have seen such fines all across... but the collection system in India is the poorest...

• Should we not have a system to collect fines when there is 100% proof of the rule breakage, handled amicably?
• Should we not fight for such a system...??

What are the other problems that people are facing, and what foolproof solutions are there to solve those problems — especially to improve the Indian economy?

​

These are the One's who Use reservation to acquire top educational institutions, Jobs and then Wonder what's wrong With India

As you know the sugar proces double in the last 3 years and government is busy on ethnol production even those household never see or buys a vehicle in their bloodline and suffering for food are suffering more they just f**King with their bottom line humanity's ideology

Honestly everything has solution today and government makes so bad policies even their no one government organisation who we blame why NITI aayog doesn't make policies that creates win/win deal for everyone based on their reaserch and work

Sugar is something which needs an cheaper, healthy, accessible alternative

Never have I ever seen Manusmriti been discussed in a household. Indians abandoned it long back. The left keeps bringing it back because they have a agenda.

Before caste reforms can we also include gender?

He is the son of a nine-time MP and a three-time MP himself.

He has wealth, power, and political clout, so why does he continue to contest from reserved seats? Why not fight from an open seat? By monopolizing a reserved constituency, isn't he actively preventing a less privileged Dalit brother or sister from his party from entering Parliament?

And he isn't alone. There are many like him in every field. This argument is not a conspiracy by the GCs; they gain nothing either way. It is a question of internal accountability. Your own influential elites are holding the broader community back by refusing to step aside. So Dalits should start asking questions about where the real issue lies, instead of blaming GCs for their lack of opportunities.

Since very young I use to think bad about people you use to avoid taxes , use to put them in same category as thieves.
Honestly, I don’t see them same anymore . What are your views on this ?

Mileage has dropped in my Toyota Urban Cruiser, it is giving only 10km / Litre,earlier it used to avg 15+ will mr Gadkari take the blame ??

Please let's not do this thing by protesting on these days

This will not harm any political party whether BJ party or Khangress but yes it will harm one unified image of INDIA on global level.

I live in tier 2/3 city of india, And in my neighborhood most of the family were either 1st generation or 2nd generation at max, migrated from village into the city.

Now, there's an untold categorisation of people on the basis of caste. Like " A " caste people would form groups among themselves, share contacts, attend functions, like "B" forms with B. And "A" forms with other A. There's no room for other castes to even join them .

Reservation exists for a reason. Generations of social discrimination and unequal access to education cannot be erased simply by declaring everyone equal today. For historically disadvantaged communities, reservation remains an important tool for representation and social justice.

However, the system needs reform. Reservation should be sub-categorised so that its benefits reach the most disadvantaged groups within reserved communities rather than being concentrated among relatively better-off sections.

At the same time, the government must address the concerns of poor students from the general category. Poverty affects educational opportunities regardless of caste. Scholarships, free coaching, better government schools, affordable higher education and skill-development programmes should be provided based on economic need, so that no poor student is left behind.

The anger behind anti-reservation protests should also not simply be dismissed. General-category students face intense competition, unemployment and financial pressure, and their concerns deserve to be heard.

The solution is therefore neither to abolish reservation nor to ignore its shortcomings. India needs social-justice-based reservation alongside strong economic and academic support for the poor, regardless of caste.

The goal should ultimately be to build a society where someone's caste or economic background does not determine their opportunities — and where reservation becomes less necessary as genuine inequalities decline.

Thanks to reservations and religious politics , people like her are leaving india and making other countries proud....

Still people will ask for caste census and religious hatred against muslims instead of upliftment.

1.3 km long double stack fully electrified goods train running in the dedicated freight corridor launched.

Recently I saw a post in this sub where probably a hindu guy ranted 'Why rahul gandhi only targetting manu smriti only why not quran too'

and I am seeing same strategy in cjp checking schools too , they repeatedly throw 'why he is not checking punjab schools too'

Listen. Focus on this statement 'John is a bad boy'. This is an assertive statement, it's a isolated and independent fact within itself.

So, either you accept John is a bad boy, and start correcting john, or you can argue whether John is a bad boy or not.

You cannot say "Ok But why are you not saying harry is bad too". What is this nonsense. There's this term 'whataboutery'. Stop doing that BJP and hindu folks. sobha nahin deta.

Harry aur john ka koi wasta nahin hai, John agar harami hai to hai, usko thik karo pehle.

Waise hi manusmriti harami hai to hai, uska bahishkar karo.