Uttarakhand UCC: Indian state wants to govern live-in relationships (www.bbc.com)

submitted 7 months ago by UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee to c/world@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Unmarried couples in a live-in relationship must register it with the government within 30 days of moving in together. The registrar reviews the application and may ask for additional information during an investigation. If approved, the relationship is recorded in a register and a certificate issued. Refusal to register may occur if one partner is married, a minor, or if consent was obtained through coercion or fraud. Partners can end the relationship by notifying the registrar and their partner. Failing to register the relationship or providing false information can result in fines, up to 3 months of imprisonment, or both.

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 34 points 7 months ago

A fucking conservative wonderland.

[+] idiomaddict@feddit.de -16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I’m not Indian, so I might not be getting the full picture here, but this seems like a mostly positive move. Of the three denial reasons, I’m very in support of the latter two and against the first, but it seems less harmful to bar married people from living with non marital romantic partners than it does to allow people to work around the age and consent requirements for marry by simply not legally marrying the child and/or unwilling participant. That’s how, for example, the US has sister wives even though polygamy is illegal. (I’m not against fully aware adults being polyamorous, but that’s not the same as polygamy. )

What’s the issue you see with this law itself? I can definitely see a problem if it’s unevenly enforced, but the law itself seems like a net positive.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago

This will end every closeted same-sex "we're just roomates" relationship. The unspoken way gay relationships have been overlooked for generations by having "a roomate" could land you in jail now.

Conservatives love to pass laws to "protect the children" as a pretext to oppress people. It is already illegal to be in a sexual relationship with a child. A registration will not enhance that. Their reasons are fake.

Remember that a conservative is not capable of honesty. Every word spoken by a conservative is either deception or manipulation. Especially when they give excuses for a law designed to tighten the noose on a vulnerable class.

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

This will end every closeted same-sex "we're just roomates" relationship. The unspoken way gay relationships have been overlooked for generations by having "a roomate" could land you in jail now.

Would the government recognize that for same-sex co-residents? I'm assuming they're too conservative to care about anything other than an unmarried man and unmarried woman living together.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Live-in relationships tend to be viewed by Indian society as taboo. If any cohabitants are accused of being homosexual, they could be charged with a crime for not registering a live-in relationship. Under this live-in registration law, same-sex relationships are not permitted.

Conservatives despise gay people (and other vulnerable classes). They weaponize laws to harm these people. They are creating a weapon with this law and they will definitely use it as I am describing. While many may slip under the radar or not become a victim to this law, it is still designed to harm innocent people and teach the populace to discriminate against them.

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I'm surprised the government would risk recognizing them and potentially legitimizing them.

[-] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

This. Not a chance in hell the government would have any way to regulate men working in the cities from living with other men. That's pretty much how working in indian metropolii works

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

Of the three denial reasons

If you truly believe that those are going to be the ONLY criteria, I have oceanfront property in Dehradun to sell you..

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

That would be an enforcement issue, which I can 100% see.

[+] Shalakushka@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago

[deleted]

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

So… the problem is that before nobody had to register and now only unmarried couples do. See how easy a straight answer was?

I’m living in Germany where everyone has to register, this would essentially just change cohabitating couples’ status from roommates to domestic.

[-] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

It's very different. Here, the government can deny this if it believes that one of the partners are being "coerced". Now this is where context matters. There is a conspiracy theory in the Indian far right called "Love Jihad", where Muslims are allegedly marrying Hindu women with the sole purpose of converting them to their religion to lower the number of Hindus in India. Interfaith marriages have even been banned in some northern states. This is to take that ban even further, where relationships involving partners of different faiths would be deemed "coercive". Sooooo yeah....

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 2 points 7 months ago

That’s a much clearer problem, thanks.

[-] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

Np :)

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

The government should not be in our bedrooms. What consenting adults do is not the government's concern

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de -1 points 7 months ago

So it seems like people weren’t having to register at all before and now only unmarried couples will, confounded by an existing belief that Muslim men “coerce” Hindu women to marry them, which is conveniently listed as a denial reason.

The government where I live knows where I live, whom I live with, and recently fined me ~20€ for telling them I moved in later than I should have. That’s understandably stifling to some, but not everyone and it’s not a universally unacceptable infringement on human rights, as long as it is equally imposed. Doing it only to unmarried couples or intentionally to break up interfaith relationships is a different thing.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

What is so difficult with saying: fuck the government love who you want? Spending whole paragraphs wandering around a point without making it.

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

Fuck the government, love who you want. My point was that I believe fuck the government, love who you want, but the problem wasn’t initially clear to me because I live in a bureaucratic country. I’m not sure why you’re mad that I needed a follow up question to understand

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

The article spells out why they are doing this. It is to go after people wanting to have sex outside of marriage.

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

The article says it’s to prevent child and coercion partnerships. I needed extra context to understand that coercion is probably a political term for interfaith. Again, I don’t know how that could bother someone, but go off, I guess.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

India's courts have sometimes frowned on live-in relationships. In 2012, a Delhi court deemed live-in relationships "immoral" and dismissed them as an "infamous product of Western culture", labelling them a mere "urban fad."

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

The Supreme Court has been more supportive. In 2010, the court endorsed the right of unmarried couples to live together in a case involving an actress accused of outraging public decency. In 2013, it urged parliament to enact laws safeguarding women and children in live-in relationships, ruling that such relationships were "neither a crime nor a sin", despite being socially unacceptable in the country. (In Uttarakhand's contentious proposed law, a deserted woman can seek maintenance from her live-in partner through the courts, and children born from such relationships will be deemed legitimate.)

The next paragraph, for clarity.

This is a really weird thing you’re doing here: I made a good faith effort to understand, did, and for some reason you now want me to explain this to you. I’m really curious about why it bothers you that I didn’t understand.

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

How is this a reality in 2024! Indian culture is trully not ready for the 21st century world.

[-] Jozav@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Not a word about the religious motives of this action in this article.

Mixed religion marriages are not socially accepted in India. When born a Hindu, one stays Hindu. Converting to Islam and marrying a Muslim is frowned upon (not sure, but I think it is even illegal in a couple of states). So the solution for such couples was to move cities and live together without officially marrying. With this registration, Uttarakand tries to stop that as well.

[-] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Boom, you got it sire!

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Am I getting old or does the world just suck more and more?

[-] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

Naah u just know more. Social progress has been happening exponentially around the world.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I don't know. Pretty sure the Jewish temple down the road from me didn't have to have a police presence every Friday night even a few years ago.

Oh wait I do know that. I remember it not having that when I moved here in 2015. You know what else I remember? I remember when trans people weren't being actively and openly harassed by government officials.

[-] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

Dude... Social progress for the LGBTQ community has been exponential. U were talking about the trans community. Look at the number of people feeling safe enough to come out as trans in the past five years. The dramatically rising numbers have led to an equally strong pushback from the conservatives. This however will subside. We have seen this happen in case of the gays as well. Look at how closed stuff was during decriminalization and marriage recognition (which was just 10-20 years around the world).

I for instance would have never ever ever thought of being able to come out as gay back in school. In fact, in India, it was criminalized at the time. Don't get me wrong- homophobia is still very rampant in India. However, it's decreasing at unimaginable rates.

There aren't that many bad people as social media would lead us to believe. People change. Their ideas change. So uk... Have hope I suppose.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago

J.k. Rowling.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Moving in with your partner in India's picturesque Himalayan state of Uttarakhand will soon require informing authorities and complying with a new law regulating "live-in" relationships.

Under the proposal, partners - the law specifies a man and a woman - must submit a live-in relationship statement to the registrar, who conducts a summary inquiry within 30 days.

If partners fail to submit the live-in relationship statement, the registrar, if prompted by a "complaint or information," serves a notice demanding submission within 30 days.

To be sure, cohabiting unmarried couples are not entirely uncommon in India's bigger cities as young men and women relocate for employment and defer traditional marriages.

In 2012, a Delhi court deemed live-in relationships "immoral" and dismissed them as an "infamous product of Western culture", labelling them a mere "urban fad."

(In Uttarakhand's contentious proposed law, a deserted woman can seek maintenance from her live-in partner through the courts, and children born from such relationships will be deemed legitimate.)

The original article contains 743 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024

84 points (94.7% liked)

World News

38563 readers

2297 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.