UNICEF opines that 40% of child marriages in the world happen in India (link). At the outset, child marriage is supposedly illegal in India, but the marriages are legally valid - go figure that one! Well, what it is effectively saying is that parents or adults can be jailed for conducting a child marriage, but once the children are married, it cannot be annulled or dissolved just because they were children when married - they have to go through what's allowed or not allowed by the Indian divorce law (there is a small 2-year window of opportunity soon after becoming a major thanks to an act of 2006 - I wonder how they expected 18-year olds to file a void petition!). The underlying reason for the paradox was to protect the woman (girl), make sure she gets alimony and property rights, but this UNICEF news link goes on to explain why child marriage eventually harms women in so many ways. Another example of laws based on fallacy and shallow thinking, and societal unwillingness to take on liability for bad marriages.
Ban on child marriages is difficult to enforce - at least, according to one chief minister of an Indian state. There is a case of one woman officer from the Indian Administrative Service (that is a lot of authority) who bravely tried to stop a child marriage and almost lost her hand to the wedding mob. The elected chief minister tried to explain it is difficult to enforce due to the centuries old culture in many communities, rather than react by taking aggressive stance. Can't blame him entirely, but baby steps and different policies to prevent, enforce, change the culture should have been initiated. In fact, this confirms such reactive laws banning something or making it a crime are a fallacy, under false hopes of fixes, without deep thought to identifying the real underlying problem. The law commission lists a boat load of reasons why child marriages happen, and recommends some steps in this 2007 report, such as making any marriage under 16 legally void, but I don't believe these are laws yet (See link for a good blog on this report).
The Supreme Court has recently directed all marriages be registered. This is a good first step in prevention. Obviously, it has to be followed up by proper age checks during the time of registration. There will of course be false representations, so the system of registering births need to be in place. Enforcement should include stiff penalties and imprisonment for parents,relatives, corrupt officers that indulge in this process. Finally, education, employment of girls should be encouraged, so the culture eventually changes. Empowerment by virtue of sensible and flexible laws to get out of marriage, crisp guidelines get some form of win-win settlement and move on, quickly implementable without court drag should happen.
Interestingly, the law commission report mentions "...Texts like Manu Smirti which state that the father or the brother, who has not married his daughter or the sister who has attained puberty will go to hell are sometimes quoted to justify child marriage...". Unfortunately, it has misinterpreted. The key point Manu Smriti is trying to emphasize is that the father or brother should actively pursue a marriage for the girl - not so much about the age limit of puberty. See my blog on "Mr. Gurumuthy's views on Social Security", that mentions some parents deliberately delaying their daugher's marriage and trying to live through retirement with her income. That is the type Manu Smriti is trying to address. Moreover, Manu Smriti was written based on the prevailing situation at that time, when life expectancy was so low that early sex, marriage and reproduction was desired, so many years of education was not required for survival etc. Also, Smritis were meant to change, as opposed to Shrutis that were anchored philosophies. Swami Vivekananda said (link),"...the Vedas being eternal will be one and the same throughout all ages, but the Smritis will have an end. As time rolls on, more and more of the Smritis will go, sages will come, and they will change and direct society into better channels, into duties and into paths which accord with the necessity of the age, and without which it is impossible that society can live". So no point faulting Manu Smriti for not making the changes needed for today! Too bad UNICEF needs to wait for those sages who can deliver.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
India Anti-Dowry Law - Fallacy and Shallow Thinking
Anti-dowry law must have sting - according to Ms. Brinda Karat, a leading legislator in India. She isn't alone in asking, and she has many women and men politician friends who will go on writing such laws in the name of protecting married or marriageable women. Unfortunately, these haven't worked the way they imagined, and they don't think through the damage they do to society, nor the havoc wreaked on individual families. Here is why these laws are fallacies, and represent shallow thinking of the underlying problem.
The law creates new and more victims: The law recognizes gifts are possible, so it only states "demand" for dowry is illegal. But, when someone complains, how can a court really distinguish if there was demand or if it was willingly given? How can police sensibly investigate from "He said this" and "She said that" remarks from hostile parties? They cannot, and they don't kill themselves doing so - instead just make arrests and charge them. Such ambiguity provides ample opportunity for corruption, and it is effectively used to make money by police, lawyers and even judges. Check out the 498a website for "victims" of this law, and read the Canada and US department of state travel advisory. Educated women in urban areas readily use this law to negotiate a good deal on divorce as well. Indian Supreme court has admitted the law is misused and there are victims of such laws, but yet held it constitutional as it also believes this will solve real problems as well.
The law does little or nothing to real dowry victims: Most people don't use police and courts, or use them as the last resort, especially when it comes to family and marital issues. There is fear, shame and stigma to this approach. This is similar to employees' law suits that become a public record, which can seriously limit career prospects. It is only a law that helps in taking revenge, which goes against the goal of resolving conflicts and creating a healthy family relationship. Uneducated women are the most likely victims, and the law is rigid keeping exactly them in mind, but it doesn't realize most of them are unlikely to come to police and courts to solve their issues. What courts are mostly doing is an academic exercise, and the painstakingly long process is unlikely to make the intended changes to society. It is also expensive in terms of time and money spent on courts, police, disrupting families productivity, on something that isn't going to work or have any effect, and the resources could otherwise be well spent on addressing other critical issues.
The law will manifest dowry in other ways: Marriage in any society will involve such financial exchanges, gifts, and considerations. Even Mumbai was offered as dowry in history. Just today - an undocumented California man wanted to marry off his minor daughter in exchange for $16000 dowry. By nature, women look for financially successful men (either with good income or good assets), and likewise there seems to be a natural untold reverse need for the woman to bring something to the table. If not dowry , this may manifest in the form of "working woman". Many educated communities actually pride themselves of not seeking dowry, but the cash flows are addressed by imposing a condition that the bride needs to be working, and salary expectations are checked out in advance. Many men will happily marry a doctor woman without expectations. The point is the draconian laws will not solve the problem, but will only steer the society in another direction - which is ok, but that can be accomplished in other sensible ways.
The law will create new problems if implemented effectively: The risk premium will only go up for uneducated or unsuccessful women, and other innovations will manifest so they can be married off. Or, those like Indians abroad will look for brides in other countries, since it isn't worth the risk of marrying an Indian woman. Or, families will become more cautious, live under different roofs to avoid legal problems, conduct in a more contractual manner, which goes against the intent of preserving relationship based society (see my other blog on Mr. Gurumurthy's views on India being a strong relationship based society).
This "problem" of financial expectations before and during marriage cannot be solved, but can only be managed so it doesn't get out of hand. In fact, Ms. Brinda Karat admits the laws are stringent, but says there is a "conspiracy of silence that prevents action to stop it", and this is why she is opining that it isn't working in changing a patriarchical society and notions around women. The remedy is not more draconian laws or enforcing such laws, but to enact sensible laws and policies that can drive change. It might help to think along the following lines:
The law creates new and more victims: The law recognizes gifts are possible, so it only states "demand" for dowry is illegal. But, when someone complains, how can a court really distinguish if there was demand or if it was willingly given? How can police sensibly investigate from "He said this" and "She said that" remarks from hostile parties? They cannot, and they don't kill themselves doing so - instead just make arrests and charge them. Such ambiguity provides ample opportunity for corruption, and it is effectively used to make money by police, lawyers and even judges. Check out the 498a website for "victims" of this law, and read the Canada and US department of state travel advisory. Educated women in urban areas readily use this law to negotiate a good deal on divorce as well. Indian Supreme court has admitted the law is misused and there are victims of such laws, but yet held it constitutional as it also believes this will solve real problems as well.
The law does little or nothing to real dowry victims: Most people don't use police and courts, or use them as the last resort, especially when it comes to family and marital issues. There is fear, shame and stigma to this approach. This is similar to employees' law suits that become a public record, which can seriously limit career prospects. It is only a law that helps in taking revenge, which goes against the goal of resolving conflicts and creating a healthy family relationship. Uneducated women are the most likely victims, and the law is rigid keeping exactly them in mind, but it doesn't realize most of them are unlikely to come to police and courts to solve their issues. What courts are mostly doing is an academic exercise, and the painstakingly long process is unlikely to make the intended changes to society. It is also expensive in terms of time and money spent on courts, police, disrupting families productivity, on something that isn't going to work or have any effect, and the resources could otherwise be well spent on addressing other critical issues.
The law will manifest dowry in other ways: Marriage in any society will involve such financial exchanges, gifts, and considerations. Even Mumbai was offered as dowry in history. Just today - an undocumented California man wanted to marry off his minor daughter in exchange for $16000 dowry. By nature, women look for financially successful men (either with good income or good assets), and likewise there seems to be a natural untold reverse need for the woman to bring something to the table. If not dowry , this may manifest in the form of "working woman". Many educated communities actually pride themselves of not seeking dowry, but the cash flows are addressed by imposing a condition that the bride needs to be working, and salary expectations are checked out in advance. Many men will happily marry a doctor woman without expectations. The point is the draconian laws will not solve the problem, but will only steer the society in another direction - which is ok, but that can be accomplished in other sensible ways.
The law will create new problems if implemented effectively: The risk premium will only go up for uneducated or unsuccessful women, and other innovations will manifest so they can be married off. Or, those like Indians abroad will look for brides in other countries, since it isn't worth the risk of marrying an Indian woman. Or, families will become more cautious, live under different roofs to avoid legal problems, conduct in a more contractual manner, which goes against the intent of preserving relationship based society (see my other blog on Mr. Gurumurthy's views on India being a strong relationship based society).
This "problem" of financial expectations before and during marriage cannot be solved, but can only be managed so it doesn't get out of hand. In fact, Ms. Brinda Karat admits the laws are stringent, but says there is a "conspiracy of silence that prevents action to stop it", and this is why she is opining that it isn't working in changing a patriarchical society and notions around women. The remedy is not more draconian laws or enforcing such laws, but to enact sensible laws and policies that can drive change. It might help to think along the following lines:
- Educate women aggressively since the "working woman" alternative is a better option, as individual freedoms are established.
- Register all marriages, and enforce registration of gifts exchanged at time of marriage, allowing pre-nuptial agreements, thus closing loose ends that allow ambiguity.
- For those already married and finding a way out from the perpetual demands, provide laws that allow quick and easy divorce options, while enforcing spousal support and property distribution.
- Don't criminalize the issue and drive people to a corner. Allow room for negotiation by making it a civil case involving financial transactions.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Guitar Ummachi
Kids say the darnedest things. This one will strike a chord if you know Tamil.
My kid saw a little idol of Goddess Saraswati holding a veena, and called it Guitar Ummachi. They were watching Thiruvilayadal movie, and saw Nandi playing the Mridangam. One of them goes, "How can a cow play the drums?" and the other responds "That's not real, he is wearing a mask, pretending to be a cow".
I am still thinking how to explain.
My kid saw a little idol of Goddess Saraswati holding a veena, and called it Guitar Ummachi. They were watching Thiruvilayadal movie, and saw Nandi playing the Mridangam. One of them goes, "How can a cow play the drums?" and the other responds "That's not real, he is wearing a mask, pretending to be a cow".
I am still thinking how to explain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)