The modern thinking Indian

The Section 498(A) of the IPC is meant for prevention of crimes against women, something that this country has struggled with for quite some time now. If you read the actual Section, it talks about: "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine". This was meant to ensure that a woman subjected to harassment in her matrimonial home can take legal measure to protect herself. However, as with any law that favors one side of the dispute, it is subjected to misuse (and there are numerous complaints about the law being misused - refer to this link).
The main complaints against this law (from whatever I have read so far in various articles, web sites, and email) is that:
- the law has allowed the daughter-in-law to subject the entire family of her husband to its provisions
- the police do not investigate the case, but based on the complaint, have been known to drag all the accused (including elderly people and children)
So here is an update from a directive sent out by Bihar police:

There have been talks about misuse of laws relating to crime against women for quite some time now. Bihar police’s CID also admitted this when it directed all the SPs in the state to ensure proper investigation into FIRs lodged under Section 498(A) of the IPC before going in for arrest of the accused. “Sometimes such cases are framed against in-laws or others just to harass or settle old scores. Hence, the precaution against arrests,” ADG (CID) Yashwant Malhotra told TOI recently.
In his letter to district SPs, government railway police, range DIGs and zonal ADGs/IGs, Malhotra said it has been observed that in cases relating to crime against women, particularly those registered under Section 498(A) of the IPC, all the in-laws of the alleged victim are named as accused. And they are arrested without proper investigation into the case, thus marring the interests of justice.

This is actually a mixed step (in reality). One would like to think that, as per judicial and legal standards, the practice of doing an enquiry and then only proceeding against the named people is the right step. If one considers the law to be a just tool, then this is the right step.
However, there needs to be careful attention paid to the actual implementation of the law, since now proceeding on the basis of a complaint would be subject to the individual police officer of the region, and rural and semi-urban regions are known for police officers bucking under pressure, especially when the families and people involved are known / powerful.
What do people think ? Making sure that the provision is subject checks and balances is a good thing, but do people think that this could lead to a much watered down enforcement of the provisions meant to protect women ?

Labels: Court, Dowry, Family, Investigation, Judicial, Law, Morality, Police, Punishment, Security, Welfare, Women

Recently I came across a situation that was terribly distressing. There was a school friend of mine (we are talking about the late 80's) with whom I had lost contact some years back. During the time that I remember spending with him in school, he was a good friend. However, as happens many times when you go out of school, and then go to different colleges, we lost touch (even though he was in the same city).
Then, while browsing through the friends list of a friend in Facebook, I came across his name. I promptly added him to my friends list, and within a couple of days, we had regained contact. In email through Facebook, I got to know what he had done after school. He had an interest in going abroad, and so, he did the usual software engineering route, joined a services company, and within a year got the chance to go abroad. He jumped at the chance, and moved with the software company to its US office; and after a year or so, jumped jobs and joined an American company.
All the time, his parents were at home, here, along with his younger daughter. Soon, when the daughter did her education and became a doctor, they found a good match for the daughter (another doctor settled in London) and the marriage happened; the daughter soon left with her husband to London. Now, the parents were left only to themselves in the house. Within a year, they found a suitable bride for their son, he came for the marriage, spent some time at home and then left back to the US. He was still devoted to his parents, coming once every year to visit.
However, and this is now the issue. I visited the parents a couple of days back, and found them to be in a bad position. They are growing old, and have only themselves to take care of each other. They are so used to the city and the circle around them that they are not taking up their son's offer to take them with him to the US, worrying about what they will do in a strange place, whether they will get along with their daughter-in-law (she is used to running the show in that house). The son is not willing to relocate back; he has a cushy life over there, children who are more American than Indian, and so on. And so, the have money (sent by their son), but do not have the moral support that is normally required. They also get testy when you talk to them about going abroad with their son, and I did not raise the issue again in visits. What is a good solution in such cases ?

Labels: Child, Community, Family, Health, Responsibility

It's been some time now since this case has been in court. Imagine the case where a couple is in love, being of the age when people usually fall in love. Now think about the case where the girl is from a prominent family, politically connected, and very very arrogant in their power. They have access to brute force, along with political connections, and in the past, have shown that they are very much capable of committing violence and not being the least bit concerned that there is such a thing such as law, order and justice. Further, the brother of the girl is a known bad element, with all the arrogance of power as comes from living in a setup where the exercise of power has been the case all through.
If some of you would have seen an Abhishek Bachchan movie called 'Run', it would have reminded you of the situation similar to this one; but in real life you cannot just fight your way through, and life is not a movie. This actually happened in real life, and finally led to the cutting short of a promising life on February 16, 2002 when Nitish Katara, the young man (24 at that time) was brutally killed by a hammer by Vikas Yadav (the brother) and Vishal Yadav (the cousin of the girl). They committed the murder, hid the evidence and burned the body.
In normal cases, given the police investigation conditions and the political power of the accused, the case would have ended. Except for the pressure mounted by a desperate mother who would go to any end in order to get the murderers of her son, a media that saw in these injustices (combined with the cases of Jessica Lall, Priyadarshini Mattoo) as victimisation of the middle class by the connected, and a surge of interest in making sure that these cases do not go away. And now the end result is now visible:

NEW DELHI: The night before the verdict seemed longer than usual, though she had waited six long years for justice. The nervous wait was over in a matter of minutes, as the verdict was pronounced, taking a huge load off her shoulders. Neelam Katara stood vindicated on Wednesday, with the killers of her son Nitish finally proclaimed guilty.
Neelam lost her husband a year and a half after Nitish's death and her younger son Nitin was mostly out of town for studies and work. So for her, it was a lonely battle for justice, braving threats, financial constraints and occasional ill health. However, she laughs it off when called the "lone warrior". "I have had the support of family, friends and media all through. In fact, complete strangers have called me up and visited me, saying they were with me through all that was happening. I have never been alone," she smiles.

Of course, there is a long way to go. The case will wind its way to the High Court and the Supreme Court, with the good point being that the media will also be there to ensure that no injustice happens at these points. At the same time, this case also provides a lot of lost hope to people who may face similar crimes, but in the semi-urban or rural areas where such injustices can happen and there is no media or pressure to make sure that such cases get highlighted.

Labels: Court, Family, Investigation, Judicial, Law, Nitish Katara, Punishment

A very simple case, but leads to a major moral dilemma. A girl, 15 years old, gets pregnant with the child of her boyfriend, hides this from her parents until it becomes impossible to conceal. When the father of the bride filed a complaint, the relatives of both sides decided to settle the complaint by getting the 15 year old girl and the 19 year old boy married off, and guess who helped in getting this done ? The police, who are supposed to help in enforcing the law that does not allow marriage below the age of 18 and 21 respectively for a girl and a boy.
There is always a certain amount of questions that one may have in such a case - after all, there is always a certain amount of problem in going by a purely legal framework where the boy could be prosecuted for statutory rape and sent to jail. Such a situation would be problematic in the case where the relation was voluntary and a child is involved.

CHENNAI: When a 15-year-old girl could no longer hide her pregnancy after she got too intimate with her teenager boyfriend and the girl's parents panicked, the Tamil Nadu police decided to play matchmaker, despite the girl not being of a marriageable age. The minor girl, who had been in love with her neighbour Deepan (19), had conceived around seven months ago. She had not told anything about the relationship to her parents, but they had got suspicious a few days ago as the girl could not hide her pregnancy.
However, the move to marry off the the underage couple has not gone down well with women's activists and legal experts either. "In the eye of the law, the marriage is not valid. Even if the girl had given her consent, it is not legally valid. Whoever arranged the marriage could be prosecuted," said Madras High Court lawyer Eswaradas.

It looks like the police took the easy way out by settling for this decision. There is a reason why the law is in place, and such actions by the police end up in weakening the law. Children of this age are not fully mature as yet, and would most likely have ended up taking this decision to marry to fight off social pressures and the pressure of the police.
For a 15 year old girl and now mother, the law recognizes that she is not capable enough of being responsible for her actions and to push her into the role of a 15 year married mother means that her life is now set. It is very much possible that both of these young people would regret this decision later, and the consequences could be pretty much problematic. In addition, given that the boy wanted to have a DNA test to prove that he was responsible, he would already be having second thoughts.

Labels: Child, Family, Law, Police

In a shocking incident that portrays how parents have a quest for male children, a couple abandoned their girl child under the pretext of claiming that their child had been switched with another baby, and that their actual child was a boy. They even demanded a DNA test, and when the DNA test proved that the lady was the mother of the girl child, they refused to accept the DNA test. In the end, the police arrested them for deserting the girl child:

MUMBAI: A couple from Dharavi's Rajiv Gandhi Nagar slum was arrested on Friday for abandoning an infant girl at the civic-run Sion Hospital. The parents, Rajmani and Sheela Jaiswal, had earlier alleged that their baby boy had been swapped for a girl child after delivery in December. They left the child behind when Sheela was discharged from the hospital on Wednesday.
They had approached the Shahunagar police station and had demanded a DNA test to confirm parentage. The DNA report, submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory in Kalina, had confirmed that the DNA of the mother and child matched. The unlettered couple, however, remains unconvinced. ''We don't trust the DNA report given by the police or hospital. We want the DNA test to be conducted in Delhi,'' said Salam Kazi from voluntary organisation Al-Hind, which is supporting the family and promises to provide them a lawyer if need be.

This is shocking. The quest for a male child has caused the parents to abandon their own flesh and blood. In the end, even though the child deserves to live with her parents, given that the parents are even refusing to acknowledge her, one can only wonder as to how they would have treated her later. Such a child would suffer major discrimination, with a bad quality of life.

Labels: Child, Discrimination, Family, Morality, Responsibility

Surprising, but it happens in India. And the only reason that this could happen is because this involves a craze among Indians that is bigger than the one involving taking dowry, namely the craze for getting a citizenship of the developed world. For this craze, people are willing to pay huge amounts of money, live in horrid conditions and risk death to reach a place through illegal immigration, so if you can do this legally, you can pay much more. The groom would even be willing to let go of many pre-conditions such as the bride being elder than him, and so on.

Marry in Puducherry, honeymoon for the rest of your life in Paris. But first, dish out. In this exotic former French colony, young men are making a beeline for French belles, with starry eyes, pounding hearts - and bulging wallets. But marital bliss doesn't come cheap. The brides, Indian-origin French citizens, demand and get dowries between Rs 2 lakh and Rs 50 lakh.
Newly wed men could earn a fortune in France and enjoy a slew of welfare measures extended by the government there," said a 60-year-old Indian-born French citizen settled in Puducherry. The man, who did not wish to reveal his identity, himself got a hefty dowry for his daughter. "We sought Rs 50 lakh from the groom's family for the marriage. They offered an advance of Rs 10 lakh and promised to pay the rest in instalments. The marriage took place two years ago and the couple is settled happily in France," he added.

Seems like an answer to all dowry haters; but things are not so easy. The French Consulate knows about this, and is willing to do some hard and intensive questioning of would-be immigrant husbands to ensure that anybody trying to enter after doing a false marriage is turned away. Further, one wonders about the future of such marriages when the purpose of the marriage has been achieved and realism starts to set in.

Labels: Community, Dowry, Family, Morality, Welfare

The mixture of societal norms versus modern age greed makes for a potential minefield of customs. Given the prevalence of dowry in India, it is left for the courts to sort their way through this minefield. What makes the situation more complex is the prevalence of dowry as an abhorrent concept that can (and many times does) lead to harassment of the bride of the family, both verbally and physically as well as the increasing trend to use the harsh anti-dowry laws to threaten and get back at the husband's family. Things are never simple. The classic definition of dowry is when money or equivalent is demanded from the bride and her family for the marriage or after. But what about the case when the husband's family wants the bride's family to give some gifts on the occasion of the birth of a child. If demanded, then it is abhorrent; but is it really dowry. It is part of the same get-money claim, but is not dowry. And that is what the Supreme Court has ruled:

The Supreme Court has ruled that demand for money and presents from parents of a married girl at the time of birth of her child or for other ceremonies, as is prevalent in society, may be deprecable but cannot be categorised as dowry to make it a punishable offence.
This means, if a daughter-in-law is being harassed for customary gifts by parents-in-law, then they could be booked under ordinary penal provisions but not under the tough anti-dowry laws providing stringent punishments.

Such a judgment is never easy. It is easy to condemn such forced demands, and they should be condemned, but the court has to take a stand of law, and this is what they have decided. It must not have been easy for the court to decide on this issue, but given that the various judgments of the court have essentially been set as precedent, this is now the law. The court in the same order also passed more observations on the misuse of the law, but it cannot change things in order to prevent misuse; that can only be done by parliament. The court can only rule on a case by case basis.

Labels: Dowry, Family, Law, Morality

Sometimes good intentions can lead to ill-effects as well. The condition of women in India overall needs a great deal of improvement. Dowry deaths, harrassement, female infant killing, eve-teasing and molestation, all of these happen to a large extent in our country, much more than we as a society should tolerate. To change society, there are a number of educational and empowerment measures that should be taken, but giving legal protection to women is also necessary. And hence the need for some strict anti-dowry laws and to protect women against domestic violence.
This is where problems start arising. Owing to the fact that in many of these situation, the oppressed women find it hard to find proof, the laws have been slanted in their favor and the burden of proof has been made much lower. And therein lies the scope for misuse. Given the slant of these laws, it is very easy for a lady to misuse such laws. So, among the many genuine cases of dowry harrasement, there will be cases where innocent people have also been caught.
Misuse can take many ways. If a couple if separating in a bitter way, charging your husband and his family members with dowry demands or harassement can lead to them undergoing severe problems with the police and the law (not to talk of the media that can condemn them without a trial). If, god forbid, a married women dies accidentally within a few years of marriage, the husband and his family can be in for severe trouble, and have to show proof that there was no harassement.
This law is a double-edged sword, being used against both the guilty and the innocent. What is the way out ? For some time now, various courts have been finding a section of the cases as false and asking for more investigation and more safe-guards before acting against the husband's family. And it seems finally that the Government has started listening:

The government has decided to amend the Domestic Violence Act and incorporate certain changes in it to ensure that it is not misused.
Besides, the Women and Child Development Ministry would also organise a conference to incorporate men's perspectives in the Act to give it a holistic view. The proposal is in the process of finalisation, sources said.

One can only hope that this is a genuine effort and not an exercise in futility, or a way to show that concerns about the even-handedness of the law are being addressed. And this still does not address the issues about the other laws such as the anti-dowry laws that have also been mis-used in the past. In order to ameliorate the condition of women, the existence of laws is necessary, but the laws need to re-calibrated so as to prevent misuse.

Labels: Court, Discrimination, Dowry, Empowerment, Family, Law

When we are driving on the roads of our wonderfully congested cities, there are so many things you see that make one angry. You are driving on a crowded road, inching along, and see two-wheelers and three-wheelers darting among traffic with nary a care in the world; you give them some criticism, strive to control your road rage and brake or swerve to avoid hitting them, and so on. All of us must have seen such things happen often enough that they are not worth writing about. More scary is the concept of a big bus screeching right next to you, or chasing another bus and you are driving in the vicinity, and it is worth it to waste a couple of minutes and let these buses go on the way.
But these pale in comparison to what I saw one day. I was flabber-gasted to say the least, and the road was crowded enough that I could not do anything about it. And what did I see ? It was a buy driving a small car, wearing a seat belt, and driving perfectly normally. And what was scary ? Well, this guy had no other co-passenger except for one - his infant. Now, one really does not expect people in this great country to have too much concern about a car seat or other such requirement for a baby, but in this case, the baby was sitting on this guy's lap, right between the steering wheel and the guy.
I took a double-take, I have not read all the various safety articles that are available regarding how to carry one's child safely in a car, but I was pretty sure that having your baby between you and steering wheel is not one of them. In an impact, and in the case of a baby, even a slow impact, has the effect of pushing the driver towards the steering column (and that is what the seat belt and air bag try to prevent) and most of the injuries in such cases is due to the steering column hitting the chest and the ribs. And this idiot was carrying around his baby on the most dangerous possible location in the car.
I was unsure what to do ? Traffic was such that it was impossible to reach this driver, but even if I could have stopped him, what could have I done ? What would you do ? Given that he had no idea of the danger or did not care, would he care to even listen with a bit of patience about the danger if I tried any education ?

Labels: Family, Law, Morality, Responsibility, Traffic, Transport

Sometimes the Indian legal system does things which make you wonder. Over the last few years, there have been a series of judgments that have changed the concept of age of marriage and age of consent of sex. My generic understanding, and I would think that of the public is the following:
A female cannot get married until the age of 18, and a male cannot get married until the age of 21. Linked, and yet somewhat separate is the age of consent for having willing sex, which is 18 for both. So a boy of 19 can have a sexual relationship and not yet get married. The corollary to that is the age restrictions, which is that a boy or girl under the age of 18 is considered to be not of the age of consent, and hence not qualified to agree to sex. Put another way, if a boy or girl under the age of 18 has sex, then the law would believe that even if they had agreed, because it is considered that such agreement could have been under an influence and hence invalid, a rape has occurred.
This is also a concept that a lot of parents will agree with, because except for those sections where child marriage is considered natural, parents would want their child to develop into an adult, have a certain amount of education, and then get into a romantic or sexual relationship with or without marriage.
However, over a period of time, this concept has been slowly eroded in court decisions, where the move seems to be that if a person has willingly agreed for a relationship, then the court should also consider those views. So, an example, read about this judgment:

It is not an offence for a girl under 18 to fall in love or desire to marry her beloved, a city court recently held while acquitting a man charged with kidnapping and raping a minor.
Additional sessions judge Kamini Lau held: "...The 17-year-old prosecutrix (the girl) has a right to protect her feelings from the onslaught of her parents and the society. If she had run away to save herself from such an onslaught with her love, this in the view of the court is no offence."

At a certain level, this case should seem to be fine, after all, if a couple in love run away and get married, then the parents will try all measures including levelling rape and other charges so as to penalize the boy and get their girl back. However, at a broader level, the force of such judgments will eventually change the logic currently used and allow all such relationships, including undesirable ones, to flourish.
An example is a case where a family pushes their 16 year old girl to marry a 22 year old boy, because they feel that she is now of age, and anyhow she does not have a future other than to be in a happy marriage. In such cases, if the girl agrees in court that she loved the boy and married him (under any influence), then these precedents can be quoted. It defeats the efforts that are being made to ensure that the girl has a chance to reach adulthood, and be able to take her own decisions.

Labels: Child, Community, Court, Discrimination, Empowerment, Family, Governance, Law, Reform, Welfare

After the Domestic Violence Law was faced, there was immense controversy about whether the law would help save the fate of innumerable women who face dowry claims, who face abuse in their households over whether they they give birth to male children vs. female children, and about their overall status in the household. Sadly, a lot of this abuse is also directed at them from other females in the household; or whether the law would end up being misused. No clear answers, but 2 separate stories. As an example, read this article:

It is a horror story of sorts. Two Vadodara women, who could not bear the macabre torture meted out to them by their husband for not bearing a son, have escaped to Ahmedabad to get their gut-wrenching tale heard and dealt with.
"I was being forced to abort this child that I am carrying. I refused and was being put through hell," mumbles Sunita, who is weak from years of beating and torture. She says that she went to the Padra police station a couple of times to register her complaint but fearing her husband, who is a goon, the police did not take it. All hell broke loose for Kajal, who was tricked into marriage by Rajesh, when she too delivered a girl child.
He told her he was a bachelor. Rajesh hung the baby, Khushi, when she was just over a month old, upside down in an attempt to kill her! Narrating some of Rajesh's torture methods, Sunita and Kajal say nails were hammered into their ears and chilly powder mixed with hot spices forced into Sunita’s private parts - all because she had borne a girl. And the worse - Rajesh reportedly made them drink his urine!

Now, I am not putting the whole article here, so please read it from the link above. Assuming that all the facts of the case are true, this is a true case where the husbands and family members complicit in this act should be severely prosecuted under the act and when found guilty, sentenced for their misdeeds.

At the same time when this news came out, here is another news that seeks to define some fine-tuning that a court in New Delhi has done under the Domestic Violence Act. Read this story for more details:

A court here has dismissed a woman's complaint against her in-laws under the domestic violence law, saying she could claim right of residence and maintenance only from her husband. Metropolitan Magistrate Nirja Bhatia rejected the application on the ground that the woman's husband was maintaining a separate residence and a perusal of records showed that he was capable of providing a life of dignity and peace to her.
Neetu, a mother of three, however, did not implead her husband, who had been reportedly living separately from her for some time. She claimed he earned very little, a plea that did not go down well with the court. Citing an apex court judgement, the court held that the complainant had the right to claim residence and maintenance from her husband and not from her in-laws.

The court has taken a fair amount of care in the case, clearly taking the facts of the case into account and putting the relationship as one that exists only between the husband and the wife, and legally not being able to bring the rest of the husband's family into the dispute if they are not clearly involved.
This is a fairly complex case where the women prima facie seems to have used the strong rights vested in her to try and bring his family also under control. But, the good point in this case, (incidentally the judgment being delivered by a female judge), was to go into the merits of the case and not blindly go by the testimony of the complainant.

Labels: Court, Dowry, Family, Governance, India, Investigation, Iraq, Judicial, Law

Advertisements that we see around us are a good barometer of how society treats its members. The subject of fairness cream ads and their demeaning effect on women, especially ambitious ones who are dark skinned has been covered in numerous debates in the past. It is an accepted fact that those ads are meant to sell the concept of fairness being a desirable trait, and hence all ads will portray fairness in women in India as a desired goal, whether it be to get a better match in marriage, or to get a better job or a more glamorous job.
Something that is no so obvious is the portrayal of women in other ads such as the ads dealing with banking. One good example is the development of ads dealing with the selling of ICICI insurance products. The first set of ads portrayed women who were totally domesticated, without a voice, and who were shown as gaining assurance through the filling of their foreheads with sindoor. These first ads were criticized for a number of reasons such as the concept of showing a lady as totally dependent on the male for security, and who gets assurance only when her male is safe. The vermillion was extended to become the ICICI insurance mark, conveying the impression that ICICI was a way to make the status of women safer. Nowhere was it urged that even women could be insured, or that they were working in a job, or that their status in the family was such that it would be good that even they got insured. Mind you, ICICI has a number of senior executives who are female, and who doubtless are insured.
The next set of ads dealt with the need to save money, and had the catchline of why a person should save money. The prime set of requirements were to finance the son's education, and to get a good catch for the girl and have a good marriage. Again, the same stereotype, with the son needing to get a good education and the girl to get married. This ad was again criticized for the same reasons, and soon enough, it stopped coming. The inherent attitude about what is the priority in the life of a son versus a daughter was still the same.
And now the latest ads, these are somewhat better, but not quite. A wife is pestering her husband to sign the insurance papers, and to his question about what she will do in the event of his dying, the answer is about bringing up the girl child that they have and making her future secure. They cut a small section in the ad where she gave a flippant answer about going on a world cruise, something that seemed like harmless teasing, but apparently ICICI Bank did not think so. In this case, there are slightly more positive changes, in this case, they did not mention the words about saving money for the girl's marriage.
Of course, it will be real change when they start talking about arranging insurance for the working mother, but I guess that such things are still far away even though we have a larger percentage of the adult women working. I wonder whether this is something that other people have also seen?

Labels: Discrimination, Empowerment, Family

We all know the extent to which the politicians of the country are dependent on trying to woo their sections of voters. They would like society to be comprised of solid blocs of castes, and religious groups so that they can make policies to pander to these groups and aim to get their votes. No matter that this leads to them doing things against common sense, and against even court orders. Examples of this is the entire reservation drama, the Congress aim to woo Muslims in Andhra Pradesh by reservations despite court disapproval, and the BJP Government in Gujarat hesitating to crack down on people enforcing discrimination despite court orders to do the right thing.
This policy is exemplified by the response of states over the Supreme Court asking the states to bring in laws to make registration of marriages compulsory. And why had the court tried to bring in such a policy? Simple. There are a number of cases where women are fighting for their rights in marriage, for child support, for maintenance. In India, in a significant section of society, women normally are in a situation where they are stay at home, dependent on their husbands for financial support. In most cases, this is because this is the way society is constructed with the responsibilities being delineated in such a way.
Now what happens? With marriages not being registered, there are many cases when the husband could deny that the marriage happened, or make the girl fight for trying to prove such a thing happened. In addition, there are many cases where men commit polygamy, and a lesser number of cases where the girl commits polyandry. There is no perfect solution, but a simpler way to make this happen less is when all marriages are properly registered. In fact, that is the norm in a number of countries where the marriage has to be registered.
So what stops the government in India, whether the central government or state governments, to make registration of marriages compulsory. The Government believes that there is an influential section of the Muslim community, hardliners and the clergy, and to avoid rubbing them the wrong way, the Government will not push for compulsory registration of marriages. Even though the Government knows that poor Muslim women suffer from the inability to prove that the marriage happened in case of a dispute, and it would really help them if they had proof of the marriage.

State governments have been chary of compliance with the court's directive on registration of marriages for the fear of offending representatives of Muslims who have resisted the extension of law to their personal matters — that is, matters pertaining to marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance etc.
The court, moved by the plight of women fighting for their rights under marriage — like maintenance and custody of children, had last year asked the governments to amend the law or frame rules for compulsory registration of marriages and notify them within three months.

And of course, no such thing happened. The Governments have refused to bring any such laws and notify them for fear of alienating the Muslim community. Such a measure would help the community overall, but would provoke elements of the clergy to protest interference and hence the lack of movement on this issue. The issue is just politics, not any welfare.

Labels: Community, Court, Empowerment, Family, Governance, Law, Minority, Muslim, Politics, Reform, Responsibility, Welfare

Our dear Health Minister, Dr. Ramadoss has 2 pet obsessions, one being to prevent tobacco from being displayed anywhere, the other being to prevent Dr. Venugopal to be there in AIIMS. The courts and now the cabinet have blocked the Health Minister from taking immediate action against Dr. Venugopal. No matter, he can still proceed on his inspired mission against tobacco.
Now, to make matters clear, I don't smoke, and I believe that cigarette smoking is harmful. The better objective would be to try and make the consumption of tobacco illegal, but that would harm political interests because of the supposed large number of people involved in tobacco cultivation (although the same argument could be be used if you had free-for-all opium cultivation; a large number of people would get involved in opium cultivation and you would not be able to ban it).
And of course, the Government is even less inclined to get proactive in the matter of beedis, which are more harmful than cigarettes.
However, having made my stand clear, I am even more inclined to also believe in the strength of privacy, and a man's/women's home being their castle; subject to no criminal activities taking place, a person can do what they want in their house. And so it seems ridiculous as to how easily a person inspired by the power of righteousness can take whatever action they want and not care about rights of other people:

Forget bars and restaurants, even smoking at home in the presence of a domestic help might invite action from the government. "We are going to take stringent measures against smoking in public places like hotels, bars and restaurants... in fact any place where there are employees," Ramadoss said, speaking at a ceremony here where he was awarded the World Health Organisation (WHO) Director-General's Special Award for Tobacco Control for the year 2007.
"Even at home, if you smoke and there is a maid present, action can be taken against you," he said. "If you have to smoke, then go to the roads."

This is crazy. To mandate more and more laws that control us, especially what we can do in our house crosses the line. And there is no end to what can happen if you use this law. Suppose you have a party in your house, you will then have to declare in the invitations whether the house is a smoking zone on non-smoking zone, so that you don't then get sued by some guest for the crime of second-hand smoking.
And following from what the minister said, suppose you smoked before the maid came; now smoke remains in the place of smoking for some time; so what would the law say about how often you should smoke before the maid or some other employee comes (maybe you can smoke 30 minutes before the maid comes, but if the weather is cold (<15 degrees) and there is no air circulation (less than 1 m/s) and your windows are not open for more than 5 cm, then you could be classified as still having second hand smoke in your house and hence the maid can get you to spend a night in jail.
This is written somewhat with a jocular nature, and smoking is a very serious issue. People die in large numbers, some in incredible pain due to cancer caused by long-term smoking or by direct tobacco consumption. However, the remedy needs to make sense. It reminds of Sanjay Gandhi's efforts to try to cut down population growth by trying forceful sterilization (a direct application of force that is not appropriate to achieve the direct results).
Western countries are more famous for anti-smoking measures, to the extent that the advocates are called anti-smoking nazis or health nazis, but even they stop at the entrance to a person's home. And of course, I never could understand why we create laws that are bound to fail (a trip in many trains and other means of public transport, especially in semi-urban areas could hell you understand as to how such laws are never followed).
Of course, this is not the first attempt. The Minister earlier tried to get all forms of smoking banned in films and TV, and even though there are chances of influencing youth with images of stars smoking; given the cinematic expressions and involved, and the need to show smoking when it happens normally in society, it is far better to have a voluntary restraint.

Labels: Family, Health, India, Law, Smoking, Welfare

In India, the concept of a Uniform Civil Code is a very controversial subject. Even though it is not mandated as per the Constitution, it is a Directive Principle to try and bring this about (as per discussions in the Constituent Assembly where it was thought that the aim should be that people of different religions will eventually converge towards a common law). So, in India, it is currently seen as impossible to try and bring about a common civil code for all. Civil code is the one dealing with family matters, with disputes, maintenance, marriage, divorce and so all. Each religion has their own traditions.
However, there have been many social movements in the past to deal with improvements in traditions, especially with respect to the Hindu religion. So, for example, reprehensible practices such as sati (which is actually not even a civil case, but a criminal case), the caste system and discrimination against the lower castes are all illegal, and not sanctioned in any way by the Government.
A 'uniform' civil code is in many a misnomer, one could instead call the steps to have equal rights for all as a common civil code, something that is agreeable to citizens, no matter what the religion. However, realistically, given the state of parliament right now and politics, no such movement could hope to succeed.
In some ways, especially when it comes to things such as adoption laws, rights of women in marriage and in divorce, it is difficult to justify differential treatment based on marriage. The courts are going a long way in this, with the lower courts and the Supreme Court stepping in from time to time to try and correct laws that end up reducing some of the rights that a women should have in a humane way. One example of this was the Shah Bano judgement which the Rajiv Gandhi government over-ruled through a constitution amendment in 1986 after tremendous pressure.
And then I read this article, and even though it was concerning the Muslim community, it was still something that seemed fairly shocking:

In a move to emphasise primacy of Sharia, the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board has sought a review of SC orders which have progressively enhanced safeguards for Muslim women in divorce, marriage and maintenance cases on the grounds that they conflict with Islamic law.
The Board's decision to set up a 11-member 'social reform committee' is born out of its concern over some recent SC judgments. Members point to SC's interpretation of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, in the Daniel Latifi and Others vs Union of India case in September 2001. The apex court has held the former husband alone as responsible for the woman's maintenance. But this seems to have drawn a conservative response from the board which maintains that such a ruling was not in keeping with Sharia laws. A more recent case is of Iqbal Bano in June 2007 where SC set aside an Allahabad court judgment and ruled that a Muslim woman who had been deserted could avail maintenance under section 125 of CrPC irrespective of provisions of the 1986 Act.

This is a very uncomfortable situation. The Board is recommending essentially that some hard-won rights that have been won by women should be kept aside because they conflict with Sharia. Now, it is not easy to condemn the practises of a religion, but many of the interpretation made by the Islamic clergy regarding the rights of women are retrogade, and not deserving the rights that they should have.
In fact, for a modern democracy, it would seem very impossible to have the case of 2 women having very different rights because of their religion. It should be within the rights of any women (or any man for that matter) to invoke the recent judgments and not have to defer to the clergy, After all, this is the same clergy that recently ruled that girls should not have mixed schools, but should study in different schools that are girls-only.
Once we move into this mindset of having religious courts in play, we start going down a slippery path. At some point, any religious practitioner will then be able to easily question the right of the courts or parliament to pass a law that affects them.
This sorts of reminds me of the situation of that lady in Malaysia who was stuck in a legal mire. She was a Muslim, and wanted to marry a Christian. But, she was unable to do so. She was not allowed as per religious law to either convert, or to marry outside her religion. Strange, is it not.

Labels: Community, Court, Discrimination, Family, India, Law, Minority, Muslim, Parliament, Reform

No, this is not the story of a miracle. This is actually a very sordid story that brought out a lot of problems, none of which have immediate solutions that can prevent such a thing from happening again.
So what happened, well it's a short story of the tragedy kind. A farmer saw some dogs trying to dig a pit out of which a small hand was projecting. He must have been shocked, but he chased the dogs away and dug open the pit, and what did he find? He found an infant female (2 day old), alive and crying. He alerted the police who took her to a hospital.
Why was she lying in the pit ? Because she had been deliberately buried in the pit by her grandparents, as she was the 8th female grand-daughter and he would not have been able to take care of her. So he tried to bury her. Don't believe this ? See this link.
I really was stuck speechless after reading this. A child is the most precious thing in the world, and for a caring society, ensuring the welfare of children, especially when they are unable to take care of themselves, is one of the primary responsibilities. To attempt to take a life is a crime, and it is a morally reprehensible act to do that for a defenseless child. My indignation is not tempered by the fact that such things are reported to happen all over the countryside, either through getting an abortion after the sex of the child is revealed; or killing the infant after delivery. It is a shameful act, and yet it happens so often, with doctors violating their sacred Hippocratic oath (hypocritical) to help in such acts.
There are other avenues possible, such as giving the child for adoption. The question remains as to why a girl child is seen as a liability. Give her equal education, and watch her be an equal and responsible member of society. How can we prevent such things from happening ? What kind of society are we moving towards ?

Labels: Child, Community, Discrimination, Family, India, Morality, Reform

This was not incest. But because there is a feeling that a boy and girl of the same gotra could be blood relatives, they were killed after they were married. Does this ring a bell ? In a shocking, nay, horrendous event depicting the callousness of life in rural India, a couple was killed after they had legally got married and had returned to their village.

Residents of a Haryana village defended the murder of a couple for marrying within the familial gotra. "Humne theek kiya (we did right)," the accused said as villagers proclaimed before TV crews that the killings would be a deterrent to coming generations not to marry in the same gotra.
Babli and Manoj ran away from their village on April 6 and went to Chandigarh and applied for a registered marriage on May 31. Armed with a court order that provided them "protection", the couple came back to their village, knowing little what was in store.

The village, indeed their own relatives were the ones most involved in this horror. In this age, a couple, who are not direct blood relatives are killed most brutally for letting their most base of impulses, a love for each other decide their course of actions.
It is a matter of great disgrace that such things happen in this country. When we hear of honour killings happening in Islamic societies, it fills me with a great repugnance. And yet, the same things happen in this country of ours. Caste panchayats order people to be killed because a couple married each other since they were of different castes. It is also a reflection of the value held to women in rural areas. They need to follow the diktat of their elders, or else...
We need to change this culture. How can we do it ? Getting proper education to the villages that explains the value of life, liberty and the rights of the individual. But whom am I kidding? In villages, when schools are ramshackle single room sets and most teachers play truant, such an understanding is very difficult to bring about.
The other major problem is the concept of law and order. Symbols of state authority are present in most places of this country, but they do not do what should be done. It is their fundamental duty to propagate the Constitution and its ideals, chief of which is the rights of an individual, which encompasses the right of an individual to marry whosoever he / she likes (subject to a few constraints such as explicit familial links).

Labels: Community, Discrimination, Family, Governance, India, Law, Morality, Police, Responsibility, Welfare

A tale of good intentions going amuck. We all know that India is a male dominated society, and the rights and obligations of women depend on geographic location and the societal norms in that area. As per all the reports and news that we read, the condition of women is our society in general is nowhere near a condition of equity. The number of dowry deaths, pressures due to dowry (seen as an entitlement), lower status as compared to males, etc all point to a point where conditions need to improve. These pressures are put on them by both males and other females (example of a mother-in-law putting pressure on daughter-in-law to fall in line, to get dowry, etc).
Now, there are a number of measures that are required to bring about an improvement in this status, some of them being social pressures through movements by NGO's, by the pressure brought forward by sections of enlightened people of both sexes, by people having religious and social stature, and by the government through advertisements, and through passing of measures designed to give opressed women a judicial protection. I have no doubt that there are large sections of women who need all the protection that they can get.
So, there are laws dealing with ensuring women are protected against dowry seeking money grabbing leechs (in-laws), with ensuring that women that are subject to domestic violence can fight back legally (and there are enough cases of women being subject to domestic violence), and with ensuring that women who are left high and dry by their partners don't have to suffer economically (through provision of a monthly maintenance (alimony) in the case of separation).
However, laws passed by the government (and the legislature) are blunt weapons, use them right and they can greatly improve the lot of opressed women, and use them in the case when both the men and women are roughly equal, and they give women a mightly tool that can wreak untold havoc on the lives of their male partners and their families. So let me present a case where a man is fighting back, petitioning the highest court in the land to give him justice, and to bring about true equality. One of the biggest drawbacks with the current laws is that they automatically favour the women (even if the judicial system does try to give a chance to bring families together), and in the case when the male is really not at fault, wreaks disaster on him, and violates the canons of justice, violating the cardinal concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', as well as the 'no discrimination test'.
Here is this man seeking the highest court in the land to get him alimony (maintenance) from his wife, who is placed better than him, and has apparently used the law to try to break him:

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code has frequently been used by courts to ask men to pay maintenance to wives, children or parents dumped by them.
A petition in the Supreme Court seeks a role reversal — a man wants maintenance from his doctor wife who allegedly deserted him at a time when he was jobless. The Hindu Marriage Act does allow for the payment of maintenance to separated and divorced males who have no means to support themselves and whose estranged partners are better off. But Section 125 of has seldom been used for the purpose.
It was in 2002 that a Rajkot court directed Nagrecha to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 1,000 to his wife and daughter even though she is working as a doctor. This order was upheld by the high court and the apex court, his counsel H A Raichura said. He said the petitioner was sacked by Reliance in 2002, as he had to take frequent leave to attend as many as 15 court cases in three cities filed against him by his wife.

This could be a test case where, if the facts of the reported case are right, the man deserves to get maintenance. After all, if the argument is that the law entitles the spouse in a weaker position to get maintenance, then the husband in this case (and every case like this) is equally entitled to alimony.
This is part of a larger question whereby misuse of the stringent laws by women who are actually in an equal position weakens the concept of justice; there needs to be amendments in the law made so that an automatic blaming of the husband and his family does not happen; I am sure that in a significant number of cases, they will be to blame, but incidences of misuse are becoming more apparent as women get more enlightened, and as lawyers see such misuse working without any control.

Labels: Court, Discrimination, Dowry, Family, Investigation, Law, Police, Reform, Welfare

The latest version of Time Asia has an interesting covery story, something that is very relevant in the Indian context. The report is all about how the male parent (atleast the examples it is quoting) are trying to do some reform so that they are no longer only slaves to their office, but are equal partners in the home, more so in terms of giving more time to their children. The relevant article is available here:

It's embarrassing for these upstanding burghers of Singapore—so methodical and conscientious in their professional lives—to dwell upon the possibility that they might be falling short at home, but Wong lets them fidget and cough for a few more moments before resuming. "Watching your children over the Internet is one thing," he says, "but the goal of parenting is to get them to do the right thing when you're not looking." And there are plenty of hours in the day when Asian fathers are not looking.
Fathers all over Asia share that sense of guilt over their inability to balance work and parenthood. Dr. Sanjay Chugh, a New Delhi psychiatrist, says these harried, overburdened men stream through his consulting rooms: "Indian fathers have less and less time to spend with their children. When stress goes up for a father, it affects not only the quantity of time he spends with his children but the quality."
Every day, pleading overwork, millions of men cancel millions of promises made to millions of children. Dads cannot read bedtime stories or go to the park. Dads are in their offices, or on the road, or on conference calls. The effects of this physical or emotional absenteeism are actually quantifiable: numerous academic studies have shown that children with distant fathers score lower on tests of empathy, reasoning and brain development than those whose fathers are more involved. The former behave more aggressively, don't get on as well with siblings, tend to be less popular in school and are more reluctant to take responsibility for their misbehavior.

In earlier generations, things were more tranquil. The normal motto was that men would work outside, and women would work at home, bringing up the children and keeping the family together. In today's fast paced world, such a thing is mostly as dead as the dodo. Women have claimed and got their just right to build a career and work equal to men. However, given that there are an enormous amount of work pressures, the amount of time spent by parents on children has declined; after all a double income moves the family towards prosperity faster.
As this article points out, a number of fathers are starting to realize their responsibilities in the changed environment, regulating the amount of time that they are spending at office, and trying to take quality time out for their children, as well as trying to be a part of their lives. This includes taking on more responsibilities for the work needed to be done at home. In India, this trend is anyhow necessary due to the joint family system slowly breaking apart into more nuclear families. This change comes with much greater responsbility for ensuring that everyone contributes towards activities at home.
My experiences with friends who have passed through this phase is that these oh-so-proud men are changing, and becoming more sensitive. I had a friend who married with the condition that his wife would not work, and that attitude remains; however another used to be still expecting to be spoon-fed in the early days of marriage, but after a baby, he quickly realized that things were not the same and now is a great helper to his wife; and then there are the ones whom you can see as the ones who take great pride in helping thier wives, spending as much time as possible with children. However, on the basis of my circle of friends, is difficult to generalize on how much the Indian male is adjusting ! Anyone care to share their experiences ?

Labels: Child, Family, Responsibility, Sharing