The Government now Defines the Role of Indian Women in Marriages

Recently, the Indian government has been trying to push through several laws on marriage and divorce, especially the latter. Most of them are geared towards improving the pretty dismal condition of women who don’t receive their due share and who are often financially stranded when a marriage breaks up. Any civilized person would be in favor of adopting a system where no one has to suffer unfairly during this time.

I have a problem though with the approach the government is using. Provisions like providing the woman with a blanket 50% of a husband’s movable and immovable assets including those obtained via inheritance and without the woman having to do the same are highly unfair and discriminatory. Other suggested laws include paying a woman a salary as compensation for housework.

The biggest issue (and most insulting) is that it sets the role of men and women in a marriage in stone. Marriage has always been a personal arrangement between two individuals. Two people choosing to live together. There is nothing in the law of marriage or divorce itself that specifies what role the man plays and what role the woman plays. The law doesn’t say that all men should work and all women should be homemakers. The law doesn’t say that men are always financially better off than women. The law doesn’t say that all women are oppressed and need the state to take care of them.

It would be shocking in fact if the government were to redefine marriage to “A state of living where the man oppresses the woman and strips her of all financial support when he leaves. He has all the power and all the assets.”

And yet, this is precisely what is being done now. By creating laws applying to everyone, the government has effectively defined the role of men and women in Indian marriages. By giving half of the man’s assets to the woman regardless of how they were obtained, the government has legally changed what marriage means. It might have been socially enforced for a large number of women so far. But most people knew it was wrong on some level. But now it’s legal. It is now expected. Instead of doing things to empower women and give them more independence in marriage and divorce, the law has now officially degraded them to victim status. One and all without exceptions.

Why are women not outraged over this? Where are the opinion pieces crying that this is a shame and an insult? Where again, is the outrage? There should be violent opposition to three things. First, that the government is taking over marriage and is now officially telling people what it expects men and women to be like. Second, the fact that it is hugely unjust to a large number of men who have arrangements that go contrary to what the government deems every marriage to be. And finally, the insult to women where the law now legally assumes that every woman is oppressed and every man is taking advantage of her and she is helpless.

It’s well past time that the government got out of the personal lives of people. It’s high time that divorce laws were made gender neutral. Laws cannot be made keeping “most of the people” in mind. They have to provide justice to everyone. After all, I pay taxes too. Do I not have the right to be treated fairly by the state? You cannot just throw people under a bus in the name of the “greater good”. The law has to treat everyone equally and ensure justice for all.

I’m frustrated. And I’m angry. I’m angry that my personal life is being intruded upon where the state has no right to interfere. I’m angry that instead of focusing on empowering women, encouraging them to take their lives in their own hands, making divorce laws and child support easier, the government is trying to baby them and make them state victims. I’m angry that more people are not speaking out against this and condemning it.

I’m angry that in the name of the “greater good”, my life and the life of all decent people can be ruined. Are we so expendable that we don’t matter? What use of living in a country where you’re so easily thrown tossed to the wolves? And your fellow citizens just watch by the roadside without uttering a murmur of complaint.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (0)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

14 thoughts on “The Government now Defines the Role of Indian Women in Marriages”

  1. I get what you mean, but I don’t see how does one ensure that marriage does not leave an average Indian woman dependent on her husband? I know if women who have been serving the spouse and their families for years and have not a penny to their name – they can’t walk out because their most productive years were spent doing what was expected of them…

    In India one big reason (very logically given) for not wanting working wives is that the money might make the wife difficult to control.

    Would it help if the earnings during the marriage were divided on case to case basis, gender-neutrally?

    Reply

    • In reply to Indian Homemaker

      Yes – it would help if the earnings were divided on a case to case basis. What the government is proposing is a blanket percentage. Don’t you feel that needs to be opposed strenuously?

      I think at some point, you have to give women the tools to be self reliant and leave the use up to them. Otherwise you’re forced to infantilize them – and you can’t do that without also infantilizing every single woman in the country. And since we can’t have two separate laws for women in India, this is the only option.

      Reply

  2. There’s no true solution except the destruction of the concept of marriage as a state-sanctioned sacrament. Also, our lack of a functional civil-justice system makes case-by-case decisions difficult. And justice will often be delayed and, therefore, denied.
    I agree that giving women such carte blanche will only empower those women who are already liberated. A lot of predatory women will benefit from this. I think men must get pre-nups before getting married.

    Reply

  3. The biggest issue (and most insulting) is that it sets the role of men and women in a marriage in stone.

    This is where gender roles come into play. And this is why I always say that no matter how much people want to deny it, marriage has always been an economic institution and it still is. Or else these discussions wouldn’t take place. The suggestion to pay homemakers a salary, that would mean defining what’s done in the home as “work.” Even though the world isn’t ready to define it as such.

    It would be shocking in fact if the government were to redefine marriage to “A state of living where the man oppresses the woman and strips her of all financial support when he leaves. He has all the power and all the assets.

    Psssst…..*whispers* that's what traditional marriage is. :P You've summed it perfectly.

    Perhaps not in those words, but since we're discussion traditional marriage, on the surface it doesn't sound like it's oppressive, women are provided for and protected. That sounds all well and good, and you have to do is take care of the home essentially. While the man brings home all the money, (which gives him a good deal of power) has a loving wife who looks after him. Except when you get right down to it, it's a crappy system. That's why I brought up the issue of gender roles, because it ties into marriage. If the woman is expected to take care of the home, then of course that denies her the opportunities to support herself. As for men who aren't able to live up to societal exceptions of being a provider, it's unjust. So I see why you're outraged. That stuff about the "greater good" is nonsense, it's about maintaining the status quo.

    I agree with bharawrites, I'm all in favor of destructing marriage so it's not simply an economic system. I'm also okay with pre-nups, they can be negotiated if you feel you're being treated unfairly.

    Reply

    • In reply to RenKiss

      Marriage itself has several uses. Like I’m able to come with Anupa to the US on an L2 visa. So that concept still needs to exist.

      As for everything else, how will you prevent it from becoming an economic institution? The power is not with the government in this matter, but with the women themselves…

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I honestly don’t know, but something has to change. For now it seems that many people just have to work inside the institution of marriage (i.e. keeping finances separate, making gender roles more flexible, etc.) The other alternative I guess would be for people to not get married. But then you’re correct about how marriage itself has issues, because marriage is supposed to provide other things as well beside companionship. I don’t necessarily believe the power lies with just women, but with everyone.

        Reply

  4. I AM outraged. I don’t think this is fair in the slightest, and is actually a step back in my opinion. It is like that law saying that girls under a certain age (16?) who have consensual sex can be viewed as having been raped. Regardless of whether or not there was full consent! These laws very definitely infantilize women in the name of “protecting” them. If laws like these are to be implemented at all then they should at least be gender neutral. These sexist laws also gives misogynists a very nice cover for women bashing, instead of focusing on the real issues.

    Reply

  5. Bhagwad

    Love the way you have written this post.

    You are right marriage is between two individuals but how many Indians believe that? In India my marriage is everyone’s business. And I understand your frustration, I almost got a headache reading this (no offense to you)

    Reply

  6. I completely agree with you. This will not only maintains status quo, and encourage women to remain in traditional hidebound roles, it is a completely unfair system to the men. Another problem is that this might encourage men to create assets in their parents’ names at the beginning of a marriage (especially in case of arranged marriages) in order to avoid this kind of problem. Any chance of developing an equal partnership crashes right at the beginning.

    Reply

    • In reply to Fem

      Personally, I don’t belive that such a law can stand. The Supreme court will hear a few unfair cases and strike it down.

      What upsets me is that a few people will have to suffer first before that happens. And that the thinking behind it even exists.

      Reply

  7. For all the things the author has said about the better culture of the U.S., what about U.S. Divorce laws ? The husband is supposed to give half of whatever he has made during the period the wife has stayed with him as alimony….. In India till date whatever laws has existed , lets leave that, I ‘ll tell you what really happened with my friend , This girl who’s professionally qualified had to give up her job to look after the kid … During that time if you stay away from the IT industry long enough there’s no way of getting back. This guy leaves her with the kid and all and now she’s paid Rs. 4000 monthly as child support and 4lacs because he had sold of her jewellery worth almost 20 lacs today……. this happened a year back.

    Reply

    • In reply to krishna

      In most US divorce laws, the words “husband” and “wife” or “man” and “woman” are not mentioned. It’s “financially weaker party”. So it’s not gender biased. I know, because I used to write for a law firm specializing in divorces in the US.

      Reply

Leave a Comment