India’s New Divorce Laws – The Dirty Secret No one Wants to Talk About

There’s a button in front of you.

If you press it, the entire caste system in India will vanish. People will forget its very meaning. In one magical stroke, no one will ever call someone else a “Dalit” in a derogatory manner and all caste distinctions are wiped out. There’s a catch of course. If you press that button, half of your wealth goes away. And you’re not such a rich person that whatever remains is still enough. You rely on your assets for your retirement which has been carefully planned ever since you started working. Losing half of everything you own will be a devastating blow to you personally.

Will you press the button? If you do, no one will ever know it, and no one will thank you. But if they knew you had the button and refused to press it, they would demand that you accept the sacrifice. After all, what is your one puny life against the millions who suffer unfair caste discrimination every day? Against those who are denied jobs, drinking water, and living space? Just think – by your unheralded and invisible sacrifice, all this can vanish.

Try and answer this question truthfully in the comments. I’m genuinely interested in your answer.

For my part, I won’t do it. You may be shocked that I could be so selfish. Or you might expect everyone to hold back. I can imagine there being a variety of views. But this question is important from a philosophical point of view because it cuts to the heart of the disagreement and rancor over the recent amendments to divorce laws in India. It’s not a secret that divorce is a pretty shitty deal for women in this country. They don’t get proper alimony, or child support. To make matters worse, most of them don’t receive an equal share in their parent’s property either. So the changes giving women a right in a man’s ancestral property seem fair and reasonable. But they’re not. And the reason is this.

It is wrong to say that women in India don’t get alimony or child support, or that they’re financially weaker than men.

Yes, most women in India are financially dependent on their husbands. A large portion of women are treated unfairly. A huge percentage of women don’t receive a fair share of their parent’s property. But not women in general. Women in India don’t need help. A big proportion of them need help.

This distinction is important.

We have to understand, and accept that there are quite a few women in India who do not need a share in their husband’s property. There are plenty of women who do get an equitable portion of inherited assets. So the obvious question is – why are they covered by this law? Who is this law written for? Women in India? Or most women in India? As a general principle, should our lawmakers make laws that cover the entire population, or should they make blanket laws targeted to a specific section but yet affect the rest of us as well?

How can this kind of shoddy lawmaking be pardoned?

What pains me even more is that many bloggers applaud this law

Yet when confronted by the fact that not all husbands oppress their wives, that not all men earn more than their wives and that this law signing over a percentage of the man’s property to the woman is grossly unjust to them they have nothing to say. Presumably the response is “Well they’re in such a small minority that they don’t matter”. If that’s the case, at least come out and say it.

I want to hear someone say these words to my face:

“Yes I agree that you and your wife have an equal relationship. Neither of you is financially dependent on the other. In fact I know your wife earns much more than you. But you see such a situation is so rare – finding a decent guy who “allows” this is so hard to find, that you don’t matter. In fact, this is a punishment for guys like you. Like it or not, the law is going to treat you as a cheat who deprives his wife of her earning capacity. But far from condemning this injustice, we’re going to sing the praises of this amendment to the divorce laws and say it’s wonderful. Sorry – you’re just in too small a minority for us to give a shit”

If I hear these words, at least it’s out in the open.

The last straw is that there’s a perfectly feasible workaround. Instead of saying women, why can’t the law just say “the financially weaker party”? Why the hell does gender have to come into it? Now it’s no surprise to me to find politicians making asinine laws – though this particular one might be calculated to win the women’s vote. What absolutely shocks me down to my roots is that educated people are saying this is a great thing and a fantastic step forward for women.

Great. That’s awesome. Just throw guys like me under the bus. After all, we don’t matter right?

There are some interesting discussions on IHM’s post on the same subject.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (2)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

30 thoughts on “India’s New Divorce Laws – The Dirty Secret No one Wants to Talk About”

  1. @Western Point of View

    “Shariah is from God and is on a totally different playing field”

    Do you have any evidence that Shariah IS from God? Because if so, God seems like a very confused individual going about giving different laws to people from different parts of the world.

    Many people claim Shariah is from God. I can also claim the constitution of India is the word of God. Does not make it true.

    Reply

    • In reply to Clueless

      Sure, Quran is from God just like how the Torah, the Gospel and the Psalms were from God. they were divinely revealed to certain individuals. People in the Arab countries asked that particular individual for proof of divinity, and he gave it to them–the Quran’s language was completely different than what was around at that time in the world, that individual split the moon in front of believers/non believers (refer to any Hadith), etc etc

      Hadith/Quran is all the proof I need. It has been preserved for 1400 years unlike other ideals.

      God isn’t the confused one. He gave us a choice–follow his law or make up our own. We are the confused ones.

      The law for everyone was the same–monotheism. God gave out 110,000 prophets throughout all time in all tribes and nations. Over time, that word became corrupted and changed–the Bible is sheer example of this (the original Aramaic Gospel doesn’t exist. Jesus (AS) didn’t speak English or Latin, he spoke Aramaic).

      Muhammad (SAW) was the last of that particular line of prophethood.

      Now back to divorce–Shariah completely obliterates the need for such ridculous laws as in India. The girl has her stuff and the guy his. If the guy gives the girl stuff, it is hers. It is his burden to give her stuff as that is what the marital contract requires. If not, the girl can file an alimony and she’ll be given it on the grounds that she is not given her rights because the guy is being a jerk regarding his ability to give her stuff.

      The Indian laws are subjective and favor women injustly over men.

      Shariah is great because it doesn’t recognize equality–it recognizes FAIRNESS. Big distinction. Men and women AREN’T equal. 1+1=2 ALWAYWS, right? well women can (physiologically) have babies. A man cannot. That in itself proves that the inequality exists. The left side of the equation HAS to equal the right side of the equation.

      LIke I said, the only two governments that work are true Shariah and libertarianism, that is it.

      Reply

      • In reply to Western Point of View

        But there’s no evidence of god’s existence in the first place any more than there’s evidence of Santa Claus, so it’s not a valid or scientific view.

        In any case, this discussion has once again gone off the rails, so let’s end it here.

        Reply

Leave a Comment