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.
i agree with your point of view. each case should be decided on its merits. there SHOULD NOT be one law for everyone regardless of whether the woman NEEDS to inherit her husbands share….
In reply to tp
The saving grace is that they’ve left it to the judge to decide the percentage. Initially it was supposed to be a flat 50% share. But again, this is only one way. The man never gets a share of the woman’s property no matter how bad the disparity in assets and income is.
I agree. I think it should basically apply to women living in Joint Families, where all the property is jointly held and what the woman earns is controlled by her in laws and what she contributes as a family member (non monetary) keeps her in dependence, and she can be thrown out of the house anytime.
What they could focus much more on is stressing that no woman marries until she is self reliant and has lived on her own for atleast six month. And no forced marriages.
And of course in all other marriages what the couple makes should be seen as Joint Marital Property where ever possible.
And if there was a switch that solved issues I feel strongly about and although took away half of what I have, but didn’t leave me on the road, I think I would use it. Of course I would be outraged if it was expected of me to do this – would do it only if I was convinced.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
This comes back to the old issue of two separate sets of laws for women in India – one for the empowered ones, and the other for the oppressed ones. How does one go about proving that a woman is “controlled” when she has the legal ability to walk away? There’s nothing that can stand up in a court of law.
There are ways to frame laws in gender neutral terms and still achieve the required goals. I don’t know whether it’s laziness, incompetence, or malice that creates these shoddily worded bills…
In reply to bhagwad
I think it is gender neutral – that’s what they said in the NDTV debate in the link I shared. Did you see the video? Maybe I am mistaken – need to see it again. Such bills should be discussed in detail and I don’t like the idea of leaving too much to the judge’s desecration – as much as possible, it should be clearly defined and every detail should be specified. There should be no scope for misuse or personal prejudice (or as little scope as possible).
Remember the Karnataka high court judge who asked a woman if her father had never hit her mother?
In reply to Indian Homemaker
Yeah, judicial discretion is not always a solution. I saw the NDTV video. As far as I can tell it’s not gender neutral in the sense that under no circumstances can a man obtain a share of the woman’s property. It’s only one way.
Laws need to be framed in such a way that it’s very difficult to misuse them. It’s not so very tough which is why I’m puzzled as to why they don’t do it.
I think most people are undecided about the bill, they see it benefits some people, and also see it as outrageous in other cases, like where the couple has not been married too long or the man makes less than the woman. I think the duration of the marriage should be specified.
The problem with men making less money is that many men claim to be destitute (in cases of divorce) and ask the woman to pay them alimony, when they actually earn more than they show. I spoke to someone yesterday who is earning more than her husband (he is not earning at all, is an alcoholic) and they started discussing this bill and had a fight, he told her in case of a divorce she would have to pay him since he had no income and she told him not to be so complacent, after this bill – she would get a share in the house they lived in. And then she said she realised she had gone too far so decided not to “talk back” any further. They have two kids and live in a Joint Family home.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
It seems that much of the problem is not being able to assess wealth properly. In which case, that is the problem that needs to be tackled. It’s not easy, but we’re not going to get anywhere by putting off solving the difficult issues.
Aw, so sad that men are suffering for a change.
I think it is completely justified that this law is in place, even if the woman is earning more than a man. Men have enough of nature’s support in many things [physical strength, no menstrual cycle, do not need to face a near death experience for giving birth].
I think this law really makes both genders equal.
Thanks for the article, made my day.
In reply to Anitha
Hmm. So your solution to compensate for injustice…is to inflict more of it?
I don’t know what bad experiences you’ve had with men, but I can assure you that not all “men” are the same. Not all men are jerks. I’ve never harmed you or done anything to make your life miserable. So why is it that you take pleasure in injustice done to me?
Come out of the “groupism” mentality. We’re all human beings. Being a woman doesn’t make you part of the “women’s community”. Being a man doesn’t make me part of the “men’s community”. Justice is justice regardless of gender.
Fortunately most women I interact with don’t think like you. Stop viewing people through the prism of their gender. I spend a large part of my blogging time fighting for women’s rights. If I just thought of it as a war between men and women, why would I bother? According to you, I should just enjoy my comforts and not give a damn about what women are going through because hey, I’m not a woman right?
In absence of a contract, I am in favor of assets acquired during the marriage to be split equally, along with alimony if deserved for the financially weaker spouse who might have forgone or slowed down their career. Again, I do not feel alimony should be given till end of time – it should be something to help the person back on to their feet and not a retainer for life.
In terms of inheritance, I disagree that it can be considered as marital property. Giving away property after your death is entirely up to the person in question. It is not mandatory that it be divided equally among the children. This means that ADULT kids have to wake up to the fact that they cannot always expect property from their parents and make sure they are taking care of their own financial well being. We all make mistakes, we cannot have laws protecting us from mistakes that we could potentially make.
Yes, the women in India have always been short changed when it comes to inheritance and ownership of properties. This means that we need to educate these people about ensuring that they have legal documentation to prove and secure their contribution. It does not mean that we go off and make laws that is potentially unfair to men.
Band-aid fixes will always backfire. Look at the reservation system in India. It was a band-aid fix for getting the lower castes into education systems instead of actually educating the public and ensuring access to good schools. What it has now become is a vote mongering tactic that has pushed down the acceptance threshold to bare minimum levels in areas that demand excellence.
With the current law, will there be women who abuse the law to their advantage? Ofcourse. Women are also human beings with the same weakness as the rest of the society. Don’t we all take advantage of legal tax loopholes to pay lesser taxes? Why should women be held to any different expectations?
In reply to Clueless
Yeah, the comparison to reservations is very apt. The situation is such that the caste system is even more firmly ingrained into India. The opposite end has been achieved when the initial purpose was to eradicate it entirely.
Fine grained social engineering hasn’t had a very good track record. The best thing to do is to enforce broad laws giving equality to everyone. If you try and make “in between” laws implying that they (in this case women) are not ready for true equality, then that will surely backfire.
Do take a look at Desi Girl’s post,
Her Marital Home, His Inheritance, http://girlsguidetosurvival.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/her-marital-home-his-inherited-property/
This part is particularly relevant,
“Breaking up while under the joint roof
In case of marital discord women have been thrown out of joint families in the middle of night and when they ask for spousal or child support men wash their hands of the responsibility by saying the house belonged to the family and he like her was just living there thus has nothing to give her. If she insists the man seek his coparcenary rights and take his share of property and then give her what is rightfully her due be it a room or an amount that would be half of what his share amounted to. The “karta” the head of the family, father of the man can immediately alienate/disinherit the man from his coparcener rights thanks to HSA 1956 in order to prevent the daughter-in-law from begetting anything. It is more complex than it is visible to our eyes. It is basically about primary residence of the married couple during the entire duration of the marital union no matter where it is, in the extended family or ancestral house they live in and other family members may be living abroad.
The share will be calculated according to the duration of marriage and it will be subtracted from what ever is man’s share with respect to other share holders in the joint family so that woman can have a roof over her head or be provided with money so that she can buy a place or pay the deposit for a rented home (deposit often runs in lakhs). A woman who was married for three years cannot have same percentage of share as the one who was married for twenty years. Use some common sense.”
In reply to Indian Homemaker
I really think that it’s inheritance laws that need overhauling – but again only temporarily. As clueless said above, it’s the parent’s right to do with their property as they choose. It belongs to them after all.
In court, a judge should be able to see through manipulations like disinheritance etc and make appropriate arrangements.
My problem once again is how can the government make these laws applying to all women, instead of only those who actually need the help?
In reply to Indian Homemaker
I think we need to realize that when we are staying at our parents’ house, we are staying at our parents’ house. Not our own. Rent free? Yes. But the ownership is clearly dictated by the legal documents.
I am sure there are laws protecting residents that say that one cannot be thrown out without proper legal notice. They cannot just uproot DILs overnight as and when they please.
This is even more of a reason to educate women on their financial security. That unless something is legally theirs, they cannot claim any right on it. This means educating them to take control of their salaries. Asking for representation when they contribute financially or via marriage to a familial property. This also means educating men that they cannot expect inheritance as a birth right and they need to secure their financial future too.
I do know of a lot of people who put up with lot of control from ILs in the hope that they will get the lion’s share of the property. This is a risk they are taking – just like investing in the stock market. We don’t have laws protecting people who lose money in the stock market do we?
A more long term solution to the problem is educating people on what it means to be adults. Our country seems hell bent on not giving adults their due and creating laws that treat us like children. People need to be educated on rights and responsibilities as an adult citizen. Make finance classes mandatory for 12th grade. Instead of blindly rote learning facts, have classes that teach us our rights and responsibilities.
With a band-aid law like this, the divide between men and women will only deepen. People will get around it by making DILs sign pre-nups. What we need is an attitude adjustment.
In reply to Clueless
You took the words right out of my mouth.
I think pre nups might actually help – because it puts the intentions of both parties down in writing and may force women to really think about what might happen if the marriage falls apart. Right now I’m sure a lot of marriages go through on the understanding that good things will happen. Pre nups will force women to think about the worst case scenario.
In reply to bhagwad
in Islam, all marriages essentially have pre-nups. When a divorce happens, no big deal. The women keeps her stuff and the man keeps his stuff. Joint purchases are rare in themselves. Houses may belong to the woman only if the man specifically bought it for her. Easy fix. More reason to believe Shariah is the best law.
This law s idiotic,anti commonsense.This was lobbied by Indian feminists ,propogating’ that all women are victims’ and all MEN are rascals and criminals.
Why anti commonsense…as you wrote,give support whosoever is weak.what is the problem in this.see the perverted logic…centuries back women got a raw deal,many women in India is facing injustice…HENCE…this law is applicable to ALL. even in a case the women is earning more,has more property,or the couple decided to buy property in wife’s name…and man has only a part of property in his name…STILL ONLY HIS PROPERTY WILL BE DIVIDED AND WIFE’S PROPERTY WILL NOT BE TOUCHED…What a great law… one more example….A rich man marries a poor girl..and marriage lasts only a year…THE GIRL WILL STILL GET 50% SHARE….(that is demand of the great feminists)…
Against cpommonsense by any standards…
@ Western Point of View
Just because 1 law in Shariah sounds decent on the surface does not credit the entire document. What about laws punishing blasphemy? They are present in the same Shariah law that you talk of.
Even with the law you mentioned, you mention “houses may belong to the woman only if the man specifically bought it for her”. What the subtext says is that women cannot decide on buying their own property. Heck, they are not even allowed to earn a living in countries that implement the Shariah law. Look at Saudi Arabia – women had to fight for the right to drive a car – something we take for granted in democratic countries. And you call this set of laws great because one law dealing with pre-nups sounds kind of forward thinking?
In reply to Clueless
nothing wrong with blasphemy laws. You cannot say certain things in the US, so blasphemy carries along that line.
A woman can earn a living. Today, TRUE shariah does not exist. Saudi is a Salafi government that doesn’t even recognize Madhab (hanafi, shafi, hanbali, maliki). Saudi isn’t technically practicing it correctly.
A woman can buy property. In fact, if a woman has property and a man “eats” from it as the religion describes, the man is committing a sin, ESPECIALLY if she is/was an orphan.
Again, remember, ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there has not been a TRUE Islamic government. The closest we have is MAYBE Malaysia or Indonesia.
The only two legitimate forms of government are Shariah or libertarianism.
Shariah–God’s law. Israel has a Mosaic law, which is the Jewish version, right?
Libertarianism–freedom for the people and the government ONLY enforces life, liberty and the pursuit of property.
BTW the women driving a car thing? Women used to drive a lot in Saudi during the 1960s. this is a fairly new law.
In reply to Western Point of View
@Western point of view
You go up in arms about laws being gender discriminatory but support the Shariah which specifically says things like
“MAN cannot eat from WOMANs property”. Pick a side. And stick to it.
In reply to Clueless
Um…I live in Malaysia. Shariah law is used here, yes, but it is ONLY used for Muslims, and even then its quite a joke in the capital and main areas. whenever there’s a ruling said to be unfair there’s HUGE outrage among the people. Kuala lumpur, malaysias capital, is extremely liberal and cosmopolitan, Sadly, it is getting more and more Islamist, but it’s not an Islamist state yet.
In reply to Clueless
Malaysia cannot become Islamist.
One thing, Malaysia follows the Shafi Madhab. Arab nations (most of them) don’t believe in Madhab
Secondly, they are becoming more Muslim? Great, now subjective laws won’t be passed anymore. Everything will be based on Islam.
You are correct that non-Muslims don’t really fall into Shariah for the most part.
BTW, Shariah is shariah. Everything else shouldn’t have discrimination for a man or woman. Why? They are man made laws. Shariah is from God and is on a totally different playing field.
Divorce in Shariah shows that it works and works quite well since it is implementing God’s law. Others? well it depends. Libertarian views work great since the state doesn’t even recognize marriages.
Best law–Shariah. Second Best law–libertarianism.
DG, will join the discussion in a later time. With a cursory look she saw @clueless mentioned “parents’ ownership and children staying their rent free.” If the discussion is about inherited property, one has to understand inherited property runs in the family from two or more generations. The house made by parents is not inherited, it is their personal property. They can make it inherited property by passing it on to their children by will. If it goes to their grandchildren after their children it is in the thrid generation it will make a line of inheritance.
Yesterday at @IHM’s DG saw Tuhina Mahan’s comment, her parents made a home/house and her married brother lives with them rent free and contributes nothing towards his own upkeep for the home. If his wife was to seek divorce and ask for right to live there or compensation for roof over head. She cannot claim it as inherited property of his parents. It is their private home. Had it been a family home owned by grandparents (or two or more generations vertically) and she had spent all her married life their (her primary residence during the marriage) only then her claim would stand.
It is a shame anytime any discussion comes up about doing right by women people especially men who have benefited from patriarchy for centuries create so much jargon and commotion that actual issue is lost.
DG will read the post and comments later.
Peace,
Desi Girl
In reply to girlsguidetosurvival
The gist of my post is about why the laws are not gender neutral, and why they can’t refer to “financially weaker” parties instead of “women” in general. All women don’t need help and laws are meant to be written for everybody. I have a personal stake in this since I earn far less than my wife and this law is unfair to me.
There’s no excuse for writing a bad law when it’s possible to write a good one. As an Indian citizen I expect the government not to blatantly discriminate against me. My personal opinion is that the wording of this law as it is violates the equality clause of the Constitution. If it ever comes up before the SC, we’ll see then if I’m right or wrong.
I would appreciate it if you didn’t make general assumptions about me and say that I’ve “benefited from patriarchy” for centuries. I might add that I’m just 30 years old and wasn’t even around centuries ago to “benefit” from it!
In reply to bhagwad
Perfect answer to all similar logic.
Somehow the Great Feminists have successfully convinced the Govt and Media that since (what they perceive) many centuries,MEN committed injustice to Women…Now is time for Women to do the same on MEN….that is the justification for biased laws against Men.
surprisingly…same logic is given by all…empowered/English speaking/super intelligent Women too…
Make every law gender neutral. Replace “Man” or “Women” with “Person”, “Husband” or “Wife” with Spouse where ever it is applicable. And include the clause, such that every misuser punished. This is the standard demand of All Men Organizations
———————————————————————
It simply solves lot of problems of this law and many other laws like domestic violence Act, 498A and law on extra-marital affairs, laws on child custody. But many women orgs don’t like it.
What they actually mean by latest divorce law amendments?
If women get share in husband’s property, she can dominate the entire house. In-laws should dance to her tunes otherwise lose half of the property, same applies to the husband dance to her tunes or lose your property. If a wife has illicit relationship, man has to shut his mout and adjust with her or lose 50% of his property. That’s what their real aim. Dominance over the men. But they can’t say it directly. So, they are using all these arguments, coming in the long way.