We Need Two Separate Laws for Women in India

We have a policy problem in India when it comes to deciding whether the law should treat all Indian women equally. The nub is this – there are different classes of women in India. On the one hand, we have liberated women who’re fully capable of taking decisions for themselves and earning enough to support themselves and their family. These individuals accept full responsibility for their choices in love and life. While they may cry over the consequences of their choices, they won’t blame other people for them or expect the government to compensate them.

Many Indian women clearly do not want this
Many Indian women clearly do not want this

On the other hand, we have a huge section of Indian women who are poor or uneducated or unemancipated. It would be more accurate to think of them as “victims” rather than full-fledged adults. Many of them want protection both from possible predators as well as from themselves. They don’t want to be trusted to make independent choices, and if they do they are not responsible for the consequences. In other words, just as children have laws protecting them against child molesters, these women desire to be protected from those who would take advantage of them.

If you think I’m being silly, take this example. A woman in India sued her live-in partner of eight years for leaving her and marrying someone else. In most civilized countries of the world, this case would be laughed out of court. She freely chose to live a life without making any formal commitment. There was no written contract stipulating that they would get married at all. In short, she made a choice to live with someone. The question is, is she expected to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice?

To be fair, it’s indeed very likely that the girl’s marriage prospects in a traditional set up have been seriously dented. It’s unlikely that any traditional Indian groom would look kindly on her past relationship – not to mention her age would put her out of the regular Indian marriage market. So the facts of the case are not in dispute. She’s in a pretty bad situation, no doubt about it. Especially in the Indian context in a regular Indian society.

Under my proposal, either one or another set of laws would apply to this her. She can choose at the age of 18 to acquire the rights of a full-fledged adult under Indian law and take full responsibility for her actions. In which case, the case is thrown out of court no questions asked. She made a choice, and she has suffered. She deliberately chose not to get married. The man cannot be penalized for not choosing to marry her for whatever reason. What are you going to do after all? Force every man who has sex with a woman to marry them? Not possible if we treat the woman as an equal.

But under the alternative set of laws that I propose, the man can indeed be penalized because he entered into a relationship with someone who is not treated as a legal adult. Even if she freely made the choice to live with him, such consent is not valid in much the same way that consent for sex is invalid when given by a child. Everyone is happy since the man knew in advance that she is protected by the law.

It’s clear that women in India are not to be treated as a homogeneous whole. Some of them are capable and desirous of living a life of freedom with all the attendant consequences and responsibilities. Many others however clearly desire to have the state as kind of surrogate parent. I propose that at the age of 18, every individual – not just women – should be allowed to decide whether they want to attain the status of adulthood. If so, they can enjoy all the freedoms that are accorded to fully grown individuals. If not, special laws will continue to be applied to them to protect them from themselves.

Another example is the recent amendment in the marriage laws giving every woman a standard 50% share in the assets of her husband even for those properties acquired before marriage or obtained via inheritance without the man getting the same privilege. This law is clearly aimed at preventing the exploitation of women who’re left with nothing after a divorce and are forced to lived a difficult life without adequate financial support. However instead of being gender neutral, the law automatically assumes that every single woman is a victim without taking into consideration that millions of women can very well stand on their own feet.

The thing is, laws like this are indeed necessary for a large number of women in India who are incapable of taking care of themselves outside a marriage set up. Of course, the laws can be made gender-neutral and can allocate a percentage of property depending on the needs of the women instead of having a set percentage. But such a well thought-out law is obviously too complicated for our esteemed lawgivers.

The bottom line is that India is a complicated country. People are clearly divided into two sections – those were liberated, and those who still need special protection. Having a single law to cover both these groups of people is just stupid. It doesn’t make sense. So why not have separate laws and ask people to choose which one they want to have applied to them? There are advantages and disadvantages of being free. It might well be that not everyone desires to be free at all.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (1)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

18 thoughts on “We Need Two Separate Laws for Women in India”

  1. This is certainly no solution. The laws of a secular country must not differentiate between its people. Even if it was put into practice it will again lead to complications. For one thing, how will the State differentiate between a free woman and a dependent one? And if one has to sign up for it, the parents of a 18 year old girl can easily make her sign up for whatever they want her to be, instead of what she wants. Also, giving in to these problems means that the society will never evolve from this set standard because there is no incentive to do so. Another problem would be if a woman is classified as dependent, then should she be subject to her parents/husband/the State for making decisions? Dependency works both ways; one cannot simply have protection without subjection.

    The best thing would be for those women who are getting a raw deal to stiffen the upper lip and start the silent revolution in their lives. It is not easy, but it has to be done at some point. Society will automatically change in some time if enough people speak out and refuse to take any crap.

    Reply

    • In reply to Fem

      I agree Fem. I’m only half serious about this idea…because it seems that we’re caught between a rock and a hard place. As you said, a lot of people are simply going to have to suffer before things can change. Are we prepared to accept that price?

      Reply

  2. @Bhagwad: I am glad you were only half serious about this idea :-) as another name for having different laws for different sections of society sounds more closer to legalizing ‘aristocracy’.

    Reply

  3. The post also reminds me of 33% reservation for girls that used to be there for admission to the health sciences courses (in Maharashtra, till 2002, at least). Most girls would not be underprivileged, in that they’d have studied at the same school as their brothers, would’ve attended the same coaching classes directed at training for entrance exams, etc. Yet, on the basis of the ‘reservation’ extended to them many boys would be deprived of a seat despite scoring better than some girls who’d get one. I find that highly discriminatory.

    Reply

    • In reply to Ketan

      That’s one example of what I’m talking about. I have no problem with helping those who need it. But for god’s sake at least craft a proper law to do it without botching it up. Like you said in your example, the extra benefits didn’t go to those who need it.

      This is what happens when you group an entire class of people together based on gender, or caste or something. You’re assuming that everyone in that group is in the same boat and has the same need. Not so.

      If we had reservations based on economic criteria…now that at least is quantifiable and makes more sense.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I am strongly against reservations of any sort. If we must have this kind of force, how about forcing people to send girls to school? My parents were shocked that I did not have to pay any school fees, and since they were very much able to do so, I don’t see why I got the exemption. This is basically the problem. The benefits almost never reaches those it is meant for under such systems. Even with the women’s reservation bill, most of them are mouthpieces for the men (their husbands, fathers, sons & brothers). We need to find other ways to attract women to politics.

        And I am against reservations for the poor as well. I am very much in favour of them getting free education and help with buying books and clothes. This should not mean that they must set the bar low for the poor. It just means that they must get an opportunity to receive benefits of education that they could otherwise not afford. If such a person does not make use of the opportunity, then we must not bring down the cut off. That would be just stupid.

        Reply

  4. The Indian population is heterogenous to the point of being polarized. But if we make laws to support underprivileged women, what we have is the educated, privileged—and let’s admit it—pampered women taking advantage of them. I remember in college days seeing young girls expecting men to give up non-ladies seats for them.
    Liberated women forget that their decisions cannot exist in a vacuum without consequences. The freedom to co-habit with a man out of wedlock comes with the responsibility to realize that it reduces her value in the arranged marriage market. If a woman doesn’t consider this before making her decision, she must bear the costs of that decision.

    Reply

    • In reply to liberalcynic

      But Indians don’t like to take responsibility for their actions…They like to put the blame on someone else. A rapist will blame the victim for “provoking” him and a goonda who vandalizes an art exhibition will blame the painter.

      No one likes to accept that they and they alone are responsible for what they do.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        It’s perhaps totally redundant to the discussion, but the situation in case of rape and vandalism, etc., is so bad that there is no question of “responsibility” (with the negative connotation it carries in this context), because there is no remorse! The assailant does not feel he [no gender equality here! ;) ] did something wrong!

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        I guess that is very true as well. Maybe they view all public property as belonging to “the people” and they can do what they want with it?

        As for rape, they have to start viewing women as persons with their own rights and freedoms. As equals. God, this can get depressing…

        Reply

    • In reply to liberalcynic

      What I find really weird about the seats reserved for women is that, having such an arrangement is an open admission – by both the law-makers, and those women who choose to sit on such seats without any hesitation or guilt – that in at least some physical respects, women are weaker than men. While that in itself may not be too much of a problem, but if it is so easily accepted by the society that women are physically less equipped than men to stand at one place, then, employers should be allowed to disallow or discourage women from taking up certain jobs where one might have to stand for long periods, e.g., teaching, surgery, in police, as nurses, civil engineering, etc., and men should be given a clear preference. If one says that women are no more less able than men to stand, then, what is the need for such reservation? If it is said that only some women, e.g., pregnant or menstruating women are more in need of such seats, then, again employers should be allowed to discriminate against women cuz at least theoretically women are less productive for some part of their lives? I remember Bhagwad had argued in one of his blog posts that there should be no maternity benefits, and I agree with that. At least those benefits must not be paid ones, and at the most, should extend only to getting unpaid leave, that too with notice by the employee sufficiently in advance about their plan on going on leave.

      One of my female friends says that reserving seats in buses immunizes women from being inappropriately touched by men. Even if that were to be true, then, it is very unjust that only some women (first-come-first-served) get such immunity. Why should those who’d have boarded the bus later be kept vulnerable to inappropriate touch?

      Reply

Leave a Comment