The New Marriage Bill: Feminist Harassment Of Indian Men

The Marriage Law Amendment Bill of 2010 was passed by India’s upper house, Rajya Sabha, in July 2013, to the applause of many Indian feminists and the great dismay of men’s rights activists and pro-family groups who have been campaigning for a long while against the legal misandry it embodies.

It awaits action n the Indian lower house, or Lok Sabha.

The pending 2010 amendment affects both the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 (which governs Hindu marriages) and the Special Marriage Act of 1955 (which governs marriage between Hindu and non-Hindus).

In the Rajya Sabha, there was much talk about the “sanctity of Hindu marriage” during the passage of the bill, as though it were being passed to defend Indian culture against the onslaught of the cultural mores that have destroyed Western family units.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The bill actually seeks to introduce those mores into the nation through the concept of “no-fault” divorce, a concept that many blame for the rise in divorce rates in the West.

For greater detail about the ghastly provisions of the bill, read the blog, Rollback IrBM (Irretrievable Break-down of Marriage).

Men stand to lose not only half of their own property during marriage, but also property acquired before marriage, their inheritance, and gifts, even while women’s inheritance, prior acquisitions, gifts and income are retained by the women in full.

Meanwhile, until now, Hindus have had among the lowest rates of divorce in the world.

In 2011, the crude divorce rate (the rate of divorce per 1000 people was 1.1 in India. By contrast, it was 3.6 in  the US, the third highest in the world, following Russia and Belarus.

These figures are not terribly enlightening, of course, because they do not tell us whether the population involved was of marriageable age…among many other problems.

Still, as a kind of rough index, they do tell us that marriage has been fairly stable in India.

So, what is the need to fix something that is at least relatively intact?

The answer lies in the politics of Western-style feminism and its onslaught on traditional Indian culture.

Legally enshrined misandry has had a history in India from the 1980s, when foreign funding and media agitation created laws that were ostensibly about protecting women but in practice ended by victimizing men.

Amit Deshpande writes at A Voice for Men:

“The first weapon feminists used, was a woman’s share in her paternal property, termed as “dowry”.

India saw an increased reportage of bride-burning and dowry harassment cases in media.”

Lila: Deshpande mentions “increased reportage.”

He also mentions elsewhere that there was Western funding for this.  I need to go back and look at those old reports and see who was writing them and how accurate they were.

Were they manipulated like the propaganda (Kinsey’s sexology) that changed laws in the USA, to the great detriment of the American family?

Deshpande:

“The cry was made shrill enough to drown any sane voice, if ever there was any. An anti-dowry harassment law, Section 498a of the IPC was created in 1983 which is draconian and most misused. It gives a woman complete power to get anyone from her husband’s family arrested. Then came the Dowry death law –Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It considers any unnatural death of a woman within 7 years of marriage as dowry death – meaning it assumes the husband and his relatives as guilty for her death and they are put behind bars immediately. There have been many other anti-men laws that have come up regularly.

Misandry in India, overall, can be gauged with the high number of suicides of men and crime against men:

misandryIndia

According to the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs – 62,433 married men and a total of 87,839 men committed suicide in 2011 — and this figure is increasing every year. The same bureau report shows that 92% of all crime happens against men and the society is still not even considering issues of men as a topic worth attention.”

Lila: Notice that the situation for upper and middle-class  men in India is much worse than it is for the same men in the West, where the laws on harassment and divorce are at least gender-neutral in wording (if not in effect).

Moreover, in contrast to India, it has been documented -most recently in the landmark Lund University study in Sweden – that Swedish males who are unmarried have the highest rates of suicide, not married men.

Ever since Durkheim, studies of mental health have documented, more or less, that marriage offers both men and women protection from the anomie that often leads to suicide.

The fact that married men in India are committing suicide at more than three times the rate of single (unmarried) men and at more than twice the rate of married women should be a warning bell.

These statistics, if accurate, suggests that Indian middle and upper-class males are one of the world’s most unhappy demographics, far more likely to kill themselves than their female counterparts. It would suggest that married Indian men are the victims not the villains of  marriage as it stands.

The new Marriage Amendment bill seems to be more of the same.

Media coverage of the debates have been misleading in not clarifying the crucial fact that the amendment bill of 2010 only targets Hindu marriages and is seen by many as a weapon deliberately aimed at Hindu families.

The law doesn’t target Christian or Muslim men.

AdvocatesIndia.org reports:

“Army Against Dowry Law Misuse in India (AADMI) has demanded roll back of the alleged anti-family clauses in the upcoming bill which proposes to introduce “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground for divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act.

AADMI members, who also took out a protest march, said though the proposal is a welcome step, it has three controversial clauses which are totally anti-family and anti-husband.

It points out that in the bill wherever exercising the rights has been mentioned, the person who can do it has been mentioned as “wife” instead of “spouse” which clearly indicates that the bill denies to extend its cover to husband.

It is very clear that after marriage, a wife can get out of it at any point of time seeking divorce from her husband whereas no such legal provision has been given to a husband till date.

The bill says that along with allowing divorce, absolute rights will be given to the aggrieved wife on 50 per cent of husband’s marital property. However, it does not mention division of wife’s belongings and property at her maternal house, said the members.

Also, the Bill does not deal with matters like custody of the children, visitation rights etc. Union cabinet has approved this bill with some amendments and at present it is with the “Group of Ministers” for approval before being tabled in the parliament.

AADMI demands include withdrawal of controversial clause and to make the bill gender neutral.

Children must be given access to both biological parents in case of divorce or separation, government must first put an end to all false cases related to marital problems against men and the children should also have an equal share of the alimony amount given to the wife by the husband. They said while making amendments in the current laws, the government must also take into account a man’s financial responsibilities towards his parents and also the family liabilities should be deducted before sanctioning the alimony figure to the wife.”

Menrights.org sums up the most discriminatory aspect of the pending Act:

In most countries including Pakistan, domestic violence complaints can be filed by either partner. In India, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA 2005), domestic violence is considered to be solely perpetrated by married men (and their relatives) over the hapless wives!

In most countries, matrimonial property sharing at time of divorce results in equitable sharing of both assets and liabilities earned by both spouses during the marriage duration. However in India, the proposed bill aims to give property rights to women only at time of divorce. Even if a woman has more property than husband, the law will probably allow woman to lay claim over man’s property. The duration of marriage be it 1 day or 20 years is of no concern, and the property sharing is left to discretion of the courts.

Sexual harassment complaints can be filed by either sex in most countries. However in India, in the recently approved bill by cabinet about Sexual Harassment at Workplace bill, the proposal to include men as complainants has been completely ignored so far in spite of many representations made to government and lawmakers by men’s rights groups.

Divorce rights and obligations are gender neutral in most countries.

But in India, the proposed amendments will allow a wife to block husband’s divorce petition moved on grounds of “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” but a husband will not be allowed to do the same if wife moves a divorce petition on same grounds. Evidently, the government believes that all Indian wives are like Mother Teresas and all Indian husbands are devils incarnate!

Adultery is a crime which can be committed only by men and not by women under Indian Penal Code (IPC).

India has probably the dubious distinction of being the only large democratic country where in all above areas the existing or proposed laws give relief only to wives/women and exclude men completely from their ambit except treating them as providers or perpetrators! Is India moving towards 21st century or moving back to 16th century?

The law talks only about wives’ rights and has no mention of their responsibilities as wives. These amendments are in continuation of the trend evident in Hindu Marriage laws which seek to define only obligations of married men and only rights of married women.

The proposed amendments if accepted will reduce men to status of slavery in marriage. These so called attempts to achieve equality for women are nothing but attempts to create feminocracy in families and ultimately reduce men to second class citizens and create breakdown in society and a fatherless society.”

7 thoughts on “The New Marriage Bill: Feminist Harassment Of Indian Men

  1. What an incredible article! I have heard many western men joking that they will never marry and if they ever do, it is going to be an Asian girl. Looks like things are fast changing with this modern feminist trend. I am quite pessimistic about the future of India. The Indian media is owned by foreigners and the Indian masses are completely brain washed. The aim is the destruction of the family unit. There is wisdom in the family unit that travels with the seven generations. I call it FAMILY WISDOM. The Vedas say your greatest teacher is your father. The ultimate aim of destroying the family is to destroy this family wisdom. This creates a society of morons who can then be ruled and manipulated.
    In the olden days this family wisdom was important because the next generation used to learn about for example which plants in the forest are poisonous and deadly. Matter of life and death this family wisdom. Today this family wisdom is important to understand the many hagelian dialectics, limited hang outs and con games being perpetrated on us. A single person with no trusted old wise men / women to help him is dead meat for the heyenas of this world. Unable to easily understand how he is being fooled. Very few men have the time and energy to unravel the malicious game being played on them, and some may not be interested or not intelligent enough. Everyone needs his family wisdom to survive the jungle and that is what is ultimately under attack by the oligarchs.

  2. @Rajesh

    Brainwashed family men will continually run to defend women who are twice as capable of looking after themselves as they are.

    The most conscientious and good-natured men are also the most likely candidates for this “pedestalizing” of women, as the men’s activists in the West like to call it.

    In the pick-up artist community, the solution is to treat women as prey, in revenge. I can’t support that, but traditional and religious men ought to learn a few things about the psychology of women from the PUA community.

    One of its great insights is that women are not by nature the faithful, monogamous, sathi savithris that religious culture trains them to be. That is aspirational, not reality.

    Women are not naturally polygamous, as men are (per socio-biology).
    But they do tend to hypergamy (that is, to marrying up, often serially).

    The role of traditional institutions is to tame men’s natural polygamy, which results in a tendency to discard older women in favor of younger ones, whereby they leave the mother of their children alone in her later years. Simultaneously, religious institutions tamed women’s tendency to discard lower-earning men for higher-earning men, to secure the future of her off-spring, whereby they left poorer men without mates, unsocialized, isolated and un-motivated to work beyond subsistence.

    When women’s hypergamy is unchecked by culture/religion, the most desirable young women tend to play the field sexually or simply shun lower-earning men, until they can secure the “alpha” male they think they deserve, leaving a pile of discarded betas on the way there.

    The less desirable women overestimate their market worth and end up chasing alphas without success until they hit the critical post-fertility hump (around 35-40).

    At that point they no longer have even the despised betas to fall back on, as the lowest quality men are not interested in partnering, even with no entry costs.

    These pre and post-menopausal women turn into the legendary cat ladies of the comics, while deluding themselves that they’re cougars.

    That analysis is one of the more interesting takes on the war of the sexes as it’s playing out in the West and in certain Westernized parts of India.

    Hopefully, upper-middle class Indian men wake up and become more assertive toward women or they will be crushed by the same cacophonous bunch of nitwit harpies currently dominating public discourse in the West.

  3. A commenter at the lawyersclubindia referenced in the article mentions two names: lawyersclubindia.com/forum/details.asp?mod_id=87754&offset=2

    “The Bill could not be taken up on the last day of Lok Sabha as the time was not sufficient and only because Congress wanted to push thru other bills……..but please don’t be under any false impressions…It will get passed in the Winter Session in November. Kapil Sibal & Renuka Choudhry are the driving force in the parliament to pass this bill and they are extremely determined to do so”

    1) What is the present status of this Ammendment?

    2) Tracing the forces behind these two names: “Kapil Sibal & Renuka Choudhry” might be useful in identifying the prime-mover forces behind this bill in India.

    3) A contributor at lawyersclubindia cogently demonstrated how this Ammendement was unconstituitional. He posed it as a Question and then proceeded to answer it most clearly by giving the Legal Reasoning:

    “Issue: Is new Hindu Marriage Amendment Bill 2013 unconstitutional in some parts?

    Legal views are YES.”

    Lila, with your permission, I am reproducing that Reasoning below, to make the even more disturbing point noted at the end:

    Begin quote

    Legal reasonings:

    A. First know FOUR Legal Principles.

    Legal Principle 1- This is an Amendment. An amendment can be struck down by Court if it goes beyond the scope of Main Act.

    Legal Principle 2 – Discrimination based on s*x is prohibited under Constitution unless it is for protection of a weaker class. If it is shown to court that there is discrimination on basis of s*x in favor of “Women who are not financially or otherwise weak”, then law can be struck down as “Discriminatory on basis of Sex” to that extent.

    Legal Principle 3 – Law can be struck down if it is shown that it is excessively vague. Vagueness breeds arbitrariness. Too much power in hands of judges without any guidance about how to use this power is arbitrary and it can be struck down.

    Legal Principle 4 – If a Act provides to doing of an impossible thing, that part of the Act can be struck down.

    B. Now Let us see how far this new Hindu Marriage Laws Amendment Bill 2013 is hit by above four legal principles

    1. This bill is prepared under moral pressure of Supreme Court. Supreme Court pointed out two lacunas in Hindu Marriage Act which needed to be addressed by Parliament.

    The two LACUNAS were:-

    FIRST LACUNA- When husband and wife files case for divorce by mutual consent, they are asked to wait for six months. After 5 months and 25 days, wife turns around and says she is withdrawing her consent. The husband then cannot get decree of Divorce. He is remediless. So Supreme Court suggested Parliament to amend law to help husbands.

    SECOND LACUNA – There are many grounds under which husband and wife can apply for divorce- like cruelty etc. But suppose for some reasons parties find themselves just incompatible with each other. Then the marriage gets break down irretrievably. Earlier Hindu Marriage Act, did not provide for ground of divorce for “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage. So Supreme Court suggest that such a ground should be added in ground of Divorce.

    But then the Amendment Bill 2013 makes provisions that Husband (ONLY HUSBAND) cannot get divorce on this or any-other ground mentioned in MAIN LAW (HMA, 1955), unless he gives Financial Compensation to wife this is where the Bill

    1. goes beyond scope of an Amendment,
    2. it becomes s*x discriminatory
    3. and too much vague, As it placing arbitrary powers in hands of ld. Judges to refuse divorce without laying down any verifiable guidelines.

    C. Now here are arguments or reasons to support above propositions or claims.

    Argument 1 – Look at the OBJECT & REASONS of the Amendment. (As per 2010) Bill when it was first introduced). See first PDF file annexure.

    It had 7 paragraphs. In paragraph 1 to 6 it says that OBJECT of Bill is to remove two defects pointed out by Supreme Court, suddenly in last 7th para, it says that provisions is made to permit woman (ONLY WOMEN!) to oppose grant of divorce unless financial compensation is paid. There is not a whisper of object of such a provision in entire “Object and Reasons”.

    Argument 2 – Any Amendment which goes beyond scope of Main Act can be struck down.

    Firstly, under Hindu Marriage Act already has provision for granting permanent alimony to divorced wife (U/s 25 HMA). There are procedures allocated for the same. The new provision nullifies and makes redundant all earlier provisions regarding permanent alimony. Thus the Amendment 2013 goes beyond the main Act, and hence liable to be struck down. In other words in guise of Amendment, it overrules other provisions in MAIN ACT (HMA, 1955). See second PDF file annexure.

    Secondly, apart from Breakdown of marriage there are many other grounds under parties can get divorce (S. 13 HMA). This Amendment 2013 says even on those grounds like cruelty etc. a Court will refuse to grant divorce unless Financial Compensation is made. This certainly goes beyond what Supreme Court had suggested, i.e. it goes beyond Object of Bill 2013 and it goes against the spirit of the MAIN ACT (HMA, 1955). It changes entire Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under guise of an Amendment.

    Argument 3 – Vagueness in the provisions.

    Law should be clear so that parties can act accordingly. Here a Court is asked to refuse divorce on any or all of following grounds: (As mentioned in original Amendment 2010 / 2013 Bill)

    A. for conduct of parties to marriage,
    B. interests of these parties,
    C. interest of any children,
    D. interest of ANY OTHER PERSON concerned,
    E. if court thinks that it is WRONG to give divorce [it is mentioned 5 times in Amendment Bill 2013 as well as in 2010 Bill]. Here, words like wrong, right, good, bad are not supposed to be used in Laws. They are vague and incapable of being objectively verified),
    F. court can dismiss petition of HUSBAND ONLY on above ground A to E or can stay case in limbo till husband is ready to comply with demands made by wife.

    Argument 4 – Lastly the FOUR Legal Principles revisited

    If Law asks you to do anything impossible, the law is bad to that extent.

    Firstly, here law asks the ld. Judge(s) to consider properties of husband which he may inherit in future. This is not legally possible. No one knows, the husband may not inherit anything.

    Secondly, so far as husband’s own property is considered, to deprive him of his property, Special Law is required. This can’t be done by way of a pre-condition for divorce.

    Hence many parts of Amendment Bills 2013 are TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and liable to be struck down by Hon’ble SC

    End quote

    I spent a lot of time staring at that and the following question keeps cropping up:

    How comes, when this Ammendement Bill is so clearly unconstitutional as demonstrated in the Legal Reasoning above, that the Lok Sabha, India’s democratic parliamentary wheel, would even dare to pass it without fear of it being immediately struck down by the SC of India?

    Is India’s SC too, at some level, beholden to the same prime-mover forces that are driving this bill in India’s legislature?

    ——

    Look for those prime-movers.

    I am willing to take a bet that the two names mentioned above, “Kapil Sibal & Renuka Choudhry”, are just the “useful idiots” in this pivotal subversion of the Indian Society. The Hindu, being its 70-80% majority are merely the first stage in that entire social subversion process which would last several decades at the minimum, and each religious sub-group in India would be handed their own “mind-fck” based on their peculiar lacunas, situation and circumstances.

    I hope I am mistaken. But the evidence of this family subversion is already unmistaken. I am only surprised that it reached India so soon.

    Here is a video presentation from the 2009 Lawful Rebellion Conference that was held in the UK. It is worth watching to understand, especially for the brilliant simpleton professionals of India, its likkha-parrha jahils, the real nature of the forces at play in the world — and perhaps they might better understand the global stage on which their own local Act is being staged. That these pernicious forces, forces that eat and destroy the fabric of society from within, have arrived in India should be treated in the global context and not just its local one, and that it should be trated as a warning by the entire sub-continent.

    It would be shortsighted to see this Hindu marriage law subversion merely as an attack on the Hindu. It should be seen as the attack on India, of which this is only the first of the many stages.

    Thank you.

    Zahir Ebrahim
    Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

  4. Hi Zahir,

    By accident I deleted the link you posted in your second comment.

    Can you repost, please.
    Sorry. I don’t know how that happened.

    Re- is Hinduism being targeted? Yes.
    India is Hindustan, traditionally, just as Pakistan is primarily Muslim. So to target India it is necessary to target Hindus.

    It’s very clever…diabolically so.

    As a Christian, I’m fully aware that the Christian and Muslim minorities are relatively pampered – because they belong to large international organizations that have been co-opted to a greater degree than Hinduism, by the elites…

    Yet, in their own spaces, Christians and Muslims too become targeted…not just in this space.

    In this space, Christians and Muslims are used by the elites as a battering ram against Hindus.

  5. Here is the video link:

    Lawful Rebellion conference
    State of the Nation
    By Brian Gerrish: 24 Jan 2009

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58Pvs-pgbic&list=PL0D856BF1EB4E0371

    Brian Gerrish describes how the family is being deliberately broken up in the UK and EU by a pernicious organization/institution called Common Purpose.

    What had intrigued me about this presentation was that Brian Gerrish mentioned the Muslim public in the UK specifically, that they were the last holdout of the traditional family-centric system in the West, all others having already been co-opted.

    As someone once said, the present in the West is but a mirror of what’s to transpire in the East in about two decades, or fifty years.

    The shoving of the wedge between the sexes by harvesting the real cracks and lacunas of the Indian society, is a most diabolical method of achieving the same agenda of Common Purpose.

    The women of India might examine this from that angle to join forces with men to prevent this wedge from making further headway.

    Women of India need the Westerners bearing their gift of civilization as much as “fish need bicyles” (to borrow the witticism of someone witty). The following statement betrays just how far the brilliant likkha-parrha jahils of India must progress before they can even begin to interdict the white man’s burden that many among them seem most happy to carry on their proud backs. In an article on Tehelka titled: The Rearranged Marriage, this gem appears:

    Begin Quote

    BLOGGER AMIT Varma has written of the growing divorce rate as a celebratory indicator of female empowerment. He says, “We’re taught bullshit like ‘you don’t marry an individual, you marry a family’. We’re taught to sacrifice our happiness to keep this family intact. Many women are becoming empowered enough to break away from this thinking and pursue their own fulfilment. This is one area where I applaud the West’s influence.”

    End quote

    See archive.tehelka.com/story_main43.asp?filename=hub311009the_rearranged.asp

    Correct me if I am wrong but evidently, from the brief reading I have been doing on this topic ever since Lila started writing about it in her recent coverage, I surmise that the Indian discourse is dominated by articles like the tehelka.com story above. The sampling of opinions noted in Lila’s article is in fact the exception.

    How can the Indian public ever to understand the diabolical agenda that underlies all this?

    There is no self-defence antidote that will be effective if you misunderstand, misinterpret, and misdiagnose a disease. The perception management that is evidently going hand in hand in breaking the Indian family unit apart is what is getting well-intentioned useful idiots to go along. This article is an example of it.

    Why don’t you write in India’s public spaces, like for this tehelka.com?

    Perhaps that fellow, Anil, Advocate of India’s SC, if he buys into what’s being analyzed here, can make his voice heard directly in that hallowed chambers.

    Thanks.

    Zahir

  6. @Zahir,

    Excellent analysis.

    I too wonder about the SC.

    It seems that the easiest way to subvert a country is to change its laws and the easiest ways to do that is through the SC and through legal opinion, which is driven by academic opinion (diluted and vulgarized forms of which appear in the media).

    I wonder what Anil Nauriya thinks about this, being more sympathetic to the left-lib view than I am.

  7. We are just marrying strangers. We don’t know the other person and whether they will make us happy. So when horrible bills like this marriage bill happens, the already stressful situation of living the rest of you life with someone you barely know becomes heightened. Its probably why there is so much suicide for married men and women.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>