Marriage and Pre-nuptial Agreements in India

Sounds like Love and Longing in Las Vegas doesn't it? Well, it ISN'T!

So there's a debate going on in India about whether pre-nuptial agreements should be legalised or not. I suppose in one way its a blessing - many men and women who have suffered loveless, abusive marriages will agree that divorce is a great thing and that this agreement will, if not amicably, at least cleanly settle material and custodial issues. I suppose India must change with the times, and I'm clearly being idealistic here, but it looks like India, and the rest of global society, is changing in a way that's destructive to organised society. Not that that's a bad thing if it would bring about a socio-cultural revolution that would cleanse society of its resident evils of discrimination, crime and dishonesty. I often regret that communism and socialism turned out to be failed experiments. They were based on noble ideals. The politics and instincts of man defeat much of what is God-like *wistful face*. I don't mean to be preachy, and you are certainly right to argue about who exactly has constructed these ideals and institutions that I value. I support the breakdown of restrictive and exclusivist traditions that do not allow freedom beyond limited parameters, but also think that some sort of backbone of unbiased basic norms and rights would be beneficial upon which to base future decisions regarding the direction which society should take.

Oh, this is such a load of bullshit! There HAS to be a solution that's not spacey and subjective!

Anyway, back to marriage, divorce and contracts in India. We all like to think that marriage was much better in the good old days, though we gasp in horror at the social evils that existed till the late 18th century of dowry, sati and female infanticide. Unfortunately, today, in so-called modern times, not much has changed. Female infanticide still occurs through abortions, baby abandonment in garbage dumps, dowry occurs under the guise of the customary 'security for the daughter', brides are killed, not at their husband's pyres, but in their kitchens with kerosene. All because of two major crimes these women have committed: not enough money, and their sex. Maybe the custom in Pakistan makes more sense - marry your daughter into a family less rich than you so that you have some control over it.

India, being a secular, democratic republic, does not have a uniform civil code. There is a separate Hindu, Muslim (my God there are 3 different ones!), Zoroastrian and Special Marriages Act. Oh, there's ALSO a Christian, an Arya and an Indian Divorce Act which looks the oldest - 1869!!! Wow, I'm amazed! Each of them has separate conditions under which a couple can seek divorce. Interestingly I found that a woman could apply for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act if her husband is guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality (I thought there was no claude regarding abuse). A parsi woman can apply for divorce if her husband prositutes her. A Muslim woman can apply for divorce if her husband obstructs her from performing her religious practice. I think that's great. Religion is such an intrinsic part of our lives, and some women have to give up the beliefs and rituals of their parental home to fit in with their husbands'... that's a basic human right that sometimes gets disregarded. Fascinating stuff.

Anyway, the introduction of a pre-nuptial agreement seems, more than the divorce acts, to make null and void the very principle upon which marriage is based - that it's for keeps (oh my, quite an appropriate pun here!). I know I'm being naive, but why get into something when you create an option to get out of it for yourself? That, automatically and subconsciously, creates a lower threshold of tolerance for you in your marriage. When you give yourself the option to leave, you will. Simple as that. Of course, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't leave if you are ill-treated. Maybe the situation in which 'love conquers all' doesn't exist anymore because no one sticks around long enough to prove it right? Or all these are saying invented by smart men to keep women believing in them so they can get their material comforts nicely organised? Pffft.

I mean, according to me, the simple logical solution for when one splits up is that each leaves with what each came with. That will stop the women marrying men for money. But if they married for love? Of course that puts the financially better-off person in a better position to dictate terms... and with regard to any child involved, each parent woudl spend an equal proportion of resources on the child, rather than any actual figure. So for example, if the child is in custody of one parent, who is spending 50% of his/her resources on the child, the other parent is required to do the same. Of course, that's unfair and problematic if one person has a load of black money and the poor person's money is all clean.

I wonder how I'd react if the man I marry would want to sign a contract with me. I think I'd slap him, for the reason given above. I don't want to marry to divorce. I'd rather break an engagement if he turns ugly or stay single. I may not be in love the way young people are in love forever, but it'd be nice to have someone to talk to, who understands you and needs you and you need them - just for little things like the simple pleasure of having you around, knowing each other's scents and quirks and taste and texture, little acts of consideration. I wouldn't marry him if my family or I thought he was marrying me for any reason other than that he simply liked/loved ME, and that's a consideration beyond comparison with any other. I just pray that i am kept away from such dastardly types.

It's essentially a question of playing fair and honest which most people don't unfortunately do. There are many self-serving reasons that people marry. And women are conditioned to marry for social and financial security. That's a problem with the system. Of course every woman wants to marry better when she is earning 75 cents to the man's dollar, (or in the case of black women, 66 cents to the white man's dollar). Money makes the world go round these days. But then, if people played fair, divorces wouldn't happen in the first place, would they?