Educating the citizen

The demand that political parties function democratically must come from the people

Suhas Palshikar gave sound advice to those who wish to set up and run political parties in an appropriately titled article, ‘How to have a good party’ (IE, October 24). The article was followed, the next day, by Sanjaya Baru advising “an institute of management education” to start “a course on managing family-based political parties.” Having spent a major part of my professional life in “an institute of management education” and as an observer of political parties for some time, I could not help thinking about this issue.

There seem to be three types of political parties in India — family-run, coterie-run and individual-run. The labels are self-explanatory and there seems to be no political party that falls outside this classification. All of them seem to be blissfully innocent of the fact that political parties are, at their root, supposed to be instruments of democracy. And instruments of democracy cannot be undemocratic. This issue was addressed in a column in this paper five years ago (‘Can undemocratic parties serve a democratic nation?’ IE, September 16, 2011).

What the 2011 piece did not point out was that this issue has engaged the attention of the Law Commission of India as far back as 1999. The commission’s comments in para 3.1.2.1 of its 170th report is worth reproducing in full: “On the parity of the above reasoning, it must be said that if democracy and accountability constitute the core of our constitutional system, the same concepts must also apply to and bind the political parties which are integral to parliamentary democracy. It is the political parties that form the government, man the Parliament and run the governance of the country. It is therefore necessary to introduce internal democracy, financial transparency and accountability in the working of the political parties. A political party which does not respect democratic principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect those principles in the governance of the country. It cannot be a dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside.”

It should not matter whether the party is family-run, coterie-run and individual-run, so long as it has at least a semblance of democracy in its internal functioning. Political parties will not become internally democratic by exhortations of political scientists and political commentators. For this, they need, what a former judge of the US Supreme Court, Justice David Souter, referred to as “civic knowledge” in a TV discussion. Souter was commenting four years ago and his remarks are being replayed in the US now as the country’s electorate faces what is perceived by many to be a difficult choice. Souter recollected the remarks of Benjamin Franklin, often referred to as “one of the founding fathers” of the US. When asked what kind of a nation would the country’s constitution create, Franklin replied, “a republic, if you can keep it.” Souter went on to say, “democracy cannot survive civic ignorance.”

Therefore, a necessary condition for democracy to survive and to make political parties internally democratic is pressure from citizens. For this, what is needed is “education for citizenship”. So, whether “an institute of management education” starts “a course on managing family-based political parties” or not, it is necessary that institutions of education pay attention to ensuring that their students acquire some knowledge of what it takes to be a responsible citizen.

Democracy in the country will survive only if political parties are democratic in their internal functioning. Political parties will become democratic in their internal functioning only if citizens demand that. Citizens will demand that only if they have what Justice Souter called “civic knowledge” or “education for citizenship”. So, while one can intervene at every level, the most basic interventions are required at the level of schools and colleges. This may appear to be a long haul but there really are no shortcuts.

The writer is former professor, dean, and director in-charge of IIM, Ahmedabad. Views are personal.

Source: Indian Express, 2-11-2016

The overrated urban spinoff

Agriculture’s contribution to poverty reduction is five times more than that of metropolitan centres

Speaking at the third BRICS Urbanisation Forum in Visakhapatnam on September 14, Deputy Chairman of the Niti Ayog, Arvind Panagariya, announced that “Without cities we can’t grow rapidly”. He added, “urbanisation plays an important role in poverty alleviation”. Both claims are exaggerated and somewhat misleading.

A recent report prepared for the UN points out that, over the last two decades, India’s urban population increased from 217 million to 377 million, and this is expected to reach 600 million by 2031 — 40 per cent of the country’s population. The current pattern of urbanisation is largely taking place on the fringe of cities, much of it is unplanned and outside the purview of city codes and bylaws. It is already imposing high costs. The gap in urban infrastructure investment over the next 20 years is estimated at $827 billion; two-thirds of this is required for urban roads and traffic support. So the case for higher investment in urban development is compelling. The key question, however, is whether a substantial hike in urban infrastructure investment would imply a substantially lower increase in rural investment. It is difficult to offer a precise answer but something can be said about the growth and poverty effects of rural transformation relative to those of urban development.

A recent IMF study measured the impact of urbanisation on rural poverty in India using the NSS data over 1983-1984, 1993-1994 and 1999-2000. It distinguished between the location and the economic linkage effects. The former entails reduction in rural poverty due to the change in residence — from rural areas to cities. The latter focuses on the impact of growth of the urban population on the rural poverty rate. There are several channels through which urban population growth affects poverty in surrounding areas: Consumption linkages, rural non-agricultural employment, remittances, rural land/labour ratios, rural land prices and consumer prices.

Urbanisation has a significant poverty-reducing effect on the surrounding rural areas. Over the entire period in question, poverty reduced between 13 per cent and 25 per cent as a result of urbanisation. But this reduction is not as substantial when compared to the reduction in rural poverty brought about by state-led rural bank branch expansion, which explains approximately half of the overall reduction of rural poverty between 1961 and 2000. A major flaw of the IMF study is that it examines the role of urbanisation in isolation of rural transformation — especially emergence of high value chains and more remunerative opportunities for labourers, smallholders and those self-employed in non-agricultural activities. Just like urban transformation, rural transformation has a multiplier effect on poverty reduction. As agriculture modernises, for example, it reduces rural poverty and overall poverty through greater demand for chemical fertilisers, pesticides, machine services, processed seeds or fuels, which promote non-agricultural production. Besides, higher incomes in rural areas promote demand for processed foods produced mainly in urban areas and generate employment. Decrease in food prices due to agricultural growth results in better food security and overall poverty reduction in both rural and urban areas, while the reduction of food prices lowers the real product wage in the non-agricultural sector, thereby raising profitability and investment in that sector. So, without comparison of direct and multiplier effects of rural transformation and urbanisation, an isolated analysis of either sector is likely to be misleading.

Our research encompasses this broader perspective. We examine overall growth and poverty effects of both agriculture and non-agriculture, taking into account the linkages between them. As the non-agricultural sector includes both rural non-agricultural and urban activities, we disaggregate the rural areas into agriculture and non-agriculture sub-sectors, and the urban areas into small towns, secondary towns and metropolitan cities in order to compare their effects on poverty.

As a country grows and shifts from the low income to the middle income category, the nature of agriculture typically changes from subsistence-oriented farming to more commercialised and market farming. It then has a closer linkage with the non-agricultural sector. Our analysis shows that spillovers from agricultural growth rate are twice as large as from non-agricultural growth. Besides, agricultural growth has a much stronger poverty-reducing effect than non-agricultural growth.

We also examined the separate effects of agriculture, rural non-agriculture and metropolitan cities on poverty, relative to secondary towns. Using a decomposition that allows sectoral population shares as proxies for their contributions to poverty reduction, used in a recent World Bank study, we found that the (proportionate) poverty reduction is largest for agriculture. Contrary to the World Bank’s conclusion, we found that agriculture’s contribution to poverty reduction is five times more than that of metropolitan cities.

Although a definitive conclusion about public investment priorities will depend on the pattern of rural transformation and urbanisation, there is a strong case for rural transformation through easier access to new technology, credit and markets. Strengthening of extension services, rural infrastructure and skill formation will not only raise productivity and living standards but also curb rural-urban migration. Our analysis shows that creating more remunerative opportunities in rural areas deserves greater emphasis.

Gaiha is visiting scientist, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston; and honorary professorial fellow at Global Development Institute, University of Manchester, England. Katsushi. S. Imai, associate professor, economics, University of Manchester, has co-authored this article

Regulating research

The University Grants Commission has notified its regulations regarding minimum standards and procedures for the award of M.Phil and Ph.D. degrees in the Gazette of India dated 5 July 2016. Institutions of higher learning are examining the document and trying to devise the modalities of implementation. There are several provisions in the regulations which will help researchers. For instance, women researchers will be allowed 240 days of maternity or child-care leave and transfer of their research across universities. Course work was introduced in the M.Phil and Ph.D. programmes a couple of years back and the same is expected to be streamlined with the latest regulations. This is welcome because coursework prepares candidates for conducting research.

Archiving soft copies of M.Phil and Ph.D. thesis on the internet was also started a few years back; the current regulations recommend continuation of the practice. The database thus generated will help investigators to review the dissertations. Moreover, it will help check plagiarism.

But a few features of the regulations have left the academic circuit in a quandary. Stringent measures have been recommended to improve the quality of research. M.Phil and Ph.D aspirants will have to appear for an entrance test. Half of the questions will assess the candidate’s grasp over methodology and the other half will evaluate one’s knowledge of the subject.  Those candidates who secure at least 50 per cent in the test will be called for interview, where they will be asked to discuss their research proposal. Also to be assessed is their potential to undertake the proposed research. Selected candidates would be enrolled for M.Phil. or Ph.D programmes. After enrolment, research students will have to engage in coursework and qualify.  The evaluation of the researcher’s performance in the coursework will be monitored not only by the department, but also by the institution’s research advisory committee.

The new regulations stipulate that researchers will have to present six-monthly reports on their progress to the Advisory Committee for assessment.  In a word, researchers will have to be on their toes. Before submitting the thesis, researchers will have to discuss the highlights of their investigation in a seminar attended by members of the Research Advisory Committee, other faculty members, and research students.  The suggestions of these experts are expected to be incorporated by the researcher in the thesis. Satisfactory performance by the researcher in defence of the investigation will facilitate submission of the thesis. Of course, the pre-submission seminar is nothing new, but the continuation of a rational exercise.

Besides, the researchers will have to fulfil certain other conditions before they are permitted to submit their thesis. M.Phil candidates will have to produce evidence that they had presented at least one research paper at a conference or seminar. Aspirants for Ph.D. will have to testify that they have published at least one research paper in an academic journal of repute, and have presented at least two research papers in conferences or seminars. Evaluation of the Ph.D. thesis would be done by the research supervisor and two examiners belonging to institutions other than the one to which the researcher belongs. One of the two external examiners might be from abroad. If the external examiners find the thesis satisfactory and recommend the conduct of viva-voce, the researcher would be permitted to face the viva in an open forum. This examination has to be conducted by the research supervisor and another examiner who does not belong to the same institution as the researcher. In the viva-voce, the researcher would be asked questions based on critiques of the investigation. It will be attended by members of the research advisory committee, other faculty members, research students and experts.

After meeting these challenges the researcher is awarded the M.Phil or Ph.D. degree. These regulations are desirable as the aim is to ensure diligence of researchers and improve the quality of research. But the quality of guided research does not depend wholly on the performance of researchers. The role of research supervisors is crucial. The regulations notified by the UGC seem to falter on that score.

According to the regulatory authority, a full-time regular teacher of a recognised university or academic institution can supervise M.Phil/ Ph.D research. This in effect excludes retired teachers from research guidance.  Why should a seasoned research guide, who has phenomenal knowledge and is in good health, be debarred from supervising the work of M.Phil or Ph.D. students. The UGC must reflect on this decision. Retired academics with proven track record of research and physical fitness are in a position to devote more time to research guidance than those in service. Ignoring this pool of talent would be detrimental to the cause of learning in the larger perspective. The  UGC has declared that apart from universities or institutions of higher learning, colleges with post-graduate departments and research laboratories of the central or state government could also run M.Phil and Ph.D programmes provided they have at least two teachers or scientists with Ph.D. degrees. The UGC needs to specify whether only academics engaged in post-graduate teaching and research will be entitled to guide M.Phil and Ph.D research. This loophole in the notification needs irgently to be addressed.

Moreover, the UGC has stipulated that Professors or Assistant Professors with Ph.D degree and credited with at least two research publications could serve as research supervisors. These requirements can be met very easily. The UGC must raise the bar to ensure excellence in research guidance. Otherwise, inept guides will flood the higher education segment. To enhance promotion prospects, they will be anxious to increase scores in terms of academic performance indicators. The high quality and rigorous process of research, which the UGC is aiming at, will not attain fruition if research supervisors lack expertise.  The academic careers of many researchers would be ruined if they are not supported suitably by supervisors who are themselves active in research.

Just as the UGC wants researchers to work hard, it should ensure that guides are equally committed. A mechanism to evaluate roles of the guides must be in place.

The UGC’s ambitious endeavour to nurture excellence in guided research will fail if guides do not serve as path-finders and role models they ought to be. Research supervision is both a science and an art. Instead of handing over the responsibility of guiding research to individuals who lack the wherewithal to do so, the UGC must allow them time to prepare. More publications, more paper presentations, and more projects will obviously figure prominently in the preparation. Besides, hands-on training by veteran research guides would be useful. Orientation and refresher courses should include modules pertaining to research supervision. Novices could begin by guiding M. Phil. students and later graduate to supervision of Ph.D candidates in collaboration with other guides. Only when the reasonably elevated benchmarks are attained by academics, should they be allowed to guide Ph.D. candidates independently. If the UGC realises the lopsided nature of its regulations and initiates a course-correction, can we expect research work that is marked by brilliance and scholarly rigour?

Source: The Statesman, 1-11-2016

Why diversity needs secularism

The non-inclusion of the word ‘secular’ in the original Constitution cannot be a reason to recommend its removal now

The expansion and consolidation of the Hindu Right’s political power has raised legitimate concerns about the future of India’s secularism. While criticism of secularism could be found in the public debate during the anti-colonial struggle, the sustained assault on it became particularly apparent during the Ayodhya movement. During the late 1980s and 1990s, the public campaign led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) advocated that the practice of secularism has led to the appeasement of Muslims. The BJP further argued that it has been quite harmful to India’s democratic polity because it has been institutionalising vote-bank politics, and that what is needed is in fact an attempt for a ‘positive’ secularism as opposed to ‘negative’ secularism. While these distinctions were widely used during those days, surprisingly it has vanished from the political lexicon of the Hindu Right in recent years.

Secularism, unity and diversity

The most significant moment of this departure in the politics of the Hindu Right was during the 2014 election campaign. For the first time in Indian history, Narendra Modi, as a prime ministerial candidate, unleashed the most sustained attack on the idea of secularism in meeting after meeting. At a meeting in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, on March 26, 2014, he reminded people how the idea of secularism has kept Muslims poor. On this issue, he has remained rather consistent even after becoming Prime Minister, although he has vacillated on many other issues. At a party in Berlin on April 14, 2015, hosted by the Indian Ambassador, he spoke of how Sanskrit has suffered owing to India’s so-called “secular fever”.

There are also occasions when Mr. Modi has made statements on diversity being India’s strength without recognising that diversity as a political project can only be effective with secularism as a working foundational value. This is a tragic flaw in the Hindu Right’s understanding of the notion of diversity. Inaugurating the debate on intolerance in Parliament on November 26, 2015, Home Minister Rajnath Singh explained how this idea of secularism has been misused and how the word is the most abused one. According to the Hindu Right, there are perhaps some benefits of secularism, but they are trivial and could be easily found in the ideology of Hindutva, apparently noble, kind, and all-embracing. It seems to suggest thereby that the problem is not with the idea of Hindutva, but with the misconceptions of secularists about this otherwise noble idea.

The Hindu Right is seemingly keen on reminding everyone that India’s founding fathers including B.R. Ambedkar did not consider it necessary to introduce the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution. It was inserted as part of the 42nd amendment during Indira Gandhi’s Emergencyrule. In his speech, Mr. Singh specifically mentioned Ambedkar’s reluctance to introduce the word. The fact is that Ambedkar made two interventions in the debate on Professor K.T. Shah’s resolution on this issue, and chose to remain silent on the secularism question although he firmly opposed the entry of the word ‘socialism’ on the ground that future generations should have the freedom to choose their economic path. Ambedkar was not a convinced socialist at all. But analysis of his writings on minority rights, Muslims, Pakistan etc. when seen in the context of his pronouncements like “I was born Hindu, but won’t die as one” or “Hinduism is not a religion” echoes a particular brand of secularism, very distinct from the Nehruvian or the Gandhian one. His secularism is about human dignity, and his idea of secular political culture is to contribute to the emancipation of human beings from all kinds of man-made suffering inflicted in the name of religion. Had he been alive today, he would have been, no doubt, the most fierce and erudite critic of Hindutva politics.

An omission yet unexplained

These two words — secular and socialist — entered the Constitution when most leaders of the Opposition were under arrest for their resistance to the Emergency. Since these words were retained during the 44nd amendment under the Janata Party regime, it is suggestive of a broad consensus among India’s political leadership for their insertion in the Constitution.

Why did our founding fathers not include them in the Constitution in the first place? Scholars have tried to explain this. In his presidential address to the Indian History Congress, Malda, in 2015, historian Sabyasachi Bhattacharya argued that it was Jawaharlal Nehru’s and Ambedkar’s larger belief in the values of equality and justice that encouraged them not to introduce these words. One wonders how one could speak of equality and justice in a multi-religious society without secularism.

Moreover, it would be almost impossible to argue that Indira Gandhi was the greater defender of Indian minorities or a bigger patriot compared to Nehru or Ambedkar. There is little knowledge about the circumstances in which she chose to introduce these words. Did she do it on her own or was she advised by somebody? In a recent memoir, President Pranab Mukherjee tells us that it was on the advice of Siddhartha Sankar Ray that she introduced the Emergency. Moreover, Indira Gandhi was not just one of the past Prime Ministers of India like, say, H.D. Deve Gowda; she was also Nehru’s daughter. Was she privy to any particular discussion with Nehru about the reason why he was not keen on pressing for the insertion of these words? We do not have definite answers to these questions as yet.

Others like diplomat-turned-politician Pavan K. Varma argue that the threat to India’s secular fabric from the Hindu Right was far greater during the 1970s, which is why Indira Gandhi considered it necessary to introduce these words. Even socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan was concerned with the growing influence of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh on the Morarji Desai government, for which he wrote a specific letter expressing his concerns about its Hindutva project. As things stand now, there is no convincing answer as to why the word “secular” was left out in the first place, and that gives the Hindu Right a convenient handle to twist the debate in its favour in their advocacy for its removal.

Shaikh Mujibur Rehman is the editor of ‘Communalism in Postcolonial India: Changing Contours’ (Routledge, 2016). He teaches at Jamia Millia Central University, New Delhi.

Keywords: Secularism, Constitution of India, 

Source: The Hindu, 2-11-2016

Ramadorai Resigns as NSDA, NSDC Chief

Rohit Nandan, secy at Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, will head these skill development agencies as of now

S Ramadorai, the former chief at Tata Consultancy Services, has resigned as chairman of two government skill development agencies, amid speculation that he may join the board of Tata Sons that last week ousted its chairman. Ramadorai had sent his resignation from the National Skill Development Agency and National Skill Development Corporation over a month ago -much before the Tata board removed Cyrus Mistry -and cited health reasons for the decision, Minister of State for Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Rajiv Pratap Rudy said. “We were happy with his work but since he had stated health reasons we couldn't stop him. The ministry has accepted his resignation,“ Rudy told ET.Ramadorai didn't respond to phone calls and a message.
Rohit Nandan, secretary at the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, will head the two agencies until a new chairman is appointed. The NSDC board is expected to meet on Wednesday to discuss the development.
Ramadorai was appointed to the position, which offers the rank of a cabinet minister, in May 2013 by the then Congress-led government.
The 71-year-old still has multiple engagements with the Tata Group.He is the chairman of the gover ning board of Tata Institute of Social Sciences and also heads the boards of Tata Advanced Systems, the unlisted defence entity of the Tata Group, and Tata Technologies. He had a long career with the Tata Group. In 1971, a young Ramadorai turned down a US Green Card to work with what was then a fairly small company, TCS.
When he took over as the CEO and managing director from FC Kohli in 1996, TCS had about $150 million in revenue. He oversaw its rise to India's biggest information technology company, as revenue grew to more than $6 billion and headcount to 1,40,000 during his 13 years at the helm.
The government awarded Ramadorai the Padma Bhushan, the third-highest civilian honour, in 2006. He received the Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 2009 for his contribution to Indo-British economic relations.

Source: Economic Times, 2-11-2016

Why Suffer That Which Does Not Exist?

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev





Joy . It is a much-prized word. Today even so-called spiritual leaders everywhere are propagating that joy and peace are the ultimate goals of your life. But to enjoy even your dinner tonight, you need to be peaceful and joyful. So, are peace and joy really ultimate goals or are they the fundamental requirements of your life?
There is no one who has not known a single moment of joy . It is impossible, because without a moment of joy , one cannot live. The issue is actually pretty simple. If you had a choice, would you choose to be joyful or miserable? What you want for your neighbour may be debatable, but what would you want for yourself ?
The answer is definitely joy . If you desire joy , and have experienced joy , why would you need a yogi to guide you to it?
Whenever i ask that question, people reply, “Yes, but ...“. A litany of reasons follows: “... my mother-in-law my boss (whatever) ...“. It is to kick that `but' that you need a yogi! Today there is substantial medical evidence to show that your body and brain work at their best when you are brain work at their best when you joyful. When you spend a full day without a single moment of irritation, agitation, anger or anxiety , your ability to use your intelligence actually goes up by a hundred per cent.But the problem is that most of the time human beings are suffering the circus of their own mind. When i first went to the United States, i found everyone talking about `stress management'. It baffled me. I always thought we managed things that are precious to us ­ our family, business, wealth, health. Why would anyone want to manage stress? It took me time to grasp that people have assumed that stress is an inevitable part of their lives! Stress is not a part of your life. It is your inability to manage your thought and emotion that causes stress. It is said that the DNA difference between a chimpanzee and a human being is just nzee and a human being is just 1.23%. Physiologically , that is how close we are to our simian cousins! But in terms of our intelligence and awareness, we are worlds apart. And this, ironically , is the problem. You have an intelligence for which you do not have a stable enough base. So, being joyful becomes a challenge because you do not know how to handle your own cerebral capacity . You are suffering what happened 10 years ago or what may happen the day after, which means you are suffering the phenomenal capability of your memory and imagination. In other words, you are suffering that which does not exist! Human beings are a mess because they have not taken charge of their own faculties. If your body and mind were to take instructions from you, how would you keep yourself ? Joyful ­ no doubt about that. Your mind is the most sophisticated gadget on the planet, but you haven't read the user's manual! We have engineered the world in a million different ways. That makes us the most comfortable generation on this planet. But are we the most joyful generation? Definitely not.
Make the shift. Joy and peace are attained not by attending to external realities, but in accessing and organising the inner nature of your being. That is when you realise that joy , compassion and peace are not esoteric principles or moral values. This is the way a human being is made. Now you are no longer in pursuit of joy; instead your life becomes an effortless expression of your joy .

Multiple ways to equality

The debate on polygamy and gender justice is more complicated than it is made out to be

Where polygamy lacked legal sanction, it frequently existed in the more or less illegal form of concubinage,” said eminent American sociologists J.H. Locke and J.A. Peterson. This author believes in monogamy and is not in agreement with the affidavit filed by the Personal Law Board which is atrocious and appalling on several counts. The central issue is if criminalisation of bigamous marriages is the most effective way to gender justice . There is no magic about monogamy, nor is everything evil about restricted polygamy if it is allowed to all communities. Polygamy is a problem of male-dominated culture and has little to do with the religion of bigamous men. What are the dangers of outlawing polygamy particularly when the law recognises live-in relationships? What is the Indian and western experience in this respect? Is restricted polygamy for all communities with adequate safeguards for women a better option? These are some questions the Law Commission should include in its questionnaire.

Hindu bigamous husbands go scot-free as the judiciary can do little unless an aggrieved wife lodges a complaint. It is an offence against her, not against society. The Law Commission’s 227th report of 2009 lamented the existing bigamy law under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 when it concluded that “it is indeed full of serious shortcoming and loopholes”.

In spite of polygamy being illegal for Hindus except in Goa, official reports brought out in 1974, after almost two decades of prohibition of bigamy, revealed that polygamy is higher among Hindus than Muslims (Adivasis 15 per cent, Hindus 5.8 per cent, Jains 6.7 per cent, Buddhists 7.9 per cent and Muslims 5.6 per cent). No authentic figures are available for the subsequent decades. According to the 1971 census, there were 45.3 crore Hindus and six crore Muslims; as many as one crore Hindu men had more than one wife as opposed to just 12 lakh Muslim men. According to the Third National Family Health Survey of 2006 as many as two per cent women reported that their husbands have more than one wife. Banning polygamy thus has not worked.

At present when a Hindu man deserts his lawfully wedded wife to live with another woman, the only remedy available to the deserted first wife is divorce on grounds of adultery or desertion. However, most abandoned wives may not view divorce as a viable option because of the sacramental nature of Hindu marriage. In any case, prosecution of the husband does not help the first wife. Hindu men who contract bigamous marriages are allowed to go scot-free without legal obligations towards their partners due to the insistence on the “solemnisation” of marriage. Even their registration of marriage is not accepted as proof. Clandestine bigamy among Hindus is worse than open polygamy among Muslims.

Muslim men who take more than one wife are legally bound to provide each wife not only residence but also proper maintenance and equal care and love as the Quran permits polygamy only in exceptional situations with very stringent conditions. Thus, she is better off in comparison to the “second Hindu wife” who has no legal status or rights.The second Hindu wife cannot even claim maintenance from her husband. The Supreme Court in the D.Velusamy case did deny maintenance to a second Hindu wife by holding her as “mistress” and “keep”. Thus banning polygamy amongst Muslims would simply have an equalising effect of making a second Muslim wife as destitute and vulnerable as a second Hindu wife.

The Modi government has quoted examples of a number of Muslim countries (even though most of these countries do not believe in individual liberty) where polygamy is permitted with the consent of the first wife or prior permission of the court. The government has overlooked the fact that in spite of abolition of polygamy, Turkey and Tunisia have not succeeded in controlling or eradicating polygamy. Normative changes are indeed not enough to bring social reform. Leading experts of Indian family law such as Derrett, Anderson and Menski oppose an outright ban on polygamy and favour restricted polygamy.

Even in the US, there is a call to legally recognise polygamy in some situations as the bigamy law has not led to the eradication of polygamy. The percentage of Americans who find polygamy to be morally acceptable has more than doubled since 2001 and polygamy could be legalised in the US as soon as 2040. Unlike in the western world, we have an adverse sex ratio and therefore monogamy would remain the only choice. The missing daughters is the real crisis.

The Modi government erroneously believes that monogamy is the only way to strive for equality between the sexes. Scholars like Adrienne D. Davis argue that polygamous relationships also have the ability to strive for this ideal. They favour recognition of polygamous relationships based on corporate law, such as limited liability companies or partnerships giving all members or partners of marriages equal bargaining power as opposed to status-based rules. Based on these business models, “regulated polygamy” could be more in tune with the “freedom of contract” and “individual autonomy” doctrines than sacramental monogamy. Equal say is to be given to all members, including wives, in entry or exit of any member with rights and liabilities clearly laid down. Let us think of treating marriage as a private limited company.

The writer is vice chancellor, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

Source: Indian Express, 28-10-2016