Joya Saikia
(The writer can be reached at joyasaikia1990@gmail.com)
The NDA government has taken significant strides in addressing gender disparities and enhancing the quality of life for women in rural areas. Concurrently, it has embraced a somewhat patriarchal stance in certain legislative endeavours.
Consider the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand, specifically its contentious stance on live-in relationships. Equally debatable are the Surrogacy laws, which encroach upon women’s reproductive rights, and the controversial “Love Jihad” law. All these legislations seem to be motivated by a patronizing desire to “safeguard” women, even at the cost of infringing on their privacy and undermining their rights.
The paternalistic belief in providing special protection to women as a collective is rooted in the notion that power inherently belongs to men. Frequently accompanied by idealized portrayals of women as delicate and morally superior beings, this mindset becomes a justification for imposing restrictions on them under the guise of acting in their best interest.
Turning our attention to the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code, while the criminalization of triple talaq via the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act of 2019 aimed to bring about equality for a specific group of women, Part 3 of the Uttarakhand UCC takes a different direction. This section imposes mandatory registration for live-in relationships and grants significant discretionary authority to bureaucrats, potentially fostering corruption. Additionally, it introduces the possibility of unwarranted harassment of women.
When a woman decides to cohabitate with a man, various aspects define their relationship. It could be a matter of sheer convenience, a platonic friendship, a non-committal sexual relationship, or a dedicated monogamous commitment. The last scenario aligns with the definition of a “live-in” relationship, as per the state’s clarification, where partners share a household through a relationship akin to marriage.
Nevertheless, by enforcing the registration of such relationships and imposing penalties for non-compliance, the law subjects every man and woman cohabitating to legal scrutiny. Numerous state officials, often originating from conservative backgrounds, may lack the cultural understanding that a couple sharing a living space might not necessarily be engaged in a committed monogamous relationship, such as a live-in situation.
Furthermore, in Part 3 of the code, the registrar is assigned the responsibility of conducting a “summary inquiry” to verify the accuracy of the information provided by the registering couple. The nature and extent of this inquiry raise questions. What inquiries will be made, and what questions might be posed? Is there a possibility that these questions could be perceived as a form of sexual harassment for the women involved?
This contentious provision is presented with the narrative that the state is safeguarding women. According to this framework, if the relationship dissolves, the woman is eligible for maintenance, and children born during the relationship are considered legitimate. Essentially, it resembles a common-law marriage. While the idea has merit, the insistence on mandatory registration raises concerns, as the state should not autonomously delve into the private lives of its citizens. The choice to register a live-in relationship should be voluntary, not obligatory.
Similarly, the Surrogacy laws aim to shield women from exploitative practices associated with the “rent-a-womb” concept. However, these efforts have led to stringent regulations on both egg donation and surrogate pregnancies, perpetuating discrimination against single women and LGBTQ individuals. The question arises: why should a single, childless adult woman be barred from donating an egg or carrying a baby for an infertile or gay friend? Moreover, why is it prohibited for a single woman over 35, who has never been married, to have a child through surrogacy? Such restrictions warrant scrutiny.
Predictably, numerous petitions from women have inundated the courts, challenging these laws. The fundamental argument is that women possess the right to make reproductive choices free from state intervention. They should have the autonomy to determine the timing, method, and choice of partner when deciding to have a child.
The “Love Jihad” law has garnered significant attention. Its foundation rests on the idea that women need safeguarding from individuals labeled as “predators” who allegedly entice them into marriage with the primary intent of religious conversion. According to this law, such marriages are deemed void, and those found guilty, along with their associates, may face severe penalties.
Predators can target individuals of all ages and cultural backgrounds, regardless of gender. The idea that women are inherently and biologically vulnerable carries echoes of patriarchal thinking. It presents a contradiction: women can serve in defence of the country, yet policymakers seem to overlook their capability to protect themselves.
The responsibility of the state is to create an equitable environment by ensuring the safety of women in public spaces, delivering justice to those in precarious domestic situations, and narrowing the gender gap in areas like health, education, income, and employment. India’s ranking at 127th out of 146 countries in the 2023 Global Gender Gap report underscores the specific areas where government attention is crucial. In a just and unbiased environment, women exhibit the capability to empower and safeguard themselves.
With the aim of achieving this goal, here’s a Valentine’s Day message for the current administration: “Ensure equality, then step aside and let progress take its course.”