2 #. The concept of equality
Now we move on to discuss the various facets of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. As mentioned earlier, this discussion cannot follow the tracks of wordings of the Act, which at best is only a display of empty pedantry.
Before entering into the exact premises of the discussion, there is one more item that needs mention. That is the so-called equality between men and women. It is a theme that is ferociously discussed in many nations. More in nations, where actually there is not much of an ‘equality’ issue. It is like the claims of the Blacks for right to equality with the Whites in English nations, where actually there is not much of a discrimination as that can be conceived of as in nations like India. For in nations like India, such right to equality with any superior class of people, including the rich, government officials, social superiors etc. cannot even be pondered upon, by the lower classes.
In Indian feudal languages, it is a very rare occasion for anyone to be equal to anyone else, just like that. More so, the husband with the wife and the wife with the husband. In most Indian vernaculars, the wife is addressed with a You, that is usually used for the servant, subordinate, snubbed, oppressed and such persons. The same goes with the word She, Her and Hers. Moreover all the restrictions that the language codes impose on a subordinate in his or her communication with a senior are imposed on the wife also. For example, she cannot address or refer to her husband with a mere ‘name’. A suffix of a word of ‘respect’ is compulsory. The same compulsion is there for any subordinate viz-a-viz the superior.
Codes of endearment: Yet, this is also the way of endearment in Indian social communication. The loyalty and attachment of the serf to the lord is encoded in these hierarchical word codes.
Now, here the question cannot be: Why should she show him subordination? Let her call him by his name.’
For the society and social communication is feudal. When she shows her respect in very obvious terms, the others in the society also observes it and lends respect to her husband. It, in many ways, is a sneaky trick she plays on the society to garner respect and thus power to her husband.
The powerful social unit: Now, where does that leave us? Well, the obvious understanding should be that a husband-wife team is one unit, with its own internal aims, ambitions, desires and compulsions. When they are united, they are very powerful. A husband with a supportive or loyal wife is a very powerful entity in the social scene.
Here one needs to go into the feudal language code arena and understand thus: When the wife supports the husband, his power goes up. He feels secure, and quite mentally composed. In the social and business arena, he and his family unit is a very powerful entity. For, it is an issue of leadership. Persons who have studied the issues of leadership know what brings in leadership. It is not knowledge, power, intelligence, quality, calibre, education, stamina, verbal power, cunningness and such things that make a man a leader. All he wants is a supporter, a disciple or a loyal attendant, to become a leader. In Indian feudal language, some kind of leadership is essential for interacting with the society. A person who cannot display any such attributes is a non-entity. {In many ways, this compulsion shall point to the continuous striving for leadership by everyone, by creating some issue, if there is none}. Here, his wife stands powerfully in the position of a loyal ally.
Now, how do we get him to lose his leadership, his mental composure and focus? Well, just successfully indoctrinate the wife with themes of equality, freedom, stature, right to go anywhere at anytime, right to be with anyone, right to listen to persons who her husband doesn’t like, right to work for others etc. Well then, what happens? His wife becomes unsteady in her position. Her husband will feel the wobbling in the codes. Everything that he had as rightful claims also goes wobbly and uncertain. His sense of leadership, mental composure and his focus, all goes haywire. His stature starts fading. Others win.
Tranquillity verses an earthquake: Actually, when talking about female freedom and other various rights, the social environment that spins a web-like environ around a person should also be understood. Each language lends a specific right of articulation, movement, dignity and mood of equality to the persons who live in that language. For example, in a pristine English environment, a subordinate addressing his superior by name or with a Mr. or Mrs. or Miss., prefixed, wouldn’t be seen as an offense. However, in most Indian languages, if a subordinate is to do the same, it would literally create an earthquake.
Similarly if the subordinate doesn’t get up or remains seated, when the superior enters the room, it is not a thing that may even be noted in an English environment. However, in most scenarios in a vernacular social setting, this would be treated as an action of stark impertinence, which would call for the most severe punishment.
Error in making value judgements: In a similar manner, one cannot make value judgements about Indian social behaviour and compulsions, without understanding the verbal codes that brings in the obligation.
I have seen Indian NGO Websites making such declarations, or its equivalent: Are you insecure with your husband? The inner impulse being that if you are insecure with your husband, come over to us. Naturally another person’s wife being in their possession is a grand achievement. For, it literally lends power to their posture of leadership.
The issue here is that the very viewing of another person’s wife as being claimable by others is a very negative thing. Yet, there is the other reality, that many women are not happy in their present stature in the family. However, that is the reality with a lot many other individuals in India. Do you think that the workers and other subordinates in India, who work under many other Indians, are happy? Well, the truth is that they are not. For, due to the very feudal, undignified, suppressing, snubbing and taunting character of the feudal vernaculars, it is a very tragic thing to be under Indians. That is the fact for most people here. A very visible example of this is a visit to the local police station by an Indian citizen. He gets worsted by such mean and demeaning words from the police officials. Not necessarily because he has done any misdemeanour, but just because it is the way the communication codes work.
The demeaning of the wife: To a limited extent, the same demeaning can come upon a good percentage of Indian wives, for they are literally attached to Indian men. But that is the current state of India. The governing class is not much bothered about improving the standards of these people and their culture. They know that English can bring in quality, but then it would set in real upheavals in the social leadership. So, they want the people to remain in their hellish state, from where they would show more obedience, loyalty and attachment.
Winning over a woman: As regards most Indian wives, it is a truth that they can be given better lifestyles by the rich folk around. Better living environments, better dressing standards, better cooking ware, better food, better transportation, better words and even better respect. But that is what the game of seduction all about. It need not be men trying to secure others’ wives for their sensual enjoyment, but simply others for securing loyal subordinates. Or it may simply be aimed at destroying a competent competitor.
A seeming slavery: Now how do I approach the subject? Well, the issue is quite complicated. There are various facets to an Indian married life, all of them connected to the social communication system. Let me start from one specific arena.
I was once told by a Muslim man that after marriage, a wife cannot go to her father’s house even when he dies, without the permission of her husband. Now, seen from an English perspective, the whole theme boils down to downright slavery of the wife to her husband. But then similar themes are there not only in Islam, but also in Hinduism also. As to the local Christians that I know of, they also literally ‘give up’ their daughter to her husband’s household.
Now, the same custom wouldn’t be there among the Christians of England. Now, what does that prove here? Well, it basically proves that the language does affect the social customs.
The sacred partnership and the forced entry: Before discussing the issue that I have raised here, there is something that needs to be said. Even though a marriage is essentially a partnership between two people, here in India, a lot of other people more or less forcefully enter into this sacred premise, without any concrete locus standi. The various uncles, aunts, cousins, sisters, brothers, various in-laws, parents, on both sides get connected to each other. Each one of them start getting various suffixes of ‘respect’ or else move to certain levels of subordination to others in the various links.
Even though, it may seem that these things are silly and of no value, the fact is that these strings, suffixes of ‘respect’, subordination, positioning etc. are quite powerful. All familial communication and even social evaluation depend on the positions that are thus displayed. Due to this entry of others and the various positions that they come to occupy, Indian marriages become a quite complicated event. Yet, the essential fact that the marriage is actually a partnership only between the two persons should not be forgotten in the melee. All laws, conventions and statutes should focus on this sacred fact. However, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act does seem to forget this theme in its hurry to patch up a lot of problems without proper understanding.
The shift in the string: Now, let us take up the wife’s parents. This is the way to see this relationship: As per the Indian languages, children are more or less props of leadership for the parents. The parents use the lowest words of You, He, She, His, Her, Hers etc. for the children. These are the same words used for servants and other subordinates.
Just as the serving class serve as prop for displaying leadership, the children also do the same thing, involuntarily. The way, the parents communicate to the children are to a great extent the same way that they act towards their servants. Both in a sort of Indian-slave-master manner. ‘Bring a glass of water. Go and buy this thing.’ etc. Again the issue cannot be understood in English. For the words such as Please etc. cannot be used to the subordinates in the Indian feudal languages.
When a daughter marries, she naturally is to be with the husband. That is what marriage is all about. Yet, it is a day of great loss for the parents. For, from being a lower You, She, Her and Hers to themselves, she is moving to the subordination of another person, at the same levels of You, She etc. She is now in a new string of hierarchy. Wherein, her husband is immediately above her. His parents, uncles, aunts, elder brothers, elder sisters, their spouses, senior cousins, and even senior in age neighbours also end up above her in the new hierarchy.
Here the marriage does not have any semblance to what a marriage is in an English social ambience. In an English social ambience, marriage between two persons remains a marriage between two persons only. They remain outside the strings of command and regimentation of both the families, for there are no such strings in existence. If at all, such things are there, they cannot come as powerfully as in a feudal language context.
Now, in this scenario in the Indian context, it is not correct to find fault with anyone, if at all the reader feels likes doing it. For, the individuals are helpless, to the extent that they can come out of the strings only by being extremely courageous and ready for belligerence; with an intelligent understanding of what is what. The various other persons like the parents, uncles etc. also act more or less in a conditioned manner, for that is how the local communication functions.
Now, in this very small scenario involving the wife and husband itself, there are a lot to be discussed. For instance, the wife will not be able to forego the years of servitude that she had to her own parents, elder brothers, elder sisters, elder cousins, uncles, aunts and many others. Also, there will be deep attachments towards those under her, for their respect is a very powerful alluring thing. In feudal language scenario, the presence of persons who lend ‘respect’ is a very powerful social help, and they are valued. It creates non-tangible strings of commitment towards the subordinates. All these emotions are totally not there in an English environment. Or at least, the emotions are quite different in their power of impact.
Subordination and the perching: After marriage, if the husband is willing to take up subordination to the various superiors of his wife in her family strings, there will not be much of a problem. However, in modern times, it may not be much possible. For, in most joint family strings, there would be senior persons of varying levels of cultural inputs, intellectual bearing, professional levels, varying social levels of vocation, and financial acumen. They would try to claw on to the new comer and perch their power on to him. If he accepts the perching, then there is no problem. For, he can also place his claws on to so many others in the wife’s family tree. However, similar to the so-called racial repulsion to unacceptable entities, India is full of repulsions. For, these perching all come in the form of usage of lower words for You, He, She etc.
Many persons will not feel comfortable with the gnawing attachments that come in. Moreover, in many cases, the husbands also would love the freedom of a nuclear family, or may like to bring his wife under his own family strings.
It is not an easy situation. First of all, the wife’s parents would try to retain their strings on their daughter. On an initial impression, there may not seem to be any problem with this. However, the issue needs to be understood in this manner: Her husband is also a lower He, His etc. to her parents. When thus placed, their way of reviewing him would be as a subordinate. It is a different evaluation, quite removed from a higher level wording evaluation.
The contest: When he tells his wife to do something or to take up a particular stand on any issue, her parents might try to test the power of their own string on her, as against the string of command placed on her by a ‘subordinate’ guy, her husband. They might tell her to do something that is quite the opposite. Well, it is the beginning of the tussle between her parents and her husband. Now, the husband is quite at a disadvantage. For, he has to continuously use the higher words of ‘respect’ for her parents. Yet, they are at the liberty of using the lower ‘disrespectful’ words for him.
There are a huge number of cases wherein the wife sees her husband as lower to her parents. When such a situation arises, every time the wife goes to her parents’ house, this mental indoctrination gets more and more emphasised and empowered. Here, it may be seen that husband is slowly reaching a level of a nonentity. This is more so, when the husband is having lesser financial acumen. For, the same comparative evaluation would be done by the society also, which also would have the affect of a daily mental impact on the husband.
The hierarchy in the family: Now, in the Indian feudal languages, the husband is given the rank of leader. For he can use the lower words of You, She, Her, Hers etc. to and about his wife. The wife is the subordinate. She has to consistently use the higher words of You, He, His etc. about her husband. Now, that is the way it is in the language. It is language that designs relationship.
Now, it is like the military or any other hierarchical set up. Yet, the wife’s parents can do the undoing of this set up. Merely by making the wife come back to her house, whenever they want her. That house is another command centre. This command centre would want the breakdown of the other command centre, if it is does not come under its own subordination. Here, the husband would be forced to order his wife not to go to her parents’ house without his consent. Going with his consent, in the language codes, makes the going a part of his own command string. Going without his consent makes the going a truculent action. It more or less breaks down the household, and makes the wife’s parents’ house a competing headquarters.
It is in this context that the Islamic tenet that says that the wife can go to her parents’ house even on the occasion of her father’s death only with her husband’s permission. For, it is striving to protect the unit called the ‘family’ from the diabolical inroads that other outsiders can make, based on their own version of rights. Yet, this must also be said. This tenet is there to correct the other imbalance that feudal language codes bring in. That of moving the headquarters of the family to the wife’s parents’ household. However, this tenet should not be taken up as such in an English ambience. For, the relationships are different.
In an English marriage, it is an action in which two persons of equal levels enter into a life partnership. The headquarters of the household is within that household, and not in the household of the husband or of the wife. Yet, in all matters a joint decision can be helpful. Not one imposed on one by the other. For, the family leadership is in a space somewhere between the husband and the wife. Not in the husband’s parents’ house or in the wife’s parents’ house.
Now how do we proceed from here?
