Monday, November 1, 2021

 

How the Malimath Committee Denied Women Their Rights?








Section 498A IPC was inserted in the Indian Penal Code in 1983 and provides to protect women from cruelty in their matrimonial homes. The Malimath Committee Report (2003), twenty years after the enactment of Section 498A, noted,

“In a less tolerant, impulsive woman may lodge an FIR even on a trivial act. The result is that the husband and his family may be immediately arrested and there may be a suspension or loss of job. The offence alleged being non-bailable, innocent persons languish in custody. There may be a claim for maintenance adding fuel to the fire if the husband cannot pay. She may change her mind and get into the mood to forget and forgive. The husband may realize the mistakes committed and come forward to turn a new leaf for a loving and cordial relationship. The woman may like to seek reconciliation. But this may not be possible due to the legal obstacles. Even if she wishes to make amends by withdrawing the complaint, she cannot do so as the offence is non-compoundable. The doors for returning to family life stand closed. She is thus left at the mercy of her natal family…This section, therefore, helps neither the wife nor the husband. The offence is non-bailable and non-compoundable making an innocent person undergo stigmatization and hardship. Heartless provisions that make the offence non-bailable and non-compoundable operate against reconciliations. It is, therefore, necessary to make this offence (a) bailable and (b) compoundable to give a chance to the spouses to come together” (p. 191).

 

The Committee, while making such observations, expressed its apprehensions about the ability of the criminal justice system to provide justice. However, the committee has failed to recognize that

First, cruelty under 498A is listed as a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable crime and has to be dealt with accordingly. The criminal justice system, while dealing with each case, is expected to take abundant precautions in ascertaining the guilt of the accused person; therefore, to suggest that this offence be diluted implies distrusting the judiciary and labelling the trial courts as inefficient to effectively adjudicate the culpability of the parties.

Second, the context of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim does not make domestic violence a lesser crime. Rather, the severity of the crime is adverse in situations where the batterer is in the position to exert financial, emotional, and social control over the victim because of the relationship, and the victim is financially dependent on the perpetrator.

Third, salvaging a violent marriage is not a viable option when a man is abusive, as he destroys the family through his violent actions. Families cannot be built on the edifice of bruised and battered bodies or scarred minds.

Fourth, the bitterness in a relationship already starts once a wife is being abused; therefore, suggestions should have focused on altering the men’s violent behaviour.

Fifth, the policemen are not overzealous in arresting the accused. Rather, studies have shown that women undergo hassles in filing the FIR. Also, at every step of the trial, mediation is enforced vehemently to compel women to reconcile.

Sixth, making the offence compoundable will not serve the purpose, as neither will it deter the perpetrator nor will it help to salvage the relationship. Experiences show that violence escalates in situations when women are pushed back into abusive situations without the guarantee of safety.

Last, the committee has failed to raise concerns relating to provisions of shelter homes, medical, or legal aid, or other facilities for the battered women, as its only apprehension was to save the family. This indicates its biased approach.

Despite its pitfalls, this erroneous approach sets precedents, is being repeated multiple times, and has major implications for diluting the procedures and provisions relating to criminal law. Over the years, the state has followed the recommendations blindly without testing the validity of claims or referring to the existing research to suggest changes. 

For more details, please see my book

Domestic Violence Law in India: Myth and Misogyny (2021), Routledge

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 17, 2021

 How the courts failed gender justice 




The Basic Premise Behind Domestic Violence Remains Unchallenged

Domestic Violence in India is premised on several notions such as 

1) The marital relationship is hierarchical and inegalitarian. Women are accorded a low status within a marriage and the family whereas a man is considered a master of the household 

2) The husband and his family have the authority to beat the wife besides demanding dowry. Chastisement is a prerogative granted to a husband who can commit violence against a wife in the guise of love and discipline. 

3) A violent husband is not made accountable even if he brutally murders the woman. The law grants immunity to violent husbands even if the husband is a drunkard, vile, or criminal.  

4) The family is a private realm and no one and not even the law should interfere with the privacy of such an institution. Domestic harmony is prioritized over violence against women. 

5) The doctrine of marital unity as propounded by Blackstone persists which prevents law framers and implementers to see complainant wives as separate persons or a citizen demanding protection under the law. 

6) Courts are expected to uphold constitutional values instead they are enforcing the family ideology 

7) The law has been used symbolically and superficially to address violence issues but no steps have been taken to address the root cause, for instance, the dowry law has failed to eliminate dowry or address dowry-related violence 

8) The legal discourse focused on blaming the victim, stigmatizing her, and penalizing women for not `adjusting’ within families  

9) Due to the backlash, the focus is shifting away from reality from `bad men’ who are battering or burning their wives to `bad or terrible women’ who are misusing the law. 

Most of these premises are never questioned even in a court of law. The law does not utilize the principles of rationality while adjudicating the claims of battered or murdered wives. It legitimizes and reiterates social inequalities within the institution of marriage.

 A few attempts have been made to change the approach and the attitude of law implementers to see women as partners and citizens with equal rights. Legal reforms could not make a dent in the construction of women’s `natural’ position within the existing power structure that creates the everyday reality of their life within and outside the family. Additionally, the justice system is a part and parcel of a larger patriarchal society where the system is corrupt and inefficient. Courts used both the logic relating to chastisement prerogative and marital privacy while prosecuting men in cases of wife beating. Language of hierarchy, love, and discipline is used to protect violent men and the tropes of both hierarchy and interiority are used to cover bias in the hierarchical marriage arrangements. The regime of immunity is utilized to justify brutal violence while utilizing the dimensions of feelings and domestic space.  

 

The Justice System Has Failed to Meet the Changing Needs of the Society

Analysis of spates of judgments shows that women are being tortured, brutalized, burned alive, murdered, or forced to commit suicide yet, tragically, the current judicial discourse focuses on misuse or abuse of law by women. The cases relating to dowry deaths, murders of wives, the suicide of women in marriage, and domestic violence, found little space either in the media. No sensitivity is being displayed when a wife dies rather such cases are being normalized and trivialized and what is prioritized is fake concerns raised by fragile masculinity, probably because women’s concerns are no longer deemed relevant by the patriarchal society. Dowry deaths have been highlighted during the decade of the 80s and the laws have been reformed then, however, no monitoring or follow-up has been done to ensure that the system of dowry coercion is eliminated. Similarly, domestic violence cases are being reported in increasing numbers, yet no accountability has been fixed to ensure that actions could be taken to monitor the situation. The system has not devised ways to monitor the situation if the police are following the procedures or conducting the investigation seriously.  The criminal justice system has failed to respond to the changing situation. Similarly, civil law ignores the realities of women’s lives. Perhaps, the state is not willing to accept the agency of women challenging and defying patriarchal norms. Yet, with the existence of a strong constitutional paradigm besides advancement in terms of education, awareness, and enhanced aspirations, women are challenging the conventional stereotype and are defying age-old norms. However, once women enter the courtrooms, they face similar patriarchal restrictions which they have been dealing with outside the court spaces. The courts and investigative agencies dominated by men have failed to transform at the same pace and this lag in expectations of women and working of state is creating complications. The need, therefore, is to renovate the mindset and attitude of the state toward women’s concerns.

Excerpt from my book Women and Domestic Violence Law in India: A Quest for Justice (2019) Routledge


 

Labels: , ,

Saturday, August 8, 2020

 Marriage is tragically not construed as companionship by the Indian state and society



“A wife should be an administrator in purpose, a slave in duty, Lakshmi in appearance, Earth in patience, Mother in love, Prostitute in bed”, wrote the Kerala judge while quoting a Sanskrit shloka to interpret the duties of a woman in a matrimonial relationship. (2018)

Thus, as per the court, a wife should be capable of adopting multiple roles. She must be perfect in work and appearance, should be caring and loving, and yet must work as a slave. The role of a wife is painted with high expectations, whereas no such roles are prescribed for husbands by the court. As per this notion, a woman can attain salvation only if she obeys her husband because, for her, her husband is a lord and a master beyond which she cannot have a separate existence. The traditional conservative notions about the ‘good woman’ who is obedient, compliant, docile, and does not question the norms are still prevalent within and outside the courtrooms and prevent many women from seeking justice using the legal system.  In fact, the conventional stereotype of an ‘ideal uncomplaining wife’ is reinforced by the judicial system that reiterates that a devoted and loyal wife will suffer torture silently. The paternalistic attitude that operates within and outside the courtrooms hinders many women from negotiating for their rights or obtaining justice. In fact, marriage is construed as a sacred relationship and not a tie that is based on companionship. As per this approach, it is dharma or the duty of the wife to look after her family subserviently without question. Marriage is considered to be a pious ‘ Dharmic ’ institution that is ‘made in heaven but broken on earth’. Much emphasis is laid on the performance of ceremonies such as the Saptapadi as per the rituals to accentuate the sacramental nature of the relationship that involves a union of souls that extends not only to one but to seven lives. 

Since the colonial era, the courts have been relying on ancient Hindu texts as coded in Vedas and Smritis. Many of these texts have been interpreted as putting the wife on a lower level, considering a woman to be a dasi or a slave. The intersection of caste and gender hierarchies is reproduced to arrive at the interpretation of ancient religious literature while construing rights and wrongs within marriage, rather than the constitutional values or legal norms. For instance, the Bombay High Court adduced that as per Shastras , in an anuloma marriage, marriage between a man from a higher caste to a lower-caste woman is valid, and children born out of such a tie are legitimate. However, the children born out of a relationship between Shudra men and a Brahmin mistress or a pratiloma marriage, which is declared invalid under the Hindu law, are not dasiputra and therefore cannot claim inheritance in their father’s property. While using the Brahmanical texts, gender and caste parameters are utilized to deprive a Brahmin woman and her children of their rights and penalize her for marrying a lower-caste man. This trend of interpreting rights in marriage narrowly continued in independent India. Contrary to the constitutional values of equality, justice, and liberty, such orthodox ideas and stereotypes are being embedded in personal laws morally, religiously, and socially and are evident in the spate of rulings and verdicts pronounced by the courts. 


Excerpt from my Book Women and Domestic Violence Law in India: A Quest for Justice, (2019) Routledge


Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

 

Family courts uphold family ideologies, not gender justice






During the 1980s, the demands were made by the women's movement to establish family courts, and the Family Court Act was enacted in 1984. The law provides for specialized forums to deal with ‘matrimonial conflicts’ and not domestic violence. These are designed to adjudicate matters such as divorce, custody suits, maintenance, restitution of conjugal rights, and connected issues. The goal is to make the courts accessible and less intimidating for women through dispensing with lawyers, legalistic jargon, strict rules of procedure, and standards of evidence.

These courts depicted mediation as an alternative to the patriarchy-inspired adversary system. This is preferred by many because of its reputation for providing a better hearing. Yet this system could not aid in reducing violence or enabling justice for women. Studies have shown that the family courts are not free from difficulties like backlogs, the exploitative commercial approach of lawyers, long, drawn-out battles, multiple court proceedings, and the insensitive approach of officials.

Family courts were created to avoid cumbersome litigation and replace it with samjhauta, or ‘brokering compromises’, to achieve efficiency and to shed the burden of the law. These courts mandatorily offer coercive persuasions to forcefully push women back to the violent families, to ‘adjust’, to ‘compromise’ to ‘preserve marriage’, even if it endangers their life and limb. An idea that is constantly being pushed is that the family is equipped to protect women while underplaying violence in it. Perhaps it is easier and more economical to compel women rather than question a man’s violent behavior. What is erroneously strengthened is the belief that women prefer to stay within abusive households, and therefore, through ‘forced compromises’, they are compelled to accept the violent situation without any guarantee of their safety or security. No options are offered outside the domain of the ‘sacrosanct’ family. The rhetoric of ‘counselling’, ‘mediation’ or ‘settlement’ reiterates the regressive family ideology rather than protecting women from violence or providing psycho-social support to victims. The focus on settling ‘family disputes’ could not deal with the serious violence women face. Family courts negate women’s experience of violence rather than providing justice. Theoretically, an adversary system is replaced to resolve matters expeditiously and harmoniously, but in reality, the criminal justice system is twisted to adjust to the tenor of the patriarchy.

The alternative dispute resolution system diluted the seriousness of domestic violence in various ways. The language itself deliberately lessens the gravity of an offense committed within the chardiwari of the household. The term ‘dispute’ entails that two parties are equal, as compared to the term ‘violence’ which implies an abuse of power. The concept of parity among parties on unequal footing is introduced silently by the slyness of the patriarchal forces. No attempts have been made to question the inequality in the relationship. This misconceived approach overlooks the fact that conciliation as a technique poses grave problems, as it overlooks the concept of power within the relation. It expands the state’s control over individual behavior within families, and more specifically, it is at times being used to cement the norms of a ‘good wife’, ‘good mother’, or a ‘bad woman’. Further, denial of anger and the command to forget the past and live in the present generate dissatisfaction and give rise to a feeling of injustice. The law has reinforced patriarchal oppression while discriminating against women.

Mediation avoids questions relating to power, property, and violence within a relationship. The use of coercion in a situation where two parties are not on par creates problems rather than resolving issues. This process of ‘coercive harmony’, as explained by Laura Nader, destroys rights by limiting discussion of the past. It prohibits anger, curtails freedom, eliminates choices, and removes protection of the law. It ignores a ‘victim’ status and compels a woman to compromise her health, life, or limb. Mediation within marriage does not address the structure of power located within the relationship and ignores the fact that parties in conflict in no way operate within the universe of ‘balanced bargaining equity’. It does not satisfy the survivor’s need for justice. Rather, it normalizes and trivializes the violence in everyday lives and compels survivors to curtail their emotions and hide the resentments that arise when they face abuse. During the process of mediation, a woman is vulnerable to threats and harassment and is under extreme stress and pressure, yet the reconciliation procedure does not consider these facts. Mediation overlooks legal entitlements and ends up denying justice to women who have less bargaining power and cannot negotiate.

Another choice offered is ‘settlement’, where a victim is left with no other alternative but to fend for herself and her children instead of a meager amount of money, if any, offered by the violent husband, or she may stay at her maika or remarry. Therefore, these so-called ‘women-friendly’ adjudication spaces failed to address the concerns of the victims of violence. In other words, these courts are ‘family-centric’ rather than ‘victim- or survivor-centric’.

This approach rejects the notion of making survivors economically self-sufficient or offering options to lend socio-economic support to victims. The patriarchal imagination failed to provide distributive justice or material relief and support to the abused wives through a single-window mechanism, despite the knowledge that a comprehensive rehabilitative package is essential to remedy the situation of violence. The bold notion of challenging male dominance while improving the status of women or providing innovative solutions aiding survivors has not been imagined as an alternative by the state or society.

For more details, see my book Women and Domestic Violence Law in India: A Quest for Justice, 2019, Routledge

p 59-60

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, June 23, 2017

At Gandhi Peace Foundation

 Memories 

June 2017 at Gandhi Peace Foundation, Delhi 

with PUCL Interns 


Human Rights are not abstract concepts. For the subjugated, the language of rights is essential for articulating everyday oppression, including the denial of basic entitlements such as education, health care, housing, employment opportunities, erosion of livelihoods, land alienation, displacement, and all forms of violence.
Against this complex hierarchy of unspeakable suffering, the rights discourse holds the state accountable and compels it to recognize the rights of the marginalized for meaningful survival.

Labels: , ,

Friday, May 12, 2017

MN Roy Memorial Lecture 2017 on Free Speech, Nationalism and Sedition


 


12 May 2017 

Speaker: Hon'ble Justice Ajit Prakash Shah
Chair: Hon'ble Justice Jasti Chelameswar 

"There is a spiritual affinity between international Fascism and parochial and revivalist nationalism. That spiritual affinity persuades the average Indian nationalist to believe that the victory of Fascism will not in any way be prejudicial for India’s aspiration to freedom."
MN Roy, 1941
https://www.academia.edu/125515563/MN_Roy_Speech_on_Freedom_and_Fascism_with_background_note

"A nationalism with a revivalist programme cannot naturally appreciate the value of human progress made in the epoch of modern civilization. As a matter of fact, to derive the achievements of modern civilization has been the characteristic feature of orthodox Indian nationalism."
MN Roy, 1941
https://www.academia.edu/125515563/MN_Roy_Speech_on_Freedom_and_Fascism_with_background_note

The text of the speech is available here http://sacw.net/article13222.html 

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

The Founding Mothers: 15 Women Architects of Indian Constitution

 The Book Release event that took place on March 8, 2016

Justice Kurien Joseph 

Professor Mridula Mukherjee

Professor Bulbul Sharma

Pamela Philipose 

Dr MP Raju

Shabnam Hashmi

Sr Mary Scaria

Shalu Nigam 







Labels: ,

Thursday, January 7, 2016

The Founding Mothers: 15 Women Architects of the Indian Constitution

 THE FOUNDING MOTHERS: 15 Women Architects of the Indian Constitution

2016


A Book 

by Sr Mary Scaria and Shalu Nigam 

Media House Delhi 






When the mainstream discourse has forgotten the women who played a significant role in the making of the Indian Constitution, this book was the first of its kind to put together brief profiles of those 15 women who drafted the Constitution. These women include 


Ammu Swaminathan

Annie Mascarene.

Begum Aizaz Rasul

Dakshayani Velayudhan

Durgabai Deshmukh.

Hansa Mehta

Kamala Chaudhri

Leela Roy

Malati Devi Choudhury

Purnima Banerjee

Rajkumari Amrit Kaur

Renuka Ray

Sarojini Naidu

Sucheta Kripalani.

Vijayalakshmi Pandit.


These women played a significant role in the freedom struggle. Many have dedicated their lives despite facing misogyny. Though one of the critiques being raised is that many of them are from the elite classes, they played a pivotal role in crafting women's rights as equal citizens. When a section of the orthodox nationalists sees women as mothers, wives, and daughters, it is the progressive discourse that demands women's equal rights.  


Labels: , , ,

Monday, July 7, 2014

What’s in Thy Name?

 What’s in Thy Name?

 

Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet’s passionate adventure noted, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/ By any other name would smell as sweet.” In another play, Hamlet, the protagonist denounces his mother's swift remarriage with the statement, "Frailty, thy name is a woman." As a feminist, centuries later, I see that this phrase has various connotations in different situations, calling vanity, thy name is woman.

To answer this famous question by Shakespeare, `What’s in thy name?’  I would say a lot. The name holds everything from one’s identity to one’s existence as a human being. A person’s name denotes one’s identity, one’s uniqueness, and one’s specific individuality. It is an assertion of one’s self as a unique individual, a person in her own being. The `name’ gives recognition to a person as an exceptional human being through which she asserts her identity and existence. 

Sigmund Freud in his famous work Totem and Taboo noted, “A human being’s name is a principal component of his person, perhaps a piece of his soul”. Names play an instrumental role in determining the background, ethnicity, and gender. They reflect and shape social values. Name penetrates the core of our being. Anthropologists determine names as a `cultural universal’. No society ever exists without names.

 A name provides a label to a `self’ it is a way to relate to human existence rather than simply being alive.  It is a symbol of self-awareness and the existence of one’s being, which may be differentiated from a simply living object.  In the context of language, it is a symbol of self-identification. Name is a part of day-to-day human existence. To greet someone or to meet anyone, the first thing a person pronounces is his or her name. From an unofficial description of self to each and every requirement on an official document, a name plays a significant role. A person’s self-awareness and identity as a human exist in her name. A name may represent a real person and define what she may be. Behind a title or a label, there is a real person.

A name does act as a kind of label of a brand of a person. Even in the academic world, a person’s credibility is determined by the number of papers being published in a reputed journal or several books she has written.  A name, therefore, connects a person to his or her accomplishments, network, fame, and credibility and plays a significant role in determining his or her status in today’s fast-changing occupational world.

Can a different criterion be used to identify someone besides the name?

The answer may be yes or no. Yes, because in a situation like a prison, a prisoner may be recognized as by his number or in a hospital set up a person is recognized as a bed number or in a government document a person can be recognized through a file number, no, as that does not determine his or her uniqueness as a human. S/he may hold an identity in these set up but that is not a personal identity of a person as a human being as an individual with distinct personal qualities or a discreet social background.

With the introduction of the ration card, voter card, etc, different parameters are being used to identify a person. Because of these technical interventions and the digitization of identity, people have been facing numerous problems.

A name, therefore, helps an individual to relate to his or her personal and social background.  A person may not be able to relate to a unique identification number, but may easily relate to her name. A particular name may or may not signify a meaning, yet it helps the bearer to identify with herself. The culture, the language, and the societal norms come together in the process of relating a human being to its existence.

Name Game

`Name’ is something that a person acquires by his or her birth. Sadly, one cannot play an active role during that process of `naming’ self. A person’s name is given to him by her parents, friends or relatives. However, a person does have a choice during the whole tenure of her life to change this given name because that name belongs to this person and as a feisty owner of her own name, she has a right to change it at any given point of time.

However, during the naming process, in many cultures, individuals are named in a manner that may depict their linkages to their caste, clan, family, father’s name, place etc, which signifies that a person does belong to that specific group. Thus, a person’s name may have different specific components, an individual’s name, his or her surname, and middle name, based on these factors as per cultural prevalence, the study of which is interestingly called `Anthroponomy’. 

In many cultures, it is believed that the names bear a mystical, powerful force on the bearers and may have a metaphysical influence on the bearer, determining her personality, characteristics, temperament etc. Naming a person is, nevertheless, not an easy process in many parts of the world. Besides astrological calculations and cultural connotations there are legal implications in naming a person in different parts of the globe.

In India, generally, a child is named by her parents, kin etc, mostly after consulting an astrologer. Often, different sections of society follow different practices and rituals in naming a child. For example, among Hindus, during the naming ceremony, a priest is called amongst pompous celebrations.

 But in other parts of the world, including Europe, the USA, China, and Japan, parents need to follow certain rules while naming a child. In most of these countries, parents need to register the name of the child at the local government office which may disapprove the name in case it is deemed to be offensive. However, as per the laws in many of these countries, an age limit is prescribed for a person where she can register to change her name.

In Germany, one has to register the name of the child to the officer of vital statistics of the particular area, who may approve the name on the basis of the gender of the child and ensures that the child is not named after a product, object etc. Denmark has a strict personal naming law in place. As per this law, parents cannot choose any odd or fancy names for their children. The law states that the name should indicate the gender of the child and that a last name cannot be used as a first name. Similarly, in Norway, offensive last names are not allowed.

Iceland formed an `Icelandic Naming Committee’ in 1991, which approves the names based on the fact that it should fit in Icelandic culture, be grammatically correct, and must contain letters in the Icelandic alphabets. A Name register is being maintained, and if parents want a different name, they need to pay fee to seek approval for a new name. The law mandates that the names should be gender specific and should be such that it should not embarrass the child in the future. Even for surnames, there is an interesting tradition which allows the use of the father’s or the mother’s name or the family’s name that is being passed from generation to generation.

In Sweden, a naming law was enacted originally to prevent non-noble families from giving their children noble names. Later, it was changed to include the clause that parents cannot name their children if that particular name is found to be offensive or cause discomfort. Further, as per this law, a person can change their name only once, and this must reflect the original name.

New Zealand’s Birth, Death and Marriage Registration Act, 1995, does not allow offensive names, unreasonably long or resembling an official title or rank. To change one’s name the person has to make a statutory declaration for approval and registration under the law. In Australia, people above 18 years of age may register to change their names once in 12 months. UK laws allow anyone who is 16 to change his/her name. Canada allows marriage certificates as evidence of a change of name after marriage.

In Japan, the law ensures that all names should be easily read and written in Japanese and it may restrict the names deemed inappropriate. The laws in China recommend that a Chinese name should be simple, easily readable, and have easily identifiable characters.   Technical capability rather than appropriateness is the basis for naming in China. Article 99 of the General Principles of Civil Law in China guarantees citizens the right to choose their names. Under Article 22 of the Marriage Law, children can select the surname of any parent.

The laws in the USA regulate the change of name though a person can adopt any name she desires, however, a court order is required to officially accept the changed name by many institutions like banks and government offices. The applicant is required to give an explanation to change his or her name. The law prohibits the use of a name that misleads, is derogatory or offensive, for an unlawful purpose, incites violence, is obscene, is a racial slur, or is a threat.

Therefore, globally, the naming process for identifying a person has acquired a special significance either legally or culturally. Once acquired at birth, the name can be changed by its owner at any given point of time though one has to fulfill certain legal formalities to do so.  Generally, people across the globe change their birth names at adoption or marriage.

Changing Name after Marriage and its Implications

Changing one’s name after marriage, especially that of women is prevalent across many cultures and countries across the globe. In North India, as in many cultures across the world, where patriarchy dominates, traditionally a woman inherits her surname or birth name from her father and changes it to match her husband's surname, which he inherited from his father. Though this is not legally binding, this tradition is strictly followed in many communities. Neither the property law nor any other law demands statutory compliance from women to change their names; however, this practice or custom has been continued for generations.

For many, this practice of naming based on male lineage is seen as reiterating patriarchy. It may be construed as an extension of male domination as a father before marriage and control of her husband after marriage. Female ancestors are recognized in a matrilineal society; however, in a patriarchal setup up a female’s surname is determined by her place of stay or, in a strictly traditional setup, by her control and ownership patterns. The norms of patriarchy have been engrained using strategies and tactics that permeate everyday living including that of giving up one’s identity and one’s individuality.

Marriage as an institution in a patriarchal context not only determines one’s daily existence, but it also forces women to give up their birth identity and take up the identity of their husbands. Further, the continuation of the male lineage is ensured through the process where children born out of such wedlock take on the identity of the father. Personal laws enforce patriarchal norms through sets of customs, rules and regulations that undermine the status of women within the domain of family. They permeate day-to-day existence and life, including a simple naming process.

In the Western hemisphere, a strong movement emerged in the mid-nineteenth century when Lucy Stone, a women's rights activist, initiated a movement against changing birth name for women after marriage. According to her, “A wife should no more take her husband's name than he should hers. My name is my identity and must not be lost”. A Lucy Stone League was created. The practice of women keeping their last names was popularized during the Women’s Rights Movement of the early 70s in the US, and peaked in the 1990s at 23 percent.

In the early 20th century, a "Lucy Stoner" was the common name for those who believed a woman had the right to keep the name she was born with, even after marriage. The Lucy Stoners of the U.S. during that period handled many challenges as they had to fight to get passports issued in their own names, to open bank accounts in their own names, and even to take out copyrights in the same names their works had been copyrighted in before marriage. They won some of these rights but at the cost of being portrayed as fanatics over a trivial issue like a name.

However, by the 2000s, only 18 percent of women were keeping their names, in the Journal of Social Behavior and Personality according to a study published in 2009. The reasons women cite for taking their spouse's surname vary: some like the tradition of it, and others find it romantic. In some cases, it's more important to their husbands, and some feel it will be more convenient once they have children. Some women even argue, counterintuitively, that taking their husband’s name is a feminist choice.

Myriads of options were adopted when it came to the name-change debate after this surge of feminism in the West. One may decide to keep her birth name, take her husband’s name, opt for taking his last name and make’s own maiden name as one’s middle name, take his last name legally but keep one’s own name professionally, or hyphenate the two names. Gradually, with globalization and technology, this trend spread globally, and women all over the world now have the freedom to access any of these options, with the only bottleneck of fulfilling all local legal procedures, rules, and other formalities and technicalities.

My Name My Identity

However, local, cultural, and religious traditions do prevent women from enjoying this freedom to opt for options for keeping their own birth name after marriage. For example, in India, the religious personal laws reiterate the principle of husband’s control over a woman and disallow women to exercise the freedom to opt for their birth name after marriage. The women struggled hard against legal and cultural norms to assert their right to enjoy this liberty.  A few of them challenged the law, resisted the cultural norms, and strived hard to protect their identities. This identity dilemma not only affects their own lives but continues to impact the lives of their children and becomes more prominent in cases where women obtain divorce after marriage.

Whether it relates to the battle of custody of children after divorce or in the simple matter relating to opening of bank account, the protection of one’s identity as a woman became a major issue.  In fact, the Supreme Court of India in the legal case of Gita Hariharan v RBI and Vandana Shiva v Union of India, upheld the principle of gender equality while recognizing the role of women as custodians and guardians of the child equal to that of the father and not `after’ him. A woman as a mother, thus, is granted the right to manage the minor children’s care and property in the absence of the father.  The identity associated with one’s name therefore is of significant value in not only her own life but also of her children and has a major implication in defining and shaping lives. 

For the Namesake

During my own efforts to get insight into this aspect of changing name after marriage in India, I came across different reasons given by friends, kin, neighbors, colleagues, and women whom I interacted with. These women are from different backgrounds; however, some of the reasons given are similar in nature. These delve from day-to-day convenience, age-old tradition, and practice, changing names may ease claims in property rights and inheritance matters, and ease for children to comprehend relationships and family tree, among others. Though many of them have even hyphenated two names, yet, the question of protecting identity has hardly been thought about.

Surprisingly, the reason for a claim in property rights emerged even though the Hindu Succession law was amended in 2005. However, the tradition and custom before this amendment was that once married a daughter cannot claim any inheritance rights in the property that belongs to her father and that all this property generally belongs to and is divided among brothers. Yet, after all these years of struggle by the women’s movement in India to push such amendments to succession law the mindset even among women at the ground level remains the same.

The women who obtain divorce or were into that process, struggle with the dilemma of changing names again. In a few cases, they have to get their name changed in all the legal documents, struggling with bureaucratic procedures to obtain affidavits and legal papers in their own name because they do not wish they continue with the name they acquired after marriage. The reasons for re-changing to birth name include avoiding any severe ties associated with the relationship (if I am not continuing any relationship with him, why should I stick with his name?) to asserting their own self as an independent person.

Why Name is important?

The question arises, why did I choose this topic? In my own life, this issue gained importance because by the time I got married, I was enrolled for my PhD and had started writing and publishing. Changing my name was the last thing I had in my mind amidst the chaos of marriage, completing my studies etc. However, I was forced to change my name after marriage. I was headstrong enough not to accept any of the changes. I believed changing the name would imply not only giving up my identity, something I was born with, but also it may involve hassles in getting all the formalities done at various ends. Soon enough, my marriage ended, and I was satisfied that my obstinacy of not giving up the label I have been putting up since my birth has helped me somehow, despite the commotion raised.  For example, I have been held as a traitor and disloyal by my in-laws for not changing my name after marriage. The matter does not end here.

The lawyer whom I consulted for my divorce case never agreed with my point relating to continuing with my birth name. Neither the senior woman lawyer hired by my ex-husband agreed. This point was raised during the arguments before the judge, but she was kind enough to overlook this issue. Then marriage registration process was not formalized under the law.

Even after the years, I obtained a divorce, the name matter does not stop haunting me. There was an insurance policy that I had taken years ago when my marriage existed. Somehow, it shows my husband’s surname rather than my birth name. When this policy matured, I went to the insurance office to claim my money. The insurance officer refused to do so. Even after explaining to him about my current marital status and showing all the evidences that exist on paper, he insisted on getting an affidavit that I had changed my name after marriage.

Even today, this dilemma still exists before me as many official documents demand the husband’s name or father’s name on any official documents besides the column which asks about your marital status.

After the birth of my daughter, when my ex-husband and in-laws refused to even look at her, I further resolved that my daughter would carry my surname rather than his, and this further initiated another struggle.

It was at the turn of the millennium, when I approached a famous school in South Delhi for the admission of my daughter, that my divorce case was already in process. The school demanded a birth certificate which I instantly provided but it carries the name of my ex-husband as her father. The Principal of the School was kind enough to state that in his school, all children are being treated equally and that my daughter will not face any issues. However, the in-charge of the Preprimary section had different views. She argued that my ex-husband was my child’s father, and I cannot deny the fact. Secondly, the child may face difficulty if she sees that all other kids on their identity cards will carry their father’s name, but her card will carry a blank in the column of father’s name. The feminist in me refused to accept these views and retorted “But my ex-husband or his family has refused to take care of the child. If they have disowned her then why should she carry his tag for her entire life? Why can’t she carry my name?”

Meanwhile, the judgment in the case of Gita Hariharan was already out, and legally it ensures that under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the mother can be treated as a guardian of the child in the `absence’ of the father. The phrase `absence of father’ includes not only physical absence, but the court was liberal enough in interpreting it to the situation where the father refused to accept the responsibility of the child. Regarding the father’s name column in the ID card, I suggested to her that in that particular column, I can go for the guardian’s name instead of the father’s name. She finally agreed to it. This is not the only place where I have to fight to protect the identity of my daughter, but there are other places where I need to argue this fact.

At the passport office, when I left the column of father’s name blank in the passport application form, the officer at the counter initially refused to accept the application. But I was prepared. I showed him the copy of the judgment by the SC along with my divorce decree.  After much of the arguments, he asked me to approach his senior official. Fortunately, the senior official does agree to my request after showing him all the documents including the copy of the SC judgment.

Today, the column of father’s name in the passport of my daughter is blank rather, it contains the column, the mother’s name, where I take pride in finding my name, thus continuing my lineage and my identity as a mother.

Sailing in this world where we have preconceived notions about many things including name change, was never smooth. Someone asked, aren’t you depriving your kid of her connection with her father’s family or property? My response to that was yes, it was my choice and under those given circumstances, what I felt was appropriate was to let my child know by her mother’s name. However, she again has a choice to discontinue if she desires and adopts whatever she likes. Regarding the property issue and connection with the father’s family, when her father and his family have disowned her so why I should keep this hope alive in her that one day they may come back looking for her.

Can one continue to carry a legacy of a name that does not belong to her? Just because one is born in a particular family, should one continue to carry the same name even if s/he is denied the privilege of the legacy? And yes, recently she did exercise her choice of choosing her name while she appeared for her tenth-grade board examination.

I was aware of the law and could fight for rights; however, several women whom I met were not so privileged to know about their rights to continue with their birth name after the breakdown of marriage. Many of them who underwent divorce proceedings never wanted to go through the hassles of changing their marriage names again to their birth names, even though they do not wish to continue with the tag of their ex-husbands.

A few of them decided to change their name; however, they faced difficulty as their children had been enrolled in academic institutions with their father’s surname. These women opined that if they changed their current name to their birth name, it would create chaos and confusion.

However, some of the questions that never left my mind were why someone has to change their name after marriage? If it is a custom, tradition or ritual, why does it exist so, and why can it not be changed? Why a child cannot take a mother’s name? Why does everyone insist that father’s name is important for a child? Should a child be given the liberty to pick up any of the parents’ names? In a patriarchal setup, marriage as an institution do compel women to take up their husband’s name and be identified as Mrs. Him however, with the changing social and cultural milieu, I believe that every woman should be made aware that she can make a choice to remain Ms Self in case she chooses to.

Remaining Ms Self may not hinder any relationship legally or otherwise because that pertains to one’s identity. Thus, my right to choose my name exists with me and nobody else has a right to label me or change my name, whether or not I decide to marry.

A name, therefore, may have significance in one’s lifetime depending on one’s own perspective.  `To be or not to be’ to continue with one’s label and one’s identity is the choice which a person should be entitled to.

“To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles.”

 

Labels: , ,