Last week,
the supreme court of India announced a landmark verdict quashing the 150 years
old adultery law. As expected, it attracted widespread criticism, outpour of
emotions and knee jerk reactions from the facebookers and social media (armchair)
warriors.
The moral
brigade was utterly, absolutely demoralized, and declared that the true Indian marriage
and family system would be dead in a few years.
Netizens,
depending on their current situation, were either afraid that their wives would
start sleeping with anyone except them, or happy that they would (legally) sleep
with someone else’s wife!
There was a
flurry of jokes on social media about a certain celebrity couple, and few padosans. And there were even speculations
that the judges who wrote this verdict did it to legalize their own affairs!
Sadly, the
main point of the truth was, as always, buried under all that noise.
To know that
truth, let’s see what the adultery law was. (This is my understanding of the
law, which is written in my own words. If you want to debate on the
nitty-gritties of this law, find a lawyer and argue with him/her!).
The adultery
law stated that “If a married woman has sex with another man WITHOUT HER
HUSBAND’S CONSENT, her husband could initiate criminal proceedings against the
woman’s partner and send him to prison (up to 5 years!). However, the woman
would be considered innocent and would not face any criminal charges”.
In relating
this archaic law with the sanctity of marriage, we overlooked some important aspects
which the law inherently stated:
1. A married woman is the property of
her husband, since she needs a permission from her husband to sleep with anyone
else.
2. The husband however, does not require
such permission from his wife to sleep around (provided the women he sleeps
with are unmarried, and not someone else’s property!).
3. If a man sleeps with the wife of
another man without his permission, the husband can press criminal charges
against him (akin to pressing criminal charges for using his property without
his consent).
Thus the law
was completely biased and inherently bigoted, and I am sure it must have been
blatantly misused by so many disgruntled husbands against other men, as all such
one-sided laws are often used.
Which brings
us to a far more crucial point.
Should the
government dictate what two consenting adults do behind the closed doors?
I often
observe this growing trend of confusing between legality and morality.
Law is
supposed to uphold what is legal, not what is moral.
What do I
mean by this? Let me explain.
Law is supposed
to be black and white. You steal something, you are guilty. You don’t steal,
you are not guilty. If you kill someone in anger or in cold blood, you are
guilty. If you kill in self-defense, you are not.
There are no
grey shades in a law.
Morals
change person to person. For one person, eating meat is as natural as
breathing, while for someone else, it’s a grave sin.
Same goes
for drinking habits of people, and sex.
When
legality and morality mix in a law, it leads to ambiguity in law.
Ambiguity in
law is a recipe for disaster, since it’s a highly fertile ground for
corruption. It gives the authorities free reign to interpret the law as it
suits them and exploit and blackmail the masses.
And finally,
such corrupt practices destroy a society or government systems. The fallen empire
of communism is the best example of such a corrupt system.
So, let’s
understand the fact that the family system will not be destroyed by presence or
absence of a law which most people did not know existed, and most people do not
still understand. The thought itself is absurd!
Let’s
welcome this decision by the judges who acknowledged the right of the women on
their own bodies and get on with our lives!
