Like numerous other societal problems of India
its marriage institution also suffers on account of unenforceable or unenforced laws. India is well known among all democracies to have the most farword looking laws but they all suffer from the same affliction: inability of the government to make laws which are enforceable.
A proposal ought to be considered which enforces a civil law applicable to marriages of all Indians no matter what color, caste or creed they are from. Existence of special marital laws for hindus or sikhs may continue but a new marital system ought to be developed which not only helps people but ends all kinds of problems such as child marriage, dowry system, polygamous marriages, family violence, child abuse, and control of family size.
Even the recent controversy of Khaps which object to marriage within a village and or within a goter may end.
Any two consenting adults (even of the same sex) may marry but only when they obtain a licence to get married from the marriage bureau. This bureau would have an office in every district and it would issue the licence to those couples who are of marriageable age after obtaining their blood samples. Although the couple would be free to marry (within six months) either from a pandit, a sikh priest, a Christian priest or a maulvi, or civil marriage, but they shall under go counselling in personal sexual relations, family planning, sexual diseases, responsibilities of children etc. for three days arranged at the marriage bureau. The officials of various religions shall be duly licensed and required to issue a marriage report (a copy of it would be sent to the Marriage bureau) to the couple after conducting the marriage ceremony.
Within 30 days after the marriage has been solemnized the married couple would, after providing a statement of the gifts exchanged and costs incurred, obtain the Marriage Certificate from the Marriage bureau.
It would be advisable that Marriage Bureau is in a separate building containing not only a registrar of marriages but suitable premises for a civil marriage and a wedding party as part of it. This office could also include: marriage counselling, marriage tribunal dealing with separation and break ups of marriage, certification of
Births & deaths.
The writer is not a lawyer, or a specialist. He is a concerned citizen reacting to Indiaââ¬â¢s problems and suggesting a new approach.
[quote name='Narindar Sabharwal' date='04 January 2011 - 08:07 AM' timestamp='1294108174' post='110108']
Like numerous other societal problems of India
its marriage institution also suffers on account of unenforceable or unenforced laws. India is well known among all democracies to have the most farword looking laws but they all suffer from the same affliction: inability of the government to make laws which are enforceable.
[/quote]
Thank Vishnu. If the Govt of India could enforce its laws, India would at once become a totalitarian tyranny. The non-enforceability of its laws is actually a blessing.
[quote name='Narindar Sabharwal' date='04 January 2011 - 08:07 AM' timestamp='1294108174' post='110108']
... a new marital system ought to be developed which not only helps people but ends all kinds of problems such as child marriage, dowry system, polygamous marriages, family violence, child abuse, and control of family size.
Even the recent controversy of Khaps which object to marriage within a village and or within a goter may end.
[/quote]
Family violence and child abuse are unequivocally bad, yet your extremely intrusive proposal would do nothing to prevent them. As for the others, I fail to see anything so highly objectionable about them that justifies the breath-taking sweep of your proposal.
[quote name='Narindar Sabharwal' date='04 January 2011 - 08:07 AM' timestamp='1294108174' post='110108']
Any two consenting adults (even of the same sex) may marry but only when they obtain a licence to get married from the marriage bureau.
[/quote]
Oh good! You are on the right side of the fad of the day! Still, I don't understand why they should obtain a license to get married. After all, if the only advantage of your proposal from a social point of view is the counselling in "personal sexual relations, family planning, sexual diseases, responsibilities of children", then how are you going to go about regulating pre-marital sex? After all, the above issues arise in every sexual relationship, not just marriage.
[quote name='Narindar Sabharwal' date='04 January 2011 - 08:07 AM' timestamp='1294108174' post='110108']
This bureau would have an office in every district and it would issue the licence to those couples who are of marriageable age after obtaining their blood samples. Although the couple would be free to marry (within six months) either from a pandit, a sikh priest, a Christian priest or a maulvi, or civil marriage, but they shall under go counselling in personal sexual relations, family planning, sexual diseases, responsibilities of children etc. for three days arranged at the marriage bureau. The officials of various religions shall be duly licensed and required to issue a marriage report (a copy of it would be sent to the Marriage bureau) to the couple after conducting the marriage ceremony.
[/quote]
More intrusive bullshit. Why is all this any of the govt.'s business?
[quote name='Narindar Sabharwal' date='04 January 2011 - 08:07 AM' timestamp='1294108174' post='110108']
Within 30 days after the marriage has been solemnized the married couple would, after providing a statement of the gifts exchanged and costs incurred, obtain the Marriage Certificate from the Marriage bureau.
[/quote]
All this can be falsified by the couple at any time. In fact, I will recommend that they falsify this nonsense, just to subvert your proposal.
[quote name='Narindar Sabharwal' date='04 January 2011 - 08:07 AM' timestamp='1294108174' post='110108']The writer is not a lawyer, or a specialist.[/quote]
Unfortunately, that is not his biggest problem. It is the lack of common sense that is most glaring.
Think carefully, Narinder. Your contempt for the average citizen of this country had led you to a point where you want to place his life and liberty in the hands of a government employee. Why? No matter how reprehensible and uncivilized you find his views, he does have a right to order his affairs as he sees fit. What moral authority does the govt have to interfere in this manner?
01-05-2011, 08:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2011, 08:59 AM by Bharatvarsh2.)
Quote:... a new marital system ought to be developed which not only helps people but ends all kinds of problems such as child marriage, dowry system, polygamous marriages, family violence, child abuse, and control of family size.
Even the recent controversy of Khaps which object to marriage within a village and or within a goter may end.
What exactly is child marriage by your definition because 16 definitely is not a child and in many US states you can get married at 16 with parental consent while India has the ridiculous age 21 for men and 18 for women.
Dowry system, whats your problem if money is exchanged for whatever reason voluntarily between individuals. If anyone is subjected to violence or threats there are laws against that aren't there and if I remember correctly both giving and taking dowry is a "crime" under current law but I remember a few years back the media was all gung ho on some woman in Delhi who reported her fiance regarding dowry and cancelled the marriage but no action was taken against her own family for agreeing to give the dowry in the first place. Now privately you may have your opinion on whether taking money from your in laws during marriage is good or bad but why do you want to impose your views through the law on others?
polygamous marriages are "evil" according to whom, the wasps?
For most of our history no one cared about this issue and it was left up to the people concerned in both cases polygyny (1 man more than 1 wife), polyandry (1 wife more than 1 husband, practiced in tibet and some himachal communities due to land shortage).
If 2 men can get "married" because they are adults then why can't a man with their consent marry more than 1 woman?
And don't give me that bull about all polygynous marriages being forced, you and I both know that's bull and that there are enough women around willing to share their husband if he has enough power/money.
Family violence, again there are laws against violence why is family violence so special. Oh I know its just an excuse for the gov't to help press false DV charges so that lawyers can make money and breakup families.
Child abuse, there are already laws against that genius.
Control of family size again is a private issue, why don't you instead ask the gov't to stop pouring money into shitty socialist schemes that keeps India in poverty instead of blaming some mythical "overpopulation". Did you know for example that South Korea has 491 people per sq km as against India's 362. Yet South Korea is a first world country and no one cries about any mythical "overpopulation" there. You want examples of socialist garbage in India, BSNL is a perfect example, wtf is the gov't doing providing internet connections instead of letting the market do its job like it does in many other countries.
Why not a license to shit and piss then where the gov't babu can lecture you about personal hygiene before you are allowed to?
Fuck marriage licenses, gov't has no business in marriage except for the courts to strictly enforce any prenups, but we know that will never be the case because that way men won't get assraped in family courts if prenups were enforced and lawyers won't be raking in money.
50 years of socialism and control of education by commies, this is what you get.
mind numbing stupidity is the norm in India about issues of religious conflict, social issues and economics.
Ask your average "educated" Indian about why India is so poor, he/she will immediately reply "overpopulation" even though in truth it has nothing to do with the reasons for poverty, no one will ever say socialism/communism which are the true reasons.
For a supposedly more open economy India still has a lot of socialist nonsense like BSNL still going.
To the numbskulls consensual polygyny, voluntary suicide (including sati) are "evil" but gay "marriage" is progress.
[quote name='Bharatvarsh2' date='05 January 2011 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1294213202' post='110140']
50 years of socialism and control of education by commies, this is what you get.
mind numbing stupidity is the norm in India about issues of religious conflict, social issues and economics.
Ask your average "educated" Indian about why India is so poor, he/she will immediately reply "overpopulation" even though in truth it has nothing to do with the reasons for poverty, no one will ever say socialism/communism which are the true reasons.
For a supposedly more open economy India still has a lot of socialist nonsense like BSNL still going.
To the numbskulls consensual polygyny, voluntary suicide (including sati) are "evil" but gay "marriage" is progress.
[/quote]
Tells you something about the power of education, in the long-term. "Consensus-building" towards your agenda suddenly becomes much simpler. As a tool for propaganda, it is simply unparalleled. I am awestruck, by the kind of power such centralized education provides to ideologues.
01-05-2011, 08:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2011, 08:51 PM by Husky.)
Vishwas, your statements in #2 were sensible and correct (and restrained in spite of provocation).
But what was the point? Idiot questions deserve idiot responses. That's the problem with you energy-squandering heathens: you try to reason with everyone.
Bad. Habit.
There is no reasoning with deliberate (self-instilled) stupidity. No correcting people who will refuse to understand your corrections because they have dumbed *themselves* down (or allowed that to happen; same thing). Always respond to people at their level. E.g. if they behave like children, treat them like it. If they behave debile, make sure to debilitate them some more with your response.* They started it.
(* The opposite is true too, of course, but it's more fun to deliberate on avenging willful stupidity.)
Anyway, what is wrong with the tried and tested technique of responding with maniacal laughter to a buffoon's maniacal suggestions (such as in this case)? Personally, was inclined to leave it at my mad muppet laugh of HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It is so much more called for (and the caps lock is quite disorienting, I think, which I throw in as an extra at no charge). And at only 2 letters in repeat, it is of little effort once added to the copy and paste buffer. Or so I thought.
But uh, did no-one notice the following disturbing mindset giveaway - I mean to draw attention to the first letter of the highlighted words in these bits taken from the opening post:
Quote:Existence of special marital laws for hindus or sikhs may continue
[...]
Although the couple would be free to marry (within six months) either from a pandit, a sikh priest, a [color="#FF0000"]Christian[/color] priest or a maulvi [...]
Ya think the christoconditioning in Indian mis-education could be a little bit less pronounced???? Everyone is becoming so transparently programmed, it's becoming a matter of hysteria. Even without their argumentation to give the game away of who whispered their lame ideas in their ears, even the syntax itself reveals how they're perfect little puppets running around in headless automation long after the puppet-masters left the country and forgot all about them. Such Losers with a capital L.
It's a pity that the opening poll doesn't have a Roman "Thumbs Down" option... I'd vote for that. (I suspect the rest of the general mob would too. To test that hypothesis and to provide a channel for general amusement, [color="#0000FF"] if I were IF admin[/color], I would sneakily add that as a voting option in the opening post, just to see how many readers want the uninvited essayist itself eliminated as the only response to their poll+post :evil grin 
[quote name='Husky' date='05 January 2011 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1294240222' post='110145']
.
[color="#0000ff"] .
.
... if I were IF admin[/color], I would sneakily add that as a voting option in the opening post, just to see how many readers want the uninvited essayist itself eliminated as the only response to their poll+post :evil grin
[/quote]
Believe it or not, Husky, that was what was going through my head, when I first saw the first post.
The fact that so many internet-enabled Indians write this kind of stuff, actually makes me despair. The problem, it appears to me, is that we are recommending inaction (in the sense of tolerating the choices of our people). On the other hand, modern culture and the enthusiasm of youth leans in the direction of action - the side of gung-ho, Let-us-all-make-India-better, criminalize-actions-we-dont-like, rights-be-damned. Naturally, we will look unfashionable and backward, even criminally negligent.
The educated classes have to liberate themselves from such totalitarian thinking. Sometimes, I think the British weren't this bad. Especially after the 1930s, their attitude to colonialism underwent a sea change. They had a much more hands-off approach to dealing with India, because they saw themselves as foreigners in this country. But our homegrown tyrants (both in government and in the intellectual class) do not have that handicap. They see themselves as civilized natives, and see the turban-or-choti wearing villagers as someone who needs to be civilized. The consequences are predictable.
I see only one reason for hope: I was thinking exactly like that when I was 15 years old. Here's to hoping that Narindar Sabharwal will grow up!
Yeah give her some time to grow up
Some criticism of this proposal is encouraging, especially from some very advanced senior individuals. When writing, we ought to write in THIRD person and language used must maintain civility, decorum and not be abusive.
Laws never create tyranny or an authoritarian polity. Laws can be shoddily designed and corruptiblly enfocred. A simple example are the traffic laws. Only one of them "KEEP LEFT" enables all to drive giving us all greater freedom of movement.
Proposed marriage law only enhances this very important institution by suggesting a system whereby individual while enjoying his freedom to marry is safeguarded from the spouse, in laws, pandit etc., child misuse. Those who expressed negative thoughts ought to think deeply and instead of being negative ONLY, propose a better system.
Some criticism of this proposal is encouraging, especially from some very advanced senior individuals. When writing, we ought to write in THIRD person and language used must maintain civility, decorum and not be abusive.
Laws never create tyranny or an authoritarian polity. Laws can be shoddily designed and corruptiblly enfocred. A simple example are the traffic laws. Only one of them "KEEP LEFT" enables all to drive giving us all greater freedom of movement.
Proposed marriage law only enhances this very important institution by suggesting a system whereby individual while enjoying his freedom to marry is safeguarded from the spouse, in laws, pandit etc., child misuse. Those who expressed negative thoughts ought to think deeply and instead of being negative ONLY, propose a better system.
and personally I am not in favor of arranged marriages
|
