-Ramphal Kataria
The history of man-woman relations is a narrative of shifting power, moving from the fluid communalism of pre-history to the rigid, property-oriented structures of the modern age. Today, as India grapples with the rise of live-in relationships and judicial interpretations of personal liberty, we find ourselves at a crossroads. We must ask: does modern "freedom" offer true liberation, or does it merely provide a new vocabulary for old patterns of abandonment and subjugation?
I. The Genesis: Fluidity and the Age of "Mother-Right"
In the dawn of human social organization, the concept of a "husband" or "wife" was non-existent. Anthropologists like Lewis Henry Morgan and sociologists like Friedrich Engels, in his seminal work The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, argue that early human groupings were defined by primitive communalism.
In these societies, kinship was traced through the female line—a system known as matriliny. Because sexual relations were fluid and communal, paternity was often uncertain and, more importantly, irrelevant. Women were not "protected" because they were not "owned." As primary gatherers, they provided the bulk of the caloric intake for the tribe, ensuring their economic autonomy.
"The first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." — Friedrich Engels
During this epoch, women moved with a degree of physical and sexual freeness that would be unrecognizable to the modern patriarchal world. There was no "four-walled" domesticity; the world was the home, and the tribe was the family.
II. The Great Defeat: Agriculture, Property, and the Walls of Marriage
The transition from nomadic gathering to settled agriculture marked the "world-historic defeat of the female sex." As humans began to produce a surplus, the concept of private property emerged. For the first time, men had wealth—herds, land, and tools—that they wished to pass on to their biological heirs.
To ensure the legitimacy of these heirs, the wandering desire of the past had to be shackled. Marriage was "invented" not as a celebration of love, but as a regulatory contract of paternity.
The Evolution of the Institution:
Initial Loose Arrangements: Early marriage was often "pairing" where either party could leave easily.
Institutionalization: As states and religions grew, marriage became a "sacrament" (indissoluble) or a "legal bond" (contractual), primarily to manage the transfer of property.
Subjugation: The woman was transformed from a co-producer into a "domestic slave." Her primary value was redirected toward her womb—producing the next generation of property holders.
III. Variations in the Marital Theme: Matriarchy vs. Patriarchy
Marriage has never been a monolith. In India, we see two starkly different philosophies:
The Patriarchal Model (The Dominant Norm): Here, the woman is "given away" (Kanyadaan). She leaves her natal home, her identity, and often her name, to enter the husband’s household. She becomes a guest in her own life, dependent on the male lineage for survival.
The Matrilocal Counterpoint: In systems like the Khasi of Meghalaya or the traditional Nair tharavads of Kerala, the man walks into the woman’s home. In these societies, women retain ancestral property, and the stigma of "illegitimacy" is largely absent.
However, the patriarchal model became the engine of the Indian social order, specifically because it intersected with Caste.
IV. The Ideology of Love: Masking Exploitation
How does such a system sustain itself without constant revolt?
Through ideology.
Love, duty, sacrifice—these are not merely emotions; they are ideological constructs that naturalize exploitation.
Simone de Beauvoir exposes how woman is constructed as the “Other”—a being whose purpose is relational, not autonomous.
Marriage transforms labor into affection.
Cooking becomes “care.”
Cleaning becomes “devotion.”
Motherhood becomes “fulfillment.”
What disappears is the recognition that these are forms of labor—necessary, exhausting, and systematically appropriated.
V. Endogamy: The Prison of Caste and Religion
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar identified that the survival of the Caste system depended entirely on the control of women. In his work Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development, he argued that Endogamy (marrying within one's group) is the essence of Caste.
To maintain "purity," women’s choices had to be strictly policed. Inter-caste or inter-religious love became a threat to the entire social fabric. Consequently, women lost their voices; they became "gates" that had to be guarded. Marriage was no longer about two individuals, but about the preservation of economic spheres and religious boundaries.
VI. The Reformist Turn: Ambedkar and the Hindu Code Bill
Post-independence, the battle for women’s dignity moved to the Parliament. Dr. Ambedkar’s resignation as Law Minister was fueled by the resistance to the Hindu Code Bill.
Ambedkar realized that Hindu women were trapped by sacramental laws that forbade divorce and denied inheritance. He sought to turn marriage into a civil contract, granting women:
The right to divorce.
The right to inherit property.
The abolition of polygamy.
While other religions had different paths—Islam providing for Mehr (dower) as a financial safeguard, and Christianity moving toward the recognition of civil breakdown—the Hindu Code Bill was the most significant leap toward viewing the Indian woman as an individual rather than an appendage.
VII. Neoliberalism and the Commodification of Intimacy
Under neoliberal capitalism, the family undergoes transformation—but not abolition.
Marriage loses its rigidity; relationships become fluid.
The live-in relationship emerges as a symbol of freedom.
But this “freedom” mirrors the logic of the market:
Flexibility replaces commitment
Mobility replaces stability
Exit replaces responsibility
Intimacy becomes commodified.
Partners become consumable.
And once again, the burden of this flexibility is gendered.
Women, who continue to bear the disproportionate burden of reproductive labor, face heightened precarity in the absence of institutional safeguards.
What appears as liberation is, in fact, the informalization of exploitation.
VIII. The Legal Form and Its Discontents
The law attempts to regulate this shifting terrain:
Recognizing live-in relationships
Extending protection against domestic violence
Criminalizing certain forms of abandonment
Yet, it remains trapped in contradiction.
Cases framed as “false promise of marriage” reveal the inadequacy of civil remedies.
The decriminalization of adultery in Joseph Shine v. Union of India expands liberty but does not address material inequality.
The legal system oscillates:
Between protection and punishment
Between autonomy and morality
What it cannot resolve is the underlying economic asymmetry.
IX. From Patriarchy to Neoliberal Patriarchy
If classical patriarchy confined women within marriage, neoliberal patriarchy disperses that control across multiple, informal relations.
The result is not freedom, but fragmentation.
Men gain mobility; women absorb risk.
The ability to move between relationships without accountability is a form of power—one rooted in economic asymmetry.
This is not the end of patriarchy.
It is its mutation.
X. Toward the De-Privatization of Reproduction
This requires:
Wages for housework (recognizing reproductive labor as productive)
Socialization of care (public childcare, healthcare, community kitchens)
Universal economic security (decoupling survival from marital status)
Legal accountability across all forms of intimacy
As Silvia Federici argues, the struggle is not merely for equality within the family, but against the family as a site of exploitation.
XI. The Modern Frontier: Live-in Relationships and Informal Unions
The "live-in" relationship is often decried as a Western import, but Indian history is replete with informal unions. Even within the political echelons, figures like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, and George Fernandes were known to have unconventional, long-term companionships that bypassed the traditional wedding fire.
In contemporary India, the live-in relationship represents a rejection of the "Domestic Cage." It is a claim to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Legal Shield and the Criminal Sword:
The law has attempted to protect women in these unions through the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, treating "relationships in the nature of marriage" as deserving of maintenance.
However, a disturbing trend has emerged:
Criminalization of the Male: When these relationships break down, they often result in FIRs for rape under the guise of "false promise of marriage."
Vulnerability of the Female: Without the formal status of a "wife," women often face sudden abandonment without the structural safety nets of marriage.
XII. The Allahabad High Court and the Paradox of Adultery
Recent judicial pronouncements have added a layer of complexity. In Kiran Rawat and Anr. v. State of UP (2023) and subsequent 2024 observations, the Allahabad High Court has navigated the thin line between morality and legality.
The Case of the Subsisting Marriage
In a landmark and controversial vein, the Court has encountered cases where a man or woman enters a live-in relationship without dissolving their previous marriage.
While the Supreme Court decriminalized adultery (Joseph Shine v. Union of India), the Allahabad High Court has recently cautioned that "personal liberty" cannot be used to sanctify "socially chaotic" behavior. In some instances, the Court refused to grant protection to couples where one partner was still legally married, noting that such a relationship may infringe upon the rights of the "legally wedded spouse."
"The right to choice and liberty does not mean one can trample upon the dignity and legal rights of a spouse left behind."
XIII. A Liberal Critique: Liberty Without Responsibility?
From a liberal standpoint, the freedom to choose one's partner is paramount. However, a "liberalism" that ignores the economic and emotional wreckage of a discarded spouse is merely a return to the monarchic whims of the past.
In the era of Kings, a monarch could bring any woman into the palace, declaring her a queen while the previous wives languished in the shadows. If a modern man enters a live-in relationship without dissolving his marriage, he is effectively practicing a form of informal polygamy.
The Woman Left Behind
The "progressive" narrative often focuses on the couple in the live-in relationship. But what of the woman who stayed within the marriage, performed the domestic labor, and adhered to the "contract"?
If the marriage is not dissolved, she has no closure.
She is left in a legal limbo where she is neither a wife nor a divorcee.
Her dignity is sacrificed at the altar of the man’s "new freedom."
XIV. Conclusion: Toward a Framework of Dignified Freedom
The journey from the fluid relations of the prehistoric age to the modern live-in relationship has come full circle, but the power dynamics remain skewed. To ensure justice in the changing scenario of India, we must move toward a Balanced Framework:
Mandatory Dissolution: Personal liberty must be harmonized with legal responsibility. A new union should legally necessitate the formal closing of the old one to ensure the first spouse's rights to alimony and dignity.
Compensatory Mechanisms: We need clear laws for "palimony" in live-in breakups, preventing the leap to "rape" charges while ensuring women are not left destitute.
De-stigmatization of Exit: Marriage must be easy to enter and, when it fails, dignified to exit.
Freedom of choice is a hollow victory if it is built on the abandonment of another. The evolution of man-woman relations must lead us not back to the chaos of the powerful, but forward to a society where every individual—the wife, the companion, and the husband—is treated as an end in themselves, and never merely as a means to an end.
Footnotes
1. ¹ Kiran Rawat and Another v. State of U.P. and Others (2023) - The Court emphasized that "social fabric" cannot be ignored in the name of live-in relationships.
2. ² Asha Devi and Another v. State of U.P. (2021/2024 trends) - Addressing the illegality of live-in relations when a spouse is living.
3. Engels, F. (1884). The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.
4. Ambedkar, B.R. (1916). Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development.
5. de Beauvoir, S. (1949). The Second Sex.
No comments:
Post a Comment