India removes a 150-year old British adultry from the crime list.

[Aupmanyav]

Until 2018, in Indian law, adultery was defined as sex between a man and a woman without the consent of the woman's husband. The man was liable for prosecution and could be sentenced for up to five years (even if he himself was unmarried) whereas the married woman could be jailed.

With the recent Supreme Court judgment, the law has been rescinded (A woman is not a property of husband). Adultery remains a cause for divorce and a man or woman could ask for a divorce on its basis.

But I see a problem here. Marriage is an agreement between a man and a woman. Adultery breaks that covenant. If the woman intends to enter into a sexual relationship with a person other than the husband, then in fairness, she should first ask for a divorce and then strike a relationship with another person. The same rule should apply to a man with adulterous intent.

 

[ChristineM]

It is considerably more common for a man to commit adultery.

Also, some marriages are made with both parties agreeing to an open relationship so no covenant is broken.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Right. Not so much in India. In ancient India, women could have a relationship with another person with the assent of the husband for the purpose of having a child. The child then would have all the rights in the family.

 

[ChristineM]

And in the modern world?

 

[Windwalker]

But I see a problem here. Marriage is an agreement between a man and a woman.

And apparently between them and the government too, who gets a say so in how they conduct their relationship between themselves, acting as a big-brother between the two of them.

Adultery breaks that covenant.

So does a lot of things, such as swearing at each other, throwing things, not communicating things, etc. Adultery is usually a symptom of a failure in the relationship that has happened long before that.

Why doesn't Big Brother Government force them into consoling at the first sign of raised voices in their relationship? Or better still, put them into jail for not showing the respect to each other that they should be? After all, we all know that the government punishing people into loving each other is the most effective means of encouraging marital bliss.

Why is knocking boots the real sin, when a lack love between them long in advance of that isn't? Sounds like a prudish, Victorian ideal thinking sex is worse than a hard heart in a relationship.

If the woman intends to enter into a sexual relationship with a person other than the husband, then in fairness, she should first ask for a divorce and then strike a relationship with another person. The same rule should apply to a man with adulterous intent.

In a roundabout way, the disintegration of the relationship and letting that happen, is them giving each other permission. They are already acting outside the bonds of marriage, long before they take their pants off with another person. Couples get divorced, long before they file the paperwork. The divorce is already done when they decide they don't want to work with each other anymore. If the government has a say so in relationships, then why not put them both into jail for getting a divorce itself?

All the government is needed for is official paperwork processing, not getting into couples private affairs.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And in the modern world?

Adoption. Mostly marriages will break with woman;s adultery. In villages it would lead to murder of one of the couple or the third party. The woman and the third party may murder the husband to get freedom, or the husband may murder the wife and/or the third party.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And apparently between them and the government too, who gets a say so in how they conduct their relationship between themselves, acting as a big-brother between the two of them.
Why doesn't Big Brother Government force them into consoling at the first sign of raised voices in their relationship?
Why is knocking boots the real sin, when a lack love between them long in advance of that isn't?
In a roundabout way, the disintegration of the relationship and letting that happen, is them giving each other permission.

The courts have washed their hands off it.
Yeah, we have family courts which try to talk to the people concerned.
Nobody bars them from getting a divorce if they so desire. There is no question of a sin.
As I said with the recent ruling, the courts have washed their hands off it. They will act when one of the parties approaches them for divorce.

The old laws have been rescinded. I think you missed the heading of the topic. Yes, there are people who are not satisfied with the ruling. Orthodox Hindus, Muslims and probably Catholics.

 

[England my lionheart]

Until 2018, in Indian law, adultery was defined as sex between a man and a woman without the consent of the woman's husband. The man was liable for prosecution and could be sentenced for up to five years (even if he himself was unmarried) whereas the married woman could be jailed.

With the recent Supreme Court judgment, the law has been rescinded (A woman is not a property of husband). Adultery remains a cause for divorce and a man or woman could ask for a divorce on its basis.

But I see a problem here. Marriage is an agreement between a man and a woman. Adultery breaks that covenant. If the woman intends to enter into a sexual relationship with a person other than the husband, then in fairness, she should first ask for a divorce and then strike a relationship with another person. The same rule should apply to a man with adulterous intent.

Its good they changed it, there can be many factors in a marriage contract, it could be an arranged marriage, it could be an unhappy marriage and divorce is not an option because of religion or property issues but,Imo, love plays a factor too.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I’d be more impressed if they got rid of the caste system and cracked down on the beatings of African students

 

[ChristineM]

Adoption. Mostly marriages will break with woman;s adultery. In villages it would lead to murder of one of the couple or the third party. The woman and the third party may murder the husband to get freedom, or the husband may murder the wife and/or the third party.

So a mans adultery is accepted?

Its a sad state if equality is non existent.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I’d be more impressed if they got rid of the caste system and cracked down on the beatings of African students

We are working on caste issues. It would take some time. The previous government had said that 'Affirmative action' will be based only on castes. Now, those who benefit by those rules stick strongly to caste. It was sort of government approval of castes. The pcurrent government wants 'Affirmative action' to be based on economic criteria. But in a democracy, it means loss of votes. That is why it is taking time.

Mostly those African people who get involved in fracas are students only in name (mostly Nigerians). Many of them are illegally staying in India beyond their visa permission. They are involved in drugs trafficking and various other economic crimes (computer frauds). That is why the problems.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So a man's adultery is accepted?

The women are generally economically dependent on men. Adultery by men surely destroys the family fabric even if there is no break. There is no happiness in such homes. It also adversely affects children.

 

[ChristineM]

The women are generally economically dependent on men. Adultery by men surely destroys the family fabric even if there is no break. There is no happiness in such homes. It also adversely affects children.

So, as i said, "Its a sad state if equality is non existent."

 

[Aupmanyav]

We are trying to get there, otherwise there would not have been any change. Very recently, another law criminalizing alternate sexual behavior was also rescinded. Other changes include allowing entry of women in places of worship where their entry was formerly prohibited and making 'Triple talaq' (divorce if a man utters the word 'talaq' thrice) in case of Muslims unlawful and punishable. Credit should be given where it belongs.The Indian Supreme Court has decreed that any law discriminating against gender, male, female or alternate sexual orientation, violates of the principles of Indian Constitution. Next line line are Muslim personal laws (Shariah) - polygamy and inheritance. India will not have religion based laws.

 

[ChristineM]

Good start but misogyny runs deep, laws may change quicky but men wont change, it will take several generations to work through the population.

I believe India is planning to become a hindu nation within the next few years.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, acceptance of change takes time, especially in a country like India with 500,000 villages. India is a Hindu majority country, but making it a Hindu nation would be against the spirit of times and contrary to the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equal rights and freedom of religion. Even Nepal is not a Hindu nation, though Nepal too is a Hindu majority nation. We have a 71-year old mature Constitutional democracy and a strong judicial system, which at one time declared the election of the Indian Prime Minister's election null and void (Indira Gandhi). We have never faltered and never renegaded on our words. Rest assured, nothing like that is going to happen.

India's diversity should not be a reason for discord, says RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat

 

[Epic Beard Man]

We are working on caste issues. It would take some time. The previous government had said that 'Affirmative action' will be based only on castes. Now, those who benefit by those rules stick strongly to caste. It was sort of government approval of castes. The pcurrent government wants 'Affirmative action' to be based on economic criteria. But in a democracy, it means loss of votes. That is why it is taking time.

Mostly those African people who get involved in fracas are students only in name (mostly Nigerians). Many of them are illegally staying in India beyond their visa permission. They are involved in drugs trafficking and various other economic crimes (computer frauds). That is why the problems.

Ah the racist narrative of assuming the African students are into drugs.

What say you on this

Funny how people of a region with dark skin have the audacity to have this behavior then have the nerve to talk about how bckwards Muslims are when India’s very government are patting themselves on the back what UK and America did hundreds of years ago.


I know you don’t like facts contrary to yours

 

[LuisDantas]

Laws are affairs of general, distanced judgement. Healthy marriages are matters of a deeply personal nature.

It is IMO naive to expect laws to do justice to marriages, even under ideal circunstances. That would be ludicrous, or maybe it would be terrifying. Loving couples are expected to know better and do much better than any law. Instead, it seems that marriage laws generally limit themselves to little more than the financial aspects of a marriage.

On the other hand, I also think that it is a bit unworkable to expect true equality within a healthy marriage. People marry because they expect to be happier together than they were by themselves. Presumably there will be some degree of reciprocity, some form of exchange which takes benefit of their mutual strengths and weaknesses.

At its best a marriage is balanced, but probably never quite symmetrical - and that is probably a good thing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ah the racist narrative of assuming the African students are into drugs.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Nigerians+and+crime&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
Not just Nigerians, but from many countries in Africa. Also from South American countries. It is not just India which has this problem but many countries all over the world. They should look into themselves.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

https://www.google.com/search?q=Nigerians+and+crime&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
Not just Nigerians, but from many countries in Africa. Also from South American countries. It is not just India which has this problem but many countries all over the world. They should look into themselves.

So you agree with the perpetual racism and the tactics against African migrants. Great! Like I said, Indians should not pat themselves on the back for what other countries have done hundreds of years ago. They should not also tout a belief of supremacy considering that white supremacist in positions of power think of them no less than people that look like me. The argument "others should focus on themselves" is Indians not wanting that mirror placed on them. As Trump called African and other black nations "S****" hole" countries, they also say the same thing about India.

What is the problem with Apu?