“Polygamy puts a woman at risk for exploitation by the man (husband) both socially and financially”.

There are many risks in life. A government only has a role in THOSE risks that arise from harm caused by other humans. Please identify these risks, and let the government regulate these risks. Assuming that all such risk of HARM are addressed, can you identify an other reason to regulate a person’s personal choice of marriage?

Note that many polygamous marriages did not lead to legally punishable harm. Dashrath, the father of Ram (cf. Ramayana) comes to mind. Also the father of the current Bhutan king. Many others, too.

So let’s identify the harm, and discuss that issue more closely.

s

Let's discuss further on the FTI Forum, since these are matters of detail, in terms of actually doing something on the ground. Even delivering a single seminar or street play, etc. can be a major piece of work, given resource constraints. These efforts are definitely needed, for the task of spreading the message and educating the people must go hand in hand with finding more leaders. We need to do this systematically, and ensure that we can replicate the same thing across the country.

Anyway, let's discuss further on the forum. Please raise the same issue there. More people will respond and we can actually do something concrete. Your energies will join with those of others who are on FTI. Together we can leverage each other's skills and make a difference.

Regards

Sanjeev

The issue raised by you is an argument put by almost 99% of the population that there is only one way and that is bottom-up i.e.  through the hearts of the people who vote and such people reside in rural as well as urban areas. There is no other option I agree … the question then is not how to go into the hearts of people but WHEN to….you would know that public memory is short and to create a long lasting impression you have to be really a selfless Gandhi continuously working at the grassroots…and that is too much to expect from a political leader in today's era when the people who you have to figght to bring about a CHANGE are YOUR OWN PEOPLE.  Gandhi had a charged environment  (anti-British sentiments) to support his moves but the current population do not have one. All the factors like roti-kapda-makaan-gareebi-berojgaari-corruption-unnati etc. have almost become the bottomline buzzwords with every political party and leaders.  If, to begin with, if you agree with the rationale of our ambition that either we contest to win and win 300+ to be in power & bring CHANGE or else leave India to current situation, then we just need to figure out how do we differentiate ourselves and when to go big-bang.  Currently we are working around a politico-economic philosophy (classical liberalism), reaching out to get a team of 1500 level 4+ leaders, develop a strong equalitarian organisation and then when the leaders assemble go all out for 3 years to develop constituency by working on the ground, spreading message of freedom, take people's issues and problems and work on solutions. You see there…the only missing link is why would people vote for us…only IF THE WANT CHANGE…and there lies the key. The problems will remain and the solutions in people's eyes are also well known, and the incremental efforts of various political parties will continue…once we are organised with sufficient leaders, we will build the organisation, collect funds from people/stakeholders and go allout sufficiently in time before a targetted election.