Thanks for this. That’s helping us tease out the issues better.

a) Multiple marriages (Polygyny and polyandry). Pl. read p.61-62 of http://www.sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/book1/BFN-Notes.doc. There is nothing ‘normal’ in this space. Both polygyny and polyandry have occurred in the past. The fact that Hindu laws of 1955 ban polygamy is irrelevant since the state has no business to enact religious laws. These are totally illiberal laws. The matter must rest on totally uniform prohibitions of things that harm someone.

The nearest you’ve got to identifying the harm is this: “they also lead to discrimination as distribution of family resources between the multiple wives shall depend solely on the wish of the husband.” The solution to this problem (if any) is not to ban multiple marriages but to require that the distribution of family resources (to be specified) will need to be made with the consent of all concerned, and to leave open the possibility of civil suits to fix this arbitrariness. In other words, a ban is only defensible if harm is clearly proven. I am personally inclined to a ban, but I think we need an objective reason. In the absence of fool-proof objective demonstration of harm, the case breaks down.

b) Divorce: You’ve identified the harm thus: “the ease with which divorce may be given in certain community … results in gender bias and total subjugation of wives to their husbands”. I think there are other options (apart from a common judicial divorce standard) as well, including making it easy for wives to divorce husbands. But the point is broadly well-taken. Could you more precisely formulate what has to be prohibited?

c) The argument of ‘excess children’ has no basis. Pl. read BFN – and also FTI’s draft population policy which is available on the Google page. This matter is best dropped. I don’t believe FTI should squander public resources on “positive publicity of few children and state sponsored incentives” given that the factors driving the decision to have children are totally unaffected by these things, but affected strongly by economic growth, low infant mortality, and education. In any event, this is not a matter to do with religion so not relevant on this policy discussion. It is best discussed under population policy.

d) “Not educating the girls willfully be made a punishable offence”. I’ve discussed this in BFN. I do not believe you (or I) have the right to forcibly educate anyone’s children. However, as I’ve shown in BFN, this ‘wilful’ neglect of the girl child can be totally eliminated by good education policy. In any event, this is not a matter to do with religion so not relevant on this policy discussion. It is best discussed under education policy.

Regards
Sanjeev

Penalty is already there as in case of a Hindu married man, having a second wife is a punishable offence.

(ii) I do not propose divore be banned. What I propose that the ease with which divorce may be given in certain community be banned as again it results in gender bias and total subjugation of wives to their husbands

The treatment for divorce cases is already available in law where the husband or the wife should have valid ground for divorce, the case has to be settled in a court of law and the wife has to given a justified allowance for herself/children.

(iii) Having excess children be discouraged (I dont think forceful ban justified) as this shall put pressure on the available resources within the family and on the nation as a whole. The families that are well to do are thus demanding unjustified share from the national resources where as poor families are thus depriving their children decent living conditions for life, personal and career development

In this case, there should be wide-spread awareness of the evils of many children. Also, the Indian state should give incentives for having one or two children which should be so well designed that they appeal to the masses.

In towns, economics has already started deciding the no of children. However in rural areas, urban slums, backward and orthodox areas, effective combination of negative publicity of many children/ positive publicity of few children and state sponsored incentives may bring in some good results.

I restate, I strongly deny any possibility of imposing any punishment against having many children.

(iv) Not educating the girls willfully be made a punishable offence as this shall lead to gender bias, social evils, soical diadvantages such as having many children (assuming them to be gift of god and so avoiding family planning measures), depriving the girls to be financially free and thus playing major roles within the family, society and at any level.
This violate the fundamental right to equality – discrimination based on gender. So it should bu punishable in a court of law. The question is, a daughter may not go to court demanding a punishment against her parents. So there has to be a mechanism where in the state monitors the enrollment of women for education, although I am not sure what shall be tha appropriate method for this so that this does not become a tool in the hands of authorities to exploit the people. Further, it is also to be ensured that this does not turn out to be coloured communally.

May I suggest we frame the discussion precisely in the following format:

X be prohibited/punished severely because it harms Y in the following manner ….. (precise harm be identified).

In other words:

(i) Permission of multiple marriages

to be restated in the form as:

- Multiple marriages be banned? because … (and you’ll have to prove that harm)

(ii) Ease with which divorce can be given in particular communities

- Divorce be banned? because …

(iii) Non-use of family planning methods in the name of religion/god.

- Having ‘excessive’ children be banned? because ….

(iv) Girl non-education in the name of god/ religion

- Not educating the girl child be banned? because …

In each case you’ll have to be precise about the harmful act, and be precise about the penalty. The crime must apply to EVERY Indian irrespective of religion/caste, etc.

Once you start identifying the specific harm and addressing that harm alone we can begin further analysis.

Thanks, and regards
Sanjeev

When I read the policy and made comment, the specifics that were in mind are given below –

(i) Permission of multiple marriages

(ii) Ease with which divorce can be given in particular communities

(iii) Non-use of family planning methods in the name of religion/god.

(iv) Girl non-education in the name of god/ religion

I think, there are numerous examples and I have just listed some.

Shouldn’t there be some state involvement in deciding
(i) Mandatory education for girls, irrespective of the community
(ii) Single valid marriage at any given point of time, irrespective of the community
(iii) Incentive (as penalty is a non-option) for using family planning methods (it may be present now also, but if it is, will it also not qualify as a state involvement to some extent)

Please note that the mentioned evils in the draft policy – sati, child marriage, etc. were once as strong religious sentiments as the ones mentioned above and it required some encroachment of the state and social reformers into the religious beliefs of the people.

And when I say state-involvement, I mean enforcable in a law of court, uniformly for the entire population, irrespective of the community. Doesn’t leaving it to that community violates that administration of justice, which we see as one of the fundamental reasons for why the state machinery should exist at all (apart from providing security)

But, as we can see in todays India and which our policy should also address, if we dont want conflicts is -

Clause g -
In view of this clause, how do we ensure the equal freedom with accountability, for example matters of child birth, arbitary marriage and divore or even simple issues like using services of a doctor or a religious quack.

For when the population is economically sound (may be a consequence of universal education and equal opportunity, then it is OK, but otherwise economically weaker and less educated population tends to be more influenced by religion and associated evils, that are generally promoted by some special interest groups.

So either we wait for the majority of population to be economically robust, which shall take decades or accept some state involvement in regulating certain religious practices that cant be considered good in a free society (for freedom not only means freedom of a particular religious group, or a family but also of each individual of that family, be it a man or a woman).
===

Dear Sudhir

The law of minimum standards will ensure that your concerns are uniformly met for ALL Indians. What exactly are your concerns? Can you please list them very precisely. What should we prohibit? You mention: “child birth, arbitary marriage and divore or even simple issues like using services of a doctor or a religious quack”. What exactly should be prohibited? Such things we can discuss and agree to prohibit for everyone irrespective of the person’s religion.

If that makes sense for ONE Indian it should make sense for ALL Indians. A free society can uniformly prohibit or penalise BAD things. But we must focus on those bad things and define them; not create an arbitrary encroachment into personal life and family.

Regards
Sanjeev

I see this in three parts:

a) A good leadership part. Good leaders will nip the thought of any retaliation against innocents, ideas “like the Sikhs may retaliate against the Islamic fundamentalists”. Good leaders need to show people why killing even one innocent is a dastardly crime that can never be excused on any ground. In that the role of FTI leaders can prove very important.

b) Law and order part. This will require very strong vigilance on behalf of the police in India to prevent untoward incidents created by miscreants. This leads straight to our draft Police reforms policy.

c) Foreign policy part: I’d like us to discuss this issue in the context of a broader foreign policy statement. Let’s discuss internally at this stage and agree to general foreign policy statements, and then this issue will fit squarely within that framework.

Regards
Sanjeev

==
Good afternoon Sanjeev,

I agree, that the government is blind – in toto. I also believe that we will have a strong government – to promote religious freedom.
I am not seeking any specific provision for any religion.

My question is: When people of one community are literally being tortured across the international boundaries, we are definitely going to see some sparks of the same in India too – like the Sikhs may retaliate against the Islamic fundamentalists – in case of inaction on the part of the government to stop such excesses in say Pakistan as in the example. There has to be some strong action on the part of the government to stop such occurrences immediately. What kind of steps do you see being taken within India and at the international level too?

Thank you
Ajay.

Re: “How do we protect people belonging to say the Sikh community on religious excesses like those happening in Pakistan these days”.

Note that similar issues are what prompted Babu Joseph to insist on a clause for religious minorities. We have this draft policy at the moment:

i) FTI believes that a government must be ‘religion-blind’, ‘caste-blind’, ‘tribe-blind’, ‘language-blind’. In particular, a government has no cause to recognise ‘minorities’ as a specific category using religious (or related) classifications. Indeed, if everyone has equal freedom, then a separate category of ‘minority’ rights are not needed. A strong defence of liberty and the uniform enforcement of laws, as well as the provision of equal opportunity for all would ensure that no minority could harbour any fear from any majority. However, until the rule of law is well-established in India, FTI recommends preservation of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, while ensuring that no subsidisation of any religious or other minority takes place.

I believe that this implies that the government that FTI recommends will need to be VERY strong and ensure the religions freedoms and life of all, irrespective of their denomination. That is the crux. The Pakistan case is simply not comparable in theory, it being an Islamic state, and not based on freedom.

You other matter is a foreign policy matter, best dealt with offline as we don’t have a public domain policy on that matter yet.

Regards
Sanjeev

Although we have covered the religious tolerance and freedom in detail, I would like to pose a few questions:
a. How do we protect people belonging to say the Sikh community on religious excesses like those happening in Pakistan these days

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Pakistan/Taliban-seize-Sikh-houses-shops-in-Fata/articleshow/4469796.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/India-conveys-concern-to-Pak-over-harassment-of-Sikhs-in-Swat/articleshow/4473042.cms

b. How do we react to consequences of the same happening in a literally failed state like Pakistan where the government has virtually lost all authority to control?

Obviously, slow diplomatic route, and, even international pressure cannot stop killings and excesses on people belonging to a community immediately. Also, slow action will be harmful to and may lead to equal or worse repercussions in India.

I would suggest, that the FTI should take up the task of building a global task force with authority to actually act and suppress all such attempts.

Thank you
Ajay.

The rest of the comment:

We have already decided to publish this policy publicly.

NEXT STEPS:
a) I’ll publish the public blog http://freedomteam.in/blog/content/432 for public comment
b) I’ll publish our internal blog http://freedomteam.in/blog/content/21 as public-read only blog.

We will now keep working on the FTI internal blog (#21 above) while the public can comment on the #432 blog.

I’ll do the aboove things in 6 hours from now unless there are any vehement objections. Note, everything is up for change and improvement, so there should be no worries.

Regards
Sanjeev