Half measures

Sir — The National Commission for Women has recommended that a woman in a live-in relationship can seek maintenance if she is deserted by her partner (“Push for alimony in live-in relationship”, Dec 27). While the commission may be entitled to its views, it is difficult to agree with the opinion of Kamini Jaiswal, a women’s rights activist,that such a suggestion has been made by taking into account the “realities of today”. It seems that Jaiswal’s proposition is based on the traditional idea that women are inferior to men and hence need to be looked after. The “realities of today”, however, are radically different. Today’s women are no longer homemakers only, but breadwinners as well. A woman usually enters into a live-in relationship to avoid a long-term commitment. And, going by empirical data, only women professionals can afford such relationships, since no man will be stupid enough to support a financially dependent girl without the hope of ever gaining her loyalty. Moreover, if the woman happens to conceive, then it must be the result of a consensual decision. Hence it would be wrong to force the responsibility of the child on the father only.

Yours faithfully,
Chameli Pal, Batanagar

Sir — Live-in relationships are yet to be accepted in Indian society. Therefore, giving a woman the right to claim alimony from her live-in partner is not a good idea as it would encourage more and more young girls to opt for such an arrangement. It might seem that women will benefit from such a proposal. But the truth is that such a measure will actually put them at a disadvantage. No man will care to marry a woman if he can be in a relationship without being liable to a woman.

Defining a live-in relationship in simple terms, as Kamini Jaiswal has done, will do nothing to ease the complications that might arise when a woman is let down by her partner. The boundaries of such relationships need to be marked in precise legal terms so that no one is able to turn the law to his or her advantage.

Yours faithfully,
Subhankar Mukherjee, Burdwan

Sir — The recent case of the Hyderabadi telecom engineer, Kasula Suryanarayana, whose second wife, G. Swapna, appeared with ‘their’ daughter after his death, had pointed towards the necessity of a law that would safeguard the rights of the ‘other’ woman. Nobody knows what happened to Swapna after the media lost interest in the slain engineer and his two wives. Last heard, K. Manjula, the legal wife of Suryanarayana, and her children have not been given the compensation promised to them. The government changed its stance on the family after the news of Suryanarayana’s bigamy. This explains why the family is still waiting for the money. If there had been a law to defend Swapna, then she, as well as Suryanarayana’s family, would have been spared this ignominy. Since cases like these are common in India, Kamini Jaiswal has rightly called for a law that will ensure that a woman in a live-in relationship is given alimony by her partner.

Yours faithfully,
Soma Datta, Siliguri

Come together

Sir — Swapan Dasgupta makes a sweeping generalization when he argues that the majority communities, in their bid to promote multiculturalism, are losing their own identity (“Flavour of the Season”, Dec 15). He cites the example of Britain where, he says, the outward trappings of Christmas are disallowed in order not to offend the sentiments of the minority communities. Dasgupta says that Durga Puja may possibly be re-christened as the “post bonus festival” in India for the same reason. It should be remembered in this context that though Durga Puja is a festival of the Hindus, the majority community in India, it is not celebrated by people of one faith alone. People from different religious backgrounds participate in the festival. At places, even Muslims erect pandals and bring idols to celebrate Durga Puja. However, it must be admitted that the majority community in India is much more sensitive and reasonable than those in the neighbouring nations.

What has possibly irked Dasgupta is the fact that the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, had recently stated that the minority community has a first claim on the nation’s resources. What Dasgupta fails to realize is that Manmohan Singh did not mean, by this statement, that the interests of the majority community should be neglected.

However, what should be avoided is misinterpretations of the prime minister’s statement. In fact, Singh would do well to spell out that what he meant was that his government was committed to integrate Muslims into the mainstream of Indian society.

Yours faithfully,
Sohail Md., Calcutta