In his judgement on Section 497
in 2018 Justice Chandrachud spoke on the autonomy on women’s sexuality which is
currently based on treatment of women as chattel. He said that it perpetuates
the subordinate status of women, denies dignity, sexual autonomy and is based
on gender stereotypes. His recent comment that married women can make
her own choice and she is not consented to refrain from sexual relations outside
marriage and that husband is not the owner of her sexuality did evoke a lot of
criticism from majority of conservatives.
As a society when we evolve, breaking of stereotypes
is bound to create ripples in society and in the context of the above statement
by Justice Chandrachud he in fact has created a debate. Marriage as a
traditional instrument was more than the sexual freedom but on the need for
responsible childbearing and rearing. Religion and society hence gave primacy
to monogamy and ensured that sexual attraction between genders outside of marriage
is a taboo. Adultery is viewed even today as the most inglorious activity. Even
in the sexually free society like in the US, we are aware of the Monica Lewinsky
controversy which affected then then president of the US
While this remains so it is pertinent to investigate
the gender stereotype associated with the chastity theory propounded by
cultures everywhere. In traditional and ancient Indian literature, a Pativtra
like Sita is a goddess while Draupadi is not so. Recollect the mythical story
of Bhargava Rama in the bhagavatum follows the orders of his father Jamadagni
and kills his mother Renuka who was late fetching waters from the river for
having seen and desired a charming gandharva. Many such stories of
married men taking on the sexual right of their women is depicted in various stories
among all religions. The strenuous conditions imposed by Abrahamic religions
especially Islam on women’s sexuality is much worse than any contemporary
cultures and religions. Even in the Victorian ages masculinity was synonymous with
sexual control of women. It was having seen the weak control that men in Bengal
have over their women folk that they often referred the Indian male as effeminate
In a politically right leaning contemporary society when a judge makes such an observation it is bound to create the ripples that we often see in the public space. In the context of this statement if the same freedom is applicable gender neutral and to all religions and culture then I would regard it as progressive. However, in a country currently without a uniform civil code, if this is applicable only within the Hindu Marriage Act but not impactful to the civil and religious laws of other religions then I have an issue. Till now it remains as only an observation or comment by the judge but hence we need not do a detailed pondering into statement.
However, the statement is significant to do
an analysis of gender mismatch in sexual preference within marriage. Friedrich Engels
in his ‘’ Origin of the Family, Private property, and the State ‘’ mentions
that matriliny and consanguinity ran amok in ancient societies which eventually
‘’ narrowed the circle’’ where marriage becomes a ‘’molecular pair whose
dissolution itself ceases’’. Human sexuality and its naturality was undermined in
the process.
Impact of Brahmanical and Victorian patriarchy
was one of the main reasons for traditional Indian matrilineal systems which
gave a higher freedom for women , giving away of women’s control over sexuality
in marriage . Abolition of the sambandham among the Nairs and their strenuous
efforts, in the beginning of the 20th century, to adopt the Malabar marriage
Act was perpetuated due to ‘’ being a father less child’’ in British India. The
intelligent Nair’s ‘’social inadequacy ‘’ was a serious impediment while competing
with Brahmins to the lucrative colonial bureaucratic and legal positions.
Controlled sexuality in patriarchy was
further implemented as per Engels ‘’as men won wars and acquired private
property’’ while women hitherto bread winners becoming child bearers in the
changed power hierarchy and again female sexuality takes the hit. As social psychologists
points out domestic violence and intrigues is much linked to the physical
disharmony among the couples in marriage unable to escape this imposed bondage in
marriage.
While patriarchy takes its animistic lineage
from the kingdom of lions where the dominant male takes control of its lioness
who in fact bear the cub and feeds it. But it also needs to be noted by the patriarch
that when a new lion steps in the old one retreats. that’s the rule of the jungle.
Well, that is too crude to portray but a successful marriage and monogamy
should rest on mutual love trust and respect but not on imposed sexual ownership
be it a male or female
These matters still remaining
contentious but the judge’s statement has opened a pandora’s box of arguments
for and against the issue and will pave way to fresh thinking. However, for
many effeminate men in our society Justice Chandrachud has created a nightmare in
their bedrooms.
