Judge in the Bedroom

 

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 20^th 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.