When a man and a woman bind themselves together by tying knot of marriage, they cherish the hope of living together for the whole of the rest of their lives. Then, when nature blesses their union with a child, it strengthens the bond of
marriage, providing a guarantee of its greater depth and stability. On the basis of data collected in western countries, the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1984 confirms this with the statement that “childless couples tend to have a higher divorce rate than couples with children.”
A divorce court judge in the West holds that “every little younger born to a couple is an added assurance that their marriage will never be dissolved in a divorce court,”
Inspite of these apparently favourable psychological factors and natural, traditional attachments of parents and children, the rising incidence of divorce in a new and observable phenomenon of the modern world. One of the most important contributing factors is the ease with which women can now make a living. On this the Encyclopaedia Britannica says: “Industrialization has made it easier for women to support themselves, whether they are single, married, divorced, or widowed. In this connection, it is interesting to note that the Great Depression of the 1930s stopped the rise in the number of divorces in the United States for a time.”
In the modern age, western civilization has been beset by many problems, many of which are more artificial than real. In many things western civilization has adopted unnatural ways, thus giving rise to unnatural problems. The
matter has further been worsened by attempts to solve them unnaturally. Problems have thus gone on increasing instead of decreasing. The problem of divorce is one of them. The initial stimulus of the women’s liberation movement in the West was not wrong, but its leaders did not care to define its limits. In a bid to make a free society, their efforts culminated in the creation of a permissive society. Affairs between men and women knew no limits and this had the effect of weakening the marriage bond. Men and Women were no more husbands and wives. In the words of the Prophet, they became sensual, pleasure-seeking people. This state of affairs was given a boost by industrialization, as a
woman could easily procure an independent livelihood for herself. This had never before been possible. Because of this, she has frequently refused to live under the guardianship of men which, in consequence has created a large number of social problems leading to greatly increased rates of divorce.
The western philosophers who wanted to check divorce advocated legal curbs upon men, which would legally bind them to provide maintenance to the wife after the divorce. This maintenance sum was fixed according to western living standards, so that, in most cases, divorce meant that man had to part with a fair amount of his hard earned money for the whole of the rest of his life.
A victim of this unnatural state of affairs was Lord Bertrand Russell, one of the most intelligent and outstanding intellectuals of his time. Soon after his marriage, he discovered that his wife no longer inspired any feelings of love in him. Although realizing this incompatibility, he did not seek an immediate separation. In spite of severe mental torture to tried to bear with this situation for ten years. He refers to this period as one of “darkest despair.” Finally he had to separate and remarry, but he was not satisfied even with the second match and he remarried for third time. Two divorces were a costly bargain. According to English law, the amount of alimony and maintenance he had to pay this wives upset him greatly. He writes in his Autobiography:
…
….the financial burden was heavy and rather disturbing: I had given Ponds 10,000 of my Nobel Pize cheque for a little more than Pounds 11,000 to my third wife, and I was now paying alimony to her and to my second wife as well as paying for the education of my younger son. Added to this, there were heavy expenses in connection with my elder son’s illness; and the income taxes which for many years he had neglected to pay now fell to me to pay.
Such a law had been passed in order to ensure justice for women who had to resort to divorce. But when people began to realize that divorce inevitably led one into financial straits, the marriage bond began to be dispensed with altogether.
Men and women simply started to live together without going through the formality of the marriage ceremony. Now
more than fifty percent of the younger generation prefer to live in an unmarried state.
It was only natural that a reaction should have set in against a law which so patently disfavored men and brought corruption, perversion and all kinds of misery in its wake. Children– even newborn babies– were the greatest sufferers.
Now take the situation prevailing in Hindu society, in which the extreme difficulty of divorce acts as a deterrent. Obviously this was a bid to reform, but this has served only to aggravate the matter. The ancient Indian religious reformers held that separation was illegal: they even prohibited women from remarrying, so that they would be left with no incentive to seek divorce. The laws were made in such a way that once marriage ceremonies were finalized, neither could a man divorce his wife, nor was it possible for a woman to remarry after leaving her former husband.
But such reformations were unnatural, and have been generally detrimental to individuals in Hindu society. When a man and a woman are unable to satisfy one another, the whole of their lives is passed in great bitterness because of there being no provision for remarriage. They are doomed to continue to live a tormented life alongside partners with whom
they have nothing in common. I shall cite here only one of the hundreds and thousands of such instances which are reported in newspapers almost everyday. leaving aside those cases which go unreported. Manu, 25, was a cousin of Khushwant Singh. He has written in detail about her tragedy in his “Malice” column. Manu had a flourishing business selling ready-made garment in Los Angeles. As she did not want to marry a foreigner, she decided to come to India to
find a husband and return with him to the States. She found her –own husband in a tall, handsome, powerfully built Hindu boy who was anxious to go abroad. The marriage took place with all pomp and splendor in a five-star hotel. It
took her some month to arrange for her husband’s visa, during which time she maintained him and paid for his passage.
The marriage was a disaster. The boy turned out to be an alcoholic, prone to violence and averse to doing any work. Manu sought her parent’s consent to wind up her business, divorce her husband and return to India. Her parents travelled to America and tried to persuade her not to be hasty. A few days after her mother returned to Delhi, Manu’s
husband strangled her and dumped her body in a deserted spot. He collected all he could in the house and was planning to flee the United States when the police caught up with him. He is now in jail on a charge of murder.
It is obvious that Manu was not careless in selecting her partner. She travelled from America to find a suitable match in her birth place. But all that glitters is not gold. Our human limitations make it impossible for us to understand every facet of a person’s character before entering into a relationship with him. The question arises if, after such
revelations, one should feel forced to respect a marriage bond even at the cost of one’s life? When society considers separation taboo, or the laws on this show no human leniency, the only alternative left for such incompatible couples is
either to commit suicide, or waste away the whole of their lives in the “darkest despair.” Even when one dares to surmount the hurdle of divorce, it is very difficult to get remarried in societies where divorcees are looked down upon. One can at best marry someone beneath one’s society status. But in Islam remarriage is not a taboo: the Prophet himself married a widow. The provision s in Islam are thus a great blessing to couples who realize only too late that they have erred in making their choice of a partner. Islam provides for them to separate amicably, in a spirit of goodwill.
Just think of couples wasting away the whole of their lives in mental torment only because the conditions of separation and its consequences are hard to meet. It is as unnatural as anything can be.
Islam is a natural religion. Such a situation has not developed in Muslim communities because Islam law on marriage and divorce provides for all, or almost all, eventualites. For example, when a woman wishes to divorce her husband, she has to put her case before a religious scholar, or a body of religious scholars. This facility is available to her in all the great Arabic schools in India. They then give consideration to her circumstances in the light of the Qur’an and the Hadith, and, if they find that there are reasonable grounds for separation, they decide in her favor. The reason that the woman must have scholars to act on her behalf is that woman are more emotional than men-as has been provided by scientific research-and it is to prevent hasty and ill-considered divorces taking place that she is thus advised. If we seldom hear of
Muslim women committing suicide, or being murdered by their in-laws, it is because they have the alternative- separation.
Separation, of course, is strongly advised against in the case of minor provocations. Are we not commanded by God to be tolerant and forgiving? It is meant only as a last resort, when it has become truly unavoidable.
Islamic law is thus fair to both husband and wife, unlike occidental law, which places an undue burden on the man, while Hindu society forces the woman into familial rejection, destitution and social ostracism.
