Making divorce easy? Or barking up the wrong tree?

Making divorce easy? Or barking up the wrong tree?

– Uma Challa

Published by MyIndMakers 

“lEchiMchi, nidra lEchiMdi mahiLaa lOkaM, daddarilliMdi puruSha prapaMchaM…” (the women’s world has woken up from slumber, and the man’s world shook with panic) was a song I used to love as a child. As a fiery young woman, I frowned upon what I thought was “misogyny” on the part of one of the greatest Telugu lyricists ever. Now I admire the clarity of thought of Sri Pingali Nagendra Rao gaaru who penned the song way back in 1962, at a time when the country was still tolerant to truth.


To elaborate on Pingali gaaru’s poetic rendition of facts, the first Lok Sabha in India in 1951 had 22 women MPs. Soon after, in 1955, with the advent of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) in 1955, Indian society was, for the first time, introduced to the concept of “divorce”. Contrary to its title, the HMA has nothing to do with marriage. It does not explain what marriage means nor does it enumerate the responsibilities of a wife and husband towards themselves, each other, their children, both sides of the family or the society. It enumerates circumstances in which a Hindu marriage can be legally broken. It was introduced to enable women who could not tolerate marriage to legally liberate themselves from wedlock, and to claim share in the marital property in the name of maintenance and alimony (HMA Section 24).


The most common grounds for divorce – cruelty, desertion, impotence, adultery etc. – are not only poorly defined, but are also difficult to prove. In addition, because litigation involves evidences and arguments from both parties, HMA did not prove as “empowering” to women as was envisioned by women’s rights activists (WRAs).


Enacting the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956, which entitles a woman to be maintained by her husband during her entire lifetime (Section 18), and CrPC of 1973, which extends maintenance to wives indefinitely even after divorce (Section 125), did not do the magic either, since they still involved time taking two-sided legal procedures.


In the year 1983, the Parliament passed a criminal law, Indian Penal Code 498A, which made “cruelty towards a married woman” a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Here, the word “cruelty” was left undefined and allowed to be a function of a woman’s perception and her lawyer’s imagination. Divorce and maintenance cases, combined with this draconian criminal section, which allows immediate arrest and incarceration of the husband and in-laws, proved to be fantastic tool of blackmail, vengeance and extortion in the hands of disgruntled wives for many years. It was accompanied by vigorous campaigns by WRAs to “sensitize” the police and the judiciary to be sympathetic towards women. Even such drastic measures did not prove to be “empowering enough” according to WRAs, because not all husbands succumbed.


The conviction rates under IPC 498A remained very low and the law only gained notoriety for its misuse. The hope that all husbands could be reined in and forced to pay a “monetary compensation/settlement” under the fear of arrest and criminal prosecution started waning.


In 2005, a new and elaborate civil law, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act was introduced. The act not only categorized every possible male action as an act of domestic violence, it also made provisions for a wife and a live-in partner to use DV accusations to claim monetary reliefs including maintenance (Section 20) and residence rights (Section 19) in the same property where the alleged violence had occurred.


Every year, several thousands of Indian women leverage the power sanctioned to them under these laws to terrorize husbands and to extract alimony and maintenance from them. Still, the utopia envisioned by the WRAs remained elusive since entangling a man in multiple litigations ensured neither speedy divorce nor quick extraction of maintenance and alimony.


In 2013, the Rajya Sabha approved the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill which, once again, claimed to make “divorce friendly for women” by providing for the wife, a share in the husband’s immovable property, after “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”. The Bill empowered the courts to decide the “compensation amount” from the husband’s inherited and inheritable property. Recognizing the “grave and far-reaching legal, social and economic implications of the proposed amendments” as pointed out by senior citizens groups and NGOs working for men, the NDA Government’s Law Ministry decided to put the Bill on hold.


According to news reports, there is now a fresh proposal “to explore the possibility of making it easier for women to walk out of a marriage”. This brand new endeavor, backed by the Minister of Women and Child Development, Maneka Gandhi, proposes to give legal validity to prenuptial agreements.


The Economic Times (18 Sept 2015) quotes an official of the Ministry of WCD who stated that the introduction of prenuptial agreements will “save marriages” because, “once, the liabilities, assets and responsibilities are decided in advance, a husband will be more careful and cautious in seeking dissolution. He would have a clear idea of the amount of alimony he will have to pay to his wife”.


The article also quotes another senior official of the Ministry who supported prenuptial agreements as a way to counter the “judicial delays on account of backlog of cases”, and the “delaying tactics husbands resort to”.


It is noteworthy that for the last 60 years, champions of women’s empowerment have been preoccupied with women obtaining an easy divorce and collecting maintenance and alimony by hook or crook. Their proposal to legalize prenuptial agreements is neither novel in its approach nor noble in its goals.


Aside from the fact that this initiative too has nothing to do with really empowering women, here are just a few problems with prenuptial agreements:


  1. Hindu marriages are religious unions and not legal contracts, even when they are registered and legally recognized. A prenuptial agreement is a contract, with the terms and conditions of separation spelled out. It cannot be applied to Hindu marriages without stripping them of their religious sanctity and the underlying philosophy of the union of two souls.
  2. While prenuptial contracts do lay down the terms and conditions of separation, the contracts are not binding nor strictly enforceable, and there are no provisions anywhere in the world to penalize a partner who does not comply with the terms of separation. However, the proposal to include punishments for “offending” spouses in Indian prenuptial agreements is nothing but another attempt to criminalize the marital relationship, pamper women and penalize men.
  3. In spite of having a prenuptial agreement, a woman will still be able to claim that she signed the prenuptial agreement under duress. She will still be able to file complaints under IPC Section 498A, the DV Act and other related civil and criminal provisions.
  4. Rich men will use prenuptial agreements to get rid of women by paying money, and unscrupulous women will use prenuptial agreements as a way to make quick money. We, as a nation and a culture, might do better by just legalising prostitution rather than prostitutionalizing the Hindu marriage in the name of empowering women through delusional and deceitful means.


It is about time the Ministry of WCD stops barking up the wrong tree and looks into positive ways of empowering women by helping, stimulating, supporting and encouraging them to achieve true economic independence. It is time we realize that unless women learn to want economic independence and unless they work hard to achieve it, without depending on maintenance and alimony, all the talk about empowerment and equality is meaningless.


It is time the “women’s world” awakens to this reality and embraces ways that are uplifting to themselves and the entire society, rather than those that shake men with fear and shatter their lives.





Feminists bully, India Times succumbs!

India Times ran an informative poster campaign about men’s issues on International Men’s Day, 19th November, 2015.

Feminists have exposed their intolerance for any discussion about men’s issues and the celebration of International Men’s Day. They bullied India Times into retracting the article from their website and forced them to issue an apology. Here’s the apology note by India Times:

India Times apology

Ironically, India Times only recently updated its cover photo to one which says, “Not afraid”.

Not afraid

Of course you are, India Times! You are just plain afraid!

Thanks to the internet and social media though…Truth can be deleted from a website, but cannot be completely erased!


Thanks to for saving, reproducing the posters and making them available for download.


India’s men and women must unite to reject feminism: David Usher

October is “Violence Against Men and Boys Awareness Month” (VAMBAM). VAMBAM originated in India in year 2015. The idea behind observing VAMBAM is to break the silence and address female violence against men and boys, which is stoked by gender politics.

On the occasion of VAMBAM, Uma Challa interviews Mr. David Usher, the President of Center for Marriage Policy, United States. In this interview, Usher shares his thoughts on being male in the United States, and also gives a thought provoking message to the world. Marriage and family still being the cornerstone of Indian society, Usher offers his perspectives on the way forward for countries like India.

2/27/05--St. Louis, MO--Portrait of David Usher. Photo by Chris Usher

Portrait of David Usher.
Photo by Chris Usher

 How are men represented in popular media and news media in your country?

  •         News:  stories about men’s criminal behavior are highlighted.  We don’t see much reported about women’s criminal behavior, and when it is, it is usually towards the end of the A section of the paper in synopsis form.
  •         TV shows: men are stupid, oafish, and at the periphery of the family (in family shows).  Fathers are sidelined in favor of the lioness at the gate.  Just about any TV show will do here.

What kind of messages are being given to boys and men in terms of what is “appropriate behavior” for males in your culture and your country?

  •         Being a boy is not OK.  Boys that act like girls in school are the ones not treated harshly.  
  •         Men:  The “Titanic Principle” (as I call it) applies universally.  Whether it be divorce, illegitimacy, domestic violence, relationship problems, economic collapses, or riots in Ferguson, “The men must go down with the ship”.
  •         In the corporate world it is OK for women to accuse men of “harassment” to get what they want when there is a decision to be made. This word is applied loosely in the corporate world and most male employees are not aware that federal law is fairly precise as to what actually constitutes harassment.  So male managers and employees revolve around power playing women.   Some women are power players and are not capable of making rational decisions.  I have seen this personally but cannot share it because it would be a violation of corporate policy at my employer.

What kind of an effect do you think these media representations and social expectations have on men and boys, women and girls?

  •         Most men ignore it as best they can and are “survivors”.  
  •         It discourages men from participating in certain professions such as teaching and home real estate.
  •         Fewer men are going to college – only 1/3 of undergrad degrees go to men.  Men are shunted to vocational professions in high school, while women are put on the college track with loans.

What kind of female violence/abuse do most men and boys face in your country?

  •        There are several kinds of violence against men that I talk about that are not in the mainstream lexicon.
  1.       Out of wedlock pregnancy:  This is often a power play to get a lot of child support income and welfare.  Since most birth control methods are invisible,  men are fraudulently abused both economically and socially.  In the U.S., the majority of illegitimacy is in the 30-45 female age group – women who are experienced and know what they are doing.   Some women do this to force marriage, but most just want the money and the life of a serial spinster.  I call this “serial mistressing”.   I am a big supporter of the male pill because it gives men control over when they will become parents.  It is also fair to women because it is unfair for them to be completely responsible for birth control.
  1.       Domestic Violence:  
  1.        The system is geared to automatically blame everything on men.  Some police and judges know the game and do a more thorough job.
  2.      At least 70% of serious domestic violence involves substance abuse.  I believe this is the primary driver of DV.  When women are loaded, men usually get in trouble if she has even one mark on her body.  It is guilty until proven innocent:  men have to prove they were defending themselves – usually with audio or video evidence.  I coach guys to keep a small mp3 recorder on them or easily available to record altercations as evidence.  It works very well.  Motion sensing home surveillance cameras can be used, but this generates a lot of data and can be illegal as well.
  3.       Paternity fraud is another form of social violence.  Many states still presume that any child born into a marriage is the product of the marriage and cannot be contested.  We have a double standard here: DNA testing can be used anytime to prove paternity – even 25 years down the road – but it usually cannot be used to not prove paternity

What kind of protections if any does your Government provide for men in distress?

  •         None whatsoever.

What kind of social support do men in distress have in your country?

  •         Nothing at the government level.  Fathers rights groups are dead here.  Feminists took them over on college campuses.  That project was executed in the 1990’s by Lenore Weizman. They established “Men’s Support Centers” at universities under the Department of Psychology that were extensions of the gay/lesbian rights centers. These groups were gay rights groups and discluded normal men.  Men such as myself who tried to organize men on college campuses were banned as “haters”.   

Note: Lenore was inventor of the myth that women’s income declines significantly after divorce.  That was debunked in Sanford Braver’s book “Divorced Dads, shattering the myths” after her “lost” research was found in a closet at the University of Maryland and found to be entirely phony.  This was used to shape the “Williams Model”, on which most states base child support.  The Williams model is deeply flawed because it allocates no living costs or expenses to the father, while preserving the standard of living for the entire household (which is alimony, not child support).  

  •         Suicide, the corner bar, homeless shelters, and bankruptcy are the only social supports for men.   

What are the similarities and differences in issues faced by men in other cultures or countries that you are aware of?

  •         Dr. Murray Straus, who was the lead researcher calling for federal Domestic Violence (DV) laws (which became the Violence Against Women Act), was shocked at the monocular approach of our DV laws as established by feminists.  Murray is an old friend of mine. He has done more studies on international DV and violence than anyone.  Here they are:  Its all in the studies. Basically speaking: DV rates for men and women are very close in most countries, about 50/50.    False chivalry is everywhere in Western culture now.  English law that India essentially adopted put women on a Victorian pedestal, which is of course what feminists leverage when they add laws that blame men for everything.

What is your message for the world during Violence Against Men and Boys Awareness Month?

Good men must natively trust other men.  Without the cooperative brotherhood of mankind there are no protectors.  Feminists massively misuse chivalry to trick individual men into thinking they are good, but all other men are dangerous, and conscripting them to serve the feminist army destroying other men.  I call it an army because it has guns made of laws and pieces of paper that dismantle marriages, one at a time, behind closed doors.    

Men whose roles as fathers and husband have been destroyed often become social zombies.  Their assets are usually depleted.  They have no social role or proscript to fulfill in life.  There is often hate of government, distrust of women, and even religion because most religions do nothing to fight the feminist takeover.

Gandhi believed in unity.  Just as India won independence by uniting against the British, all men must stick together and fight for their rightful roles as husbands and fathers or be demolished one by one.  Married men who have high incomes and forward-looking corporations MUST fund pro-marriage policy organizations.  If they fail to do so, many of them will find their roles, businesses and money expropriated or taxed away to pay for exploding social problems, after which it is too late (which is now evident in the United States).

We can block feminist legislation only by having better policy than what feminists propose, and by having enough corporate financing to spread the message to legislators.  We cannot win as “men’s rights” activists.  This was tried in the U.S. for fifty years.  Fears about men’s wrongs always prevails because of the Titanic principle: “men must always go down with the ship”.  Battling alligators in the river is a loser.  We must drain the river and make them fight us on dry land where we have the advantage.  Sensible, honest public policy that gives all men and women what they want and need is impossible for feminists to fight.  Their policies do not give women what they really want and need.  Feminist policies lead only to poverty and having to “do it all” in urban areas full of de-socialized men. Our (pro-marriage) policies lead to contented wives, husbands, children, low taxes, and a good life in the large majority of cases.

I have said many times the feminism is the source of contemporary war.  From an aerial view, world conflict today is essentially an increasingly-violent clash between marriage-centric middle eastern nations that flatly reject feminist Marxism and stridently-feminist western nations that insist on forcing the feminist agenda on Muslim nations.  Muslim men and women are not about to let the West force or export feminism on them, which the West began doing in the early 1990’s.  This was done by dropping planeloads of U.N. feminists in conservative countries to tell them what to do.  This export program was in full swing by the time Hillary Clinton spoke at the 1995 Beijing Women’s Conference ( I was working in Chengdu, China at the time – her talk was soundly rejected by both students and academics at the University of Chengdu and in the media.).   

Wise countries such as Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and China block feminism at the border and on the internet.  Wise countries focus on making money while the West destroys its social fabric and spends itself into financial oblivion, while Muslim nations get bombed for sponsoring terrorism.   India would be wise to duplicate the East-Asian model.  If India fails to do so, we can predict increasing religious radicalism and terrorism in India.  Feminism is based on Marxist socialism, which will also destroy the economic fabric of India as it has in the West.  These changes will occur slowly over time in a way that is noticeable only by longitudinal scholars, who like in the West, will be ignored because “fighting terrorism” and propping up a sinking government will be the only thing that government and individuals have the bandwidth and money to handle.   

India’s men and women must unite to reject feminism.  Men’s rights, women’s rights, or other “inequality” only result in the downward spiral of war between the sexes, classes, and income groups.  Marxist theory knows that the best way to destroy a nation is to initiate class, sex, and economic warfare.  This machinery must be removed from India to prevail.

In the end, a socio-economic collapse in India would be worse than in the United States because India’s cities are so large.  Large cities can only survive when the vast majority of citizens are peaceful and productive.  Large unpopulated areas are the training grounds for terrorism.  Every disaffected man has little left to believe in – which is why terrorist organizations have been so successful signing up western men to act as suicide bombers.   

I say unequivocally that India’s survival as a peaceful and prosperous nation depends decisively on removing feminist activists and literature from the country and enacting pro-marriage policies such as what we have created in my organization.

Marriage is the only institution in the history of mankind and world religion that raises kids and supports families effectively.  Marriage is the cornerstone of religion, and religion is the house that marriage lives in.  It is our duty as men and women to protect marriage, the nation’s social fabric, and the sanctity of religion from the nuclear destruction that took place in the United States and much of Western Europe.   

I have a number of ranking conservative friends who believe it is too late to save the United States from collapse.  It is not too late for India.