Mum8217;s the word

Fill in father8217;s name in block letters. For generations, people have complied with this bureaucratic stipulation while filling an application for a ration card, a passport or driving licence, without sparing a thought for the various social biases it reflected. Today, with only 18 months left for the world to reach the millennial threshold, a few institutions in this country are slowly beginning to reflect the revolution in sexual politics that this century, more than any other, has witnessed. One such institution is Delhi University, which has at long last decided to give students the option of mentioning either their mother8217;s or father8217;s name, or both names should they so choose, in admission forms, migration forms and other sundry documents. It becomes the first university in the country to do so and the move could be something of a trend-setter, with other universities and institutions following suit.

But practical considerations, rather than a lofty commitment to a society free from sexism, seem tohave driven the university authorities to take this step. Children of divorced, separated or single parents have had a rough time, particularly while seeking migration forms, and the intention was to provide them with some relief. But developments like this, aimed largely to iron out a minor technical detail, have some symbolic significance in that they undermine norms hitherto considered immutable. However, unless, they are reflected in transformations in the law, their impact on social behaviour will necessarily be minimal. An important area of concern is the notorious time lag between legal and administrative procedures, on the one hand, and changes in popular lifestyle, on the other.

Nowhere is this more manifest than in the realm of sexual relations. Laws, as they stand in the country8217;s statute books today, don8217;t reflect the rising divorce or migration rates, live-in relationships, the increased literacy of women, their greater participation in the workforce or, indeed, the fact that female-headedhouseholds have suddenly become a factor in the country8217;s demographic profile.

Every personal law in this country, implicitly or explicitly, recognises the father as the head of the family and the natural guardian of the children in that household. Here lies the rub. When novelist Githa Hariharan wished to gift some RBI bonds to her son, she discovered to her dismay that her signature carried no weight even though it was her money, and not her husband8217;s, that was involved in the transaction. Administrative procedure required her husband8217;s signature and that was it. She was incensed enough over this stipulation to file a writ petition challenging the Hindu Guardianship Act. The case is still pending before the court, and the issue it highlights remains unaddressed. Which is a pity, because what is at stake is a very fundamental concern: should women continue to be denied their constitutional right to equality because of the archaic laws that govern them?