For all you guys with extra libido, here’s a dampener. If you are having an affair with your neighbour’s wife, you could end up with 5 years in jail, even if it is a consensual sexual relationship. There is a rider though. If your neighbour has no objection to such a relationship with his wife, you can breathe easy. The cops can’t catch you!
Do you think I’m nuts? I’m not, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is. Here are some extracts from Section 497 IPC, in layman’s lingo. “Whoever has sexual intercourse with … the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment… which may extend to five years… In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor”.
Shocking, but not surprising! The IPC was drafted by McCaulay and enacted by the Governor General as Act 45 of 1860. In those days a woman was still considered the property of the man, and had no rights of her own. Hence it was the husband’s property that was being transgressed, and his rights violated. If he had encouraged or permitted his wife to have sex with another man, for whatever reason, it would have been with his consent, and therefore not a violation of his rights; and by consequence, not a crime.
What would we think of a man who allowed his wife to be used by another man – perhaps to curry favour, or avoid harassment? A despicable coward? Unfortunately, Abraham, the father of the faith, did just that; not once, but twice!
When he went to Egypt, he was afraid that the Egyptians would kill him in order to take his beautiful wife Sarai. So he passed her off as his sister, and she was taken into Pharaoh’s household. In exchange, Abraham got top billing, and sheep, oxen, donkeys, camels and slaves. When Pharaoh later came to know that Sarai was actually Abraham’s wife he banished them from Egypt. (cf Gen 12:10-20). Abraham repeated the same dirty trick when he settled in the region of Gerar, and gave his wife as his sister to its King Abimelech (cf Gen 20: 1-7).
The Dictionary of The Bible by Rev John L McKenzie SJ also states that the “Hebrew morality of adultery rested upon the primitive conception of the wife as the property of the husband. Only the rights of the husband could be violated” (Pg 14). So why blame the IPC alone?
Recently there was a big shindig when the Delhi High Court struck down Sec 377 of the IPC that had criminalized homosexual acts. It is about time that Sec 497 was also modified; if the Govt does not consider itself to be a moral guardian. Just as with homosexuality, which most people consider immoral, so too with consensual adultery; it should not be treated as a crime. The provision for consent or connivance of the husband should be abolished forthwith. If at all adultery is still retained as a crime in the IPC, then both the man and the woman should be equally treated as criminals, not just the man.
Unfortunately, there are many other sections in the IPC that seem totally out of sync with the modern world. Here are some glaring anomalies. The punishment for fighting in public places and disturbing the peace is just one month (Sec 159). The punishment for obscene acts or songs in public is 3 months (Sec 294). For spreading a dangerous disease (Sec 269), food adulteration (Sec 272), drug adulteration (Sec 274), rash and negligent driving endangering human life (Sec 279) one incurs just six months of punishment.
However, mischief causing damage upto Rs 50/- (like breaking a window pane) would be punished by two years imprisonment (Sec 427). Mischief to kill or maim somebody’s animal worth Rs 10/- would entail two years (Sec 428), and if the animal is worth more than Rs 50/- it would mean 5 years in jail (Sec 429)! Should the IPC then be renamed as the Idiotic Penal Code? I hope that lawyers and Bar Councils will take up the various anomalies and incongruences in the IPC.
Other than the criminality of adultery, what about its morality? According to the Mosaic Law, adultery was a sin (Ex 20:14). It attracted death by stoning (Ezk 16:40). Murder and adultery are often referred to in the same breath, as in the Ten Commandments. Even the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church clubs adultery with murder, blasphemy and perjury (cf CCC 1756 & 1856). It is classified as a mortal sin (CCC 1856), presuming that there is full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). Here again there is a rider. “The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offence, as can external pressures or pathological disorders” (CCC1860).
Fortunately the catechism departs from the Mosaic and IPC concept of the woman being the property of the man. It does not differentiate between the sexes. Be it a man or a woman, if (s)he is married and has sex with a third person, it is adultery (CCC 2380). It is considered an injustice, breach of marital commitment and a transgression of the rights of the spouse (CCC 2381).
Finally, what does Jesus think about adultery, and how does he relate to adulterous persons? He raises the bar in his Sermon on the Mount when he says that even “if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mat 5:27-28). By that token most men should end up burning in Hell!
While on the one hand Jesus is stern in his moral code, on the other he is full of compassion and empathy. He openly associates with tax collectors and “sinners”, a word synonymous with sexual offenders. The self-righteous Pharisees resented this. But Jesus says, “It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick. Go and learn the meaning of these words: Mercy is what pleases me, not sacrifice. And indeed I came to call not the upright, but sinners” (Mat 9:12-13). He did not hesitate to associate with the Samaritan woman who was co-habiting with her sixth partner (cf Jn 4:18), something that his disciples also didn’t understand.
The icing on the cake is when the scribes and Pharisees bring to him a woman caught red handed in adultery. (Those male chauvinists didn’t think it important enough to also catch the man red handed or red faced)! Would Jesus now subscribe to the Mosaic Law of stoning, or recommend compassion? It was a Catch 22 situation – damned either way. But Jesus is the super Human Relations guru who knows how to handle tricky and conflict situations. His classic reply is “ Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her” (Jn 8:7). He then writes in the dust, and the accusers bite the dust, quietly slithering away. What had turned the tide? Antaryami Jesus had written the names of all those self-righteous accusers who had themselves had sex with that poor woman. Then Jesus says, “Has no one condemned you? Neither do I. Go away, and from this moment sin no more” (Jn 8:11).
I am a sinner, so I am really happy and comforted to have Jesus in my life, to guide and forgive me. But if you don’t believe in Jesus’ teachings, then beware of Section 497 of the idiotic penal code, while jumping into bed with your neighbour’s wife!
No comments:
Post a Comment