Daily Times

I am writing these lines to critically evaluate an opinion piece published in the same newspaper under the title ‘Polygamy in Pakistan’ (Daily Times, February 15, 2014) in which the worthy writer Hilde Jacobs provided justification for the practice of polygamy. The key argument of the article presupposes that man is responsible for economic activity while the woman looks after the physical and sexual needs of her male possessor called husband. This concept is not without merit in a tribal society where men perform the labour intensive activities of trade and warfare while women ensure continuity of the tribe by becoming offspring producing machines and keeping males physically comfortable and sexually satisfied. In ancient societies, besides polygamy, the institution of slavery was also widely entrenched. No doubt, we do find passing references to treating slaves well but the fact remains that all through Arab history, male prisoners of wars were traded for their physical strength while female prisoners were valued for their ‘sexual prowess’. We have to be careful when we inherit historical baggage from ancient societies.

Yes, if two to four wives are kept happy, what is the fuss about? No doubt, there were understandable reasons for this arrangement in societies where constant warfare had necessitated their social acceptability. This social scheme however can function satisfactorily as long as women do not acquire education and are kept isolated from the external world. Triggering the process of self-actualisation, education inculcates the faculty of making choices in an individual. Those who go to schools and colleges develop the capacity to dream and aspire. Education ushers in the empowering urge of leading a fuller life as an individual. The polygamy scheme is an efficient economic solution based on division of primary roles in a rudimentary tribal society but its continued working depends on the voluntary compliance of women to their male possessors who, like cows and sheep, treat them well. The whole system breaks down once the bull of education is allowed to enter this china shop.

Hilde argues that it is better to have polygamy than to have extra-marital relations. Perhaps we are confusing moral principles with laws that can be enforced in a court of law. Marriage is a ritual invented by human society to formalise the need of procreation. Like all other species, humans also have to adopt ways and means of recreating their offspring to ensure the survival of the species. The ritual is dependent on social consensus, which in turn depends on factors like climate, geography, beliefs and underlying economic structure. Just as these factors change so does the consensus and consequently the rituals also change. For instance ‘sati’ was once practiced in ancient India but is against the law today. Child marriage was never an issue in our cultural heritage but today we have specific laws against this practice. Cultures evolve over time and so do laws that govern our conduct. Yesterday, in many cultures even siblings could marry but today, save in Muslim communities, even cousin marriages are considered inappropriate. We cannot be judgmental about these social norms as they reflect the social consensus of the times in which those societies live. Neither should we condemn norms of ancient times nor should we forcibly apply them to modern times.

The author refers to some German families where polygamy is practiced. Generalising from such anecdotal evidence is a very risky business. If Germany as a whole develops consensus over the usefulness of polygamy, a political party will not waste a minute in making it a political issue in a continent where elections are even contested on the fox hunting issue. Laws reflect the social consensus of a society upon rights and duties. The fact is that even a single leaked story of infidelity often proves to be a fatal blow to the political careers of prominent leaders. People of course differ in their choices about relationships. For instance, on Valentine’s Day a week ago, the mother of my wife’s colleague received a present on February 14 from her husband who had died on February 11. As the husband was a cancer patient who knew that his days were numbered he had ordered the gift for his wife a month before. Many men choose to cheat or be cruel to their spouses but many can be loving life partners as well. The social consensus of today is built upon this notion of living together as equal partners. Women do not want to be in a marriage relationship where they are seen as the possessions of husbands. Polygamy, like slavery, is therefore not tenable in the modern world. Faith better not be used when it comes to debating human rights issues.

True, many religions in the past allowed polygamy. No doubt, religions played an important part in promoting globalisation in the early part of human civilisation but we also find that these religions were almost unanimous in building and preaching an earth-centric cosmology. We should be equally grateful to the magnificent doubters like Galileo and Ibne Rushd who rescued knowledge from the clutches of those who posed as interpreters of the laws of God while not having any clue about how blood circulates in our body, how disease is caused by germs and how heavenly bodies are related to each other. Using faith to achieve personal contentment is a respected right of every faithful but we have to think twice before we extend its usage to the definition and exercise of our legal rights.

The writer teaches public policy in the UK and is the founding member of the Rationalist Society of Pakistan. He can be ?reached at hashah9@yahoo.com