NITISH WINS VOTE
Could lose some admirers
DAYS ago Nitish Kumar stood tall for carrying his resentment of Narendra Modi&’s style of functioning ~ and personal animosity, perhaps some rivalry too as aspirants for the prime ministership ~ to its logical conclusion. Even risking his Bihar government and leading the JD(U) out of the NDA, though not all his party colleagues favoured the break-up. Yet after retaining his office in Patna the man does not emerge so upright ~ his flirtation with the Congress has tarnished some of his sheen. The old adage about “supping with the devil” and its contemporary equivalent, “sleeping with the enemy” have come into play. It is perhaps true that the Congress made the “pass” ~ Nitish did not even pretend to play “hard to get”. His expression of gratitude to the Prime Minister for hailing him as “secular” was in some contrast to an earlier comment that he required no such certification from anybody. For those who claim to have been inspired by Ram Manohar Lohia, Raj Narain and Jayaprakash Narayan, compliments from the Congress would once upon a time have been deemed insulting. Not anymore. Nor indeed can Nitish and Co. overdo the “secular” stuff: they contested elections on a common platform with the BJP so some of the votes the JD(U) secured in the last Assembly poll were obviously from BJP supporters, and the other way around. So all talk of “communal” and “secular” rings a trifle hollow, as indeed does Nitish&’s new-found admiration for LK Advani. The situation was clear and simple: Nitish knew he would lose the Muslim vote by maintaining any links with a Modi-propelled BJP. Why try to “justify” doing what he thought was pragmatic?
There is, of course, a bigger picture. Nitish&’s playing ball with the Congress (even if other leaders of the JD(U) are not enthusiastic) virtually completes the dismantling of the anti-Congress forces that had rallied around “JP”. The Jana Sangh element re-expressed itself as the BJP, Lalu Prasad went into an electoral arrangement with the Congress (shattered by Wednesday&’s vote in Patna), and Mulayam Singh props up the UPA at the Centre. Maybe all this confirms Mr Manmohan Singh&’s theory about there being no permanent enemies in politics. Yet the wooing of Nitish also confirms that the so-called “clean” Mr Singh indulges in dirty politics too. The upshot of that being that manipulation is misconstrued as management, which translates into the misgovernance that plagues the nation.

HC REDEFINES MARRIAGE
Sexual union is sufficient
IN a judgment of far-reaching consequence, Justice CS Karnan of the Madras High Court has ruled that if a bachelor aged 21  and a spinster of 18 have “consummated their sexual cravings” it is sufficient to declare them man and wife.  Even if the woman does not become pregnant after having sex with a man but there is strong documentary evidence to show the existence of such a relationship, then also the couple involved would be termed as husband and wife. Formalities such as tying a mangalsutra, the exchange of garlands and rings, or the registration of marriage were only to comply with religious customs for the satisfaction of society. If a married couple is unable to have sexual relationship, such a marriage would be invalid, the judge said, and added that when a couple seeks to separate after being in a sexual relationship, the man cannot marry anyone without getting a divorce from the woman. It is not clear the grounds on which such a union can be dissolved legally. To prove pre-marital sex in a court of law is practically impossible. Medical proof would be possible only if the woman became pregnant and delivered a child, when maternity and paternity tests would be possible. If Justice Karnan&’s ruling is accepted, many men would end up with multiple wives and many women would become polygamists. It opens up the need for a debate on live-in relationships and possible legislation for giving them legal protection. Marriage involves rights and responsibilities and cannot be conferred lightly based on a one-night stand. The sanctity of marriage cannot be reduced to just a means of sexual gratification. The Madras High Court judgment vastly differs from the Delhi High Court judgment in the Alok Kumar case where it was held live-in relationships were more like walk-in and walk-out relationships with no strings attached. Except for the Special Marriage Act, all other marriage laws in India are personal and are governed by the religion to which the spouses belong. Justice Karnan&’s ruling is inappropriate in a plural society like ours. Pre-marital sex is the norm among certain sections of the tribal community. Polygamy and polyandry are legal in several parts of the country. In Tamil Nadu, having multiple wives, particularly among the political class, is a matter of prestige and a passport to Cabinet berths in governments formed by the Dravidian parties. While the Madras High Court ruling was welcomed by several women&’s groups, there is every danger of promiscuous women exploiting it to extract money from well-heeled men after a one-night stand.

OFF THE PEACE TRACK
Karzai&’s spanner in the works
DOHA is a long way from Kabul, and not merely in terms of distance. Hamid Karzai has thrown a spanner in the works, quite obviously driven by national sentiment in the face of negotiations with the Taliban in Doha brokered by Barack Obama. The outlook becomes still more critical both for Afghanistan as much as for Pakistan in the months leading up to the pullout of US troops in 2014. The Afghan President does have a point when he rejects talks with an offshore outpost of the Taliban. Yet the fact that he has pulled out a day ahead of the meeting would suggest that realisation came rather late. Neither he nor his government had any issue with the venue when the peace conference was mooted. Logically enough, the trilateral negotiations between the USA, Afghanistan and the Taliban ~ aimed at bringing the militants on board after the NATO withdrawal ~ ought to have been convened on Afghan soil. It is more than obvious that Mr Karzai has taken umbrage to the fact that militants are using the territory of Qatar for purported peace negotiations. On closer reflection, any Head of State would have objected to the offshore banner ~ Political Office of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan ~ at the Doha establishment of the Taliban. It can only be interpreted as a symbol  of a government in exile. From the Af-Pak frontier to the Gulf, it is a measure of the twists and turns of geo-politics that Mr Karzai has taken strong exception to what he calls the “rise of a virtual Taliban embassy in Qatar”. At one stroke, he has called off the critical security talks with the USA and scuttled the despatch of his government&’s peace delegation to the insurgents. Mr Karzai has gone off at a tangent despite his country&’s pivotal role in the overall construct, though the world must concede that he has effected a diplomatic rebuff to Washington as much as to the Taliban leadership. Indeed, Mr Karzai has scuttled two major facets of President Obama&’s long-term perspective on Afghanistan. Chiefly, to talk peace with the Taliban and thereby blunt the edge of the insurgency when the US troops withdraw. The other underpinning was to conclude an agreement that would ensure American military presence beyond 2014. Both President Obama and the Taliban ought now to respond to President Karzai&’s plea that the peace process should be “Afghan-led”.