opp whip

Before I start on my arguments, I would like to give 2 basic pointers on parliamentary debating, which the proposition clearly seems to be in need of.


Firstly, the example on polygamy in Hindu mythology - giving an example as an argument (of precedent, or otherwise) is hardly the basis for one. To that effect, it was well rebutted by the DLO with a counter-example and nothing else, because that’s all it deserved.


Secondly, our very honourable and experienced proposition whip mentions that "whether the honourable DPM believes that dowry crimes shall increase as a result of polygamy , are hardly facts of evidence" - does he want us to try polygamy and dowry laws on a sample case, and provide statistics? (note here that polygamy-friendly Islam doesn't have dowry) The prop clearly has no idea of logic-based arguments, and would only go after studies, which they have so easily presented and even more easily misrepresented, but more on that later.



Now, while going about with their argumentation, the proposition has clearly forgotten about a major part of India, namely rural India, where the society isn't as progressive as they believe, the people aren't as educated as they think - and yes, many aren't rational thinkers as well. If they were, vote bank politics and buying votes would be a thing of the past - but that’s another debate altogether. Nonetheless, my point of rural India and how the rural Indian wife suffers more than anybody else shall keep coming in the following arguments.



The major points of clash, as the opposition sees it are the following three

1. Apparent economic benefits & population control

2. Inherent polygamy (which mysteriously becomes 'polygamous tendency' in prop whip)

3. Supposed reduction in various negatives of monogamy (dowry crimes, AIDS etc)



Firstly, on the point of ‘apparent economic benefits’. The PM gave utopian examples of rich men and women having multiple spouses and thereby improving the average lifestyle and reducing the number of 'bums and hobos' on the streets. The obvious flaw in this argument is the equation of marriage to money. People cannot just buy marriages and improve lifestyle. If that was the case, then rich men would "buy" wives from an entire village and have a harem ready all for themselves. This comparison is demeaning the concept of marriage.


On the point of population reduction, their example of x, y and z clearly has forgotten an obvious variable i.e. the number of kids each remaining (y-1) wives/husbands can have. Let the average value of this obvious parameter be 'o'. Now, let polygyny case P have a man with y wives and, thus, x children. Let monogamy case M have y men with y wives and, thus, z children (at an average of 'o' per couple). Economic capability would limit x to be less than z, since y+1 individuals provide for x kids in case P. However, what they forget in case P is the remaining (y-1) men who were considered as husbands in the monogamous case M. These (y-1) husbands will produce ‘o’ kids at an average. Thus, the only difference between case P and M is the case of the polygamous husband who produces ‘x’ kids in P instead of ‘o’ kids in M. Clearly, with more wives in P, x is greater and hence your population would actually increase with polygyny.



Of course, in case you claim that there are more women considered for the y men in polygamous case P, then you would also agree that in case P we would just not have enough marriageable women in the country to marry all the men. In such cases, some men would resort to prostitution for the sexual desires, with emotional desires being totally neglected. Or, in rural indian society, younger girls might be forced into marriage, which affects future generations.



Note that this example applies very well for polyandrous women too, but our emphasis is on polygyny here since that would seem more likely, considering our male dominated society and the skewed sex ratio in favour of men. Thus, the population example creates more problems for society via prostitution, or via increased population, depending on how you look at it. In fact, the way the proposition arguments are framed, the only thing that’s worth noticing in ‘apparent economic benefits’ is the word 'apparent'.



The next point of clash is based on the study that humans naturally prefer polygamy (or polygamous tendency as the prop whip very conveniently rephrased it). Firstly, is marriage a natural thing, or is it a man-made institution? Would Adam and Eve want to have married as a natural consequence? I'm sure that the proposition was pointing to the fact that humans would wish to have sex with multiple partners. That is what the proposition calls polygamy/polygamous tendency. In that case, besides completely misinterpreting the basic essence of polygamy, once again the proposition is demeaning the concept or essence of marriage by equating it to sex. Also, as my LO has clearly stated, there is no end to this need for sexual variety, and people might add to their spouses every few years in their marriage just for want of good, novel sex.



Once again, I bring to you the pitiable condition in rural India, where women aren't allowed to express their sexual desires - it is considered sinful for a woman to want to have sex, and natural for a man. To this effect, men will have a number of wives, which, in all probability, will not be taken in good spirit by the (helpless) women. These women can't do anything about it because a man would be expected to have a number of sexual partners - where will they get support from? Such a law of polygamy will be oppressive towards such women.



By the points of the prop whip it seems like marriage, to him, is more of a barter/business-like tradition, where people marry to either acquire money or a continuously supply of sexual pleasure, completely neglecting the emotional aspect to marriage. I pity the woman who will marry him.


Finally, I would like to talk to you about the so-called reduced negatives in polygamy. The DPM mentions how "Forced arranged marriages, dowry crimes, domestic violence and infidelity, among other issues brew a large amount of dissatisfaction amongst monogamous couples" and that "legalisation of polygamy provides people the option of finding satisfaction in another partner". First of all, if you do have problems with your monogamous or polygamous spouse, you should file for divorce!! You don’t run away from it by marrying an additional person. This also seems to suggest that when you marry another person, then you are not taking consent from your current spouse, all the more reason to wreak havoc to a household. And as is rightly pointed out by the DLO, polygamy, by virtue of having more than one spouse for a person, will have inherent competition among spouses, and this gives rise to greed in terms of more dowry where it is prevalent (such as rural India). Some spouse might have a high spending power and may spend more on his child who lives in the same house as another child with a poorer parent. Such disparity will create a whole lot more problems in the household, which may turn into court cases. And employment among lawyers at the expense of peace in one's house is not at all a laughing matter for the opposition.



About the decrease in the spreading of AIDS, that is clearly rebutted by the LO who stated that it is not mandatory even in monogamy - how will it prevent the spread of AIDS in polygamy? It seemed so convincing that neither the DPM nor the prop whip picked it up after.



Thus, I have clearly shown to the house how there aren’t any apparent benefits or reduced negatives in polygamy – infact only worse off situations and conditions. I have proved how these conditions will be detrimental most of all to women in rural India, which forms a very large chunk of the population. I have also shown how arguments such as the containment of AIDS or sexual variety are totally misconstrued and pointless from the side of the proposition. With that I am proud to oppose this highly fallacious motion.