Prop Whip

Ladies and gentlemen, as the proposition whip, my job is to provide to you a cost-benefit analysis and show you how the proposition has clearly managed to win all the major points of clash. Firstly, let us take a look at the 3 major points of clash-
1) Fundamental right to choice vs. rationality of the individual to make a good and sensible choice.
2) Polygamy being a viable legal and social alternative vs. the potential hazards in the form of economic, social or other perceived costs.
3) Polygamous tendency being inherent to an individual vs. the loss of sanctity of the institution of marriage.

Before I begin the cost benefit analysis, let me complement the DPM on his perspectives and insights into the case. However his beliefs hardly matter to the substance of the case, and are incidental if at all of any value. Speculation about Shri Lalu Yadav’s progeny or whether the honourable DPM believes that dowry crimes shall increase as a result of polygamy, are hardly facts of evidence- hence they do not count as constructives or rebuttals at all. At best, they are opinions, and NOT PROOF.

And now for the cost benefit analysis-
1) The opposition seems to believe that the government wants to convert every monogamous individual to polygamous. Clearly the proposition has stated that we only want to make polygamy a legally available alternative. Hence, there ought to be no contention on this premise. Next, the opposition seems to be clearly hesitant in considering citizens of India rational enough in making choices. This is clearly an unreasonable generalization. However uneducated or poor a person may be, it is by and large reasonable to assume that the individual is mindful of his/her best interests and will,in any circumstance(be it compelled or free will), make a choice that he/she finds most suitable at such a time. Let me remind the opposition that monogamy also rests on the premise that individuals are rational enough to enter into matrimonial alliances. Why then such frivolous assumptions in the case of polygamy. Clearly, this exposes double standards.

A very interesting fact is that the DPM actually said “ We need to 1st make our people understand how rising population… large families are detrimental to society in general and to them in particular…” . He inherently concedes to the fact that if people understand family planning, then polygamy may not be such a bad thing after all ! This is presumably his 2nd step …

The proposition also fails to see how “It will lead to excess men who cannot find wives and hence younger girls will be used.”(quoting the DPM). Is the opposition’s case based on polygyny alone? If so, they already concede to half our case without me breaking sweat. If not, then this line of defence is invalid, since there is an equal probability of polyandry which will tend to cancel out the effects as perceived.

The proposition has clearly shown you how a rational individual will have the liberty to make a choice, as against a legal ban. The opposition has come up with skewed argumentation along the lines of people not being rational enough to make the choice. The proposition merely wants to provide a legal alternative, while the opposition is afraid that “lawyers will have a field day”. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to generate employment in our country!(please take this as a rather dry piece of humour) The proposition seems to be afraid of passing the law only since “the changes would be endless.” Is the fear of change their only reason to deny citizens their rights? If so, they are going against the very fundamental purpose of laws- which are meant to enforce rights.

2) The opposition has been magnanimous enough to point out flaws in the system of polygamy. Breakdown of family machinery in the form of jealousy and lack of time, economic troubles for poorer sections, overpopulation as a potential hazard of polygamy, and social inequality creation between the genders and also between various strata of society were all the arguments put forth by the opposition.
As the proposition, we have argued that legalizing polygamy doesn’t mean replacing monogamy with polygamy- it simply means giving people a choice to decide which system of marriage they would want to follow. We told you that family machinery wouldn’t break down, because people who became part of such a family opted to be part of this setup. The opposition merely countered by saying that somehow jealousy would not allow for harmonious existence. If so, there is always the legal route out of such a marriage! If two individuals cannot harmoniously co-exist, they may choose to separate legally(or ‘divorce’) . However, presuming that divorce is an imminent consequence and thereby disallowing the legalization of polygamy is akin to saying that people must never get married simply because they would probably not last as a couple- a rather presumptuous and hollow argument by the opposition, which defeats their cause of monogamy too.
We told you that polygamy is viable legally and socially. Islam follows the system of polygyny, wherein a man may marry upto 4 wives at a time. Islam is today a global religion. About a third of the global population practices Islam. This clearly shows that inherent in the psyche of a large population, there is an acceptance to the notion of permitting polygyny. We have argued that due to this, people must be given the ‘choice’ to decide whether they want to follow such practices or not, and if they do, they must be legally allowed to do so. The opposition could only come up with the argumentation that somehow this would destroy the institution of marriage. Ladies and gentlemen, polygamy is also an institution of marriage! The question here is not of saving one institution at the cost of another, it is of making enough legal elbow room so that both may harmoniously co-exist, although mutually exclusive of each other. As the opposition wants it to be, the question will indeed become one of destroying ‘polygamy’ to save ‘monogamy’. We, as a reasonable government, wish to safeguard the interests of both viewpoints.
The opposition also told you of the evils of overpopulation and socio-economic inequality. Firstly, given a scenario where one man has ,say, ‘y’ wives and hence produces say ‘x’ number of children and comparing it to a case where ‘y’ men have ‘y wives’ and produce say ‘z’ number of children- it would be rational to assume that x is less than z simply because one man providing for more kids is rather a difficult task . Even in the case of polyandry(one woman producing ‘x’ kids from ‘y’ husbands and ‘y’ women producing ‘z’ kids from ‘y’ husbands), we would see no increase in population. Obviously, every woman has a limit to the number of children she can bear(physiologically)! Here also, x is less than or equal to z. Thus, the problem of overpopulation gets tackled, at least in a relative sort of way. Next, socio-economic inequality exists in status quo also. All the perceived ills of polygamous marriages like dowry system, etc. exist in status quo. Women are still the weaker gender ( by law). If anything, polygamy only improve status quo by allowing for greater cohesion between the many wives(or many husbands) and thus tackling injustice in a much stronger way.

3) Finally , the proposition told you that polygamous tendency was inherent to an individual. We cited scientific research(which is very well permissible as evidence within the scope of such prepared debate). The opposition merely countered by falling back upon destruction of the institution of marriage, which by now appears to have been their only stock argument. I have already shown you how that argument falls. Clearly, this point stands in favour of the proposition, as we have been able to draw a logical connect between innate human desire and the accordance of legality to such desire.

With this ladies and gentlemen, I quickly sum up. I have shown you the major points of clash(3 in munber). In each of the clashes, I performed an extremely unbiased comparison- and sadly, despite that, the proposition has managed to clearly tackle all the perceived harms of the opposition and win all the major points of clash. This hasn’t really been a nonsensical debate. It has clearly been a case of the opposition –
a) Not understanding premise
b) Not having enough of arguments to counter

With this ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to propose.