New style website on its way...

We hope you like our new website!   It's not quite how we want it yet, so are still working on it.

Thanks for your patience.  Here's a picture of a Buddha, to promote calm and equanimity (that's for us while we try to configure the website.....)

Could you be married without knowing it? What the UK might learn from India

I have never been a big fan of marriage here in the UK and have avoided it myself (so far!)  It carries with it a history of patriarchal baggage to my mind and a 1950s – type image of being the perfect housewife, content to be cook, cleaner and nanny inside the home and nothing more than an appendage to your husband.  Historically, marriage has not been kind to women.  In the 19^th century (UK), married women did not even legally exist, their identity being subsumed into their husband’s.  So, a married woman could not own property, sign her own legal documents, keep her own salary, enter into a contract or pursue an education against her husband’s wishes.  Even in the 1970s a married woman could not obtain a mortgage without her husband’s signature and rape wasn’t criminalized within marriage until 1991 (and sadly still not criminalized in India).  Women were, and still are, expected (though not legally bound in the UK) to change their surname to their husband’s – an important marker of one’s own identity and family history.  [Though I notice that in a recent European Court of Human Rights case, the judges ruled that to legally require a woman to change her name – as in Turkey – was discriminatory (1)].

Nowadays, although law reform and social change have made marriage more of an equal partnership between men and women, its popularity is still declining.  So, just as same sex couples are set to gain the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples in the UK, statistics show that cohabiting couples are as likely to have children as married couples.  Living together – before or instead of marriage – is so accepted now that even Prince William and Kate Middleton lived together before their marriage.

For cohabiting couples in the UK, however, there still persists the myth of the ‘common law marriage’ with either partner assuming they have acquired some rights (for example to property or businesses) by virtue of having lived together and/or had children.  Unfortunately this is not the case and can lead to much hardship and unfairness on the breakdown of the relationship.  A patchwork of other laws have to be relied on (such as trust law or the Children’s Act 1989) to attempt a solution and although the Law Commission recommended legal change in its 2007 report on cohabitation, so far nothing has been done.

In India, by contrast, marriage is still an expectation in most people’s lives.  Relationships outside marriage – while perhaps becoming more common in the major urban centres – are still not accepted and marriage at a young age (including child marriage) is still widespread (child marriage is illegal in India, although still sadly very common). Anyone who saw this week’s edition of ‘Who Do You Think You Are?’ on BBC1 featuring East Ender’s actor Nitin Ganatra will have learnt how his own grandparents were married in Gujarat at the ages of only 6 and 10.  Registration of a marriage, however, is not (yet) compulsory, which can lead to disputes over the existence of an actual marriage (2).

With this background, it was therefore with interest that I read about the recent Madras High Court judgment in the case of Aysha v Ozir Hassan.  Jayna Kothari, an advocate in Bangalore and a founder member of the Centre for Law and Policy Research (3), has written about the case elsewhere, and I draw on her analysis here (4).  Briefly, the background was that Aysha had been in a relationship with Ozir, with whom she had 2 children.  She claimed they were married, but had no proof of this.  The relationship broke up and Aysha was left to care for the 2 children.  Aysha then made an application to the Family Court for maintenance for both her and the 2 children.  The Family Court initially rejected her claim for maintenance because of the lack of evidence of a marriage but this was overruled by the High Court who referred to hospital records where Ozir had said he was her husband.  On this basis, the Judge granted the maintenance sought by Aysha.  The Judge’s reasoning was that since the couple held themselves out to be married and had lived together, their relationship was in the nature of a marriage.  There had already been a precedent for this kind of decision in 2011 – although not relied on by the Judge here - where the Supreme Court had laid down a number of conditions for cohabiting couples which, if met, would hold their relationship to be in the nature of a marriage (5).  So far so good – and already it goes further than UK law would allow.

But the Judge didn’t stop at that.  He went on to say that all sexual relationships are in the nature of marriage – and couples could therefore not separate without getting a ‘divorce’ – so all sexual relationships carried all the consequences of a marriage.

This was an interesting development.  You can imagine the calculations going through the minds of some more liberal types – trying to work out how many times they might have been married without even realizing it!   Despair at the undermining of Indian culture was another reaction – for example one reader commenting in the Times of India (online), ‘Our Indian tradition is entirely different from this court ruling we have a belief marriage is fixed in heaven and married life is holy one sex is a part of married life.  I really do not understand where our lives are leading by such kind of ruling by courts’ (19 June 2013).

The consensus of legal opinion, however, seems to be that making all sexual relationships into marriage was probably not really central to the Judge’s decision, so doesn’t set any new precedents.  The Judge in this case was probably just interpreting the law as he saw it to ensure justice for Aysha and maintenance for her 2 children and lack of appropriate words or language may have hampered the Judge.

Nevertheless, interesting times in India.  If India follows the Western route, in increasingly downplaying the importance of marriage – with many more cohabiting couples – these are issues that will continue to occur.  And if cohabitating couples are given the same rights as married couples (following the 2011 Supreme Court case - above), what effect will that have on the future popularity of marriage in India?  Will it still be essential - if not for legal rights, but for divine or social blessing?  Maybe the UK should keep an eye on developments in India as a way forward for cohabiting couples here in the UK.

(1)   Leventoğlu Abdulkadiroğlu v. Turkey

(2)   This is set to change shortly with the passing of a new bill.

(3)   http://clpr.org.in/

(4)   Her article is available at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/indiaatlse/2013/07/15/what-rights-marriage/#more-1727

(5)   See the case of D.Veluswamy v Patchiammal.  The conditions are a) the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses b) they must be of the legal age to marry c) they must be unmarried and so qualify to be married d) they must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to society as being spouses for a significant period of time.

Masala Zone – Restaurant Home Cooked Indian Food

Like Roti Chai this is one of those places we have been meaning to try for a few months now and so a quiet Sunday recently saw us taking the bus to the Covent Garden branch just behind the Royal Opera House for lunch. We had also been recommended Masala Zone by one of Asma Khan’s Bengali friends so it was somewhere we had to experience.

Masala Zone has a strong restaurant pedigree with others in its London stable including Amaya, Chutney Mary and Veeraswamy. It has a number of locations in the capital. The restaurant suggests that the best food in India is not found in restaurants but in the home and in the form of street food. The thali, a complete meal on a tray, is the centre piece of its menu and intended to replicate the combination of the home and the street. Furthermore, it suggests that its food is a far cry from that of the average curry house in the UK.

The restaurant has clean, modern lines, and the furnishings are simple but adequate. Unlike Wagamama’s or Busaba Eathai the tables are separate. In the Covent Garden branch Rajasthani puppets are suspended from the ceiling which gives the restaurant plenty of India related atmosphere, character, and colour.

On that Sunday afternoon the restaurant was quiet and we received an immediate warm welcome. There was quite an international clientele with Arab women and Indian families from India, who perhaps were taking economical options after the fall of the rupee.

The menu consists of street food, individual curries, and thalis which are small quantities of each dish presented in small bowls on a large stainless steel tray. The restaurant did have a number of special offers which rather confused us but we stuck to the main menu. Sue chose the Pre-theatre Thali with the Chicken Mangalore and I the Grand Thali with Goan Prawn. Otherwise our thalis were identical. Our thalis comprised rice, chapatti, dhal, cauliflower curry, potato curry, onion bhaji, raita, a small salad and coriander chutney. Immediately we felt the quantity of rice would be inadequate so we ordered more.

We found the thali worked well with well-judged combinations and quantities, rice apart. I found the cauliflower and potato curries to be very good and I could have eaten a lot more in theory. However, my Goan Prawn curry was rather bland and disappointing. But Sue’s Mangalore Chicken was very tasty, judging by the small bite I had. I’m not generally a great fan of chapatis but these were well-cooked and prepared. The thalis were surprisingly filling and we both struggled to finish ours, and weren’t able to tackle any desserts.

I would concur with Masala Zone’s marketing in suggesting that the food is better than that of the average curry house. The service was swift and professional. Apart from my bland Goan Prawn curry my only criticism would be that the breadth of the menu andd special offers might be confusing, particularly if trying to introduce people to a relatively new way of presenting Indian food in restaurants.

Our bill was £42 including service which included two rounds of mango lassis each. We thought it good value in terms of the quality of the food, good service and the location. I would rate it 6-7 / 10, and would suggest it would be ideal for a quick lunch or dinner but perhaps not worth a special trip. However, the chain is exactly what the capital needs to rival Wagamama’s or Busaba Eathai for quality and consistent Eastern food.

Masala Zone, 48 Floral Street, London WC2E 9DA  Tel: 020 7379 0101

www.masalazone.com

Chennai Express

The only time I have ever walked out of a film was 5 minutes into a Hindi film in Southall when I realised there were no subtitles. Luckily my Hindi speaking companion was sympathetic. Even now I am rather tense watching the first moments of a Hindi film until the subtitles appear on the screen. I bring this up because had Sue suggested we leave at the interval I would have been out of my seat like a shot. I think we stayed partially because we were already there and, for me, to see if the second half could be worse than the first.

Chennai Express is one of the fastest grossing Bollywood films of all time. It’s already a member of the 300 Crore Club ($48m) worldwide, one of only four films to do so, and broke box office records in the weekend of its release in India. While the public have flocked to the film the critics, both in India and abroad (the film was released worldwide almost simultaneously) have not been so impressed.

So to the movie: Rahul (Shah Rukh Khan (SRK)) is the scion of a well-to-do sweet seller’s family in Mumbai, raised by his grandparents after his parents’ deaths. After an indulgent and spoilt childhood Rahul (SRK) is seemingly prevented from meeting women because he’s so committed to his grandparents and the business. At the time of his grandfather’s death Rahul is planning a “boys’ “ weekend in Goa but plans are complicated by having to dispose of the ashes near Chennai. Getting on the Chennai Express Rahul helps a running woman, Meenamma (played by Deepika Padukone) onto the train, but finds she is pursued by a number of non-Hindi speaking brutish men. Then Rahul finds they are her father’s henchmen who have found her after she ran away. Some comedic moments follow with lyrics from songs from SRK’s films changed to confuse the Tamil speakers. But escape attempts are futile and they arrive at her father’s “territory” and Rahul finds he is a local underworld chief who has promised his daughter to a friend’s gigantic son, Thangaballi. Rahul and Meenamma escape spending time at another local village, are found and escape, but Rahul returns to the mafia village to fight the brutish Thangaballi. Rahul says he fights for the “common man”. Love conquers all and her father accepts Rahul as her husband.

The first half was fairly pacey establishing Rahul as restricted by family issues, a familiar theme in Bollywood. But that was just to set the scene. The “boys” again were just thrown in for effect. The Hindi songs bastardised on the train were an in-joke taken from SRK’s previous films – along with a number of other references to other Bollywood films (Dilwale Dulhania le Jayenge; My Name is Khan; Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara; Khabi Khushi Khabie Gham). But beyond that there was very little characterisation, particularly of Meenamma. There were hints of racism - Indians are racist too - in the portrayal of the darker South Indians as large unintelligent brutes. There were a couple of dance numbers in the first half but they were simplistic dances and songs, often childish and facile.

The second half was actually a bit better, but that’s not saying much. A couple of the dance numbers, particularly set on the South’s tea estates, were actually quite entertaining. A car chase followed but for someone raised on Bond and Bourne the chase was fairly tame. But then a quite brutal fight scene between Rahul and Thangaballi.

None of the characterisation was strong. Rahul’s invocation of the “common man” was quite unexpected, and the love between Rahul and Meenamma was just not believable, certainly not compared to some of the couples in SRK’s previous films.

The hints of racism were added to by confusion between Hindi and Tamil, and just made one very uncomfortable. In addition, a scene when Rahul is on the run and comes across a man with dwarfism and a speech impediment is meant as a comic interlude partially but is gratuitously exploiting a dwarf and added nothing to the plot. But the Hindi speaking families behind us found it quite amusing.

The film also featured pure unreconstructed sexism of the type ingrained in Indian culture, but also of the type you hoped an international Bollywood film might manage to transform a little. Instead, we had a fairly assertive Meenamma on the run from an arranged (perhaps forced) marriage to Thangaballi, being captured and brought back to her domineering father by his henchmen. She seems to have no choice but to go through with the marriage to her father’s chosen partner before Rahul comes to her rescue. Rahul eventually ‘wins’ and is granted his chosen bride by Meenamma’s father – but only after the classic punch-up between the two would-be grooms over who gets the ‘girl’. Despite her feistiness, and constant attempts to escape, Meenamma returns to the passive bystander while the men fight over who gets to marry her. Hardly a promising role model for a 21st century woman – one in control of her own destiny - in whatever country – or indeed for her father or potential husband.

Brought up on the best of modern Bollywood and starring SRK we were expecting a lot better both in terms of the plot, songs and dances. The racism, sexism and casual treatment of the dwarf detracted considerably from the film. We didn’t find the comedy scenes funny at all – perhaps something was lost in translation.  If the film was meant as a parody of your classic Bollywood romance or Tamil action movie, then it wasn't a very good one and the in-jokes and references may well have been lost on an international audience. We do wonder if Bollywood tries too hard to combine what would normally be separate genres in its films from rom-com, to thriller to social commentary, and this was just a step too far.

Sue and I both evinced some concern for SRK’s continuing career. As we have noted before despite the fact he is good shape he can’t continue to play action roles, dance, and play the romantic partner of an actress in her 20s. Bollywood doesn’t appear to have the range of genres and movies that would be available to a leading actor of SRK’s age in Hollywood. But with SRK’s star power he can surely mould the industry to suit himself. Perhaps his wife’s involvement as a producer of Chennai Express skewed his judgement. Almost incidentally SRK and Padukone appeared on breakfast television in the UK, Daybreak, to help publicise the film. But the appearance was cringeworthy; the presenter had no idea that she was in the presence of a movie superstar, nor about the Indian film industry.

Overall 1 out of 5 and that’s mainly for the rather expensive popcorn we devoured.

 

The Indian Economy: Hubris, Nemesis....but Redemption is many years away

It’s rather unusual, if not unprecedented, if in the same week India features on the front page of the Financial Times, and is the subject of a leader in The Times. Consider also these headlines this week in the Wall Street Journal about India: “Shoppers, Shopkeepers Worried About Prices”, “Rupee Decline Hits Study, Emigration Plans”, “Rupee Fall Damps Festival Gold Buying”. These headlines are not what India needed after it celebrated Independence Day, and launches of an aircraft carrier and a nuclear missile submarine. Although not directly related the price of onions rose to UK levels this week. Prices rose not just because of a drought in some states but because heavy rains rotted much of the crop in other states. It seems India cannot even ensure onions are kept dry.

So what has prompted these headlines and the perception of crisis? The Indian rupee fell 16% since May 2013 to Rs64 to the dollar and over Rs100 to the UK pound, great news for tourists buying clothes in FabIndia, but spelling disaster for the Indian economy with prices of imports rising considerably. The Mumbai stock index, Sensex, fell to its lowest level for a year. The Indian government claims that the crisis has been caused by a tightening of monetary policy in the US, with increased bond rates attracting global investors who feel the US is a far safer place for their money than India. This claim has a veneer of truth but if the Indian economy was in better shape then international investors would not have abandoned it.

The causes of the crisis are manifold but in short they include slower growth, perhaps 5% this year, down from highs of 9% recently, and a growing current account deficit which reached 4.8% of GDP in March. One major contributor to the increasing import bill has been the level of oil and coal imports. India continues to import coal despite it holding the third largest reserves in the world. The power industry in particular has demands which Indian coal producers are unable to meet in the short term and this will rise in the medium term until domestic coal producers increase production. India already suffers from power cuts and this coal crisis will further deter Indian and foreign investments in industry generally.

High interest rates have also deterred investments in the Indian economy. Rates of over 7% impeded investments that India badly needed, and now in the midst of this crisis a rise in interest rates cannot be ruled out to protect the value of the rupee. Conversely there is now no likelihood that lowering interest rates dramatically as in the UK will have any significant effects because of the deep structural issues that operate as a brake on the Indian economy.

India also has a high budget deficit of -5.1%, although this is, for example, lower than the UK’s -7.6%. But the most important thing is that the markets have faith in the UK’s measures to reduce this deficit and its overall public debt. Further problems will arise if India is unable to fund these deficits except at the cost of higher interest rates.

The Indian state also incurs huge costs in its subsidy programmes notably oil, its work programme (NREGA) and the new Food Security Act. Oil subsidies affect kerosene, cooking oil, power stations and motor cars. Earlier in the year the Indian government announced a reduction in the level of subsidies but the fall in the value of the rupee has wiped out any savings. It is estimated that each Rs1 fall against the dollar adds over $1b to the subsidy bill. Moody’s suggested that fuel subsidies could rise to $25b this year. Politically it would be difficult to reduce the prices that consumers pay.

In this context Sonia Gandhi, President of the Indian National Congress, and the governing UPA coalition launched the food security programme this month which may cost $21b this year. The programme seeks to provide basic foodstuffs to up to 57% of India’s population. As an aside Sonia Gandhi said the programme would be “corruption free” although it’s unclear as to how she can make such a guarantee.

In addition, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) launched primarily as a work programme in 2005 and to improve rural infrastructure costs c$10b annually. Often the estimates for welfare expenditures bear no relation to the actual costs. While the aims of this welfare schemes are laudable they may foster an era of welfare dependency, and one cannot help thinking that the money would be better spent on infrastructure and education, in particular ensuring an educated workforce. But with an election due by May 2014 one cannot envisage the UPA coalition reducing welfare expenditure significantly because of the importance of the rural electorate.

The immediate responses to the rupee devaluation have been limited. Increased duty has been levied on gold and TVs imported as hold baggage. Apparently Indians import over 1 million TVs in this manner. Perhaps one should ask why India appears to be unable to produce TVs or build a strong domestic brand.

Dr Duvvuri Subbarao, Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), whose lecture I attended at the LSE earlier in the year (link here), has been blamed for much of the crisis and, in particular, for keeping interest rates high. But it is difficult to allocate blame to Dr Subbarao when so many of the factors leading to the crisis have been outside his control: from poor infrastructure and education, budget and current account deficits, to excessive spending on welfare. Dr Subbarao did joke that the current global recession would end when he left office. With his term due to end in early September 2013 that is actually true for most of the developed world but it may be the beginning of a very difficult period for the Indian economy with the possibility that the fall in the value of the rupee may trigger a recession.

Dr Subbarao will be succeeded by Dr Raghuram Rajan whose credentials are impeccable apart from the fact that he has been an adviser to the Indian Finance Minister. Dr Rajan has been Chief Economist at the IMF, and before the global financial crisis of 2008 made a presentation foreseeing the crisis and blaming excessive risk-taking in the markets. He was dismissed as a Luddite by Larry Summers, formerly US Treasury Secretary. So, Dr Rajan can say the unpalatable, and this is going to be crucial attribute in the months and years to come.

The Indian state is riddled with nepotism, cronyism and corruption. As an example putative MPs take out large loans to cover their election expenses knowing that corrupt money will flow in to their personal coffers if they are elected. India needs to stop protecting its own industries and businesses as this hinders the development of the economy. For example, a few months ago a liberalisation of the retail sector was mooted but the conditions were so restrictive it seems Tesco and Wal-Mart amongst others do not want to invest. Overall India has grown as far as it can within its structural boundaries. Dramatic change is necessary.

India needs its Blackships moment; in the mid-nineteenth century the latest American warships arrived at Edo Harbour to force Japan to open itself to the wider world. Thus began Japan’s journey to a fully developed nation, although not without various issues. But the point being that an external shock is necessary for India.

A radical modernisation is necessary in education, infrastructure – Mumbai is only getting a metro system this year – in banking, and to enable foreign companies to invest without conditions. If present conditions continue the downturn will provoke civil unrest. One can only hope that the present crisis focuses the minds of the business elite, and they in turn pressurise future governments to modernise.