Hurrah for single parents

A piece of news in India slipped in through the doors one morning at the end of last week (and, of course, via social media): the government, in an attempt to "ease" passport control regulations, has decreed it will no longer be necessary for separated/divorced parents to put in the name of "spouses" (read: "ex-es") in passports of minor children in custody of the concerned party (there have been a host of other initiatives related to Indian passports - like the doing away of the birth certificate as a form of identification - but I'm not getting into those).
Taking it beyond the pages of a passport, this is something applause-worthy and slam dunk progressive. In one sweep, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Women and Child Development have decided to vest power in the hands of a single mom. Or single dad. It's a huge triumph for India's human development index. Huge.
News reports claimed this decision was implemented keeping in mind the deluge of requests flowing in from "women's bodies". Sorry, I disagree here. This is a triumph for single dads as much as it is for single mums (basically, all of those who may have had acrimonious separations/divorces, and may find it difficult to get together on the same page - in this case, their kid's passport page), so let's keep sexism out of it and view it as a giant step forward in the right direction, without the clutter of feminist nomenclature.
It has freed minds. And intellects. A lot of people will not have to disagree to agree and waste time on figuring out paperwork. More importantly, it takes away the still-prevailing "stigma" single parents have in India - mostly on account of the failure of a "marriage unit". Now, it's okay to be in charge of your life; no need to be shifty and apologetic.
As usual, I ran into a bit of regressive thinking that Indian society compulsively abounds in. A friend stated it's "sad" that a child can now be legitimately acknowledged as coming from a "broken family". "Imagine how negatively it will impact a child's frail mental constitution when he/she is shown up as being a single-party by-product," she said. "On paper," she hastened to add. "I mean, the parents may no longer be together, but why tell a child -- in black and white -- that one half of the parent body is no longer relevant?"
I realised -- yet again -- how "social conditioning" has perhaps been the hardest flying kick in the face of human civilisation. "Someone will only feel that way if you go out of the your way to point out what a subject of pity he/she is -- like you are doing right now."
"What do you mean?"
"Tell the kid things will be fine; the last thing he/she wants to hear is: 'Oh, you little mite, did your father/mother just walk out on you?' What good will that serve? You know, as a social group, we really need to be less judgemental."
No reply. Just the clickety-clack of chopsticks.
There's another offshoot to this new rule, which, to my mind, is a definite hurrah for the ladies. Not the gents, sorry. Most women in India take on their husband's surname. I don't have a problem with this -- because it doesn't hold any water as a "patriarchal" argument. A woman's maiden surname is her father's -- a man's -- so she is not really being anti-patriarchy by retaining it. A lot of members in my peer group, however, have strong views on the matter. "I'll never take on someone else's name!" one of them declared while we were discussing this matter at a cafe.
"But you're okay taking his inheritance or life insurance settlement?" I asked.
"Well... that's like comparing apples with oranges. Shall we order Chai Latte now? The muffins, by the way, are really good here."
But if we were to leave aside this conundrum for a minute, imagine a situation that's likely to unfold now: a single mother's child, one who has a legit father and a legit paternal surname, can now have his/her mother's side of the family's surname on the passport - and, by extension, other ID documents.
What's in a name, they say, and I know one should never judge a book by its title (look what happened when Shilpa Shetty did try and rationalise Animal Farm, going by its title)... but somehow, I can't help feeling rather chuffed about this turn of events in the name stakes.
sushmita@khaleejtimes.com