First of all there is no such thing as a "Christian Country" For someone to
be a Christian means that they have to have a personal relationship with
Jesus as their Saviour and Lord. Clearly this is not possible for a country.
All you can say is that there are countries which are part of the remnant of
Christendom, which was really a name for Europe rather than a community of
belief.

The problems of marriage are more distinct where there is no Church input
into the setting of the moral standards within the community.
However having said that, I am surprised at such a crude use of Statistics,
what actually is the basis of what you are saying. That there is less
divorce in India and therefore there is more commitment and "Love"? Sorry,
it doesn't work out like that.

Yes India has a low divorce rate, which makes Indians who are divorced
extremely atypical. It is however usual to compare like with like. You
cannot compare a post industrialised urban society with a pre urban, pre
industrial developing society.

There are low divorce rates throughout the third (or developing) world as
marriage is very much part of the idea of the stability of society.

Interestingly enough the source cited makes no comment about Africa, so
perhaps the claim is rather meaningless.

The only readily available source about Indian marriage is given to us in
the site which Rohit cites.
http://www.divorcemag.com/articles/World_Divorce_News/indian-couple-divorce-
46-years-123.shtml


MUMBAI -- Some couples take their time before legally filing for divorce,
even when they've already separated and moved into different homes. Actor
Kiefer Sutherland, for example, didn't file for divorce from Elizabeth Kelly
Winn until about five years after they first separated (and the divorce
wasn't finalized for another four years). But few cases top the one of the
Gangwanis. On August 6, the Bombay high court granted a divorce to the
Indian couple -- who had been separated for no less than 46 years.

According to The Times of India, Justices B.H. Marlapalle and Dilip Bhosale
officially dissolved the union of Pohumal and Sita Gangwani, who married in
February 1960 but separated only two years later. Despite the occasional
spousal-support and property dispute, neither spouse ever bothered to file
for divorce. During the last maintenance dispute, the couple mutually agreed
to treat it as a divorce case.
More stories on separation:
Making the Decision
Separation Agreements and Preparedness Crafting a Separation Agreement
Splitting
Should You Stay or Go?

Both parties are now senior citizens. Pohumal Gangwani had long started his
own family with another woman, while Sita was living with her brother at the
time of the divorce.

Sita Gangwali first filed for support in 1964, and her estranged husband was
ordered to pay Rs 55 per month two years afterward. In 1981, the court
raised the monthly support amount to Rs 200 retroactively from 1974 on. Mrs.
Gangwali sought yet another raise in the maintenance amount in 2003, and the
family court ordered Pohumal Gangwali to pay Rs 3,000 per month starting
from May 2006. Mr. Gangwali was also forbidden to sell the couple's Kahr
matrimonial home -- and directed to pay Rs 25,000 toward his wife's legal
fees.

Pohumal Gangwali then appealed the case to the high court, and the couple
finally decided to settle the dispute under the Hindu Marriage Act as a
divorce. In granting the dissolution, Mr. Gangwali agreed to pay his ex-wife
a permanent spousal support of Rs 8 lakh in deferred payments.

Ironically, the two judges who permitted the Gangwalis' divorce had, only
two days before, ordered a divorced couple to reunite after they'd lived
separately for ten years, the Times of India reported.

This appears to be a confused situation. I'm not sure that there is much on
the site which I find attractive. I am not surprised that Rohit used it.

It may be of course that one of the explanations to the low Divorce rate is
to be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning

What we have to understand is that there is a difference between the
Westernised Indians who operate very much in secular and liberal terms and
those who like the majority of Indians who live rural lives or who have
recently moved from the rural areas to the urban areas.

It is impossible to get past the fact that neither Ed, not David not I are
divorces, while Rohit is.

Any way, enjoy yourself. I'm off and closing my Yahoo deliveries until I
come back. I don't usually have either the bandwidth nor the time to go to
Yahoo groups, and an operating generally on web mail.
Edward
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CollegeConversation@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:CollegeConversation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rohit
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 1:53 PM
> To: CollegeConversation@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [ColCon] What the West thinks about love
>
> Whether I was rich or poor growing up (or "comfortable") has nothing to do
> with the decline of love and commitment in the West (which I at least
> perceive) and the gradual spread of this decline to the larger cities in
> India. Instead of throwing brickbats at each other, it might be more
> fruitful to ask why this is happening and what can be done about it.
>
> It is quite believable to me that in many places in Scotland, marriage is
> still "for life" and if this is so then it is reason for hope.
>
> But according to the Divorce magazine, the US has a divorce rate
> (percentage of new marriages resulting in divorce) of 45.8%, the UK has
> 42.6%, and Switzerland has 25.5%. India has a divorce rate of 1.1%.
>
> http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml
>
> I offer these figures for what they are worth. It is easy to say, "Oh,
> Indian women are oppressed and that is why they are unable to divorce
> their husbands." But such a statement made by someone who does not know
> Indians intimately has little value. Knowing India fairly well, even
> though I do not live there, I find that kind of analysis implausible.
> Undoubtedly some Indian women are unable to get away from their husbands
> and would like to, and ditto for some Indian men. But such explanations
> cannot wholly explain the stark differences in statistics.
>
> Also, it would be wise to abandon Christian chauvinism. The countries
> with the highest divorce rates are all Christian or nominally Christian.
> This is of course not the fault of Christianity - and in particular, one
> branch of Christianity, Catholicism, frowns on divorce.
> Italy has less than one fifth the divorce rate of Sweden for instance.
> But the still lower divorce rates in India (a Hindu majority country) and
> in Sri Lanka (a Buddhist majority country) deserve notice and respect.
>
> If one brushes off their good performance with, "Oh, they oppress their
> women and that is why the divorce rate is low" then one is not going to
> get anywhere towards understanding.
>
> I will be happy to respond to a thoughtful response from anyone. I really
> cannot respond to a personal attack on me, or an attack on India.
>
> I think a big factor here is the fact that the political systems and the
> courts have adopted a feminist agenda. I won't say, "It is therefore
> their fault." But I do think that certain values which are good in
> politics have been adopted by feminists as absolute and as applying to
> family life, and the courts have followed suit.
>
> What is alarming is that these legal views are being adopted in India
> without examination. The Indian parlliament recently considered a bill
> whereby husbands would not be allowed to ask their wives to serve them tea
> (I am not joking). Whether this bill passed or not I do not know.
>
> I can fully understandable an educated career woman saying to herself, "I
> am not my husband's servant - I don't have to act like a maid and the law
> should protect me." And I do not want to say that she is wrong as far as
> she herself is concerned. But serving tea is a ritual of love and
> hospitality throughout India and for the law to undermine it in this way
> shows an obtuseness which is all too often found in lawyers and
> politicians. So I worry.
>
> Rohit
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>