On October 27 2006, a new law titled The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence came into effect.
The law defines two concepts fairly clearly: [bold font mine]
2(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.
2 (q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act.
That is, I presume (and I am no legal expert) that the gender of the victim and the perpetrator of domestic violence has been hard-coded into the law. The title of the law also makes it pretty clear—it concernes itself only with the protection of women (a fact that is repeated a few times in the document in different contexts e.g. “Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.”)
Moving on, we reach the following section:
31. Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent.-(1) A breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.
In lay terms, that means that if the man does not follow the remedial actions prescribed by the protection order, he is now deemed to have committed a criminal offense that may result in one year jailtime and a financial penalty.
And now this section: (bold font mine)
Cognizance and proof.
32. Cognizance and proof.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the offence under subsection (1) of section 31 shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
(2) Upon the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that an offence under sub-section (1) of section 31 has been committed by the accused.
What this means (again as I understand it) is that if the woman says that the man has not done what he had been told to do under the protection order, then that may be considered to be enough to decide the man’s fate. My interpretation is corroborated by this line from an article about the new Law.
Now, when a woman files a complaint the onus is on the man to prove that he did not abuse his wife.
I thought that one of the assumptions of jurisprudence was that an accused is innocent till proven guilty. Evidently not.
So how does the law define “abuse”? Well one of the things that constitute “abuse” is:
(iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” includes- (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child.
Before I go any further, let me sound a caveat to myself. It is very difficult, as a man, to be critical of a “Woman’s Bill” without being labelled a chauvinist and a misogynist. I know. I have been called those before, in different contexts when I felt I was merely making a case for equality. So I shall take special pains and choose my words very carefully so as to make my point clear and avoid any “unintentional” misinterpretations.
Straight of the bat, I would be a fool not to realize that cases of physical, sexual and emotional battery inflicted by men upon women far outnumber abuse that women inflict upon men and that this law relates to the most general case. However, people would be seriously deluded if they think women never abuse men in any way or form, especially in a middle class urban millieu where this law is likely to be used more frequently simply because of the greater awareness of its existance and its clauses. Just like men abuse women for not being able to provide a progeny, I know of cases, which may be a lot fewer, where women taunt their husbands for being impotent or lousy in bed. Why is one a crime and not the other?
As an example, how would people feel if there was an anti-terrorism ordinance which was called “The Protection of Buddhists from Terrorism” where the definition of perpetrator was a Muslim and a victim was defined as a Buddhist with the law being rationalized by the fact that most terrorists in India are Muslims and there has never been a Buddhist terrorist to date?
Which brings me to the central thesis: the concept of equality. Physical, sexual and emotional abuse are serious issues and laws are needed to be able to precisely define such acts of violence and create proceedures for taking action if they occur. However these laws should understand that perpetrators of domestic cruelty are simply “bad people”—they do not necessarily have to be male. In today’s world, an economically dependant husband could be as vulnerable to abuse from a working wife as a non-earning wife is from a bread-winning husband. Ergo he needs to be protected by the state. Sure the number of such husbands may be miniscule, but laws exist to protect us all, not just the majority.
When the gender of the victim and the perp is hardcoded into the law, a lot of pre-judgement has already been made as to who is guilty. In a “he says, she says’ scenario, the law openly declares that it favours the ’she says’. This pre-supposition of guilt makes the law open to being used as an instrument for blackmail and armtwisting (if you do not do so-and-so I will set the cops on you and trust me, you will never be able to prove that you did not verbally abuse me). —something that can easily be avoided by creating gender-neutral, ‘family harassment’ legal structures that seek to protect both women as well as men from the “perpetrators” and the “abusers of the law”.
No matter what their gender may be.
But then, that would not bring in the votes, would it? And it won’t be as sensationalizable as this on … from india uncut’s last post, politicians wont pass laws which are not popular…
I was waiting for this GB after that comment thread with yourfan on a previous post. As usual, an excellent analysis of what’s wrong with the Bill. Unfortunately, it’s all about politics and Ms Renuka trying to do for women what Mr. Arjun does for OBCs. Of course the Women’s groups are fully behind it with their definition of feminism which roughly boils down to: “Women are better than men” which explains why they are never expected to misuse powers granted to them. Even if they do, we have the “You go girl” cheerleaders backing them up, rationalizing their behavior with “Men have had it good for long, now it is payback!” If you look at it closely, it is basically the same logic that drives reservations.
I agree with Rohan… classification on any basis (that is due to birth) is wrong and this includes classification on the basis of caste and class, in addition to sex of course, as GB pointed out. By classification I mean both favourism and exploitation. US judiciary is probably the best example of this, and its not difficult to show how much this has benefitted the society at large.
Just to add, the lawmakers are probably not seeing “kyon ki saas bhi kahi bahu thi”…. the spared the mother-in-law if I correctly understand.
I feel, lawyers lobby would be behind such a law.
For long lawyers were kept out of business by gunda-turned-politicians, bhais, builders, son of neta’s, supercops etc.
Poor lawyers, they need something to feed their families.
This is infact a genuine concern with this new law. I have personally seen a case where there was a woman who misused the dowry law against her husband, to get back at him for some totally unrelated personal reason. And with this new law, we face the risk of women misusing this law as a sort of blackmail.
Also, if there is a case of domestic violence, whatever sex the victim belongs to, the law should be capable to giving him/her justice by the extent of the crime and not because of his/her sex.
Empowering women doesn’t translate to having biased laws.
So true. Though having a law protecting women from domestic violence is commendable, the inequality inherent in the laws takes away a part of its ‘just’ness. It is good that domestic violence is finally being regarded as a crime, and no more just a ‘ghar ki baat’. however declaring the man guilty even before hearing the case is unfortunate. I hope the courts realise and try and amend this through their interpretations and judgements whnever they come about.
An extremely well written article.
Btw, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I dont think you have seen the the worst yet. Radical feminists like Renuka Chaudhary are destroying our culture and are oppressing men in the name of women welfare.
Please visit the following blogs
savemarriages.wordpress.com
presentindia.blogspot.com
givemejustice.wordpress.com
498a.org
there are lots of issues for which we dont have laws…
but considering the amount of domestic violence against women, I think it’s fair that we have a law for that…
I do not believe that domestic violence against men is, at this point in time, very frequent…we might be getting there, though… i dont know
but I do agree that putting the burden of proof on the accused is unfair… it is against all logic… especially since we have issues like emotional abuse, which, in my opinion, is a subjective thing.
Say, there are 1 lakh men abusing women in a way that would fall under the purview of this law. There are a 100 men, say, who can liable for being blackmailed or tortured by women abusing this law. The way it is structured now, there is no respite for way out for them.
well written GB.. drives the point home!!
Along similar lines, you should also read the Dowry laws.
AS usually happens when laws like this that ‘try’ to do good are passed, people like you and the ones who’ve commented, have come out of the woodwork to rant against it. The unfortunate thing abt the new law is that the implementation will be wanting. Just as is the case with other similar laws to do with caste discrimination, religious discrimination, etc. But instead of talking about that, you and you ilk dismiss th law as ‘discriminatory.’ Why? do you feel threatened in some way? clearly, you do. Because anything positive, especially when it has to do with women, non-Hindus, non-rich, etc, immediately gets you lemmings out. no, i don’t visit this blog, some asshole pointed ths out to me and i read it so take that all youse who will now say juvenile things like “if you don’t like it don’t read it blah blah whine whine”…
interestingly, the Domestic Violence Act has registered its frist case by a man against his wife
i couldn’t find it newhere but on the epaper. Look to the thin column on the right, the second short story
oops. i missed the link.
here. http://digital.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?queryed=20&eddate=11/5/2006#
Why do we have a law like this ? The same reason we have a exclusive “Biotech park for women” in Chennai, even though are no “Biotech parks for all”.
This is an attempt to take yet another detour from the principles of equality before law. Today there are so many detours that we cant even see where the highway is.
The promoters of these detours are seeking to create a group of vested interests where there exists none. A classic case of narrowing of interests so the larger issues are not called into question.
You may wonder so what? Big deal, everyone has bitten off a piece of the equality cake, why cant women have a piece ?
Actually, it is not such a big deal if it didnt lead to anomalies that pit one detour against another. For example : What is an caste woman uses this law to torment a Dalit husband ? Would this law stand Vs the prevention of atrocities to SCs Act ? What if a woman is used as a pawn by another man (eg a lover or a new husband) to settle scores or torment her former partner ? What if a conviction via this act is used as part of a larger case such as a dowry, or divorce, or custody ? Will the lower bar of evidence in this case have a bearing on others ?
Arnab,
Your idea sounds great: equality in the eyes of the law. But, what is the purpose of having affirmative action programs then? It is merely the codification by the legislature of inequality; the same inequality that will now apply to the judiciary in terms of gender. In short, I agree with your central issue.
However, the violence perpetrated by men on women in India has to be put into perspective. Will this law apply only to the middle class women, since it is they who can access legal sanctuary the best? Yes, it will initially. Why did we have voting rights in 1950? At first, only the then thin layer of middle and upper-middle classes used this to change or affect governance. The idea of democracy, of the ability and effectiveness of voting, however, slowly took roots among the poor. In essence, I agree with your notion of which sector of society this law has immediate effect upon, but I consider taking a longer term perspective puts the issue in a different light.
I have always opposed the ’sanskriti’ gang, thus, was pleasantly surprised because you did not address the issue on those terms. The government should indeed stay out of our bedrooms and morality, however, when the life, liberty and property of women are affected by brute coercion then the fate of fifty percent of our population is at stake. Fifty percent, that is, more than 500 million people. And, here, the government has taken a step in the right direction.
There is no such thing as equality. Women are more equal than men
S
Good post, Arnab.
Uncannily enough, today morning our housemaid’s elder sister got thrown out of her house and severly beaten by the in-laws along with her 2 underage children since the husband had re-married. Guess what was the reaction from the poor girl’s family? They have been crying buckets and thinking about how to get a job as a housekeeper in some household in Kolkata — not for a minute have they thought what a grave offence this has been:
1. marriage when the first wife exists is null and void by hindu act
2. 498A domestic violence to the wife by husband and in-laws
3. several sections of IPC come into play when you physically abuse children
I mean just reporting to the local police station is good enough to teach that horny bastard a lesson, the offence clearly is non-bailable. But these people are so ignorant they don’t even know that law of the land exists to protect them. After centuries of deprivation, hunger and sexual/mental harassment that they are our very equals probably sounds like a joke to these tormented souls.
IMHO, there should be campaign (much like the all pervasive one we are having about polio eradication these days) in rural india stressing upon the fact if husbands act like a disease they’ve got to be treated like a disease.
Equality, we’ll talk of, later.
@Arnab: Spot on (as usual). Wondering though whether a woman with middle-class values will actually go as far as to (mis)use the law to get her man’s goat. Page 3, I agree- already there are a few high profile cases in papers. May be just a question of time when this arbitrage opportunity would be utilized to the hilt.
@ Rishabh: Such repressed violence in your words, tut tut. Wonder why, though.
Let me clarify, though that this law appears to be an ass with a gaping hole. (pun intended)
A nice post indeed. In fact as always. It is very difficult to prove innocence than to prove somebody guilty. Let there be a law..but law should not just satisfy interests of a specific gender, community, region etc.
Long before, I have written a post about women in my blog.
http://artiligent.blogspot.com/2006/04/women-of-substance.html
heh, on the contrary I think this law will be a super tool for women to threaten their abusive husbands and think to emselves “Kya kar legaa? Ab to “kaanoon” mere saath mein hai”. Drastic circumstances call for drastic measures i guess…once domestic violence is diluted on the social front, the law will have served its purpose…
Well the law IS called “The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence” So inevitably a woman has to be a victim and the perp her husband, don’t u think? generalizing the law to all genders was prolly not on the law makers mind, though i see an amendment in the makin…
It will be a v difficult thing though, for households that engage in abusive vocabulary day in day out or for those who treat women as commodities, to lead a “normal” life now on…
Not that I am in favor of such a “clever-sasta-tikau” law (just feel they have missed out on something) but u gotta put urself in a “woman-shikar-of-domestic-violence”’s shoes, i guess, to see how radically this law can help her sort things out for her n her kids…but then again…how many conservative women out there will be ready to ujaro-fy their own basi-basai duniya… that is the question?
okay, (this is going to be long )ummm on second thoughts….why does the question of “equality” arise in this matter anyways? How many men out there do u think get bashed up by their wives, or get burnt/ scalded mercilessly and are subjected to , god knows what other inhumane acts and atrocities for trivial and some not so trivial things?? A single word of defiance can get a girl child, daughter-in-law or a wife beaten up by her father/father-in-law or husband.
And even if verbal abuse occurs, between a bread-winning/working wife and an financially dependant/non-working husband and they end up in a fight, chances are that the husband is prolly not the one who ends up in a corner of the room with bruises and a broken limb or jaw, for the rest of the night, while the wife boasts just fully about being a breadwinner and tryin to make ends meet and the husband being a pain and all that la la la….
Equality is not the issue here but prolly fairness is. IMO now, there is no such need for this law to be amended to cater “husband” victims, that is unless abused husbands make up a case for themselves and declare that they need to be protected by law from their abusive wives too and the law needs to be fair in that respect.
And about the below postulate:
32. Cognizance and proof.-(1) notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the offence under subsection (1) of section 31 shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
(2) Upon the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that an offence under sub-section (1) of section 31 has been committed by the accused.
As I see it, domestic violence and abuse is declared as a punishable crime and women are encouraged to an extent that their testimony alone can serve as evidence (against all odds , whatever they might be) but the verdict/judgment remains for the court to decide on.
ur call.
men are also victims of “verbal and emotional abuse†from women. Number is not less, is almost equal to that of women victims.
Anyone remembers Lorena Bobbit ?
In statements to police, she explained that she had cut off the penis because her husband was “selfish” and “wouldn’t give her an orgasm.” (from wikipedia)
on the question of equality and indian law, and more so since greatbong came up with a made-up religious analog of legal disparity, I remember that I always had a question which needs to be clarified. would be thankful to any blogger/reader who could answer and provide a reference:
isn’t it true that muslim men are allowed to practice polygamy legally in India, under shariyati law or something like that? if true, that would be truly a very very unfair and partial law against hindu/buddhist/jain/… men and ALL women. somebody sure should fight for this.
this whole thing, however, is a repeat telecast of the reservation-anti reservation debate, with general caste -> men and SC/ST/OBC -> women analogies. If the govt. adopts affirmative action as a policy, then both can be justified. else, they cannot be.
As usual, very fine analysis GB.
Here she (Renuka choudhary) is on Devil’s advocate (video links on the pic):
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/devils-advocate-renuka-chowdhury/26051-3.html
1. This cabinet surely sets a new standard for collective idiocy (arjun singh, kamalnath, renuka choudhary etc.)
2. I was wondering if Renuka jee herself is married!!
you said:
“In today’s world, an economically dependant husband could be as vulnerable to abuse from a working wife as a non-earning wife is from a bread-winning husband. Ergo he needs to be protected by the state. Sure the number of such husbands may be miniscule, but laws exist to protect us all, not just the majority.”
i agree.
everything is about money. who owns more is what counts. the woman is on top if she brings in more money and beleive me she can get away with anything.
my mil earns more than my fil.he is hen pecked and nagged consistently.he is made to cut onions, dust the house and banned from watching too much tv.
economic independence is the key in domestic supremacy.
GB,
I was watching Karan Thapar’s interview yesterday where he literally massacared the usually unflappable Renuka Choudhary. He pointed out some of the ridiculuous provisions in the Act and the Minister actually blurted out that it serves Men right, since women have been suffering for so many years!
Strains of Arjun Singh?
I have nothing to comment on this. I agree with just about everything in this post and have nothing to add. Once again, great write-up Arnabda!
However, I thought I’d ask Chipmunk a question: Even if I assume that your statistical data is correct (that very few men get abused by their wives), I fail to see how making the law gender-independent would make it unfair to women. Would you care to clarify please? As far as I know, men and women are both types of human beings, and if the law is made to be applicable to domestic violence against any human being, it still covers women, right? I think I’m missing your point here…
Nice post……
But GB….am a regular to your site…..what is with hift from the standard humorous gb stuff to more serious posts days…is it the “wannabe politician” part in your profile that is appealing to you these days…..
This is clearly the overreaction of the PC brigade that has led to the passing of this discriminatory law.
I am not sure about the status of the courts in India, even though I am in India (speaks a lot about the transparenc of judicial processes in the country), I am pretty sure thsi law would have been challanged successfully in the US as going against the basic tenets of the Constitution in at least three ways:
One, by discriminating between men and women (weaker premise);
Two, by subverting the basis of the rule of law that says that an accused is innocent until proven guilty; and
Three, removing the time-honored clause that puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Any lawyers commenting hare who can clarify?
so it basically means that my wife can use a “balan” on me whenever she feels so, but if one day I come home drunk and even touch her…. i can end up behind bars….
Where are the Victorian days?
‘rule of thumb’ stipulated that a man could only beat his wife with a ‘rod not thicker than his thumb.’”
Yourfan writes:
@GB: I waited for a while to have more of other readers’ comments on your post before I send my comment.
You asked a question: Why is one crime and not the other?
Both the instances that you mentioned causes agony. The case of not being able to have a child causes emotional problem and in the case of not having physical relations with the spouse it is mental and physical agony - both at the same time. If the woman can’t bear a child because of the husband (which is easy to prove now a day) then obviously the husband can’t and don’t ‘abuse’ the wife. If the case is due to her then the husband often ‘abuses’ the wife. So, here, the abuser is the husband who abuses the wife.
Not having physical relation with ones spouse for a certain period of time is a valid ground for divorce as in law’s parlance it ‘tantamount to cruelty’ – not just emotional cruelty but physical cruelty like not allowing one to eat. So in the case that you mentioned; again the husband (providing we are ONLY talking about impotency and not wife refusing to have conjugal life with her husband which often happens now a day) is the perpetrator. The law won’t allow divorce on the ground of woman not being able to provide a progeny since the law does not think that to be ‘tantamount to cruelty’. But the law would grant divorce on the ground of impotency only because that is an act of cruelty – just as the law grants divorce to a man whose wife refuses to have conjugal life with him. IMHO there is no comparison between the two cases that you mentioned.
Other than this point, I agree whole heartedly with you that the law should be gender neutral. It is a shame on law makers for being blatantly biased while defining the terms like “aggrieved person†“respondent†and I am saying this in spite of being a woman. Why blame the politicians? The law makers are supposed to be educated and unbiased!! IMHO there should be a PIL against these law makers!
Lastly, I don’t support the logic given by feminists/female ministers that it is pay back time for men. This is the same logic given by the terrorists who can’t get the real men so they kill innocent people. It is the stupidest logic which the feminists use.
The Bill has been introduced with the votebank in mind. However, lets assume for a moment that the intention was honest. I know this is MI3 for you, but lets assume it.
The Bill is very clear that it considers Domestic violence against women form the majority of cases. Sure, we don’t see any drunk women beating their husbands in the street.
Violence is meant as “physical” only, so if a wife taunts or insults her husband or vice versa, it is not in the Bill.
Its a good start to ensure equality that really isn’t there, especially in the lower sections of the society. But I seriously doubt the implementations of the Bill, as many others have pointed out.
What if the inlaws use violence and the poor hubby doesn’t stand up against it?
Women might use this Bill as a blackmailing tool, just like many BCs/SCs used the law to blackmail “upper castes” in not questioning them on anything unrelated to caste. Putting the onus of proof on the violence is not correct- that assumes the husband is guilty by default!
There is no way somebody can disprove, except the lucky ones whose wives forget the date of the violence (hubby is out of city etc).
Many questions, some tangential to the bill, need answers.
@SignedOut: The trick is to carve out minorities from among us…on regional, caste, religional and gender and convince that minority that they are under “attack” and I, the politician, am the only messiah who will not only protect you but give you a little extra because hey, you deserve it.
@Rohan: Very politically incorrect you are and very correct also. And Renuka mam vindicates your comment with her statement.
@Amit: Despite what the law says, women will be punished (I think)—the MILs, the husband’s sister. It’s the wives who by definition are going to be *above* this law.
@Sam: Hmm.
@Sneha: Wish more could see it that way.
@Manasi: Also commendable is bringing live-in relationships under the purview of this law.
@Distressed Indian: Okay.
@Sadaf: Noone is debating the need to have domestic violence prevention laws and laws cannot be framed on “frequencies”…that is exactly the point I have made in the post.
@Matt: And the 100 women are being aided by this law to continue what they are doing.
@Ravi: Thank you
@Vivek Kumar: Hmm.
@Risabh: Thank you for calling us lemmings…that’s pretty high on the evolutionary scale you know ! See you here in a few million years.
@N: Chappal-wielding woman beats up husband. Well he may have filed a case against her based on this, but the law is pretty clear in its scope and I doubt whether he would get any redress.
@Realitycheck: “The promoters of these detours are seeking to create a group of vested interests where there exists none.”
Yes that is the way to political success.
@Vasabjit: Not sure I understand. How does taking a longer term perspective make the law fairer to all? I understand that in 50 years, women in villages too will be able to take advantage of its provisions. But how does fairness evolve?
@Suyog: So said Ms Renuka?
@Arka: While I agree in essence, I think you cannot talk of “equality” later. Just too important.
@Ravi:Somehow your comment remained incomplete. Laws, when improperly framed, will be misused and by anyone , of a certain bent of mind, who realizes how simple it is. No Page 3, middle class or lower class here.
@Abhijit: And yet, men are being asked to prove their innocence. And that too for something as subjective as verbal abuse.
@Chipmunk:
I think I made this point. The numbers do not matter (hence the case of the terrorism ordinance)—the law exists to protect even the “corner” cases. Violence against men, even physical, is a fact. Verbal is also common, again not as common as the other way round.
And as to the final point, I think the court should not handout jail-time based on ONLY one person’s evidence. The law says that one person’s evidence may be considered to be sufficient…I think that puts too much power into one person’s hand. And mind you that one person has to be a woman !
@P: Hmmm…no comments.
@Bengali Guy: Again that is an extreme sensational case….I would think that a severed penis might even break down Ms Renuka Chowdhary.
@Bombagarer Raja: Which is why we need an Uniform Civil Code.
@Pradeep: Sigh. And the fun is noone is going to call her a FCP for that.
@Woman’s Point of View: Very valid point. What you highlight is the principal cause for oppression and not the gender of the individuals. Another cause is submissivity that comes not from economic dependence but from the emotional make-up of the individuals….the moment one partner realizes that he/she can get away with something and the other person is too submissive to retaliate. Again gender does not even come into the picture here.
@ Ravindra: Heh. Indeed.
@Joy Forever: Fair question. Again the problem is simply the inability to consider that abusive behaviour is motivated not by the sex of the individual but by the “power” that individual wields in a relationship. That power frequently originates from economics and many times from “character” (one partner tolerating abuse because he/she is too much “in love” with the abuser)
@Road Runner: Yes. I am going to take on Renuka Chowdhury in the elections. However if you do notice, there are 3 supposedly humorous posts before this one…
@Shan: I agree with you…in US this law would be challenged for precisely the points you state. Again I am not a lawyer…
@Pegasus: Advice: Do not come drunk and “touch” your wife. It’s not a very nice thing to do, to put it mildly.
@Yourfan: I do not agree with your point, provided I understood what you meant.
Case I: Husband has sex with wife but his sperm is not potent enough to fertilize her egg. In other words, it is the man’s physical condition responsible for the wife not having a baby. Does this make the man a “perpetrator”? Does this make it okay for the wife to abuse and taunt the man for not having “masculine power”?(I hope you are not saying that women abusing husbands for not being “man enough” never happens). I think it is not okay. Just as it is unfair for a man to abuse his wife for not having the “female power” to bear progeny. By this law, only the second is illegal.
Case I was what I was referring to in the post.
Case II: You say:
Again this is *not* what I was referring to in the post i.e. the refusal of one partner to have sex. But since you make the point, I have to say I do not get it. Not having sex is surely a ground for divorce…so go ahead and get one. How does this law come into the picture? How does the “person not having sex” become a “perpetrator” [like someone refusing food as you point out]? Is someone going to get jailtime for not having sex with their spouse? If that be the case, what is marital rape? If not having sex is cruelty and the person not giving the sex is the perpetrator, then marital rape is not a crime….it is the assertion of a legal right.
If someone feels their spouse is not giving them sex, at all or in frequencies less than acceptable or giving them lousy sex, the solution is simple: apply for divorce and try your luck. However the “accused” spouse cannot be considered to be a perpetrator in any sense of the term.
It will be a weird day when a judge has to order a man to have sex with his wife or else face the prospect of being jailed for being an “abuser”. He however can and should order a man, on threat of imprisonment, to provide adequate food if he is the breadwinner and he is “refusing food” to his wife.
@Sridhar: I think the Bill takes pain to say that violence is NOT meant to be physical only. It is a valid point.
Just happened to see the face-off between Karan & Renukaji. Methinks, Karan’s talent lies not so much in his cross-examination of his interviewees as in his ability to keep a straight face when confronted with pure and unadultrated idiocy. What say, GB?
The fact that there is now legal support for women in “live-in relationships” hints at one of the true motivations for the law. Unless I am totally in an ivory tower, the oppressed women of the land, the ones for whom Renuka cries buckets, do not as of yet lead a Salam Namaste lifestyle. [A review for Salam Namaste, I do wish you would give us, GB ]. The reason that provision is there in the law is because the NGO ladies, who also are very much part of the Delhi Page 3 circuit, are just going to love this. They are going to pat Renuka Didi on her back for being progressive and then will be the first persons to take advantage of the glaring loopholes.
If I sound a bit negative, I accept I am so. My elder brother got married to one such type and what we did not know was she came with a boyfriend pre-installed, so as to say. Using the existing Dowry laws, she armtwisted my elder brother into paying her bills while she cavorted with her NGO boyfriend. As I look at the Bill, I see that illegal targets of abuse includes “people whom the wife holds dear” which possibly means that if my elder brother abused my bhabi’s boyfrend, it would be my brother who would be hauled to jail !
Fortunately, thanks to an excellent lawyer (a lady if I may say so), my elder brother got a divorce and is now happily remarried. My ex-bhabi, who made a pretty penny through all this, is now married to another sucker. No. Not her boyfriend.
Joy:
Well, all i was sayin was why ask for equality in this matter when you can agree on the fact that domestic violence takes a major toll on women than men. Male(offender) - female(victim) incidents easily out number and are much more gruesome, uncontrolled than female(offender)- male(victim) violence incidents. Whats more, a husband beating his wife will prolly go unquestioned as it is “culturally” accepted or rather taken for granted in most parts of India, but the implications are unpredicatable when a woman does the same thing.
This law reminds me of this kahavat, woh kehte hain na “Tedhi ungli se hi ghee nikalta hai” Tedhi society ke norms ko tedhe laws hi sudhar sakte hain
This law is gender biased as of now, caters to only female victims, so let it be. It will encourage and help women to protect their rights.
But it will take Female(offender) - male(victim) incidents in India need to make up a much more convincing case for the law to be ammended to cater to both genders equally.
One thing that popped into my head on first hearing/reading abt this law still remains intact though, inspite of all that I might have said up here, what measures I wonder(if any) are in place to avoid the abuse/misuse of this law.
Yourfan writes
@GB; I have to reproduce part of your comment for my comments to be understood. My responses are in uppercase as your post is not accepting italics.
Case I: Husband has sex with wife but his sperm is not potent enough to fertilize her egg. In other words, it is the man’s physical condition responsible for the wife not having a baby. Does this make the man a “perpetrator� I NEVER CALLED THE MAN IN THIS CASE THE PERPETRATOR – DID I? Does this make it okay for the wife to abuse and taunt the man for not having “masculine power�(I hope you are not saying that women abusing husbands for not being “man enough†never happens).I NEVER JUSTIFIED ANY SORT OF ABUSE DONE BY ANYBODY. REMEMBER, IN MY LAST COMMENT AT THE END I WROTE THAT THE LAW SHOULD BE GENDER NEUTRAL. CAN YOU TELL ME WHY I SAID THAT IF I DID NOT BELIEVE IN ABUSE BEING ABUSE NO MATTER WHICH GENDER DOES IT? IF YOU READ CAREFULLY THEN YOU WILL FIND IN THE LAST BUT ONE PARAGRAPH THAT I TALKED ABOUT GENDER BIAS AGAINST MEN IN DEFINING TERMS UNDER THIS LAW. CAN YOU JUSTIFY WHY I WROTE THAT IF I THINK THAT MEN ARE NOT ABUSED? NOT ONLY DID I TALK ABOUT WOMEN ABUSING MEN IN THIS POST BUT I ALSO EXPRESSED THE SAME VIEW IN ONE OF YOUR PREVIOUS POST. …………………….
…………………Again this is *not* what I was referring to in the post i.e. the refusal of one partner to have sex. YES, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS TYPE OF CASES. BUT THE TERM IMPOTENCY HAS DIFFERENT USAGE. THE ONE THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT BELONGS TO ONE CATEGORY. BUT THERE ARE CASES OF IMPOTENCY WHERE IT IS MEANT THAT A MAN DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE, AGE RELEVANT SEXUAL ACTIVITIES. But since you make the point, I have to say I do not get it. Not having sex is surely a ground for divorce…so go ahead and get one. How does this law come into the picture? How does the “person not having sex†become a “perpetrator†[like someone refusing food as you point out]? HE BECOMES PERPETRATOR SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE IS AN IMPLICIT UNDERSTANDING IN A MARRIAGE THAT THERE WILL BE SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE, AGE RELEVANT SEXUAL ACTIVITIES BETWEEN THE PARTNERS AT A REASONABLE (AGAIN SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE AND AGE RELEVANT) INTERVAL. IF ONE REFUSES ALL TOGETHER TO BE A PARTY TO IT THEN AUTOMATICALLY THAT PERSON BECOMES THE PERPETRATOR. I WROTE VERY CLEARLY THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH GENDER DOES IT BUT NOT BEING A PARTY AT ALL TO THE IMPLICIT UNDERSTANDING MAKES THAT PERSON THE PERPETRATOR - I EVEN MENTIONED IN MY LAST COMMENT THAT WOMAN WHO REFUSES TO HAVE PHYSICAL RELATION WITH HER HUSBAND BY STAYING WITH HER PARENTS(A LARGE NUMBER I MUST SAY) ARE THE PERPETRATOR AND THAT IS WHY MEN CAN GET DIVORCE IN THESE CASE VERY EASILY. Is someone going to get jailtime for not having sex with their spouse? If that be the case, what is marital rape? If not having sex is cruelty and the person not giving the sex is the perpetrator, then marital rape is not a crime….it is the assertion of a legal right. YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN. THE EXISTING LAW ALWAYS MADE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT RAPE IS A FORCED ACTIVITY WHERE THE OTHER PARTNER DOES NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE. BUT THIS NEW LAW GOES FURTHER AND CLEARLY DEFINES THE CONCEPT OF MARITAL RAPE TO BE FORCED SEXUAL ACTIVITY BY A HUSBAND IN SPITE OF HAVING A SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE NORMAL SEXUAL LIFE WITH HIS WIFE. AND MODERN DAY PHYSICAL TESTS ARE HERE TO PROVE OCCURRENCE OR ABSENCE OF ‘NORMAL SEXUAL ACTIVITIES’ AND FORCEFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITIES. If someone feels their spouse is not giving them sex, at all or in frequencies less than acceptable or giving them lousy sex, the solution is simple: apply for divorce and try your luck. WE WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SOLUTIONS IN THIS POST – WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF ABUSE AND RESULTING GENDER BIAS. YES, AS YOU SUGGESTED A SOLUTION, I MUST SAY THAT I AGREE IT TO BE A SOLUTION BUT THAT IS NOT A SIMPLE SOLUTION AS YOU PUT IT. THERE ARE OTHER PARAMETERS IN LIFE WHICH DEFINES SO MANY OTHER THINGS AND THOSE ARE NOT THE POINT OF DISCUSSION IN THIS POST -MAY BE IN SOME OTHER POST. However the “accused†spouse cannot be considered to be a perpetrator in any sense of the term.It will be a weird day when a judge has to order a man to have sex with his wife or be jailed for being an “abuserâ€. WILL YOU CALL IT A WEIRD DAY WHEN A JUDGE PENALIZES A MAN FOR RAPING HIS ‘LEGALLY WEDDED WIFE’? NOT ANY MORE - IT IS HERE TO STAY AND I AM THANKFUL FOR THAT. AND AS I SAID EARLIER - MODERN DAY PHYSICAL TESTS ARE HERE TO PROVE OCCURRENCE OR ABSENCE OF ‘NORMAL SEXUAL ACTIVITIES’ AND FORCEFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITIES - SO NO HE SAYS, SHE SAYS AMBIGUITY.
I AM TRULY SAD TO SEE YOU WRITE THESE LINES BECAUSE ALL THROUGH YOUR POSTS YOU CAME OUT TO BE SENSIBLE, SENSITIVE AND ATTENTIVE TO OTHER PEOPLE’S THOUGHTS IN SPITE OF FEW PEOPLE USING VERY HARSH WORDS/INSULTS TO MAKE THEIR POINTS STAND. I PRAISED YOU FOR YOUR TOLERANCE. BUT I AM SORRY TO SAY THAT THIS POST DOES NOT SHOW THAT – IT SEEMS YOU ARE NOT EVEN WILLING TO WALK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE’S THOUGHTS AND PROBLEMS IN SPITE OF YOU BEING A GENDER NEUTRAL PERSON. THIS IS HOW MOST PEOPLE BELITTLE THE TERM MARITAL RAPE BY SAYING THAT HOW CAN A HUSBAND RAPE HIS ‘LEGALLY WEDDED WIFE’. WHAT MOST PEOPLE FORGET IS THAT A MARRIAGE IS A UNION BASED ON MUTUAL DESIRE (NO FORCING; YET THERE WILL BE PARTICIPATION FROM BOTH SIDES) BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN IN BOTH EMOTIONAL AND PHYSICAL SENSE. IT CAN’T BE ONE SIDED. GOING BACK TO YOUR EXAMPLE A JUDGE WILL NOT BE ‘ORDERING A MAN TO HAVE SEX WITH HIS WIFE’ BUT DEFINITELY HE CAN MAKE HIM ACCOUNTABLE (IF THE CASE REACHES THE COURT) BY GIVING THE WIFE THE FREEDOM TO DIVORCE HIM (ONE IS NOT FREE TO DIVORCE THE SPOUSE JUST BECAUSE HE/SHE WANTS IT UNLESS OF COURSE AGAIN IT IS MUTUAL – THE PERSON NEEDS SOLID REASONS) AND GRANT HER A FAT ALIMONY. HE CAN’T ‘ORDER HIM TO HAVE SEX WITH HIS WIFE’ BUT SURE CAN ORDER HIM TO PAY THROUGH HIS NOSE FOR NOT HONORING THE IMPLICIT CONTRACT. I MUST ALSO MENTION HERE THAT THE SAME LOGIC APPLIES TO A WOMAN IF SHE IS THE PROVERBIAL BREADWINNER AND REFUSES TO HAVE SEX WITH HER HUSBAND – OTHERWISE YOU WILL CALL ME A GENDER BIASED PERSON WHICH I CERTAINLY AM NOT. OTHERWISE I WOULD NOT HAVE WRITTEN WHAT I WROTE IN PREVIOUS POST WHICH WAS MENTIONED BY ROHAN IN THIS POST. …………….
SORRY FOR THE COMMENT TO BE LONG BUT I HAD TO ANSWER YOUR COMMENTS ONLY BECAUSE I SINCERELY THOUGHT MYSELF TO BE YOUR FAN -IN OTHER WORDS I DIDN’T FEEL LIKE DISCARDING YOU THE WAY I DISCARDED A FEW PEOPLE IN THIS BLOG BY COMPLETELY IGNORING THEM. IN CASE YOU WANT TO SAY THAT I CAN STOP VISITING YOUR BLOG AS IT IS YOUR SPACE–I CAN ONLY SAY THAT I AM AWARE OF THAT.
You got to read this:
Devil’s advocate–
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/act-wont-hit-good-hubbies-renuka/26051-3-single.html
Renuka ji is explicitly hostile to man. That is right. A minister in our Govt thinks men need to suffer and it is okay. And yet, it makes no news. Turn the tables and see what storm will rise. Say something about 0.1% of minority and see what happens. But 50% of population? Na! No wonder we have law like this. Objective is not to protect women, but to torture the men, and that is clearly spoken. And law is well designed to fulfill its purpose.
@Yourfan:
Firstly I have to say I do not think I understand everything that you said or are saying. Let me work on the basis of what I *think* you are saying.
1. Let’s get to the last part first.
I think this is an extremely harsh and unfair assessment of me. I fail to see how I am unwilling to walk through other people’s problems here. As a matter of fact, I am talking about tolerance to all genders and not selective tolerance. That my intention is above board is something that almost all the commenters here agree with…(with the exception of Risabh)
I presume you somehow think I am bellitling marital rape. (THIS IS HOW MOST PEOPLE BELITTLE THE TERM MARITAL RAPE BY SAYING THAT HOW CAN A HUSBAND RAPE HIS ‘LEGALLY WEDDED WIFE’.). I NEVER did that (and when I make the NEVER caps, I intend to shout it out. Kindly do point out where I have.
This below provides some explanation:
IT CAN’T BE ONE SIDED. GOING BACK TO YOUR EXAMPLE A JUDGE WILL NOT BE ‘ORDERING A MAN TO HAVE SEX WITH HIS WIFE’ BUT DEFINITELY HE CAN MAKE HIM ACCOUNTABLE (IF THE CASE REACHES THE COURT) BY GIVING THE WIFE THE FREEDOM TO DIVORCE HIM (ONE IS NOT FREE TO DIVORCE THE SPOUSE JUST BECAUSE HE/SHE WANTS IT UNLESS OF COURSE AGAIN IT IS MUTUAL – THE PERSON NEEDS SOLID REASONS) AND GRANT HER A FAT ALIMONY. HE CAN’T ‘ORDER HIM TO HAVE SEX WITH HIS WIFE’ BUT SURE CAN ORDER HIM TO PAY THROUGH HIS NOSE FOR NOT HONORING THE IMPLICIT CONTRACT.
Actually, no judge is needed to provide any spouse “freedom to divorce”. And counsellors enforcing this law are not handling divorce nor is this law germane to divorce in any way. The role of an harassment arbitrator is to prescribe actions that address the problem—-if the husband is not giving the wife food, to make sure he does and to tell him that if the complaint continues he will go to jail. Now what if the problem is “absence of sex”…surely then, according to the scope of this law, (remember this court does not prescribe divorce or facilitate it) the prescriptive course of action would be to make out a schedule for sex.
This is where marital rape comes into the picture and in which context I mentioned it. Suppose there exists a wife (could be husband) who refuses to have sex or has it seldomly. It could be because of emotional alienation, it could be because she does not feel physically attracted towards her husband and it could be because of age (she no longer feels as up to it as she used to). In this case the husband can ask for divorce and can approach a divorce court and the judge decides how justified the grounds are.
But I do not see why the husband should have to approach a “harassment court” and what prescriptive recommendations can it make if it be approached.
Marital rape is an extremely serious issue and people who justify it base it on the assumption that the spouse is always entitled to sex. I said EXACTLY the opposite (sex cannot be taken to be an absolute right in the sense that the right to food and right to be not beaten up ). There are situations where the spouse may not give sex and it is necessarily NOT his/her fault. Ergo noone can force her. He may however argue to divorce her if there is no sex for a prolonged period.
You compared sex to food. If a husband does not give his wife food, noone will consider her pulling away her husband’s plate and eating the food on it as a “crime”.
However if a wife does not give the husband sex, it is RAPE and an offence to grab “it” (her choice not to have sex) from her.
And no there is no “granting of freedom to divorce”…because again you can always divorce. And only the divorce court judge can settle on the alimony….and as far as I know alimony is not determined by the severity of “harassment” (if it exists) but by the relative economic conditions of the spouses, equitable distribution of “shared income” and considerations of children custody. Hence no question of making someone “pay through the nose” (in your words) since alimony is *not* a punitive fine though fault is something that is considered but the amount of alimony is not in general determined by the magnitude of the fault. In any case, if the divorce judge feels that the refusal of sex is so heinous as to make the spouse pay through the nose then so be it. However he cannot and will not call it “abuse” and noone can make a spouse go to jail for this. Again passing judgement on what is an acceptable level of sex and whose fault it is that there is no sex (for instance a wife may refuse to have sex based on a certain behaviour of the husband) is a prerogative of the divorce court and not of the “counsellor with punitive powers” as established by this new law.
I never said you said men are not abused…if you recall it is you who talked about me writing a post on this Bill and mentioned how slanted it is against men. In this context and since I am mostly in agreement with you, I fail to understand your sudden outburst of anger against me.
In any case, even if we disagree I do not think it calls for calling me not sensitive more so because I have never endorsed marital rape and done exactly the opposite. Also the fact that I am writing such a long comment in reply to what you said shows that I am sensitive to your concerns and am explaining myself.
In conclusion, whether you choose to ignore me or not is upto you. (obviously). I am not going to ask you to stop visiting my blog just like I have never asked that of anyone who has disagreed with me, nor have I ever restricted people who do not see eye-to-eye with me their right to express themselves here. If I expect words of encouragement, I should also be prepared for the disagreements.
So I fail to see why this is the issue….though I must say that I am hurt by the fact that you called me insensitive because my post was EXACTLY the opposite. And so were my comments. (I mention this because sometimes when I visit my older posts, I feel that maybe I was not sensitive to some commenter’s concern and just brushed it away by scoring a debating point. I feel I have not done so with respect to your comment).
I presumed that one of the reasons you liked RTDM was because I never ignore anyone—even those with whom I do not agree and those who choose to be very harsh in their comments. So I do not see where the question of “discarding” comes even though we may disagree.
Lastly, it is ironic that a post I was initially hesitant to write but went ahead with because you encouraged me to not back off from adverse reactions, has come in for the maximum flak from you. It was out-of-the-blue not that I expected you to agree with everything I said (we did not agree on KANK) but because I did not expect to be called insensitive for something I did not do (trivialize marital rape).
Pity.
@Yourfan:
I was really surprised at the tone and the nature of your comment against Arnab because I for one had no trouble understanding what he was trying to say. What really surprised me was when you accuse him of belittling marital rape when in reality, he is doing the opposite.
There are many things one can say against your comment: how is sex an implicit agreement? What kind of sex? This law does not deal with implicit agreements : it deals with verbal and physical abuse. Please understand that what you say is impossible to enforce under law because different couples have different implicit agreements (unlike physical abuse and mental abuse[taunting, humiliation, swear words] which is fairly well defined universally). As an example, I may ask for a divorce if my wife does not give me oral sex. You might say what a pervert–how dare he ! That’s exactly why this cannot be legislated against since I may claim that I thought that my wife implicitly understood the expectation when we got married You can say “I mean normal sex, oral sex no way”. I say “I believe in what Ramkrishna said that after a certain age, husband and wife should stay together like brother and sister” and my wife knew when she married me that I was a Ramkrishna Bhakta. And so I am going to sing Syhama Sangeet from now on.
So what happens?
Divorce me. As simple as that. I do not see any torture here.
Sorry for commenting again. Came across this.
WILL YOU CALL IT A WEIRD DAY WHEN A JUDGE PENALIZES A MAN FOR RAPING HIS ‘LEGALLY WEDDED WIFE’? NOT ANY MORE - IT IS HERE TO STAY AND I AM THANKFUL FOR THAT. AND AS I SAID EARLIER - MODERN DAY PHYSICAL TESTS ARE HERE TO PROVE OCCURRENCE OR ABSENCE OF ‘NORMAL SEXUAL ACTIVITIES’ AND FORCEFUL SEXUAL ACTIVITIES - SO NO HE SAYS, SHE SAYS AMBIGUITY.
What? Tests only establish whether insertion/ejaculation took place: it does not prove the force or intent. Many marital rapes occur with the husband coming back home from work, perhaps drunk, verbally abusing and slapping the wife around (not leaving marks) and then having sex while she lies like a log. Such an act leaves no vaginal tears which is often one of the only things that can be taken to be conclusive evidence to the application of force. (Minor vaginal lacerations also occur during normal sexual acts in the absence of lubrication).
This is in sharp contrast to say the rape of Priyanka Bhotmange, done by strangers, where a preliminary forensic evidence will show marks on her body and on her private organs. On similar lines, it becomes very difficult to prove “date rape” since though the act of sex can be proven, what cannot be proven was whether the girl consented at that time.
So yes “HE SAYS SHE SAYS” is still there, contrary to what Yourfan says.
[Sorry Arnab for being so explicit.]
Arnab,
Consider this: the land reforms enacted in 1950 took land away from the rental intermediaries (Zamindars, Talkudars) and feudal chiefs (read: princely states). However, the inequalities of status and power were not fully addressed: consider a low-caste/landless farmer from Bihar, in the 1950s, going to court and challenging the local landlord. However, as the years went by, democracy took deeper roots, political organization, NGOs, and vote-bank politics started to raise awareness of caste inequality, as well as the concentration of land and capital in the rural sector. It was only after Indira Gandhi’s ‘Garibi Hatao’ campaign (1970-’71), along with her hatred toward the Swatantra Party supporting big business families and feudals, that equality was given a real chance. But, the laws were there long before she fought for them, so, when awareness and political opportunity came together, the legal framework existed to channel it within constitutional/democratic institutions.
What I will now state should sound revisionist: the Indian middle classes, the urban (leftist) intelligentsia, and business houses supported the “internal emergency”. But, why did the “Emergency” come about? Indira Gandhi realised what she had unleashed: the “JP Andolan”, which was the progenitor of the movement leading to Mandal politics. This was rabble politics; not the Nehruvian Anglicised intellectual leading the peasants, but folks like Mr. L. Yadav ‘demanding’ rights for themselves, the unwashed masses. Thus, initially, Mrs. Gandhi thought “garibi hatao” was a mere slogan for a victorious electoral mobilization; but the backward castes and the poor (caste and class is highly correlated in India) used this to lay a permanent claim on the political system. Mrs. Gandhi sought to demobilize the population by imposing the “emergency”: she saw how things worked short term; forgot about how the whole equation had changed.
Now, now, there is an end to this stream of consciousness. Well, seeing short term may blind us to long term consequences. Perhaps, the women’s movement in combination with good old vote-bank politics will do the same for women in India. Do I condone vote-bank politics? Yes, emphatically. It is natural for the middle classes to scream bloody murder about Nitish, Laloo, Mayawati, and the late Kanshi Ram. But, they represent the interests of the subaltern, the vast sea of our people. Tarashankar wrote in Dhatri Debata (I paraphrase): “In this land of the Aryan civilization, of Brahminism (he meant Hinduism: Brahmanya Dharma), there are only Sudras and non-Aryans.” In another section, a character stated that violent revolution would be unsuccessful because it would amount to nothing more than infighting among the elites to capture power, independence ought to mean, he says, “government of the people, by the people, for the people, not for the sake of the people”. If women are fifty percent of our population, and they are oppressed, then it is for the betterment of the body politic that they be given such a law.
Vasabjit
phew seems like a lover´s tiff between the Greatbong and yourfan..- reminds me of Mr. Frodo and Sam..
hey time for a new article please- you´re spending so much time on the replies- might as well right something new…
Well, for one, it proves that Arnab and Yourfan are actually two different persons.
”makes a quick exit”
I think I’ll buy my wife flowers today, just to be on the safe side…
Yourfan writes:
@GB: Again your post is not accepting italics so I have to send your comments in uppercase.
I never questioned your intention for a second. Even in my last comment I said that I think you are a gender neutral person. In spite of being a woman I was first to say that this Law IS discriminatory to men. I also wrote about women (whom I know personally) who abuses situations to their advantage while throwing away the concept of fairness to wind; and yet the feminists use the logic of pay back time. I also suggested that there should be a PIL against this Law. Since I thought so, and I acknowledge that I am not at all a good writer to express my thoughts (as you have written “FIRSTLY I HAVE TO SAY I DO NOT THINK I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAID OR ARE SAYING.â€) I encouraged you to write on this topic. That is because I wanted to know what the intellectually advanced population of India and Indian origin (who takes the trouble to be connected with India and Indian’s problems by visiting/writing blogs and posting comments) think. Let me first thank you for taking the trouble to write a post on this. I should have thanked you earlier – which I forgot and you will soon know the reason.
You wrote “JUST LIKE MEN ABUSE WOMEN FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE A PROGENY, I KNOW OF CASES, WHICH MAY BE A LOT FEWER, WHERE WOMEN TAUNT THEIR HUSBANDS FOR BEING IMPOTENT OR LOUSY IN BED. WHY IS ONE A CRIME AND NOT THE OTHER?†Before asking this question why didn’t you mention at the same breath anything about men complaining about wife not being sexy enough on an absolute term or compared to so and so (one of your readers used this very explicitly to make his point), why didn’t you write about men who due to religious, physical reasons refrain from sex yet are not human beings ( I won’t use the word ‘man’ because I have respect for men folks) enough to accept the situation socially but pretends to be a man and a nice husband? Here you touched a raw nerve in me because (I HAVE to say this in order to explain myself) my own sister was a victim of molestation (not rape) in her teen years but we were not aware of it as she felt ashamed to share. Then with her luck she had to endure absence of sex in her marriage for a long stretch of time due to no fault of her own (and I am not just saying this – it has been proved) interspersed with violent marital rape. I am not saying(and didn’t say it in my earlier comment) that your article didn’t condemn molestation, rape(marital or otherwise) but the way it was written gave me the feeling of you just debating an issue while striping the issue of all human trauma associated with it. You also wrote in your reply to my first comment ‘NOT HAVING SEX IS SURELY A GROUND FOR DIVORCE…SO GO AHEAD AND GET ONE’. IS SOMEONE GOING TO GET JAILTIME FOR NOT HAVING SEX WITH THEIR SPOUSE? IF THAT BE THE CASE, WHAT IS MARITAL RAPE? IF NOT HAVING SEX IS CRUELTY AND THE PERSON NOT GIVING THE SEX IS THE PERPETRATOR, THEN MARITAL RAPE IS NOT A CRIME….IT IS THE ASSERTION OF A LEGAL RIGHT†The way these lines were written was the last straw for me because to me it seemed you were just debating a point completely ignoring the greatest assets of all human beings – the feelings. It is one thing for someone to dehumanize an issue and talk about it on technical grounds but the reality is of something else because one has to include the parameter called human mind/feelings. I for sure know what my sister went through – it was not so easy for her to go and get a divorce like the way you wrote in spite of she being a working lady. She felt guilty because of the perpetrator in her teen years, she felt unwanted as there was no sex in her life, she felt miserable to wash her linen in public, she felt violated several times over – once by her perpetrator, then by her husband and finally by the society and she committed suicide. So you see, we have gone through all these. I know what the tests are and what can be deduced in spite of not having beaten up marks ( as suggested by one of your readers).Obviously it is extremely painful for me to discuss anything further. So I won’t go into any counter comments etc.
I am sorry if you still feel that I am harsh on you - I have quoted the exact lines in spite of some snide remarks by few of your readers ( I refuse to reply to their comments whether they understand my points/predicaments or not) – I have shared a very personal tragic situation with you only because I want you to know that you as a well liked and well respected writer who is tolerant to adverse criticism( which often crosses even this era’s boundaries), who is gender neutral and who does not have any hidden agenda in his posts should take into consideration the greatest assets of all in human beings life – the human feelings for his writings and be sensitive enough to not dehumanize the issue when you write/reply on something as volatile as this topic. Thanks again for writing on this topic. I have written in previous posts how time constrained my life is, yet I read the whole article, my comment, your comment and your last comment before replying for the last time on this issue.I did it for a woman whom I knew so well who happened to be my sister. I think she deserves at least this much from the family, society which she was a part of. She was an intelligent, hard working, extremely tolerant, beautiful and extrovert – liked by all but a few. I miss her. I think she was born under the wrong sun.
@Yourfan: I am sorry to read the tragic story of your sister. I’m sure none of my fellow readers of Arnab’s blog would feel anything but sympathy for your sister. None of which changes the situation - the law passed as is is too likely to be abused, and hence should not have been passed in this form, without some sensible safeguards.
Unfortunately, do you know what will happen once the law is passed? People like your sister will not use the law to protect themselves - when tragic circumstances like hers didn’t prompt her to seek divorce (with the existing law entirely on her side), do you think she would have taken protection under this law? Pardon me for intruding into your grief, but in my experience, when a person is prevented by shame and fear of social stigma into not seeking a legal escape, bringing in more draconian laws will not encourage the victim of domestic violence into seeking legal protection.
Except for a few rare cases (which will be highlighted by the distaff side of the media), which most of us will support, the law will be silently abused, rather than used. And like the issue of reservation, there will be no going back. Even if it is proven beyond doubt that the law has failed to achieve its objectives, no government will have the courage to repeal this act. And that will be the greater tragedy.
Cheating and fooling the Indian Women for Vote bank!!!
Sub: Cheating and fooling the Indian Women for Vote bank!!!
Please read the interview of Renuka Chowdhury(link here).
If any LAW maker does not have the sufficient knowledge, then why they make such a stupid LAW??
The question is unanswered, what punishment you will recommended, when a dishonest daughter in law ( Modern Supnakhas ) , abuse our mother and sister ??
More at :
http://www.indiatalking.com/blog/swarup/4468/
My husband is waiting for this law to turn gender nuetral. Then he can pour out his woes.
Your fan,
While what happened to your sister is indeed despicable and I don’t think anyone sane can condone that, I still think you were not being fair to GB. While, truly enough, for those who have not undergone this kind of tragedy, it is difficult to understand how much it could mean to someone like you, while not providing sex for whatever reason is surely a ground for divorce, it can’t be said to be curelty. And I would go one step ahead and say that it should be upto an individual how he defines lack of sex.
Have you heard the somewhat pithy expression among Bengali lawyers
“shami (holo) ashami” [”husband (is) the defendant”].
So unclear how “new” some of this is … maybe a case of making the
de facto -> de jure?
–psb
@Ashish Gupta: Indeed turn the tables and the shit hits the fan. The radical feminists are out in full force condemning the statements and condemning anyone who does not condemn the statement. But for this? As Rohan said “You go girl”.
@Vasabjit: Sorry cannot buy that line of reasoning. Giving a particular class freedom to oppress the other does not sound like empowerment but more like retribution. I think the reason Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency was because of personal paranoia, an obsessive belief that the CIA were plotting to kill ladla Sanjay, a paranoia that she justified by pointing out to the butchery of Mujib’s family. This explanation given by Pupul Jayakar in her autobiography seemed to me the most realistic given the type of person Indira Gandhi was.
@Confused: Those who want to believe we are the same person are still free to believe that I have engineered this fight with myself. No convincing them.
@Shan: Heh.
@Yourfan:
Let me start out with condolences for your sister. And let me clarify that my intentions are never to dehumanize anyone or be flip about anyone’s sufferings while blogging….however I do have to discuss things dispassionately and clinically. If that seems heartless, then all I can say is that that was not the intention.
I think I have said all I had to say in my defence and for clarifying my point and see no wisdom in repeating or recasting it.
In conclusion, I am sure your sister is now at a better place and that’s perhaps all the solace we can have.
@Swati: And then do unto the “modern Surpanakhas” (ref: the commenter above you–Swarup) as they do unto you.
@PSB: Thought that was the title of a Jatra “Swami Keno Asami” and its sequel “Baba Keno Chakor”
@Yourfan,
I know that you do not want to dignify me with a response. But I have to agree with Confused: you are being intensely unfair to Arnab, a person whose fan you declare yourself to be.
Whatever personal history you have is not something that is public knowledge and so I find it puzzling why you think Arnab has to be sensitive to something he does not even know. From what I see of Arnab he is extremely sensitive to human suffering and unlike a few idiots on the blogosphere can recognize human misery without any political filters. I am sure you also recognize this. Given his record, calling him insensitive, is I think rather insensitive.
I am also puzzled why you are so obsessed with the denial of sex and for husbands pretending to be good men in front of the world while not having sex at home.[I understand the personal incident that has set you off…but on this blog we are discussing logic and principle. Your sister’s husband may have been a despicable man but we are not discussing him but husbands, in general.]
What makes a husband/wife deny sex? Yes some people are control freaks and like to define sex on their own terms as a means for exercising control (If I want, I deny; when I want, I take). But most people are not like that and judging them is where we get into a grey area. As an example: if my wife denies me sex and if she justifies it by saying that I have become overweight and no longer attractive then whose fault is it? My wife’s for not accepting me as I am? Or mine for letting myself go because I have taken sex with my wife as granted and hence feel no need to keep myself attractive and fit?
I presume you found the oral sex thing offensive but when you say “implicit contract” I have to ask who defines this implicit contract? If my wife gave me oral sex before marriage and has now stopped is it her fault for violating an implicit contract (that being her behavior before marriage will cont