Archive for August, 2007

Ranjana Kumari’s Malicious Propaganda

August 26, 2007

Men Cry for Equality

Aug 26 is women’s equality day. On that day, Save Indian Family Foundation is organizing all India protest against gross injustices faced by women, men and families due to the crass gender politics promoted by euphemistically named Femnazi entities like Center for Social Research and tax-payer funded social perversions like NCW.

Ranjana Kumari, the director of Center for Social Research, sensing that the tide is turning slowly but steadily against their malicious agendas, lost no time in branding the protest a “malicious propaganda”.

Is it? Who are these people organizing the protest? Are they funded by the tax-payer monies or are they embezzling the charity monies in the name of social research? Who are they? What are they asking for?

They are the victims of malicious prosecution; a malicious prosecution promoted in the name of preventing dowry harassment. These are the people who are the best and brightest young men of our country, graduating from premier institutions, working in the most economically crucial fields for our country’s advancement.  These are the people wasting their productive years in fruitless litigation and government funded blackmail at the hands of their unscrupulous wives and corrupt law enforcement machinery.  These are the people whose aged parents, grand parents and pregnant sisters were hauled into police custody on Friday evenings, so they spend a minimum of two days (often times many more days) imprisonment for no apparent violation of any law.  These are the people who are victims of a terror regime unleashed and supported by Feminazis like Ranjana Kumari. All they are asking for is, to remove the scope for misuse of these gender biased laws.

Let us look at her reasoning – “Section 498A is the only provision under the dowry law that allows a woman to save her life. Other sections come into force after the woman is killed.”

Can she please explain how incarcerating, without investigation, dozens of people named in FIR, prevent dowry deaths? If the woman’s life is in such a danger, is it not much more efficient to remove her from the danger and place her in a safer location? Why don’t NGO’s like hers or hundreds of others screaming dowry harassment, provide for such shelters; and then let the law-enforcement agencies investigate her claims?

No, they are not interested in the real victims. All they want is, the ipc 498a to be available in the hands of unscrupulous women as a weapon of blackmail. They want the threat of police custody to be used as bargaining lever to extract maximum ransom from the husband and his family. They don’t care about the social ramifications of laws that treat persons guilty as accused. For them, the feminist self-serving ideologies are far more sacred than social good.

Coming to the question of dowry harassment and ipc 498a- what is really happening? Of all the hundreds of thousands of the cases filed, many cases are thrown out. Most result in acquittal. In some cases, unable to withstand the harassment from the corrupt state machinery, families give in to the blackmail and pay the ransom. The remaining bulk of the cases languish in the courts as Damocles’ swords hanging on the heads of the accused families.  Many individuals and families have ended their lives unable to bear the shame and harassment of the false cases against them filed by their unscrupulous daughters-in-law. And then, many a young woman, swayed by the false propaganda, filed the false 498a case, broke her marriage, lost her credibility in the society and ended up leading a bitter and lonely life unable to turn the clock back. All these are facts well documented and well understood.

Except by the ostriches, like Ranjana Kumari. They deny any knowledge of the abuse of these legal provisions.  With their heads stuck in the sand, they believe that no one is watching.  They repeat the “D “ mantra ad-infinitum, hoping a lie repeated a million times, somehow becomes the truth. If pressed, they pull out of their hats their pet episodes – isolated, extreme cases from some corner of the country. They make a deliberate, visceral and emotional appeal – “what about her?” And then, pester the rest of the gullible population to believe that that was the overwhelming truth across the length and breadth of our country. And the ever complying media is ready to lend them a helping hand.

Sure Ranjana Kumari – we have more than half a billion men and half a billion women in our country.  What kind of story you want – we can pull up one for you.

Let us discuss what malicious propaganda really is.

Malicious propaganda is –

a)     Taking isolated extreme cases and purveying them as the mainstream life of our society

b)     Portraying all suicides of married women as dowry deaths

c)      Portraying all suicides of married men as due to financial problems

d)     Denying that abuse of ipc 498a, or violation of human rights is occurring on a large scale

e)      Asking for more stringent provisions in the existing draconian laws, citing no evidence but platitudes and lies

f)       Pushing for more gender biased legislation with ample scope for blackmail and extortion

g)     Adamantly opposing any changes in the out-dated laws to suit modern realities of our country

And the list can go on.

That is what Ranjana Kumari and her ilk, are engaged in.

Most informed readers can already see through the duplicity and the sheer malice in the multitudes of feminist inspired articles in the news media. The end of their “malicious propaganda” will occur when ordinary citizens can also see through the same.


Jurisdiction is where “she” says it is

August 23, 2007

This article is a response to the story “A Matter of Jurisdiction” in Telegraph India, from the feminist propaganda mill, represented by Ms Saheli Mitra,  giving the “pathetic” feminist slant to what is considered Law 101 in the contemporary as well as traditional jurisprudence. Observe the scenes included in the story from the movie “provoked”, which is a real life story of a cold blooded woman killer murdering her “sleeping” husband.  [Can one think of more heinous crime than killing a sleeping husband?]

It is a settled matter of law that the jurisdiction to entertain the trial for an alleged crime falls in the place where such crime is alleged to have taken place. You do not need a doctorate degree in laws to understand the common sense reasoning behind this reasonable conclusion. The evidence, the witnesses, the place and scene of the crime all exist in the alleged place of commission of the crime, not some thousands of miles away.  Just because it is not “convenient” for the alleged victim to attend the court proceedings, you cannot shift the jurisdiction to some far away place. 

So, that is what happened in this case. The court quashed the proceedings in an incorrect and inappropriate jurisdiction. The court did not have much choice in this pronouncement – It was all in black and white. The crime was alleged to have occurred in Mumbai, the cases (not one, but multiple) were filed in Durgapur, thousands of miles away. 

Now, just reverse the genders of the actors in this story – a man runs to a different city and files a case of “whatever” on the woman, the feminist propaganda machine would have gone into overdrive condemning the practice and screaming the issues of jurisdiction. 

I said “whatever”, because most women filing false cases are not facing any consequences for wasting the time of public prosecution and the courts, even after the accused are exonerated and the perjury committed by the women in the open court is proven at the trial. That is the sad state of our judicial landscape – no penalty for perjury; perjury which strikes at the roots of any honest and impartial justice dispensation system. 

Time and again, we witness 498a cases in their hundreds filed by women, tens of hundreds of miles away from their matrimonial residences, with the sole intention of harassing and blackmailing the in-laws and their families. Not one line of condemnation of this virulent practice was ever written in the media, while scores of families were ruined as multiple accused persons from the in-laws families had to trudge thousands of miles across the country to arrange for bails, engage lawyers, and the fight costly court battles against the deep pocketed and unaccountable public prosecutors. 

Was that not an inconvenience for the accused in-laws who were in their advanced years to travel to a far off jurisdiction to fight the accusations leveled against them? And fight those accusations, while the witnesses and evidence that exonerates them is at the place where the alleged harassment is supposed to have occurred? That doesn’t matter. If it is inconvenient for “the woman”, then we must bend the rules to suit “her” convenience”. 

Here are some excerpts Ms Saheli Mitra’s article –
“In so many instances, a woman’s marital home is in a state where she doesn’t have any relatives or friends to fall back on. If she has no support system, there is nothing she can do when tortured. It becomes impossible for her to lodge and then fight a case in a state where she has no base,” 
When you observe that reasoning, you can see the duplicity oozing from every word. Is that not true for the man and his family – word for word.  Is justice dispensed based on the convenience of the litigants; or based on the principles of justice? 

“The accused, in turn, filed a case under Section 482 (inherent power of the High Court to set aside a lower court’s orders) of CrPC against Sumana at the Calcutta High Court. And on March 22, 2007, in a judgment that could perhaps spell doom for hundreds of women subjected to similar torture, Calcutta High Court quashed the case filed by Sumana on the simple ground of jurisdiction. ” 
Wasn’t the accused forced to travel thousands of miles, engage a lawyer in unfamiliar territory, without any support system or relatives, and no base to fight his case. “[t]he Calcutta High Court quashed the case on the simple ground of jurisdiction”. 

Dear Ms Saheli Mitra – Your intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking! The “ground of jurisdiction” is by no means simple. It may appear simple to simpletons, but it is a profound concept of jurisprudence. It is one of the basic foundations on which modern jurisprudence rests. 

No matter how many crocodile tears one may shed, one cannot subvert the rule of law completely without far reaching consequences on the society. Because what may benefit the goose today, could some day become a precedent for the gander.  But, then who says you are arguing for equitable application of law irrespective of the gender. You and your ilk want the whole world to accept wholesale whatever a woman utters or wants, no matter what the intent of that woman is, or the consequences there of on the rest of the society.