Posts Tagged ‘feminism’

Gruesome Drivel, PN Benjamin and Deccan Herald

May 29, 2009

Recently, I was forwarded an article titled “Gruesome and escalating violence on women” by one Mr. P N Benjamin in Deccan Herald news paper.

Looking at the title, I could immediately discern it as feminist propaganda garbage. The opening statement read something like – “The recent chilling front page report of the police shielding the accused in a dowry case…”

I was “stuck” by this statement. I do not know which incident this P.N. Benjamin was referring to. But if any objective person looks at the reality on the ground, day in and day out, thousands upon thousands of innocent and defenseless citizens across the length and breadth of our country are being mercilessly arrested, incarcerated, presumed guilty and tormented for endless years based on mostly false complaints registered by disgruntled women.

Not surprised. This is the standard feminist fare – take some isolated case and peddle it as the mainstream, so as to intimidate the police, judiciary and politicians to tow the party line.

Then Benjamin goes on to write –

“One cannot help but be struck by the off-hand way in which generally a young woman’s life and death is summed up, matter-of-factly, without any undue cause for alarm or probing of the causes. It is as much as one would report a traffic accident or the death of a cancer patient — tragic certainly, but such things are to be expected.”

In India, at the present moment, a young married woman’s death is anything but un-sensational. Not a day goes by without one coming across a report of some married woman’s death somewhere “sensationally” repackaged as “dowry death”. It does not matter what the true cause of the death is. In the first instant, the entire family of the husband is rounded up and incarcerated. Then, to the eternal shame of our country’s civic credential, these defenseless citizens are presumed guilty as charged and made to fight the deep-pocketed and corrupt prosecution in the courts run by equally corrupt judiciary.  By the time the case is resolved, reams of journalistic garbage would have been written; thousands of rupees of the public monies would have been spent; scores of lives would have been ruined; and quite possibly some innocent persons may even have been jailed, particularly if they were indigent and could not afford the best defense money could buy.

When such a ruckus is created in the society upon the death of a young married woman, how could this charlatan of Benjamin make a claim that young woman’s life and death are paid no attention by the society? Obviously, this is a falsehood. What, then, is the reality that this self-proclaimed champion of women’s rights is trying to obscure?

Let me illustrate by replacing one word in his statement (“man” for “woman”) which then would read as follows – “One cannot help but be struck by the off-hand way in which generally a young man’s life and death is summed up, matter-of-factly, without any undue cause for alarm or probing of the causes. It is as much as one would report a traffic accident or the death of a cancer patient — tragic certainly, but such things are to be expected.”

How true! Now, the sentence makes sense; and that is the reality this charlatan is trying to obscure. Every year, 56000 married males end their lives unable to withstand the pressures of domestic violence, social hostility, lack of support and unreasonable expectations placed on their shoulders by the society. The tragic deaths of Pushkar Singhs, Syed Mukdooms are neither sexy enough for the mainstream media,  nor sensational enough for the state prosecutors nor sad enough to move the heartless judiciary. These human beings who were sacrificed at the altar of feminist fraud are the true faceless statistic.

As I read further through this piece of garbage, I could not help but notice this whole rant revolved around the D word (Dowry).  How is it that years after noted and pioneering woman’s rights activist Ms Madhu Purnima Kishwar adequately exposed the politics around dowry (link here), the sundry practitioners of pussy politics like the author of this drivel getting away with converting every woman’s issue into that of Dowry harassment? That too, in the mainstream media!

Could it be that the feminist machinery is feeling the heat as more and more mainstream media and civil society are coming forward to expose the “dowry harassment” blackmail racket? Quite possibly!

Coming back to PN Benjamin, is this pseudo-intellectual dunce really interested in the women’s welfare? If indeed he was, why was there no mention of the plethora of real and more serious problems faced by women in our country? Issues like –

–          deaths in childbirth

–          access to education

–          access to healthcare

–          extreme poverty

–          human trafficking

–          forced prostitution

–          forced marriages

–          extravagant marriages

–          child marriages

No! None of the above serious issues are of major concern for our Private Benjamin. And indeed, none of the above issues are of major concern for most of the loud mouthed feminists of our country. In fact, the bulk of the cases of use (or abuse) of the legislation (dowry related and DV legislation) has been by the middle class women of our country. As a segment, the middle class women of our country would hardly ever face any of the problems mentioned above. They, as a group, are in the best circumstance with regards to education, access to healthcare, and financial security. Disgruntled and brainwashed women from this segment constitute the best foot soldiers for the pursuit of feminist agenda. It is no wonder then that all legislation is targeted to this segment, so that more and more of them misuse the provisions of the legislation and wreak havoc on the society. And do that while playing victim, because they have the wherewithal to execute this scheme properly.

Where do the “Benjamins” of the media fit in the grand feminist scheme? They are nothing but bots strategically placed in mainstream media by the feminist political machinery to poison the public opinion. These dummies have the language skills, but lack the intelligence and honesty required to analyze the intricacies of socio-economic-political issues of our complex society.  However, that doesn’t seem to matter much. They still are making handsome careers peddling garbage, as our Private Benjamin has done in this article.

Advertisements

Abetment of a Crime is not a Crime – NCW

September 1, 2007

Tax payer funded NCW has drawn up a list of sinister amendments to the laws relating to matrimonial disputes that are sure to cause further chaos and destabilization in the already fragile family relationships in India.

In this article, I am primarily focusing on the proposed amendments to the Dowry Prohibition act 1961.  These are the main points of NCW’s recommended amendments –

  • Dowry offenses must be treated as offenses against the state
  • Remove the time limit of one year to lodge complaints under this act
  • All dowry offenses must be cognizable and non-bailable
  • The burden of proof must be on the accused
  • Giving dowry is not a crime
  • Minimum term of seven years extendable up to ten years of imprisonment

 It is not clear why the dowry offense must be treated as offenses against the state, when the accusations are made by one citizen against the other. Already IPC Sec 498a allegations are inviting state prosecution. The truth about the widespread misuse of section 498a is already well known. The need of the hour is to study the enormous costs that are already incurred by public exchequer and the overburdened criminal justice system due to the abuse of existing provisions. It is not clear what NCW aims to accomplish by making any and all allegations of dowry harassment, crimes against the state. Doesn’t the state already have enough concerns in terms of keeping the law and order and prevention of terrorism?

NCW is recommending sections 7 and 8 of the act to be omitted. Section 7 stipulates that no court inferior to first class magistrate shall try any offence under this act. It further stipulates that complaint can be made within one year from the date of the offence.Section 8 stipulates that the offences under this act are non-cognizable and bailable.

We do not need much analysis to understand why NCW wants these sections to be dropped. They would like to remove the time limits for lodging complaints, so a woman in an unhappy marriage; or an otherwise errant woman can keep the option of filing a complaint (in most cases a false one) any time she pleases. Further, it is the intention of NCW to remove any aspects of this law that makes it non-cognizable and bailable. As the IPC Sec 498a is becoming synonymous with gross human rights violations and losing its edge, perhaps NCW wants the DP act 1961 to slowly slip into its shoes essentially fulfilling the same role.

Another interesting recommendation from NCW is – “Persons giving dowry are victims and hence it is not fair to punish them”. Of all the recommendations, this one takes the special honors. This recommendation would go down in the history of NCW as one of its most shameful crown jewels.

Let us reiterate the statement so it sinks in to our conscience – Persons giving dowry are victims and hence it is not fair to punish them.

Does “giving” precede “taking” or the reverse? If there are no givers, would there be any takers? If there are no stabbers, would there be any stabbed? If there are no pushers, would there be any pushed?

Logic dictates that if you strictly outlaw the practice of giving dowry with stringent penalties, the practice of dowry giving and hence its taking would cease very quickly. Although, the act in its current form treats giving dowry as an offense, one rarely finds an instance of dowry givers being prosecuted. But NCW’s intentions in making this particular recommendation, are quite different from what meet the eye.

Let me illustrate the point. Let us say A is the bride’s father and B is the groom’s father. 

A – We want to give 10 lakhs as present to our son-in-law on the occasion of our daughters wedding

B – But wait, we have nt decided on this marriage proposal yet. Our son appears not ready for marriage now.

A – In fact, I will register the 3 bed room apartment in the city as a wedding present to the new couple.

B – We are not sure. We don’t believe in taking dowry. Give us some more time to think about this alliance.

A – Please don’t say no. We already told all our relatives and neighbors that this alliance is settled. I will give another 10 lakhs. Your son is in the IT field. He is already earning close to 25 lakhs per year. I know what we are offering you, he can earn in less than a year. But, please consider this proposal.

B – OK! Whatever you give would be for the couple to setup their new matrimonial home.

And the wedding is performed. The girl’s father deposits ten lakhs in the bridegroom’s account. The day after the wedding, the girl returns to her natal family. The third day, the groom’s family receives a phone call from a mediator – 

“Our daughter is not interested in returning to her in-laws. We want to settle the case now. For one crore. If you do not agree, we will file a case under the ‘amended’ dowry prohibition act. Thanks to NCW, now it s a cognizable, non-bailable offense. It is also a crime against the state. The punishment can range up to ten years of imprisonment. You see, your son is still young – he is in a good job. We have proof. What we are asking for is not unreasonable. We will give you a day to think about”.

That is the ultimatum the groom’s family receives. What are the choices left for the so accused groom’s family after the proposed amendments by NCW are passed?

a)     Give into the blackmail

b)     Commit suicide

c)      Face imprisonment

In fact, all that a woman or her family have to do is to simply drop off a wad of cash in the husband’s house and immediately register a case of dowry against the husband’s household. The police can swoop down on the residence of the husband’s family and summarily arrest them while collecting the carefully left evidence by the dowry giver. Adding insult to the injury, now the burden of proving innocence is on the accused under the proposed amendments by the NCW. This dastardly act of trickery can be easily performed in the broad daylight at any time during the existence of marriage.

Where is the defense for the accused against willful entrapment by the woman and her relatives? Where would they go for justice?

Sections 107 to 120 of IPC extensively deal with the abetment of a crime and punishment for the same. In almost all scenarios discussed there, abetment of crime attracts almost equivalent punishment as the crime itself. Not so, under the amendments proposed by NCW – abetment is NOT a crime if the D word is involved.


Any casual observer can quickly understand that these amendments are proposed neither to prevent the practice of dowry nor to prevent harassment of women. These provisions are envisaged as nothing more than tools of extortion in the hands of women and her family.
Once we understand the draconian and diabolical nature of these amendments, the next thought that is raised in our minds is – 

How prevalent the dowry practice must be for the NCW to make such extremist recommendations!
The following are unanswered questions; NCW may find it prudent to attempt answering, before pushing such perversions as the proposed amendments on the unguarded population of our namesake democracy.

 

 

  • How prevalent is the problem of dowry practice now as compared to 1961 when the original act was passed?
  • Has NCW conducted any scholarly research studies to document the extent and prevalence of the Dowry practice by geographic, socio-economic, or education or any other dimensions?
  • Is it true the modern, educated, young city woman would run after a dowry seeker seeking a marriage with him?
  • Is anyone forcing marriages and dowries on unwilling women and their families?
  • What is the rationale of NCW in actively promoting entrapment and extortion under the guise of amendments?
  • What is NCW’s justification for recommending imprisonment terms of seven to ten years for dowry allegations (see no proof is required to convict)?

 Wake up India from your deep slumber before the anti-social elements from the tax payer funded entities like NCW, destroy any semblance of sanity and tranquility in our society in the name of women protection laws!

Is it a simple man versus woman equation? When you destroy either one, don’t many other men, women and children suffer?

We need equity and a sense of proportion in our legislation to prevent misuse of the law and to provide justice to genuine victims. We need a whole lot of people awareness and participation to solve any complex social issues such as dowry practice. Idiotic laws and amendments with ample scope for misuse would only encourage otherwise reasonable people to resort to such misuse and thereby spread further chaos in the society.

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.