11/17/06

what is essential is invisible to the eye

In a harrowing precedent, the Indian Supreme Court has contemptibly and erroneously refused to charge a person for attempted rape under the IPC. In other words, unless there are glaring signs of forced penile/vaginal penetration, good ol’ violence, molestation, and other kinds of sexual abuse including the abuse by using fingers, bottles, sharp instruments and god knows other crap thrust into the various orifices of the victim just doesn’t cut it. So what IS a person who commits everything pertaining to sexual abuse and molestation on their victim EXCEPT inserting their sexual organ (of course), convicted with? Well, according to the Supreme Court, the offence is punishable IF the perpetrator/s intended to outrage a woman’s modesty or they possessed the knowledge that their actions will result in the tenability of the woman losing her virtuosity.

Wow.

What a steaming pile of horseshit.

And it gets better.

When asked about the nonsensical ‘modesty’ bit, the judges actually had the nerve to back it up by the most asinine statement I’ve heard all year; that a girl bears from birth the peculiarity of her gender, which is modesty.

Um hello, is this the court of Aurangazeb? Can someone please tell these judges that we are not, repeat not living in circa 17th century A.D?

Isn’t this another cog in the classic ‘blame the victim or if you can’t, at least protect the rapist - oh excuse me - man who wanted to rape but thanks to an extremely convenient imbecilic technicality - is not’ fest?

Isn’t that the case in most rape cases being reported today? A foreseeable accusation game follows the rape, where everything and its dog get blamed, except the rapist. To my mind it is unfathomable that the whole caboodle from the weather to the victims clothes, to her behavior to where she was and with whom she was, her stilettos, her short skirt, her drinking, her non-drinking, her very presence, brings about extreme scrutiny but not the rapist. The rapist is invisible, ignored even and his actions do not merit even a whit of criticism. Of course, even if there is a miniscule window of opportunity to vindicate the accused, the spotlight will instantaneously shine on the rapist and his life in order to prove how ‘normal’ he was and how the rape victim was just a whore who came along and pressured him into raping her or abusing her i.e. creating a wave of rapist sympathy just to show that the victim was ‘asking for it’.

How about shifting the onus of the blame to the actual cause of rape: the rapists?

That’s right, rapists cause rape. Not the length of the victim’s skirt, not the amount she’s had to drink, not the dark alley she chooses to walk in, not the place where she chooses to be, not the parties she chooses to attend, not the company she chooses to keep, but the person who actually commits.the.crime i.e. THE RAPIST, causes rape.

If you belong to those groups who ‘care’ for the woman’s welfare and dole out patronizing advice on how she ought to protect herself against getting raped then wake up, honorary members-of-rape-perpetuators because that’s exactly what you’re doing, perpetuating rape by focusing on how the victim moves, breathes and acts and letting yet another rapist go under the radar with your cloying concern. Do you actually believe that by taking away a bit of the woman’s freedom (which is what you’re doing, by the way), the raping will stop? What about the countries where the woman is covered from head to toe in a burqha or a similar kind of garment where you can’t even see her wrists let alone the shape of the dress or anything else? Even in those countries, rape happens AND the women are being castigated for it. So you can argue all you want about the victim and completely ignore the rapist and what the rapist does and THAT is why we haven’t moved towards a way of decisively reducing or ending rape. Instead, rape has become a quagmire of ifs and buts and what ifs and the only person who benefits from all these tedious discussions and deliberations is the rapist. It is ridiculous to constantly ‘advice’ the woman on how she should always behave as if there is a rapist lurking around every corner. It makes it look as if women are insensate, half-witted dopes who are moronic enough to not know that rape happens.

Frankly, it is insulting to offer women such pitiful guidance for the sake of their so called wellbeing and it completely disregards the fact that men rape women. It discounts the actions of the rapist as if his actions are so utterly normal and A-ok that it’s a fact of life and we can do absolutely nothing to stop him and so we must plan around his actions or plan to circumvent him.

Why must we act as if rape is so inexorable that we must find ways to work around it?

Is it because we live in a culture of ‘boys will be boys’, a culture where the bar is set so low for the men that they have nothing to prove, resulting in their actions being rendered completely and totally inconspicuous?

85 comments:

Anonymous said...

You're kidding me! Do you have a link?

Awesome, now let's just destroy all the women in the world because the mere fact that they exist just PROVES how they're ASKING to be raped.

The whole 'she's asking for it' argument really makes my blood boil. She's not asking for it unless she ACTUALLY asks for it, explicitly, and in so many words.

Still, there was some good news from the motherland recently. Marital rape is now recognized and punishable.

confused said...

Hi,

Can you please give the link?

Madame Mahima said...

what the FUCK? is this a joke??

i completely agree with raindrops in the 'shes asking for it' bit.
my god this is so sad.
so incredibly sad.

onward progress, india.
well done

what a load of shit. these dudes should be shot. don't they mothers/daughters/sisters/nieces/women friends?

Why Am I said...

link pls...and yea there wre coupla tv shows after the jessica lal murder case judgement...where u had some iditos saying tht the instances of rape is much lower in countries where women wear BUrkhas...i mean excuse me!..i guess this mentality of "woman being the cause" will neva change

Anonymous said...

i still dont know why ppl still want to debate about how to punish rape????its an ugly crime, an ugly motive, and there are less ugly crimes which get death penalties, where is the question of trying to justify that rape can have meaning?

Sivaramakrishnan said...

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1057014

Sivaramakrishnan said...

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1059162&CatID=19

Anonymous said...

that's not really a punk font !
on top !

Sue said...

Why must we act as if rape is so inexorable, that we must find ways to work around it?

The way I see it, I can teach my son to see this from my point of view. But that will not stop me from teaching my daughter to choose her clothes according to her environment. One will hopefully help create a freer society, the other will ensure my daughter gets to live in that society.

To some extent rape is that inexorable, I suppose. It's the only way men have found to completely break a woman, and sometimes, even that doesn't work.

Anonymous said...

****according to the Supreme Court, the offence is punishable IF the perpetrator/s intended to outrage a woman’s modesty or they possessed the knowledge that their actions will result in the tenability of the woman losing her virtuosity.

Are you freaking kidding me? Who thought of this load of tripe?
I mean SERIOUSLY..... whats next murder is not murder unless there was an intention to kill?

Anonymous said...

And you will be pleased to know that I did your tag. :)

Anonymous said...

Seriously? oh fuckin lord.
I dont get why we cant move past the women are asking for it argument. Its such bull. If I want to walk naked on the street its my business. You can stare all you want but how the hell does it make physical violation of any sort justifiable??
never mind.....

Grafxgurl said...

lol.. if they dont like (or err...like TOO much)what the girl's wearing....TELL her!! let her know even in passing that what she's wearing is Hot or Not....she'll get the sleaze or whatever message thats trying to get across .

DONT PUT things and body parts into her orifices to try and convey something to her!?!?! what on earth is she going to learn from it!?!! just that men are animals?!!!

aradhana said...

im just thinking..in cases where rapists are convicted, how was their intent determined?

and isnt there a marked difference between intending to rape and outrage of modesty? they fall under the same heinous nature..but arent they on completely different tangents? if intending to rape leads to rape, which ultimately leads to a harsher sentence, how can one equate it to outrage of modesty? shouldnt they have a separate law for this?

i am also thinking, that this isnt just a case of india's rather fine tuned judicial system. it a case of everyone elses as well. esp since a reference was made to a british court ruling. there are also cases in the other well developed nations in which courts insist on following through with the technicalities.

also, since the victim is a kid (based on the link provided) shouldnt the penalty be harsher?regardless of what the crime is?

i thought the law was meant to protect. i thought the state was meant to represent. i thought people should be reacting alot stronger. i guess i thought wrong.

the wannabe indian punkster said...

@ Raindrop: Unfortunately, I'm not. And the 'she was asking for it' part just.....makes me murderous.

@ Confused: I've updated the post with the link. I hope that works.

@ Mahi: Sadly, certain men (not unlike the supreme court justices linked to the story) just dont care. Or they dont get it or, they might just be in denial beliving that all women exist on this earth to 'tempt' and 'sway' 'good', 'moral' men. Its despicable and quite frightening, really.

@ Why am I: Link provided and I know! The notion that women in countries where they have to cover themselves up from head to toe are 'safer' is just...so horribly twisted and retarded.

@ Yogi: Thank you. and I really mean that.

@ Inexile: No it isn't. Its a goth font. I'm well um, a 'closet' goth as well. Hence the font. :)

@ Sue: I suppose. It's the only way men have found to completely break a woman

I agree. Most rape victims Ive spoken with feel that rape is far worse than death. And you know what..I cant help but agree with them.

@ La vida loca: Oh but its not important when a woman is involved and sadly the justices have blatantly displayed that notion in this case.

@ Raindrop: YAY!

@ Szerelem: Obviously they will not see the point of view we subscribe to, because we actually make sense. Gah.

@ Grafx: Seriously!

@ Aradhana: and isnt there a marked difference between intending to rape and outrage of modesty?

A gargantuan difference. And what the heck is 'outraging her modesty' anyway? Isnt that such bull? It makes my blood boil.

Anonymous said...

Hey,

I share your outrage.

But I wanted to point out something. The Supreme Court can, and must, work only within the limits of the law. I wonder if any of the 15 commentators before me looked up the law - or, for that matter, anything beyond that DNA article. Lets face it, DNA is not India's or even Bombay's best source of information, it's a rag. In fact, DNA is setting new records for the volume of complaints it generates with the Press Council of India for inaccurate reporting.

Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of rape -

"A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:-

First- Against her will.

Secondly,- Without her consent.

Thirdly- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

Fifthly - With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Sixthly - With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.

Explanation- Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.

Exception- Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape."


Therefore, it is necessary for a man to vaginally penetrate a woman to complete the offence of rape. Anything done before penetration is, in the eyes of the laws, 'simple assault' or, if there is violence, 'battery'.

The 'attempt to commit an offence' principle only applies to "offences against the body". However, in the 1980s, Parliament attempted to amend the IPC to make rape an offence against the body but was stopped from doing so following vociferous protests from a number of well known womens rights groups who wanted rape to be kept separate from bodily offences (that include assault and murder) and dealt with under a separate chapter known as "sexual offences".

Now, I am not defending Section 375 which I find problematic on various counts:

(a) It only comprehends man-woman violence and not man-man or woman-man or woman-woman sexual violence;
(b) It uses an outmoded and rather Victorian idea of consent that must be brought up to date;
(c) It depends upon the act of penetration;
(d) Penetration must only be with the penis and not other organs or body parts (fingers etc. dont count, let alone beer bottles);
(e) It legalises marital rape (Your first commentator, 'Raindrop' is wrong).

However, there have been some encouraging developments -

(a) The Law Commission of India (with lots of retired judges on it!) has recommended that rape is redefined completely to be made into a new offence called 'sexual assault' which will not be dependant upon penetration and has many other welcome changes. Read the report here - http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/rapelaws.htm

(b) The government has twice in Parliament stated its intention to amend the rape laws;

(c) The Supreme Court has a number of progressive decisions on rape and sexual offences. However, this does not hise a patriarchal mindset that pervades most of Indian society.

(d) Many people and organisations, and not just feminist groups but also regular civil society organisations, are calling for rape law to be overhauled.


Anyways, Im sorry for the ramble. I too get frustrated by obfuscatory patriarchal attitudes, but that is not a reason to go about making unresearched or ill-thought out accusations on the basis of an article in a Bombay tabloid. Instead, do find out more and join the active and very nuanced national debate on rape law in which the State is, sometimes, an intelligent participant.

anonymouse said...

I mean SERIOUSLY..... whats next murder is not murder unless there was an intention to kill?

Right. There is murder, and there is manslaughter. The difference is one of intent. Keep in mind that neither of these cover accidental death. Crimes of passion, insanity, and so forth lead to manslaughter charges, not murder.

Disclaimer: I Am Not A Laywer, so take this with a very large pinch of salt.

And on the rape issue, my view for the past few years has been that castration is a pretty good response to all forms of rape except maritial rape.

Anonymous said...

anonymous: Clearly, we just get emotional, react like gibbering idiots, and pull facts out of our asses. I commend you on your excellent work in researching India's rape laws. You missed a bit of news though. :)

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/10/india-domestic-violence-law-takes.php

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1932745.ece

anonymouse said...

grafxgurl, rape is a crime of power and control. It has nothing to do with what the girl wears (or does not wear), the company she keeps or anything else.

Rape is a way for a man to express his complete control/power over the girl/woman in question, by demonstrating that she lacks control/power over even her own body.

Oh, and don't insult animals. I am not aware of any documentation on non-human animals indulging in rape (mostly because I havenm't gone about looking for it).

Grafxgurl said...

Anonymous - Rape has many definitions. one of which you have mentioned.that in itself is not the all in all.

its also a vicious desparation of a man who wants the woman sexually because he likes what she's wearing. It turns him on...EVEN THOUGH SHE ISNT DRESSING PROVOCATIVELY.And if he has animalistic tendencies ( aka HOW ANIMALS BEHAVE) he rapes her.

Thus putting himself on the same level as animals.... thats not to say that the way animals have sex is bad.. but ..that.. well. we should have to stoop to their level now!?!? they take what they see in a female.

yeah sure he's an animal then :)

Anonymous said...

***I mean SERIOUSLY..... whats next murder is not murder unless there was an intention to kill?

Right. There is murder, and there is manslaughter. The difference is one of intent. Keep in mind that neither of these cover accidental death. Crimes of passion, insanity, and so forth lead to manslaughter charges, not murder.**

Thanks. I was just going for outrage and sarcasm though :)

Anonymous said...

@anonymous

Those were interesting sections you quoted, actually went through them in detail and agree that the law has and is still trying hard to accomodate rape and its jurisdiction trying to cover most loopholes, but somewhere like you said yourself, there is no befitting punishment for rape like you would see("castration" sounds good!).

And i think that was the whole point of this post and i must say it was very strongly written, since its a topic of great concern and regret for many women(which by statistics anywhere shows they are most affected) with a lot of stress on how negligent or slow a government can be with respect to punishment by still trying to accomodate a law for a crime which warrants none but corporal punishment in some form of the other..even for a person of unsound mind - castration would prevent him from committiing further rape.. so the article which was chosen to elaborate on this indifference is only one of many which could have been chosen including the sections themselves which are still trying to define an act which needs no definition!

the wannabe indian punkster said...

@ Anon: Yes as women, we are hyper sensitive, weirdly emotional and prone to sudden bouts of idiocy.

I need people like you to show me the light.

@ Anonymouse: And on the rape issue, my view for the past few years has been that castration is a pretty good response to all forms of rape except maritial rape.

I hate to say this, but I agree.

@ La vida loca: Well, if it means anything..I understood your sarcasm the first time around. :)

@ Yogi: Thanks!

Anonymous said...

I'm really quite clueless on this whole legal mumbo jumbo but it seems to me that the government stance is too p.c. and too safe to actually deter rape at all.

Rohini said...

Agree with Anonymouse wholeheartedly. I think rape is completely about power and control. It arises out of a need to dominate, possess and humiliate. The clothes a woman is wearing might at best spark sexual attraction but rape is not the way to deal with that for a normal, sane, well-brought up male.

Nandini said...

this might be off tangent in a way but it seems relevant in the context of women inviting rape etc...
you might have read it anyway

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html

Anonymous said...

Ya heard about that in the news as well- as far as I know the muslim community was outraged with his remarks and even called for him to stand down over them.

Young Muslim adviser Iktimal Hage-Ali - who does not wear a hijab - said the Islamic headdress was not a "tool" worn to prevent rape and sexual harassment. "It's a symbol that readily identifies you as being Muslim, but just because you don't wear the headscarf doesn't mean that you're considered fresh meat for sale," the former member of John Howard's Muslim advisory board told The Australian. "The onus should not be on the female to not attract attention, it should be on males to learn how to control themselves."

It is that kind of mentality though, and so what Megha says is the real problem and I totally agree with. I read these kinds of things and my blood boils. Is the amount a woman wears inversely proportional to the chance she will get teased, molested or raped?? That is bullshit. You're right that it's merely a diversion tactic to take focus away from the REAL perpetrators - the RAPISTS.

Hopefully India will bring about a constructive change with its laws...

Agree with Rohini there as well.... Bring back the days of the Amazon women!

B said...

I am the 'anonymous' of commentator number 16, at 12.36 am.

Let me clarify a few things:

anonymouse - "I mean SERIOUSLY..... whats next murder is not murder unless there was an intention to kill?"
Intent is very much an essential ingredient of a crime, as much as the act of committing the crime. While murder might be committed accidentally or without intention, it is clearly not possible to rape someone without the intention to commit rape.

Raindrop - "Clearly, we just get emotional, react like gibbering idiots, and pull facts out of our asses."
I neither said nor implied this. Or at least, I didnt mean to give this impression. I merely meant to say that an article in DNA is not a sufficient basis upon which to criticise a Supreme Court judgement on rape law.

Further - the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2006 does NOT recognise marital rape. It simply creates a new offence in Section 3(a) read with Explanation I(ii). This is the offence of "sexual abuse". Even with the passage of the PWDV Act, a married man CANNOT be tried for raping his wife, he can only be found guilty of sexual abuse. EVEN IF HE IS FOUND GUILTY OF SEXUAL ABUSE, THE PWDV ACT DOES NOT PRESCRIBE ANY CRIMINAL PENALTIES. So, to put it simply, this is just diddly squat. No doubt it may have a positive effect on preventing domestic violence, but it has absolutely nothing to do with rape law.

Wannabe Indian Punkster - "Yes as women, we are hyper sensitive, weirdly emotional and prone to sudden bouts of idiocy. I need people like you to show me the light."
Again, this is an unfairly sarcastic comment. I neither said nor implied anything like this.

Apologies for any offence I may have caused.

hedonistic hobo said...

Oh this is a boys will be boys world darling. Kiran Bedi came to my univ once and commented on the rising incidence of rape in Delhi exhorting us to behave appropriately, dress modestly and learn martial arts. A few of us were fulminating in the sides, wondering what is this lady who we all looked up to is saying and then we realised that majority of the women (mine was an all girl's feministy college) there were moved by her message. It was heartbreaking.

And this law, this outrage a woman's modesty clause, what the fuck is a woman's modesty? I don't know how many more violent injustices need to be perpetrated before that outdated law is revised and clearly defined. I hope it's someday soon, I hope it's in my lifetime. There's got to be a way though. There must be.

the wannabe indian punkster said...

@ Jupe: Its not p.c jupe, its apathy.

@ Rohini: Wholeheartedly agree.

@ Nandini: Oh of course Ive heard about that, and its is probably the best example of the attitude I was talking about in my post.

@ Silvara: Thank you! And amazon women will be utter coolness, no? :)

@ B: What makes you assume that that was the only article I had read before I typed out this post? I linked to it, yes...but that does not mean that I had based this post solely on that article nor does it mean that I have only read that ONE article pertaining to this decision of the supreme court.

@ Hobo: I swear! I still cannot understand what the court means by "a womans modesty" or "a womans birthright is her modesty".

WTF?

Aishwarya said...

...I have no modesty. Clearly I'm totally asking for it.

Anonymous said...

Regarding how the law is changing, you might be interested in how this woman and some nice investigators dealt with the idea of 'not quite being penetrated by a penis' . You might also be interested in this.

Now, I do agree Anon has a point, albeit in a pedantic sense and that he perhaps means well. But that's just my opinion, of course. Now, I have to often deal with the sequelae of rape, often over the rest of that person's life. Hang on, sorry, correction. The person's stopped being a 'person' by now; s/he is now officially a patient/client/service user, perhaps forever. And that brings the whole business of loss into sharper focus- loss of jobs, relationships, partners, social life/status, children taken into care (because the mother's suddenly not able to cope any more) et al, all of which are collateral damage in the downward spiral of PTSD, Depression, Alcohol and Drug use that accompanies the aftermath. And don't forget, every time the victim has a flashback/nightmare, they relive the whole incident. So make that being raped/assaulted hundreds of times over, at least twice a week.

Now, if you look at all that damage, quibbling about a penis seems rather ludicrous. So, mens rea or not, penetrating or not, penis or nonpenis, if the law is an ass, why not call it one, mate?

anna-rchy said...

jeezz.. i think ive found my blogging soulmate once more.

check out - http://aboutabuse.blogspot.com
i just started it for a rock concert i created (1st child sexual abuse awareness concert in India btw!!)...

let me know if i could blogroll u..

Mosilager said...

I don't care if the victim is running around naked, the would-be perpetrators have to control themselves. There's no boys will be boys argument, the moment one of the partners says no, that's it, end of story. unfortunately the general public doesn't quite see it like that just yet, men or women.

scudie said...

Er, wonder how you would react to

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1066173

C said...

B: You cannot make any sense to all these armchair critics. First of all none of them are Indian. They are NRI critics who love to entertain their white skinned masters about the animal like existence in India (a country they dont care for).

Secondly, these are women who have brains the size of rat poo and ego the size of an elaphant's.

They neither have the humility nor the intellect to study a legal point.

Obviously these are emotional beings who can be swayed either way by making sensational statements. They definitely lack the patience to study legal mumbo-jumbo.

Though there are many who share your opinion of intelligent analysis of rape laws so that meaningful and concrete changes can be suggested, you are in the wrong place for such a message.

Here hot headed statements and slurpy asslicking goes.

I agree with all the things you say. Unfortunately greatest disservice to this cause or not men. But hot headed all fart and no shit NRI women like megha.

C

the wannabe indian punkster said...

@ Aishwarya: Of course you dont have any modesty, you wench. *snigger*

@ Nevermind: Ha ha, I obviously know that the law is an ass. I only mentioned the supreme court's decision in this case (as an example), to illustrate the dangerously callous attitudes this society perpetuates towards rape and sexual abuse, thats all. :)

@ Pranaadhika: Hello! Its been a w.h.i.l.e! And of course you can blogroll me! You dont have to ask!

@ Mosilager: Hello!
unfortunately the general public doesn't quite see it like that just yet, men or women.

I couldnt have expressed it better myself.

@ Scudie: I have nothing to say. The article speaks for itself.

@ C: rofl.

McGermy said...

Hear Hear!!!

We have a keyboard warrior in "C".

Son/Daughter, when you type a comment, do you leave your brain in deep freeze or in a can of liquid nitrogen? jesus christ on a raft!! Even a completely drunk/stoned person would make more sense than you. Oh and there is an acute overload of B.S thanks to you.

The keyboard warrior lives!

Mosilager said...

punkster - hello and thanks!

Anonymous said...

frst lemme ask u hv u been raped r have u seen rape victims.ok asking u if u raped is a wrong thing so do u nkow wht rape is? do u know how woman fels whn she is raped. she feels drty becos her life is over.wht guy will marry her. normal inidan guy will speak like gandhi and act like rowdy so no guy will marry such girl. it is very forward thinkng to say wman shld nt take precation but r u saying tht woman shld not care abt future. if she is girl frm good family she will nt go out unecesarly and get raped nd tht shld be her aim...wht r u trying to teach woman to wear mini skirt nd tght top in pallavan bus? u learn frst.

rajan

Anonymous said...

nowadys girls wear tght tht churidhar nd not wear dupata on chest. tht itself is bad nd shamelss girls like u teachin thm to do tht so tht innocent boys get temtation. wht nice plan u girls have to end life of inocnt guys.

rajan

McGermy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
McGermy said...

"wht nice plan u girls have to end life of inocnt guys." - I'm sorry... I'm having a sensory overload due to the amount of BULLSHIT in that comment, especially with the ending... or could it just be... That makes sense! Yes!!!!!

Woooooooo Hooo... I've done it! I've DONE it! I've done *it*!!!



I have found the one thing that every person opposed to evolution was searching for. The one thing that disproves Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest - Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you ... Rajan!

Wait.. could Rajan be also claimed as "the missing link" between man and ape, so that I can get some money from the evolution supporting crew?

On the other hand, this "rajan" could simply be a wind-up since a person having such views in reality would require an IQ of 0.00199291, which is impossible by all accounts.


Rajan,
I'm yr frnd nt yr enmy. v vil use txttlk as code, snce no 1 vil ndrtstnd wht v sy. it vil b our scrt code. ROFLCOPTER! U da "spcl" prsn LOL!!!!one1!!!

Anonymous said...

@Rajan: ROLF!!!
Oh dear Lord!!!! Talk about entertainment.....
muahahahahahahahaz~!!!!!!~

Shalini said...

@Rajan - Read the article below and think for a moment, instead of just puking your shit on this blog.

Shalini

http://www.samachar.com/showurl.htm?rurl=http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE120061128103215&Title=Bangalore&Topic=0&?headline=Bangalore~sets~afire~70~women~a~month!

Domestic violence on increase in the city
Wednesday November 29 2006 00:00 IST

BANGALORE:
If one techie's sorry tale of being beaten up by his wife made you think that women are misusing laws (a little too flabbergasting considering the fact that the `victim' just needed to take a peek into the history and draw inspiration to bash up his wife in retaliation!), digest this: on an average, 70 women are set afire each month in Bangalore district.

“These are the statistics emanating from Victoria Hospital alone and do not include the cases admitted by St John's Hospital. That apart, many upper class people go to private hospitals where such cases are easily hushed up with the help of corrupt police who push them into ‘unnatural deaths’ ledgers,” says Donna Fernandes of Vimochana, the NGO that spearheaded the campaign to get the law against dowry - Section 498 A - enacted.

What's more, although most of the victims die, less than 10 percent of the cases (only 5-6 cases) get registered in a month.

Dowry tops the list of the crimes, followed by suspicion of wife's fidelity, demand for male child, etc.

These figures do not include cases of hanging, poisoning and suicides.

These are not cooked-up statistics nor those churned out of tinpot surveys or haphazard SMS polls.

These are the stories of poorest of poor women, some pregnant, whose lives were wrenchingly cut short by criminal husbands (some alcoholic) and in-laws; these are the women who were buried and conveniently forgotten by a city that thinks no end of itself.

Vimochana has posted three women counsellors at Victoria Hospital burns ward who note down each burn case admitted.

Sathya and her colleagues have been witness to hundreds of deaths.

Sathya rues: “Since January 2006, I have myself witnessed nearly 750 admissions. Of which, less than 20 percent survived and still lesser percent of cases are discharged on medical advice. It's a pathetic situation. Most cases are not registered because the police do not conduct spot inspections. They even say they cannot do much when the victims themselves term it a ‘stove burst’, an ‘accident’, etc.”

Citing cynicism and corruption, Sathya says that even when the victim's hair smells of kerosene, police refuse to take up the case.

Some doctors even convince the victim's relatives and get her admitted to private hospitals.

These cases do not figure in police registers either.

“The situation is very disturbing. Any woman who sustains 20-30 percent of burns has a chance of surviving. But because of the pathetic conditions in the hospital, they develop infections and die. And those who sustain more than 50 percent of burns have a lesser chance of survival,” adds Donna.

Profoundly shattering as these findings are, they also point at the silence hovering over the graves of these women buried along with the hushed-up crimes.

Juxtapose this with the noise being made over male software employees being harassed by their wives; what emerges clearly is this appalling fact: that it is anything but unnatural for women to be burnt alive; in other words, anything is questionable but the status quo.

Scritch said...

I dated a boy for three days who argued it "If a girl is in a a rickshaw wearing a mini skirt at night then she must be asking for it"

what a total wank.

sigh.

I cant read stuff like this in the morning. it just fills the rest of my day with rage.

Vijayeta said...

AWESOME!!! I was off the blogosphere for, like 3 months and nothing's changed here. Another brilliantly written, passionate post from megha about the pathetic state of rape laws and attitudes! And same kind of trolls with different names shouting themselves hoarse against all the other voices of reason!

Megha, what you said is so rampant! I mean, the attitudes towards rapists. Like when the Rakhi Sawant thing happened, she was on NDTV with three other pseudo-feminists who run NGO's for women etc. And all three women came down upon her saying "But you called it upon yourself by being the way you are," OR "You go to page 3 parties regularly where such things happen, so why are you shouting so much!" And the worst of all which makes my blood boil, "You're doing it to get publicity!" I was simply appalled at the way all of them tried to make her feel apologetic about the way she was, the way she dressed and the fact that she was an 'item girl' who danced rather raunchily in all her videos.
And then there's the recent development in the Jessica Lal case (though it wasn't rape) where the country's best lawyer Ram Jethmalani's stepped in to defend Manu Sharma!!! Really, really sickening!

Anonymous said...

ur chamchas r full suprt fr u. so my life ending becos a girl wears tght uselss dress is ok. but if we go touch her then it s our wrng. wht nonsense is this...she wears cheap drss becos she wants to hv fun but if we wnt fun thn we r rapist. also making fun of my speech is such gud point fer u nd ur chamchas to fight wid me but all u ppl say rubbish thgs. wid ppl like u thre will be no males n india. jai hind.

rajan

Anonymous said...

Hrrbl ppl, thes chamchas, no Rajan? Chee chee, no shame only. Unlike decent ppls. Jai Hind, bhaiyya. Now go RIP. V vl buy cheap drss 4 u to RIP in. In phull safrrn clr.

Pirate McGermy said...

Ths chmchs r v bd. I ht thm 2!!!one1!1!!

Bt U r my bst frnd. U mk a lt of snse! U r my idl!! I vil sprd ur wndrfl txt tlk mntra all ovr da wrld!!!!1!1!one!!


ROFLCOPTER, innit?

Pirate McGermy said...

Rajan, Ths chmchs r v bd. I ht thm 2!!!one1!1!! U da man!!1one!!

Bt U r my bst frnd. U mk a lt of snse! U r my idl!! I vil sprd ur wndrfl txt tlk mntra all ovr da wrld!!!!1!1!one!!


ROFLCOPTER, innit?

aradhana said...

tell me this rajan guy is doing this just to SEEM weird.oh my gosh.

and pirate mcgermy is hilarious! haha!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Primalsoup said...

Ello, what about the Pirate Costume post that you promised ma?! :D

Anonymous said...

u ppl will not undrstood my view.u ppl will curs my lang nd my speach.am only saying tht rape afcts both partys. rape afcts boy and girl.the girl temts boy nd his life is over same snse boy ruins girl reputation.wht is wrng in ths?

rajan

Anonymous said...

Rajn, i am fully undrstnd ur view and i empthiz. itz nt ur fault tht u vr dropd on the head as a baby.

how abt v do this now... u dress up in ur best sunday thong, nd i rape you? i know i'll ruin my life doing that... but ur dong in a thong... temptation's a bitch.

you ain't big on free will, how about some free willy?


Punkster: Apologies for the R-rated comment... but temptation's a bitch, y'know.

sac said...

rajan, are you some kind of FREAK!! "becos a girl wears tght uselss dress is ok. but if we go touch her then it s our wrng. wht nonsense is this...she wears cheap drss becos she wants to hv fun but if we wnt fun thn we r rapist." WTF!! first of all, the description of the dress and its supposed meaning is in YOUR head, NOT hers!! get that? secondly, your idea of 'fun' is a violent crime! get that? sincere advice: please head to the nearest psychiatrist. now. and i swear, if i'm walking down a dark alley with a woman in a miniskirt and i meet the likes of you, i will not hesitate to kick your face to pulp, or go down trying.

Anonymous said...

rajan... mmm self-control buddy. girls can wear whatever they want, if you can't handle it then put on some porn and remember, your hand is your best friend.

Anonymous said...

Have you read this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/africa/01madagascar.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

Blogged about it as well....its just so depressing

B said...

Hi,

Ive found the Supreme Court judgement that began this entire post and controversy! It is mostly an irritating judgement, but its also interesting. Importantly though, which the DNA article totally missed (quite unforgiveably, but not surprisingly) is that the 12-year old girl in question turned hostile. Anyway, briefly - without getting too legal - this is what happened:

The victim left her shack at night to go to the loo (in an open space a little distance away). She was apprehended by the accused and taken to his shack. She shouted out for help. Before the accused could employ force to molest, undress or later rape the victim, her father, relatives and other villagers arrived and, rescuing her from harm, took the perpetrator to the police. The trial court convicted the perpetrator for attempted rape and sentenced him to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the trial court. The Supreme Court found that an account of the events could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that rape was being attempted (although the judges seem to be aware that this was what was going to happen). In essence, while - I think - they knew that rape would have been attempted had the girl's father not showed up, the facts before them did not contain enough evidence. Instead they convicted the accused of different offences.

This is a problematic judgement on many counts. But this is what I found interesting -
(1) The victim herself turned hostile. I cant figure out why since her father and five other villagers maintained their position. If the victim herself was in the witness box claiming that she couldn't identify the accused, I can imagine a judge finding it difficult to convict.
(2) The guy was, in any case, sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. The DNA article misses this, it gives the impression that he ran off scot free. But that is not the case.

I would be happy to share, over email, the judgement with anyone interested.

Now, there is something else bothering me. In one of these preceding comments, I have been called "pedantic". I am a Supreme Court lawyer, with a focus on human rights and public interest issues. I have represented rape and other sexual assault victims at both trial and High Court level. My views are most certainly not pedantic. In response to a post about rape law, my views are as, if not more, accurate and 'real' than anyone else's in these comments.

Further, twice (or more) in these comments, I have been assumed to be a male, I think simply because I differed about the tone of the original post. This is deplorable.

It creates, although Im sure it was not meant consciously, the impression that the only people who can legitimately talk about patriarchy are women. There is a value to victimhood, Im sure, but there are dangers when it is used as a weapon against people who aren't part of yr ideological circle. This is not what feminism is about. Sorry, again, if this offends anybody. I just dont think its fair that I got attacked and then dismissed as pedantic.

As a (relatively young) law student, there was one particular book that I found informative. It helped me develop a perspective about gender and the law in India. Its called - "Engendering Law: Essays in Honour of Lotika Sarkar", edited by Amita Dhanda and Archana Parasher (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 1999). Lotika Sarkar, as you know, is one of the authors of the famous open letter to the Supreme Court after the Mathura judgement that first galvanised Indian law to take a closer look at rape and forced the State to make changes.

Anonymous said...

@B

Looks like you are a new comer here. To this forum. Let me right at the onset tell you that this blog is for asslickers and trolls. Reasoning doesent work here. Look at your earlier attempt. you ended up being abused thats all.

I pity you. Mostly because you are trying to make sense to a bunch of loonies who dont really care for the issues they profess to defend.

For them a rape is not a crime but a convinient vehicle of reinforcing their own identities. Like the rapist who belives strongly in his superiority and looks at rape as a legitmate means of assertion, these beings (namely megha and her long list of asslicking friends) look towards rape as a reinforcement of their beliefs that justice and society is anti-women and patriarchial. They pick the wrong examples for illustration without doing any form of research. Half baked knowledge is dangerous. When they are proved wrong by reasoning, they cant take it and end up abusing others. Imagine if they are male. They would be exactly what they seek to hate now. Rapists. The underlying instrument of assertion between a rapist and megha is the same thing. "Abuse". The rapist indulges in physical and sexual abuse. Megha excells in verbal abuse.

In effect both the rapist and and the meghaites (for lack of better word. Calling them femists insults my sense of being) are the same kind. Both suffer from attention seeking disorder. This condition unfortunately twists their perceptopn of reality and comprehension of logic and justice. Some even lie, to get a little spotlight for themselves.

I dont think feminism has anything to do with these folks. Its precisely this kind of people we dont need for the feminist movement in India. In a way its a good thing that they are located outside of India. Their influence is localised to a stupid blog. Imagine the embaressment if they are on the streets holding up a banner saying "Women's right to walk naked on the road".

C

Anonymous said...

@B

Looks like you are a new comer here. To this forum. Let me right at the onset tell you that this blog is for asslickers and trolls. Reasoning doesent work here. Look at your earlier attempt. you ended up being abused thats all.

I pity you. Mostly because you are trying to make sense to a bunch of loonies who dont really care for the issues they profess to defend.

For them a rape is not a crime but a convinient vehicle of reinforcing their own identities. Like the rapist who belives strongly in his superiority and looks at rape as a legitmate means of assertion, these beings (namely megha and her long list of asslicking friends) look towards rape as a reinforcement of their beliefs that "justice and society is anti-women and patriarchial". They pick the wrong examples for illustration without doing any form of research. Its a good example of "Half baked knowledge is dangerous". Whenever they are proved wrong by reasoning, they cant take it and end up abusing others. Imagine if they were male. They would be exactly what they claim to hate now. Rapists. The underlying instrument of assertion between a rapist and megha is the same thing. "Abuse". The rapist indulges in physical and sexual abuse. Megha uses verbal abuse.

In effect both the rapist and and the meghaites (for lack of better word. Calling them femists insults my sense of being) are the same kind. Both suffer from attention seeking disorder. This condition unfortunately twists their perceptopn of reality and comprehension of logic and justice. Some even lie, to get a little spotlight for themselves.

I wouldnt be surprised if megha follows this up with a post on why "Women should not walk naked on the roads", arguing all the time that this is injustice and how society should allow them to do that and accomodate them in their rights.

Unfortunately it might be the need for women in US, Canada and other western nations. Women in India need no such trivial causes. We have bigger battles to fight and people like megha harm the cause for our legitimate rights

C

Scritch said...

rajan seems like a fake to me. and well said supreme court lawyer.

the wannabe indian punkster said...

@ mcgermy: R.O.F.L!!!

@ Mosilager: *beam*

@ Szerelem: I *heart* rajan. I think we should start a rajan fanclub (its been LONG overdue), whad'ya think? :D

@ Rajan: I want more people like you commenting here! You bring such unbridled joy to this blog and I dont want that to end!
*dies*

@ Shalini: Thank you! Although I KNOW for certain that people like rajan will not understand one single w.o.r.d of what you have so wonderfully said in your comment.

@ Scritch: Hullo! I know eh, it pisses me off as well. And we've all dated pricks like your boyfriend. Geez, I wonder what goes on in their twerpy little minds.

@ Vij: YAY! Youre finally finally back. The whole Rakhi Sawant issue makes my blood boil. Oh look its a item girl! Lets all do whatever we want to her, because we're doing her a favor by giving the whore what she wants! Hurrah! Everyones happy!

A.R.G.H.

I know you agree with me, *sigh* but does that prevent people from calling me names? I guess when that happens the heavens will open up or something.

:D

@ Nevermind: BWAHAHAHAHA! *tries to breathe*

@ Aradhana: I think rajans a fake. No real person can sink to such fathomless levels of moronism.

@ Primalsoup: Husshhh! Not over here! ;)

@ Mediocretes: Come on...you dont have to apologize! Your comment was hilarious. *beam*

@ Szerelem: Holy mother of.......

*aghast*

@ B: I never assumed anything about whether you were male or female. And your views are always welcome here, just as anyone elses views are, as long as you dont get personal. :)

@ C: The rapist indulges in physical and sexual abuse. Megha uses verbal abuse.

Hmmmm, false allegations anyone?

@ Scritch: I agree.

anonymouse said...

Never claim that no person can sink to such levels of moronism until you have worked at a computer heldesk. Rajan is fairly literate, as opposed to some of the people needing help from the helldesk.

I did know people who epoused views like that. Thankfully, I no longer have to be around them.

anonymouse said...

s/false allegations/ad hominem/

Anonymous said...

As usual, the comments are just as interesting as the post itself. :)

Nice one, girl.

Anonymous said...

i totally relate with your indignance megha.

there are enough examples and studies to show that attire and a friendly face are not bloody invitations for rape.

it's so frustrating to live in a world like this...

well written piece!

None said...

my friend, how have you been?! been a while, but i come back to some dynamite i see. No contesting the fct that I absolutely agree with you. Just wondering, if you had a woman judge on the bench on this case, would it have made ANY difference?!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

hey megha, when did you open an online dating service for bringing together young girls and handsome gays and girls?

lucrative business eh?
:)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

well written, and what a comment section. As for the judgement, i'm with you. And while this modesty business does get on my nerves , most women in this country seem to think that way as well, which is sad i know. the great indian middle class roughly sets the rules by which all men and women have to behave , rural and urban. and while I can scoff and say 'my god what a medieval attitude', who am i really to question the moral values of the majority. being urban, i really can pretty much do what i want. If i lived in a semi-rural sort of place however, i really dont know how i would survive, except by sticking to the unwritten moral code of what to wear and where to walk. how much to drink is hardly an issue, because obviusly i cant touch the stuff. I do hope this modesty stuff will go away someday, when the women of this country can be free, take off their clothes and jump joyously into the river for a bath just like their male counterparts.
until then, to all the people who use the modesty argument, the only thing i can say is...please can you tell the lusty men of this country to stop wearing those short short lungis and showing so much chest hair coz everytime i see someone like that i just want to rip his clothes off and rape him right there on the street. it of course doest serve my argument very well that there arent very men lusty men in this country.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

@punkster - ave! just stumbled across. gosh. everything which i possibly could say has been (mostly) covered by the insane amounts of passionate writings above.

i will, however, add for the benefit of rajan:

FOAD

there, thats a "SMS" lingo acronym you can go lookup and hopefully follow. to the letter.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NIsha said...

@B

Bravo on your well researched and balanced comment. I noticed it didn't get more than a passing glance from Megha, much less merit a discussion on the ins and outs of the case.

Which - personally speaking - puzzled me a bit, since I thought that is what we were attempting to do here, not get together and bemoan 'yet another victory of partriarchy'

Good job!

the wannabe indian punkster said...

@ Nisha: So now I am subjected to criticism on how I react to a comment too? Very nice, and of course you did ignore the part where I clearly told B that her views are completely welcome here. Good job.

Nisha said...

I didn't ignore that part where you said her views are welcome - thats what I called a 'passing glance' since you showed no reaction to the fact that B's comment was better researched than your original blog post.

Of course, you are subject to criticism and discussion on the views you express on your blog - thats why you write it, right? You know what they say, if you can't stand the heat....

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.