[An unpublished article I had written in July 2014. I am uploading it as part of my exercise to upload many of my old articles on subjects on which I feel or felt strongly, however unconnected they may be with each other]
There should be a proper definition of rape, full and
speedy justice, and very stringent punishment against the criminal in every
case (the genuine rapist, whether or not
a minor, or the false accuser, as the individual case may be). And mischief
mongering politicians and activists should not be allowed to interfere in the
process of exposing the Truth or to succeed in derailing the wheels of Justice.
The subject, being debated
publicly (on television) by a panel of six persons (including the anchor), is
this: should a certain particular
category of rapists (and other committers of similar heinous crimes) be given
the punishment normally due to other categories of rapists (and other
committers of similar heinous crimes)? The panel consists of three men
(including the anchor of the channel) and three women; the six are evenly
divided, the men on one side and the women on the other; the debate becomes
heated, with the women panelists glaring indignantly at the men panelists,
asserting themselves furiously, and standing their ground through thick and
thin with flashing eyes and rising voices.
Any guesses for who represents
which side? Any guesses as to who are advocating stringent punishment for the
rapists, and who are defending the rapists and advocating a lenient attitude?
If you did not see the Newshour
Debate on Times Now channel at 9 p.m.
on 14/7/2014,
your guess will be wrong. It is the men
panelists who were advocating stringent punishment for the rapists, and it is
the women panelists who were frothing
at the mouth in indignation at the very thought of the rapists being punished
for their acts! The women panelists, Womens’ Rights and Child Rights activists
one and all, were fully and militantly determined to protect and fight for the
“human rights”, not of the raped women
(minors et al) but of the rapist “minor” men.
It was a statement by Mrs Maneka
Gandhi, the Union Minister for Women and Child Development, which was the
trigger for this heated debate. Speaking at a function in Chennai, Mrs Gandhi
expressed her firm determination that juveniles accused of heinous crimes like
rape should be treated on par with adult offenders, and not be treated
leniently on account of their age. This is what raised a storm of protests from
“human rights activists” all over the country, of which this debate showcased a
small sample.
This is not the first occasion
that these “human rights” activists have come out in full strength to defend
the human rights of the rapists. This time, on this debate, it was activists
Vrinda Grover, Nina Nayak and Sudha Ramalingam on a crusade to protect the
hapless “minor” or “juvenile” rapists; on the occasion of the “nirbhaya” case
more than a year ago, we had other women “human rights activists” of the same
genre, like Malvika Rajkotia, Flavia Agnes, and others, shouting vociferously
in defence of the rights of the “child” who had been the most cold-blooded and
ruthless, among the rapists, in torturing the victim in that case, by actually
(among other things) inserting a long metal rod inside her body and destroying
her internal organs!
All this raises several
questions:
1. The first is the psychology of
the so called human rights activists. In defending the minor or juvenile
rapists, these activists frequently cite “psychological” factors in defence or
condonation of their acts. Would it not be more appropriate to first examine
the psychology of these women, to
whom it seems to be almost a holy mission to defend such “children”? It is
often alleged that women are the greatest enemies of women, and the missionary
zeal of these women activists would seem to prove this maxim.
Is it the sadistic and vicarious
joy of seeing other women raped and tortured in gruesome ways, and aversion or
reluctance to allow anyone else to try to put an end to this joyful state of
affairs, which makes these women position themselves as defenders of the “human
rights” of the juvenile rapists, and makes them fight to let these juvenile
rapists loose on other women after minimal punishments and armed with the comforting and encouraging assurance that such acts
will be defended and condoned?
Is it a perverted male-oriented
mother syndrome, in which, deep down in their motherly hearts, they prefer to
view the issue from the prejudiced point of view of a mother whose minor son
has committed such an offence, rather than from the point of view of a mother
whose minor daughter has been subjected to this horror and terror?
Or is it merely the thrill of
defending the indefensible – and fighting to win?
Exactly what kind of sadistic
psychology is behind this “activism” which is passionately, aggressively and
perpetually obsessed with the “human rights” of predator entities like terrorists and fundamentalists, powerful
international missionary organizations, and rapists and heinous criminals, to
the sharp detriment of the genuine
human rights of the entities they prey
on?
2. A second question arising from
the above debate is the question of “left” versus “right”. Subramaniam Swamy,
one of the male panelists on the program suddenly introduced this “left” versus
“right” angle, as follows: “The question therefore today is entangled with the
ideological aspects. Now there is the view taken on so many things which have
now got entangled with ideology. Take for example the question of
homosexuality, the same way in this also there is a left wing view of this, of
promiscuousness: allow everybody freedom, be liberal; whereas we say: no, there
has to be a punishment system and that punishment system has to be employed
when the crime is heinous”.
It is perfectly possible, and even perfectly likely, that the
women panelists on this debate, as well as in earlier debates, who so
passionately advocated leniency and concern for the “human rights” of minor
rapists, were leftists. But, is it really the standard view of outright leftist
parties like the CPI, CPM or CPML (I ask because I genuinely do not know)? Most
of these “leftist” human rights organizations, with their predilection for
stout defence of the “human rights” of predator entities, are, more often than
not, financed mainly by American sources linked with rightist “international” American
foundations and organizations promoting rightist American agendas. So it can
not basically be a “left” versus “right” issue.
Again, is the question of
homosexuals on par with the question of rapists and heinous criminals? Earlier
on in the debate, Subramaniam Swamy rightly pointed out: “when you commit rape,
when you commit murder, it’s not like the stealing of a bicycle or running away
with a pastry in a bakery shop”, and that in rape cases there are victims and
“the victims have rights too”, and that the rapist “robs somebody else of his
[/her] rights and therefore should be punished”. Is it then his contention that
private consensual sexual activity between two adult individuals (who are born
with that orientation, and probably are helpless to do nothing about it) is on
par with rape and murder, and with robbing someone else of their rights, and therefore
“should be punished”? Or that homosexual orientation is a “leftist” phenomenon?
The main question is not of
“left” or “right”, but of the tendency to
promote the pernicious philosophy of “liberalism and generosity at the expense
of others”, which seems to be a persistent factor in every contentious
discourse and debate. These women activists are safe in the knowledge that
their own socio-economic and other circumstances preclude them, and their minor
associates (sisters, daughters, nieces), from being at the receiving end of the
childlike whims of the rapist “children” whose human rights they so
passionately fight for. So they have no qualms in giving full rein to their
generosity and liberalism, and their so human compassion, towards these
“children”.
The category in which this kind of “compassion”
falls can be illustrated, though this may seem a pedestrian illustration to
many, by the following example from a literary work: In Agatha Christie’s
well-known book “Mrs McGinty’s Dead”, a murder takes place in an English
village as a result of an article appearing in a newspaper called “The Sunday
Companion”. Under the heading “Women Victims of Bygone tragedies”, the article
gives sob-story accounts of the “tragic” lives of four women tried for murder
in the past, portraying them as tragic victims of their circumstances. One of
these is a “child” of twelve, “little Lily Gamboll, tragic child product of our
overcrowded age”:
“Lily Gamboll had, it seemed, been removed from her overcrowded home. An
aunt had assumed responsibility for Lily's life. Lily had wanted to go to the
pictures, Aunt had said ‘No.’ Lily Gamboll had picked up the meat chopper which
was lying conveniently on the table and had aimed a blow at her aunt with it.
The aunt, though autocratic, was small and frail. The blow killed her. Lily was
a well-developed and muscular child for her twelve years. An approved school
had opened its doors and Lily had disappeared from the everyday scene.
By now she is a woman, free again to take her place in our
civilization. Her conduct, during her years of confinement and probation, is
said to have been exemplary. Does not this show that it is not the child, but
the system, that we must blame? Brought up in ignorance, in slum conditions,
little Lily was the victim of her environment.
Now, having atoned for her tragic lapse, she lives somewhere, happily,
we hope, a good citizen and a good wife and mother. Poor little Lily Gamboll.”
Christie’s Belgian detective
Hercule Poirot, investigating the murder case, interviews the woman journalist
writer of the article, a Miss Pamela Horsefall: “Miss Horsefall was tall, manly-looking,
a hard drinker and smoker, and it would seem, looking at her, highly improbable
that it was her pen which had dropped such treacly sentiment in the Sunday
Companion. Nevertheless it was so”. The journalist makes no bones
about the fact that the article was just a piece of insincere journalism not to
be taken seriously. The following is their conversation on the subject:
“"My dear man. No point in accuracy. Whole thing was a romantic
farrago from beginning to end. I just mugged up the facts a bit and then let
fly with a lot of hou ha."
"What I am trying to say is that even the characters of your
heroines are not, perhaps, quite as represented."
Pamela let out a neighing sound like a horse.
"Course they weren't. What do you think? I've no doubt that Eva
Kane was a thorough little bitch, and not an injured innocent at all. And as
for the Courtland woman, why did she suffer in silence for eight years with a
sadistic pervert? Because he was rolling in money, and the romantic friend
hadn't any."
"And the tragic child, Lily Gamboll?"
"I wouldn't care to have her gamboling about me with a meat
chopper."”
The fact is that these hard-boiled
“human rights” activists wouldn’t care to have the juvenile (“child”) rapist of
the “nirbhaya” case, for example, gamboling around their own sisters, daughters
or nieces with a metal rod. Nor would any of these women care to prove her
sincere belief in her cause by letting the “child” in question loose in an
isolated spot, with metal rods lying around all over the place, and with a
couple of like-minded friends for company, with her (i.e. “human rights”
activist’s) own minor sister, daughter or niece, after definitely assuring him
(as these activists seem determined to
assure all potential juvenile “child” rapists) that his actions will be
treated as the actions of a “child”; and then defending him with as much vigour
as she does now. But they have no compunctions in being generous at the expense
of others, in letting these “children” loose on other hapless women in less
protected environments, and in assuring them, and all other potential juvenile “children”
of the same psyche, that they will be so defended.
But this philosophy of “generosity
at the expense of others” is not restricted to the “left”. It is as well
represented in the “right” and the “centre” as well. When, for example, poor
villagers are forcibly displaced and ousted from areas inhabited by them (i.e.
by their ancestors) since thousands of years, and their lands handed over to
multi-billionaire industrialists for a penny, it is the “rightist” capitalist
classes and their captive intellectuals who loudly justify this in the name of
“development”, and it is common to hear even politically neutral people
mindlessly but firmly echoing this point, and philosophically declaring that
all this is necessary for development and that some people must sacrifice for
the development of the nation as a whole and for the good of countless other
people. Needless to say, these practical advocates of “sacrifice of a few for
the good of the many” would have no doubts, deep in their hearts, about
themselves personally deserving to belong, in every case and circumstance, to
the category of the benefiting many rather than to that of the sacrificing few,
and would exhibit a sharply different attitude if the positions were reversed.
No-one cares until they are personally affected, and everyone is willing to be
philosophically pragmatic and broad-minded when the victims are others than
themselves. So must the residents of the
Campa Cola society in Mumbai have philosophized when countless villagers were
being ousted, so many times in the past, from their homes in the name of
development; so must the residents of countless (more than 50,000 buildings, according
to a very conservative estimate) “illegal” buildings in Mumbai (who remained
unmoved and inactive while the Campa Cola residents fought for their homes) have
philosophized when the Campa Cola residents were being singled out for ouster
recently (their fate is still hanging in the air); and so will the residents of
“legal” buildings philosophize if the residents of the countless other
“illegal” buildings are similarly dishoused in future. Of course, the
philosophical defence will shift from the righteous “illegal” to the more fashionable
“development” for the residents of impregnable “legal” buildings, if the axe
falls on residents of socio-economically or politically vulnerable “legal”
buildings further on in time! There is no ethics, logic or honesty in the
stands taken by advocates of the “left”, “right” or “centre” in any matter,
there is only personal or political convenience: the positions of Dr Swamy and
the human rights activists would be diametrically opposite to their present
stands, but they would still be facing each other from opposite sides, if the
discussion were about Asaram “Bapu” rather than about the cherubic “child” in
the “nirbhaya” case.
When Morarji Desai was asked by a
journalist about being a rightist, he quipped: “I am a rightist in the sense
that I believe in supporting what is right and opposing what is wrong”, or
words to that effect. Regardless of how true he was to his words, let us strive
to support what is right against what is wrong, in every case, rather than
thinking and fighting as representatives of the “right”, “centre” or “left”.
3. A third question, closely bound
with the question of rape, is: what exactly constitutes rape? This is
significant and important, because the fashionable definition of “rape” today
fudges and obfuscates the definition to an extent which makes this question not
only relevant but crucial to the issue.
Note: the point being made
here is not about the potential
misuse of any potential laws on punishment for rapists. That is, the question
here is not about whether any particular
accusation of rape would be true or false: that is a different issue, and the honest and logical conclusion would depend
on an examination of the facts and evidence in each individual case separately.
Any law can be misused, and fake accusations be made. For example, dalits –
that is people belonging to castes which have traditionally been dominated,
oppressed, exploited and discriminated against – are indeed still being
dominated, oppressed, exploited and discriminated against in many or most parts
of the country. But that does not mean that every “dalit” is being so treated,
that every “dalit” grievance is genuine, or that every “dalit” accusation is
true: there has been widespread blatant and unjustifiable misuse of laws,
designed to punish discrimination against dalits, by “dalits” who are in
powerful or safe positions and who seek to make hay while the sun shines and
benefit through blackmail and extortion. Both these situations are equally real. But they do not negate
each other: and discussion can not be
about the principle as a whole, either way, but about the facts and evidence in
each individual case. Likewise, while rape is a horrible reality, every
accusation of rape need not necessarily be true: it could, in individual cases,
be a case of malice or blackmail. That question can not be discussed here in the abstract, even while it can not
be used to derail or sabotage stringent laws against genuine rape: the guilty person in each individual case,
whether the genuinely accused or the fraudulent accuser, deserves the most
stringent punishment imaginable.
The point being made here is: how
do you define rape?
As Subramaniam Swamy pointed out in
the above debate, you can not in any way compare a rapist, juvenile/minor or otherwise, to a bicycle thief or a person
stealing a pastry from a bakery. That would be a monstrously gross insult to
the rape-victim, and an extreme case
of injustice.
In a similar manner, you can not
compare a person, child or adult, who has really
been raped, whether an individual
rape or a group rape, to a woman who comes up and files a complaint of rape
against a person on the ground that that person has been “raping” her on
various occasions, or over a length of time, by promising marriage, whether or
not after divorce from an already existing wife, or promising her a job, or a
role in a film or serial, or some other monetary, financial or social benefit,
and is now reneging on this promise. That would be an equally monstrously gross
insult to the genuine rape victim and an equally extreme case of injustice.
Obviously, leaving aside for a second the more valid rights of the wife if any
in such a case, the woman making the accusation could genuinely be having a
case, but it would be a case of fraud or of breach of contract, not of rape. In a male-dominated world
where nature, society, religion, tradition and laws everywhere have conspired
to make the lives of women a hell (and women themselves, as pointed out above
in the discussion on the women “human rights activists”, have not lagged behind
in contributing to this position where other women are concerned), any and
every injustice against any woman requires full and urgent redressal. But not
by calling a case of fraud or breach of contract a case of rape. That would be
the biggest injustice to all rape victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment