|
This is what I have been saying all
along. I had written in all my articles on Gang rape that the
solutions will be found out in a way so as to safeguard the
interests of the market forces. What Verma Panel has done is much
more than that. They have not just safeguarded the interests of
the market forces but have also chosen to promote the
market-sponsored feminism. Within 29 days, the panel has brought
to naught all the expectations that soared in the wake of public
outcry against crimes.
Like an obedient employee, it has ensured
what his bosses of economic fundamentalism ordered: A solution
that would not disturb the system created by the forces of
economics. The solution we find has only a few extraordinary
elements: that the judge in such cases should be a woman, and the
definition of rape should be changed to include sexual assaults by
husbands. The woman judge, in their considered view, would prove
to be a better judge as if she would be able to go beyond what is
prescribed in the law.
There is hardly any mention of the failure
of a judicial system as a whole in reducing crimes. The whole
picture has been viewed merely from the point of view of a
male-female tussle, as if rapes are committed merely because men
view women as inferiors or objects of lust.
There is no mention of
the havoc caused by the commercialization of nudity and sex that
present women as objects of lust. There is no mention of the
provocative images. There is no need of death sentence because as
the argument goes, this would increase the chances of the victim
being murdered. Ironically, there is no suggestion of death even
where rape is accompanied with murder.
And they have also ruled
out any change in the “juvenile” age. What a travesty of justice!
The ability of a person is determined purely on the basis of the
number of days he has lived instead of his biological and physical
abilities at that particular time. If he is one hour short of 18
at that time, he deserves special treatment.
More than that, the Panel has taken advantage of the situation to
support an old market demand of enlarging the definition of rape
to include “rapes” by husbands. This would go a long way to
further weaken an already weakened marriage system, the forces
calculate. No one has the right to ask them the question: how can
“rape” by husband be like a rape. A rape is horrendous because it
forcibly creates a relationship, which is not legally or morally
sanctioned. It is a sexual assault on a woman with whom sex is not
permitted. It carries with it not only a psychological anguish but
physical, social and moral issues. Forced sex by a husband is bad
and can be adequately punished, but it does not carry along with
it any of the serious problems that accompany rapes.
History has witnessed how feminism became the most discussed, the
most debated and the most widespread movement of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries. The movement, fed by the big business,
engendered a new socio-cultural milieu, which produced two
distinct kinds of feminists: genuine and sham. The genuine
feminists had real concern for the upheaval of the fair sex. But
they could not properly comprehend the machinations of the market
forces in their overwhelming support for their feminist struggle.
Unfortunately, their thoughts were constructed or reconstructed
on the basis of influences by the market-sponsored magazines,
books and journals. This resulted in an error of judgement on
their part and they often failed to recognise the real issues.
Much greater in number were the sham or pseudo-feminists who
earned huge wealth and fame for their pro-market views on
men-women relationship. Little did they feel for uplifting women.
Their aim, on the contrary, was to redefine their status that will
make it easy for the economic fundamentalists to use them for
their gargantuan appetite for money. They contrived to make women
the wheels of the train of business.
Feminists viewed history through lenses that would focus for them
only what they desired to view. If they had done the earnestness
of purpose, the consequences could not have been as horrendously
damaging to mankind as they have been. They could then have
closely watched the developments and could perhaps have
forestalled the march of time from going in the wrong direction.
They might then have saved womankind from becoming the most
obedient slaves of man’s desires that it has lately become.
They
could still have campaigned for the promotion of women’s role in
specific fields. Woman’s lib might then not have shrunk to form a
mere tool of exploitation in the hands of foxy and covetous
merchants. She might then have cruised ahead triumphantly, albeit
with grace, and without annoying the tranquillity of family and
society, to her desired goal in the world. Alas! This was not to
be. The so-called feminism, in perspective, proved to be either of
the two: sham and contrived, or ill informed and ill conceived. It
did not deliver any real good, and in addition encumbered woman’s
shoulders much beyond her physical and mental capacity.
It is the impact of market-sponsored feminism that while women’s
rights are championed, these very rights are used for the
industrialisation of beauty and sex. The markets have turned human
beings into commercial beings. If women are required in the
market, family system needs to be weakened. The results are for
all of us to see. Teenage sex is not only permitted but also
promoted; marriage before a certain age is illegal. Promiscuity is
permitted, polygamy prohibited. Abortions in general are good as
they give women a liberty to move and mix but female infanticide
is to be stopped, exploitation of women must remain a major issue
but prostitution and pornography need to be legalised.
I wish Verma Panel had acted to counter the market sponsored
feminism rather than promote it. They could have argued that the
exploitation of women by market forces is much more dangerous than
the exploitation by husbands and fathers. They could have said
that prostitution and pornography have no place in a civilised
society. They could have spoken a little about the importance of
family system, which is a big wall in between healthy and
unhealthy sex.
They could also have spoken about
the role of alcohol in all the crimes including crimes against
women. But they chose only to say what the market-sponsored system
demanded. I wish the political parties and religious and social
groups could have realised the dangers posed by various forces. We
have missed an opportunity.
The writer can be
contacted at doctorforu123@yahoo.com.
|
Comments
|
Quick links