Getting gender all wrong

Two events over the past fortnight proved how insensitive, or rather crass, we as a nation continue to be when it comes to addressing women’s and gender rights. And how mixed up in our heads we can get with special gestures to “help” women.

The first shocker pertained to the Madras High Court’s bizarre judgment, where Justice D Devadass granted bail to one V Mohan, who had been convicted of raping a minor girl and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.

The judge did so to facilitate “mediation” between the girl, who was only 15 at the time of the crime, and now the mother of a child resulting from the rape, so that the two could decide if the rapist should marry his victim. Worse, he invoked religion to justify this grand gesture.

“Even in Islam, Hinduism and Christianity, there are instances of solving the disputes in a non-belligerent manner. The result of it is very good because there is ‘no victor, no vanquished’,” observed Justice Devadass.

A similar case he had referred to for such mediation was near a “happy conclusion”, the judge announced. The “happy conclusion” being the accused agreeing to marry the woman he had raped!

We got more homilies about how rape was the outcome of “male lust” and how not only the girl but the child was a victim.

Another gem came in the form of the explanation for granting bail: only when the convict was out as a “free man… He should be enabled to participate in the deliberations as a free man and vent his feelings, open his mind and moorings”.

One would happily forgive the judge his English if his basic premises were not so outlandish; not least of which was concern about the “unwed mother” and her uncertain future!

Fortunately, the very next week, in a similar case from Madhya Pradesh, where a High Court judge had reduced the sentence of another rapist , one Madan Lal, convicted by a Sessions Court for raping a seven-year-old girl, to just one year, influenced by the parents of the victim entering into a compromise with the rapist, a Bench of the Supreme Court had read out the riot act. It observed that any such mediation or negotiation “compromises the dignity of the woman”.

The strong observations of the Bench, comprising Justices Dipak Misra and PC Pant, also served as a rap on the knuckles for the Madras High Court.

The Supreme Court order observed: “In a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of.

These are offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most. It is sacrosanct.”

The apex court said that even an offer of wedlock by the rapist is “nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner”, and advised courts not to fall into this trap and adopt a soft approach to a rape case, as this would be nothing short of a “spectacular error”, and is “thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility.”

It reveals the medieval mindset of those who equate the heinous crime of rape to the “loss of the woman’s honour” and believe that the best thing that can happen to her is if the rapist “agrees” to marry her.

Forget nonsense such as ‘loss of honour’ or the raped woman being sullied for the rest of her life, imagine compounding her trauma by asking her to marry the man who had so brutally assaulted her.

This would amount to slapping a lifetime of torture on the victim. Again, sometimes in such cases, the parents, trapped in a similar nonsensical mindset, might agree to such a marriage, but how can any woman who has been physically violated thus, be happy in such a relationship?

In another episode, we had women’s rights activist Kavita Krishnan being called a “bitch” by Bollywood actor Alok Nath, famous for playing roles where he is the epitome of Bharatiya sanskar (culture).

Taking a dig at Prime Minsiter Narendra Modi who in one of his Mann ki Baat sessions had urged people to post selfies with their daughters on the social media, Kavita had tweeted: “Careful before sharing #SelfieWithDaughter with #LameDuckPM. He has a record of stalking daughters.”

The reference was to Modi’s alleged involvement in the surveillance of a young woman in Gujarat by the State home department when he was chief minister. Nath’s response: “Jail the bitch”.

After he was severely criticised for this, he deleted his tweet. But Kavita was subjected for the next few days to a tsunami of hate tweets that threatened to rape her; with one even referring to coconut oil used by South Indian women and how “it turns off men”!

Later, in an article which she posted on twitter, she said she had “got tweets from Modi supporters that threatened me with rape; threats to insert sugarcane stalks into me and do to me what was done to Muslim women in the communal riots at Muzaffarnagar; I was called a prostitute, my parents were called dogs, it was suggested I should be raped by dogs, or that I be sexually abused by my father, and so on”.

Several tweets and Facebook posts called her the “daughter of a negro” and said she and other women who supported her were “negro lesbians”.

“The vitriol in defence of the prime minister was a cocktail of gross racism, homophobia, transphobia and graphic violence against women,” she added.

A Bollywood actress, Shruti Seth, who called the Prime Minister “selfie obsessed” and said he should choose reforms over gimmickry, was also trolled. The tweets were targeted at her and her family, particularly her ‘Muslim’ husband!

So much for free speech and the right to dissent. Add to this some of our judges’ keenness to bestow respectability on rapists, and the nuances of the gender debate only get darker.

COMMENT NOW