India not to criminalise marital rape

[ayesha.a]

Your solution here has a glaring flaw. All "criminal acts" are considered to be acts against state and state is prosecutor in every criminal case. This means that a woman could file a rape charge casually, and then stop giving a dime about it as that case becomes "state vs Accused", and accused has to spend considerable resources, of times, money, and energy to get his name cleared.

Umm...you are confusing two different things here. And remember, this reply is in the context of the part of my post that you responded to.

Yes, criminal cases are treated to be against the state. But guess what - the defence is also entitled to the resources of the state. Just as there is a public prosecutor, there is also a public defender. Guess who bore the expense of Ajmal Kasab's defence?

My explanation there was about cases in which governments use state resources to harass detractors and stifle criticism. In that context, there is a difference between govt and state. "The state" exists for both parties. "The govt", although voted in by the people, have resources and money and time to litigiously harass individuals, which is a luxury that individuals usually do not have against other individuals. Especially in rape cases, where the accuser also has to go through the time consuming legal process. On the other hand, if the Jayalalitha govt files frivolous cases against dissenting journalists, the CM herself is not really burdened by time loss. But the individual journos are. (This happened in the 2000s.)

Rape is one of only three crimes in India where burden of proof lies on accused (SC/ST act , and Dowry act are others).

I know, and I will state that that is unfair and ridiculous. The burden of proof should always be on the prosecution.

 

[anonymus]

@anonymus

Looking forward to your reply.... I am waiting Mr. independent thinker (Who thinks I am a communist who spreads religious propaganda because I am from Kerala Biggest piece of irony I ve seen)

Prove it! And I will accept each and every claim of yours

Shoo.........

Idiot. You have been branded as leftist because your argument are leftist. Not because you are from Kerala. And I have not raised any question about your religious background. Stop confusing me with other posters.

 

[ayesha.a]

and you, a college girl with no courage to drop out of college or job

Stop making assumptions about me, especially ones that are irrelevant.

you decide to indirectly call socialism as bullshit?? what's wrong with you??

Learn to read properly. I called the argument over capitalism v/s socialism to be BS, in this thread about marital rape. I didn't call socialism or capitalism itself as BS.

do you think you are a comrade of mandela to be authoritative enough to call something like that as bullshit?? no, a comrade of mandela would not do what you did, which is why they struggled while you are a silly indian student in usa.

LOL. Argument from false authority? An argument should stand on its own merit, not on the claimed credentials of the arguer, especially when that is unverifiable.

even i, much older than you, am humble to call others my teachers and my heroes.

Do you have any idea how old I am? Again, stop making irrelevant and unfounded assumptions about me, and stick to the topic, not the person.

i only tagged her because she is female

Kindly do not tag me again for that reason. Tag me only if you think I would have something useful to contribute, or would have an interest in the topic at hand.

@Irfan Baloch this member ( ayesha ) is consistent in using snide and arrogant commenting

Only one of us has insulted other members, and that isn't me. I haven't made a single personal remark, while you have already called me a "silly Indian student in the USA", and a few other personal epithets. I haven't made a single personal remark against you or anybody else. I am old enough and wise enough to discuss issues without resorting to personal attacks, although you are the one boasting about being old.

Anyway, and this is to everybody, I will not be responding to personal remarks or off topic issues. I shall respond only to valid ideas about the topic.

 

[Koovie]

Shoo.........

Idiot. You have been branded as leftist because your argument are leftist. Not because you are from Kerala. And I have not raised any question about your religious background. Stop confusing me with other posters.

Ohhh now getting defensive, eh? Need to call me idiot to make you feel better, eh?

Tell me, which argument I ve made makes me leftist? Ever heard of the term political stereotyping? Cause it really fits your very narrow minded way of thinking..... and people like you wanna tell me that I cannot think independently... how pathetic and what an awesome irony . The harder you try, the more ridiculous and desperate you appear

or arguing on basis of religious dogma.

Yeah, you totally did not bring religion into this.



Again, give me proof.

 

[anonymus]

Yes, criminal cases are treated to be against the state. But guess what - the defence is also entitled to the resources of the state. Just as there is a public prosecutor, there is also a public defender. Guess who bore the expense of Ajmal Kasab's defence?

Yes, but while accusers case would be taken up by a public prosecutor with lot of experience , and accused would be tended by law firm rejects.Anyone with brain in this situation would hire a lawyer on his own dime, if he could afford to.

And this is not even counting the harassment, wastage of time, and mental torture in cases where there is very high probability of it being false.

Yeah, you totally did not bring religion into this.

.

Idiot; take some English lessons, you mewling quim.

There is a comma before this sentence, which make it an independent clause; meaning that what I was saying is that most of discussion so far has been on religious lines.

And stop following me around like a dog, on this forum.

 

[Koovie]

Idiot; take some English lessons, you mewling quim.

There is a comma before this sentence, which make it an independent clause; meaning that what I was saying is that most of discussion so far has been on religious lines.

Yeah, thats not the point, you were the one who brought me into connection with that.

And stop following me around like a dog, on this forum.

Wow, you are even more desperate than I thought

You were the one tagging me first and now you gotta come up with this?

You were the one telling me that I am not capable of independent thought and a leftist.... but you still havent given us a SINGLE PIECE of evidence that could support that.... even after challenging you several times you continue hiding behind your sheer cowardice (Which is already bad enough considering you are doing it on an online forum )

You are the most ironic poster I ve seen for some time here.... blaming others to be not capable of independent thinking, while at the same time you brand me as a communist who spreads propaganda

Better widen your intellectual horizon and stop your political stereotyping, cause you are making an absolute fool out of yourself.

And for the 3rd time, show us proof for your claims! Didnt you learn that you need to provide proof for claims Mr. Super dubah independent thinking smartyboy?

But why am I even asking you for this? You will call me an "idiot" to make you feel stronger behind a computer on an online forum and wont even try to prove your BS claims....

 

[ayesha.a]

Yes, but while accusers case would be taken up by a public prosecutor with lot of experience , and accused would be tended by law firm rejects.Anyone with brain in this situation would hire a lawyer on his own dime, if he could afford to.

Are you saying that from past cases in India? Can you substantiate the claim that in most rape cases where both victim and perpetrator are represented by the govt, usually the govt allocates their best legal minds for the alleged rapist and their worst lawyers for the alleged victim? I have never heard this before, but I am willing to be edified.

If there is any commentary to that effect, please refer it to me. Individual cases where they may have happened do no count.

 

[Nicky G]

And that is what I replied to, stating that since even for non-marital rapes, women victims usually face more stigma than the perpetrators, it is only logical to assume that it will be even more so, in marital rapes. But then, to be very conceding in my stance, I even went so far as to say that since I cannot pove that, just take it as my opinion. I don't know how much furtherI need to yield.

Its not as @anonymus has argued well. Marital rape is not the same as non-marital ones, thus, not comparable.

I don't need you to yield, I only ask you to not argue that men face no stigma when they clearly do, maybe worse so in case of so called marital rape among the educated classes.

Well then, having a law should not matter - since it can never be proved anyway. Right?

A crime that you cannot prove but has huge misuse potential is immature and dangerous.

If you are consistent, argue that unless a woman can establish a marital rape apart from her word, she would be convicted and punished, both monetarily and in terms of incarceration.

Only then, could such a silly law would be even worth considering.

That however, would be responding to madness with more madness, which is why this is not a can of worms anyone should open.

It is comparable, because what is being compared is provability. In the absence of eyewitness testimony, a grope is also unprovable, but is devastating to the psyche of the victim.

I have already established why its not. You can't argue based on one parameter and ignore others.

A woman is not going to be willingly groped one day and complain another, as is the case with so called marital rape, where-in she willingly consents to intercourse one day and on another, calls it rape.

I am still waiting for you to provide me concrete steps as to how one goes about establishing this crime.

 

[ayesha.a]

Its not as @anonymus has argued well. Marital rape is not the same as non-marital ones, thus, not comparable.

I don't need you to yield, I only ask you to not argue that men face no stigma when they clearly do, maybe worse so in case of so called marital rape among the educated classes.

I didn't say men face no stigma, I said usually they face less stigma. That has been clear directly in most of my posts, and also taking the discussion in context. So don't take one sentence of mine to make it seem that I'm saying men face no stigma.

A crime that you cannot prove but has huge misuse potential is immature and dangerous.

If you are consistent, argue that unless a woman can establish a marital rape apart from her word, she would be convicted and punished, both monetarily and in terms of incarceration.

Only then, could such a silly law would be even worth considering.

I have said so already - explicitly, unequivocally, firmly. Your selective reading of my posts is clouding your understanding of my stance.

 

[SanjeevaniButi]

For the last time: Nobody wants to penalize men for being men. And BTW, being a man is not tantamount to being a rapist. You are the one denigrating men, with such idiotic statements.

By the way a law against marital rape is not to "correct social imbalance". It is to protect individual freedom and rights, just like the law against non-marital rape..

Nope. YOU are the one making the idiotic assumption that "men being men" means men rape women.

Protecting individual freedom in a relationship consisting of TWO individuals means protecting BOTH their freedom. That means to protect their right to exercise what was promised to them in the marriage contract.

Individual freedom to NOT have sex is signed away when you enter into a marriage.

.

I didn't say "blindly ape the west". In fact, I didn't even mention "the west". But yes, if "the west" has devised some workable methods for this legal process, there is no harm in learning from them. The Indian constitution itself has many concepts that are borrowed from the American constitution and ideals, but that does not mean that we "blindly aped" them. Jurisprudence almost always borrows from existing sources - the American constitution and British laws have some philosophies that can be traced back at least to the Magna Charta.

Don't play games. It was rather obvious what you implied.

Indian constitution is an extension of the British Indian law that existed before 1950. Jurisprudence also borrows heavily from religions laws and customs, traditions and practices of the land. Much more that what it borrows from constitution of foreign lands.

 

[anonymus]

Are you saying that from past cases in India? Can you substantiate the claim that in most rape cases where both victim and perpetrator are represented by the govt, usually the govt allocates their best legal minds for the alleged rapist and their worst lawyers for the alleged victim? I have never heard this before, but I am willing to be edified.

If there is any commentary to that effect, please refer it to me. Individual cases where they may have happened do no count.

Madam,

Every Indian , in every case not just that of rape, is entitled to have free legal defence. It is not like "free legal aid" that you are suggesting would be a incentive to people who are wrongly accused of "marital rape".

NALSA

, usually the govt allocates their best legal minds for the alleged rapist and their worst lawyers for the alleged victim? I have never heard this before, but I am willing to be edified.

Public prosecutor for all criminal cases (barring those in which a special public prosecutor is appointed) is same. Why would he sully his record by not arguing a rape case properly?

While,

Lawyers assigned under "Free legal aid" are those which have signed up for it, majority of them because they could not establish their own practice., thus quality of representation is not a guarantee.

 

[Nicky G]

I didn't say men face no stigma, I said usually they face less stigma. That has been clear directly in most of my posts, and also taking the discussion in context. So don't take one sentence of mine to make it seem that I'm saying men face no stigma.

I am not obliged to read all your posts. I went by your post, which you need to defend or as you are doing now say that you didn't mean what you stated. Its fine, lets move on.

I have said so already - explicitly, unequivocally, firmly. Your selective reading of my posts is clouding your understanding of my stance.

You are accusing me of selective reading here, I could reply in kind, but I'd like to believe myself better than that.

Lets deconstruction this argument and go logically one step at a time, instead of bickering.

What's your stance on 'whether one can reasonably prove a so-called marital rape'? If it can be proven, provide actual steps and requirements, not generics such as we should learn from other countries.

What's you stance on punishment for fake cases? By mere natural justice alone, it should be at least as stringent as what the perpetrator would have gotten had the crime been actually committed. It should also factor the damage to a man's professional, personal and emotional life.

Does a woman face less social orchestration compared to a non-marital rape? If not, why as its been well argued here she does indeed face less stigma since the one 'raping' here is her husband, socially and legally sanctioned intercourse? What's the stigma of having relations with your husband?

Finally, having established all that, why have an immature law when the crime cannot be reasonably proven and is prone to severe misuse?

Hopefully, we can do this in a civil manner without you accusing me of something else.

 

[Bitter Melon]

Yeah, so whats the problem with the numbers? Thats my question... do you still doubt them?

Comparisons with SA or the USA are not the issue here.

Of course I doubt them. Did I not point out how they were lying about numbers? They quoted over 5 million plus and even that they said was underestimate and besmirched India's name everywhere, whereas 20 years ago it was less than 2 million and it is even less than that now while our population numbers in the last 20 years has increased by another 300 million.

Comparisons are an issue. It is how people hide the stats for developed countries and project on other countries, just like you do. For you all rapes in USA are spousal rapes, but as Anonymous pointed out only 9% rapes are registered as spousal rapes in USA. The rest are rapes from friends and strangers. Even there it is underestimate. The real figures are more than a quarter million every year. This does not take into account prison rapes or officially sanctioned rapes where the police routinely violate the body integrity of every person they detain.

 

[Jf Thunder]

i read in some thread asking mods to allow quran quotes with full/beginning understanding of the context of the verse, and not doing so should result in ban.

@haviZsultan @Irfan Baloch @Horus @waz @Jf Thunder please see if my interpretations below are valid or need to be modified.



i can say this... the verse propagates discouragement for the initial muslims in keeping of slaves and in the liberation of current slaves, and how better to achieve this than marry them with full islami wedding rights and duties accorded or adhered.



i can say this... the verse is meant for males and females at various points.

1. the first line is for the male, who is advised against wedding until he finds his economic condition good enough to satisfy a decent mahr pledge during the wedding procedure and good enough to satisfy a decent married-life conditions for his new wife.

2. the second line ( "and those who seek" ) is either marry the slaves ( thereby releasing them ) or making them business partners ( thereby releasing them )... this verse is for both male and female.

3. the third line ( "do not compel" ) and the fourth, is essentially warning against pimping of slave girls.



what a foolish and laughable assertion !!!

it was not the muslim conquerors who forced those ladies into jauhar and sati... it was the hindu kings and courtiers who saw "honor" in murdering the females of the palace or those connected to the main soldiery.



i said "communist world", yes?? that means the communist revolution must defend itself from capitalist aggression and spread the ideas until some means brought more and more world peoples into the socialist sphere until the entire humanity at last becomes communist.

you are correct, as the slaves were married with full rights, after they were married legally, the ceased to be slaves, the only difference was that if a slave married another slave he did not have to pay the female slave the mehr.
Otherwise marriage would dissolve the bond of slave and master

 

[wolfschanzze]

DOOOOOOH!
All the Islamic parties fighting here, first learn about your scripture and then comment before taking potshots,
You guys have no rights for women.
Women is half a witness of a man, not to mention the Virginity Test! I know how you do it.
you need 4 male witnesses for a rape or the girl will be lashed for adultery since a womans witness is half that of a man and not admissible in court.
@ayesha.a ji, are you familiar with Pakistan's Hudood Laws?
Can you please tell them,we don't have a Sharia Witness system.
While we Hindus Pray to our Goddesses KALI,Durga,Lakshmi,Saraswati etc,,,
What are these idiots trying to do? trying to prove our mothers/ sisters don't have rights?
When i wake up in the morning i bow down to touch my mothers feet. That is our tradition.Also i pray Gayatri mantra before i open my eyes.
Mother is the highest power in Hindus and we are ready to kill all and wreak havoc for it.
Lord Rama said "Janani Janma-bhoomi-scha Swargadapi Gariyasi"
This Sanskrit verse can be translated as "Mother and motherland are superior to Heaven."
Which is also the coat of arms of NEPAL

You know shit about us.