#itsherfault

Time and again, we have heard the antiquated allegation that anything untoward that happens to a woman is her fault. As I watched the NDTV debate on the BBC documentary India's Daughter, one of the most bone-chilling story of outrageous inhumanity and brutality, I could not help but feel so helpless and vulnerable to our failure as a society to curb the demons of human existence. Where a despicable man speaks about 'laxman rekha' of women which must not be tread as there is a Ravan waiting just outside, the blame game comes full circle. Since the days of the Ramayana, a woman has had to go through tests of time to prove her innonence in a world that has always held her responsible for her own miseries, not even sparing the virtuous Sita as well.  The story of India's Daughter has been the same ever since.

Why just why is it Her fault?  Why does She have to be at the receiving end of all denigration by the loathsome ideals of some patriarchal mysogynists ? Why is it always Her who needs to be the keeper of virtues ?  Why is the blame on Sita and not on Ravan.  

Mr M L Sharma's answer to India's Daughter is that 'India has a perfect culture where there is no place for women.' And whatever he means by saying that in his fragmented english ( as if his declarations in Hindi were not outrageous enough). Yes the cultural perfection has been achieved by five males who brutally rob one of India's daughters off her dignity and right to live and by two contentious males who think a woman can only be respected when she is a mother, sister, wife or daughter. So that implies that only a mother, daughter, sister and wife have the right to be called a woman. A friend, teacher, student, doctor, or any other woman unrelated to Mr Sharma, would not receive respect from him! (except for the one time when he calls Justice Mehra as My LadyLord ! )  Not falling behind in the buck passing, Mr A K Singh termed any girl staying out after dark as one with a loose character and a girl who is unchecked by her family is like a morsel of meat thrown on the streets for dogs to scavenge? Seriously ?! Is that the only justification you can come up with in defence of your voyeuristic defendants who only think they can use their libido whenever they want to! The archaic and insulting dismissal of a woman from this so called perfect culture only shows the preposterous mindset in our society and I fear more about that mindset being let loose than Nirbhaya's wrongdoers being acquitted. A dangerous mindset where a law officer says that he will burn his own daughter or sister if she had any illegal relations before marriage. How could they forget that Article 21 under the Constitution of India grants the right to live and the law would gaurantee that a daughter cannot be burnt down, not even by her own guardian ! Why talk about the daughter or sister having an illegal affair? Why blame the morsel of food? How about you chain your dogs who go stray when unleashed?! I want to shout out loud to these self appointed guardians of our culture that the fault is yours , not Hers,  for believing that your machismo lies in burning your daughter, for thinking you are the thorns that can protect a gentle flower , for easily forgetting the same law you are certified to protect. A woman would not need protection from anyone if we can have less people like you. Period !

Imagine the trust we as people vest in our lawmakers and law enforcers being violated by these very same people. These ignominious defence lawyers indispensably reiterated on a national debate forum that they are honourable members of the Supreme Court but they surely seem to be a product of some “farzi degree” scams where they may not have acquired much knowledge except for rote learn the preamble to the constitution of the most glorious nation on earth !! Where else could you have educated lawyers with feudal mindsets who cannot accept a progressive society. Our judiciary system has failed. We do not seem to have enough stringent grounds for admitting more competent and qualified legal professionals. The Code of Conduct and Ethics of Legal Practice have eroded into oblivion over the years. Why did it take one and a half years before the Bar Council decided to take action against these two lawyers, only after the media played a pivotal role in showcasing to the world what these men had said in the past. Why did the Bar Council not review their professional misconduct back then and incapacitate them prima facie ?  It is surely a failure of our justice system. We never took off from the judiciary framed by the British Raj which was never meant to dispense quick justice. Had our framework been reformed over these years, justice would have been meted out on rape cases some of which have been awaiting first trials to start since almost 10 years. The legal maxim ' Justice delayed is justice denied' holds truth in our country where people from every stratum of our society have lost faith in justice because of the cumbersome judicial process in our country. What would justice mean to Nirbhaya's agonised parents when it comes years after their blood and sweat has dried out of hopes for a country that badly needs a precedence for such wrongdoers. When an unapologetic Manoj Singh feels victimised for having been sentenced in what is called 'the rarest of the rare cases', not only Nirbhaya's sinners but their families and any other offenders may ask the same question: Why us and not the rest?  To our impaired judiciary system , I say its your fault, not Hers!

And my final assault is on the government. The politicians, the leaders, the vote seekers promise a country where every one has equal rights, protection and freedom. What about restraining the rights of a filmmaker who wants to mirror an attitude, an ugly mindset that exists not only in India but every where else in the world. What about pulling reins on the freedom of people to choose what they want to show or see. That a documentary would bring shame to India and by banning it, the government will be able to protect the image of India, is the most bizarre rationale I have heard.  Come on , you cannot save India from moral mortification by banning a documentary which showcases merely 10% of the majority who probably think like Nirbhaya's perpetrators and let those roam free who feel that brutality is the answer to a woman standing for her rights. You think you can build an image of 'Bharat Desh Mahaan' when a Mulayam Singh Yadav says 'larke toh larke hain, galti ho jaati hai '. Adding to this absurdity, Mr Singh's call for a ban to valentine's day is his idea for safeguarding our perfect cultural propriety from being tarnished. It is such a diseased mindset that objectifies women by absolving the crime committed by rapists, that shames India. It is the government who does not prosecute such mysogynist offenders for hate speech charges, that shames India. The world has come to know identify our government as one of bans and no substance. Yes lack in substance , more of harping grand ideas. As Justice Mehra pointed out in restrospect, that earlier recommendations dating back to 1996 by the Supreme Court called for more recruitment and deployment of more security personnel in Delhi alone, but none of the recommendations were exercised by successive governments. What has happened with the Nirbhaya Fund incorporated in the budget to set up a mechanism for womens' safety -  a non lapsable fund of Rs 2000 crore!- and not one rupee has been used so far. I am more ashamed of an expedient and inefficacious government that has failed to uphold the basic rights of its people, failed to reform a society replete with issues of gender bias, lack of education and basic right to live. Admit it, the damage has already been done ! And I blame you for the plight of women in our country today.

We cannot be farcical anymore. We cannot make India a nation of defaulters!  As Shashi Tharoor tweeted earlier,Let the film be shown,  Let it make us ashamed, let is make us angry, let it shame us into changing our attitudes.  It is the fault in us as a society, as a culture, as a country to have allowed this to go on for years and years. And now the time beckons for a change which can only happen if all of us can take a stand and feel the shame and guilt.

India's Daughter documentary is replete with issues:

1. Should be banned or not?

2. Should the victim's photo be shown or not?

3. India's image getting tarnished or not?

4. Comments of the lawyers reek of another century feudal mindset and should be unilaterally condemned by all civil citizens of the country. Period.

I watched India's daughter yesterday and later in the night watched this panel discussion on the conduct of the lawyers here. The lawyers ML Sharma and AP Singh were present as well and displayed their feudal mindset with complete pomp and show. I want to discuss their conduct today. 

Let's talk about Mr.Sharma first. He seemed to have difficulty in conveying his sentiments in English and blamed that for misunderstanding. When he said "Indian culture is the best. There is no place for woman in it" what he actually meant was that in Indian culture there is place for a mother, grandmother, sister, daughter, wife - but not for a "woman". Now this sounds mind boggling, but according to Mr. Sharma when  you think of a "woman" per say you are objectifying woman in your head. Right? Because that's what men do. No control of over their fucking libido, a woman is a piece of meat and how to control a man's crazy urges is to think of a woman as a relative. Isn't this akin to Asaram Bapu (again of rape fame, surprise surprise!!!) saying that Nirbhaya should have called her rapists "brother" and held their hand and its her fault she got raped. Oh, I call bullshit OUT LOUD!! 

Another noteworthy point from Mr.Sharma's conversation was that he stressed again and again that woman should "not be objectified but be protected". Even when the students in audience and various esteemed panel members pointed it out that women are equal citizens of the society and why should they be protected, he failed to see the folly of his words and at one point held his head in his hands in frustration as to why no one is seeing the goodness in his words and are hanging him for his concern for women's safety. One good thing though - he at least got to feel a tenth of the frustration we feel when we have to deal with people like him. (Excuse me, while I go bang my head against a wall and come back to finish this blog). 

As someone in the panel said, if we are to accept Mr. Sharma's contentions then one half of the country needs to be protected from the other half.!! Mr. Sharma needs to understand that there will be no need for protection if men would stop thinking of a woman as "a diamond, a gem that if left out on the roads dogs will come and grab it" - so much for nauseating metaphors. Now I would like to move on the man with a whole cache of histrionics, shameless defence and lack of any understanding of the constitution (ah yes, he is a respected Supreme Court advocate as he pointed out a few times in the discussion - no comments there).

Mr AP Singh does not know that Article 21 of the Fundamental Rights in our constitution is the Right to Life. It is a fundamental right because every citizen of the country has these rights by default. When Mr. Singh said a year and a half back that if his sister or daughter is found having a pre-marital affair (which could just be dating a man she is not engaged to) he would take her to his farmhouse and in front of his family burn her alive. Main woh jazba rakhta hoon, junoon rakhta hoon, karne ki himmat rakhta hoon. Does it reek of a fake machismo..? To me it does. First I am immensely thankful to God that I was not born in Mr. Singh's extended family, else I would either be a slave sister/daughter or a rebel who would have been burnt down by now. So, I definitely dodged a birth bullet there. Phew.!

Secondly, Mr. Singh again and again stressed that he was not saying this for the country in general but for his own family. He is his daughters/sisters guardian and he has every right to burn them down. The journalist Sonia Singh at this point shouted out at him, that the country is the guardian - but how could he have understood when he doesn't know the law of the land. Oh by the way, this esteemed Supreme Court advocate completely missed the 2011 ruling of the highest court condemning and declaring honor killings a taint on the civilized society. As if to show he is very liberal he also insisted he would even burn down his son if he is found having a girlfriend. How liberal and progressive of him - same rules for boys and girls in his family.! Is this man a pyromaniac.? He needs immediate psychiatric help.

Mr.Singh had by this time become a laughing stock. He insisted that it is characterless youngsters who celebrate Valentine's Day and we should instead celebrate "mata-pita diwas". The audience and panel members were not even trying to be discrete by now, but were laughing to this man's face. Well sir, I respect my parents and can do anything for them and,I for one, don't need a maata pita diwas to show my love to them.! 

All this brings me to the final part of this long post. Why do we have educated lawyers with such feudal mentality and a changing society they can't wrap their heads around. I think it is the failure of education. I have a very strong feeling the these two lawyers are product of our country's "farji degree system" - where you don't attend class, during exam sit next to a brilliant student or take "parcha/farra/chits" in the exam and pass with respectable grades. I will not be surprised if this is the case because these guys have no knowledge of the Constitution, Laws, ideas of Freedom, Equality, Liberty (all they had to do was read the Preamble of the most wonderful Constitution of our motherland - which was and still is one of the most progressive and comprehensive legal documents in the world). 

I have heard millions of times that circumstances make rapists, its the state that fails them. But in this case, the state has failed us - the people of India. How can these men without any knowledge of the Constitution or Law are practicing lawyers.? Shouldn't we have stricter tests before a person is actually allowed to practice law?

I have some solutions:

1. There should be stringent state level and all India test before a person is allowed to practice law as is the case in the USA - Bar exams are dreaded and for good reason. They are freaking tough so that a man sans proper knowledge does not become a lawyer.

2. I think, there is a strong case against these two guys. Sometimes in law you have to defend the indefensible, but sharing the same sentiments as a rapist is horrendous. And bar council should strip these guys of their licenses - there is no excuse for not taking this step.