Thursday, 10 August 2017


On one hand we hear such  slogans like Beti Bachao and Kanyashree  and get infuriated ( at least on facebook) over the rise in crime against women . On the other hand , the Central Government  defends a provision in the Indian Penal Code that grants immunity to a person from the rape charge provided the victim is his wife and aged between 15 and 17 years, saying the exception in the law was meant to protect the institution of marriage.

Got confused  ?  OK let me explain . It simply means , my dear citizens that under the laws of our country,  if a male person marries a girl aged between 15 to 17 years, he can force himself on the minor girl taken as his wife and rape charges will not be applicable on him. As a corollary, it also suggests that minor girls continue to be married off in our country and the governments, whether central or state can do very little about it.  Rather they chose the shortcut to turn a blind eye to underage marriages and want to perpetuate the marital rape of minor girls. All under the pretext of honouring legal provisions , in the best traditions of a society bound by its constitution and committed to uphold the rule of law.

On behalf of the government , the defense of this repugnant provision of law is done by a female advocate . Crowning glory, you may say. And Ms Binu Tamta, the advocate appearing for the Centre says this -"The institution of marriage must be protected. Otherwise, the children from such marriages will suffer," to the  bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta who are hearing a petition made by an NGO to strike down the Section 375(2) of the IPC, which makes an exception under the rape law by permitting a man to have sex with a girl even if she is between 15 and 17 years old provided she is his wife.

Now tell me does being born as a female makes somebody a woman ? And if women  at high places and positions continue to side with the establishment then what hope do poor and underprivileged women have . What made Ms  Binu Tamta accept this brief ? And what made her not refuse or at least record her objection to the frivolous defence of the indefensible. Was it a professional compulsion  or a bureaucratic  apathy ? Does she have a heart or does she really see any merit in her defence herself . At the end of the day does she look at the mirror before going to sleep ?

Ministry of Social Welfare, Equal rights for women, Beti bachao,  Stop atrocities on women , Law , Constitution ,  all bullshit !!

No comments:

Post a Comment