Indian society stems from a monolithic patriarchal mindset, where 65% of women agree that “there are times when a woman deserves to be beaten”. Thus, the path to the criminalization of marital rape is rather oppressed or extremely complex.
Speaking out against all sorts of conservative ideologies that discriminate against women, and yet being “harassed online”, and having a juxtaposed view that “marriage alone is not a license for sex”, is a rather diabolical situation. , where feminism is considered hyperbole and patriarchy are subjective.
Anyway, keeping in mind the sanctity and solemnity of marriage, it should be remembered that there should be no two-sided views related to the concept of marriage – What is thrown at you to the face, these are irrational arguments, like “Should I sign a consent form every time I have to sleep with my wife?” “Saying it’s consensual so she won’t file a rape complaint with me later?” or “Are you going to install cameras in the marital bedroom now?” “How are you going to prove it? »
Sometimes, in practice, giving dictatorial powers to the “people” is no wiser than giving such powers to Napoleon I or Napoleon III. Today, if Indian society continues to vote against these women, it will be remarkable for the defense of proportional representation, and for an appreciation of female suffrage that takes it for granted that denying women access to marital rape is also irrational. than deny it. to men with red hair.
Such is the orthodox mindset of the locals that one wonders if John Stuart Mill’s emphasis on resisting societal change really works or not! Paradoxically after Victorian liberalism, opinions diverge on his youth and his works…
The sense in which Mill and Harriet Taylor were specifically liberal feminists, and the subjection of women a contribution to liberal feminism, is not easy to explain. Recent feminists have criticized liberalism for maintaining a distinction between the public and private realms, which they argue allows men to bully women behind closed doors that house family life, and gives men the right to physically assault their partners, is doubly misdirected against both. and Harriet Taylor.
This theory remains staunchly hostile to domestic violence and in light of later discussions it is odd that neither on women’s freedom nor on women’s subjugation pays attention to the distinction between public and private.
Both enable equality, justice and respect for individual autonomy in all our relationships!
Diabolically, a marriage between equals is hasty; preaching an ideal was one task, resisting brutality another.
Therefore, taking a fair stance on marital rape in India is a skeptical question: we do not know what men and women could and would do under conditions of true social, economic and political equality.
However, one could still discuss and deliberate on the following outcomes in order to write well-read legislation…
Such is the frenzy among the general class of men that the low conviction rate for rape cases – which stands at around 29% in India – is evidence of the high number of false accusations.
But the low conviction rate is not proof of this; it is proof of the weakness of our judicial system as a whole.
(The naïve young adult in me still vouches for a Neuberger experiment to take place in the nation’s appeals courts.)
To say the least, in our country rape victims, by law, are only allowed access to prosecutors while defendants can hire the best lawyers. Here are some simple facts to interpret from these cases:
* It takes three months for evidence to come back from a rape kit test (three months minimum).
* Often the prosecutor will withdraw from the case, out of distress due to the lengthy nature of these cases.
* Above all, filing a case in court remains an arduous and cumbersome process involving multiple visits to hospitals, police stations and the courtroom – in total, this represents a period of two to three years on average.
Now let’s talk about the systematic dispensation of the law via “hard evidence”:
* The Legislature may write laws containing strict provisions against false or frivolous complaints. For example – Make the offense bailable rather than the husband being arrested immediately and not being bailed at all.
* Make sure that the conviction goes through the testimony of experts, doctors who provide the circumstantial evidence, ie the brutality on the body!
* Or via extensive medical history and police reports where you can substantiate extended periods of violence against the woman.
The right to anatomy on the female body should be a legislative matter!
By juxtaposing this view from the rare side of the mirror that there is a non-conforming right to people’s bodies, it becomes a legislative issue, which means you’re directly giving politicians the right to decide whether a woman should have anatomy on her body or not. This discouraged opinion means that the partial population of the country gives its deputies, according to statistics, the right to run.
Razual Purewal is a lawyer
