Published in


Regarding women’s subjugation and freedom (Why has India legalised marital rape?)

Regarding women’s subjugation and freedom (Why has India legalised marital rape?)

In India, where 65 per cent of women feel that “there are instances when a woman deserves to be thrashed,” society is dominated by a rigid patriarchal mentality. Therefore, the process of making marital rape a crime is either very difficult or exceedingly complicated. Speaking out against any number of conservative ideologies that discriminate against women while also experiencing “online harassment” and holding the opposing belief that “marriage solely is not licenced for sex” is a rather abominable situation where feminism is seen as an exaggeration and patriarchy as a matter of opinion.

No matter what, one must remember that there should be no bilateral viewpoints regarding the concept of marriage while keeping in mind the solemn sanctity of marriage. You will be confronted with some absurd arguments, such as “Should I sign a consent document each and every time I have to sleep with my wife?” To claim that this is consensual so that she won’t later accuse me of rape? or “Will you right away put cameras in the master bedroom?” How will you substantiate it?

Handing dictatorial powers to “the people” might occasionally be just as foolish in practise as giving them to Napoleon I or Napoleon III. If Indian society continues to vote against these women, it will be remarkable as a defence of proportional representation and for a narrative of women’s suffrage that assumes that restricting access to marital rape for women is as unreasonable as denying it to red-haired men.

One wonders if John Stuart Mill’s emphasis on fighting societal changes actually succeeds because of the orthodox attitude of the populace. Contrarily, opinions regarding his early life and achievements varied after Victorian liberalism… It can be difficult to explain how Mill and Harriet Taylor were specifically liberal feminists and how the treatment of women contributed to this movement. Recent feminists have criticised liberalism for maintaining a distinction between the public and private realms. They claim this is misdirected against both Harriet Taylor and Mill because it allows men to physically abuse their partners and tyrannise women behind closed doors, which protects family life.

This theory continues to be vehemently opposed to domestic violence, and given later discussions, it is peculiar that it pays little regard to the divide between public and private in its concerns of liberty or the subjugation of women. Both of which enable fairness, equality, and respect for personal autonomy in all of our interactions! Diabolically, a union of equals is hasty; to preach an idea was one thing, but to withstand violence is quite another. Therefore, approaching marital rape in India fairly requires some scepticism since we are unsure of what men and women will do in the event of true social, economic, and political equality.

To design well-read legislation, one could still think about and consider the following results. Given the fervour among men in general, India’s low conviction rate for rape cases — which stands at about 29 per cent — is proof of the prevalence of false claims. However, the low conviction rate instead shows how inadequate our legal system is as a whole. (The idealistic young adult in me still advocates for a Neuberger experiment to be conducted in the nation’s appellate courts.) To put it mildly, under our country’s legal system, rape victims are only given access to public prosecutors while the accused are free to retain the best legal representation. Following are some simple facts that may be inferred from these cases:

· The results of a rape kit test take three months to arrive (three months minimum).

· Due to the protracted nature of these trials, the prosecutrix frequently withdraws from the case.

· Most importantly, starting a legal lawsuit is still a time-consuming and difficult process that typically takes two to three years and requires numerous trips to hospitals, police stations, and courtrooms.

Speaking now of the systematic application of “robust evidence”:

· Laws with strong restrictions against baseless or unfounded complaints may be drafted by the legislature. For instance, provide for bail in lieu of the husband being detained immediately away and receiving no bail.

· Make certain that the doctors who offer the circumstantial evidence — the violence on the body — expert testimony is used to support the conviction!

· Or by using a lengthy medical history and police papers that demonstrate repeated episodes of abuse against the victim.

The control of a woman’s anatomy over her body needs to be governed by law!

Contrasting this idea with the perspective on the unusual side of the mirror that there is a non-conforming right over people’s bodies turns it into a legislative issue, giving legislators the authority to decide whether a woman should have anatomy over her body or not. According to this depressing perspective, the data show that the country’s partial population grants its members of parliament the right to run for office.

by ichhori.com Reference: ichhori.com



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
iChhori - Breaking Stereotypes

iChhori - Breaking Stereotypes

1 Follower

About iChhori represents all those females who do NOT believe in stereotypes.