Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Posts tagged ‘rape’


Which piece of cloth? as it is preceded by the definite article! The garment which was shown by Potiphar’s wife to Potiphar, as a symbol for Joseph having attempted to outrage the modesty of Potiphar’s wife.

The same garment which was actually the proof of Joseph having fled from his youthful lust (that is, if you believe what is mentioned in Genesis Ch.39 ) became a PROOF of the allegation of Joseph’s attempted, shall we call it RAPE? There is no such thing as “attempt of rape”, at least to the best of my knowledge in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Either it should have been committed for it to be called thus or it isn’t! Rest of all unwelcome tactile sexual advances could be called only an “outrage” of the modesty of a woman. Another fault is that the “outrage the modesty of a woman” presupposes universal modesty in woman – am i sure? Nay.

So the case was decided in favour of the complainant, who had a proof in the garment of Joseph in her hands. THE BIBLE says: POTIPHAR’S WRATH WAS KINDLED!  Even assuming that Potiphar had asked for an explanation from Joseph, let us ask ourselves IF JOSEPH COULD HAVE NARRATED THE TRUTH? Had he, then that would have shown his master as an ‘ATTEMPTED CUCKOLD’ and in the eyes of the master and his mistress he would have instead of explaining his innocence would have to ACCUSE his mistress as History’s FIRST ATTEMPTER OF RAPING A MALE, well how can a woman rape a male without him having an erection? So let us call Potiphar’s wife’s offence as ATTEMPT TO DOCK A MALE. That would have had direr consequences – Potiphar would have wanted to “silence” him of the secrets of his wife, who probably had descended to the level of a slave, because of the constant assault on her senses arising out of proximity.

In any case, Potiphar jailed Joseph and ensured that Joseph was sequestered from the wanton ways of his wife. At verse 16 it says: AND SHE LAID UP HIS GARMENT BY HER, UNTIL HIS LORD CAME HOME! King James Version English is amazing! LAID UP instead of ‘kept’ or ‘hid’ the garment – Potiphar’s wife seems to have quite exhilarated about having been at least with the shards of Joseph for a while, instead of having been disgusted with a slave’s garment! Further, it is HIS LORD and not HER HUSBAND or HER LORD!

Thus the piece of cloth served as a proof in her hands not as a remnant of the failed attempt of a faithless wife, but to exonerate herself  and to also wreak vengeance ‘on a sow which refused to respect the pearls offered to it in private’. 

The problem is that this is an episode narrated in the Bible and as a Christian I have to believe in everything said in the Bible, but when we reconstruct the same episode scene by scene like a script writer of an historical episode, there are different weightages to be apportioned to each piece of evidence, otherwise we would be placing emphasis on where it is not due. But who is to decide on the correctness of ascription of weightage? So that is where LIBERTY comes in and God in his wisdom has given the balance to weigh according to the moral fibre of the man who weighs. 

So if we go scene by scene would we have decided in favour of Potiphar’s wife, had we been Potiphar?

Even if Joseph had told the whole truth, as only 3 persons knew the TRUTH, one was Joseph, second Potiphar’s wife and as always, God. Now God cannot be a witness, except when he chooses to be one, in insignificant human disputes! And in this case, the winner who had written this part, was on Joseph’s side, but at that point, it was a wife’s word against a slave’s word. To compound, Potiphar had to rise to defend his honour in which , if Potiphar were to have believed Joseph’s version, that would have been a hara-kiri on his manhood. Naturally Potiphar went with his wife!

PITY, was what was evoked in our hearts, and like as in Job’s case, had the end not compensated for the calamities in the middle, it would have never found a place in the scriptures as a superb morale booster to the endurance in sufferings of the present. 

It all boils down to whether the ‘piece of cloth’ serves that day’s POLITICAL PURPOSE. TRUTH dawns much later. Have we taken sides yet? Better not, we have heard only one side of the story – Moses’ recounting of a history which was at least 400 years old. As some wisely say: ANYTHING COULD HAVE HAPPENED. 


This programme called WE THE PEOPLE in NDTV 24/7 anchored by Barkha Dutt on 20/01/2013, was relating to the issue of Rape. I watched the programme and there were two retired Justices, and eminent persons including Ms. Flavia Agnes in the panel, which discussed the issue of RAPE in the Indian context.

My impression was that they came very close to the crux of the Legislative issue but somehow prevaricated tangentially leaving the core unattended to.

The crux according to me is two fold: firstly, the definition of the offence, which is essential for conviction. Secondly, the sentence part which would prescribe the maximum sentence prescribed for that offence.

The law of the land starts with the various legislations passed by the Legislative bodies and ratified by the head of the State or the Nation, as the case might be, to be called as ACTS and the rules/regulations made thereunder. Subsequently, if a matter is escalated to the courts, the judgements of the High Courts would be binding on those States to which the jurisdiction of the court extends, if there is no case law on the same topic if not decided by the Supreme Court of India.

The courts could however strike down the provisions if they are in derogation of the Fundamental Rights and other rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. This is the scheme, in a gist.

So, the definition of RAPE needs to be amended suitably. There could be discussions on end on this topic with no conclusion on it- so select committees and interested legislators could thrash it out. My ‘idea’ is that if HOMICIDE could be classified as MURDER, CULPABLE HOMICIDE and DEATH CAUSED THROUGH RECKLESSNESS& NEGLIGENCE, sure RAPE could also be classified into different categories and the corresponding sentences be prescribed through suitable amendments to the Indian Penal Code.

The real issue is how to ensure that the judges and justices throughout this vast country would be compelled by LAW to impose uniform penalty?

There is this Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes that if a person had been sentenced to life imprisonment and during that period commits MURDER, he shall be visited with DEATH PENALTY! There was NO DISCRETION LEFT FOR THE JUDGES. This section was struck down by the Supreme Court of India, on the grounds that the sentence was offensive of the provisions of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. So essentially, this Section 303 of the IPC, remains in the statute as a dead letter. No amendment has been made by the Legislatures or the Parliament to ratify the striking down of the provisions.

The point i am labouring to make is that, when a statute- in this case the IPC- could contain a provision prescribing a FIXED PENALTY for a particular crime, it is statutorily possible to bring an amendment to the IPC by imposing a fixed penalty for any of the three classes of rape, which i suggest to classify RAPE into.

This taking away the discretionary power of the judges would enormously help codifying a law which would be stringent and also provide the necessary deterrence!

Quintessentially, the Judges have only to option of weighing evidence and convicting the person, but the statute should be strengthened so that there are no whims of the judges coming into play when the offence has been established. Otherwise, like in a recent case, merely on the grounds that a person was inebriated and is young, judges may be swayed without any consideration of RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE and award disproportionate sentences. I am aware that it would be the prerogative of the Judiciary to arrive at sentences in the normal course, but if the ACT prescribes sentences which will also not fall foul of the constitution, the vagaries besetting sentences could be avoided.

WE THE PEOPLE, did not broach this point adequately, even though the person from NLSUI came very close to it.

Analyzing a problem is one thing but attempting to find a solution is another thing. I think, the second is preferable, as otherwise there is every chance of the whole matter petering into vain sensation!.




God & Rape pregnancy!

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock is standing by his statement that when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape “that’s something God intended.”

“I spoke from my heart. And speaking from my heart, speaking from the deepest level of my faith, I would not apologise. I would be less than faithful if I said anything other than life is precious, I believe it’s a gift from God.”

For further reading on this plz refer to the link provided below:

Here is a statement made by a Republican Senate candidate who says that since his beliefs persuade him that LIFE comes from God, and LIFE as he believes, starts at CONCEPTION, even a pregnancy caused by RAPE is to be viewed as LIFE as mandated by God and accepted by the rape victim as LIFE granted to the zygote which she carries during pregnancy and should not go for termination of pregnancy.

This belief is okay had Richard Mourdock had been the rape victim and he had to carry the zygote for which the criminal had contributed without the victim’s consent. But that is not the case. The rape victim is someone else other than Richard, so for him to IMPOSE HIS BELIEF SYSTEM ON ANOTHER PERSON would be denying the right for the individual to decide on issues which impact her LIFE.

The issue is, the Rape victim’s LIFE is also a LIFE granted by God, with unalienable rights of INTEGRITY OF ONE’S PERSON. That integrity has been violated by the RAPIST and the trail of his crime is blossoming as the pregnancy in the victim’s womb. Now on the grounds that LIFE which is taking shape in the womb of the victim is from GOD, the pregnancy should not be terminated, is insulting another LIFE (Victim’s LIFE) which had also been granted by God. It is better to kill a symbol of CRIME before it had manifested itself as a full grown child and born into this world. 

Further, the woman who is carrying the child has the absolute right, along with the medical advice, to terminate the pregnancy.

To bring in the element of God and make a woman go through a pregnancy which she probably abhors, is the most damnable representation of God’s interest. GOD is GOOD and I am sure He would not want a victim to suffer further the humiliation of having allowed her egg to be fertilized by the sperm of a rascal who had inflicted this great evil upon a woman, who neither consented for the sexual relationship nor is happy after the pregnancy.

In Deuteronomy 22 chapter, of the Old Testament it says:

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

if the senator is a man based on the Bible, he should also recommend imposition of 50 shekels of silver and ignore the Penal Code of the state of the USA, for the offence of RAPE. It is time that people become progressive. Even though the society has almost stopped capital punishments even for heinous crimes, it no where takes away the personal LIBERTY OF A HUMAN BEING to decide on issues relating to one’s body. This recommendation by the Senator is truly REGRESSIVE!

Using the name of God to sustain a criminal symbol is the last thing, which a would-be Senator should advocate! God bless America!

Rathore’s Smile/smirk!

Rathore, the  President’s medalist retired Director General of Police of Haryana and convicted molester of  Ruchika, was shown getting out of the trial courts, after the delivery of sentence of 6 months of imprisonment, in most of the TV channels.

As a DGP he must have been aware of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code  which defines rape and mentions: “sixthly- with or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age”. Ruchika was 14 years old when she was “MOLESTED”.

The crux of the issue is that for any offence in the IPC, unless ATTEMPT is made punishable in a charging section, there is no provision to charge a person for “ATTEMPT”. For example s. 307 is the charging section for Attempt to murder, s.309 is the charging section for Attempt to suicide, whereas there is no section “ATTEMPT TO RAPE”, therefore the police and the courts go with section 354, which is titled,”Assault or criminal force to woman with an intent to outrage her modesty”. The maximum punishment prescribed upon conviction is 2 years. Andhra Pradesh by an amendment to this section 354 of IPC, prescribed a minimum punishment of 5 years and a maximum of 7 years. No other state had recognized this lacuna and therefore that SMILE  on the face of Rathore.

If Mr.Rathore had been convicted under section 354 IPC within the state of Andhra Pradesh, he would have received a higher sentence.

One might wonder if Mr.Rathore would have had a smirk on his face if he had been sentenced for 7 years instead of the 6 months awarded to him.

I remember a Thamizh poem written after the assassination of Mrs.Indira Gandhi thus, “IMAI IDHITHTHU KANN KURUDAAGIYADHU”, which when translated into English would mean, “The eyelids struck like lightning and blinded the eyes!” The very eyelids which were to protect the eyes from lightning, struck like lightning and blinded the eyes. How apt, in the context that the very same guards who were to protect the person of Mrs.G, assassinated her! Mr.Rathore’s ATTEMPT TO RAPE, is nothing short of what the assassins did. He being a police officer, should have protected Ruchika, instead he had molested her. Like the prescription of higher sentence to Prison Superintendents and Medical staff in  hospitals for the offence of RAPE, any police officer when convicted of RAPE, should be inflicted with higher /exemplary punishment.

Hope Ruchika’s family gets Justice, despite the lacuna in our IPC.


The last few days have been trying times for Arnab Goswami, Barkha Dutt and their ilk, as they have been battling tooth and nail against the distinctions that the Member of Parliament had introduced, in his now expunged speech in the parliament, on RAPE in Goa.

In all fairness, Shantaram’s sincerity in his presentation of his ideas appear genuine. Maybe he lacks the language skills to present a really complex IDEA.

The Idea sought to be expressed doesn’t seem to be mischievous upon careful analysis.

This is what Shantaram Naik appears to have attempted to bring out:-

One of the most important and the last ingredient in the offence of RAPE is the element of FREE CONSENT. If this element of FREE CONSENT by the woman is missing, then the man is open to the allegation of RAPE if he had had intercourse with the woman who alleges RAPE.

There is a PREVENTIVE part to the offence of RAPE and a PENALTY part to the alleged offence of RAPE.

The police is in charge of both the parts and they are entrusted with the function of PREVENTING RAPE as much as PROSECUTING  the perpetrator of the RAPE. For  prosecution, credible evidences will have to be adduced before the courts to establish the offence. This is easier for the police when there are circumstantial evidences  which show that the WOMAN resisted and sustained visible marks besides other items that leave a tell-tale mark in the place of rape or on the rape victim.

The problem arises when the issue is of the PREVENTIVE KIND. If a couple is seen going together, there is a presumption that they are at peace with each other and the police has no role to intervene and question them- even if it be late in the night. Supposing a man and a woman are seen late in the night a car, parked peacefully and if the man had commits a “DATE RAPE”, then the element of circumstantial evidence would be tremendously narrowed down and the EVIDENCE, if any, is reduced to one person’s word against the other. The police cannot butt into all private space when he/she has visible reasons to believe that there is no offence being committed. Hence the PREVENTIVE ROLE of the police becomes suspect- if the police gets nosy, then they are susceptible to all sorts of allegations of  trampling of LIBERTIES.

The issue is that when a woman gets RAPED, the media attaches the name of the city/town/village, as the name of the victim, on humanitarian grounds, is kept concealed. Hence the name of the city/town/village gets sullied. It therefore appears as if the police in that area had failed in its preventive duties. That may not be the case, if the couple had moved into a building or to a thinly populated place peacefully, and later if the woman alleges rape, the police would be in a quandary, as the circumstantial evidence would not be useful for the prosecution’s case.

It is because of this aspect that Shantaram Naik had desired that the police should investigate the case thoroughly if the victim had known the alleged rapist etc..

Let us also not forget that perjurious charges of rape have been brought up by women, merely to settle scores or extract money. Please recall the South African Judge, Sirajuddin Desai, who was alleged by a woman (Salome Isaacs- Salome! what a name- reminds me of Herod!!) as her rapist in his hotel room in Mumbai, when she visited his room late evening. She presented the condom used by THEM as evidence of RAPE to the police and the Magistrate sent the Judge to police custody!! The case, to the best of my knowledge, was withdrawn.

Why should the police allow withdrawal of a RAPE case, when it is NOT a COMPOUNDABLE OFFENCE? If the woman had alleged falsely, she should have been proceeded against for making false complaint. The claim of the South African judge was that they had consensual sex.

Therefore Shantaram’s request for thorough investigations is a salubrious suggestion, in the interest of TRUTH.

Nonetheless, the apprehensions of people like Ms.Poornima Advani, Ms.FlaviaAgnes are also not without substance. Knowing the legal system, the prosecution would not be able to use the evidences collected for their objectives as much as the defense would. But that cannot become the reason for not ascertaining the TRUTH in all its NAKEDNESS.

Mr.Shantaram has made the statement more to wash away the guilt that is being smeared on the fair name of the state of Goa, let us get to the pith of his statement and not bash the MP in the media, especially  pseudo-zealously like Brakha Dutt or Arnab Goswami!

Would anyone care to tell me the name of the FIVE STAR HOTEL where the Judge Mr.Sirajuddin Desai and the female delegate  Salome stayed? NO. No one can. I remember that the media was very careful to avoid giving BAD PUBLICITY to the five star hotel. Why can not they extend the same to Goa also? No. Since No palpable gains would be available to media persons, nobody is gonna give the media guys coupons for a free lunch, u see!!

At least did the media protest when the case was withdrawn/closed and did it so zealously pursue if it was RAPE or PERJURY? NO. So much for their zeal.


Anand Jon, a sand nigger!!

The TIMES OF INDIA, dated 02/09/2009, Bangalore Edition screams on its front page that Anand Jon, a Person of Indian Origin and a Fashion Designer based in BeverlyHills, California, United States of America, had been sentenced to 59 years of incarceration by the courts.

Back home the sister and the mother of the convict, Anand Jon, have stated that the cases of rape, statutory rape etc. have been foisted on their brother and son by a prejudiced police force. The news item further states that the Beverly Hills Police Department cops had addressed Mr.Anand Jon as a SAND NIGGER.

Wiktionary gives the following meaning to the phrase SAND NIGGER:

sand nigger (plural sand niggers)

  1. (derogatory, offensive) A person of Arabian or other Middle Eastern descent.

It is not the prejudices of the Police, which is surprising, but the jury verdict. In the matter of Nathuram Godse, in the book titled THE MEN WHO KILLED GANDHI by Manohar Malgoankar, the author says, if the audience in the court had been converted into a jury during the trial of The Mahatma’s murder, the jury would have returned the verdict of NOT GUILTY on Nathuram Godse. So much for the jury. Luckily for Indians the jury system was abolished with the most interesting case of  Nanavati V. State of Bombay.

In the case of Nanavati v. State of Bombay, the husband who was a naval officer shot dead the paramour of his wife, by bringing a loaded gun into the house of the Paramour from his naval ship, when the paramour was alone. The jury got mixed up with MORAL ISSUES, instead of  returning a verdict on proved facts. The sympathy of the 12 good men is definitely going to lean in favour of the cuckolded husband. But the requirement of law is different- the judge was looking for legal ingredients like pre-meditation, sudden provocation, intention and the like. But the JURY was interested in returning a verdict that would palliate their own conscience. However the Judge found the verdict PERVERSE.

In Anand Jon’s case, a predominantly American jury, led by an American Judge, is not likely to take things easily when the charge was that Mr.Anand Jon was messing around with minor girls!!

The interesting part is the statement made by a girl who had turned 17 now and was a rape victim at the age of 14, by Anand Jon. Unfortunately, in statutory rape- which means that ingredients like consent, will etc. do not matter when the victim is below the prescribed age (in India it is 16 years). The very fact that a man had sex with an under-aged girl is sufficient to obtain a conviction under RAPE. Whether the girl in the instant case looked like 18 and showed sexual experience, whether she seduced Anand Jon for fame and name do not matter.

I like the statement made by that innocent babe in the woods- “Anand Jon stole my innocence!!” Oh, yes she did not know what was happening in the fashion world and she had to break that news of rape to her  father and is continuously traumatized about all that happened.

When these teenagers do not heed to the warnings  by their parents and succumb to temptations, should the society take up the burden of inflicting such harsh sentences on the perpetrators of such acts? I guess not. At least not by the 12 good men who are neither of Anand Jon’s ethnicity or colour or creed or coviction , much less the same profession!

In any case, as one of the Beverly Hills Police guy is stated to have said: YOU SAND NIGGER, YOU WANNA MESS WITH THE WHITE GIRLS?, it is better for us Indians to be warned about the prejudices that people harbour and unleash it without any sympathy, in times of judgement.


Tag Cloud