Seeing this hitjob by one Bhaskar Chawla at Vegabomb on MRAs, one wonders how “data” proves anything of what he claims and if this is because of author’s “.. woefully poor understanding of the world.”
Let’s go point by point:
A large chunk of the false rape cases are filed by family members of girls in consensual relationships.
Bhaskar admits here that false cases against men are being filed by converting consensual sex into rape cases later. Yet, he can’t find one ounce of sympathy for those men who were falsely implicated! Instead, what does bother him is that many tend to see “daughters as property”. So innocent men being jailed is of no concern to him.
A fair number of rape cases are never argued till the end because the complainant backs out.
Hasn’t Bhaskar read about Rohtak Sisters? Doesn’t he know that there is no need for presenting prima facie evidence for a rape case to be filed? And that upon receipt of a complaint, the accused is jailed (with bail denied often) for a long period of time. There really is no entry-barrier (in terms of evidence needed) to file a rape case, so how do we know if they all are real?
Hasn’t he read about the many instances of where women-gangs extort innocent men for money threatening to file rape cases?
There has been a rise in cases of violence against women related to dowry.
If there has been a stupendous increase in number of cases filed, while the conviction-rates remain same, as Bhaskar admits, what inference does one make? No, no, guys! You expect an anti-MRA to get logic? How bad. Its obviously not because many of those cases are false, but because today’s liberated, urban, financially-strong, law-aware women are somehow more prosecuted than naive, illiterate women of yester-decades! As to the “woefully poor understanding of the world”, I now know that it applies to Bhaskar beyond doubt. How? Anybody who has ever seen the inside of police station on these women-harassment laws knows that chargesheet is more or a norm than exception. As to the chargesheet, as many court orders testify, they are word-to-word copy of the FIR and no investigation is ever done as mandated. Police themselves state that they are constrained to do so, for they can be accused of favouritism to husband’s side.
The reason conviction is hard to get is also because most of the charges are false. If it can be attributed to “difficulty in proving something that happened inside somebody’s home” as Bhaskar claims, can’t the husband’s harassment be assigned to”difficulty in disproving something that has allegedly happened inside somebody’s home”?
Only around 10 percent of dowry complaints are false.
Bhaskar still doesn’t get it. Let me explain again: because there is no entry-barrier in form of evidence to file a case, and since accused man is presumed guilty (heard of maxim “innocent until proven guilty”, Bhaskar?) there is little evidence with man to prove that the case is false. He may be acquitted due to inability of wife’s side to establish their case, but for husband to prove that wife launched a motivated legal assault needs concrete proof. This obviously is mostly unavailable with man due to “difficulty in disproving something that has allegedly happened inside somebody’s home”.
Courts impose penalties for those making false case, true. Yet, to prove that they are false is next to impossible because while the field has been unevenly levelled in favour of women by instituting new claims-as-proof laws, the men have to fall back on toothless laws to fight back.
Any law can be misused, indeed. But state one other law that substitutes claims as proof and jails the accused without even a prima facie evidence against them? One law, please, Bhaskar? Just one.
Before finishing, I would like to pick up a telling sign of Bhaskar’s outlook, he writes: MRAs are a tiny section of society that has hitherto benefited from its laws at the expense of others, and is terrified now that the people it oppressed are getting some rights, because that means that its power is being diluted.
I am yet to see one MRA who wasn’t a victim of ill-crafted, biased laws and endured suffering on account of false cases against him. Far from possessing any “power” as Bhaskar imagines, they were victimized because they were stripped of their basic rights (such as presumption of innocence) due to feminist laws.
Bhaskar, once, just once, go to any police station and find out the grim reality of the husbands for once. It may repair your “.. woefully poor understanding of the world.”