The Other Side of Pink

The Hindi movie Pink has opened to hugely favorable reviews. Interestingly, this film explores a grey area with respect to rape and successfully paints such scenarios with the widest possible brush to paint women as only victims, and men as only aggressors.

Let me begin with the most glaring conflation in the movie, one that sets the tone and tenor of the narrative. The men accused of rape are from the rich-class, with political connections. The women, on the contrary, are middle-class. Clearly, the men were able to misuse law, not because they’re men, but because of their class. Likewise, the women suffered not on account of being women, but because they’re not powerful enough to buy influence. This is a class divide, which the movie has cunningly collapsed into a gender divide.

Turn the tables, and a rich women can run down a middle-class man with more crushing finesse, given our current state of misandric laws. Even when both the men and women are on equal footing, our misandric laws that substitute allegation for proof ensure that a mere accusation from women, without any corroborative evidence, can land the accused men in jail immediately.

The meaning of consent

Feminists proudly exclaim that they’ve redefined rape laws, which to traditional users of English, translates to admission of falsely accusing men. Notice that the new rape scenarios do not involve a predator waiting for a woman in a dark lane, and forcing himself upon her. This is an open-and-shut case of rape, which nobody would contest.

The new-age rape laws involve not just casting the net of guilt as widely as possible on men, but effectively absolving women of all responsibility. Consent, as defined by feminists, means something entirely different from what is usually connotes. In this sense, rape, today,  is sex that women later regrets. In West, if a drunk man and woman have sex, which the woman later regrets, she can, by retrospective withdrawal of consent, turn the consensual sex into a rape. The feminist argument is that the woman, being intoxicated, was not in position to give consent; but in the same vein, isn’t the intoxicated man too incapable of processing consent? While on it, do note that we do not likewise absolve drunk men of the consequences of rash driving. Rather, we hold them responsible for endangering others’ lives by consuming alcohol and driving under its influence.

Back to “Pink”, if the men in question tried to force themselves on the women right in the very rock concert where they first met, this verily constitutes attempt to rape. But these women accept invitation from a rank stranger to an unknown place! One wonders why would any woman accept an invitation from strangers at all, that too, to an unknown, uninhabited place? Were they expecting a platonic, poetry-reciting session?

This is a recurring theme in feminist propaganda; in a short film “I Saw Him Again“, the female lead follows a stranger to the washroom in a rock concert (again), with the manifest intent of having consensual sex. But apparently she regrets the decision at the nick of moment and wants out. She stalks the man six years later and accuses him of rape while making a stunningly revealing comment that he never even contacted her again. The male lead, aptly confronts her, asking if the crux of her angst is that he didn’t date her later. See the video for yourself; notwithstanding the overt propagandist orientation, many will question if what occurred can be labeled rape at all!

Or sample this account of a woman who traveled to another city to meet a man she had never met on his offer to share his bed. She attempts to resist his advances initially, before giving in. Ironically, if she presses rape charges against the man whom she visited from another place and in whose home they had sex, they will stand. Whether or not she said “no” is of little consequence, because in this kind of typical “she said, he said” scenario our feminist laws enjoin that a woman’s word must always be accorded precedence. So, if the woman in question regrets sex or feels that she was coerced into it, she can withdraw her consent retrospectively, notwithstanding the fact she was the one who willingly walked into the situation. Since these laws interpret the consent on event-by-event, we can get tragic scenarios, where out of 10 acts, the women can claim that while the 4th and 6th act were consensual, the 5th was rape. What, however, does the man say? Forget it, didn’t you understand even thus far that a man’s testimony is barely relevant?

What feminists actually want is to make it safe for women to walk into a stranger’s house at an unknown place and feel protected should they regret it in the nick of moment. “Teach men not to rape”, paradoxically, ignores the fact that most law-abiding men neither have the intent nor the power to do so, since they can’t ignore the serious repercussions from such an act. If feminists, instead of absolving women of their responsibility, asked them not to send confusing signals to strangers and say “no” to any invitations from strangers, much anger and pain could have been avoided to the victims (and by victims I mean both the women and men). Such feminist laws will only encourage women to pursue strangers and walk into dangerous situations, all while giving them a false sense of security.

Rape in real-life scenarios

Except in remote, rural areas or where an exceptionally powerful backing prevails (as in this movie), the ground reality is vastly different in India. A mere allegation from a woman, even a live-in partner of years, can land the accused man in jail. Nowadays, even the police fear accusations of favoritism or apathy so much, that despite grasping the true situation (hell, even if they can sense it as blatantly false), they anyway go ahead the arrest the man. The accused man, without a shred of evidence against him, can find himself being treated as guilty and must seek bail from court i.e. after several days in jail. In a feminist reinterpretation of Khap panchayati tradition of forcing a couple having sexual relations to marry, modern woman uses the threat of rape to force an unwilling man into marriage.

The feminist shrill that most genuinely harassed women fear approaching police is a thing of past. Now, fempowered women, secure in the knowledge that their false accusations entail no disciplinary action, do not hesitate to bring rapist color to civil disputes. Notice that the feminist progress in law mostly pertains to the eliminating the need of evidence, by virtue of which any allegation automatically translates to men’s guilt – thus upturning the basic premise of “innocent until proven guilty” maxim.

If any feminist feels otherwise, do inform us what corresponding laws have been drafted in tandem with feminist ones that discourage misuse of the latter. The burden falls on the toothless, old laws that are barely sufficient to discourage misuse. Feminists claim that the misuse clause is overstated, and seek evidence to substantiate it. Notice the paradox: evidence is sought of misuse of laws whose very USP is removal of necessity of evidence. But on point, since the very case is based on claim-as-evidence foundation, it is extremely hard for the judges to ascertain if the allegation was made with a malafide motive (to initiate perjury charges) even if the man in question is eventually acquitted.

Contrary to the coinage of “rape culture” which gives an impression of a society condoning or even celebrating rape, we live in a culture where Supreme Court finds a man guilty based on the strength of a woman’s testimony alone, without corroborating evidence. While feminists frame this as the right of a woman to be heard and believed, what they’re obfuscating and suppressing is the right of man to be considered “innocent until proven guilty”.  In no other scenario is the accused burdened with proving himself innocent, it is always the accuser who must present the evidence to prove his allegations. However, in the bizarre feminist-legal ecosystem, once a man is accused, he’s deemed guilty and nothing proves him innocent (he’s just let go; even acquittal cannot mean he’s innocent).


Are false rape & dowry cases overstated by MRAs

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.”

Marital rape debate needs more nuance

This is my response to Dushyant Arora’s article “Rape And The Law In India”.

He begins with:

“How common is marital rape? One third of men interviewed by International Centre for Women (ICRW) and United Nations Population Fund’s (UNPFA) across seven states in India admitted to having forced a sexual act on their wives.”

Was a similar survey conducted on women? What do they say? Why do these surveys deem it beneath their importance to think of man’s sufferings?

You know what else has been presumed to be sacred, derived from religious belief and existed in a time of severe illiteracy? Sati.

Sati – for sure – wasn’t mandatory per Hindu religious scriptures. In Mahabharata, when King Pandu died, one wife committed Sati (not forced, but volunteered out of guilt of being responsible for his death); while Kunti, the other wife, not only lived on to see her great-grandson but was also accorded the highest respect by people. Wives of Ravana, Duryodhana etc. are not known to have committed Sati.

This was decision taken by the wives themselves and not enforced through state. As late as in 1839 (10 years after Sati Regulation Act was passed by British, Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s wives committed sati upon his death on their own will.

A senior advocate recently wrote that ‘If at any stage in a marriage, the wife seeks to withdraw the presumed consent that accompanies a marriage, it is open to her to live separately.’ If that’s so, the argument presumes that the husband will jump away the moment his wife screams ‘I separate’ as she is being raped.

But this very argument presumes that in any marital dispute, wife’s testimony should automatically overrule husband’s. In these instances of “he said, she said” (which is always the case with marital rape), the author presumes that man’s testimony shouldn’t matter anyway, because it’s only the wife who should be heard.

Troublingly, the statement assumes an equality between genders.

What’s more troubling is your inability to see women as capable of being aggressors.

Is separation always possible for women who face abuse? We live in a patriarchal society where prejudice, discrimination, lack of access to education and work, makes many women financially dependent on their husbands. A woman living separately from her husband is stigmatised. She is often urged to ‘adjust’ or ‘save her family’ or ‘settle matters’ – even by her own family.

The truth is other way round. In reality, men are the ones who find it impossible to separate from abusive women. We live in a society where asking wife to adjust reasonably can invite threats of false cases. A wife can – with effectively zero evidence – throw husband, parents, siblings (and anyone she names) into jail just on the strength of her statement alone (498a).

This isn’t women empowerment, this is men deprotection – name any other criminal case where a man can be put into jail without even prima-facie evidence on a mere complaint. If the ‘counseling’ centres at Women’s Police Station are any indication, it’s the man who’s asked to surrender to wife’s demands to avoid being charged with false cases and rather “settle matters” (translates to huge amount of money).

In many cases it is the man who has no option but to reconcile with an abusive wife, because she threatens to send his entire family behind bars if he dares to make any effort to separate.

If abused women found it so easy to separate, then we might as well do away with laws criminalising domestic violence too—tell women to walk out instead of putting up with it. And even if they are able to walk away, that first instance of violence- which necessitates the exit from a marital home – is still a cognisable offence and should be punished

Does the author realize that Indian DV Act doesn’t even recognize man as a victim? A man at the receiving end of domestic violence has absolutely no where to go, no helpful legal provisions, and instead mocked upon. The female-initiated domestic abuse is as severe and has come to light even in Western nations.

Just two articles that prove the issue is more nuanced and its time women-only-victim, men-only-aggressor stereotype must go:

It is easier for women to separate – she can arm-twist husband into signing divorce papers and give her an amount she demands on the threat of 498a. No sane husband would refuse divorce or the demanded money, as certain disaster awaits him in the form of false cases otherwise; he will lose his job and run behind courts for years without respite and the courts anyhow will pass orders for interim maintenance.

If however it’s the husband who desires separation, it’s a the different story.

 Every. Law. Is. Susceptible. To. Abuse. False allegations are possible within a marriage and without. That thankfully has not led us to decriminalise an act of rape outside of marriage. Secondly, and I cannot emphasise this enough: it is extremely difficult for a woman to prove absence of consent especially in a bond of matrimony. Thirdly, for context, the crisis our society faces is one of under- or un-reported sexual violence, categorically not an epidemic of false cases.

Give us an example of any other law in which a mere complaint can throw the accused behind bars without prima facie evidence? Unless influence or bribery is involved, under normal circumstances no person be put in jail with bail denied.

Isn’t it even more difficult for a man to prove the presence of consent, especially in a private bedroom? What the author suggests is to give blanket power to women to ruin their husbands, while depriving husband of his basic right of due process.

Tell us of one instance where you would like to believe that the husband was truly innocent, once he’s accused? Given author’s line of logic, there’s no possibility of such a scenario at all – once accused the husband is guilty, due process be damned.

All that differentiates an allegation of rape within marriage from one beyond it is the unstated presumption that marriage entails perpetual consent on the part of the wife, a presumption one would like to believe that no law would support in the 21st century.

But the presumption that marriage entails perpetual consent on the part of husband to maintain her not only exists, but is legally-enforceable. Once married, the wife has to be maintained, even if the couple separates. If marriage doesn’t entail perpetual consent for sex, why should it include perpetual consent to maintenance?

Here’s the reality which author tries so hard to obfuscate:  a wife who longer wishes to stick to her marital vows, can readily misuse laws to get what she wants (divorce and money). But a man is perpetually a bonded labour who must be in wife’s good books – because once she decides to harm him, law far from protecting him, in fact enables her to torture him more viciously.

Once accused, a man’s innocence is of no consequence, he’ll be treated as guilty and punished accordingly.

Advice to men suffering from 498A (threat)

This blogpost is intended for those men who face a false 498a threat from their wives. If your relation with your wife has been deteriorating of late, and your wife & in-laws make even a faint allusion of teaching you a lesson, rest assured, 498a is mostly on its way.

Leaving aside the legal sophistry, you need to know that all your wife needs to do to get you, your parents and sometimes your siblings arrested is file a simple complaint stating that you all harassed her. Your innocence is of no consequence at this stage, for you’ll be thrown in jail and you’ll need to procure bail from court. Get this foisted in your mind: she can do this with zero corroborating evidence and even if you have proof of your innocence, it is seldom useful in providing you any relief at this point.

You’ll mostly be going through the below-mentioned sequence of events (it can differ from person to person, but overall most will go through these stages).

  • Police will knock your doors one fine morning and inform you that you’re required to accompany them to Police Station for “Counselling” as your wife has made a complaint against you. Although the police personnel may appear polite, you may not have any choice but to accede to their demand.
  • You’ll be confined to a remote corner of Police Station and shortly your wife and in-laws will appear. These days, it is required that the couple go through some counselling sessions and explore the possibility of peaceful negotiation before an FIR is formally registered. However, these sessions are mostly a platform to blackmail you into submitting to their demands. Your wife and in-laws would coldly enlist their demands and threaten you with dire consequences, if they’re not met.
  • Usually, no arrest is made on the very first day. You’ll be asked to appear before them on another date. If the issue remains unresolved, you can expect an FIR to be registered and you and your parents may be arrested.
  • You’ll be in jail till you get bail from court and after that the matter moves to Court.
  • Sometimes, they may make pretend to desire peaceful resolution and wait until you lower your guard so that they may catch all of you unawares at home and ensure that none from your family escape arrest.

The process is inherently unfair, for it jails men based on a mere complaint by wife and doesn’t require any due procedure to be followed (there is actually, but unless you’re influential you cannot count on them to rescue you). It exposes you to the corrupt government officials who use this opportunity to harass you and extract money in exchange of ‘favours’. We can go on, but our focus here is on how to combat the situation and make the best deal out of a bad bargain.

  1. Accept your fate.

Post Supreme Court’s directions vide Arnesh Kumar’s case in 2014 random arrests have come down drastically. However lawyers now overcome this handicap by thrusting rape charges on all male relatives to ensure that grounds for arrests remain. Hopefully, you may walk out with least hassle if things work out in your favour. But even in worst case scenario, your position would still be better than many unfortunate families struck with this problem during last decade.

During the first day of counselling, it might be a better idea to ask for time to think over. By the time the next date arrives, you would be mentally prepared and have consulted a good lawyer. Anticipatory bail before registration of FIR is difficult, but it’s worth trying. At least, you can make arrangements to promptly initiate bail process should you be arrested.

Above all, accept that you may be jailed and that’s a price you’re willing to pay to get rid of your nasty wife. If your parents are jailed too, understand that this is still a smaller price than having them bear your cruel wife throughout rest of their lives.

Also, be prepared for the fact that this is going to cost you financially (unavoidable) and mentally (avoidable). Your fight is for the sole purpose to neutralising their attack, safeguarding your interests to the extent you can, and coming out as unscathed from the whole affair as possible.

  1. Be cool, composed and careful.

Do not indulge in self-recrimination. You did nothing to deserve this. It is just that you’re caught up in the corrupt legal process and are merely one among the many thousands of innocent families in India suffering because of this ill-advised law. Remember, while the unfairness of the whole process is apparent to you, everybody including police and courts are just doing their duty. Do not lose your cool and blurt off anything that may worsen the situation. Do not think of revenge now, your first duty is towards protecting yourself and your parents. Be composed and do not show your emotions to anyone. You can weep in leisure later, but now is the time to act strong and channel all your thinking energies to get you and your people bailed out of this situation. Freeze your emotions and feelings, until you’re out of danger.

  1. Do not accept their demands at Police Station

While the very possibility of policemen threatening you with dire consequences can be intimidating, do not lose your heart. This is easier, if you follow #1, accept your fate.

Under no circumstances should you accede to their demands at the Police Station. You may think it is better to surrender to their demands than face inevitable destruction. Sorry, no. They’ll be emboldened by their easy success and start making further demands.

Speaking of demands, they’ll vary depending on whether the wife wants divorce or reunion. If wife wants divorce, she’ll demand for a huge lump-sum amount in exchange of withdrawal of cases and mutual consent divorce. If she’s interested in reunion, it is mostly the case of wanting you to set up a separate residence (separated from your parents i.e.) and giving her an assurance that you’ll forever be a slave to her command.

Ask them to go ahead with their plan and do not plead them for mercy. Be bold. The only alternative you offer would be to talk to community elders or other intermediary (neutral ground) and resolve it. Else, do not hesitate to tell them that you’re totally prepared to spending the next few years around courts to defeat their plans.

  1. Do not attempt to reason with them.

Do not argue with them and appeal to their better senses. No women or family who drags an innocent husband and in-laws to police station is worthy enough to even reason with. They’ve effectively revealed themselves to be narcissist people incapable of resolving private matters amicably.

That they’ve chosen this path, should itself dissuade you to talk to them. This attitude will considerably dampen their spirits as they’ll not be as confident of scoring a quick victory as before. Put otherwise, showing strength may not avert 498a, but betraying weakness will most certainly embolden them to grind you to ground.

If they try to initiate talks after 498a is filed, do not discuss anything till you and other accused secure bail. Their window of power exists only until you secure bail, after which the field is considerably levelled. Once out, they’ve lost their hold on you and depending on your resolve you can fight them to finish and extract a payback for your suffering.

  1. Do not take your wife back.

Under no circumstances, should you take your wife back. The moment she approached police station, she has literally shown herself to be a selfish, nasty & cruel women who doesn’t deserve to be part of your family. Consider the legal implications too. This would be interpreted as wife forgiving the erring husband and giving him second chance, not other way round. Also, if your wife dies in as much as freak accident, you will be in deep trouble. Most importantly, note that your wife stills retains the right to harass you (via 498a) whenever she feels like doing it. The presumption of guilt will be more the second time.

There is no reason to get alarmed if they appear adamant on reunion and they (others) threaten that you’ll be wasting your young years running around courts, instead of enjoying conjugal bliss. They’re betting on the fact that it is impossible for you to get divorce before at least 5-6 years and they’ve the power to prolong even further, if they keep on contesting divorce. The 498a trial itself will take nothing less than 2-3 years by conservative estimates.

As short-sighted people (who else would seek this path), they cannot fathom that you may prefer a solitary life to suffering her companionship. Irrespective of what others say, remember that these women are not disinterested in marriage per se, they’re disinterested in you. Her parents, who thundered under the shadow of law, will begin to tremble if you show no signs of weakness and continue to fight back with patience. Ladies begin to lose their attractiveness by 30 and become sexually invisible to most men post-35. Men on the contrary begin their upward journey from 30 and retain their attraction till 40-45. Her ability to remarry is already constrained by her record of 498a, so no sane man will want to associate with her. Still, there are enough desperate men around, who would be willing to wife her up. But to attract a man without even a semblance of status, she will need to get hinged by 30 or at most by 35. Women, and especially their parents, are acutely aware of this and their threats become shriller as she gets closer to the wall.

Despite how self-assured they appear to you, they’re aware of how difficult it is for them to get her married again. And they will not be willing to bear this burden for long. Once they begin to see that you’re determined, they will want to minimise the damage and compromise for a much lower amount than they initially demanded.

  1. Do not resign from your job.

Many people are under the mistaken notion that being jobless entails giving no maintenance. Judges are mostly likely to see this as a deliberate plank intended to serve the sole purpose of denying your wife the maintenance and will anyway go ahead and pass orders for maintenance. Also, if your wife comes to know that you’re jobless, she may want to delay the proceedings so that you’re left jobless till such period. You’ll be left penniless in the long run. Also, your mind will be more disturbed if you’re not actively involved in work.

Remember, its most likely that your case will eventually be settled through negotiating a lumpsum amount. Your chances at re-marriage (if interested) would depend on your career too. So, it makes no sense to deprive yourself of a bright career just to restrain her from getting maintenance (and in which you won’t succeed fully as cited above). Apply scorched earth policy wherever possible, but without harming your long-term interests.

Though women don’t realize it, the running out of time is going to harm them more gravely than any monetary loss. Younger women attract better men, irrespective of their financial status and older women, no matter how rich, will not be able to seduce any worthwhile man into marriage. So wait for your turn and continue to fight back patiently, even if you’re asked to pay an interim-maintenance amount which you consider unfair. She’s losing time while you’re gaining it, and her parents are aware of it.

  1. Fight them like mortal enemies

You’ve already paid once for being incapable of gauging their nature. Now that the war is in open, where you’ve witnessed first-hand how ruthless & selfish they’ve been to secure their interests, you need pay them in same coin too. She is no longer an otherwise good woman, who was ‘brainwashed’, ‘misguided’ and rashly took a wrong step in the ‘heat of the moment’.

Women who approach police station know the full consequences of their complaint on you. Lawyers also inform these women how the complaints will wreak men’s life. In their narcissist frame, they did not bother about your well-being and all they’re concerned about is their own desires. Within the Indian system, there isn’t much you can do to get legal retribution. In all likelihood, she will not be punished for false complaint from our legal system at least, though karma will get their back soon. She will in all probability get interim-maintenance and eventually one-time permanent alimony too. In many cases, men are too tired after wandering through our courts for years in vain and want to start afresh by negotiating an out-of-court settlement.

But the least men can do is to make their wives’ victory as pyrrhic as possible. At any rate, do not initiate an offer for settlement from your end. However adamant they appear, know that they’re within their hearts as anxious as you are, probably more. They have hand your wife over to some pathetic man ultimately and they know this will become more difficult as time flies. Let them struggle for every rupee they’re able to extract from you. Do not be soft on people who spared no efforts to harass you and your parents. Remember, they did all within their power to ruin you and are prepared to further grind you for their selfish ends. Such people do not deserve forgiveness even if they fall at your feet after they realise their receding fortunes. Unwillingness to use your full resources against them is tantamount to exposing your already pained parents to further abuse.

  1. Keep yourself fit – mentally and physically.

Meanwhile, focus on your career and other interests. For your parents’ sake, do not get addicted to drinking, smoking, etc. For your own sake, hit a gym. Or any form of physical exercise to keep you fit. Keep meeting friends and relatives; do not isolate yourself from people.

Be mentally prepared for at least 3-4 years around courts. Even then, the case is most likely to be resolved when your wife and co. lose their perverted sense of pleasure and wish to move along anew. This is how majority of these cases are usually resolved. Spoiling your health is not at all detrimental to your wife; since she barely cared about you, she would be all the more happy.

Do not think of settling this case somehow by taking loans beyond your normal means just to buy peace and re-settle. Speaking of re-settling, beware of appearing like a weakling who cannot take pain and struggle and broke down under pressure to your prospective fiancée. If the new lady in your life knows how weak you had been in past, she will lose no time in threatening you with similar consequences again at the slightest request of adjustment. Remember, you just proved the world that you had been an easy target and can be intimidated within marriage or coerced into giving huge amounts to free yourself from wife-induced pain.

But imagine the case wherein you put a strong defence against your 498a wife, made them desperate for peace and eventually gave them only a fraction of amount they initially demanded. Your future wife knows well that if she takes this line of action, she is equally doomed to the same fate.

Do not rue about your unfulfilled marital life and how everybody in your circle are apparently enjoying marital bliss. Living a solitary life is still infinitely better than cohabiting with a nasty, cruel and narcissistic woman who insults you, humiliates you and abuses you day in and out. You may not be a happily married man, but you are not an unhappy man trapped in marriage either, which is more painful. Compare yourself with other men, who suffer daily torrent of abuse and long for a day when death finally relieves them of all this pain.

Fight them back to the finish. Remember, everything will pass, even this.

The male equivalent of marital rape

Men and women bring different things to the marital table. Thus, the relation is much more than same-sex civil partnership, it is complementary in nature.

Whereas man must provide provisioning and protection to his wife and their children, the wife in return must give him respect, nurture him, and provide him regular sex. Even today, after years of feminist progress, this remains the norm. While women have started earning, a major chunk of household finances are still managed by men. Most household works and child rearing are managed by women although too men have started to contribute their bit.

Those who scoff at this idea that wife must provide husband sex, should realize that sex is a very powerful motivation for men and most work hard to make themselves eligible for marriage. Those with little societal/ financial standing will find it very difficult to get married. Since marriage is where one is generally assured of regular sex, many work harder and improve their profile just to get married to the best woman he can afford for his level.

Today, women have started earning big time, but they still marry up a man who’s higher than her in social and financial status. So women still expect their men to be the primary caretaker of home. So, traditional marriage is not about equal partnership, it is complementary and synergic partnership. (I say traditional, because same-sex marriage is legally sanctioned in many parts of world, and the dynamics here alter radically).

So when a woman marries, she has already consented for sex with her husband as long as the marriage endures. Sounds sexist? Just because she says “yes”, doesn’t mean you stop asking? Just because it’s husband, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t rape?

If wife can withdraw sex, can husband withdraw provisioning? How will feminists feel about that? If marriage is like any other business partnership, if one renegades from mutually agreed terms, why can’t the other? If wife can sue her husband for having sex without her consent, can man sue her wife for theft for using his money without his consent?

Sounds crass? The very existence of rape laws itself implies that men and women are unequal by nature as it assumes that men can force themselves on women easily statistically. Lest you come up with examples where women are prosecuted for rape, rest assured its far and few in between and mostly in cases where the male is juvenile.

How easy is it for a man to get justice for being raped? Contrast this with what happens when a woman complains. A man is promptly arrested, denied easy bail on the strength of a complaint alone, with no corroborating evidence.

A careful look at feminist progress in laws makes it amply clear that they’re so designed that man’s part of marital duties are legally enforceable, remain effective after separation and even divorce. But women not only don’t have any legally-enforceable marital duties, they’re in fact rewarded when they break the relation for their own selfish reason such as wanting to live with a lover now.

Women not respecting marital vows are called empowered. Men not respecting those very vows that wife has long discarded are punished as harassers as in “financial harassment” of Domestic Violence Act.

What difference does the innocence of husband make when he’s charged with 498a, Domestic Violence Case today? Irrespective of his innocence, a man once accused has to face the music. Whereas in 498a, the burden of evidence has been placed on husband, the Domestic Violence Act surreptitiously removes the necessity of proving harassment to receive the maintenance and residence orders.

The net result is that the innocence of husband is of no consequence once the wife feels like not respecting her marital vows. The man is safe only as long as his wife is attracted to him. Once he loses her attraction, nothing can be done to save him from the nuclear weapons that feminists have handed her.

Guilty until proven innocent, and nothing proves you innocent !

The case for marital rape is usually framed as wife having the right to say ‘no’ to husband and her consent being essential even within marriage. That ‘marriage is no license to rape’.

The central argument that an offence remains offence even within marriage, sounds commonsensical. Just because marriage is a private affair, the offences against wife cannot be considered such. Based on this argument, feminists throughout the world successfully lobbied to recognize ‘domestic violence’ as criminal offence as against private, civil matter earlier.

So far, so good. But here begins the story.

That ‘marriage is no license for rape/violence/cruelty etc’ is perfectly fine on paper. But ‘domestic violence’ by its very nature has to occur within closed doors where third-party witness can hardly be expected. An objective evidence of harassment, isn’t possible in these cases. Except in cases of murder or physical violence, its highly improbable that evidence to nail husband beyond reasonable doubt is procured.

To combat this, the feminists had insidiously lobbied for claims to be substituted for proof. In India, the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused, the husband. In total contravention to criminal laws, the onus to prove is now on accused, not accuser.

Under the expanded definition of domestic violence, physical violence isn’t its only form. Among them is also ‘psychological violence’, which in practice means any dissatisfied wife can claim to be subjected to it, without needing to show any evidence. Given the intangibility of accusation, the husband has no means to disprove it (and the burden is on him).

When attention is drawn to wife misuse of the earlier women-empowerment laws, namely 498A and PWDVA, we’re asked to prove it. So ironically, evidence is asked of the misuse of laws which are inherently designed to bypass the need of evidence from women.

Only after facing the pre-trail terror of 498A  does evidence finally come into picture. The husband after undergoing trail for 4-5 years may finally be acquitted. But acquittal doesn’t absolve him of providing maintenance, despite the fault lying with wife and not him. In DVC, women are almost always given interim maintenance and only in stray cases where the misuse is too blatant to ignore is it refused.

Feminists would want us to believe that legal retaliation for false case is possible when it is proved false. Pursue perjury, they suggest. Let us get this correct: Wife requires newly drafted draconian laws which can send husband/in-laws to jail immediately without providing an iota of proof. But husbands should fall back on outdated, tedious, toothless provisions to fight back.

And this after fighting 4-5 year long legal battle? And if acquittal is contested, this could go up to 10 years or more. So husbands should, after long years of harassment, try to invoke some obscure laws to get justice. Whatever happened to ‘justice delayed is justice denied’! Unfortunately, even this is hardly viable as we shall shortly see.

We’re told, the high rate of acquittal doesn’t imply false cases. True, inadequate evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt can lead to acquittal. Except that the high rate of acquittal (around 85%) means that at least those many husbands/in-laws were harassed without proper supporting evidence.

When at this point it is accepted that proving these cases is hard, why were the laws made criminal and draconian in first place? When it is known that successful conviction is highly difficult and bound to be rare, why were they implemented at all? What purpose did such a law serve at all, except stripping men of their basic rights and making them extremely vulnerable to ‘legal terrorism’ by their wives.

Further, by feminist logic, acquittals aren’t false cases, so the question of perjury doesn’t arise. Acquittal, by their own admission, doesn’t naturally imply that the case was false. Even assuming that after an exhausting battle spanning years, a husband is still inclined to spend some more years in courts to seek justice, it is highly unlikely that it can convincingly be established as a case of perjury (given no-evidence zone of the whole matter).

The marital rape law can hardly be expected to be any different from these laws in design and intent.

Yes, she can say ‘no’. Problem is when she first says ‘yes’ and later says ‘it was actually no last night’. How do feminists propose to legally differentiate between the two scenarios? By taking the word of wife for granted, and discarding what the husband has to say as in previous laws?

Once accused, under no circumstances can a man get true justice (legal retribution). The best he can expect is acquittal after torturous legal process. The woman, of course, can never be touched.

Once accused, forever damned. Can feminists cite a scenario where once accused, a man is considered totally innocent, both legally and morally?

Seen in this light, it very clear that feminists want to ensure that men have no ability to defend themselves against women under any circumstances.  Their aim is to have a legal system in place that makes it easy and safe for women to abuse men.

PS: This shouldn’t be taken as endorsing marital rape. Opposing a vaguely worded ‘anti-terrorism law’ that makes innocent citizens vulnerable to abuse, isn’t same as endorsing terrorism.

Is marriage really sacred in India?

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

The statement by Haribhai Chaudhary, Minister of State for Home, that marriage is considered sacred in India and hence the concept of marital rape cannot be applied here sparked a deluge of angry comments from many.

Let us examine this statement in light of today’s reality. The sacredness of marriage should ideally imply that both wife and husband should be equally constrained to maintain the bond despite persisting problems. That both of them cannot severe the bond at their will and only where exceptional circumstances are proved beyond doubt can an authority (judiciary here) divorce them.

If husband wants divorce, long years of trail await him during which time he is legally obligated to maintain his wife (failing which punitive measures can be initiated against him).  If he’s unable to prove that any of grounds of divorce apply to him, he’ll be denied divorce even after those many years. Even if divorce is granted, he is still obligated to pay the wife maintenance (either permanent or monthly), despite the fault lying with wife and not him. Clearly, the husband is paying for the belief that marriage is sacred.

But aren’t women too, you may ask? All that today’s woman needs to do to arm-twist an unwilling husband to concede to divorce is to whisper ‘498A’. No sane husband can be impervious to a 498A threat, because not just him but all his family members are at risk of being thrown into jail. If a foolhardy husband still does not yield to divorce demand, a complaint by wife and ensuing humiliation of him and his family will put better sense into him. A subsequent case like Domestic Violence Case will ensure that he finally gives up.

Also note that an abusive wife can force husband to continue relation using 498A threat. In many cases, men surrender. In rare cases where unable to endure further abuse man applies for divorce, a malafide retaliation using 498A, DVC etc follows. Isn’t it clear that men are doubly tied to ensure the ‘sacredness’ of marriage?

Clearly women do not carry any responsibility of upholding the concept of sacredness of marriage in India. The entire weight of this ‘sacredness’ is borne by men alone, while women are not only at liberty to shrug off this responsibility any time they wish but are actually rewarded for breaking this ‘sacredness’ through legally-enforced maintenance payments.

The Hon’ble Minister should, instead of taking recourse to this ‘sacredness of marriage’ notion, have responded by saying that already wives have powerful legal weapons at their disposal that punish husband and his family even before trail begins, based on mere complaint with no proofs required. That the existing draconian laws which substitute allegation for evidence have already subjected many innocent men to ‘legal terrorism’, and no additional tools to further harass men are required at this stage.