In one of the cases of rape, the Supreme Court was seen acquitting the accused, also the uncle for a raping 14-yr old.
Why?
Because she was later married to him.
In a bizarre judgment of the Supreme Court, which clearly pointed out the patriarchal thinking 'Legal Fraternity'.
The facts of the case are that the man, maternal uncle, raped a girl of 14-yr. Thereafter, she was married to him and eventually had two children with him at the age of 15 and 17. She is now 20 yr old and the question that arose before Supreme Court is whether the accused/now-husband/now-father should be punished or not?
The argument began with the judge asking the advocate of the rape sufferer, "Mr Counsel, Why do you want to ruin the happy marriage by punishing the accused?"
As I was shocked to hear just this, it was rather more shocking to see that for the next few minutes the main concern of the court was whether this marriage is valid or not as if rape was the least of their concern.
Eventually, the rape offender was acquitted on the ground that 'what will happen to the family and children after he goes to jail?' 'Who will earn for the "family"?'
Now, before I say go ahead and tell others what's so wrong with this to those who already can't see it, it is important to note that both the parties belong to the very marginalized Valayar community of Tamil Nadu. Both the very uneducated, offender a daily labourer, and the sufferer will only be reduced to a housewife for the rest of her life.
She had to leave her studies after 9th standard because of the rape and pregnancy.
The accused denied the paternity of the child and refused to accept the offence and thereafter agreed to marry the victim girl, which itself clearly shows his motive of marriage and does not deserve any leniency.
What's wrong what the decision?
It's crazy to see how none of the people could even imagine that she could be capable of living on her own, independent life and she could raise the children. But it's possible for her to live a happy life with her rapist.
Like, haven't you heard of single mothers?
Sure life is hard and seems impossible but it is still better than making a 20-yr old, poor girl live with her rapist also her maternal uncle for the rest of her life.
Why is it hard for people to believe women can't do hard things?
The judgement states that she was asked whether she is happy or not and she did say she was doing fine.
But I would just put it this way those are not even good options. It's like asking to choose between the devil and deep sea and calling it a "free and happy choice."
According to the latest NCRB data, approximately 92% of the time the offender is known to the sufferer in case of sexual abuse.
90% of the time, it's going to be a relative, an uncle, a friend, a family friend.
In the case of India, where 2/3 people live in poverty, most sufferers are going to be poor and unable to earn for themselves. (and Rich ones don't even report the rape).
So are we setting the narrative that it's okay to get the rape sufferer married to the offender because she is poor and can't earn for herself?
Shouldn't we work on making them self reliant and independent?
Shouldn't we be working on making these rape sufferers believe that there is life right ahead of them and at the age of 20 and they can do a lot of things in their life?
However, judgement clearly states that this will not be a precedent. It still doesn't safeguard future judgements from patriarchal thinking.
We are normalizing and setting an example that it's okay to get the rape sufferer married to the rape offender because her dignity has been questioned after the rape and the only way to protect her is that she only have sexual intercourse with one man only. So let's get her married.
Why do we need to normalize and not get angry at such marriages? Such marriages are a reality in India and all they deserve is anger from society.
This just doesn't make the society a problematic place but it makes sufferers feel so hopeless after the rape that they cannot do anything, everything is finished and the only way to live the life is to marry their rapist.
That's not her belief, that's the society making her belief.
Why do we have to believe and make her believe that there is no option and no life ahead of her?
Why didn't the government come to her rescue? The rather good alternative was to award compensation to the sufferer and allow her to develop her skill so she could earn for herself and her kids.
Was it too difficult to consider and too much to ask for from the government?
Is she even of the right age to decide if she wants to be married or want motherhood or not?
Was it that she was woman so it was assumed that she would want the kids and marriage?
However, the harsh reality is government refused to provide any compensation or support to the sufferer. Why the advocates didn't seek compensation under Victim Compensation Fund. Even though the courts have previously allowed compensation in the catena of judgements under the scheme.
Why the judges couldn't allow compensation themselves?
This remains unanswered.
Even if the offender is set free, why is he meant to live with the sufferer?
Will, she not be reminded of hopelessness every day?
A lot would agree and a lot would be furious with the judgment. But one thing is crystal clear to me, we Indians need to raise the bar of our idea of "happy marriage" and "happiness" and "free choice".
Comments