THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005/2007 … – Evil no longer lurking in the shadows!

WARNING: ADULT THEME – SOME ADULT CONTENT (Viewer In-descretion Advised).

Henpecked husbands require Madam’s prior consent …

A major step backward for gender equality; A giant leap forward for Male Enslavement:     “Oh! Oh! Grab your ankles, guys! Here comes Dominatrix! Pray it doesn’t hurt!”

IS INDIA MAKING AMENDS FOR “MALE DOMINATION” AND “FEMALE SERVITUDE”?

The issues the ‘law’ sets out to abate are cultural fallouts of the medieval if not prehistoric era. Almost all civilized societies regard domestic violence toward women a serious and expensive impediment to progress; in fact, quite rightfully, a punishable crime. The problem I see with this ‘law’ is in the manner in which it is written and the choice of non-standard locution that betrays gender biased intent. Women are not the exclusive victims of domestic abuse/violence. The crime is nondiscriminating and applicable across the board to all cohabitants (combatants?) regardless of gender and age. But with more and even more laws popping up that twist the interpretation of “Domestic Abuse”, “Domestic Violence”, “Aggrieved Victim”, “degrading” treatment, etc., etc., ad infinitum and commandeer its applicability as well as enforcement mandates almost exclusively to benefit women, therein is created a favorable climate for rampant abuse, extortion, corruption and imbalanced, carte blanc power to suppress voices in protest. So, IS THIS ‘LAW’ LEGAL? Please read on …

I was recently approached by a lawyer acquaintance soliciting my input on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005; ideas on how to put some ‘bite’ in the Law (as if its claws, fangs, muscle and determination is coming a bit short of expectations). Below is a brief text of my response.

NECESSARY (CYA) WEASEL DISCLAIMER:

My thoughts hereunder should not be interpreted as advice of any sort; it is merely an opinion (and everyone has one of those!). The intent is to put it out to affected victims in the community and provoke some serious deliberations on this important legislation which, I believe, dilutes constitutional guarantees of Privacy, impacts radically upon one’s views about matrimony, and contaminates the integrity of the ‘traditional’ family unit – and, yet again, puts on exhibit the unique wisdom of our chosen legislators.

VASELINE COATED SPINOSE SUPPOSITORY:

It seems that previous legislation of similar color, which were discretely tucked away in secret crevices of laws of equity (more notably the lopsided provisions of 498a IPC), have now shredded their outer dermis of purported sanctimoniousness, fair play, balance and mushroomed way out of proportion into a distinctly partial, menacing, gender-biased, reptilian Goliath slithering ruthlessly toward a sinister agenda; The agenda being far from achieving equality before the law, but discriminatory, gender-privileged treatment as a “lawful” right (sanctioned contrary to the spirit of law).

REVENGE BY PROXY: and “How to be a self-serving control freak and mess up your home life in a few easy steps just like we did”!! by Padma Predator & Assoc.

Even more ridiculous is the fact that the role-model flag bearers of this ‘law’ generally come from a background of failed, acrimonious marriages with an axe to grind, bequeathing their married kinfolk with strategic ‘Tips & Tricks’ and the ‘tools’ (whips and chains!) to create domestic harmony! Wouldn’t you say the intrinsic elements giving form to this proposal is facially flawed and a lot less reliable than the treatise, “The Joys of Sex” if written by a virgin?

This ‘law’ reflects an authorship of embittered rejects from the institution of marriage taking yet another retaliatory shot thru’ yet another redundant ‘law’.  Although the purported justification/social necessity, etc., influencing enactment certainly appear honorable and benign, the wording betrays deeper surreptitious motives and partisanship. Under this sly façade is concealed, not just the TRUE motives for gender one-upmanship, but far reaching social consequences that as yet have not been responsibly assessed or explored in terms of adverseness or collective benefit.

A cursory, unbiased reading of this “Law” (See Link: http://mahilaayog.maharashtra.gov.in/new/pdf/domestic_voilence_act_05.pdf ,

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/01spec.htm) , will convince anyone that it offers the woman a ‘free ride’: laxity, even exemption from her domestic/marital responsibilities, and blanket immunity from any manner of consequential remonstration whatsoever! Concurrently, it empowers her with near absolute entitlement to crack the whip at her husband and all other serfs in her newly seized domain; even have them ‘exiled’ (evicted) on any pretext and for any perceived objection, which the police and courts are enjoined to penalize long before a finding of guilt! (Let’s make room for another soiled item in the laundry list of ‘non-bailable offences’, and bid adieu to the few scattered remnants of the fundamental maxim of justice: ‘A person is innocent until proven otherwise’!).

IGNORANCE BREEDS BLISSFUL VICTIMS?!

Adolph Hitler once opined, “What good fortune for governments that the people do not think …. It is a quite special secret pleasure how the people around us fail to realize what is really happening to them ….” This observation is certainly applicable here:

Our ‘chauvinistic’ men folk, have customarily been but p*ssy-whopped ‘pushovers’, demonstrating a proclivity toward chivalry! But, in seeing to the protection, comfort, and security of our women (as one might accord to a domesticated pet?), have also been accused of stifling women’s potential for intellectual growth, productivity, recognition, etc., etc., and securing their shackles to the divinely decreed role of the supportive housewife. But as we move on forward with time, and align ourselves to what’s in vogue and ‘politically correct’, we cannot help but voice agreement with the hue and cry of Feminists throughout history; that Providence’s choice on the designated role for women is intrinsically discriminatory and oppressive, and should be amended thru’ majority vote (after all, there are billions of us and only ONE of Him! Right? RIGHT!!).

“OF HUMAN BONDAGE”!

Why shouldn’t women be encouraged to venture out as well, and bust their derriere working for a living? The concept of the ‘I.T. era Wife’ has long since mutated from being ‘barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen’ to the Madam that ‘wears the pants’ in the family. Women ‘wearing the pants’ is just fine with most households; the problem emanates from the difficulty of her being able to relieve herself while standing masculine and erect without making a mess of things. Sexist statement? Not really; because it generates some understanding, acceptance, if not debate on the validity of traditional leanings on gender based social roles.

And, now, if the sacrifice in working for a living is too burdensome, why shouldn’t women exercise latitude to freeload off others in the extended family without so much as raising any defiant eyebrows, or usurp her husband’s residential property, as an exclusive, automatic bequeathal supplemental to matrimony? Pretty damn slick, Slick!

Doesn’t that appear to be the perfect scenario for a happy parasite? Not really! Most parasites are gluttonous; they want more, and even more until the host is drained of the last drop of livelihood and dignity. And then they move on to greener pastures: another unwary schmuck caught with his pants down!

This ‘law’ nurtures a tempting climate weakening any leanings the woman may have had on nobility, family honor, dignity, self-respect, etc., since it alters the very definition of those values and linked expectations. The PWDV Act 2005/2007 …, masquerading as a reconciliatory move toward domestic harmony, actually represents a strong-arm mechanism for predatory females to exact instant reprisal for their long years of perceived ‘servitude’ to ‘male domination’. Far from being progressive and socially productive, it possesses all the elements catalytic to empowerment of one gender over the other allowing plenty room for abuse in a nation where corruption is colloquially synonymous with justice.

ROOM FOR ARGUMENT:

I’ve always maintained there should be some room given for argument in close relationships. Arguments, within reason, are healthy for relationships. Through them, the other person is appraised of a different, alternate opinion and just how strongly one feels about it. Arguments are powerful means of communication, and a showing of one’s commitment to the mission at hand. Thru’ arguments and debate one recognizes the other’s private stance on a particular issue, learns to express themselves, and, in so doing, generates acclaim, self worth, and a rewarding feeling of participation and accomplishment.

But when arguments are let loose, un-tethered and unresponsive to reason; when, ‘communication’ is but a slanderous exchange of venom that lessens one’s worth and image, when healthy arguments are replaced by acts of intimidation, coercion, physical persuasion, cliquishness, bullying especially at a partner to whom a moral and ethical commitment was made assuring protection, security, care, we see the very same means which solidifies relationships has now assumed a frightening appearance.

But even more frightening is the constant presence of the government’s compliance mechanism in our private and intimate lives; of living perpetually under the gun of a privileged, extrajudicial ‘agent’ of the government anointed with broad powers but with whimsical tendencies and a shaky trigger finger.

With a staggering illiteracy rate, it’s no surprise such laws are routinely scrubbed into our cultural fabric with little or no attention given to consequences. To be fair, one can’t really blame our legislators; they merely represent the level of intellect of the voting public. But, absent clearly defined standards in the ‘law’, what does our learned Judiciary have to go on by to avoid verdicts flawed by laxity and whimsical, personal prejudices that go against the grain of the Constitution they’ve sworn to protect?

WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION – TERRORISM:

The PWDV Act 2005/2007 … is realistically a functional prototype of forthcoming progressively more sophisticated and discriminatory Weapons of Mass Destruction disguised as law and should be recognized as such. It has almost unbridled potential for fueling misunderstandings, creating unrealistic demands, poisoning relationships, and widening the gender gap at whim! This is but one anticipated forerunner of yet others to come flaunting manicured claws, incisive fangs, and legal muscle to trample the spirit, dignity, livelihood of the majority group of tax payers (who happen to be men), and summarily stifle their indignant yelps because, now, any showing of protest is ridiculously easy to criminalize.

“Hats Off” (and “Pants Down!”) to a well planned conspiracy!

Please don’t read me wrong (Better yet, please don’t read me right!): I happen to be a card-carrying feminist to the core (VISA card) trapped in this ugly man’s body, just dying to break free from the shackles of testosterone! LOL. Nevertheless, it is well recognized in the civilized world that such ‘Women Empowerment’ movements are vehicles of oppression piloted toward exacting perverted revenge on an entire group of individuals for error(s) attributed to some unfortunate bastard who may have ruffled the feathers, in the way distant past, of a (possibly deserving) misanthropic thespian flaunting designer crutches of victimization but set on a mission of castigation (castration?!). Why not just resort to accepted forms of political protest, e.g., bra/corset burning, for crying out loud -  PRETTY PLEASE WITH A (popped) CHERRY ON TOP – instead of giving Feminism a bad name? Just curious ….

One must agree that such extraordinary, gender biased governmental ‘controls’ are undoubtedly sanctioned acts of consanguine Terrorism: an unconstitutional intrusion into one’s private nuptial chamber holding disastrous consequences. It is excessive to say the least, and detracts from the spirit of togetherness, marital unity, and reciprocity in trust. It infuses instead the overbearing presence of intimidation and allows easy ingress to extortion, blackmail, and the distinctive pong of opportunism – not to mention it being a serious impediment to intimacy and ‘conjugal gratification’! Look at it this way: How in heck can you perform with Big Brother choreographing and critiquing your every darn move, eh? Know’wum’Sayin’? Mercy, Dudettes!!

This “Law” is deliberately overbroad, ambiguous, and vacillates to a wide range of non-standard colloquialism giving rise to inferences that are just as expansive, unfocused, and individualized; from the sublime to the ridiculous! For instance, what EXACTLY  is ‘sexually degrading’ to an ‘aggrieved’ female cohabitant? Fellatio? (There’s already a law against that! It is viewed as “sex against the order of nature” per 377 IPC). Canine-Inspired Coition on ‘all fours’? (‘Law’ forthcoming, with a punitive enhancement for barking!). Unreciprocated Genital manipulation? (Perhaps using gloves would be sufficiently impersonal not to render the act intimate or criminal!). Leaving the woman frustrated and in want? (Try the time-tested, “Oops!” or “Damn!” or “Sorry, Honey! I’ll try harder next time!”).

What sort of evidence would prompt a conviction: X-Rated DVD’s or the exclusive statement of the ‘aggrieved prosecutrex’ (in a similar vein as rape trials are often adjudicated) since ‘it is well established that a woman of honor will not subject herself to suffer embarrassment and public humiliation by admitting to nuptial horrors in court”? YEA RIGHT!!

TAINTED PROFITS – TRAVESTY:

The PWDV Act 2005/2007 … has created yet another source for tainted profits by further sanctifying the entrepreneurship of extortion and blackmail. The corruption we’re finding commonplace and painful enough to deal with outside our residence, in government, ‘Justice’ Systems, etc., has now established a ‘lawful’ standing in our family relationships, our homes, and in our very bedroom!

So, what more crippling surprises are in store for the disillusioned male?

The PDV Act 2005/2007 … is a travesty in gaudy gift-wrapping. There are already a multitude of laws covering almost all concerns the PDVA purports to address. But one must recognize the salient feature of this particularly irresponsible sham is that it is parasitic: it has annexed selected rights and protections previously accorder to all, and made them more applicable and exclusive to ‘aggrieved’ women, and their children who have not as yet developed the capacity of mature, independent reasoning.

Here’s some food for thought: Why limit these ‘protections’ exclusively to heterosexual cohabitants? Does the law consider homosexuals, lesbians, and other sections of productive society who’re inclined toward ‘alternate’ preferences as second class citizens, thus, unworthy of equal protection under the law as it has already decreed for men?

Oops! I almost forgot: existing statutes DO consider the practise of homosexuality/sodomy as being ‘against the order of nature’; thus, a punishable crime! I’m not too sure about lesbianism. It’s probably exempt from censure since it involves women trying to do a man’s job – and possibly being better at it! So go figure!

The PWDV Act 2005/2007 … is a vague “law”: it stinks of arbitraryness:

THEREFORE, IT IS NO LAW! IT HAS NO LEGAL WORTH, IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS, AND SHOULD BE SUMMARILY STRUCKEN DOWN.

Also check out “Excerpts And Judgments To Fight Domestic Violence Act Cases”. Link:
http://ipc498a.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/citations-from-judgments-to-win-dv-act-cases/

(And now I’ll proceed to tackle the pre-defined masculine chores around the house, starting with the dirty dishes; then cooking, sweeping, mending clothes, laundry, etc., and pray the ol’ lady don’t get to read what I wrote!!). “Coming, Dear …. and, YES! You’ve lost quite a bit of weight since the last time you asked me, two hours ago!”

POST SCRIPT:

I make no attempt to be politically correct or tone down my message diluting its potency, ‘in good taste’, thru’ fashionable euphemisms. If the price of ‘in-the-face’ blunt opinion is an appearance of proletarian vulgarity, so be it!  As long as my opinion carries with it elements of reasonableness and some persuasive “Oomph”!

I invite you to make an unbiased, independent, informed opinion.

I recall this passage by someone I admire: “We are all of us entitled to enjoy our lives in peace and plenty. There is no reason why we can’t all of us enjoy a bountiful life without conflict or want. Too often, however, our prosperity and joy are stolen from us by the effects of law. Too often law is neither fair nor sane. Too often law is a handmaid to those who have placed themselves as rulers over us, proclaiming by legislation and court decision what’s best for us, for our families, and for our friends. Too often law is corrupt. Too often law seeks the favors of a special few and, in the process, becomes a whore or coddles the favor of the majority and becomes a fool. Too often law is little more than the decision of a mob. Too often law is a tool by which elitists seek to re-make civilization according to their private view of what’s best for all. And too often we, the people, do nothing to resist or redirect these forces that seek to steal from us our heritage of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Professor Graves.

In this context, it would be prudent to take a second look at PWDVA and decide whether this ‘law’, and similar laws, are legal!

THE POLICE’S LATEST HITS: FRONTIER JUSTICE? [Warning: SCARY THEME - GRAPHIC CONTENT]

“POLICE WORK IS A DIRTY JOB. BUT SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT!”

(Popular saying amongst dirty cops doing a dirty job).

For quite some time now, there has been a conspiracy unfolding from within the “Khaki Fraternity” that has manifested in the establishment of a sinister, alternate system of enforcing Law and civic order: An underground Bohemian system tangential from conventional, customary practices prescribed by governing Law.

This is a visible state of affairs but its working mechanism is enshrouded and jealously guarded. Or, at best, never formally admitted to for fear of breaking a sacred, secret trust. Nevertheless, this disparate system of administering and enforcing public order has seized for itself a pivotal sphere of influence over Indian society claiming exemption from the confines of the Constitution.

Despite all the textbook statutory safeguards in place, one quickly realizes these to be notional, toothless and cowering in the shadows for they are routinely circumvented with impunity. But is this not to be expected when you let the fox guard the chicken? If perchance there ensues a major brouhaha and trenchant, conscientious journalism, a tiny, select sampling of police criminals may be held to answer — a nominal showing to appease the gullible citizenry and the shocked World community.

But simultaneously at work are invisible hands of policy-influencing powerhouses that control the political and administrative machinery of our government, which render clandestine support to these, their “fallen comrades” …. and reprisal for “interfering”. Rajnish Rai, a Dy. Inspector General in the State Crime Records Bureau, instrumental in the arrest of suspended IPS officers D.G. Vansara and Rajkumar Pandian (a la Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter Case) was declared as having failed all subjects in his LL.B. (Law) exam. Rai was found “guilty” on the basis of University Rule that prohibits during exams any writings on a foot-ruler (even graffiti by Rai’s 4-yr old son, which has no relevance to Law or the exam). See Link http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/ips-officer-found-guilty-of-using-unfair-means-in-llb-examination-declared-failed/314469/.

Arbitrariness and favoritism in personnel practices has promoted criminalization within the police and given rise to an exclusive, fearsome breed of power-drunk psycho cops. It often becomes difficult to distinguish between the cop and his alter ego, the gangster. Likewise, being left unbridled, it becomes just as difficult (actually, cumbersome) for such cops to walk the straight and narrow line.

Extrajudicial methods of “policing”, particularly “encounter” killings, have proliferated as a viable and expeditious solution to a broad spectrum of both official and private nuisances.

The sordid details characterizing such incidents rarely come to light; if they do, it’s only a tiny “flash in the pan”, soon to be forgotten. And the practice continues on unabated with renewed gusto (and greater secrecy) encouraged by public apathy.

Such murders, by a magical stroke of the Police pen, are anointed, by the trusting judiciary’s rubber stamp, with a cloak of legitimacy and subsequently referred to as Police response to unprovoked, armed “encounters”.

Case in point: The abduction and vendetta killing of extortionist Sohrabuddin Sheikh on November 26, 2005 by the Gujarat Anti-Terrorist Squad. He was later fraudulently labeled a member of the militant Lashkar-e-Taiba. Shortly thereafter, they murdered his wife Kauserbi and an uninvolved traveling companion torching and disposing them so as to purge evidence. See Link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorial/Criminal_Cops/rssarticleshow/1986009.cms

Several senior police officers from different states, including Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh, as well as high placed politicians are suspected to be involved in the murders. So far only three ranking IPS officers have been arrested: Border Range DIG (Dy. Inspector General of Police) D.G. Vanjhara, Superintendent (Operations) Raj Kumar Pandian, and Superintendent M.N. Dinesh. This is merely the tip of the iceberg.

As the investigation unfolds, we are told that D.G. Vanzara was paid to kill Sohrabuddin Sheikh by Rajasthan’s influential marble lobby! Vanzara was himself moonlighting, running a successful extortion racket staffed by Rajkumar Pandiyan, KM Vaghela, GL Singhal and other policemen. Sources in victimized families indicated Vanzara and his associates would, for a consideration, release criminals accused even of serious crimes, including murder, when the right price was paid to Vanzara’s syndicate.

One of the accused in the Sohrabuddin murders, Gujarat Asst. Commissioner Narendra Kumar Amin had visited Hyderabad on Nov. 1, 2004 to arrest and extradite Moulana Naseeruddin who was wanted in Gujarat. A group of protesters at the State’s DGP’s Office were dealt with indiscriminate gun fire from Narendra Kumar that killed 20-year-old Mujahid Salim Islahi. A murder case (No. 883/04) was registered against Narendra Kumar Amin at the Saifabad police station. The then ACP Jagan Mohan Reddy claims to have “investigated” the case, but it was not pursued very far for reasons best known to people who really know the reasons!

FOR DETAILS, SEE:http://newsrack.in/browse?owner=lawrenceliang&issue=Encounter%20Killings&catID=5&start=2315 http://newsrack.in/browse?issue=Encounter+Killings&catID=7&owner=lawrenceliang http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1094366 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Murder_case_in_AP_against_Gujarat_cop/rssarticleshow/1994523.cms

As expected, the court-ordered investigation into the Sohrabuddin Fake “Encounter” Case is up against obstacles from within the Chain of Command. The DIG of CID (Crimes) Rajneesh Rai, assigned to investigate the murder was served written directives from the Gujarat State Director General P.C. Pande that strategically limits his investigatory powers and effectively stymies any prospect of a truthful disposition and its disclosure to the public. Mr. Rai “should seek prior permission from higher-ups, including himself, while taking major decisions in the matter including arrest, permission for forensic tests, searches, future line of investigations and custodial interrogations.” Link: http://www.ibnlive.com/news/digdgp-tussle-in-fake-encounter-case/39642-3.html?xml

The notoriety generated by the Sohrabuddin incident is encouraging families of several other suspected “encounter” victims to come forth with petitions for court-ordered investigations. It’ll be interesting to see how these are disposed with.

There are serious allegations of involvement of the Andhra Pradesh State Police and its collusion with the Gujarat State agency in effecting the extra judicial killing of the three suspects. The official A.P. State position to allegations of conspiracy is a straight faced denial. A.P. State DGP M.A. Basith (thankfully retired since then) indicated that it certainly is normal practice for police of one State to assist colleagues from another State in criminal investigations and intelligence dissemination. But in this particular case, Basith emphatically denied any such interaction occurring. . He indicated further, that if the requesting Agency were to misuse any information – assistance offered, the Host Agency (i.e., A.P. State Police) would be guiltless. [Hypothetically, quite correct. Unless both sister Agencies were of single purpose].

Since the final phase of trailing the suspects, their capture, and abduction to Vilasrao’s murder retreat commenced in Hyderabad, surely the A.P. State Police were aware of visiting Task Force personnel from another State being lodged in Police Officers Mess in Hyderabad? Yet no one questioned, “Why” or exchanged any pertinent information relative to a critical mission of official visitors from an allied Police Agency?

Psycho_Pussy

Naturally, one wonders why, in this specific case, the “normal practice” of information/intelligence sharing between State Agencies was curiously disregarded especially in view of the fact that information was obviously available and the Gujarat police team responsible for the murders, utilized Hyderabad as a transitory Base of Operations.

Could it be that the public is being deliberately protected from Truth? Could it be that the sobering Truth, Folks, relates to matters much bigger than some two-bit racketeers being bumped off by other two-bit uniform wearing racketeers. The Truth is frightfully evident in this saga: There exists an animate, visible, ruthless, powerful, self-gratifying system of governance that has turned predator on the very populace that created it in the first place. Our apathy created it; now our continued apathy nurtures it. The irony is that it has, by and large, gained a conspicuous foothold amongst the masses.

But, for just one imaginary moment, let’s shelve our antiquated value system and standard of justice defined by the Constitution; Let’s flirt with some treasonous “outside the Box” thinking, and ponder on the merits of radical, extra-conventional resolutions to the complexities inherent in a purportedly democratic society such as ours:

The observant among us will recognize that government-anointed extra judicial death squads are certainly a viable law enforcement tool in a variety of troubling situations. For one thing, they represent a serious threat to dissent and mercifully spare the already overburdened jail and court systems from further strain. One notable “troubling situation” under decisive control, which comes immediately to mind, is the almost smothered Naxallite presence in Andhra Pradesh State thanks to the judicious utilization of the extra judicial “encounter” remedy. Do we see any likelihood of it being officially established as a versatile tonic to redress a wide range of time-sensitive social maladies at some point in future?

It would be interesting to learn whether this “law” enforcement strategy is being applied indiscriminately, as a generic, instant “Fix” for the community’s radicals or reserved exclusively for the chosen few? Just how frequently are our protectors resorting to this measure? And how much longer for our anonymous, masked crusaders to step out from the shadows flaunting that crisp black uniform, the silver Swastika and Iron Cross?