MyNation Foundation – News

News Articles from MyNation, india – News you can use

Archive for April 8th, 2007

Act won’t hit good hubbies – Counter Statistics

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

News from IBN live:
 
In the above video2, this participant ruler of the
country clearly knows 98% cases of IPC-498a (dowry law) i.e, 98% misuse of
dowry laws.
what is 98% MISUSE  by dowry law means?:
 
1) Every year atleast 50,000 families (out of 70,000
police FIRs on 498a) for nearly 15+ yrs (total 7 lkhs 50,000 families or around
0.5 crore people) including intellectuals of the country (5%
intellectuals creates 65% infrastructure in most countries) who are
responsible for the infrastructure of the country(like scientists, phds,
engineers, doctors) wasted their precious time, value, money for 5 to 8
yrs(minimum time it takes in any court for dowry law in india) declared as
innocents by hight courts/supremecourts/session courts. These ppl lost faith,
trust on the justice system and governance of the country. Many out of these ppl
(very elders) depressed, died, diseased, lived in fear cursing at courts at old
age before dying. See how the resources of the country wasted for nothing. who
is responsible for this? Is this the way country use/d intellectuals or
resources for the country.
 
No one cares poor real suffering several women who not
even inside this 100% 498a cases.
 

Pls. see the real statistics here how many men die before marriage and
how many die after marriage:
It states that – “The distribution of suicides by marital status
reveals some interesting patterns. The rates do not vary
much between the sexes for the never married
. Among those currently
married, while the rate for males is about 17 per 100,000 persons, the rate for
females is 11.4 per 100,000. Among those widowed, while the rate for males is 21
per 100,000 persons, the rate for females is also significantly lower, at 6.6
per 100,000. However, among divorced males the suicide rate is 164 per 100,000
persons, but even in this class, among females the rate is only 63 per 100,000.
While the suicide rate for separated men is about 167, for females it is only 41
per 100,000 persons. “



National crime records bureau (NCRB) statistics about
suicides:
It states that – : “

The ratio of Male : Female victims of suicide was 63 : 37.

. The ratio of Male :
Female victims of suicide was
63 :
37
.

Nearly 44.7%
of the suicide victims were married
males while only
25% were married
females.”

Basetti

Posted in Articles, News | Leave a Comment »

legal terrorism, terrorism, indian family, violence,

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

Poltico-legal Terrorism in the name of Domestic Violence

Yes, violence does prevail in society. It does prevail in all spheres of Nature. Isn’t it there in our highest institution, the Parliament? Haven’t we had so many live telecasts of live and brute violence resorted to by our privileged lawmakers? If this is the reality and a necessity for the lawmakers, why do politicians want such draconian laws only for domestic violence then?

It is futile to think that laws can make the status of ‘weaker’ sections any better. Issues like these have been raked by our political class with a view to reap the fruits of this political capital of weaker sections of the society. It is no doubt that these classes have been the hot commodity for politicians and are fast transforming into the ‘politically strongest’ sections.

It is not hidden from anybody how and to which extent the already existing laws can not only overly safeguard the interest of these sections but also be misused to make the lives of the ‘un-proven’ perpetrators miserable. This is especially so in the case of issues related to domestic violence. Practice has shown that elderly in-laws who can barely manage their own affairs have been put behind bars just because the police is empowered to do so, without any trial, to whosoever a daughter-in-law can name in her complaint.

In an era when nobody even cares for their own parents, giving so much credence to the allegations of a daughter-in-law is disastrous for the society. What do such laws achieve then? If at all they serve anything, it is just to ensure that couples remain locked in a legal battle and waste their productive time in the useless pursuit of teaching each other a lesson. Such an approach to matrimonial issues arises only in a situation where the actual marital bond between the two parties does not exist—a situation where they are ‘legally and financially’ married, but ‘emotionally, mentally, and physically’ divorced. It is needless to mention that the institution of marriage is needed for emotional, mental, and physical reasons, not for legal and financial bindings. It is time our lawmakers frame laws that encourage people to work towards strengthening and fostering family ties rather than pitching them against one another to torment each other and their families to win egoistic battles.

mightycrab

Posted in Articles | Leave a Comment »

Domestic Violence: An issue?

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

Yes, violence does prevail in society. It does prevail in all spheres
of Nature. Isn’t it there in our highest institution, the Parliament?
Haven’t we had so many telecasts of live and uncensored violence
resorted to by our privileged lawmakers? [b]If this is the reality and a
necessity for the lawmakers, why do politicians want such draconian
laws for domestic violence then?[/b]
It is futile to think that laws can make the status of `weaker’
sections any better. Issues like these have been raked by our
political class with a view to reap the fruits of this political
capital of weaker sections of the society. It is no doubt that these
classes have been the hot commodity for politicians and are fast
transforming into the `politically strongest’ sections.

It is not hidden from anybody how and to which extent the already
existing laws can not only overly safeguard the interest of these
sections but also be misused to make the lives of the `un-proven’
perpetrators miserable. This is especially so in the case of issues
related to domestic violence. Practice has shown that elderly in-laws
who can barely manage their own affairs have been put behind bars
just because the police is empowered to do so, without any trial, to
whosoever a daughter-in-law can name in her complaint.

In an era when nobody even cares for their own parents, giving so
much credence to the allegations of a daughter-in-law is disastrous
for the society. What do such laws achieve then? If at all they serve
anything, it is just to ensure that couples remain locked in a legal
battle and waste their productive time in the useless pursuit of
teaching each other a lesson. Such an approach to matrimonial issues
arises only in a situation where the actual marital bond between the
two parties does not exist—a situation where they are `legally and
financially’ married, but `emotionally, mentally, and physically’
divorced. It is needless to mention that the institution of marriage
is needed for emotional, mental, and physical reasons, not for legal
and financial bindings. [b]It is time our lawmakers frame laws that
encourage people to work towards strengthening and fostering family
ties rather than pitching them against one another to torment each
other and their families to win egoistic battles.[/b]

mightycrab

Posted in News | Leave a Comment »

The ratio of Male : Female victims of suicide was 63 : 37.

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

This letter is addressed to Media/Govt/bureacracy:

News from IBN live:
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/act-wont-hit-good-hubbies-renuka/26051-3.html

In the above video2, this participant ruler of the country clearly knows 98% cases of IPC-498a (dowry law) i.e, 98% misuse of dowry laws.

what is 98% MISUSE by dowry law means?:

1) Every year atleast 50,000 families (out of 70,000 police FIRs on 498a) for nearly 15+ yrs (total 7 lkhs 50,000 families or around 0.5 crore people) including intellectuals of the country (5% intellectuals creates 65% infrastructure in most countries) who are responsible for the infrastructure of the country(like scientists, phds, engineers, doctors) wasted their precious time, value, money for 5 to 8 yrs(minimum time it takes in any court for dowry law in india) declared as innocents by hight courts/supremecourts/session courts. These ppl lost faith, trust on the justice system and governance of the country. Many out of these ppl (very elders) depressed, died, diseased, lived in fear cursing at courts at old age before dying. See how the resources of the country wasted for nothing. who is responsible for this? Is this the way country use/d intellectuals or resources for the country.

No one cares poor real suffering several women who not even inside this 100% 498a cases.

===========================================

Pls. see the real statistics here how many men die before marriage and how many die after marriage:

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1821/18210960.htm
It states that — “The distribution of suicides by marital status reveals some interesting patterns. The rates do not vary much between the sexes for the never married. Among those currently married, while the rate for males is about 17 per 100,000 persons, the rate for females is 11.4 per 100,000. Among those widowed, while the rate for males is 21 per 100,000 persons, the rate for females is also significantly lower, at 6.6 per 100,000. However, among divorced males the suicide rate is 164 per 100,000 persons, but even in this class, among females the rate is only 63 per 100,000. While the suicide rate for separated men is about 167, for females it is only 41 per 100,000 persons. “

=============================================
National crime records bureau (NCRB) statistics about suicides:

http://ncrb.nic.in/ADSI-03.pdf
It states that – : “
The ratio of Male : Female victims of suicide was
63 : 37.
.
The ratio of Male : Female victims of suicide was 63 : 37.
Nearly
44.7% of the suicide victims were married males while only 25% were married females.”

Basetti

Posted in Articles | Leave a Comment »

Counterchecks against Misuse of Domestic Violence Act 2005 and sec. 498A

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

Once a man becomes a husband in India, he turns into a dormant violent man as per the laws and is a suspected criminal. There are overtly biased and stringent laws to dictate the dos and don’ts to a husband, but unfortunately, there is nothing in the hands of the husband to safeguard himself against his wife’s nefarious intentions. It seems that the possibility of the husband being harassed by the wife has been is deliberately ignored by the lawmakers. Why are all the laws coined against the husbands only?

In a country like India, where the institution of marriage is considered sacred and survives on mutual understanding and respect, the Domestic Violence Act is uncalled for. So to preserve our culture, please punish the makers of this law.

The domestic violence law is actually a Taliban law, the only difference is that the Taliban regime used it against their women, and here, it will be misused to pester men. It is a loosely drafted law, which would work as an AK47 in the hands of unscrupulous women.

May be there are ulterior motives behind introducing this prejudiced law. The people behind this should be held responsible for disintegrating the Indian society and for spreading and supporting gender based hatred and laws. They shall be tried in the courts and punished duly for justice and sensibility to prevail in our society.

Laws like 498A are actually intended to protect the suppressed women. But on the contrary, these are being misused by them to blackmail the husband and his family and hence demand large amount of money, property, jewellery and other articles. Domestic Violence Act will also act as a legal tool in the hands of modern educated wives to get their unjustified demands fulfilled by way of threatening.

As India is termed to be one of world’s most corrupt country the biased laws like sec. 498A and Domestic Violence Act are bound to be heavily misused by educated women with support of their parents and whole nexus against innocent families and husbands. These laws have been more abused than used and thus have lost faith among the legal community and the public.

The men and women who support such laws are mostly unaware of their misuse against the family ethos and peace, when they support the spirit of such laws that aims to give relief to a justified victim. The most of women organizations, NGOs, police and lawyers are always hesitant to openly talk about misuse of laws as it supports their livelihood in one form or the other. Police and lawyers get a hefty amount of money from wives as their share of commission out of alimony given by their husbands and Women Organizations and NGOs survive on Millions of Rupees of funds provided by government and international agencies for the agenda of dowry harassment and women development and care.

The problem of domestic violence against women is more in rural and economically backward community than in urban homes. It is very unlikely that an educated husband from an urban family comes home drunken and beats his wife daily or harasses her to demand dowry and money. Rather such complaints are falsely fabricated by cruel wives with the support of their parents and relatives who bribe and influence the officials. Unfortunately, the wives are the recipients of sympathy of the masses in the name of dowry harassment victim.

The statistics of past 5 years show that how the law of 498A was increasingly used in cities like Delhi and Hyderabad and how it was barely used in remote and rural places as most of such cases were filed by educated and well aware women just to blackmail their husbands.

The wife is assumed by law as a victim in almost every household situation, but there is nothing to stop or undermine a torture to a husband by his wife in India. I am against the common perception that domestic violence is mostly done by men towards women. Isn’t the vice versa possible?

Above all, I strongly feel that marital discord is a personal matter and cannot be solved in the courts. The biased Domestic Violence Act is a threat to the Indian culture, which should not have been implemented without the provisions of counterchecks. As the NCW and Dept. for Women and Child have admitted misuse of 498A, they should have made the new law quite balanced to take care of its misuse. The counterchecks could have been such as the existence of a law for redressing husband’s abuse and to report law misuse to the government, NCW and Women and Child department for further action against the scrupulous women.

We must demand from the government for establishment of a Special Cell for Reporting the Misuse of Law against Husband and Family, which will function in sync with NCW, Women and Child department and Ministry of Home Affairs. It will not only help in taking strong action against the people who misuse laws but will also help in making balanced laws for saving the families in reality.

A proper redressal should be made available for reporting law misuse by way of online form (on NCW or MHA website) and by establishment of helplines for husbands.

Those who are advocating for implementation of new law for the women’s protection, they should also be made accountable of any of its pitfalls. Until such framework is available, a stay should be issued for stopping the implementation of the new law.

SocialActivist

Posted in Articles | 2 Comments »

On the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

On the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

By:Srilata Swaminathan

The Domestic Violence Bill which had been pending before the Lok Sabha for many years has finally been passed this monsoon session. There have been a number of changes made to it and serious lacunae that existed at the time the NDA government drafted it have been suitably amended. Bill No. 116 of 2005 has now officially become The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. While the UPA government has shown its total lack of political will and has been as impotent as the NDA in passing the 33% women’s reservation bill they have been able to push through this – maybe as the lesser evil!

The new act contains five chapters and 37 sections. Its main features are 1. that the term ‘domestic violence’ has been made wide enough to encompass every possibility as it covers all forms of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse that can harm, cause injury to, endanger the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, either mental or physical of the aggrieved person. (Ch.II, S.3) This is a genuinely wide definition and covers every eventuality. 2. the definition of an ‘aggrieved’ person’ is equally wide and covers not just the wife but a woman who is the sexual partner of the male irrespective of whether she is his legal wife or not. The daughter, mother, sister, child (male or female), widowed relative, in fact, any woman residing in the household who is related in some way to the respondent, is also covered by the Act. (Ch.I, S.2(a)). The respondent under the definition given in the Act is “any male, adult person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person” but so that his mother, sister and other relatives do not go scot free, the case can also be filed against relatives of the husband or male partner.

It appears from the Act that the information regarding an act or acts of domestic violence does not necessarily have to be lodged by the aggrieved party but by “any person who has reason to believe that” such an act has been or is being committed. Which means that neighbours, social workers, relatives etc. can all take initiative on behalf of the victim (Ch.III, S4).

One great weakness of the previous NDA bill has been effectively removed in the present Act and that is that the magistrate has the powers to permit the aggrieved woman to stay in her place of abode and cannot be evicted by the husband in retaliation. This fear of being driven out of the house effectively silenced many women and made them silent sufferers. The court, by this new Act, can now order that she not only reside in the same house but that a part of the house can even be allotted to her for her personal use (Ch.IV, S.17) even if she has no legal claim or share in the property.

S.18 of the same chapter allows the magistrate to protect the woman from acts of violence or even “acts that are likely to take place” in the future and can prohibit the respondent from dispossessing the aggrieved person or in any other manner disturbing her possessions, entering the aggrieved person’s place of work or, if the aggrieved person is a child, the school. The respondent can also be restrained from attempting to communicate in any form, whatsoever, with the aggrieved person, including personal, oral, written, electronic or telephonic contact” (S18d). The respondent can even be prohibited from entering the room/area/house that is allotted to her by the court.

The Act allows magistrates to impose monetary relief and monthly payments of maintenance. The respondent can also be made to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence and can also cover loss of earnings, medical expenses, loss or damage to property and can also cover the maintenance of the victim and her children (Ch.IV, S.20). S.22 allows the magistrate to make the respondent pay compensation and damages for injuries including mental torture and emotional distress caused by acts of domestic violence.

Ch. V . S.31 gives a penalty up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine up to Rs. 20,000/- for and offence. The offence is also considered cognisable and non-bailable (Ch.V, S.32(i) while S. 32 (2) goes even further and says that “under the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that an offence has been committed by the accused”

The Act also ensures speedy justice as the court has to start proceedings and have the first hearing within 3 days of the complaint being filed in court and every case must be disposed of within a period of sixty days of the first hearing (Ch.IV, S.12 (a) (4) and (5)). It make provisions for the state to provide for Protection Officers and the whole machinery by which to implement the Act.

After going through the Act with a fine-tooth comb, the only major change I would make to the Act is in S.16 of Chapter IV which allows the magistrate to hold proceedings in camera “if either party to the proceedings so desires”. Now, our experience in AIPWA has proven that sometimes in camera proceedings can protect the aggrieved woman from a lot of humiliation and shame especially in cases where explicit acts of sexual abuse and violence are being discussed in an open court and it allows for her dignity and privacy to be maintained. BUT, we have also seen trials where the in camera proceedings only intimidated the aggrieved in favour of the respondent. This is especially so when the aggrieved is the only woman in court facing a completely male phalanx of hostile, sneering magistrates, lawyers, officials, police, male respondent etc. The solution is to change this section to only allow for in camera proceedings NOT when EITHER party so desires but only if the aggrieved party so desires. Also, the aggrieved party should be allowed to be accompanied by any relative/woman social worker etc. of her choice for moral support.

Misuse of the act, like all such acts in India , cannot be ruled out. In fact, with a system as corrupt as ours, money, clout and muscle power will always call the shots. And as long as the woman stays a puppet or pawn in the hands of her male relatives, she will always be manipulated and used. However, with this Act, there is at last legal recognition of the scale of domestic violence that actually exists. This Act should also put an end to many of the misuses of the Anti Dowry Act.(4) . But when one sees the dismal record of implementation of Acts related to giving relief to the oppressed, one cannot but be sceptical. For instance, the Rape Act brings only 5% of all rapes committed to court and of those only 5% get convictions!

The main beneficiaries of the Act will, of course, be women of the propertied upper classes. But there is no doubt that with this Act a whole Pandora’s Box of litigation will be thrown open and all the degradation, brutality and cruelty to women that has been carefully swept under the carpet for centuries in our ‘old, rich heritage and civilisation’ is all going to be exposed – and about time! For those feminist groups that see the family or the male as the main cause for women’s oppression, this Act will open up all sorts of possibilities in their struggles.

But for the revolutionary left organisations that see the present system as the cause for women’s oppression, these Acts are no solution to the basic problems that women face and are, at best, mere stop-gap measures. The underlying reasons for the violence against women which are her enslavement under the present system; the double-standards and hypocrisy of monogamy; the fact that she has been effectively ‘privatised’ for centuries, removed from public production, public decision-making and interaction; has no economic independence, is relegated to domestic drudgery and is virtually the personal property of her husband/in-laws is not remotely understood or tackled. It is like giving a prisoner certain rights to resist torture and abuse but doing nothing for releasing him from his shackles! (1)

The capitalist system whereby women, especially poor working women are doubly enslaved, cannot offer any long-term solution for the emancipation of women or their freedom from violence. It is only socialism that can truly emancipate women by not only making her equal under law and giving her every legal protection but, far more important, reversing the injustices of the past thousands of years by socialising the means of production, bringing the woman back into social production and decision-making, freeing her of her domestic enslavement by the state taking responsibility through crèches, community kitchens, old-peoples’ homes etc. It is only a new socialist system that will free both the man and the woman, make them truly equal partners – economically, socially and politically – so that they can enter into a genuine partnership and thus evolve the new type of family where neither will be victim nor villain.

Am I against the Act? No, not at all. But its limitations must be kept in mind. Within the existing unjust and unequal bourgeois system here is an act of legislature that gives oppressed women some respite, but a very temporary one as it will not end the hypocrisy of bourgeois monogamy. Hopefully, the contradictions will be so heightened that society will have to go in for more long-lasting solutions. However, this Act does ensure that women are not totally at the receiving end but have some weapon to fight back with. As Marx so concisely put it: “You cannot give equal laws to unequal people” (2)

Posted in Articles | Leave a Comment »

Continue your Male hate mind set and kill the child before the born!!

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

We have to go long way , see this Telegraph UK, writes.
They are trying hard to hide the truth.
Ms. Bindra Karte, why you want to save those Male hater, husbad killer, child hater?
Ohh .. I foget , as per you , they need the whole sale free lincence to do the crime , even killing the husabnds and sending husabnds mother/sister behind the bar to earn the money through legal terrorism.
Whole India know you that , your orginasations not only a Male hater orginasation by sadist women , they are child hater also?
Do you have any Child?
Continue your male hateing business and try to save those husabnds killers, child killer , our fight for justice will continue.

Kindly explain, what is the problem to have a “Domestic Harmony Act “instead of “Domestic Violence act”?
Should we conclude that , you want more and more “Domestic Violence” Crime in India , so you oppose the “Domestic Harmony Act” proposed by us??

Good luck to you and your sadist Women orginasations, We modern Laxman , do not have any sympathy for women like Modern Supernakhs!!!

Continue your Male hate mind set and kill the child before the born, as you have on birth right for that , forget about any punishment , there is no small warning for that , and you do not hesitate to Break the Judges Chairs , and get scot free…

Swarup

Posted in Articles | 1 Comment »

Culprit Behind, Biased Indian Domestic Violence Act

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

We have found the culprit – the master brain behind women organization’s legal support system. Domestic Violence issue was first put in the Parliament in 1999. On the pressure of women’s groups, GOI composed a Domestic Violence Bill in their own version. Women groups refused to accept the bill and came up with their own version, which was later passed in both the houses in the Parliament and approved by the President of India.

The procedure of passing a bill is hereunder.

First reading: The minister may make a brief speech, stating its main features. After the bill is introduced, the first reading of the bill is over. In the first reading, only the principles and provisions of the bill are discussed.

Second reading: Second reading is divided into two stages. First stage:- At this stage, three options are open to the house. The bill may be straightaway be taken into consideration or it may be referred to any of the standing committees or it may be circulated for the purpose of eliciting general opinion thereon. Second stage: This stage consists of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill as reported by the committee. When all the clauses have been put to vote and disposed of, the second reading of the bill is over.

Third reading: The debate of the third reading of a bill is of a restricted character. It is confined only to arguments either in support of the bill or for its rejection, without referring to its details. After the bill is passed, it is sent to the other house.

Bill in RajyaSabha: After a bill, other than a money bill, is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha, it goes through all the stages in that house as that in the first house. But if the bill passed by one house is amended by the other house, it goes back to the originating house. If the originating house does not agree with the amendments, it shall be that the two houses have disagreed.

President’s assent: When a bill has been passed, it is sent to the president for his assent. The President can assent or without his assent to a bill or he can return a bill with its recommendations. If the President gives his assent, the bill becomes Act from the date of his assent.

The chief culprit is Lawyers Collective Women’s Rights Initiative. The head of its project directors is none other than Indira Jaising. They have other staff members at Delhi head office and at Mumbai unit. It was set up in 1998 just before the Domestic Violence bill was proposed. It all started off in 1998-99 when ‘Shades of courage’, a project on Domestic Violence prepared by TISS along with Research and Documentation Cell of this organization. Only in 2001-02, they conducted an extensive research program to study domestic violence and established the groundwork to propose Domestic Violence Bill.

One of the crucial studies was surveying their own limited number of clients and building up their database of facts on the basis of which, they have proposed this DV in the current form. They study took in 97 out of 121 cases that came to Legal Aid Cell of this organization. 69% of the women came from the middle-class house.

Some of the survey questions are given below:

Ownership of matrimonial house (please understand the motive behind such a survey)

The result shows that 34% of the MH belongs to the father-in-law. 21% belongs to the husband. 14% MH is rented. 12% MH is joint family owned. 6% is owned by the mother-in-law. (Please understand the idea they gained from such a survey)

Woman’s desire in case of divorce (please understand the idea they will get from this)

More than 40% of the women asked for heavy maintenance. Less than 12% asked for reconciliation. 20% women desired divorce.

Satisfaction factor for women in distress (please understand what they will get out of this)

Legal advice is more satisfactory than they (women) expected. Police support is satisfactory to their expectation. In litigation, they aren’t satisfied with the support (for the obvious reasons)

If you like to visit their website, go to http://www.lawyerscollective.org/

Coming back to Domestic Violence Bill, the Government had proposed that if a woman/wife is physically, mentally or in any other way tortured by the man “in his own defense”, it will NOT amount to domestic violence. This organization refused to accept it. The government was also against the inclusion of live-in relationship, but this organization didn’t accept. The government was also against the rights given to women to legally extort the property of the husband by the woman, but this organization continued their attack on the intentions of the government. The government was under constant pressure to approve this bill, and they did.

Now let’s have a look at the staff of this organization.

They have been putting vacancy advertisement in various yahoogroups.

They are looking for Research, Resource and advocacy officers. Qualification required: Law degree, social science degree, experience in research and writing. Work includes conceptualization, planning, coordination and follow-up of the current projects (women-centric laws). These social science graduates and law graduates (all females) have been conceptualizing the destiny of Indian society and marriage. These females are excellent in laws, writing, and research.The database they have collected are very selective and minute. They are extremely active in the pressure group tactics in political system. They also have their own monthly “Lawyers Magazine”. They had also sent a letter to Arun Jaitley and an excerpt is given here. “Eunuchs, who have a recognised social identity and presence in our society, have been victims of sexual assault from men for a long time. To deal with this we feel that there has to be a provision in the law. We recommend that sexual assault laws be gender specific ( i.e. considering men as the perpetrators and women as the victims), and that eunuchs be treated as women as far as these laws go.” (Now you can see their intentions. They like to provide legal protection to eunuchs and not to men. They are saying that eunuchs are physically assaulted by men. Imagine what they are trying to do here.) All this is done under the nose of Ford Foundation http://www.fordfound.org/ who has been funding this organization.

They are the legal mastermind behind all women organizations in the country.

Lawyers Collective Women’s Rights Initiative.

By:Common Man

Posted in Articles | Leave a Comment »

98 % MISUSE of DOWRY LAW IS OKAY !!! – Renuka Chaudhary

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

98 % MISUSE of DOWRY LAW IS OKAY !!! – Renuka Chaudhary

RENUKA SPEAKS: Renuka Chowdhury says Domestic Violence Bill will empower women.

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. Will the UPA Government’s Domestic Violence Bill convert innocent husbands into offenders and criminals, and worse, will it empower motivated women to act viciously and get away with it? Those are the two key issues I should raise in an exclusive interview with the Minister for Women and Child Development, Renuka Chowdhury.

Ms Chowdhury, let’s start with the definitions under this Act, which are so wide that they are worrying. To begin with, there is the whole question of what the Act means by domestic violence – it covers verbal abuse, emotional abuse, economic abuse and anything that tends towards them. I put it to you, that’s so wide as to be either meaningless or dangerously self-embracing.

Renuka Chowdhury: I don’t know why you have to see it in two extremes. Why have you not ever noticed that women live in dangerously self-embracing situations? That it’s none of this, even if you see it as porosity in the Act or that the ambit is too wide. Please understand that women are burnt to death, beaten to insensibilities.

Karan Thapar:But the cure is not imprecision, the cure is not vagueness of legislation.

Renuka Chowdhury:Absolutel y.

Karan Thapar:Let me explain why this Act is imprecise. For instance, emotional and verbal abuses are defined to include insults and ridicule. That means you can’t be sarcastic to your wife, it means you can’t call you brother-in-law an ass or a mother-in-law a nag even if both are those are correct. Surely, that’s a level of silliness, but it’s a part of your Bill.

Renuka Chowdhury: I want to tell you what you deem as silly is really not something that I have created today. Under the IPC section, speaking in a way that is denigrating to the status of women, which removes her from her dignity, is very much an Act under the IPC. So I don’t see what are you getting heated up about today.

Karan Thapar:But you are here interfering in normal conversation between two adults. As Soli Sorabjee writing in The Indian Express pointed out, you are reducing an important and serious issue to the level of silliness.

Renuka Chowdhury: I don’t think anything that happens to a women in the sense of her domestic violence can be termed as silly. It is over-trivialising and over-simplifying this Act. Please understand that despite all the checks, women are burnt, one in six women is raped, murdered, beaten to death, sent in to mental asylums. I don’t think that’s funny.

Karan Thapar: No doubt. But that’s not what your Act concentrates on. Look, for instance, at economic abuse. It is defined by the Act as deprivation of any economic or financial resource, which the aggrieved is entitled to by custom and it includes disposal of household effects. Under that language, if a husband was to sell the family television at a time when his marriage was going through a bad patch, it should be deemed to be domestic violence. Now, that’s ridiculous, but it is very much a part of the Act.

Renuka Chowdhury:Is it anymore ridiculous than the fact that well-to-do men suddenly turn around and claim that they have no money, that they are bankrupt because they have to pay alimony to a woman – where human dignity is involved.

Karan Thapar:But what your Act has done is to take trivial issues – that could happen quite innocently, inadvertently and turn them into offences and crimes.

Renuka Chowdhury: I don’t agree with you. We are saying, we are facilitating and setting up a legal framework where by we expect to…

Karan Thapar:A very bad legal framework, insufficient legal framework and an imprecise one.

Renuka Chowdhury: Please listen to me. Can I be allowed to talk or otherwise this is deemed as domestic violence, this is professional violence.

Karan Thapar: That’s the danger; you are proving my point.

Renuka Chowdhury:Absolutel y.

Karan Thapar:A mere interruption becomes domestic violence.

Renuka Chowdhury:Interrupt ion? This is an overrun! It is an interpretation of what is an interruption and verbal overrun.

Karan Thapar:Don’t you think you are proving my point?

Renuka Chowdhury: You may think so, but let’s wait for what others think. But I want to tell you what I think. I think that if there is harmony within the house, there is nothing for anyone to fear. But if there is complete disharmony, where one partner is completely incapacitated, made to be dependent on another partner and they are harassed… you have no idea what harmony means.

Karan Thapar: That’s a biased statement which you are elevating into a principle of false philosophy. The reason that in fact it isn’t true is very simple: look at the range of people covered by your Act. It talks about aggrieved persons, and aggrieved persons are defined as any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship. Then it defines domestic relationship as the relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household.

Put them together and your Act covers not just wives, but wives who have been divorced, girlfriends who you have separated perhaps as long as a decade ago. Why are those included in the ambit of this Act?

Renuka Chowdhury: Why? Because, women even in those relationships have been harassed and held to ransom. There have been enough divorced women who have been divorced because of various reasons, and money is not returned.

Karan Thapar:Divorced women have a decree that is given by a court; an alimony that is given by a court; the divorce has been adjudicated; it is legal. There is no need for you to interfere.

Renuka Chowdhury: Fair enough. Let us assume there is no need for us to interfere.

Karan Thapar:Don’t assume, it’s a fact.

Renuka Chowdhury: Ok, if it’s a fact. But please tell me do you think a woman is given a divorce easily where a man doesn’t want (to give divorce). Go to the court and have a look.

Karan Thapar: When a divorce is given and granted by a court, there is no need to go further back in the picture. But you do.

Renuka Chowdhury: I tell you why we do it. If a man violates his custodial rights; if a man violates his restraint order; if after a divorce a husband keeps stalking me or harassing me; if a man turns up and smashes my windows – don’t you think that keeps happening, Mr Karan Thapar?

Karan Thapar:It may happen. But that’s not what your Act concentrates upon. Clause 3-C doesn’t just limit the ambit of the Act to former girlfriends you have separated from or former wives, it even talks about any person related to the aggrieved person. This means it’s not just the former girlfriend, arguably it’s her step-brother as well – this is becoming ridiculous at this stage. It means – let me interpret this for you – that a husband cannot threaten to verbally abuse. Note the words: just threaten to verbally abuse the step-brother of a former girlfriend who he parted with 10 years ago. That ambit is taking a major concern to a ridiculous extent.

Renuka Chowdhury:Oh my God! I tell you, you are looking at such extremely ridiculous situations.

Karan Thapar:It’s part of your Bill.

Renuka Chowdhury: You should be writing for a television series.

Karan Thapar:I am afraid your Bill seems to cater for it. That’s the problem.

Renuka Chowdhury: Ok, if that’s how you interpret it. But a man would, I am not surprised.

Karan Thapar:It is not a question of a man would. The reason I am pointing out the ridiculous extremes is that laws are always judged by the extremes, not by the middle position.

And what your law does – because of the wide ambit of the definition of domestic violence and because of the long range of people it covers – it tends to convert innocent husbands into offenders and criminals, and worse, it gives the power to motivated women who want to be vicious, or forgive me bloody-minded, to get away with such behaviour. That’s why it is potentially dangerous.

Renuka Chowdhury:Karan Thapar, you have to understand that this Bill addresses a family as a unit within a prescribed legal framework. If the ‘innocent husband’ as you call him is ‘innocent’ and his behaviour and attitude to his partner in life is of mutual respect and concern, there is no anxiety for men to suddenly feel victimised and victims of the whole thing.

Karan Thapar: But the point is how do you define the offence you hold him guilty of? Sarcasm becomes an offence; calling your brother-in-law an ass becomes an offence.

Renuka Chowdhury:No, calling him an ass doesn’t… that’s your personal equation. If your brother-in-law and you are not happy with each other, you are going to look at excuses. But if there is basic harmony and you call a friend or brother-in-law an ass, he is not going to take you to court, let me tell you.

Karan Thapar: Let me point it out to you why this is such a dangerous Act. Critics are pointing out that this Act is going to go the way of the anti-dowry law; it’s going to be deliberately misused.

Let me point out what the Supreme Court said in July 2005 about the anti-dowry law. It said many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with an oblique motive. In such cases, acquittal of the accused does not wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to the trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. Your act is going to go exactly the same way as the anti-dowry law.

Renuka Chowdhury:I want to tell you, when we bring out an Act, we help set a direction for a certain socially-accepted behaviour. Those are the broader parameters. Because of a minute percentage of people who misappropriate the Act, are you saying that I should not bring an Act, I should be in denial that women are not domestically harassed, that they are not kicked, removed from their home, denied access to their children, to their own earnings, and that they have no recourse to law?

Karan Thapar: Let me answer your question. You talk of a minute percentage of people?

Renuka Chowdhury:Yes.

Karan Thapar: The Centre for Social Research with regard to the anti-dowry law did a study after the Supreme Court judgment came out in August of 2005 and it concluded that of every 100 cases brought under the anti-dowry law, 98 per cent were false. Only two were correct. It’s not a minute percentage; the level of abuse that this could incur is phenomenally high.

Renuka Chowdhury:It’ s okay.

Karan Thapar: It’s okay? It’s acceptable?

Renuka Chowdhury:It’ s not acceptable, don’t put words into my mouth. No, I am very clear about it. Kindly listen – the law is not a static issue. Law reflects the need for a society to be given direction. We have put in broad parameters and we will see in which this direction this law goes. But even if this statistics are telling you that 98 per cent of the cases reported are violated and are wrong, please tell me the statistics of how many women are killed everyday, forced into abortions, raped against their will, denied access to society and property. Tell me those statistics and we will talk about it.

Karan Thapar: There is no doubt that women in India need protection. There is no doubt that domestic violence is one of the worst features of our society. The problem is you are protecting women at cost of exposing men to gross injustice. That’s why this Bill is wrong. You are creating one right against another wrong.

Renuka Chowdhury:Karan Thapar, why didn’t you do two rights in your shows earlier for those women who have no access to any justice in this country despite the establishment of laws? Are there no laws on Sati?

Karan Thapar: But you don’t have to give them access to justice at the cost of men being treated badly. That’s what you are doing. You are exposing men to injustice, harassment.

Renuka Chowdhury:We are not, we are not.

Karan Thapar: You keep talking about direction. You keep talking about importance of setting a direction for society. Clause 17 of the Act gives divorced women and former separated girlfriends – and I use that language very carefully: divorced women and former separated girlfriends – the right to claim residence in the home of their former husband or their former partner even though the Act says they may not have any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. What’s the justification for that?

Renuka Chowdhury:Because the woman is removed from her house. She is threatened, coerced and you have an ex-parte divorce, which has been granted…

Karan Thapar: A divorced woman has a decree, and I cite, granted by a court. She has an alimony granted by a court. A divorce can only happen when a court grants it.

Renuka Chowdhury:No, no certainly not. I cannot accept that every divorce case has been examined in its…

Karan Thapar: A divorced woman has an annulment, a divorced woman has an alimony given by a court – surely the merit (of the case) has been taken into account.

Renuka Chowdhury:No, no, not necessarily. Not necessarily on the merits of the case, not at all.

Karan Thapar: Are you saying the judges are wrong?

Renuka Chowdhury:Maybe.

Karan Thapar: Are you stepping in to correct what judges have done?

Renuka Chowdhury:I am not correcting judges. I am empowering my women to have the right to access the dignity to their life, if they have been denied justice on other foras, if they have been given ex-parte divorce. In the absence of this, they have had no money to go and appeal in a court and they are denied their right, and if the husband suddenly declares he is bankrupt and has not given an alimony.

Karan Thapar: You see my point. You have just qualified the problem by adding six different ifs. Your law, however, doesn’t add any of those ifs. Clause 17 begins with the phrase notwithstanding any other law in operation anywhere else in the country. Despite that divorced women and former girlfriends have a right of claim in the residence of their former partner or former husband. So, none of your ifs qualify, if you had put the ifs into the law I would understand.

Renuka Chowdhury: All right, so?

Karan Thapar: You need to amend it to actually incorporate your position.

Renuka Chowdhury: All right. We will see if the need arises, we will do it. First, let it come into being.

Karan Thapar: It has, on the 26th of October.

Renuka Chowdhury: And rather well, so far we haven’t had any complaints about the misuse of the law.

Karan Thapar: So now you accept, with limited reference to Clause 17, there is need for amendment?

Renuka Chowdhury: There is always need for corrections and amendments in any law as we progress as a society develops and the needs arise. But for one hypothetically – before I reach the bridge and cross it – if you want me to make amendments, I won’t.

Karan Thapar: In other words, let men suffer first, then I will correct the wrong I have done.

Renuka Chowdhury: It is not such a bad idea, except that I have such pity for men.

Karan Thapar: Ms Chowdhury, the great danger of the Domestic Violence Act, which came into force on October 26, is that in the hands of a bad judge and a good prosecuting attorney, it can be used to harass innocent men, to entrap innocent husbands and deny them justice. That’s the danger of the imprecision of the loose wording and the huge ambit of so-called offences included here.

Renuka Chowdhury: All right.

Karan Thapar: You accept?

Renuka Chowdhury: They may be.

Karan Thapar: What do you mean may be?

Renuka Chowdhury: If you are saying so, you are so convinced of it. You won’t even listen to what I have to say.

Karan Thapar: I have been listening to you. You seem to agree with me.

Renuka Chowdhury: I don’t have an agreeable concept of what is listening.

Karan Thapar: But tell me something. If this Act in the hands of a bad judge or a clever prosecuting attorney can inflict injustice on innocent men, does it not need amendment?

Renuka Chowdhury: Mr Karan Thapar, every law in this country is in the hands of a bad judge and a clever prosecutor. It is nothing new or unique, the situation. Hence, when we have bad judges – your words – and clever prosecutors – your words – where do the women of this country take recourse to regarding the situation they live in?

Karan Thapar: But do they need a bad law? That’s the problem. You are adding to the situation of bad judges by giving them a bad law.

Renuka Chowdhury: You are only telling me it’s a bad law for men. It’s not a bad law for women.

Karan Thapar: But that’s only 50% of the Indian population?

Renuka Chowdhury: Yes. But my tragedy is I have women who are no longer even 50 per cent of the population.

Karan Thapar: You really believe you cannot do justice to women without doing injustice to men?

Renuka Chowdhury: I don’t want to do injustice to men.

Karan Thapar: You have just done it.

Renuka Chowdhury: If you see it that way. Isn’t it injustice against women that we have rape laws in place and dowry laws in place and they have never been adhered to, that women are killed every minute?

Karan Thapar: If 98 per cent of the cases brought under the dowry laws, as I told you, turn out to be false – according to statistics given by the Centre for Social Justice – if the Supreme Court itself has opined on the subject roughly at the same time last year, I am sure you don’t need to add to the bad laws by creating more.

Renuka Chowdhury: It’s the courts which have been proactive. The High Court just recently ruled here, saying that for seven years after a woman is married, the family will be held accountable for her death. Why would a court state that extreme order? Do you think that is a fine law? You agree with the opinion of the court?

Karan Thapar: Absolutely. I do. But I am not talking about murder, I am talking about offences that are just limited to sarcasm. I am talking about sarcasm to the step-brother of a former girlfriend covered by this law. That’s why it’s a bad law.

Renuka Chowdhury: Step-brother of a former girlfriend depends on a one-to-one basis. You don’t have to be a relative of a woman for sarcasm. As a citizen if you misbehave with another citizen, under the IPC you can be held up. There is very little that is new in this law.

Karan Thapar: Let me point to you why this is, in fact, a dangerous law that can be misused in the hands of bad judges or clever prosecuting attorney. Clause 4(1) says any person who has reason to believe that an Act of domestic violence has been or is being or is likely to be committed, can inform the authorities with no liability if he or she is wrong. Secondly, at that point of time, a magistrate can impose a protection order that can severely restrain the rights of the accused. You are creating a devilish situation entirely on the basis of mischief-makers and title-tattlers snooping around.

Renuka Chowdhury: Maybe. Maybe initially you will have the title-tattlers, you will have everything. But I also like to believe that maybe you will save so may lives where we know that in-laws are planning to kill them or force her into a Sati death or go for PNDT Act.

Karan Thapar: You may also end up trapping innocent in-laws, because of paramours and other malignant people.

Renuka Chowdhury: “Innocent in-laws” have nothing to worry about. Innocent in-laws live in harmony with their daughters-in- law. There should not be problem.

Karan Thapar: The problem is that mischief-makers create trouble where there is disharmony. And Clause 4(1) permits them.

Renuka Chowdhury: Mischief-makers do create trouble everywhere. It’s mischief-makers who do tell us that women are opiated and forced to commit Sati. It is mischief-makers who report on Income-Tax laws, if you remember, earlier.

Karan Thapar: But you don’t need a law to tackle Sati.

Renuka Chowdhury: Of course, you need a law to tackle Sati.

Karan Thapar: But it’s already a crime in India. We don’t need a new law.

Renuka Chowdhury: Sure. But what is the success ratio? What are your success stories?

Karan Thapar: Let me point out the problem with Clause 4(1). It permits anyone who is inimical to you – leave aside the enemy of yours – to go and mischievously and maliciously report on things he claims you are doing and get away with it. In fact, it even permits your wife’s paramour to turn up and make mischief against you and to do so with impunity.

Renuka Chowdhury: Yeah, but I will tell you something, Karan. It is irrespective of that – these are preventive checks we are putting. Do you think the law is an ass, they will suddenly come and arrest you?

Karan Thapar: I’m afraid this law is an ass. That’s exactly what I am saying. This law is close to close to being an asinine.

Renuka Chowdhury: That’s your opinion. That may be there. But I want to tell you there are very few sections under this law, which are not existing under the IPC.

Karan Thapar: In which case, you didn’t need it. It’s redundant. So why to bring it about?

Renuka Chowdhury: It’s not redundant. Basically, we are empowering the IPC to do it. Delhi has reported that in the last year, 8,000 marital discord cases were reported to the police and there was little the police could do. How do you answer that?

Karan Thapar: Let me ask you one simple question. From Soli Sorabjee to ordinary Indians, there is great concern about the imprecision and dangerous wording and the dangerous ambit of this law. Are you prepared to listen and amend it?

Renuka Chowdhury: Of course. We are prepared in a democracy to listen and respond to a situation that could be an aberration on the societal fabric.

Karan Thapar: But you are going to wait for a situation to happen and then you are going to respond?

Renuka Chowdhury: That doesn’t deny the right for us to bring about a law like this. It is a unmet need and women across the country have not yet protested.

Karan Thapar: You are saying to me that a bad law is better than no law at all?

Renuka Chowdhury: If you want to say it that way. Any law is better than no law at all.

Karan Thapar: Ms Chowdhury, a pleasure talking to you on Devil’s Advocate.

Renuka Chowdhury: Well, thank you. But be careful.

Posted in News | Leave a Comment »

FIL,MIL Included – Abused & beaten, she pins hope on new Act

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

FIL,MIL Included – Abused & beaten, she pins hope on new Act

NEW DELHI: Being stuck in a bad
marriage meant much more than emotional trauma for Santosh, a 26-year-old mother
of two.

It meant being regularly
beaten up by her husband, being abused by in-laws when she delivered a girl
child and constant dowry demands even after the birth of a son. The last straw
came on October 13, when Santosh was so badly beaten that she needed sutures.

Santosh, whose husband stays at
Kachchi Basti in Jaipur, has since moved back to her mother’s house with her
kids. But, her husband still allegedly threatens her. Despite staring at an
uncertain future and financial insecurity, Santosh has hope.

Last Thursday, she became the first
woman in Rajasthan — and among the first in north India — to file a case under
the recently notified Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“She has sought a protection order,
an alternative residence or house rent and maintenance from her husband. The
junior division judicial magistrate’s court acted swiftly, issuing notice to
Santosh’s in-laws and making the area SHO responsible for her protection.

The matter comes up for hearing on
Monday,” says Kavita, a civil rights activist whose organisation helped Santosh
go to court.

The case is
illustrative. It shows how the new law, being described as ‘historic’ by women’s
groups, can provide timely intervention and relief to women caught in such
situations.

Said SC lawyer Kirti
Singh, legal convenor of All India Democratic Women’s Association, “This law
provides civil relief. Earlier, it was an uphill task to get such relief under
criminal law. Each case was open to interpretation of the judge. Now, relief is
written in the law.”

The law,
however, has also unleashed fears of misuse. At a seminar on the Domestic
Violence Act at the ongoing India Social Forum, women’s groups tried to allay
such “misconceptions”.

As Kirti
Singh put it, “The law seeks to give a woman her civil rights, like the right of
residence, the right not

to be abused
and provides compensation. This is not a criminal law. Offenders aren’t sent to
jail, unless they flout court orders.”

Significantly, the law encompasses all communities and
religious groups, many of whom had little legal protection for women. It also
provides a broad definition of domestic violence.

Said SC lawyer Indira Jaisingh, a member of Lawyers
Collective, which was a prime mover of the legislation, “Domestic violence in
the Act is defined as verbal, emotional, economic and sexual violence. For the
first time, marital rape has become punishable in law, as is forcible
intercourse without contraception.”

However, women’s groups point out that the Act wouldn’t
be as effective if supportive infrastructure isn’t put in place.

Posted in News | Leave a Comment »

KERALA 1st Case registered under Domestic Violence Act

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

KERALA 1st Case registered under Domestic Violence Act

Case
registered under Domestic Violence Act
Saturday November 11 2006 11:30 IST

KOZHIKODE: The police have registered the first case under the newly-enacted
Domestic Violence Act in the city on Friday since the enforcement of the
Act.

Rukkiya, 33, a mother of four, approached city police commissioner
Balram Kumar Upadhyay with a complaint against her husband for allegedly beating
her and children.

Rukkiya told the police commissioner that she has been
admitted to the Beach Hospital for the last few days following torture from her
husband Ravuthar alias Latheef.

Without any source of income its
difficult for her to meet the medical expenses, Rukkiya said.

“My husband
used to torture me and my daughter. I was admitted to the Beach Hospital
following incessant vomiting. Doctors advised for a detailed checkup, including
scanning. But I have no money to meet the expenses,” she said.

She also
appraised the commissioner that her husband is a drug addict.

Rukkiya
said that she had filed a complaint against her husband seven years ago but it
went unattended.

The commissioner has directed the Kasaba police to
register a case under the Domestic Violence Act.

Posted in News | Leave a Comment »

No immediate amendments to domestic violence law

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

No immediate amendments to domestic violence law

New Delhi, Nov. 11 (PTI): Dismissing criticism that
the new domestic violence law was too harsh on men, Minister for Women and Child
Development Renuka Chowdhury has said women lived in dangerous situations and
ruled out any immediate amendments to it.

“Women live in dangerously self-embracing
situations. Even if you see it as a ferocity in the Act or the ambit is too
wide, please understand that women are burnt to death, beaten to insensitivity,”
Chowdhury told Karan Thapar in his Devil’s Advocate interview for CNN-IBN.

Asked whether she would consider amendments to the
law in the light of the criticisms, she said she was open to doing it but not at
the moment.

“There’s always need for corrections and amendments
in any law as we progress, as a society develops and the needs arise. But for
what? Hypothetically, before we reach the bridge and cross it if you want me to
make amendments, I won’t,” Chowdhury said.

To a question on whether men should suffer before
the Act undergoes changes, she said in a lighter vein, “That’s not a bad idea
except I have such pity for men.”

“Any law is better than no law at all” when
protecting women are concerned, she said.

Questioned about the concept of verbal abuse, which
has been criticised by former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, as being silly to
convert sarcasm into an offence, Chowdhury said, “What you deem as silly is
really not something I’ve created today. Under the IPC speaking in a vein that
is denigrating to the status of women, which removes her from dignity, is very
much an act (offence).”

“It’s over-trivialising and over-simplifying this
Act. Please understand, despite all the checks, women are burnt,” Chowdhury
said.

She dismissed doubts being raised about the law on
grounds that it could be misused, saying, “Because of a minute percentage of
people who misappropriate an Act are you saying I should not bring an Act?”

Chowdhury said the law reflects the need for a
society to be given direction. “We have put in broad parameters and we will see
in which direction the law goes.”

When questioned about the law covering divorced
wives and former girlfriends, she justified this by saying, “Because women even
in those relationships have been harassed and held to ransom. There have been
enough divorced women who have been divorced for various reasons and their money
is not returned.

“Beacuse a woman is removed from her house, she is
threatened, forced, coerced and then you have an ex-parte divorce… I cannot
accept every divorce has been examined on the merits of the case,” she said.

She said divorced wives and girlfriends were
deliberately included within the ambit of the Act to cater to situations in
which a man violates his custodial rights or his restraint
order.

Posted in News | Leave a Comment »

Counter Question to DV Act

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

Counter Question to DV Act

Q.1
We all are aware that 498A is rampantly misused. Instead of solving that
problem, you have introduced DV bill. Why? Are you not worried about innocent
families being legally terrorized?

Q.2 Men too are
victims of domestic violence. Then why have you not provided legal protection to
men under Domestic Violence Bill?

Q.3 You gave a
statement on national television saying, “It is men’s turn to suffer”. Is that
true? If you did, what do you mean by that?

Q.4 Do you
agree that verbal or emotional abuse in Domestic Violence bill is a subjective
and relative term? How will you make sure that using these clauses, women will
not misuse this law?

Q.5 Domestic Violence Bill is
applicable in live-in relationship, too. Do you have any statistics showing that
women who are into live-in relationships are victims of domestic violence? It is
unlikely that rural women will ever be in a live-in
relationship.

Q.6 When we already have anti-dowry law
498A, then why have you incorporated the clause of dowry harassment in Domestic
Violence Bill also?

Q.7 One clause says that if a woman
does not have a legal title over the man’s property, if she has some interest,
she can demand the property legally using domestic violence bill. Don’t you
think this clause is violating men’s right?

Q.8 A
clauses says that if a man ridicules, humiliates or abuses the woman sexually or
violates the dignity of the woman, he is subjecting the woman of domestic
violence. How would you define dignity? Dignity is not gender-specific. It is
the quality of character, values and behaviour of a person irrespective of the
gender. Are you saying that men have no dignity?

Q.9
Even if the assets, bank account/locker solely belongs to the husband, the woman
has the rights to demand from the man legally according to domestic violence
bill. Are you not trying to legalize extortion for women through this
bill?

Q.10 Domestic violence bill also includes economic
abuse. If a woman is asking something in monetary terms that the man can’t
afford, do you think that the man should be imprisoned for
this?

Q.11 You are requesting the Government to
sensitize the police officer toward women in handling domestic violence cases.
Do you want the police officer arrest the accused if they find the case to be
fabricated?

Q.12 The clauses in Domestic Violence bill
says that after the marriage or live-in relationship ends, the husband must
provide alternative accommodation or pay the rent to the woman. According to the
Hindu marriage, bigamy is a punishable offense. But live-in relationship that
has no legal standing, a woman can have a number live-in relationship at the
same time. What do you have to say about it? Are you not providing an
opportunity to women to use domestic violence bill to extract property of the
man legally?

Q.13 Domestic Violence Bill has established
a price to emotional distress and mental torture and ordering the man to pay to
the woman as compensation. Do you think those women who are not actually
mentally tortured will never want to make quick money out of this clause?
Why?

Q.14 You have already included live-in relationship
in Domestic Violence Bill. What will be the responsibility of the woman to prove
that she did had a live-in relationship with a man? What if the relationship
never existed?

Q.15 The bill says that the woman has the
right to ask the Protection officer to restrain the family members of the man to
come and live together or even visit the house. Is this not violating the
fundamental rights of the family members of the man? If not,
how?

Q.16 The bill also says that the woman has the
right to ask the protection officer to direct the man to leave the house. Is
this not violating the rights of men? Even if the house legally belongs to the
man, he is kicked out of his own house. Is this how you like to protect
women?

Q.17 One clause says that after the complaint is
registered, the man will have no right to communicate with the woman in any
ways. If a person is arrested, the police will provide the person the right to
contact anybody. And here you don’t want the man to contact the woman at all.
What are you trying to do?

Q.18 The clause says that
even after the live-in relationship has ended; the man can’t evict the woman
from his own legally possessed house. Are you saying that even after live-in
relationship ends, the man is liable to provide the woman? When the live-in
relationship is not legally recognized, then how can you constrain men’s
fundamental rights?

Q.19 The clause says that even if
the live-in relationship existed in any point of time ever in the past, the
woman has the rights to complain against the man for domestic violence. This way
the woman is given a way to take revenge and extort money legally from the man
whom she had a live-in relationship in the past. What do you have to say about
this?

Q.20 The clause says that upon the sole testimony
of the woman, the court can conclude that domestic violence was committed by the
accused. That means the accused is guilty until proven innocent, and the woman
need not prove her allegations. Do you think that this approach is as per the
legal principles? Are you not taking away the constitutional rights of men? How?
This way the bill will be misused just like 498A. What do you think about
this?

Q.21 You know 498A is massively misused. You also
know that Domestic Violence Bill will also be misused. What do you want to do?
Is this how women can be protected by taking away all constitutional rights of
men?

Q.22 You said that this bill is only to protect
women from domestic violence. But the bill can easily break millions of
families. Is this what you want?

Q.23 Many families,
lawyers, NGOs all over the country are objecting on the way the bill is drafted.
You don’t seem to be worried at all. Do you think their objection is baseless?
Are you going to ignore them like you are doing in case of 498A?

Q.24 After all this, do you think you deserve to be the
Minister of Women and Child Development? When you have introduced draconian laws
like DV Bill and have not amended 498A, you don’t have any rights to ruin Indian
family. What do you have to say?

Q.25 Are you not going
to step down from the ministry for destroying Indian families and marriage? Why
not?


From:Present India

Posted in Articles | 4 Comments »

Complain against any judge

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

Any person can complain against judges of Highcourt and Supreme court except Chief Justice of Supreme Court. Complain will handle by National Judicial Council (NJC). There code of ethics will make for NJC Judges. If any evidence found against them, judge cannot appear in court.

If allegations are real, then NJC will forward the report to President of India and President will send it to Parliament.

Important Points of this

1. India’s chief justice, two most senior judges from supreme court and two high court’s most senior judges nominated by Chief Justice of India. All these are the NJC members.

2. Any person can register complaint any judges except Chief Justice of Supreme Court.

3. If allegations against Supreme court’s judge, then NJC members will be Chief Justice of Supreme and 4 most senior judges from supreme which nominated by Chief J.

From :Gujarath Samachar

Posted in News | 62 Comments »

The Statute Of Liberty

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

The Statute Of Liberty

Ten years after a concerted campaign was launched to outlaw abuse of women at
home and to seek a legal framework to act against the guilty comes the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Not only does it cover
marriage and, for the first time ever, live-in relationships, it has also
widened the ambit of abuse to include sexual, physical, verbal and economic
abuse. The act, though it has its share of critics who feel it’s open to misuse,
has largely been welcomed by activists pushing for a stringent law. The
punishment, going by the severity of the crime, ranges from financial
compensation to imprisonment.

The act, which came into force on October
26, redefines abuse as not just action or conduct which “causes bodily pain,
harm or danger to life but also any conduct that humiliates, degrades or
violates the dignity of women”. Insults, ridicule, humiliation and name-calling
too fall within the category of abuse. The act also introduces economic abuse,
whereby depriving a woman of her earnings, including inherited wealth, is also
deemed an offence.

 Clearly, this ‘Diwali gift’ from Renuka
Chowdhury, minister for women and child development, has come as a shot in the
arm of women campaigning against abuse within and outside the four walls of
marriage. “Women need protection,” says Naseem Khan of NGO ActionAid who, along
with the Delhi Commission for Women, organises women panchayats—forums for
redressal of grievances. The panchayat gets to hear close to 1,500 cases every
year of abuse within households in Delhi—and these are only instances reported
to one NGO. Till now, the panchayat could exert only moral pressure on the
husband/male companion. With the law in place, activists like Naseem say they
also have legal clout.

Lawyers like Kamini Jaiswal are less optimistic as
she voices caution on the possible misuse of the act. “It’s definitely a big
step forward for women in live-in relationships, who weren’t even recognised as
having rights of their own. But it should not be misused like the act on dowry
prohibition where men have been falsely implicated,” she says. Brushing aside
this apprehension, Chowdhury says: “As long as men learn to live respectfully
with their partners, they have nothing to fear from the law,” she says.

Lawyer-activist Flavia Agnes, who has fought for victims of domestic
violence, thinks the act requires the women to be aware of their rights in the
first place. “How many women seek legal help in case of a property dispute?” she
asks. “While cases of physical abuse get easily noticed in urban cities, it’s
important to sensitise women in areas outside the public glare.” She thinks the
effectiveness of the law will depend on implementation and reach.

How
will the law operate on the ground? It requires the complaint, either by the
victim or her sympathiser, to be brought to the notice of specially appointed
protection officers.

These officers, “preferably with three years of
experience in social work,” will visit the victim’s home and investigate. It’s
their assessment that the magistrate will recognise for any future course of
action. They’ll also be expected to act as counsellors and offer legal aid to
the aggrieved woman. The act envisages the appointment of such officers in every
district. And to make sure it percolates down to the village level, Chowdhury is
looking forward to networking with the panchayats.

But what if the
protection officers are influenced to file a false report, ask the critics.
Chowdhury says she will leave the interpretation of the act to district
collectors who will monitor the protection officers.

And protection
officers in every district? Will the states cooperate? They’ll have to allocate
a budget first, says Flavia. Even so, there’s no guarantee the act will work.
After all, as Flavia puts it, “How many police officers bother to register a
case of abuse brought to their notice by the victim?” She, however, hopes the
act might sensitise officers and judges to victims of abuse.

These
niggling doubts apart, most lawyers agree that the act is a positive step. Civil
rights lawyer Colin Gonsalves says, “It is heartening to see the government
taking note of issues it was immune to earlier. The act actually empowers women
to seek an injunction against their abusive companions or husbands for the first
time.” He dispels fears of possible misuse: “Just because slander and libel
occasionally tarred freedom of speech, it doesn’t mean you question the
relevance of this fundamental right.”

BJP’s Ravi Shankar Prasad says the
act should be welcomed by civil society and given a chance. “Even though live-in
relationships are not part of Indian culture, the act has taken into account the
harsh realities by according women their rights inside or outside the ambit of
marriage,” he says. Yes, the act recognises one set of harsh realities. But will
it be negated by another set of harsh realities that are as much a part of our
fabric?

From:OutLookIndia.com

Posted in Articles | Leave a Comment »

If men have a problem, they should speak up

Posted by 498A_Crusader on April 8, 2007

If men have a problem, they should speak up

From the day the new law came into force, Netizens have been writing in with myriad questions on its efficacy, fairness and extent. Before all else, we posed to the minister some questions asked repeatedly by our readers:

Q ) Will the new law eradicate domestic violence?

A ) If not eradicate, it will at least help set directions for men to behave. A lot of men don’t realise that what they do naturally is actually not acceptable as societal norms. So we will be able to give direction. We have set up a framework and the children of the future will grow up in an environment where they see parents respect each other. In any case, you didn’t need the law to do this. This is part of the vows you took when you got married and you haven’t implemented that. So sometimes we have to step in to play teacher.

Q ) Are there any laws for men who are beaten and tortured by women?

A ) Well, the law should be equally applicable. But we didn’t bring this law for some women. We brought it as a framework for civil society. And if men are being beaten up and tortured, then they must learn to speak up. I have overwhelming evidence of women who are raped, tortured, beaten up day and night, whose property is taken away, who’ve been sent to mental asylums or forced to commit sati. The husbands drink and come home and beat them up. Those are reported public demonstrations of what is happening with women. I haven’t seen that with men. Yes, if there is a need, law should be equal for both genders. But I can’t work on a hypothesis. I need people to come forward and prove it.

Q ) Will the new law also help women in abusive marriages to NRIs?

A ) Yes. This has been the worst abuse of its kind. Some people who are NRIs and are supposed to be India’s ambassadors, do such heinous acts. They come back, deliberately misguide families, get married, take property and go away; sleep with women, leave them pregnant and never send word. Sometimes they take women there and then we realise that they are already married and they use them as domestic help, knowing very well that the girl can’t go back to her parents’ house. Well, it’s not going to remain that way. I’m already on the job and I am very confident that we can bring about a treaty that can be applied both ways.

Q ) There are apprehensions that this law will turn out even more “draconian” than the 498 A (Dowry Law)…

A ) How do you say 498 A is draconian? Is it draconian that women are burning? That even pregnant women have not been spared? That there is so much domestic violence that the whole psyche of an Indian woman goes for a six? The children grow up witnessing this and believing it is right for them to beat up some other human being. It is not even so much as men and women as one human being to another. It is completely inhuman to behave like that. Yes, some women have misused 498 A, but neither has that misuse been a deterrent for women being burnt. It has also not stopped the dowry demands. So if some women somewhere do it, does that mean I don’t bring a law at all?

Q ) With the chances of compromise coming down as a result of easy recourse to law, will the institution of marriage in India be affected?

A ) I want to know what is the institution of marriage. That we beat our women, burn them, ask for dowry, have forced sex, drink and slap them around, deny them property rights, don’t include them in decision-making, force them to have abortions under amniocentesis, indulge in female infanticide, female foeticide…is this our home? Is this why we get our girls married? Is this her lot in life? I don’t agree with any of it. It’s because homes have failed, because individuals are able to perpetuate this horror on other individuals that I am forced to step in. And I am not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing – I am saying this is the way forward – respecting partners, understanding each other. Compromise is something done between families. There is no law that if you go to the police you cannot compromise. But there is now a preventive check on a man to say: “Think before you hit out, because you can be hauled up today”.

If you have more questions, suggestions, feedback for the minister, you could send them in here and we will forward them to her. In the meantime, Renuka Chowdhury also answered some other questions on the new law posed by Timesofindia.com:

Q ) So is this the first in an arsenal of women-centric laws that you intend to push through in your tenure in this ministry?

A ) If you look at it, it’s not just me. The courts have been so militant and proactive on a lot of fronts. Let’s face it, it took us 55-60 years before we said the woman is the natural guardian of the child. And today, when we look back after we’ve had the comfort of that law and recognition, doesn’t it sound idiotic that for so many years we said the father is the natural guardian and any strange man on the road can be the guardian to the child but not the mother? We lived in a society which accepted and respected that. And now the change has come. So these are the moments of change, turning points, moments of giving direction. These are the framework we are setting, and it is for the individual to carry it forward. The fact that a court has now said that if a woman is married and if she dies within seven years of married life, the family is going to be held liable. Why has it come to this extreme? Why is there a woman being raped every six minutes and being killed for dowry? And if no laws did anything to protect her, then I am forced to bring in these checks for a while.

Q ) What have you lined up next?

A ) Sexual harassment at workplaces and a Bill to put that into place; one to take cognisance of stalking as an offence, it is still viewed as a foreign subject here. Then we are looking at compulsory registration of marriage so that we can get a handle on child marriages and can protect girls from dying because they are malnutritioned to start with and they become mothers even while they are still children themselves. We have a shocking drop in sex ratios. We’ve lost 10 million girl children in 20 years. In states like UP, Bihar, in south Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, we have shockingly skewed sex ratios which is going to hurt us in the future. There won’t be any women for men to marry.

Q ) Are you taking more pro-active steps against female foeticide?

A ) We’re taking major steps on this. We had the first round of talks with the health ministry, now we’ll have the second round of talks and we’ll carry that forward.

Q ) But amniocentesis or checking for gender is rampant…

A ) Because reporting has been so few and far between. In so many years there has been one conviction. I rest my case.

Q ) In sheer volumes, how many people do you think the domestic violence law will help?

A ) I wouldn’t be able to put numbers. Because I still think despite this there is a lot of no reporting and underreporting. But when I introduced this, even I did not expect such a humongous response. It was as if I’d lanced a wound, a festering wound. We did a phone-in show on a local TV channel in Andhra and you should have seen the kind of response. Ten women came on the line and said this is the man who’s harassing me. This is my father-in-law, this is the inspector who helped me, this is the sub-inspector who’s not helping me, this is the bureaucrat who’s interfering — please help me. I think that is amazing. And it is not just the poorest, the illiterate. Domestic violence is there among the top families of our country, it is there among the most educated elite, among the Mercedes Benz’ and designer handbags. There are men who buy these women these things as status symbols of their wealth but don’t respect the individual. I would say it’s a huge outpouring of relief that has happened. And I have been getting snowed under with visitors who land up at my house at six in the morning with suitcases, saying please help us. In Hyderabad too, I almost never got my flight. The response shows there is an unmet need.

Delhi Police alone have reported that they had 8000 calls on domestic violence last year. And there was little they could do except call the man and yell at him a bit. Because they didn’t have teeth. Now, immediately you can be jailed or fined 20000 rupees or both.

Q ) What are the modalities? Who enforces the law? Where does a victim go to first report abuse?

A ) Well, the actual modalities are that there are supposed to be protection officers and they are supposed to respond and implement this. But, having said that, that is only a technicality. Today there are very few sections under the Domestic Violence Act which are not under the Indian Penal Code, so basically what we have done is facilitated and enhanced the IPC arm, whereby these people can get redressal to grievances and the police can also take it forward because earlier they could at best reprimand them. Today they can jail them.

Q ) Cops? But universally our cops are not sensitised to handle cases like these. Many can’t even handle cases of rape properly. Do you have plans to sensitize the police?

A ) We’ve been speaking to various state Director-Generals of Police asking them to come into partnership on this, and we’ve addressed the National Police Academy where we’ve said that this should be part of the curriculum. We will also hold workshops at the grassroots level where panchayats and police stations are involved and protection officers will be appointed in all these places. This ensures that sensitising will be carried forward. Not to mention that we’ll have NGOs as partners.

Q ) Who will appoint these protection officers? How many will you require to adequately address the need all over the country?

A ) That’s for the state governments to take up. We meet them in two weeks time so that we can ask them what their modalities are and how they envisage this and how we can integrate NGOs. There are some fantastic people out there who should be part of this.

Q ) Will civil society participate?

A ) Yes, it should. If it had done so in the beginning, we wouldn’t have had this problem.

Q ) Did you have a model for the Domestic Violence Act?

A ) Oh there are plenty, even advanced economies like USA have this. We looked at them but what was necessary was that we look at ourselves. India can’t copy anyone else because of the complexities — the multiple religions, hundreds of languages, the gap between the educated and the illiterate, superstitions — to bring a law to say one size fits all is really quite complex.

Q ) And given that multiplicity of religions and beliefs et al, do you expect many women to take recourse to it?

A ) They should, because the law is applicable under the Constitution, it is applicable for every citizen. And so if a Muslim woman or a Christian woman says I won’t take recourse to this but will go to the personal law, that’s their wish. The law is for everyone.

Q ) Should not the enactment of such a law be accompanied by a big-ticket public awareness campaign? What are your plans on that?

A ) Absolutely, the tragedy is that nobody saw this social sector in its own identity and entity till now. In 60 years this is the first time – and the credit goes to the Congress government – that we took cognisance of woman and child in its independent entity and set up a ministry for that to give it its due importance as a subject. This is in our common minimum programme, and you know how dear to heart it is to Mrs Sonia Gandhi and the Prime Minister. This subject, combined with our microfinance successes, will emerge as the biggest influential sector in the country today.

Q ) But there is always the concern that the poorer sections, the largest segment of women that actually suffers domestic abuse, will never really derive the benefits of this law. They may not know how, or just not have the wherewithal…

A ) I don’t agree with that…

Q ) Also tying in with the need for a publicity campaign…

A ) Dissemination of information remains very important. And today, thanks to television, the reach is so huge. But you’ll be surprised — I interact very closely with my constituency workers and I find that rural people have a much more open society. The women are not afraid to come out and say this man is beating me up. There is no stigma attached to it, everyone has witnessed the bashing. They tell me, “Amma cut out that liquor first.” And I ask why and they say: “He drinks. Let him drink and die, I don’t care. But he comes home and bashes me and that is a nuisance.” There is no bitterness or rancour; she says it in a simple statement. I said to the men that now there is a law and I can put you behind bars and they laughed, “the minister is so witty”, not realising there is indeed this law now. So I called the DSP, who then addressed the crowd and told them about it.

These women have a vent, which doesn’t happen in urban spaces. These big blocks of privacy that we put up and the fear of retribution, the fear of living in the same neighbourhood later, doesn’t allow women to speak up and so they go unheard.

Q ) So you are looking at the great middle-class…

A ) Absolutely. And middle-class? As I said, we’ve got designer people doing this.

Q ) And the law will help stop this….?

A ) I think it will change the mindset of people, men. It will help them evolve. Like the thought, ok let me not kick her, it may land me in trouble. Hopefully it should be able to do that. It’s so abnormal for one person to continue beating a person and then expect that person to respect you, look after your welfare, attend to your parents, bring up your bright children and turn them into leaders…

Q ) There is also the significant perception that the Act is anti-men. That it shall be misused and much more than Section 498 A was.

A ) It’s not that it is anti-men. I wish they would look at it. What does the law say? A law helps set individual behaviour in a particular direction. We can only guide. We can steer people towards that area saying hey, if you are husband and wife, you know it’s not really husbandly duties to bash up the wife. And it’s not really the best thing to bring up your children as witnesses to domestic violence. These fathers are earning night and day to give their children designer clothes and shoes, but they don’t realise that unless the home is holistically integrated, you are taking away the best gift to your child — to be able to grow up in a secure home which will make the individual put out their best and make wonderful factors in a civil society. And their personal achievements will be that much more enhanced because they were not misguided by domestic violence.

So it’s sad if men are going to see it as an anti-men thing. It’s to help men set directions for themselves. What are you afraid of if you are in perfect harmony with your wife. After 30 years of marriage my husband and I still have disputes, but that is the democracy of our family fabric. If he was to beat me silly and say I have to say “Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir,” it doesn’t happen. We’re trying to set up those democratic processes at home. Why did we have to do it? Simply because the men did not understand or implement the laws that have been there for the past 60 years. So I am compelled to bring this when you see the macro-level picture of the high infant mortality rate, maternal mortality rate, those statistics on rape and domestic violence, denial of human rights, denial of inheritance rights till recently when we set that right, discriminating laws against women under the Hindu Undivided Family laws. This is not for an individual, it’s for families as a whole.

Q ) The Bill was hanging fire for so long…what has been the reaction of your male colleagues?

A ) A lot of them said “humko marvadi”, you’ve killed us, finished us. But a lot of women have emailed and written and said “you are our hero, supergirl Renuka” and all that. But what was most wonderful was that a lot of senior men and a lot of young people have come forward and said “I’m so glad you brought it. I wouldn’t accept it if my son went around slapping a woman”. So there is a beginning…

Q ) How was the live-in part incorporated? Is it an overt acknowledgement of live-in relationships in India?

A ) I am quite amazed at the hypocrisy of our society. There is an adult man and an adult woman. I have no role in that. By law they are consenting adults. So if voluntarily they are going to live together, does it mean that the man is entitled to beat her up or burn her or use her because he is not married to him?

And he can deprive her of money, may be he has children with her that he does not want to acknowledge? How can you do that? Law is for all women, whether living together or married, how am I concerned?

Q ) In that case is protecting other rights of a woman in a live-in relationship on the anvil next?

A ) Protecting will come automatically. If the man is in for a free ride and is only thinking of conning the woman then serve him right for getting into legal trouble.

Q ) And what about same sex partners in abusive relationships?

A ) The law is never static, it responds to the dynamics of a society. So as when the situation will evolve, the law will evolve, I’m confident.

Q ) What’s happening on the Women Reservation Bill issue?

A ) I think Parliament’s mentality will change and we should be able to bring it in the next session. If I can pull a rabbit out of the hat, let’s see. I don’t want to talk about it, I’d rather put my money where my mouth is. The men have taken that much longer to accept it. Actually they do accept it and are afraid of it.

Q ) Well, the most vociferous protests have been among your colleagues…

A ) The simplest change that I have witnessed was that Rajiv Gandhi, with a single signature, empowered 10 lakh women at the grassroots level to participate in elections. Today, for all the criticism that their husbands do the actual work etc, at the end of the day the truth is that at the panchayat level you have 42% women, not just 33%. This has evolved because people have accepted woman leadership. A silent revolution is taking place. These men will get the chance to be part of history if they were to facilitate this Bill and accept it.

Q ) Is female literacy another personal priority?

A ) It’s a huge priority across the country. We’ve given the right impetus, funds have been allotted and the gap is narrowing.

Posted in News | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 169 other followers