And smokes, drinks and has condoms in her room? Notion that young Indians leading liberated lives are asking for trouble needs revisiting.
Why did a young woman go to watch a late-night movie with her boyfriend, wearing tight jeans and t-shirt? Does it not suggest a promiscuous relationship? Why did she not keep her parents and college informed?
And that too when her daddy wasn’t rich enough to give her the safety of a chauffeur-driven car?
And why were she and her boyfriend hanging around a lonely Delhi road at night, and why did they cadge a ride with an empty bus on an irregular run with six lumpen, hormone-laden young men in it?
What kind of reckless, adventurous, irresponsible behaviour was this? The men in the bus were wrong to rape the girl and beat up the boyfriend, but why did you put four hormone-laden urchins into such a tempting predicament?
And when they did fall for that temptation, why didn’t you, following the principle Asaram Bapu enunciated later, not call them your brothers, offer to tie rakhis on their hands?
And if even that didn’t work, why didn’t you appreciate the odds and just play along? It would have spared you the violence and death. And you had a boyfriend, may be you were also used (or as is preferred by our criminal lawyers, habituated) to sex, so what was the big, fatal fightback about?
Those poor boys, idiots, if only they hadn’t killed you, could have deserved a more lenient, even suspended sentence. After all, this case would then not have gut-wrenching violence that precedes or accompanies such cases. It would have been just another non-violent rape, like 85 per cent of all of them, within families, on dates, under intoxication etc.
And they could have returned to normal, sane lives, after being given some counselling by India’s finest psychologists at Bengaluru’s NIMHANS (National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences). Courts may have even been large-hearted enough to facilitate this, to order the director of NIMHANS to do this on priority and report back to them.
No wonder, what is thrown up before us is a tragedy of sorts, driving eight lives and an equal number of families into an abyss.
One precious young life was lost, one committed suicide, one will nurse his physical injuries and emotional loss, four more will hang. What is equally worrisome is how these youth have dragged themselves and their families into an abysmal situation, be it the victim or the perpetrators.
You must be mad with me for writing all this, obviously referring to the ‘Nirbhaya’ (Jyoti) gang rape and murder case that shook the entire country. And if you are mad with me, that was the intention behind this outrageous ploy. It’s worked.
Let’s shift our attention to something that happened in Sonepat, Haryana, on the northern outskirts of the capital about a year after the Nirbhaya/Jyoti case. A student at the private, and if we say so for convenience, elite, O.P. Jindal Global University accused her boyfriend (and campus-mate) of blackmail and serial rape, by himself and his friends, at least once even in a gang rape situation.
The boy sent her his nude pictures, coaxed her to send him hers, and then blackmailed her, threatening to reveal these on the campus – and to her parents. She said this to a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, in conformity with the tough, new, post-Nirbhaya rape law. It set off a pattern of blackmail, rape, forced alcohol and drug (probably smoked marijuana) abuse. She said he blackmailed her into buying a sex toy and using it while he watched on Skype.
The case came up for trial. It was contested vigorously by both sides. Trial judge Sunita Grover accepted the woman’s charges. The three boys were convicted for an assortment of crimes including rape, blackmail, violation of I.T. Act and handed tough, multiple sentences, including 20 years for rape.
The convicts appealed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appeal is currently pending and will take the time that criminal appeals in our system usually take. An example: the convicted dentist parents’ appeal in the Aarushi murder case is pending in the Allahabad High Court since 2013.
Last week, however, the bench in the Punjab and Haryana High Court gave bail to the rape/blackmail convicts, suspended their sentence as they saw some significant mitigating features in the case although – in fairness – they clearly stated that nothing they are saying in this order should influence the merits of the appeal. Further, they said, since the appeal process in our system takes time, it was fair to let the boys go out meanwhile and rebuild their lives, complete their education, even overseas, after duly taking the court’s permission. They also ordered that the boys be given counselling at New Delhi’s All India Institute of Medical Sciences, asked its director to facilitate it, report back the progress to the court. The judges also asked the parents of the boys to help reform and report back on the progress.
It isn’t my intention in the least to question the judges’ wisdom. It is evident they found evidence, drawing from the complainant’s background, conduct and her relationships with the convicts to take this important decision. No argument there. Fairness and prudence demands that we now wait for the final order on the appeal.
The following are some passages I have picked from the honourable judges’ 12-page order with the help of my colleague Apurva Vishwanath, who knows her law:
- A perusal of the statement of the victim as also her cross examination reveals a promiscuous relationship and sexual encounters with all the three accused persons over a period of time and at no stage did she ever make any attempt to reveal her mental state to either the authorities in the college or to her parents or her friends.
- She also conceded in her cross-examination that her hostel room was searched leading to recovery of condoms by the Warden, but the parents were not informed in this regard. She further admitted that she used to smoke cigarettes of ‘Classic’ make. Apart from this, she admitted use of drugs but clarified it that it was not by choice. She conceded that the drug which she took was known as ‘Joint’ and the same is smoked.
- The entire crass sequence actually is reflective of a degenerative mindset of the youth breeding denigrating relationships mired in drugs, alcohol, casual sexual escapades and a promiscuous and voyeuristic world. No wonder, what is thrown up before us is a tragedy of sorts, driving four young lives and equal number of families into an abyss.
- The testimony of the victim does offer an alternate story of casual relationship with her friends, acquaintances, adventurism and experimentation in sexual encounters and these factors would therefore, offer a compelling reasons to consider the prayer for suspension of sentence favourably particularly when the accused themselves are young and the narrative does not throw up gut wrenching violence, that normally precede or accompany such incidents.
- The perverse streak in both is also revealed from her admission that a sex toy was suggested by Hardik and her acceptance of the same.
A reading of these, first of all, will explain to you the loaded construction of my first few paras in this article. The words in italics are inspired from passages in this order. My argument is self-explanatory.
Once again, I am not questioning the judges’ reasoning. I’m also not pretending to call out any patriarchy or moralising. Not when what we are questioning is easy labels. I am only suggesting greater sensitisation and understanding of adults’ sexual and lifestyle choices.
A viewing of Jonathan Kaplan’s 1988 award-winning classic The Accused, starring Jodie Foster, may be a good beginning. The gang rape victim, played by Foster, is a hard-living working-class woman and a defence witness (played by Leo Rossi) justifies it asking: “Raped? She’s a whore…she f…..d a bar full of guys…she loved it…now she blames others.”
That wasn’t accepted as justification in the 1988 film. Should it be, in real life, in 2017?
(The headline of this column is inspired by legendary foreign correspondent Edward Behr’s book titled “Anyone here been raped & speaks English?”)
Editor’s note: The article was updated to correctly reflect the character played by Jodie Foster in The Accused
‘As we express our gratitude for the saints of indian soil , we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them, as being proved time to time may, be any one of our great saints like, ved vyas ji, kashyap ji, dadhichi ji, Balmiki ji, Garg muni, Parshuram ji, Durvasa rishi, Sandipani rishi, Adi shankaracharya ji , kabir, surdas ji , Tulsidas ji, Rahim, Rasakhan , Meera bai , Vivekanand ji , sai leela shah ji , and Asaramji, sri sri ravishankar ji , all are doing the similar acts for real prosperity and uplifting of human values in the society. Go through the record unbiased you will find a lot.
?’
for crying out loud, could everyone reading this think about whether they would like the situation described in the article to continue? if not, every person who is not raping another person with their eyes should be arresting that behaviour and any extension of it every moment. every female who has lived in india, and ever stepped out of an environment in which the demeanour of men is exemplary, has likely been assaulted in some manner and should not be required to respond to the behaviour of people who threaten her. in the normal world that presently does not exist, assault does not occur. in the abnormal world that exists, assault can only be addressed by starting to institutionalize anyone who assaults another living thing and bail means supervised rehabilitation, visitations and outings.
Although it has little connection to present article, but think what would have been the investigation and judgement if this incident had happened in India?
On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head.
Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten-story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to the effect indicating his despondency.
As he fell past the ninth floor his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window, which killed him instantly.
Neither the shooter nor the deceased was aware that a safety net had been installed just below the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned.
“Ordinarily,” Dr Mills continued, “A person, who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide.”
That Mr. Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands.
In the room on the ninth floor, where the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun.
The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window striking Mr. Opus.
When one intends to kill subject “A” but kills subject “B” in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject “B”.
When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant and both said that they thought the shotgun was unloaded.
The old man said it was a long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, if the gun had been accidentally loaded.
The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple’s son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident.
It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son’s financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother.
Since the loader of the gun was aware of this, he was guilty of the murder even though he didn’t actually pull the trigger.
The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.
Now comes the exquisite twist.
Further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus.
He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother’s murder. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window.
The son had actually murdered himself, so the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.
A true story from Associated Press, Reported by Kurt Westervelt
Brilliant – facts are sometimes stranger than fiction!
I dont think so there has been a single proof found against Asaram Bapu. Media is misleading people!
This reveals a sorry state of affairs of some of our high courts which are in consequence refuse to stand up to a dignity of a women.