 |
| PHOTO CREDIT HERE |
Way
back in 1997, the honourable Indian Supreme Court set up Vishaka Guidelines which you have commented upon in your blog
However,
it is important to remind ourselves on this subject of What is sexual harassment?
The honourable Indian Supreme Court has
clearly defined it as under:
Sexual
harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behavior (whether
directly or by implication) as:
a)
physical contact and advances;
b) a
demand or request for sexual favors;
c)
sexually colored remarks;
d)
showing pornography;
e)
any other unwelcome physical verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.
Courtesy:
Wikipedia:
In
the present case, with regard to acquitting Mohammad Farooqui in the case filed
against him for rape by a complainant residing in the United States, your
powerful poem moved me to write this email to you. You have touched upon the many
times and the multiple ways patriarchy which propagate power of male gender homo-sapiens commonly known as man, in
our society and empowered them to use power, physical, mental, psychological,
over women. Thus, over ages, society wired in by this insidious crime against
women, has got away with the worst because, the system is too deeply entrenched
in the minds of men, and women alike, prompting them to bring up their
daughters to be victims and sons to be forever ‘right’ even as a perpetrator.
I
have read and gone through the entire proceedings and the content of the email.
I came across this on FaceBook via my good friend Aditi Ray.
Frankly,
the email is misleading sometimes, and has thus been used by the Bench of
Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao (please to note, there was no woman
Judge on this panel, which is unacceptable when the case is about rape), to
acquit the accused director of Piplee Live, Mohammad Farooqui for the 2nd
time in January 2018, after he was acquitted in the High Court in 2015. The
grounds cited are evident from her email – “She said I love you and kissed him-
Explanation
2,. Sec 375 defined Rape in the following Link
It
clearly states:
“375.
A man is said to commit "rape" who except in the case hereinafter
excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under
any of the five following descriptions:
Firstly.
Against her will.
Secondly.
Without her consent.
Thirdly.
With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of
death, or of hurt.
Fourthly.
With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her
consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or
believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly.
With or without her consent, when she is under fourteen years of age.
Explanation.
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the
offence of rape.
Exception.
Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under
thirteen years of age, is not rape.”
Mohammad
Farooqui is guilty on all grounds stated above. She did not give consent. In fact, she continued to say no, even as he
pushed himself harder on her.
It
is yet to establish, whether a thorough in depth inquiry had been made on the
content of the email, for the complainant does appear to be under duress and
even confused in her own head to have made statements that did not tally
throughout. Yet, picking up statements like ‘I love you’ or ‘making drinks for
him’, ‘they were friends’ ‘faked orgasm’ when she says earlier that this was
the first time, and coming to conclusion that the complainant had given consent
is drawing a conclusion too soon. Was the complainant questioned to find out
her background, whether she was a victim of child sexual abuse in the past, or
why she shot off an email that was confusing in content? And most importantly,
why Mohammad Farooqui, guilty on two accounts – first, for cheating on his
wife, in their house, right under her nose, and then secondly, committing rape
when his wife was out of the house, is still acquitted, leaves much to be
desired. The case seems to be hurried to conclusion, favouring the man, in an
all male Bench, with no desire to open and scrutinize the case, once again,
since it was brought forward after the High Court had passed its judgment in
favour of Mohammad Farooqui. If the complainant appealed to the honourable
Supreme Court, then was it not the duty of the SC to relook at the case from a
fresh angle, without quickly dismissing it as ‘High Court’ has taken the most
measured and well-thought out decision, and so the case is closed and The
Supreme Court does not wish to open the case again?
If
justice be done, then, the case must be reopened and scrutinized.
(a) More
inputs on the content of the email is required and deciphering its true
meaning, which to me is unclear, since there is a lot written between the lines
which has not been taken account of.
(b) Mohammad
Farooqui must be bought to task on clear evidence of a double deceit, one
against his wife and the other against the complainant by forcing himself against
her will even though she constantly said no to it; for un-natural oral sex with
the victim and then penetration which makes the entire procedure tantamount to
rape.
(c) Consultation
with Psychologists and persons working with Child Sexual Abuse victims for a more
in-depth meaning of the email. There is a need for far more public discourse
and involvement to garner strength over the case which is shoved under the
carpet by the honourable Supreme Court saying they do not wish to re-look at
the decision made by the Mumbai High Court, as they are quite sure that the
conclusion arrived at is after profound deliberations on the said case at hand.
(d) Bench
must consist of woman as judge along with gender male judge to make the
judgment acceptable.
(e) The
Supreme Court must answer why it is flaunting its own judgment and guidelines
set up by Vishaka Guidelines and also Explanation 2, Sec 375
A
time has come that India needs to SCREAM loudly about atrocities against women
and the law-less-ness that prevails in our country over Rape which is rampant
across the country and goes unreported at most times and dismissed if brought
before Law of the country.
Precisely
why, the complainant returned abroad to file an FIR, because, within India, the
custodians of law and order, the Public Police Service are reluctant to do so.
Mohammad
Farooqui may be free man, but is a perpetrator on the prowl. He is symbolic of the
decadence of a society that thrives on lies and male power to dominate and
subjugate woman they wish to objectify to meet the carnal desires of their oft deranged
minds - their mother, sister, daughter, wife, and girlfriend.
