“Ninety percent rape victims go willingly, but later they meet criminal minded people…”

Dharmvir Goyat’s exact words:

“Is mamle mein mujhe koi sankoch naheen hai ye kahne se ki nabbe pratishat ladkiyan jaati sahmati se hain, aur aage apraadhi vyakti mil jate hain jo hawas ka shikaar hote hain. Ladki ko ye pata naheen hota ki aage panch… saat… dus … So Nabbe pratishat ladkiyan jaati sahmati se hain, aur aage apraadhi vyakti mil jate hain. Main saaf kahna chahta hoon.” [Link]

Watch him:

Translation:

“In this matter I have no hesitation is saying this that Ninety percent girls go willingly/with consent, but later they meet criminal minded people who are victims of lust. Girl does not know that further there are five, seven, ten… So,  Ninety percent girls go willingly/with consent, but later they meet criminal minded people. I want to state  this clearly.”

So what does he mean?

Is he saying the rape victims go willingly to be raped? He is not.

Does he mean girls in Haryana go willingly to have consensual sex (and that is when men in Haryana rape them)?

And who told him that? Did the rape victims tell him this? Or do Rapists make such claims?

Let’s say the rapists told him that (and he believed these rapists). What motivation could the rapists have to try to claim that the victim came willingly? What does ‘rape-victim-went-willingly’ imply? That the victim intended to have sex/meet a man? Would it help an Indian rapist if the victim is shown to be sexually active?

How difficult it is for a violent, brutal, rape-MMS making rapist with a criminal record  to convince random people, political leaders, NCR cops, Khaps and some TOI commenters, that the rape victim was responsible for the rape?

Does it help the court case? It does. Amongst other things, it could frighten and shame the victim into taking back her case and/or committing suicide. It could shame her family into moving to another place – case closed. It could make many witnesses turn hostile.

So rapists and their lawyers have a lot to gain from trying to show that the rape-victim-went-willingly.

But why do some other people appear keen to have this taken as the truth? How do they benefit from perpetuating such misogyny and rape-myths?

It’s possible that some people see gang-rapes as an appropriate punishment for women who are accused of (or suspected of) wanting to have sex with a man they are not married to?

Stoning is not legal in India, but one can always overlook other kinds of punishments for women who seem to want to choose their own partners. Recently one brother in Delhi killed his sister,

NEW DELHI: A teenager allegedly stabbed his younger sister to death early this morning as he disapproved of her alleged relationship with a boy, police said. [Link]

This brother and others like him would be glad to use Dharmvir Goyat’s statement to warn the girls in their family against daring to think of interacting with men, dating, having relationships with men or even dreaming of falling in love and choosing their own partners.

It seems directly or indirectly rapes are used to control women’s choices and freedoms, whether as excuses to marry minor girls to men they have no way to choose or reject, or by ensuring these girls are not allowed to try choose their own partners.

Related Posts:

19 Rape Facts that Khaps, Cops and Chautala should know.

Gurgaon pub attendant gang rape victim: Went willingly? Refused medical test?

“Girls should be married at 16, so that they don’t need to go elsewhere for their sexual needs. This way rapes will not occur.”

13 things Indian Misogynists believe about men’s mothers and sisters.

Is rape the worst thing that can happen to an Indian woman?

Or is death worse than rape?

Until recently, many Indians thought a rape victim’s life was ruined (barbad ho gayee) and the only way out was to pressurize her to kill herself, or for her family members to murder her.

If the victim and her family dared to hope  to move on (without any hopes of the rapists being punished, because traditionally we punished rape victims not rapists) they had to make sure nobody learnt about the crime. (Obviously, this was extremely convenient  for sexual criminals)

The idea of punishing a rapist is a modern idea. Many Indians (specially rapists and misogynists) are still not able to understand/digest this.

But now that rape is being seen as a crime against a woman and not as a crime against Patriarchy (i.e. not as stealing of her honor or virginity) – would you still say that a rape is the worst thing that could happen to a woman?

Is it possible for an Indian rape victim (and the society) to see rape as a horrible, traumatic, brutal crime but not as something for the victim to be ashamed of, as an end of happiness, honor, life, opportunities and dignity for the victim?

As of now, it seems, we see it as worse than death for the victim, but still make excuses for the rapists.

Edited to ask: Would you say loss of sight or limb is worse than a rape?

Related Posts:

Here’s why I think the society should not obsess over a woman’s virginity.

Who do you think killed Aarushi Talwar?

I find it impossible to believe that her parents killed Aarushi Talwar. I have been following the case from day one and what was most glaring was the incompetence of the investigating authorities. Even a child knows about avoiding new finger prints at the place of crime, inspecting the entire house and use of luminol, examination of hair, blood samples etc, all of which were ignored in the beginning. Her parents also asked for forensic science to be used – which doesn’t seem to have happened yet.

When I discussed this with some friends one said, the parents didn’t look like they were grieving, but that means nothing, because they must have been in shock. I remember Nitish Katara‘s mother had the same look on her face.

Another argument about how they did not hear any thing that night. That does happen with windows AC, it’s very common in fact. There was another case in East Delhi where the live-in servant injured the three children, two died and the third one managed to wake up the parents who had heard nothing because their AC was on.

The golf clubs that made the CBI suspicious have been found to have no had blood on them.

So what happened?

It’s possible that Hemraj allowed some intruders, known to him, to come inside the house and maybe they had a drink or two and then maybe they went to the terrace and since Hemraj didn’t want them to stay for any further mischief, and since he was a witness, they killed him.  After killing him they killed Arushi also and left without any difficulty.

Do you think Aarushi’s parents could have killed her? If yes, why would they do that?

The ‘Honor Killing’ angle that UP police tried to give in the beginning, is difficult to accept, because the parents could have counseled the child, sent her to a hostel and they could have demanded that the servant to goes back to Nepal.

Parents killing their only child, born eleven years after their marriage – is difficult to believe.

There is no mention of Aarushi having any behavioral issues, which abused children tend to display. She was doing well at school. The family had also arranged for her to go to her Nani’s house in NOIDA, every day after school, so she wasn’t alone at home. Does all this indicate the kind of parents who could kill their child?

What do you think?

Updated:

Before you make up your mind, do take a look at what Tehelka says here. (Thank You Megha)

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=hub190211THE_HOUSE.asp

Don’t let me down dear daughter!

Or else…

A friend once said she was very liberal and gave her daughter plenty of freedom, with a reminder, that she trusted her and did not expect the child to ‘let her down’.

Terms like ‘trust’, ‘freedom’ and ‘letting down’ made it sound like a warning  Guidance and support towards self reliance, encouragement and acceptance would have been more appropriate, I feel.

How does  a child tell such parents that she disagrees? What if she does not succeed is being obedient? And, if she does make a bad choice? It looked more like the parents were letting down the child.

‘Freedom to obey’ is not ‘freedom’.

The children are  reminded that if they take decisions on their own – like a daughter marrying a person of her choice, she mustn’t come back home if there is a problem. (Another threat.)

And if she marries someone they choose and there is abuse? Can she come back home then? We know she can’t.

How do their ‘trust’  and their expectations help the child lead a better life? Or were they not really thinking of the child’s happiness - in which case should the child trust them?

Trust.

Sangeeta from Gurjjar community, knew her family would not allow her to marry Ravinder Kataria, a Jaatav boy, she  had met in her Computer classes.

This February they married in court and also  in an Arya Samaj Temple.

‘They decided not to declare their marriage until they succeeded in convincing their families to approve it‘ and ‘continued to stay at their respective houses’.

When her family members started looking for a groom for her, Sangeeta had to tell them about her marriage.

It is easy to imagine the reactions… Such boldness must have been seen as a bad  example for other girls in the family. The news mentions many uncles, a brother, father and mother.

She managed to go to her husband’s home, but her family persuaded her to come back with them to return on 18th July after a grand wedding to save their name (honor). The couple wanted their blessings so they must have been relieved.

Ravindra lost all contact with his wife after that. Suspecting foul play, on July 13th he lodged a complaint with the police.

The Noida police launched an investigation and recovered the skeletal remains of the girl from the fields and arrested four persons, including her brother and father. The accused have confessed to the killing, police said.

In a post about a Delhi girl who died in suspicious circumstances, a commenter had said the girl betrayed her parents’ trust, she was sent to study, not to choose a life partner. Does it sound like we are talking about an adult citizen living in a  Democratic nation? Indian parents need to learn that they do not own their children, they do not ‘give them freedom’ – and they have no right to take it away.

(Details of the news from [Link 1 ],  [Link 2] ,[Link 3], [Link 4 ]& [Link 5])

Related post: Perfect parenting in 55 words

No second chances for an Indian daughter.

Nirupama Pathak 23, a Delhi based journalist was found dead in her parents’ home in Koderma, Jharkhand.

Her mother said she was electrocuted while cleaning the ceiling fan. Later she said Nirupama hung herself from the fan and left a suicide note (no rope found say police). The police was not informed until 18 hours after the death.

According to the medical report, Nirupama could have been smothered with a pillow and she was 10-12 weeks pregnant (Her fiance says he wasn’t aware).

The police thinks this could be a case of Honor Killing.

Knowing how Indians view premarital pregnancy as a blow to their culture, nothing can be ruled out.

Suicide is seen as the appropriate, unwritten penalty for a premarital pregnancy in our society.

It is possible that the Nirupama took her own life if her fiance refused to marry her.

Our society does not acknowledge a heart break as traumatic because heart breaks are a result of premarital relationships and we do not believe in premarital relationships.

Did Nirupama need emotional support?

Maybe an abortion, some time, some counseling,  a hope for a second chance in life and a much needed hug could have saved her life?

It is possible that the mother tried to show a suicide as an electrocution. Suicide by an unmarried girl is seen with suspicion.

1. An unmarried young woman can kill herself for not doing well in exams. Such suicides are not dishonorable and are excused with sympathy for the parents.

2. A married young woman can hang herself. Most unfortunate but perfectly honorable. Better than walking out of a bad marriage anyway.

3. An unmarried young woman might commit suicide for any reason, but the parent’s peer group would wonder if it has ‘something to do with a boy’. A man in a girl’s life is considered most dishonorable.

Good Indian Girls are not supposed to interact with men and here she interacted enough to fall in love, maybe sleep with and maybe get pregnant. The parents’ peer group would find the time to analyze how they ‘never suspected’ or ‘always suspected‘ that she was ‘that‘ kind of girl.

Most Indians are conditioned to be intimidated by malicious  gossip. So if she did commit suicide, even in their grief Nirupama’s parents could want it to look like an electrocution.

While some suicides are dishonorable, premarital pregnancies and inter caste marriages are even more dishonorable. So it is possible that they drove her to kill herself.

And if she was too reluctant to kill herself, it is also possible that her mother did smother her with a pillow hoping to pass off her death as suicide.

Nirupama Pathak’s parents had options.

1. If the couple wanted to get married – they could give them their blessings.

In a country where thousands of girls are killed in, being forced to go back or are dying-everyday in bad marriages – how could the parents not be delighted to see their daughter find happiness and love?

Indian parents have amazing confidence (often sadly misplaced) in their own abilities in finding perfect matches for their adult children.

Did they fear her choice was wrong? She was 23. They should have respected her decision. The Supreme Court does.

2. What if her fiance was not willing to marry her?

Many would see that as the worst possible calamity to fall on an Indian daughter’s parents. A Bollywood father would  hang himself from a ceiling fan or throw the girl out. Where do Indian family values go when a daughter needs them?

Read more about our attitudes when it comes to daughters, on Kislay’s blog. [click here].

They could have advised her to have an abortion. If they were afraid of the doctor ‘talking about it’, they could have come to Delhi where Nirupama worked.

3. What if the girl did not want marriage or abortion?

She would have been well within her rights to choose that.

If they couldn’t handle that, they could have told her to live her life her way and cut off all ties with her. That’s an honorable, face-saving thing to do in our society. Their all important peer group (biradari/samaaj/community) would have respected them for it.

Where then did death, suicide or killing come into this?

Do parents who can’t make the best of an unfortunate situation and at least stand by an unhappy child – still believe that they deserve to have children?

Important Note: Anyone heard of Priyabhanshu Ranjan?