The Economic Times of 31 Oct 2013
carried an op-ed by Ms. Samanwaya Rautray (a correspondent with the
paper) who has given her judgment over the judgment of Supreme Court
of India on the case of Naina Sahni. The link to the write-up at the
end.
I have no complaints against the
judgment as it has been proved beyond doubt that the man Sushil
Sharma murdered his wife Naina Sahni. For a crime proved to be
committed, the criminal shall be punished is the rule of law across
the globe. However, my problem is with the correspondent who is
living in an open eyed dream of being more intelligent, more
knowledgeable, more responsible than the judges of Supreme Court
(though at the same time I do not intend to say that those judges
carry these qualities better than rest of the denizens).
The law has a responsibility to ensure
it delves sufficiently deeper into the motive of any crime committed.
And the crime here – of a man murdering his wife – carried a
motive which had it's genesis in a relationship of his wife with a
man. But before I put forth my views on this motive, I want to look
at certain points made by the 'intelligent' correspondent.
She says that the judgment is 'wrong'
when it observed that an independent educated woman cannot be
subjected to violence. Now lets consider this. I have two thoughts on
this. A woman as educated and as political as Naina Sahni does not
take any action against her husband if he had been subjecting her to
domestic violence. Why? Why would such an educated woman not go to
police and lodge a complain? Why would she not raise her voice? While
answering these questions we need to remember that the year was 1995
and not 1975. In that year, women activism had gained the critical
mass and was indeed a force to reckon with already. So why would a
woman not raise her voice. Such a woman actually does not need
parental support and can earn independently, live as a single woman
and care the least for her violent husband and the society, a way
which anyways is being propagated by feminists for the women of
India. There could be two reasons for silence of such a woman. Either
she was actually infidel and wanted to keep her relation a secret,
which could have become public if she had raised her own voice or her
husband was not violent towards her (despite his reputation of being
brash and gun trotting) which did not actually give Naina any reason
to complain. The woman feared that her extra marital relation wold
tarnish the reputation of her parents and therefore continued to live
with Sushil Sharma under all circumstances.
Thus the court and the judges were bang
right when they stated that Naina was not 'poor, illiterate hapless
woman' and had the choice of walking out which she deliberately did
not choose under her own volition.
In the write-up, the correspondent
makes a remark that 'women are taught to be servile, obedient and
play second fiddle to the men in their lives'. I will want the
correspondent to think deeply on this remark again but this time with
the data that suicides committed by men in marital discord is almost
twice that of those committed by women. It just shows who dominates
whom and maybe the husband of the correspondent (if at all someone
dared to marry her) can tell more.
Ms.Rautray then also states '...mindset
drives our society to harass women who marry outside their caste,
demand money from bride's family and kill women in the name of honour
when they stray outside the moral mores laid down for them by the
majority'. I do take note of the deliberate use of the word 'mores'
instead of more common 'values' to complete the phrase around
morality. Nevertheless my point here is the thought behind women
liberation. Why is that linked to breaking moral 'mores', and not to
education. I have witnessed more feminists like Ms Rautray harping
around freedom for women in terms of breaking the established moral
'mores' especially of the type late night outs, continuing
relationships outside marriage, freedom to wear revealing clothes but
there are few and just about feeble noises around female foeticide,
female education. Why? There is a reason. When voices are raised
around female foeticide and education the only person to be blamed
and punished are parents – father and mother – of the
girl/women/feminists. Now, how can they do this? Their target is men
and their parents. So it is matters between man and woman and not
between woman and her parents that get support from severely lop
sided and mis-targetted feminism in India, at least.
To read the write-up click HERE
