WUNRN
India – Draft Bill on Women’s Security -
Divisive Political Components
A draft bill on women’s security is bogged down trying to build
safeguards for men.
The mass protests in
government: sexual abuse bill.
“Imagine if the woman I have been married to for 20 years one day turns around and says I have raped her. It will shake the institution of marriage if marital rape is recognised as rape.”
—Bharatiya Janata Party leader Rajiv Pratap Rudy
Member of the parliamentary committee which deliberated the Criminal Law
Amendment Bill, 2012
The
parliamentary panel submitted its report after only eight sittings, tabling it
in the Lok Sabha on March 4—a record time, members say, that underlines the
seriousness with which Parliament has dealt with the issue of rape. And to be
sure, Rajiv Pratap Rudy’s squeamishness in acknowledging marital rape within
the walls of domesticity—a view shared by the overwhelmingly male-dominated
parliamentary committee—finds an echo in the Union cabinet that is mulling
over a draft bill meant to protect women.
But
marital rape is just one prickly debate the government is grappling with. Cases
of rape and sexual abuse by the armed forces in conflict areas is an equally
sticky point. As is rape by men in power/authority. One would have assumed a
legislation meant to protect women would factor in the most stringent of
penalties—the Justice Verma panel report, out on January 23, held out against
the public mood for a death penalty in the aftermath of the
At
the time of going to press, though, the government’s intentions were still unclear.
It’s been vacillating for long. Besides the degree of punishment, a fundamental
dilemma is how to define sexual assault. Should it privilege the canonical
expression of “the aggressor male” preying on a “female victim”? The 2012 bill
had leant towards a broader definition, covering all manner of
non-penetrative sexual assault. It also “gender-neutralised” the victim, including
transgenders, boys et al. Stalking was included for the first time, as was acid
attacks. The victim’s “character” too would no longer be a factor: another
progressive element. But women activists wanted an exclusive rape law dealing
with female victims. They were also upset with marital rape being outside its
purview. And the raising of the age of consent, ostensibly a ‘protective’
move, pleased none. Many of these themes are still playing out after the
legislative process ran smack into the most extraordinary public mobilisation
on rape after the gruesome
Things
accelerated thereafter. The government, impatient with the Verma report’s
well-considered suggestions, issued the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance,
2013, on February 3. Criticised for its gaps and its crowd-pleasing nod at the
death penalty, this piece of law will lapse as this session winds up on March
22. An empowered group of ministers (EGoM) is hastily readying another draft
law. The way it returns to the drawing board despite the time constraint only
highlights the confusion in government over key issues.
On
March 12, senior ministers revealed their apprehensions. The provisions
dealing with stalking and abuse of power by men need safeguards against
misuse, they said! For many, no more proof is needed of the utterly lopsided
priorities shown up in the gender-weighted legislative discourse. Stalking, a
rampant crime, is a prelude to more shocking acts of violence—acid attack,
rape, assault—that are in many ways responsible for driving women indoors.
Stories abound of women opting out of public life after being stalked, assaulted.
Many stories have had dire endings. Yet, the government thinks it fit to mull
over a possible misuse of the law.
Says
advocate Vrinda Grover: “It appeared the government was more interested in
putting in safeguards for men.” Slowly but surely, the enabling, protective
elements get diluted and compromised by ‘safeguards against misuse’.
It
all seems to have unravelled from the point where the government, under pressure
after the
Even
now, surely, it can be asked: what exactly prevents the government from
adopting the Verma panel recommendations? Why is the government starting work
from scratch? What stops it from acknowledging the gravity—and indeed, the very
existence—of categories of sexual crime. Even if not in toto, it is this set of
enlightened suggestions that need to become the starting point of parliamentary
debate—not a retrogressive legislation that in name protects women, but dilutes
it in the name of making it comprehensive and then tries and build safeguards
for men?