The Centre has submitted before the Delhi high court that 'what may appear as marital rape to an individual wife, it may not appear so to others'.
The
Narendra
Modi government’s reactionary stand that criminalising marital
rape would “destabilise the institution of marriage” and could
become an easy tool to “harass husbands” in RIT Foundation vs
Union of India, which is pending before the Delhi high court, is
utterly disappointing. The government seems to have found some
bizarre correlation between saving the institution of marriage and
not criminalising marital
rape.
It is difficult to understand how rape of a woman by her
husband is any less brutal than triple talaq or polygamy, which the
present government seems to have been much concerned about. Such
ignominious behaviour of the Centre echoes our innate societal
misogyny, which over the years has led to further subjugation of
women.
The
Centre has also submitted before the Delhi high court that “what
may appear as marital rape to an individual wife, it may not appear
so to others”. Such arguments stem from the basic structure of
criminal law which prescribes the standard of “reasonableness” or
“reasonable person” as one of its cornerstones. In criminal
law, the act or omission of the accused is to be judged from the
lens of “reasonableness” or “reasonable person”, which is
generally the perspective of “an average, ordinary person who is a
representative of the general community”. Such an approach seems to
be problematic for marital rape in particular, because of the
mainstream perception that marriage gives the husband constant
consent for sexual intercourse.
To
put it differently, in a patriarchal society, that “reasonable
person” is always a male, who judges the place of a female in the
social process. Women, therefore, end up being perceived as
baby-making machines where their right to bodily autonomy and
reproductive rights are inconceivable and preposterous. According to
Morton Hunt, an American psychologist who is considered one of the
first to engage with the issue of marital rape, “the typical
marital rapist is a man who still believes that husbands are supposed
to “rule” their wives. This extends, he feels, to sexual matters:
when he wants her, she should be glad, or at least willing, if she is
not, he has the right to force her. But in forcing her, he gains far
more than a few minutes of sexual pleasure. He humbles her and
reasserts, in the most emotionally powerful way possible, that he is
the ruler and she is the subject.”
Feminist
scholars recognise the ubiquitous influence of patriarchy and virile
nature of norms on law and demonstrate their effects on the material
conditions of women and those who not conform to “cisgender norms”.
The inability of law and legal institutions to deal with marital rape
exposes the limits of the law. It shows that the law predominantly
serves the aspirations of the dominant class, at the expense of the
marginalised and weak. In a male dominated society, therefore, the
struggle of women is not just limited to the existing societal
structure, but also institutions which present themselves as the
epitome of neutrality and reasonableness... Read
More
No comments:
Post a Comment