---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: javed jamil <doctorforu123@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Subject: Verma Panel endorses Market-sponsored Femini
From: javed jamil <doctorforu123@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Subject: Verma Panel endorses Market-sponsored Femini
Verma Panel endorses Market-sponsored Feminism
By Dr Javed Jamil*
This
is what I have been saying all along. I had written in all my articles
on Gang rape that the solutions will be found out in a way so as to
safeguard the interests of the market forces. What Verma Panel has done
is much more than that. They have not just safeguarded the interests of the market forces but have also chosen to promote the market-sponsored feminism. Within
29 days, the panel has brought to naught all the expectations that
soared in the wake of public outcry against crimes. Like an obedient
employee, it has ensured what his bosses of economic fundamentalism
ordered: A solution that would not disturb the system created by the
forces of economics. The solution we find has only a
few extraordinary elements: that the judge in such cases should be a
woman, and the definition of rape should be changed to include sexual
assaults by husbands. The woman judge, in their considered view, would
prove to be a better judge as if she would be able to go beyond what is
prescribed in the law. There is hardly any mention of the failure of a judicial system as a whole in reducing crimes.
The whole picture has been viewed merely from the point of view of a
male-female tussle, as if rapes are committed merely because men view
women as inferiors or objects of lust.
There is no mention of the havoc caused by the commercialization of
nudity and sex that
present women as objects of lust. There is no mention of the
provocative images. There is no need of death sentence because as the
argument goes, this would increase the chances of the victim being
murdered. Ironically, there is no suggestion of death even where rape is accompanied with murder.
And they have also ruled out any change in the “juvenile” age. What a
travesty of justice! The ability of a person is determined purely on the
basis of the number of days he has lived instead of his biological and
physical abilities at that particular time. If he is one hour short of
18 at that time, he deserves special treatment.
More
than that, the Panel has taken advantage of the situation to support an
old market demand of enlarging the definition of rape to include
“rapes” by husbands. This would go a long way to further weaken an
already weakened marriage system, the forces calculate. No one has the
right to ask them the question: how can “rape” by husband be like a
rape. A rape is horrendous because it forcibly creates a relationship,
which is not legally or morally sanctioned. It is a sexual assault on a
woman with whom sex is not permitted. It carries with it not only a
psychological anguish but physical, social and moral issues. Forced sex by a husband is bad and can be adequately punished, but it does not carry along with it any of the serious problems
that accompany rapes.
History
has witnessed how feminism became the most discussed, the most debated
and the most widespread movement of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. The movement, fed by the big business, engendered a new
socio-cultural milieu, which produced two distinct kinds of feminists: genuine and sham.
The genuine feminists had real concern for the upheaval of the fair
sex. But they could not properly comprehend the machinations of the
market forces in their overwhelming support for their feminist struggle.
Unfortunately, their thoughts were constructed or reconstructed on the
basis of influences by the market-sponsored magazines, books and
journals. This resulted in an error of judgement on their part and they
often failed to recognise the
real issues. Much greater in number were the sham or pseudo-feminists
who earned huge wealth and fame for their pro-market views on men-women
relationship. Little did they feel for uplifting women. Their aim, on
the contrary, was to redefine their status that will make it easy for
the economic fundamentalists to use them for their gargantuan appetite
for money. They contrived to make women the wheels of the train of
business.
Feminists
viewed history through lenses that would focus for them only what they
desired to view. If they had done the earnestness of purpose, the
consequences could not have been as horrendously damaging to mankind as
they have been. They could then have closely watched the developments
and could perhaps have forestalled the march of time from going in the
wrong direction. They might then have saved womankind from becoming the most obedient slaves of man’s desires that it has lately become. They could still have campaigned for the promotion of women’s role in specific fields. Woman’s lib might then not have shrunk
to form a mere tool of exploitation in the hands of foxy and covetous merchants.
She might then have cruised ahead triumphantly, albeit with grace, and
without annoying the tranquillity of family and society, to her desired
goal in the world. Alas! This was not to be. The so-called feminism, in
perspective, proved to be either of the two: sham and contrived, or ill
informed and ill conceived. It did not deliver any real good, and in
addition encumbered woman’s shoulders much beyond her physical and
mental capacity.
It
is the impact of market-sponsored feminism that while women’s rights
are championed, these very rights are used for the industrialisation of
beauty and sex. The markets have turned human beings into commercial beings. If women are required in the market, family system needs to be weakened. The results are for all of us to see. Teenage
sex is not only permitted but also promoted; marriage before a certain
age is illegal. Promiscuity is permitted, polygamy prohibited. Abortions
in general are good as they give women a liberty to move and mix but
female infanticide is to be stopped, exploitation of women must remain a
major issue but prostitution and pornography need to be legalised.
I
wish Verma Panel had acted to counter the market sponsored feminism
rather than promote it. They could have argued that the exploitation of
women by market forces is much more dangerous than the exploitation by
husbands and fathers. They could have said that prostitution and
pornography have no place in a civilised society. They could have spoken
a little about the importance of family system, which is a big wall in
between healthy and unhealthy sex. They could also have spoken about the
role of alcohol in all the crimes including crimes against women. But
they chose only to say what the market-sponsored system demanded. I
wish the political parties and religious and social groups could have
realised the dangers posed by various forces. We
have missed an opportunity.
|
