Feminism, Marital rape and “Gupt Sutra” – A dangerous trio

When you are absolutely convinced about the righteousness of your arguments, then you are ready to face the chin music of intense scrutiny. But that is not true for feminists ‘fighting’ for denouncing every married man as a rapist. This is the primary reason why they are trying to stoke emotions through “Gupt Sutra”.

Indian Express goes ‘anonymous’

On May 22, Indian express published a detailed description of three alleged female victims of sexual violence in marriage. Two women aged 44 and 38 belonged to India while the third one is an Afghani immigrant taking shelter in India. All three accused their respective husbands of violating their sexual autonomy in the name of marriage.

Beyond sex life, the eldest one had no problem with her marriage, while the 38-year-old woman was asking for maintenance and a right to stay in one of the houses. The Afghani migrant allegedly suffered it in spite of being married to the guy at the tender age of 17.

The emotion stoking article is shady

The news piece has everything to stoke the emotion of an average citizen. Protecting females is the innate responsibility of civilization, this is why one of the primary definitions of masculinity is the protection of women and their integrity. The article appealed to that very aspect and it was successful in hitting the core.

But the article was bizarre and frankly crooked on so many levels. Firstly, all those accounts published in the Indian express had anonymous names. This has become a standard practice of news organisations to publish anything citing sources. Through this, they are able to score their points without taking on any responsibility.

Read more: The negative impact of Delhi HC’s suggestion on Marital rape on Indian families

Anonymity is an indication of crookedness

Put yourself in the place of an editor of the newspaper. You know your personal opinion is not shared by most of the individuals you meet. That is why in your social life, you are lamented for your opinion. But people who thrive on the impractical flex of their intellectual mind agree with you. They are mostly people working in mainstream media, cut off from reality. They hire you and now you have control over information dissemination in the country. Your words reach more than 1 billion people.

With power comes a tendency to validate your point. But you know the masses still won’t agree with you. So, you will become opaque. You will patronise them by treating them like children. You will tell them that their opinions based on their life experiences are wrong and your opinion derived from reading utopian books and over analysing practical life are right. To cite evidence, you won’t be publishing opinions and experiences of real people. You will use an ‘anonymity card’ and tell 1.4 billion people that they do not deserve to know the name of those victims.

They are not the only ones doing these kinds of stunts. People from the left spectrum of public intelligentsia have often been found using ‘auto driver’ as an alibi to peddle their agenda. A few days back, TFI reported on the existence of such shady individuals in the defence domain as well.

Read more: Delhi HC delivers a split verdict on the criminalisation of marital rape

Passive aggression and emotions-Centre pillars of postmodern debates

Through this report, the newspaper which still considers Pratap Bhanu Mehta as a credible opinion maker tried to suppress the voices of people standing against the draconian Marital rape doctrine. But they are doing it in a passive-aggressive way. Through stoking emotions, they want to propagate that whoever is demanding equal treatment of men and women (currently Judicial system of India is hugely misandric) is an apologist for those men who force their sexual will on women.

Basically, they are hitting you in the face and constantly shouting ‘don’t hit me’ to stoke public sympathy in their favour. This is the first rule of the rulebook for passive-aggressive individuals.

Read more: Marital Rape Debate: The Side which traditional media won’t tell you

There is a utility for emotions in the public sphere. It is a very big misnomer that Democratic public space is driven by logic and facts. But, the fact of the matter is that it is mainly driven by emotions. When these emotions take centre stage, logic takes the back seat. For example, you know people are fighting for more stringent rape laws. In fact, even a movie named ‘A Thursday’ was devised on this concept.

Methodologies used to bypass factual scrutiny 

But a little research will tell you that India has one of the most stringent rape laws in the world. The mere word of a woman claiming that the man raped him is more than enough to convict him and even hang in cases where the woman just says that she was subjected to sub-human treatment. But, no one is ready to listen to men that they should be provided with fair and equal treatment by the law. It’s exactly what emotions do to you, to everyone around you and the government. Watch how a lady fighting for men’s representation had to face suppression from mainstream media.

Not just anonymous reports, but even surveys, and opinion polls among other tools are also published. Newspapers always cite NFHS surveys to further their agenda, but the fact of the matter still remains that none of them has faced judicial scrutiny of their allegations. No one knows whether most of those accusations would be sustainable in courts or turn out to be fake like those reported ones. But public debates are set up in such a way that emotions are tilted towards women, so our public and by extension policymakers would not be inclined towards accepting this simple logic.

Opacity is the biggest crime

The fundamental goal of these unverified news reports is to create an atmosphere of hysteria and anxiety among the population. If most of the people get influenced and demand Marital rape doctrine to prevail, then the government will have to bring in changes. Even Supreme Court Judges handling the case may feel forced to change their opinion. It’s human nature, not their fault. If not, the government of the day will override them, as Rajiv Gandhi did in the Shaira Bano case.

Read more: Muslim Women could have been BJP’s newest voting bloc, but…

The biggest crime in democracy is opacity. And remaining opaque on an issue affecting the coordinative relationship among men and women is a crime against humanity. If one gender loses, both lose and civilisations crumble. Maybe this is what these agents of chaos want.