NationStates Jolt Archive

Ahhhh, a good-ol' fashioned love story:
Man rapes woman.
Woman complains to Police.
Police make woman marry rapist.

Indian police persuade woman to marry her rapist

DEHLI - A woman living in one of India's poorest states was persuaded to marry a man who had allegedly just raped her in an arrangement brokered by the police and a local politician to spare the attacker from going to jail and to "save her from humiliation".

In an extraordinary incident that took place in the town of Narwal, Uttar Pradesh, the 19-year-old woman was married to her accused attacker in a ceremony held at the local police station and blessed by the senior officer.
The arrangement was reportedly initiated by the local member of parliament, Anil Shukla Warsi, a member of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), who stepped inafter a party worker was accused of rape last Thursday.

Last month the BSP -which represents low-caste voters - swept to an historic victory in Uttar Pradesh under its leader, Mayawati.
Mr Warsi could not be contacted yesterday but a report in the Indian Express said he became involved after the woman's father, Chandra Pal, reported the party worker to police, saying that he had raped his daughter during a wedding ceremony at a neighbour's house.


The father, identified as Chandra Pal, told the newspaper: "I went to the Narwal Police station to file a complaint against [the alleged rapist].
But we were forced to reach a compromise when Warsi called up the police station and directed the station officer to sort out the issue."
Police chief Ashutosh Sharma said he quickly apprehended the alleged attacker and spoke both to his family, and that of the woman, about a marriage.
He added: "I thought marriage was a better option. It saved the boy from jail and the girl from humiliation."
A photograph in the newspaper shows Officer Sharma blessing the couple during their wedding ceremony at the station.
The alleged attacker said he had initially not been interested in marrying the woman but had then been told he would otherwise go to jail.


"I also did her wrong," he said. "I did not want to marry her because she is an illiterate village girl."
The woman said she had no option but to marry the man and that Mr Warsi, the politician, had persuaded her reluctant family that it was the best option.
She said: "My parents would have found it tough to find a groom for me. Though he did rape me, I have no grudges since he will marry me now."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10447724

sniff. Always makes one teary-eyed to see true love.

Just think how much less crime there'd be if all police adopted such tactics to other 'crimes'?

So fer instance, a man murders another man.
Solution?
Murdered man's family has to adopt their son's murderer - to save them the "embarassment" of having a funeral.

A person breaks into your house and steals your wares.
Solution?
You have to sublet your apartment to them - to save you the "embarassment" of filing an insurance report.

Drunk-driving causing death?
carpool!

Crime would disappear overnight!

whole thing Nuts

India has started sprinting in the race to decide which country is the worst.

I think I'm going to have become one of those radical feminist revolutionaries because there are a lot of men who are really pissing me off, you know, globally.

India has started sprinting in the race to decide which country is the worst.

Well shucks, I guess the rest of us will have to try harder.

When Muslim immigrants arn't doing something news worthy based on ass backwards fanatical cultural beliefs, you can always count on the caste system of India to produce.

I think I'm going to have become one of those radical feminist revolutionaries because there are a lot of men who are really pissing me off, you know, globally.
I'm just waiting for Bottle to come online and read this.
We'll know when she has, because we'll be able to hear the 'popping' sound as her head explodes off into space from her blood pressure's sudden exponential rise.



That said: reading the last line of the article, I can't help but wonder whether the police's actions in this case did have some merit. Due to the obscene levels of sexism and bigotry abound in the poor provinces of India, a despoiled woman (regardless of the reasons why) - especially a lowcaste one - is at the very bottom of society and has very little future.
With the antediluvian ideals of a woman having to remain a virgin until she's married, a rape puts paid to the chances of a poverty stricken family ever marrying off their burden - whoops, I mean daughter.
The Police in this case would be very well aware of the what could happen to this woman when she returns home. Their actions may well have saved her life.
lesser evil and all that.

(me trying to find a positive angle on this story)

When Muslim immigrants arn't doing something news worthy based on ass backwards fanatical cultural beliefs, you can always count on the caste system of India to produce.
And if they fail, the white Christian Americans will step in with court rulings permitting doctors to refuse to treat female patients (and interfere with their access to alternative care) because of the doctor's "values."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/

(Warning: long article)

Like I said, they're pissing me off all over the globe. There are a lot of houses that need cleaning in this world.

I'm just waiting for Bottle to come online and read this.
We'll know when she has, because we'll be able to hear the 'popping' sound as her head explodes off into space from her blood pressure's sudden exponential rise.



That said: reading the last line of the article, I can't help but wonder whether the police's actions in this case did have some merit. Due to the obscene levels of sexism and bigotry abound in the poor provinces of India, a despoiled woman (regardless of the reasons why) - especially a lowcaste one - is at the very bottom of society and has very little future.
With the antediluvian ideals of a woman having to remain a virgin until she's married, a rape puts paid to the chances of a poverty stricken family ever marrying off their burden - whoops, I mean daughter.
The Police in this case would be very well aware of the what could happen to this woman when she returns home. Their actions may well have saved her life.
lesser evil and all that.

(me trying to find a positive angle on this story)
Please stop trying. You will injure yourself from the strain.

It's true that a woman who has been raped in such a society is doomed to a hellish existence. Getting her married is possibly going to make it half a degree less hellish -- unless of course her rapist-husband resents her so much for existing that he just goes ahead and kills her.

And we should also keep in mind that the deed was not done to help the woman -- that "save her from humiliation" crap notwithstanding. It was done because a local politician was trying to save a party member from getting a criminal record. So this poor woman has been tag-teamed by both sexism and political corruption to tie her for life to a man who has already brutalized her.

Like I said, they're pissing me off all over the globe. There are a lot of houses that need cleaning in this world.

Cleaning...with fire?

Doctors like these should be stripped of their practitioners license. What next, Scientologist psychiatrists? Jehovah's Witnesses in charge of blood transfusions?

People who put religion in front of their jobs should be tossed out on their ear, and barred from working in anything more better than minimum wage for being such idiots.

It's true that a woman who has been raped in such a society is doomed to a hellish existence. Getting her married is possibly going to make it half a degree less hellish -- unless of course her rapist-husband resents her so much for existing that he just goes ahead and kills her.
I dunno... it bears watching, but this might actually end up not being so tragic.

after all, he admitted it, so I don't think he'll go and kill her off. he might actually take good care of her.

weirder things have happened you know...

(me trying to find a positive angle on this story)
I admire the attempt, I really do, but sometimes there just ain't a positive angle to be found.

Cleaning...with fire?
It's efficient.

Doctors like these should be stripped of their practitioners license. What next, Scientologist psychiatrists? Jehovah's Witnesses in charge of blood transfusions?
Why the hell not? It's a fucking "My Values Matter More Than Your Life" free-for-all!! *hits something really really hard*

People who put religion in front of their jobs should be tossed out on their ear, and barred from working in anything more better than minimum wage for being such idiots.
People who take a job that requires an ethical oath that governs how they do it, and who swear that oath, and who then violate that oath, should be barred from that profession, fined millions, have their malpractice insurance rescinded, and be tossed, along with any organization that hired and/or supported them, to the slavering litigation attorneys of their victims. I don't give a shit why they did it.

I dunno... it bears watching, but this might actually end up not being so tragic.

after all, he admitted it, so I don't think he'll go and kill her off. he might actually take good care of her.

weirder things have happened you know...
Are you high, or do I need to put your name on the Pissing Muravyets Off list too?

In re your comment:

A) Not the point.

B) You obviously don't know much about women's issues in India. Happily Ever After is not the way to bet on this one.

Are you high, or do I need to put your name on the Pissing Muravyets Off list too?

In re your comment:

A) Not the point.

B) You obviously don't know much about women's issues in India. Happily Ever After is not the way to bet on this one.

Junii's probably one of those people who think human rights violations aren't that big of a deal unless Muslims are involved.

It's efficient.


I prefer more graphic object lessons.


Why the hell not? It's a fucking "My Values Matter More Than Your Life" free-for-all!! *hits something really really hard*


Isn't there an amendment saying something along the lines of not making any laws barring or supporting any religion? Doesn't the consciousness clause of the law break that?


People who take a job that requires an ethical oath that governs how they do it, and who swear that oath, and who then violate that oath, should be barred from that profession, fined millions, have their malpractice insurance rescinded, and be tossed, along with any organization that hired and/or supported them, to the slavering litigation attorneys of their victims. I don't give a shit why they did it.

Can't they just be shot on public TV and done with?

Make it an addition to their oath. Breaking said oath is grounds for immediate execution.

Are you high, or do I need to put your name on the Pissing Muravyets Off list too? so holding differeing opinions earns a placement on your pissing off list?

In re your comment:

A) Not the point.You posted your 'fears' of her being killed off and that HE resents her. please back that up from the article.

B) You obviously don't know much about women's issues in India. Happily Ever After is not the way to bet on this one.Did I say Happily Ever After? or did I say it might not be as tragic as you suggested.

let's check...
I dunno... it bears watching, but this might actually end up not being so tragic.

after all, he admitted it, so I don't think he'll go and kill her off. he might actually take good care of her.

weirder things have happened you know...nope... no Happily Ever After mentioned.

Not so tragic doesn't mean good or happy, but not TRAGIC. also MIGHT indicates a possiblity, not a certaintly. heck, I've even said "weirder things have happened" to infer that he taking good care of her being a longshot.

but if that's enough for me to make your Pissing off list. I'll be happy to be included in a group that doesn't have your narrow view of things.

Junii's probably one of those people who think human rights violations aren't that big of a deal unless Muslims are involved.

less probable than you having adequate reading comprehension skills. please show me evidence where your statement has a shred of support?

or is jumping to conclusions the only form of excercise you get?

less probable than you having adequate reading comprehension skills. please show me evidence where your statement has a shred of support?

or is jumping to conclusions the only form of excercise you get?

Aside from your estimation of a rape victim being force wed to her attacker as "Not So Bad"?

Please.

A rapist gets away with the crime and the victim faces social stigma and humiliation on top of the personal violation. Yeah, that's "Not So Bad."

:rolleyes:

Aside from your estimation of a rape victim being force wed to her attacker as "Not So Bad"?

Please.

A rapist gets away with the crime and the victim faces social stigma and humiliation on top of the personal violation. Yeah, that's "Not So Bad."

:rolleyes:

if you've read the article, you may have noticed that even she said that it might not be so bad...

I prefer more graphic object lessons.
Fire makes pretty light. Calms Muravyets.


Isn't there an amendment saying something along the lines of not making any laws barring or supporting any religion? Doesn't the consciousness clause of the law break that?
Possibly. I'm not sure, but my focus is on the professional oath they take as physicians. It is not a law that governs religion, but a law that governs doctors. A law that says a doctor is not allowed to do harm to patients (and those doctors who refuse to refer to another doctor or even refuse to inform the patient that there are care options she is being denied are doing harm to the patient) does not in any way preclude any doctor from practicing any religion he or she likes. It just means that if he/she cannot set conflicting religious doctrine aside while practicing medicine, then he/she cannot practice medicine. Nothing asks them to give up their religion for it. Witness the vast numbers of doctors who do not deny care to patients and who do practice religions.

Can't they just be shot on public TV and done with?

Make it an addition to their oath. Breaking said oath is grounds for immediate execution.
You're right. At first I was going for the making-my-enemy-suffer option, but in the end, it's probably better not to waste time.

if you've read the article, you may have noticed that even she said that it might not be so bad...

But when Muslim women say they feel comfortable wearing headscarves or burkhas it's just a sign that they're being repressed by their religion and culture right?

Please, rape is rape. India is not the shining star of gender equality and to take the cowed retraction of a frightened woman as a sign that rape is okay is preposterous bullshit.

Aside from your estimation of a rape victim being force wed to her attacker as "Not So Bad"?prove it.
show where I said that a rape victim being forced to wed her attacker is not so bad.

I said her marriage may not be as bad as Muravyets predicts It's true that a woman who has been raped in such a society is doomed to a hellish existence. Getting her married is possibly going to make it half a degree less hellish -- unless of course her rapist-husband resents her so much for existing that he just goes ahead and kills her.

I know some of the muslim faith that take their responsiblity to right their errors very seriously. how do you know this person isn't one of them? oh wait, it isn't me with a racist view of Muslims, it's YOU!

Please.

A rapist gets away with the crime and the victim faces social stigma and humiliation on top of the personal violation. Yeah, that's "Not So Bad."
:rolleyes: Reading comprehension is your friend. learn it.

I admire the attempt, I really do, but sometimes there just ain't a positive angle to be found.
true, but I was trying desperately to find something - anything - positive in the article.
Call me a foolish optimist if you like.

But when Muslim women say they feel comfortable wearing headscarves or burkhas it's just a sign that they're being repressed by their religion and culture right?

Please, rape is rape. India is not the shining star of gender equality and to take the cowed retraction of a frightened woman as a sign that rape is okay is preposterous bullshit.

while that may be true most of the time, that is a GENERALISATION, which means that it may not be true for every situation.
note also that people who have been repressed all their lives may feel it is the norm and not find it strange or uncomfortable at all (not that this is a good thing)
EDIT: note that she did not say the rape was okay, but she did say that the marriage might be

prove it.
show where I said that a rape victim being forced to wed her attacker is not so bad.

I said her marriage may not be as bad as Muravyets predicts

I know some of the muslim faith that take their responsiblity to right their errors very seriously. how do you know this person isn't one of them? oh wait, it isn't me with a racist view of Muslims, it's YOU!

Reading comprehension is your friend. learn it.

1) The concept of wergilds died out around the time of the Renaissance.

2) You're suggesting it's all right the woman got raped because she's going to marry the scum who raped her. Going by that logic, then we shouldn't be bitching about nutcases like Warren Jeffs and his pseudo-Mormons having child brides.

3) Nice job with the strawman. What was the allegedly bigoted (not racist since Muslims are a religious group, not an ethnic minority) comment I made about Muslims? The headscarves and burkha comment is me pointing out the hypocrisy that quite a few here express. Muslim women saying they're comfortable wearing them is a sign that they're being oppressed, but a woman in India saying her being raped is "not so bad" just means she was overblowing the whole incident? Bullshit.

I hope it remains a local anomaly. It would certainly alter the whole dating scene if it were to catch on. :p

so holding differeing opinions earns a placement on your pissing off list?

You posted your 'fears' of her being killed off and that HE resents her. please back that up from the article.
Posted my "fears"? No, I made a sarcastic remark using a common vernacular phrase to characterize your remarks about what you think might happen here. My sarcasm was based on a broader reference to women's rights issues in India, not just in the OP article. If you really do not understand the status of women in the world these days, you should try to learn. Here's a general source site for international information you can start with. Have fun.

http://www.whrnet.org/

Did I say Happily Ever After? or did I say it might not be as tragic as you suggested.

let's check...
nope... no Happily Ever After mentioned.
Did you or did you not speculate (based on nothing pertinent at all) that her rapist may end up taking good care of her? Does that or does that not imply an expectation of a possible good life for the woman? Do not try to deflect criticism of the shallowness of your argument with a pretended inability to understand common vernacular phrases just because they are being used sarcastically.

Not so tragic doesn't mean good or happy, but not TRAGIC. also MIGHT indicates a possiblity, not a certaintly. heck, I've even said "weirder things have happened" to infer that he taking good care of her being a longshot.
Then why bother mentioning it at all? Hell, by your reckoning, he might end up turning into a chicken and then she could live on the eggs.

but if that's enough for me to make your Pissing off list. I'll be happy to be included in a group that doesn't have your narrow view of things.
Good. Enjoy your stay there. *takes a very narrow view of JuNii*

Did you or did you not speculate (based on nothing pertinent at all) that her rapist may end up taking good care of her? I speculated that it's a possiblity. the use of MIGHT would indicat a possiblity, not a certainty. now please show that this person, who owed up to the fact that he did wrong, whereas he could've denied it and then her life would be hell, would NOT take care of her. (I accept it's possible, but you seem certain that it will happen.)
Does that or does that not imply an expectation of a possible good life for the woman? nope, it only implies that it won't be tragic.
Do not try to deflect criticism of the shallowness of your argument with a pretended inability to understand common vernacular phrases just because they are being used sarcastically.considering that post wasn't meant to be an argument, you're seeing things that aren't there.

Then why bother mentioning it at all? Hell, by your reckoning, he might end up turning into a chicken and then she could live on the eggs. dunno, the same reason you had to mention the possiblity of her being killed by her uncaring, forced-into-marriage husband.

Fire makes pretty light. Calms Muravyets.

And the screaming. Never forget that.


It just means that if he/she cannot set conflicting religious doctrine aside while practicing medicine, then he/she cannot practice medicine. Nothing asks them to give up their religion for it. Witness the vast numbers of doctors who do not deny care to patients and who do practice religions.


That's the thing. There's a legal clause which basically says "If your religion says it's bad to treat dying people", doctors can ignore emergency ward people and invoke their religion clause. Hell, some nurse used that defense and sued for emotional damages cause she was fired for refusing to dispense needed medication.


You're right. At first I was going for the making-my-enemy-suffer option, but in the end, it's probably better not to waste time.

It's that simple really. Outline the rules of your profession, and the penalties for breaking them. Can't abide by it? Tough. Quit, or be shot. Let's see how many people scream "Don't oppress my religious views" after they've been exposed to high velocity particulate pollution.

if you've read the article, you may have noticed that even she said that it might not be so bad...

Yes, being forced to live in a marriage with a man who raped her and then was forced to marry her against his will as well as hers may be not as bad as being single and raped in a society that blames women for getting raped and being single. But that's like saying getting shot in the head is not as bad as burning to death. Neither is good, neither leads to anything good, for anyone involved. And it's still beside the point, which is that this woman is denied justice and forced into this situation so one man can do a political favor for another.

Posted my "fears"? No, I made a sarcastic remark using a common vernacular phrase to characterize your remarks about what you think might happen here. My sarcasm was based on a broader reference to women's rights issues in India, not just in the OP article. If you really do not understand the status of women in the world these days, you should try to learn. Here's a general source site for international information you can start with. Have fun.

http://www.whrnet.org/actually, I do understand alot. which is why, if you read the post that so offends you, you will notice...
1) I never said the judgment rendered was right.
2) the wording used was favoring the possiblity of a less than tragic ending but also indicated that it may not be.
3) I never said he was guiltless or even not responsible
4) I never said her life was going to be happy, nor did I mention a possibility of her life being happy. He MIGHT take good care of her is a statement of possibility.
5) I never denied your assessment that it was both sexist and policially baised.

but you seem to want to condemn her to a hellish life and you can certainly wish that on her. me, I'll just go back to hoping that he'll take care of her.

I speculated that it's a possiblity. the use of MIGHT would indicat a possiblity, not a certainty. now please show that this person, who owed up to the fact that he did wrong, whereas he could've denied it and then her life would be hell, would NOT take care of her. (I accept it's possible, but you seem certain that it will happen.)
nope, it only implies that it won't be tragic.
considering that post wasn't meant to be an argument, you're seeing things that aren't there.

dunno, the same reason you had to mention the possiblity of her being killed by her uncaring, forced-into-marriage husband.
You are so full of nonsense, it's not even funny. But thank you for admitting that you did not make an argument. I already knew that, but I'm glad you know it, too.

You may retreat into your hole again now and congratulate yourself that you made me look silly. :rolleyes:

You are so full of nonsense, it's not even funny. But thank you for admitting that you did not make an argument. I already knew that, but I'm glad you know it, too.

You may retreat into your hole again now and congratulate yourself that you made me look silly. :rolleyes:

you win at an internet argument - you managed to put forward so many statements that your opponent is an idiot that it must be true :rolleyes:

There's nothing good about this case, nothing at all.

Simply shows we have a long, long way to go in this world.

Officially ashamed to be male today and it's only Monday :(

And the screaming. Never forget that.
Ah... the screaming... :)


That's the thing. There's a legal clause which basically says "If your religion says it's bad to treat dying people", doctors can ignore emergency ward people and invoke their religion clause. Hell, some nurse used that defense and sued for emotional damages cause she was fired for refusing to dispense needed medication.
Well, what it boils down to is caveat emptor. The system needs to resolve itself one way or the other. Either doctors can pick and choose how to practice or they have to abide by the oath. Period. If the medical profession settles on the former over the latter, or if it refuses to settle the issue, then it will be up to patients to advocate for themselves. I, for one, have already vowed that before any doctor is permitted to treat me, they must undergo an in-depth interview by me about their values, ethics, religious views, and professional practices. Wrong answers or refusal to answer will result in me getting another doctor. They put these matters into play, they have to be prepared to answer for them.

Another example from the MSNBC article is of a woman who was refused birth control during her annual gynecological exam, and her HMO only covered one exam a year, so she would not be covered for another. I simply would have gotten on the phone right there in the doctor's office, called my HMO and instructed them not to pay any bills from that doctor because they had refused me service. Let the doctor's holier than thou attitude compensate him for that. (Note: as it was, that woman did stand up for herself and did get her birth control.)

1) The concept of wergilds died out around the time of the Renaissance.wow... that was soo far off the mark, I don't think you were even aiming for the right hemisphere.

2) You're suggesting it's all right the woman got raped because she's going to marry the scum who raped her. Going by that logic, then we shouldn't be bitching about nutcases like Warren Jeffs and his pseudo-Mormons having child brides.no I didn't, Try again. I'll admit I didn't snip out the paragraphs I wasn't focusing on, but then again, let's keep my post without editing.

focus only on the paragraph where Murvy was talking about the possiblity that her 'husband' would resent her enough to kill her. then read that post.

3) Nice job with the strawman. What was the allegedly bigoted (not racist since Muslims are a religious group, not an ethnic minority) comment I made about Muslims?
My, how short our memories are...
Junii's probably one of those people who think human rights violations aren't that big of a deal unless Muslims are involved.
for the record. between the two of us, even including my op posts. you were the only one to bring up their being Muslims.

The headscarves and burkha comment is me pointing out the hypocrisy that quite a few here express. Muslim women saying they're comfortable wearing them is a sign that they're being oppressed, but a woman in India saying her being raped is "not so bad" just means she was overblowing the whole incident? Bullshit.and again, please quote me where I said any woman being raped is "not so bad".

I'll wait.

<snip for the following reason>

Sorry, but you already stated that you were not posting an argument. I am here to make arguments and address points made in others' arguments. Since you did not make an argument, I have nothing further to say to you.

Please let me know when you do feel like making an argument.

You are so full of nonsense, it's not even funny. But thank you for admitting that you did not make an argument. I already knew that, but I'm glad you know it, too.

You may retreat into your hole again now and congratulate yourself that you made me look silly. :rolleyes:

I never said it was an argument. YOU made it out into an argument. and no, I don't think you were silly, I'm filing this under a mutual misunderstanding.

After all, I should've edited your post to only show the paragraph I was focusing on.

Sorry, but you already stated that you were not posting an argument. I am here to make arguments and address points made in others' arguments. Since you did not make an argument, I have nothing further to say to you.

Please let me know when you do feel like making an argument.

oh that. you edited to add the report while I was making the other post. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring anything you're saying. :cool:

wow... that was soo far off the mark, I don't think you were even aiming for the right hemisphere.

no I didn't, Try again. I'll admit I didn't snip out the paragraphs I wasn't focusing on, but then again, let's keep my post without editing.

focus only on the paragraph where Murvy was talking about the possiblity that her 'husband' would resent her enough to kill her. then read that post.

Apparently you're under the impression that a corrupt member of a political party in India- a country with superb women's rights- would take care of the woman he raped rather than batter her and kill her later on. Again you either know little of the situation of women in India or you simply have the "It's Not Happening to Me" disease on the matter.

My, how short our memories are...

for the record. between the two of us, even including my op posts. you were the only one to bring up their being Muslims.

And you just took off on a tangent that even Scientologists would call wacko. That line implied you don't think that a woman being raped and being forced to marry her rapist so is bad unless it was a Muslim that was reported to have committed the rape. In which case you'd probably howl about the usual rhetoric of barbaric religion and culture that needs to be destroyed, etc. etc.

and again, please quote me where I said any woman being raped is "not so bad".

I'll wait.

The fact that you think the rape victim being married to her rapist is "not so bad"? Little difference there. It's either rewarding the attacker or giving him a slap on the wrist, depending on your outlook.

[snipped]
still awaiting those quotes...

you win at an internet argument - you managed to put forward so many statements that your opponent is an idiot that it must be true :rolleyes:

Kindly show me where I made any statement to the effect that JuNii is "an idiot." I started by questioning if he was high, but smart people can get high too. The fact is, I never said anything like "idiot," so there is no need for it to be proved true -- since it never happened.

Kindly show me where I made any statement to the effect that JuNii is "an idiot." I started by questioning if he was high, but smart people can get high too. The fact is, I never said anything like "idiot," so there is no need for it to be proved true -- since it never happened.
I agree. Muravyets posts were civil (in my opinon) and it was on a very touchy subject so I didn't take any offense to her(?) posts. :cool:

Kindly show me where I made any statement to the effect that JuNii is "an idiot." I started by questioning if he was high, but smart people can get high too. The fact is, I never said anything like "idiot," so there is no need for it to be proved true -- since it never happened.

here's the one i was referring to:

You are so full of nonsense, it's not even funny. But thank you for admitting that you did not make an argument. I already knew that, but I'm glad you know it, too.

You may retreat into your hole again now and congratulate yourself that you made me look silly. :rolleyes:

sorry, i should've said it slightly differently, but where i come from, saying "You are so full of nonsense, it's not even funny" is pretty close, especially when said along with the rest of that paragraph

I agree. Muravyets posts were civil (in my opinon) and it was on a very touchy subject so I didn't take any offense to her(?) posts. :cool:

A) Thanks.

B) Her.

C) You might want to put some sunblock on that smiley.

still awaiting those quotes...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12809033&postcount=11

I dunno... it bears watching, but this might actually end up not being so tragic.

after all, he admitted it, so I don't think he'll go and kill her off. he might actually take good care of her.

weirder things have happened you know...

Of course you didn't say rape is "not so bad" in explicit words. But your assumption that this is going to get close to a fairy-tale ending is naive at best and an indirect condonement of the rape at worst. Like I said before, it's either rewarding the rapist with a wife or giving him a slap on the wrist he can shrug off and probably get rid of later.

Nice to see how you're willing to overlook human rights violations as long as the victim is cowed into a half-assed settlement.

here's the one i was referring to:



sorry, i should've said it slightly differently, but where i come from, saying "You are so full of nonsense, it's not even funny" is pretty close, especially when said along with the rest of that paragraph
I am not responsible for your subjective readings. Where I come from, words mean what the dictionary says they mean. Nonsense =/= idiot. Read Edward Lear if you don't believe me. Or Dick Cheney, for that matter.

I am not responsible for your subjective readings. Where I come from, words mean what the dictionary says they mean. Nonsense =/= idiot. Read Edward Lear if you don't believe me. Or Dick Cheney, for that matter.

fair enough, though a large proportion of the argument that has occurred in this thread has been due to people interpreting things that said been said differently than their intended meanings. for whatever reasons that may be

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12809033&postcount=11



Of course you didn't say rape is "not so bad" in explicit words. But your assumption that this is going to get close to a fairy-tale ending is naive at best and an indirect condonement of the rape at worst. ok, now Where did I indicate that it was going to get close to a "fairy-tale ending"

I dunno... it bears watching, but this might actually end up not being so tragic.

after all, he admitted it, so I don't think he'll go and kill her off. he might actually take good care of her.

weirder things have happened you know...go ahead and highlight where I said it was going to be anything near a fairy-tale ending.

Like I said before, it's either rewarding the rapist with a wife or giving him a slap on the wrist he can shrug off and probably get rid of later. that's your opinion. and if you see that in my post, then that's how you are thinking, not me.

Nice to see how you're willing to overlook human rights violations as long as the victim is cowed into a half-assed settlement.show me in the post where I am overlooking Human Rights Violations at all.

I dunno... it bears watching, but this might actually end up not being so tragic.

after all, he admitted it, so I don't think he'll go and kill her off. he might actually take good care of her.

weirder things have happened you know...
Go ahead and point them out please.

C) You might want to put some sunblock on that smiley.too late... he's already red as a... near cooked lobster... :p

ok, now Where did I indicate that it was going to get close to a "fairy-tale ending"

go ahead and highlight where I said it was going to be anything near a fairy-tale ending.

that's your opinion. and if you see that in my post, then that's how you are thinking, not me.

show me in the post where I am overlooking Human Rights Violations at all.


Go ahead and point them out please.

You're nitpicking now. There's a good sign. Your own words naively suggest the rapist might end up taking good care of his victim, and now you're trying to pull a Slick Willy with "I did not explicitly condone rape and human rights violations".

fair enough, though a large proportion of the argument that has occurred in this thread has been due to people interpreting things that said been said differently for whatever reasons that may be

I disagree. I believe the arguments have taken the words at their face value and the only difference is the context in which the words are placed. Some people seem to want to look at this case in isolation, whereas others seem to want to put it into the larger context of women's rights in India. "Not so bad" in one context has a very different impact than in another context. The argument is, what is the proper context? I tend to prefer to broaden arguments, where there is a broader context, rather than narrow them. Since I'm not an expert on Indian culture (nor presumptuous enough to critique another culture (in public anyway)), I can only comment upon the context of internationally recognized legal rights, on which, in reference to women, India does not have a good record. Placed in the context of the condition of women in India, I suggest that it is more logical to speculate that the outcome for this woman will be negative rather than positive and that to suggest otherwise is to buy into the arguments of the men who put her into this position in the first place. That is my argument, and I bolster it by pointing out that, in the article, it is stated that this marriage was arranged in order to aid the man, not the woman. He gets a tangible benefit from it -- no criminal record -- while references to her being saved humiliation (a bit late for that, btw) refer to nothing tangible. By comparison, they seem a mere after-thought.

You're nitpicking now. There's a good sign. Your own words naively suggest the rapist might end up taking good care of his victim, and now you're trying to pull a Slick Willy with "I did not explicitly condone rape and human rights violations".

Go read the posts between Muravyets and myself.

You're grasping at anything to prove your point about me and failing miserably.

all you can show is that your arguments are on what YOU interpreted I said, reguardless of any attempts to correct the mis-understanding.

and you're failing so bad that you're even imagining me trying to pull a 'slick willy'.

I disagree. I believe the arguments have taken the words at their face value and the only difference is the context in which the words are placed. Some people seem to want to look at this case in isolation, whereas others seem to want to put it into the larger context of women's rights in India. "Not so bad" in one context has a very different impact than in another context. The argument is, what is the proper context? I tend to prefer to broaden arguments, where there is a broader context, rather than narrow them. Since I'm not an expert on Indian culture (nor presumptuous enough to critique another culture (in public anyway)), I can only comment upon the context of internationally recognized legal rights, on which, in reference to women, India does not have a good record. Placed in the context of the condition of women in India, I suggest that it is more logical to speculate that the outcome for this woman will be negative rather than positive and that to suggest otherwise is to buy into the arguments of the men who put her into this position in the first place. That is my argument, and I bolster it by pointing out that, in the article, it is stated that this marriage was arranged in order to aid the man, not the woman. He gets a tangible benefit from it -- no criminal record -- while references to her being saved humiliation (a bit late for that, btw) refer to nothing tangible. By comparison, they seem a mere after-thought.

well, hopefully this statement will be able to clear up some of the confusion, as i do believe (after reading this) that a large proportion of this has been due to each side using different contexts and scopes

Originally Posted by JuNii
ok, now Where did I indicate that it was going to get close to a "fairy-tale ending"

go ahead and highlight where I said it was going to be anything near a fairy-tale ending.

that's your opinion. and if you see that in my post, then that's how you are thinking, not me.

show me in the post where I am overlooking Human Rights Violations at all.


Go ahead and point them out please.
You're nitpicking now. There's a good sign. Your own words naively suggest the rapist might end up taking good care of his victim, and now you're trying to pull a Slick Willy with "I did not explicitly condone rape and human rights violations".
I agree with Gauthier on this, JuNii. This was my issue with the posts we were arguing over. You cannot ignore the meanings of your words. If others throw those meanings back at you, it is up to you to either defend or clarify your statements. You can't get out of it by claiming that since you did not use our words, your words did not have those meanings. That is like arguing that "blue" is not a "color" because it doesn't contain a "c", "o" or "r".

Go read the posts between Muravyets and myself.

You're grasping at anything to prove your point about me and failing miserably.

all you can show is that your arguments are on what YOU interpreted I said, reguardless of any attempts to correct the mis-understanding.

and you're failing so bad that you're even imagining me trying to pull a 'slick willy'.
Haha, the only thing our posts clear up is that you didn't make an argument and we agreed to stop fighting about it.

I disagree. I believe the arguments have taken the words at their face value and the only difference is the context in which the words are placed. Some people seem to want to look at this case in isolation, whereas others seem to want to put it into the larger context of women's rights in India. "Not so bad" in one context has a very different impact than in another context. The argument is, what is the proper context? I tend to prefer to broaden arguments, where there is a broader context, rather than narrow them. Since I'm not an expert on Indian culture (nor presumptuous enough to critique another culture (in public anyway)), I can only comment upon the context of internationally recognized legal rights, on which, in reference to women, India does not have a good record. Placed in the context of the condition of women in India, I suggest that it is more logical to speculate that the outcome for this woman will be negative rather than positive and that to suggest otherwise is to buy into the arguments of the men who put her into this position in the first place. That is my argument, and I bolster it by pointing out that, in the article, it is stated that this marriage was arranged in order to aid the man, not the woman. He gets a tangible benefit from it -- no criminal record -- while references to her being saved humiliation (a bit late for that, btw) refer to nothing tangible. By comparison, they seem a mere after-thought.as an add on. any humiliation/lowering of status/ect from the rape that she might have been spared by this arraingement has been negated by the news article that says she was raped and that he was "the Alleged/accused rapist" even after he admitted to "doing her wrong." The article mentions her name, her father's name, but not his.

also, my mistake, the ""I also did her wrong," he said. "I did not want to marry her because she is an illiterate village girl."" I took the "I also did her wrong" to mean he admitted to the rape... no, it's his admitting why he did not want to marry her.

well, hopefully this statement will be able to clear up some of the confusion, as i do believe (after reading this) that a large proportion of this has been due to each side using different contexts and scopes
It clears up nothing, but it's early days yet on this thread. We shall see where the debate goes.

Haha, the only thing our posts clear up is that you didn't make an argument and we agreed to stop fighting about it.

ok. I won't argue that. :)

Go read the posts between Muravyets and myself.

You're grasping at anything to prove your point about me and failing miserably.

all you can show is that your arguments are on what YOU interpreted I said, reguardless of any attempts to correct the mis-understanding.

and you're failing so bad that you're even imagining me trying to pull a 'slick willy'.

It's how you lightly dismiss the seriousness of what happened to the woman and how the offender isn't even going to have it on his record by giving him the benefit of the doubt that irks me.

The comment about you having a double standard if the rapist had been a Muslim was a cheap shot yes, but you seem to be open to accepting the possibility that a rapist in a corrupt village or township in India would come close to treating his victim in a chivalrous manner. Rape is about power and contempt, and business-arranged weddings of ages ago hold more emotional bond than this farce.

I don't see anything good happening to this woman, and if something happens to her I doubt people will hear of it for a long time, if ever. Anything that comes close to rewarding or dismissing the seriousness of rape so flagrantly iis very distasteful. Try to propose a law in the U.S. where an accused rapist can have the charges dropped by marrying the alleged victim and hear the outrage there would be.

I agree with Gauthier on this, JuNii. This was my issue with the posts we were arguing over. You cannot ignore the meanings of your words. If others throw those meanings back at you, it is up to you to either defend or clarify your statements. You can't get out of it by claiming that since you did not use our words, your words did not have those meanings. That is like arguing that "blue" is not a "color" because it doesn't contain a "c", "o" or "r".
I thought you didn't want to argue over it.

fine, if I edit my first post to remove the paragraphs I wasn't referring to... would you at least look it over again?

as an add on. any humiliation/lowering of status/ect from the rape that she might have been spared by this arraingement has been negated by the news article that says she was raped and that he was "the Alleged/accused rapist" even after he admitted to "doing her wrong." The article mentions her name, her father's name, but not his.

also, my mistake, the ""I also did her wrong," he said. "I did not want to marry her because she is an illiterate village girl."" I took the "I also did her wrong" to mean he admitted to the rape... no, it's his admitting why he did not want to marry her.
Thank you for pointing that out. It is further, compelling evidence that none of this was done to benefit the woman.

Interesting....I had...some...difficulties finding this story through Google.

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=242543

Kanpur, June 22: Bahujan Samaj Party worker Anil Sonkar, faced with the charge of raping a 19-year-old girl from the Narwal locality, decided to marry her at the insistence of the local police and party MP from Bilhaur Anil Shukla Warsi. More so, because he has “wronged her and marrying her would compensate somewhat for the loss,” Sonkar, the BSP worker told Newsline.

This is infact a pretty major punishment (for the man) in India where dowries are common place and oft' considered so high that having a male child is very much preferable....Especially for a poor(er) family: As consumerism and wealth increase in India, dowry demands are growing. In rural areas, families sell their land holdings, while the urban poor sell their houses. [Wikipedia on dowries in India]. The practice of the bride giving a dowry to the groom is said to have originated in the system of recognition that not only the husband was responsible for providing for his wife, but her father shared this responsibility. [Wikipedia on the cultural foundation of dowries in India]

He told Newsline: “I was not prepared to marry the girl initially but the police warned me I would go to jail. “I also did her wrong. I did not want to marry her because she is an illiterate village girl,” Sonkar said. He has a Master’s degree in humanities.

So much for civilizing education... :D


Another source:
http://www.htnext.in/news/5922_2000419,0015002500030000.htm

POLICE FORCED a rape accused to marry his 17-year-old victim on Friday.

When contacted, the SO said that he was unaware about the age of the girl.

Acting SSP Kanpur Dinesh Chandra said the marriage was solemnized with the consent of the parties to the marriage and upon the assurance from the girl’s parents that their daughter was a major.

FYI the marriageable age in India is 18 for females.

I thought you didn't want to argue over it.

fine, if I edit my first post to remove the paragraphs I wasn't referring to... would you at least look it over again?
No, because I have lost too many hours on NSG arguing about the structure of arguments rather than the substance of a debate topic. Plus, your more recent remarks seem to contradict the pollyanna tone of your earlier remark. So I would prefer to see how your position on this topic develops rather than revisit old posts.

It's how you lightly dismiss the seriousness of what happened to the woman and how the offender isn't even going to have it on his record by giving him the benefit of the doubt that irks me.for the record, I never dismissed it. What I put out was me hoping that he would take good care of her and not kill her out of resentment.

The comment about you having a double standard if the rapist had been a Muslim was a cheap shot yes, but you seem to be open to accepting the possibility that a rapist in a corrupt village or township in India would come close to treating his victim in a chivalrous manner. Rape is about power and contempt, and business-arranged weddings of ages ago hold more emotional bond than this farce.no, rape is mostly about power and contempt. Sometimes its also done in a drunken stupor, or a misguided sense of "passion/love". either way, it's wrong no matter what the reasoning.

as for arrainged weddings... that's up to the culture. so I am not commenting on that because Inda does things differently than the USA.

I don't see anything good happening to this woman, and if something happens to her I doubt people will hear of it for a long time, if ever. Anything that comes close to rewarding or dismissing the seriousness of rape so flagrantly iis very distasteful. Try to propose a law in the U.S. where an accused rapist can have the charges dropped by marrying the alleged victim and hear the outrage there would be.dunno, the marrage was suppose to spare her the humiliation of that rape... the rape the NZTIMES has no problem with publishing. funny how HIS name isn't on there, and he's only 'accused' of raping her.

Power of the Press! (yes, that is supposed to be sarcastic.)

Interesting....I had...some...difficulties finding this story through Google.

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=242543

Kanpur, June 22: Bahujan Samaj Party worker Anil Sonkar, faced with the charge of raping a 19-year-old girl from the Narwal locality, decided to marry her at the insistence of the local police and party MP from Bilhaur Anil Shukla Warsi. More so, because he has “wronged her and marrying her would compensate somewhat for the loss,” Sonkar, the BSP worker told Newsline.

This is infact a pretty major punishment (for the man) in India where dowries are common place and oft' considered so high that having a male child is very much preferable....Especially for a poor(er) family: As consumerism and wealth increase in India, dowry demands are growing. In rural areas, families sell their land holdings, while the urban poor sell their houses. [Wikipedia on dowries in India]. The practice of the bride giving a dowry to the groom is said to have originated in the system of recognition that not only the husband was responsible for providing for his wife, but her father shared this responsibility. [Wikipedia on the cultural foundation of dowries in India]

He told Newsline: “I was not prepared to marry the girl initially but the police warned me I would go to jail. “I also did her wrong. I did not want to marry her because she is an illiterate village girl,” Sonkar said. He has a Master’s degree in humanities.

So much for civilizing education... :D
Again, without commenting on whether, in Indian culture, women see marriage as a legitimate compensation for rape, one thing we can see from this is that, regardless of what the woman thinks of it, the man did not agree to the marriage until he was told he'd go to jail if he didn't do it. I do not believe then that he was motivated to compensate the woman. His remarks also indicate that he felt perfectly free to rape a woman he would otherwise never consider marrying. In other words, she was good enoug to rape but not good enough to marry. So, can we add elitism to the list of corrupt activities that have victimized this woman?

Another source:
http://www.htnext.in/news/5922_2000419,0015002500030000.htm

POLICE FORCED a rape accused to marry his 17-year-old victim on Friday.

When contacted, the SO said that he was unaware about the age of the girl.

Acting SSP Kanpur Dinesh Chandra said the marriage was solemnized with the consent of the parties to the marriage and upon the assurance from the girl’s parents that their daughter was a major.

FYI the marriageable age in India is 18 for females.
And does this mean that this sham marriage will not be legal after all?

No, because I have lost too many hours on NSG arguing about the structure of arguments rather than the substance of a debate topic. Plus, your more recent remarks seem to contradict the pollyanna tone of your earlier remark. So I would prefer to see how your position on this topic develops rather than revisit old posts.if you take my word for it, fine.

I may be more... restrained in my rage of what happened, rather hoping her life turns out to her liking, than wishing him in jail and her and her family struggling harder to make her life after rape a livable one. but other than that, My views on the situation run almost parallell with yours.

I still hope her life won't end up tragically tho.

[snipped] Bahujan Samaj Party worker Anil Sonkar[snipped]

thanks for the name of the bastard. Wonder what happens now if it is true that's she's only 17.

Ahhhh, a good-ol' fashioned love story:
Man rapes woman.
Woman complains to Police.
Police make woman marry rapist.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10447724

sniff. Always makes one teary-eyed to see true love.

Just think how much less crime there'd be if all police adopted such tactics to other 'crimes'?

So fer instance, a man murders another man.
Solution?
Murdered man's family has to adopt their son's murderer - to save them the "embarassment" of having a funeral.

A person breaks into your house and steals your wares.
Solution?
You have to sublet your apartment to them - to save you the "embarassment" of filing an insurance report.

Drunk-driving causing death?
carpool!

Crime would disappear overnight!

He should do time - life possibly. His family should pay for her education so she can get out of that sorry situation. He commits a crime (at least it's a crime in any civilized country) and she gets punished.

Don't say my attitude is because I'm American. In too many cases in America, the rape victim is the one put on trial and her past actions are used as an excuse to let him go.

Given the attitudes toward rape victims around the world, I would say there are no civilized countries.

I suggest that it is more logical to speculate that the outcome for this woman will be negative rather than positive and that to suggest otherwise is to buy into the arguments of the men who put her into this position in the first place. That is my argument
Here's the problem where I think the last few pages of arguing revolve around: You've been looking at one side of the issue and Juni's been looking at the other side.

afaic, no-one is saying the woman is going to have a positive outcome from marrying her rapist. It's just (slightly) more postive than the alternative - which is quite possibly banishment from, or even being killed by, her family. This is is a real possibility in some regions of India - especially the poorer, more remote, regions.

one thing we can see from this is that, regardless of what the woman thinks of it, the man did not agree to the marriage until he was told he'd go to jail if he didn't do it.True.In other words, she was good enoug to rape but not good enough to marry. So, can we add elitism to the list of corrupt activities that have victimized this woman?Yes, we can...except...that it's not quite that simple: By our standards this is indeed quite appalling, but under those circumstances...

And does this mean that this sham marriage will not be legal after all?As brutal as it sounds...I almost wish it would stand: It's probably the best she could "do" in rural India considering her family and herself...In a certain - admittedly morbid sense - it's bit like winning in a lottery for the family.

One must also remember that under the prevailing local cultural environment in rural India forcing him to marry her is a definite punishment for him and his family.

In addition, I genuinely wonder two things:
1. Whether they asked the gal
(- Probably not, as arranged marriages are AFAIK the norm)

2. If they had asked her, then which one would have had to be persuaded more: She or the monster.
(- As wacky as it may sound I think this was much harder for "poor" A. Sonkar to accept)

thanks for the name of the bastard. Wonder what happens now if it is true that's she's only 17.
I don't think anyone is too keen to find out. I think the only one who *might* have an acute interest for it is the girl and I'm pretty certain she doesn't know how to (uneducated lass, 'tis such a shame :().

Co-incidentally in 2005 there was rather similar case - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4095824.stm - which eventually ended in 10 years in prison (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/6067104.stm).

One thing no-one's mentioned thus far, even though the thread is now 5 pages old: The woman at the centre of this sordid affair must have been extremely brave to even get herself down to the police station in the first place to make a complaint.
It must have taken a lot of courage to do that, all things considered.
Now surely that's something we can all agree on.

Ahhhh, a good-ol' fashioned love story:
Man rapes woman.
Woman complains to Police.
Police make woman marry rapist.


This is so 1950-Sicily-style.:(

One thing no-one's mentioned thus far, even though the thread is now 5 pages old: The woman at the centre of this sordid affair must have been extremely brave to even get herself down to the police station in the first place to make a complaint.
It must have taken a lot of courage to do that, all things considered.
Now surely that's something we can all agree on.

Or maybe she's planning her revenge. Since he's a party worker, he's probably got some assets to speak of, even if he is a low ranked flunky.

So once she marries him, off the bastard, inherit his worldly goods.

Probably wishful thinking though.

if you take my word for it, fine.

I may be more... restrained in my rage of what happened, rather hoping her life turns out to her liking, than wishing him in jail and her and her family struggling harder to make her life after rape a livable one. but other than that, My views on the situation run almost parallell with yours.

I still hope her life won't end up tragically tho.



thanks for the name of the bastard. Wonder what happens now if it is true that's she's only 17.
Although I am generally a happy and live-loving person, I have no patience with "hope," especially when it is such a long-shot. I prefer realism, as bleak as it may be. So I still bristle at all suggestions that the woman might luck out and have a rosy future.

Also, to be clear, I tend to be less interested in the story of a single individual when it comes to NSG debates. You may be thinking happy thoughts in support of this one woman. I am looking at her story as just an example of what happens to women in India (in this case, and in general around the world) since it is not an isolated happening (unusually noteworthy, but not a unique event). In that context, "happy thoughts" are especially irritating to me.

Here's the problem where I think the last few pages of arguing revolve around: You've been looking at one side of the issue and Juni's been looking at the other side.
No kidding, Sherlock. :p

afaic, no-one is saying the woman is going to have a positive outcome from marrying her rapist. It's just (slightly) more postive than the alternative - which is quite possibly banishment from, or even being killed by, her family. This is is a real possibility in some regions of India - especially the poorer, more remote, regions.
Yes, and hydrochloric acid is slightly less acidic than sulphuric acid (or the other way around, whatever). If someone forces my hand into a vat of either, I will not be pleased with the result, and the nitpicking of others about how it could have been worse if it had been the other vat is only going to add to my displeasure.

My point is, let us focus on the wrong that was done to this woman, and quit nitpicking about how much worse other things might have been, which cannot help but create the impression that some people think she should be satisfied with the outcome as it is. Which, by the way, is what I believe the men directly involved with her are thinking.

True.Yes, we can...except...that it's not quite that simple: By our standards this is indeed quite appalling, but under those circumstances...

As brutal as it sounds...I almost wish it would stand: It's probably the best she could "do" in rural India considering her family and herself...In a certain - admittedly morbid sense - it's bit like winning in a lottery for the family.

One must also remember that under the prevailing local cultural environment in rural India forcing him to marry her is a definite punishment for him and his family.

In addition, I genuinely wonder two things:
1. Whether they asked the gal
(- Probably not, as arranged marriages are AFAIK the norm)

2. If they had asked her, then which one would have had to be persuaded more: She or the monster.
(- As wacky as it may sound I think this was much harder for "poor" A. Sonkar to accept)


I don't think anyone is too keen to find out. I think the only one who *might* have an acute interest for it is the girl and I'm pretty certain she doesn't know how to (uneducated lass, 'tis such a shame :().

Co-incidentally in 2005 there was rather similar case - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4095824.stm - which eventually ended in 10 years in prison (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/6067104.stm).
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept any of these premises.

Again, I am not commenting on the views about such things in Indian culture. I am basing my comments on what I have read from various sources (mostly Human Rights Watch) over time about efforts of the Indian government to change so-called traditional practices.

The fact is, in my view, that if a nation's laws consider something to be an offense, then appeals to "local tradition" are meaningless. So the people in India who make such appeals concerning cases like this are talking out their asses, to be blunt. India itself is moving away from this, so to say that in India this is acceptable is no longer true.

Also, the argument that being forced to marry the woman he raped is a greater punishment for the man and his family only perpetuates the elitist, sexist, and misogynist "traditions" we are talking about and which India is trying to break. All it says is that this woman is such trash (both before the rape and because of it) that having her connected to their family is a punishment. Yes, I can see how that attitude would lead to her being compensated in life for what she has been put through by this man. Raping her was no shame, but having to treat her as a human being, now THAT would be terrible.

One thing no-one's mentioned thus far, even though the thread is now 5 pages old: The woman at the centre of this sordid affair must have been extremely brave to even get herself down to the police station in the first place to make a complaint.
It must have taken a lot of courage to do that, all things considered.
Now surely that's something we can all agree on.
Yes, we can wholeheartedly agree on that.

Or maybe she's planning her revenge. Since he's a party worker, he's probably got some assets to speak of, even if he is a low ranked flunky.

So once she marries him, off the bastard, inherit his worldly goods.

Probably wishful thinking though.
Yes, that is wishful thinking.

The fact is, in my view, that if a nation's laws consider something to be an offense, then appeals to "local tradition" are meaningless. So the people in India who make such appeals concerning cases like this are talking out their asses, to be blunt. India itself is moving away from this, so to say that in India this is acceptable is no longer true.

In India they're very much a reality; dowries, caste system, et al.

You fail to realize that laws & 'good intentions' are not reality to the people in most cases. Even in western world people might not recognize their actions as illegal and/or morally questionable even if they're in violation of laws & ordinaces: This is a hard cold fact that concerns both laymen and members of law & order whose job it is to uphold the law (and also one of the reasons zero tolerance isn't always the optimal approach).

In this case, with the knowledge in the articles, a deal was negotiated icluding a substantial punishment - because of exisiting and very real traditions - for the male while offering a 'reward' for the woman and her family.

In the end, I'll quote yourself:
Although I am generally a happy and live-loving person, I have no patience with "hope," especially when it is such a long-shot. I prefer realism, as bleak as it may be.

I suggest you accept the realism of the situation & culture instead of some idealistic concept that de jure laws are somehow more valid than de facto traditions in rural India: The end result *was not* good from our perspective but it was acceptable for her family and thus for her.

In India they're very much a reality; dowries, caste system, et al.

You fail to realize that laws & 'good intentions' are not reality to the people in most cases. Even in western world people might not recognize their actions as illegal and/or morally questionable even if they're in violation of laws & ordinaces: This is a hard cold fact that concerns both laymen and members of law & order whose job it is to uphold the law (and also one of the reasons zero tolerance isn't always the optimal approach).

In this case, with the knowledge in the articles, a deal was negotiated icluding a substantial punishment - because of exisiting and very real traditions - for the male while offering a 'reward' for the woman and her family.
I see. So the fact that a society is in the early stages of promoting civil rights and women's rights and that in many areas of the country, local authorities still adhere to the old ways of doing things is a reason to give more credence to the local traditions than to the national laws, even to the extent of not enforcing the nation's laws at all (remember, rape is a crime and this man was given a way to escape trial for it).

So, in that case, if in New England, in the US, local people still clung to the old tradition of convicting people of the crime of witchcraft on the basis of "spectral evidence," even though spectral evidence is specifically outlawed by accredited courts of law, would you be okay with that, too? Especially if the local New Englanders claimed that the "law and good intentions" were less real to them than their traditions? Or perhaps you think that the US southern states should still be allowed to segregate all of society and terrorize and murder black people for not "keeping to their place" in the eyes of local authorities?

The fact is that India, as a democracy, has chosen the model of the "rule of law" and therefore, allowing a man to avoid prosecution for a violent felony on the basis of tradition is not acceptable even by India's own standards, regardless of whether the national government has the wherewithall to take action about it at this time.

In the end, I'll quote yourself:


I suggest you accept the realism of the situation & culture instead of some idealistic concept that de jure laws are somehow more valid than de facto traditions in rural India: The end result *was not* good from our perspective but it was acceptable for her family and thus for her.
A) I take extreme exception to the notion that wanting Indian authorities to adhere to existing Indian law is "some idealistic concept." If you really think that "de jure law" is less valid than "de facto traditions," then (1) you must think that New Englanders should be permitted to hang witches, and (2) that the "rule of law" does not exist and that all people must live at the mercy of "traditions" no matter how unjust they might be. Frankly, that seems a rather radical view to take and one that I personally find hard to reconcile with a modern democratic social model, such as India. People who are citizens of a nation are bound by that nation's laws, no matter if they live in the city or the country. That is not idealism. That is nature of law.

B) Your remark that the outcome is "acceptable for her family and thus for her" underscores the degree to which this woman has had no rights or protection in this matter. What happened to her obviously does not matter. All that matters is what others (her family, her rapist, her rapist's family, her rapist's political party leader) want. Not only is this the perfect example of lack of protection for women's rights, it also is a text book example of precisely what the Indian government is attempting to fight against. And again, I put it to you, that if India has laws against such things, then the refusal of local authorities to adhere to those laws is itself an unacceptable violation of India's own way of doing things now, today, in this day and age.

If it was right for the US federal government to use force (the National Guard) to impose the law of desegregation upon the southern states, then it would be right for the Indian government to use its power to force this rapist to stand trial for his crime. The Indian government will, of course, choose whatever route to its goals it thinks is best for its country, but the principle stands. Either the law governs or men do. Democratic philosophers throughout history have held that rule of men = tyranny, whereas rule of law = at least a chance of equality. The OP situation is clearly rule of men trumping rule of law.

To be clear:

I can see perfectly well the perceived justice in this forced marriage. The man is not being allowed to avoid personal responsibility for his actions. He, presumably, took this young woman's virginity, pretty much destroying her prospects for ever getting married in a society in which marriage is the only socially acceptable context for women. By providing her with the perceived benefits of marriage, he is restoring at least some of what he took from her.

That, I believe, is some of the thinking behind this, but it misses the point in many ways.

First, when we break down the supposed benefits of marriage, we see that overwhelmingly, those benefits are for people other than the woman.

Second, when we put it into the broader context of women's condition in marraige in India, we see that this is not a reliably safe condition for the woman to be in. Both Indian culture and Indian law are woefully stacked against women in matters of domestic abuse, child rearing/custody, inheritance, etc. Frankly, if it had been properly enforced, I think the law would have helped her more if she had not married the man. Now that she is married to him, she has even less protection against him.

Third, violent crimes such as rape are not just crimes against an individual. They are also crimes against society because they damage the social structures that give the stability necessary for progress, and society has a vested interest in seeing them punished. By sweeping such crimes under the rug, in circumvention of existing law, rather than prosecuting, the local authorities are not only damaging this woman, they are damaging the national interest of India.

Fourth, we must not forget the motivation for this forced marriage. It was not to compensate the woman -- it was, first and foremost, to avoid embarrassment to the rapist and his family. That is not justice because it is meant to benefit the offender more than his victim. That is not redressing the wrong done to the victim, which is precisely the nature of legal justice. Justice has not been done here, and justice is society's stake in this, at least as much as or more than the victim's.

To be clear:

I can see perfectly well the perceived justice in this forced marriage. The man is not being allowed to avoid personal responsibility for his actions. He, presumably, took this young woman's virginity, pretty much destroying her prospects for ever getting married in a society in which marriage is the only socially acceptable context for women. By providing her with the perceived benefits of marriage, he is restoring at least some of what he took from her.

That, I believe, is some of the thinking behind this, but it misses the point in many ways.

First, when we break down the supposed benefits of marriage, we see that overwhelmingly, those benefits are for people other than the woman.

Second, when we put it into the broader context of women's condition in marraige in India, we see that this is not a reliably safe condition for the woman to be in. Both Indian culture and Indian law are woefully stacked against women in matters of domestic abuse, child rearing/custody, inheritance, etc. Frankly, if it had been properly enforced, I think the law would have helped her more if she had not married the man. Now that she is married to him, she has even less protection against him.

Third, violent crimes such as rape are not just crimes against an individual. They are also crimes against society because they damage the social structures that give the stability necessary for progress, and society has a vested interest in seeing them punished. By sweeping such crimes under the rug rather than prosecuted, in circumvention of existing law, the local authorities are not only damaging this woman, they are damaging the national interest of India. We must not forget the motivation for this forced marriage. It was not to compensate the woman -- it was, first and foremost, to avoid embarrassment to the rapist and his family. That is not justice because it is meant to benefit the offender more than his victim. That is not redressing the wrong done to the victim, which is precisely the nature of legal justice. Justice has not been done here, and justice is society's stake in this, at least as much as or more than the victim's.

Not to mention it's not exactly going to be easier to get over being raped when you see the person who raped you every day.

Not to mention it's not exactly going to be easier to get over being raped when you see the person who raped you every day.

Exactly. It shows how the needs of the victim of this crime have not been considered at all.

1) Now that she's married to him, she will have no standing on which to refuse him sex, so she gets not only to see her rapist every day but to relive the rape anytime he wants. Considering the overall situation, I don't think she will get much support from her local authorities if she complains that her husband is raping/abusing her.

2) She also gets to live with both a man and a family (his) who are keenly aware that they were forced to take into their group a person they consider inferior, so in addition to living in the rape-moment for the rest of her life, she also gets to be reminded of what trash she is as well.

3) And she gets to have all this fun in full knowledge that her rapist will never be punished for forcing this hell upon her, and that her local community thinks she should be accepting all this as some kind of "reward." I wonder there are not more Eileen Warnos types in India.

So the fact that a society is in the early stages of promoting civil rights and women's rights and that in many areas of the country, local authorities still adhere to the old ways of doing things is a reason to give more credence to the local traditions than to the national laws, even to the extent of not enforcing the nation's laws at all. (remember, rape is a crime and this man was given a way to escape trial for it).

Are you saying that case settlements don't happen in countries where such procedure is available?

Just to remind you he was punished in accordance to laws and traditions of existing cultural framework: There were - apparently - no complaints made about the procedure and it was accepted by the criminal, the victim's family and AFAWK by the victim.

You must also realize that the cultural effect of marriage is *vastly* different there, with - for example - divorce rates being near ~1% and arranged (non-love) marriages being commonplace.

Or perhaps you think that the US southern states should still be allowed to segregate all of society and terrorize and murder black people for not "keeping to their place" in the eyes of local authorities?

The key here is that slavery and segregation were accepted UNTIL government laws were duly *enforced* in the area: Setting laws is a start, having people accept & follow them is the important step.

Consider eg. KKK lynchings, they didn't really stop (afaik) until the prevalent culture turned against them: They were *accepted* even if they were illegal.

allowing a man to avoid prosecution for a violent felony on the basis of tradition is not acceptable even by India's own standards

I consider it a plea bargain: The penalty was relatively major in that culture where dowries and arranged marriages are defacto standard.

A) I take extreme exception to the notion that wanting Indian authorities to adhere to existing Indian law is "some idealistic concept."

There is no evidence - this far - that points towards the fact that the authority in question broke the laws. If he did break the laws of negotiating a bargain between offender and victim, then it would be a different issue.

My point was towards the fact that you don't consider what the man has to do any sort of punishment - Not only that, it is also a considerable compensation (no dowries necessary) for the girl's family and thus the girl.
B) Your remark that the outcome is "acceptable for her family and thus for her" underscores the degree to which this woman has had no rights or protection in this matter.

According to our culture she was shafted, yes.

According to her culture she now has a caretaker for life for "free".

The only major issue I foresee that might cause a difficulty is the resentment of the male party - the monster who was forced into marriage - towards the agreement and I genuinely fear that he'll do something drastic to escape the agreement.

What happened to her obviously does not matter. All that matters is what others (her family, her rapist, her rapist's family, her rapist's political party leader) want.

What happened to her is the reason the rapist was *punished* so: From his - and his family's - point of view they now have one more mouth to feed for life without any (dowries) recompensation.

Not only is this the perfect example of lack of protection for women's rights

Aye, women aren't empowered in India. Neither are the castless, poor or youth in general.

a text book example of precisely what the Indian government is attempting to fight against. And again, I put it to you, that if India has laws against such things, then the refusal of local authorities to adhere to those laws is itself an unacceptable violation of India's own way of doing things now, today, in this day and age.

The key word is attempt: They haven't done much on the issue because either they can't or don't wan't to.

Secondly, if the magistrate *had* broken laws and the culture of leadership - and because the news is public - his ass would be fried. With the information we have we can only conclude that this descision follows the laws or at the very least customs of rural India as there hasn't been *any* (public) official complaint about how the issue was handled.

Exactly. It shows how the needs of the victim of this crime have not been considered at all.

I disagree. They very much looked at the needs of the victim...just from a very different cultural viewpoint than ours.



I reiterate: As far as we know the laws were not broken and the punishment was laid out according to de facto customs & traditions of that region instead of de jure ban against dowries, etc that are not properly enforced in remote regions of India - if at all.

I'm just waiting for Bottle to come online and read this.
We'll know when she has, because we'll be able to hear the 'popping' sound as her head explodes off into space from her blood pressure's sudden exponential rise.

I hate to disappoint you, but my blood pressure doesn't even flutter at such stories. It's a very common practice. A horrible one, to be sure, but it's not remotely rare.

I've posted threads about how women have their genitals mutilated and sewn closed to ensure that any sexual experience they ever have will be excruciatingly painful and medically dangerous. You're going to have to do a lot better if you want to cause head-explosions among feminists as seasoned and cynical as I.

EDIT: I must admit, however, that I'm impressed by the people who are defending this practice, or who insist that it won't be so bad for a woman to forced to marry the man who raped her. I guess that a lifetime of being raped, with no legal recourse and no escape, isn't so bad when one realizes that this woman has already been shown that she has no legal recourse or escape anyhow. She's a member of the designated Human Toilet caste in her society, after all, but if she allows herself to be sold to one particular man then at least she only has to be his personal dumping ground, rather than a public one.

My point is, let us focus on the wrong that was done to this woman, and quit nitpicking about how much worse other things might have been, which cannot help but create the impression that some people think she should be satisfied with the outcome as it is. Which, by the way, is what I believe the men directly involved with her are thinking.
I dunno, I'm still trying to see positives from the police perspective here and what I've come up with is that:
1. They thought there's a good possibility she'd be ostracised or even killed if sent back home.
2. The chances of this going through court and getting a successful conviction would be pretty damn close to zero. A high-caste well-connected party worker defending rape charges against a low caste poverty-stricken woman: Anyone really think she'd get any justice through the courts?
3. As a result of #2, she'd be heading back home having been cast as a slut/whore from the rapist's lawyers which would be readily believed by everyone. This would result in #1.
4. Even if somehow she did get a successful conviction, she prob still be heading home having been cast as a slut/whore, which again leads us back to #1.
5. Bearing all this in mind, and knowing just how strongly the caste system still works in these remote provinces, a high-caste marrying a low caste is going to bring an enormous amount of shame and embarrassment to him and his family. This would be on par with, if not more than, the shame and embarrassment his family would feel from him going to prison as a convicted rapist.

Thus, the police decided that this course of action saves the girl from possible reprisals and brings shame upon the man's family, which is the best they could hope for.

I say all this because if it was just a stitch-up to save a sleazy asshole with connections, surely the cops would have just let it go thru the courts or done their best to convince the woman she's got no chance of being successful and so not to bother laying a complaint.

Another example of the terrible caste system and women's rights in India...