In the backdrop of the protests over the violent abduction, rape, and murder of Asifa Bano, an eight-year-old girl from the Rasana village of Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir, the government released fresh guidelines regarding the rape of minors. The case, popularly known as the “Kathua rape case”, touched a nerve- leading to widespread protests from the public, along with multiple discussions about the prevalent yet sensitive issue of rape in the country.
On April 22nd, 2018, the Union Cabinet assented to an ordinance- a temporary law signed by the President when Parliament is not session- which would allow the courts to sentence any person(s) to death in the case of rape of a minor below the age of 12. When taken at face value this seems like a perfectly valid, even justified, action to take against perpetrators of such heinous acts. But dig a little deeper and one can see the action was not only taken in haste, but may also have adverse effects.
The ordinance came amid shock, outrage and protests all over the country. People were furious with the mishandling, politicization, and communalization of a brutal crime and demanded justice. The government needed a strong response to such a crime and this response came in the form of the ordinance, which serves as a prime example of “reactionary legislation”- when a government enacts laws hastily in response to a pressing issue. While reactionary legislation looks great on paper (who would ever argue that the rape of a child below the age of 12 shouldn’t be punished by death?) it has many detrimental effects, seen only in the future, that may be more harmful than the event which caused the legislation itself.
If we examine the ordinance in detail, we come across many fallacies. Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, anyone who commits murder is punishable by the death penalty meaning that the Kathua rapists were always eligible for the death penalty, regardless of this ordinance. This subtlety proves to us that the legislation is definitely reactionary, because it makes no difference to the sentence tied to the specific crimes committed in Kathua, as that included murder.
However, what’s nevertheless important to focus on is that this ordinance means that now, the crime of rape of a minor below 12 carries the death sentence, regardless of anything else. This means that any perpetrator of such a rape would have no incentive to leave his victim alive, knowing that they would eligible for death. This takes away significant evidence from the case as the perpetrator may now hide or destroy the body, taking away forensic evidence and more importantly, the testimony of the victim.
While the ordinance opens the door to the death penalty, it is still the judges who decide the sentence. In any case of the rape of a minor below 12, the public will demand the harshest possible sentence, regardless of case facts, placing the judges under extraordinary pressure. This may lead judges to decide against conviction, knowing that convicting the person(s) will lead to immediate, and strong, calls for the death penalty, leading to them to even possibly acquitting the accused.
Looking beyond the legal aspects of this ordinance and instead at its social ramifications, it is seen that the ordinance, in the long run, remains detrimental and ineffective as a tool of meting justice. This is because many rapes of this nature take place within the family, perpetrated by close relatives. It is already considered common practice to hush-up abuse of any kind, including rape, and to never report it to the authorities. This is because reporting abuse is seen as threat to the family name and its honour, and also leads to the victim’s family becoming party to protracted legal battles. The idea of turning a family member in when they could be sentenced to death, effectively killing them, is incomprehensible to most families in Indian and this ordinance will only guarantee that the number of cases that already go underreported will only rise.
This is the problem with reactionary legislation. This is not the kind of article we will see in the headlines, this is not the writing we will read in the papers and this is not what the government wants to promote. But this is the truth. This ordinance is a response to heinous crime, one which should have never occurred, but it’s not remotely enough. It’s the equivalent of fixing a bullet hole with a band-aid. Rapes are a prevalent and pressing issue in this country and one we are constantly linked to in international circles. The problem of rape is an underlying one, and until the government addresses that issue, instead of reacting to the problem at hand, and starts taking proactive measures, we will see more of these rapes and more outrage and in turn, more reaction from the government. It’s a vicious cycle, where ultimately, we all lose.
Credits to Shraddha Chaudhary, whose Facebook post provided vast legal backing to this article.
By Pranjal Pande
As more and more LGBTQIA people embrace their sexual and gender identity, forward thinking and innovative workplaces need to ensure that all colleagues, irrespective of the sexual or gender orientation have the security of a safe and welcoming workplace. Each workplace’s focus should be on the skills of each worker, not their gender or sexual orientation.
3 specific examples of ways that LGBTQIA employees are discriminated against are:
- Refusal to hire- Many LGBTQIA individuals are not hired due to their gender or sexual orientation. More than one in four transgender people have lost a job due to bias. This can be seen in the data collected, which claims 44% of transgender people are passed over for a job, 23% are denied a promotion and 26% are fired because they were trans- as seen in the case of Law Enforcement officer, Mia Massey, which was a precedent for recognizing the rights of LGBTQIA workers everywhere.
- Violence- It has been found that fully 90% of transgendered individuals have encountered some form of harassment on the job. 47% of workers have experienced an adverse job outcome because they are transgender. Further, 27% of LGB individuals have experienced workplace harassment, according to data gathered by the Williams Institute.
- Wage disparity- Studies consistently show that gay men earn significantly less than their heterosexual counterparts. Census data analyses also confirm that in nearly every state, men in same-sex couples earn less than men in heterosexual marriages. Further, several studies show that large percentages of the transgender population are unemployed or have incomes far below the national average. Other studies show that discrimination, fear of discrimination, and concealing one’s LGBT identity can negatively impact the well-being of LGBT employees, including their mental and physical health, productivity in the workplace, and job satisfaction.
Four strategies to improve the climate for LGBTQIA employees are:
- The creation of a workplace discrimination policy statement that includes protections for transgender and gender queer people.
- The bathrooms must be equally accessible to people of all genders. Gender-inclusive bathrooms must be proximal to the work areas. Further, all employees should be welcome to use the bathroom facilities that best correspond to their gender identity.
- All employees should be asked in their intake process what their gender identity is, what pronouns they use, and what name they prefer to use. This is an empowering way of ensuring that employees will be addressed appropriately from the beginning of their time in the company office or workplace.
- Policing of gender, such as so-called teasing, or chiding coworkers for not being manly or womanly enough, judging coworker’s style of dress, use of makeup, mannerisms or ways of speaking, gesturing, moving, sitting, standing, etc., is always unacceptable and can reinforce rigid conceptions of gender that marginalize trans and gender queer colleagues. Strict action against discrimination must be taken.
Ultimately, to create an inclusive workplace, every single employee must be mindful of their actions and language and support LGBTQIA individuals. All workers must try to educate themselves on the discrimination face by LGBTQIA people and refrain from such practices. In addition they should try to educate their colleagues and promote sensitive behaviour in the workplace. All managers/supervisors need to be cognizant of the organisation’s gender related policies and work towards setting an example for their subordinates and colleagues. Additionally, any complaints should be taken seriously and given due consideration, after all, an LGBTQIA inclusive workplace can only be made when all employees, workers, businesses, etc. work together to promote and listen to LGBTQIA perspectives.
Toxic Masculinity is a term given to the phenomena where to be a ‘real man’, men are expected to be violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, etc. Its most often cited as an example to show how a patriarchal society affects men negatively too.
What’s important to recognize is that toxic masculinity doesn’t and shouldn’t be seen as the epitome of masculinity. Many people identify more as masculine than feminine, which is completely alright. Masculinity, and masculine traits help one understand themselves, and figure out what their identity comprises of. However, toxic masculinity is simply a poisonous byproduct of a society where men were/are supposed to portray themselves as invincible.
Examples of toxic masculinity can be seen everywhere you look. Here are some:
- “Men are not interested in parenting and cannot handle a family on their own”: This builds on the patriarchal notion that women are made to be caretakers; they should not work and focus instead on family life. What is implied, or in many cases, said outright, is that men are not responsible for raising children, and are unsuited to handling a family, or being a single parent. What this notion does is discourage men from actively participating in their children’s lives, as they assume that is the job of the mother only. Further, it leads to the assumption that in the case of a divorce, the children will live with their mother, hence depriving fathers of their right to a fair custody agreement as it is outweighed by social expectations and norms. Obviously, the above examples assume that we are talking about a straight man, but even a man who is part of the lgbtq+ community suffers similar backlash, as seen where homosexual couples find it hard to adopt a child as many people argue that two men will not be able to take adequate care of a child.
- Men are always interested in sex and cannot be a victim of abuse: People often say that men are always interested in sex, and are ready to have sex at almost any time. What this notion does is discard the idea of consent for men. By this assumption, one negates their personal right to refuse to perform a sexual act, or respond to sexual advances. It makes men, especially young men, uncomfortable and more likely to stay silent instead of telling their partner they’re not in the mood. This can be seen in situations of abuse, where a common retort men often hear when they share their experiences of abuse, is that since they are men, they cannot be abused. They are often told that they should have just been happy and enjoyed the act, which sets a harmful precedent on how society treats male victims of abuse, especially legally.
- Emasculation: This encompasses a range of activities that a ‘Real Man’ wouldn’t do, for example taking interest in one’s looks, being emotional and crying, needing help, being sympathetic, appreciating “frivolous” things such as sugary “girly” drinks, romantic styles, cute animal videos, romcom flicks. By belittling activities such as these, which are not seen as masculine enough, and promoting traits like excessive aggression, society encourages the toxic side of masculinity only to gasp in horror when the toxicity seeps into the system.
“Learning is not attained by chance, it must be sought for with ardor and diligence.”
– Abigail Adams
In today’s world of information overload, we might miss something worthwhile. Every week, I’ll be flagging some of the articles I have read, which I found interesting, for you. Here’s the roundup for the week:
- This article in Deutsche Welle, written by Ajit Niranjan, talks about gender budgeting, which aims to remove discrimination from public policy by making policies that are not “gender blind”.
- Starbucks has announced that they have reached 100% gender and racial pay equity in the United States, and have stated that they will work to bridge this gap in all the other countries they operate in. In order to help other companies achieve the same goal, they’ve listed pay equity principles – equal footing, transparency and accountability- that employers can implement to help address known, systemic barriers to global pay equity.
- Elena Ferrante, in her weekend column at Guardian, talks about how women are still unable to be fully themselves in a world that’s governed by male needs. She says “Women live amid permanent contradictions and unsustainable labours. Everything, really everything, has been codified in terms of male needs – even our underwear, sexual practices, maternity. We have to be women according to roles and modalities that make men happy, but we also have to confront men, compete in public places, making them more and better than they are, and being careful not to offend them.”
- Written by Sushma U N at Quartz, this article talks about how Indian companies are actively trying to recruit more women in order to fix their gender diversity problems.
- As part of the Department for International Development (DFID)-funded Family Planning Outreach Programme, which provides much-needed sexual and reproductive health services to rural women, more than 16,000 survivors of gender based violence in Tanzania are receiving clinical services, as well as the referrals required for legal and social services. Intra Health International details how the team responsible for this outcome worked over the past 3 years.
- Yasemin Besen Cassino talks about her new book which studies the origins of the wage gap by studying the teenage workforce. She says “Part-time teenage jobs seem trivial, but they are the first entry into the workforce for girls and boys. In these jobs, they are socialized into the workforce—and they internalize its problems. The wage gap starts with girls—and we need to include them in our movement to close it.”
The Oscars took place on March 4th this year, and were characterized by vocal support for movements like Times Up and #MeToo. Ever since last year, when the Harvey Weinstein scandal erupted, it seemed like the 2018 Oscars were destined to be, for once, culturally and politically relevant. Throughout the ceremony, multiple celebrities, including Best Actress winner Frances Dormund, used their speeches to talk about things that matter, but their extremely valid efforts were marred in part by Oscars producers’ that still insists that the ceremony is a place to only have ‘fun’ and is for ‘entertainment’, leading to many awkward clips inserted during politically charged moments in a half hearted effort to keep the Oscars from being too outspoken, while still profiting from the many social and cultural movements that have occurred in the past year. At the end of the day, the Oscars are a production desperately trying to keep its ratings up, and failing. But what the upside of this is that, even when the Oscars themselves might not be as relevant as they were 4 years ago, the political and social movements the actresses and actors of Hollywood support continue to garner media attention. The Oscars also managed to be much more diverse than they usually are, with a person of colour winning Best Director, reminding all viewers of a time when #OscarsSoWhite was trending. However, there is no doubt that there is still a long long way to go when it comes to parity in the industry, a point that was highlighted in many of the comments and responses on social media–upset that Ryan Seacrest, who has been accused of sexual harassment, retained his position as the red carpet host. This naturally opened the door to the larger debate of adequate investigation into claims of sexual harassment, and the lack of subsequent justice for many victims. Excuse us if we wonder if everything is just a prop. At the end of the day, the Oscars remained what it has always been: a platform to promote the film industry and distribute platitudes, which might not be a good thing, or a bad thing, but remains a thing that we will probably be watching for many years to come.