Government Sponsored Shelter For The Rapist

It took years of injustice and innumerable cases of rape for one incident to finally capture the public's attention. This time, people didn't need a leader to awaken them from their slumber; their repressed anger demanded an outlet. The voices that had been silenced for years coalesced into a collective outcry that could no longer be ignored or suppressed. This led to changes in the outdated laws on sexual offenses. The Justice Verma Panel identified "failure of governance" as the root cause of sexual crime, criticizing the government, police, and the public's apathy. It recommended significant changes. While many recommendations are commendable, the panel's stance on rapists remains too lenient.

The key points of contention include:

Rape offenders will face rigorous imprisonment of no less than seven years, potentially extending to life imprisonment.

Punishment for causing death or a persistent vegetative state will be rigorous imprisonment of no less than 20 years, potentially extending to life imprisonment.

Gang-rape will carry a punishment of no less than 20 years, potentially extending to life imprisonment.

Gang-rape followed by death will result in life imprisonment.

Firstly, why is there no capital punishment for rapists? Any unemployed, desperate individual could secure a permanent place to live, eat, and die if they commit rape. Should this be considered government-sponsored shelter for rapists? It's worth noting that this money comes from taxpayers. Imagine a family whose daughter has suffered such a horrendous crime, paying taxes to keep the criminal alive, potentially for life.

Secondly, why differentiate between rape, gang rape, and rape followed by murder? Rape is already a heinous crime deserving of the most severe punishment, yet the panel has divided the penalties based on the severity of the crime itself.

The Indian Judicial System deserves criticism for making rape appear like an opportunity or a blessing in disguise for the depraved and morally bankrupt.

The Marriage Of Convenience

My friend Rajush was approaching the prime age for marriage, and his parents were diligently searching for a suitable bride. I met him a week ago, and since then, I've been meaning to write this blog. This piece is not about a person, a family, or a tradition, but rather the society we live in. As I spoke with Rajush, I couldn't help but ponder the plight of a girl child in India. This plight is not limited to the girl child but extends to the entire society. Even in the context of marriage, a wonderful institution, some of the practices and traditions we've adopted or perpetuated over the ages are not just questionable but downright absurd.

Rajush was entering into an arranged marriage, and as simple as it sounds, it is indeed ARRANGED from the very beginning. Everything in this arrangement is taken into account. Every arrangement involves its own set of negotiations, and Rajush, being rather naive in these matters, felt disheartened by his experiences thus far. The most striking example was when the father of a prospective bride admitted that they weren't particularly well-off and wouldn't be able to provide much for their daughter, implying they couldn't afford a lavish wedding. I asked Rajush what was so surprising about that, and he responded, "The girl is an MBBS, MD, and a practicing doctor. Isn't the wealth of education that her father ensured for her enough? I can't help but wonder what real wealth is, and how much gold, silver, or money could compare to what he's given his daughter. Add to that the 'sanskar' (moral values) instilled in her, and you have the wealthiest person in the world. So why this talk of not being able to give much to their daughter?"

Rajush's response left me speechless.

I understand why the girl's father said what he said—it's a reflection of our current society. However, I'm still searching for answers as to why there is such a differential attitude towards girls. Why can't a girl, like a boy, support her family after marriage? Marriage is a mutual relationship with mutual bonds, so why aren't the responsibilities shared, both before and after?

"In today's world where religion marries religion and wealth marries wealth... Where can I find a match, as I am a human whose religion is mankind and love is the only wealth I possess?"