So the media and politicians have suddenly discovered that the conditions in Indian prisons are appalling and it is not safe or comfortable for women to be in jail.. all because Tamil nadu’s little princess Kanhimozhi is currently residing in Tihar jail. Not counting the fact that she is in one of the high security ‘VIP’ areas of the jail and protected from the slightest bit of abuse or discomfort because of her high political connections, congress president Sonia Gandhi suddenly decided to declare that she is “worried” about kani’s safety in the prison…
I decided to skip the rest of the 9 ‘o clock news after 10 mins of listening to a rather nonsensical debate on NDTv abouy whether denial of bail to a woman for such a crime was a bad move on the court’s part.. politician Renuka Chowdhry, Sadia Dehlvi, activist Madhu Kishwar and senior advocate KTS Tulsi were the talking heads on the panel tonight.. thank god for the latter two because the comments made by the first two put me in serious danger of getting a heart attack due to sheer indignation..
Comments like “it’s not safe for women to be in jail”, “the court is obliged by law to give bail to women” and the gem of the lot “well there are other women in jail but they are there for more serious crimes, kanimozhi has only a charge of corruption against her”
What these people did not seem to get was that they are simply reinforcing the gender stereotypes by insisting that the sex of the accused should be more important than the crime committed.. The enormity of what kanimozhi is involved in was dismissed in the interest of faux- sympathy for jailed women..
even more annoying was the fact that they seemed entirely oblivious to the fact that there is no law that makes it compulsory or even obligatory for a court to release a woman on bail.. What S.437 of the CrPC states is simply that the court “may” direct that the person accused of a crime which is punishable by life imprisonment or death penalty be given bail if such a person is under age 16 or a woman or is sick or infirm.
There’s nothing in any law in the country that says that women cannot or should not be thrown in jail if they’ve done something to deserve it.. and the scam that kani is involved in is much more dangerous for india’s security than any murder or terrorist activity.
In 1973, justice Krishna Iyer had clearly said that the Supreme Court considered economic crimes to be detrimental to the security of the state, and a person accused of an economic crime did not deserve gentle treatment. (sure he said this in respect of probation given to a smuggler, but the essence of the sentiment remains the same)
Apart from the obvious legal issues I may have with the statements made on tv today, they indicate a deeper malaise. That is the depiction of women as frail creatures who need special protection and are too delicate to even be given the correct punishment of they commit crime. It’s this faux-protectionist attitude, smacking of chauvinism that really strikes a blow against the self esteem of every woman who has wanted to be taken seriously.
How is it that supposedly responsible and liberated politicians and social activists can proclaim on national television that women are too vulnerable to be punished? Renuka Chowdhury today brushed aside Madhu Kishwar’s comment about how more than one woman politician has undergone incarceration in the past. She even managed to keep a straight face as she claimed that Sadhvi Pragya, currently in jail for involvement in terrorist activities, was fair game because terrorism was a far more serious crime.
I said a rather loud thank you to Nidhi razdaan , the anchor, for pointing out the fact that sexist arguments to demand protection for a woman ultimately caused incalculable harm to women’s rights movements.
Ironically, she quoted another UPA ally Mamata Bannerjee who had proclaimed during one of her endless protests that she stood for the causes she espoused and demanding special treatment as a woman was an insult to her dignity.
I totally agree.
I decided to skip the rest of the 9 ‘o clock news after 10 mins of listening to a rather nonsensical debate on NDTv abouy whether denial of bail to a woman for such a crime was a bad move on the court’s part.. politician Renuka Chowdhry, Sadia Dehlvi, activist Madhu Kishwar and senior advocate KTS Tulsi were the talking heads on the panel tonight.. thank god for the latter two because the comments made by the first two put me in serious danger of getting a heart attack due to sheer indignation..
Comments like “it’s not safe for women to be in jail”, “the court is obliged by law to give bail to women” and the gem of the lot “well there are other women in jail but they are there for more serious crimes, kanimozhi has only a charge of corruption against her”
What these people did not seem to get was that they are simply reinforcing the gender stereotypes by insisting that the sex of the accused should be more important than the crime committed.. The enormity of what kanimozhi is involved in was dismissed in the interest of faux- sympathy for jailed women..
even more annoying was the fact that they seemed entirely oblivious to the fact that there is no law that makes it compulsory or even obligatory for a court to release a woman on bail.. What S.437 of the CrPC states is simply that the court “may” direct that the person accused of a crime which is punishable by life imprisonment or death penalty be given bail if such a person is under age 16 or a woman or is sick or infirm.
There’s nothing in any law in the country that says that women cannot or should not be thrown in jail if they’ve done something to deserve it.. and the scam that kani is involved in is much more dangerous for india’s security than any murder or terrorist activity.
In 1973, justice Krishna Iyer had clearly said that the Supreme Court considered economic crimes to be detrimental to the security of the state, and a person accused of an economic crime did not deserve gentle treatment. (sure he said this in respect of probation given to a smuggler, but the essence of the sentiment remains the same)
Apart from the obvious legal issues I may have with the statements made on tv today, they indicate a deeper malaise. That is the depiction of women as frail creatures who need special protection and are too delicate to even be given the correct punishment of they commit crime. It’s this faux-protectionist attitude, smacking of chauvinism that really strikes a blow against the self esteem of every woman who has wanted to be taken seriously.
How is it that supposedly responsible and liberated politicians and social activists can proclaim on national television that women are too vulnerable to be punished? Renuka Chowdhury today brushed aside Madhu Kishwar’s comment about how more than one woman politician has undergone incarceration in the past. She even managed to keep a straight face as she claimed that Sadhvi Pragya, currently in jail for involvement in terrorist activities, was fair game because terrorism was a far more serious crime.
I said a rather loud thank you to Nidhi razdaan , the anchor, for pointing out the fact that sexist arguments to demand protection for a woman ultimately caused incalculable harm to women’s rights movements.
Ironically, she quoted another UPA ally Mamata Bannerjee who had proclaimed during one of her endless protests that she stood for the causes she espoused and demanding special treatment as a woman was an insult to her dignity.
I totally agree.
