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.
5 comments:
hey...one small point...i guess there are two strands of feminism...and in india they're not clearly differentiated...what i know...and i know little..is that some women believe there is some innate difference between men and women...and women who do a different kind of work (eg. motherhood but not just limited to) also deserve the respect/dignity etc....and these people go on to suggest various kind of schemes for women (maternity leaves, sabbaticals etc i think were their babies) and basically they want spl. treatment for women...this really took off in social democratic countries - read welfare economies(france, germany, rest of europe)..indian state is heading in this direction....and the other wave comes from the US/UK that women must have the same rights..and that they neither deserve spl treatment nor they deserve unfair treatment...their call is for equal pay/equal opportunity etc....this wave hasn't really taken off in india....reasons i don't know..perhaps its because you need a different setup...more freer...more capitalistic..and india from what i see and read in the papers/blogs is not heading there..so in this case..there always will be ppl who'll call for spl treatment (the catch here just is, as u wrote, that the call for spl treatment only came when their darling kani went to tihar)
All agreed, but you're to pessimistic. What if the slightest bit of improvement comes about in jail due to her presence. Is that so bad?
@funcfactree.. see affirmative action to provide suport where required is one thing.. what irritated me about teh debate was the fact that gender was being used as an excuse to escape liability.. its the classic "weaker sex" excuse thats frankly highly insulting to any woman. its like asking for mercy simply because women are considered too fragile to deal with consequences.. if someone has done something wrong then gender cannot be the mitigating circumstance unless its a specific gender based crime.. here it was an economic crime which has no connection whatsoever with gender. therefore the "woman"' excuse is practically an insult...
@anonymous.. if there was any scope that kani's arrest would lead to change in the prison system or make the other incarcerated women safer, i would actually be hopeful.. but the entire discourse in that debate was about how she should have never been sent to jail, and how the woman of her social and political standing was imprisoned. if the tone of teh discussion had been pro- women i would have been happy about it, but it wsactually a purely political discussion while tried to co-opt the gender question with the actual outrage over the arrest of an important political figure.
besides, its patenly obvious that politiciand and others with influence do not get the same treatment as other prisoners. they are actually given much more comfortable cells and general amenities.
Someone very aptly said "Hate crime not criminals".. on the same lines I would like to say punish those who commit crimes not MAN only , even WOMEN too...
Crime is crime and it doesnot matter who committed, the law should be same for all.... simply by saying women doesn't deserve to be in jail gives a seroud blow to all those sel respecting
feminists who have been proudly living a life of dignity and marching ahead on same pedestal as men ...
I still do not understand why crimninals and corrupt politicians like BSY and Katta, Sampangi etc are not treatedlike Kanni and Raja. Why this difference. Law should be the same for one and all. The soft corner shown in Karnataka to criminal politicians shows how corrupt our structure is, and that is how Katta is given bail.may be BSY also gets t becuse he has enough money to buy judges /court etc. Should we not curb this. Will the juduciary do something about this.
Post a Comment