Mediating with a rapist

Last week the madras high court gave bail to a rapist to find a happy conclusion and possibly marry his victim and then the chairperson of the state women's commission also called such a mediation a welcome possibility. This came in a case in which a 15 year old orphan was raped and impregnated in 2008 and is now a mother if a 6 year old daughter.

Rape is a crime that violates not just a woman's body but also her soul, her self respect and her status in the society. Rape is one of the most heinous crimes. By asking a victim to compromise with her rapist is adding insult to injury. It further violates a woman's honor. It brings back the memories of trauma to haunt her again. It is humiliating her all over again. The rapist escapes punishment for his crime but the victim continues to suffer all her life. It is like telling a woman that she is no good and should keep quiet and obey the man who violated her. It is an expression of male chauvinism. No victim wants to mediate with her rapist. No woman wants to even see the face of her rapist. Asking a woman to mediate and marry her rapist is like raping her again and humiliating her all over again.

Freedoms in a democracy

Recently, certain members of political parties are attacking people for opposing yoga and certain similar activies, calling them anti national and some even 'sending' them out of the country. Certain political leaders are even trying to force their political agenda as the national outlook. The Constitution of India has given the citizen of India the freedoms of speech and expression, of association, movement, peaceful assembly, the right to life and liberty, the freedom of religion, of equality. The preamble to the constitution even declares that the citizens are sovereign. In such circumstances the government has got no right to dictate of how the citizens should exercise, what they eat, how they gather, and so on. The only restrictions that are laid down in the Constitution are those of public health, order and morality and these are the only grounds on which the government may restrict certain freedoms but under no circumstance can it force the people to live their life in a particular manner. A person may or may not choose to eat certain foods, he may or may not exercise in a certain manner or attend an assembly, the government cannot force him and cannot call him anti national if he states religious reasons for acting in a certain fashion. The right to profess, practice and propagate religion has been protected by the constitution itself and the exercise of such a right does not make a person any less patriotic.