Dear All,We all know that men are victims of heavy and intense domestic violence at the hands of our wives and in – laws, but sadly neither does one realize or feel the need to do anything about this. This includes those men too who face them. Below is a survey for domestic violence on men. Spare a few minutes and visit the following sites and fill up the survey. It is totally anonymous.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Charcha SIF ka
All the characters referred to in the below blog are fictitious and bear no resemblance with anyone living or dead whatsoever. Any co-incidence is purely co-incidental and unintentional
Raj and Simran had experienced, what is known as love at first sight, with Tujhe Dekha to yeh jaana sanam playing in the background when they met. No sooner did they decide to tie the knot. Raj loved Simran very much but Simran had other plans. Soon after her marriage her behavior changed and within 6 months of their marriage, she went back to her parents place never to return.
Simran: Papa, mein Raj ke saath nahi reh sakti, who mera bilkul khayal nahi rakhta, na movie dekhne lekar jaata hain, na kahin ghumne jaata hain, khaana bhi banwaata hain aur ab to uske parents bhi rehne aane waale hain. Suresh, Rocky wagarah se baat karti hoon to bhi bigadta hain. Ek din disco kya chali gayi inke saath, itna jhagda kiya tha mere saath.
Papa: Oh puttar, fikar not tussi. Woh tere saamne jhukta hua aayega. Hum usse 498A ke case mein fasaa denge. Phir dekhte hain saala kahaan jaata hain.
Simran: Aise kaise fasaa denge.
Papa: Arre maine sab pata kar rakha hain. Tu bas mere saath thane chal. Abhi akkal thikaane lagate hain uski.
At the thana.
Writer: Kya chahiye?
Papa: Yeh dekhiye meri beti Simran. Kitni dhoom dhaam se iski shaadi ki thi. Unhone shaadi ke time se hi demand karni shuru kar di thi. Us waqt to humne kaise bhi karke unki demands puri kar di. Par ab to paani sar ke……
Writer: Itni kahani kyun suna rahe ho? Seedha kaho na ki 498A ka case karne aaye ho apne damaad par?
Papa: Ab aur koi chaara bhi to nahi bacha.
Writer: Theek hain, theek hain. Abhi Circle Inspector duty par gaye hain. Jab woh aayenge, tab unse baat karna. Abhi wahaan bench par baitho. Mujhe bahut kaam hain.
They wait for 4 hours. Finally the Circle Inspector comes. After much ado, allows them to meet and listens to them.
CI: Hmmm, dekhiye aap ek kaam kijiye, apni complaint likhwa dijiye, hum tehkikaat kar ke ACTION le lenge.
Papa: Par meri beti ka kya hoga?
CI: Arre maine kaha tha shaadi karne ko? Mein to apna kaam kar raha hoon na?
Father – daughter leave. CI calls up the jurisdictional DCP.
DCP: Kya hua?
CI: Sir ek 498A ka case aaya hain.
DCP: Hmmm, kya lagta hain.
CI: Wahi standard kahani hain Sir, abhi to taal diya hain. But aage kya Karen?
DCP: Yaar kahin uska pati SIF ka member na nikale, naak mein dum kiya hain saalon ne. Peechle 2 hafton se unki RTI ka jawaab de raha hoon. Saala itna to maine apni IPS ki exam mein nahi likha tha. Kahin iska launda bhi SIF ka chhora nikla to phir se pange. Saala pehle se AB lekar baitha hoga, Police ko bhi handle kar lega. Humein to kuch milega nahi aur na kuch hoga Chargesheet karne ko. Woh bhi saala RTI daal daal kar dalwa dega. Aur kahin media mein pahunch gaya to aur panga ho jayega. Taalo aur kya.
Simran and her father make a lot of efforts to get the FIR registered, but nothing happens. They are turned down everywhere. Meanwhile Raj comes to know thro’ RTI about the complaint against him in the local thana over which the police had not taken any action. He calls up Simran’s father.
Papa: Hello.
Raj: Suna aap 498A register karwaane gaye the? Hua nahi kya? Main yahaan 20 dinon se AB le ke baitha hoon ki police ghar par aaye, par aati hi nahi.
Papa: Kya 498A? Kya keh rahe ho beta?
Raj smiles.
Raj: Kya papa aap bhi? Aapko pata hona chahiye mein SIF Ka member hoon.
Phone line goes dead.
Papa: Kyun ri kulta, kulakshini, bata nahi sakti thi tera miyan SIF ka member hain. Tabhi kahoon saale ke khilaaf koi 498A ki FIR kyun register nahi karta. Yeh din dikhaana tha tujhe. Iske liye bada kiya tha tujhe. Kahin newspaper waalon ko pata chal gaya apne bare mein to band bajaa denge. Thoda adjust nahi kar sakti thi uske saath. Khaana hi to banana ko kehta tha. Teri maa ne nahi banaya hian. Tu kaun si aasmaan se utri hain. Chal ja ab reh uske saath, jaise bhi rakhe tujhe.
On returning, Raj refuses to take her back. Files for divorce based on mental cruelty on account of an attempt to implicate him in a criminal case falsely.
Raj and Simran had experienced, what is known as love at first sight, with Tujhe Dekha to yeh jaana sanam playing in the background when they met. No sooner did they decide to tie the knot. Raj loved Simran very much but Simran had other plans. Soon after her marriage her behavior changed and within 6 months of their marriage, she went back to her parents place never to return.
Simran: Papa, mein Raj ke saath nahi reh sakti, who mera bilkul khayal nahi rakhta, na movie dekhne lekar jaata hain, na kahin ghumne jaata hain, khaana bhi banwaata hain aur ab to uske parents bhi rehne aane waale hain. Suresh, Rocky wagarah se baat karti hoon to bhi bigadta hain. Ek din disco kya chali gayi inke saath, itna jhagda kiya tha mere saath.
Papa: Oh puttar, fikar not tussi. Woh tere saamne jhukta hua aayega. Hum usse 498A ke case mein fasaa denge. Phir dekhte hain saala kahaan jaata hain.
Simran: Aise kaise fasaa denge.
Papa: Arre maine sab pata kar rakha hain. Tu bas mere saath thane chal. Abhi akkal thikaane lagate hain uski.
At the thana.
Writer: Kya chahiye?
Papa: Yeh dekhiye meri beti Simran. Kitni dhoom dhaam se iski shaadi ki thi. Unhone shaadi ke time se hi demand karni shuru kar di thi. Us waqt to humne kaise bhi karke unki demands puri kar di. Par ab to paani sar ke……
Writer: Itni kahani kyun suna rahe ho? Seedha kaho na ki 498A ka case karne aaye ho apne damaad par?
Papa: Ab aur koi chaara bhi to nahi bacha.
Writer: Theek hain, theek hain. Abhi Circle Inspector duty par gaye hain. Jab woh aayenge, tab unse baat karna. Abhi wahaan bench par baitho. Mujhe bahut kaam hain.
They wait for 4 hours. Finally the Circle Inspector comes. After much ado, allows them to meet and listens to them.
CI: Hmmm, dekhiye aap ek kaam kijiye, apni complaint likhwa dijiye, hum tehkikaat kar ke ACTION le lenge.
Papa: Par meri beti ka kya hoga?
CI: Arre maine kaha tha shaadi karne ko? Mein to apna kaam kar raha hoon na?
Father – daughter leave. CI calls up the jurisdictional DCP.
DCP: Kya hua?
CI: Sir ek 498A ka case aaya hain.
DCP: Hmmm, kya lagta hain.
CI: Wahi standard kahani hain Sir, abhi to taal diya hain. But aage kya Karen?
DCP: Yaar kahin uska pati SIF ka member na nikale, naak mein dum kiya hain saalon ne. Peechle 2 hafton se unki RTI ka jawaab de raha hoon. Saala itna to maine apni IPS ki exam mein nahi likha tha. Kahin iska launda bhi SIF ka chhora nikla to phir se pange. Saala pehle se AB lekar baitha hoga, Police ko bhi handle kar lega. Humein to kuch milega nahi aur na kuch hoga Chargesheet karne ko. Woh bhi saala RTI daal daal kar dalwa dega. Aur kahin media mein pahunch gaya to aur panga ho jayega. Taalo aur kya.
Simran and her father make a lot of efforts to get the FIR registered, but nothing happens. They are turned down everywhere. Meanwhile Raj comes to know thro’ RTI about the complaint against him in the local thana over which the police had not taken any action. He calls up Simran’s father.
Papa: Hello.
Raj: Suna aap 498A register karwaane gaye the? Hua nahi kya? Main yahaan 20 dinon se AB le ke baitha hoon ki police ghar par aaye, par aati hi nahi.
Papa: Kya 498A? Kya keh rahe ho beta?
Raj smiles.
Raj: Kya papa aap bhi? Aapko pata hona chahiye mein SIF Ka member hoon.
Phone line goes dead.
Papa: Kyun ri kulta, kulakshini, bata nahi sakti thi tera miyan SIF ka member hain. Tabhi kahoon saale ke khilaaf koi 498A ki FIR kyun register nahi karta. Yeh din dikhaana tha tujhe. Iske liye bada kiya tha tujhe. Kahin newspaper waalon ko pata chal gaya apne bare mein to band bajaa denge. Thoda adjust nahi kar sakti thi uske saath. Khaana hi to banana ko kehta tha. Teri maa ne nahi banaya hian. Tu kaun si aasmaan se utri hain. Chal ja ab reh uske saath, jaise bhi rakhe tujhe.
On returning, Raj refuses to take her back. Files for divorce based on mental cruelty on account of an attempt to implicate him in a criminal case falsely.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Differentiated Similarities
Assumptions and hidden agendas wherever involved in the foundation and design of any society, can lead to serious problems over the years. Being deemed as the Protector, the Provider and the Adventurer, men themselves made the world believe that they cannot suffer. It is not hard to notice, parents telling their SON, be like a MAN, stop crying and learn to do things your own way. Well in a way that is good, as it teaches the MAN to be self – dependent as he has to Protect and Provide when HE grows up. But the imbibitions of this line of thought are so engraved and deep rooted that the MAN as HE grows up almost starts feeling sorry for feeling BAD, ABUSED, HARASSED, TORTURED. He starts feeling as though he has no RIGHT to do so. But that is not a healthy sign, even psychologists and relationship experts have voiced out their concerns over this behavioral traits of men and have enchanted it umpteen number of times that IT IS OK TO FEEL BAD AND SHARE THE SAME AND ACCEPT THAT SOMETHING IS BOTHERING THEM, but sadly enough it falls on deaf ears for age – old stereotypes which are rock – engraved take centuries of time and loads of sufferings, realizations and metamorphosis to take a new and desired form.
It is not uncommon to see that when a MAN tries to discuss his problems pertaining to a relationship, he is cornered saying either, “You are a MAN, stop cribbing like a WOMAN, or she is a WOMAN, it will be like this only.” Such responses have led to the establishment of euphoria in the societal as well as the legislative and the executive ambiance that Men do not need anything, they have everything. This was also recently upheld in a judgment by the Honorable Delhi High Court hearing a petition challenging the tenacity of the Domestic Violence Act 2005, citing it as Ultra Vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed saying the argument held no merit as the court was of the view that, “Though men are victims of violence, such incidences are few and far between, thus ruling out the possibility of protection from the parliament.” This statement, sadly enough reflects a very bad taste of mind, which though acknowledges the existence of domestic violence against men, but refuses to accept it for the very lack of proper data to substantiate a lesser known claim. If the data provided by the National Crime Records Bureau is anything to go by, the number of suicides committed by men in the year 2005 and 2006, stand at a staggering figure of 150000, as compared to 50000 for women. Does this not reflect the sorry state of affairs, Indian Men are currently in. Of these 150000, 108000 have been suicides by Husbands, which is fairly explainable enough as well, as the government which earns 82 % of taxes from these Men has washed off its hands of this alarming trend, these men have no protection, voice or say. Men are not only victims of Domestic Violence; they are victims of misuse of these laws as well. 99% of the cases of Domestic Violence and Dowry harassment filed against Men and their families are false and filed with a motive to extort money and unfortunately the Horse Trading goes on in the Temple of Justice and is passed off as WOMEN LIBERATION and EMPOWERMENT OF THE WEAKER SEX.
All Men around the HARASSED HUSBAND try to brainwash and console the man saying the girl needs money, protection etc. What these men fail to understand here is that there has been a serious role reversal of the perpetrator of violence and the victim of violence wherein the victim, being hailed as the criminal, is forced to compensate the tormentor, being hailed as the victim. Also these men feel great they are protecting a woman, which is good enough, for if the MAN is meant to protect, he should protect and feel good about it, but nowhere does it stand justified to protect at the cost of another MAN. But sadly enough this is the trend catching on slowly. It looks highly delirious for a MAN to exist in a society suffering from DOUBLE STANDARDS where one judgment speaks of the inability of the ambit of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 to cover men as victims and other one says that incidences of Domestic Violence being far and few between, men should not expect protection from the parliament. It is not hard to see the repercussions of such DIFFERENTIATED SIMILARITIES amongst men, who are now not even refraining from taking the law into their hands by either committing suicide or murder, what with having exasperated with the apathy meted out by the administrators of their own brethren.
Once again this question is put forward to the civil society and the government that are they ready to accept this trend, wherein cornered men think of snuffing of life as the only final solution or they have the guts and willingness to change the courses of the tides and the winds. I hope some spineless men start developing spines after reading these lines.
It is not uncommon to see that when a MAN tries to discuss his problems pertaining to a relationship, he is cornered saying either, “You are a MAN, stop cribbing like a WOMAN, or she is a WOMAN, it will be like this only.” Such responses have led to the establishment of euphoria in the societal as well as the legislative and the executive ambiance that Men do not need anything, they have everything. This was also recently upheld in a judgment by the Honorable Delhi High Court hearing a petition challenging the tenacity of the Domestic Violence Act 2005, citing it as Ultra Vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed saying the argument held no merit as the court was of the view that, “Though men are victims of violence, such incidences are few and far between, thus ruling out the possibility of protection from the parliament.” This statement, sadly enough reflects a very bad taste of mind, which though acknowledges the existence of domestic violence against men, but refuses to accept it for the very lack of proper data to substantiate a lesser known claim. If the data provided by the National Crime Records Bureau is anything to go by, the number of suicides committed by men in the year 2005 and 2006, stand at a staggering figure of 150000, as compared to 50000 for women. Does this not reflect the sorry state of affairs, Indian Men are currently in. Of these 150000, 108000 have been suicides by Husbands, which is fairly explainable enough as well, as the government which earns 82 % of taxes from these Men has washed off its hands of this alarming trend, these men have no protection, voice or say. Men are not only victims of Domestic Violence; they are victims of misuse of these laws as well. 99% of the cases of Domestic Violence and Dowry harassment filed against Men and their families are false and filed with a motive to extort money and unfortunately the Horse Trading goes on in the Temple of Justice and is passed off as WOMEN LIBERATION and EMPOWERMENT OF THE WEAKER SEX.
All Men around the HARASSED HUSBAND try to brainwash and console the man saying the girl needs money, protection etc. What these men fail to understand here is that there has been a serious role reversal of the perpetrator of violence and the victim of violence wherein the victim, being hailed as the criminal, is forced to compensate the tormentor, being hailed as the victim. Also these men feel great they are protecting a woman, which is good enough, for if the MAN is meant to protect, he should protect and feel good about it, but nowhere does it stand justified to protect at the cost of another MAN. But sadly enough this is the trend catching on slowly. It looks highly delirious for a MAN to exist in a society suffering from DOUBLE STANDARDS where one judgment speaks of the inability of the ambit of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 to cover men as victims and other one says that incidences of Domestic Violence being far and few between, men should not expect protection from the parliament. It is not hard to see the repercussions of such DIFFERENTIATED SIMILARITIES amongst men, who are now not even refraining from taking the law into their hands by either committing suicide or murder, what with having exasperated with the apathy meted out by the administrators of their own brethren.
Once again this question is put forward to the civil society and the government that are they ready to accept this trend, wherein cornered men think of snuffing of life as the only final solution or they have the guts and willingness to change the courses of the tides and the winds. I hope some spineless men start developing spines after reading these lines.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Spineless Men
In what has been an age old testament regarding the sensibilities of the genders, we have a preset imageries of the Sterner and the Fairer Sex, leading to the sediment of a quasi – rigid quasi – stubborn mindset which is stereotypically ubiquitous in nature, definition and essence, wherein the Sterner Sex, the Male Gender has been termed the Protector, the Provider and the Adventurer while the Fairer Sex, the Female Gender has been termed the object of Beauty, the Home Maker and the Life Giver. Men feel great providing and feel like God when they protect someone, especially a Woman and in this process often forget that they too are humans who can need someone. They feel a big problem discussing their problems and feel low doing so, forgetting the fact that they too are humans, females, on the other hand, find it quite natural to discuss their problems and also do not feel low doing so. This process combined over years of practice has led to a seemingly true and apparently explained perception that Women need a lot of protection and that protection has to come from a Man, wherein it led to the establishment of the euphoria mirrored in the statement, “Men’s Duties and Women’s Rights” which has been very instrumental in the design of the social norms and the legal design as well and Men have been highly instrumental in designing this euphoria. Over years of turmoil and toil this euphoria caught such an attention that the need or requirement for its conjugate euphoria, mirrored in the statement, “Men’s Rights and Women’s Duties” has either been never been felt or if ever sounded, was over - sounded and over – shadowed by the first one.
So ubiquitously it has been assumed that Men are guilty of crimes and Women, even if criminals are so due to some COMPELLING REASON, this has led to men being cornered over centuries so much so that, they are now viewed with suspicion and biased assumption, not only by Women folks, but by other Men as well. It is not uncommon to see that when a woman is embroiled in some crime, men and women, in general, empathizing with the culprit and struggling to find reasons leading to her metamorphosis to a criminal. On the other hand, the same case being with a Man, not only is he subjected to condemnation, prosecution and punishment shall also follow as package bonuses. That does not mean that he is allowed to commit crimes and should be encouraged to do so. Crime is Crime and is independent of gender. If a Man commits a murder or if a Woman commits a murder, it results in the same after – effect, a life is snuffed and denied existence. Then why do we have different standards set for treatment with the criminal based on gender. The man committing the murder is viewed as a criminal while a woman doing the same is viewed as an object of sympathy.
We do have such standards, for as they say that the society is male – dominated and if it is actually so that the society is male – dominated, then those men are spineless men who have set such standards. A standard suffering from an undue sentimental balance towards a particular gender which associates different assumptions for Men and Women. Very recently we had a landmark judgment from the Honorable High Court of Delhi expanding the ambit of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 to female partners engaged in live – in relationships with their male partners. This article is not meant to condemn the particular judgment, but the saddening fact is an unexplained assumption as cited in the judgment, “the court said that in a case of women having live-in relationships with a man it could be fairly assumed that the relationship was initiated by the man.” The question here that irks the rational mind is that, is starting any relationship solely dependent on only one of the partners or is it that when the relationship is sweet, both the partners cherish the fruit and when it goes awry only the Man is borne to bear the brunt of the fallacy. Did we give considerable weight age to other possibilities that the relationship was started mutually or the Man was forced into the relationship keeping in view the protection laws that exist in case the relation does not work and in that case a monetary relief from the Man to the Woman will be on its way?
Further points of gravitational significance in the judgment are “since an assumption can fairly be drawn that a live-in relationship is invariably initiated and perpetuated by the male” and “the court should also not be impervious to social stigma which always sticks to women and not to the men.” If we are going to have cases to be decided on such biased and preset assumptions then probably we can do away with the legal process and decide the cases arbitrarily because anyways Men are going to suffer from such assumptions wherein they are going to be denied fair and impartial justice and will be continued to be tried under loosely drafted laws prepared with a mindset against the principles of natural justice. Such judgments are just an addition to the growing mistrust amongst men towards the judiciary as has been recently highlighted with gruesome incidents like Amit Budhiraja of Infosys Technologies murdering his wife and subsequently committing suicide, citing marital problems as the reason for the extreme decision and its consequent implementation to reality and the more recent dual suicide by a techie couple in Hyderabad, again marital problems being at the core of the reason for the snuffing away of two young lives. These persons were of loose persona who preferred ending their lives rather than giving a fight against the adversities and showing the moral and courage to stride against the tide, but on a judgmental and analytical benchmark of post – incidental synopsis the height of frustration and apathy towards the government and the society to solve marital problems also comes to the fore decorated with another age – old assumption that, “Which marriage does not have problems?” If that be so and that being true, is it fair and just enough to allow crimes and murders to be the final solutions in such cases?
Amit Budhiraja was working with Infosys Technologies for nine years, elucidating his stable nature, took the extreme decision of killing his wife and committing suicide subsequently when his wife, allegedly, threatened him of a false dowry case, when he had come to know of an alleged affair of hers with a colleague of hers. He was well aware that with a biased society defined and ruled by spineless men, who prefer believing a woman’s tears more than irrefutable evidence, he had few chances to safeguard himself and his parents, once his wife would start crying TORTURE and DOWRY. It would be very hard for him to prove his innocence and an unnecessary legal battle of 5 – 6 years would ensue, stripping him off his finances. Day in and day out we see more and more such cases, where Men are denied a chance to even defend themselves, let alone imparting justice to them. Let us hope the civil society and the government and the judiciary wakes up to this alarming trend of growing distrust amongst suffering men for the cornering they are offered, leading them to turn to extremist and take the law into their hands, and does something to curb the menace. The article does not intend to justify the crimes committed by men, so what it has been fueled by the distrust and apathy, meted out to them, nourished by the system and the society, there has to be severe condemnation of crime, in order to curb it, but the society needs to wake up to this alarming trend and start to think of the conjugate euphoria described above and referred again here, “Men’s Rights and Women’s Duties”. Are those spineless men who believe that the society is male dominated ready to make an effort to institute the conjugate euphoria for suffering Men?
So ubiquitously it has been assumed that Men are guilty of crimes and Women, even if criminals are so due to some COMPELLING REASON, this has led to men being cornered over centuries so much so that, they are now viewed with suspicion and biased assumption, not only by Women folks, but by other Men as well. It is not uncommon to see that when a woman is embroiled in some crime, men and women, in general, empathizing with the culprit and struggling to find reasons leading to her metamorphosis to a criminal. On the other hand, the same case being with a Man, not only is he subjected to condemnation, prosecution and punishment shall also follow as package bonuses. That does not mean that he is allowed to commit crimes and should be encouraged to do so. Crime is Crime and is independent of gender. If a Man commits a murder or if a Woman commits a murder, it results in the same after – effect, a life is snuffed and denied existence. Then why do we have different standards set for treatment with the criminal based on gender. The man committing the murder is viewed as a criminal while a woman doing the same is viewed as an object of sympathy.
We do have such standards, for as they say that the society is male – dominated and if it is actually so that the society is male – dominated, then those men are spineless men who have set such standards. A standard suffering from an undue sentimental balance towards a particular gender which associates different assumptions for Men and Women. Very recently we had a landmark judgment from the Honorable High Court of Delhi expanding the ambit of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 to female partners engaged in live – in relationships with their male partners. This article is not meant to condemn the particular judgment, but the saddening fact is an unexplained assumption as cited in the judgment, “the court said that in a case of women having live-in relationships with a man it could be fairly assumed that the relationship was initiated by the man.” The question here that irks the rational mind is that, is starting any relationship solely dependent on only one of the partners or is it that when the relationship is sweet, both the partners cherish the fruit and when it goes awry only the Man is borne to bear the brunt of the fallacy. Did we give considerable weight age to other possibilities that the relationship was started mutually or the Man was forced into the relationship keeping in view the protection laws that exist in case the relation does not work and in that case a monetary relief from the Man to the Woman will be on its way?
Further points of gravitational significance in the judgment are “since an assumption can fairly be drawn that a live-in relationship is invariably initiated and perpetuated by the male” and “the court should also not be impervious to social stigma which always sticks to women and not to the men.” If we are going to have cases to be decided on such biased and preset assumptions then probably we can do away with the legal process and decide the cases arbitrarily because anyways Men are going to suffer from such assumptions wherein they are going to be denied fair and impartial justice and will be continued to be tried under loosely drafted laws prepared with a mindset against the principles of natural justice. Such judgments are just an addition to the growing mistrust amongst men towards the judiciary as has been recently highlighted with gruesome incidents like Amit Budhiraja of Infosys Technologies murdering his wife and subsequently committing suicide, citing marital problems as the reason for the extreme decision and its consequent implementation to reality and the more recent dual suicide by a techie couple in Hyderabad, again marital problems being at the core of the reason for the snuffing away of two young lives. These persons were of loose persona who preferred ending their lives rather than giving a fight against the adversities and showing the moral and courage to stride against the tide, but on a judgmental and analytical benchmark of post – incidental synopsis the height of frustration and apathy towards the government and the society to solve marital problems also comes to the fore decorated with another age – old assumption that, “Which marriage does not have problems?” If that be so and that being true, is it fair and just enough to allow crimes and murders to be the final solutions in such cases?
Amit Budhiraja was working with Infosys Technologies for nine years, elucidating his stable nature, took the extreme decision of killing his wife and committing suicide subsequently when his wife, allegedly, threatened him of a false dowry case, when he had come to know of an alleged affair of hers with a colleague of hers. He was well aware that with a biased society defined and ruled by spineless men, who prefer believing a woman’s tears more than irrefutable evidence, he had few chances to safeguard himself and his parents, once his wife would start crying TORTURE and DOWRY. It would be very hard for him to prove his innocence and an unnecessary legal battle of 5 – 6 years would ensue, stripping him off his finances. Day in and day out we see more and more such cases, where Men are denied a chance to even defend themselves, let alone imparting justice to them. Let us hope the civil society and the government and the judiciary wakes up to this alarming trend of growing distrust amongst suffering men for the cornering they are offered, leading them to turn to extremist and take the law into their hands, and does something to curb the menace. The article does not intend to justify the crimes committed by men, so what it has been fueled by the distrust and apathy, meted out to them, nourished by the system and the society, there has to be severe condemnation of crime, in order to curb it, but the society needs to wake up to this alarming trend and start to think of the conjugate euphoria described above and referred again here, “Men’s Rights and Women’s Duties”. Are those spineless men who believe that the society is male dominated ready to make an effort to institute the conjugate euphoria for suffering Men?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)