IS OUR DEMAND OF NATIONAL MEN’S COMMISSION WRONG?

Several times we were asked to reason the need for establishing the National Commission for Men. I can’t not understand why this much of opposition. Firstly, it is MEN who are demanding their commission so why should women be perturbed? Might be because they are fearing that their so called voice would be suppressed? Is demanding a Men's commission in a misandrist society a crime, a funny crime? It’s really funny, na?

Now let us see why we need a men’s commission desperately:

1.    First let us see how Article 15(3) empowers the state to make special provisions for women and discriminate in favour of women:

      a)   Article 15(1) provides that, “the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste sex, place of birth or any of them.”

     b)  Article 15(2) says that, “No citizen shall, not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of  religion,  race, caste sex, place of birth or any of them be subject to any disability liability, restriction or condition with regard to (a) access to shops, public places; or (b) use of wells and places of public resort maintain wholly or partly out of state funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.”

Now let’s see Article 15(3):

c)  ARTICLE 15(3): “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special

provision for women and children.”

What a drama it is…….Article 15(1) prohibits gender based discrimination by stating NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY CITIZEN ON GROUNDS OF SEX and Article 15(3) tempers the strictness of Article 15(1) and permits the State to discriminate in favour of women to make special provisions.

2.   The State as well as the Courts have resorted to Article 15(3) in the field of Criminal Law, Labor  Law, Service Law, etc., numerous times to upheld the validity of discriminatory provisions in favour of women:

• In the case of Dattatraya v. State of Bombay, the Bombay High Court held that the State can establish educational institutions for women only. Why it is not being said to establish educational institutions for men only???

• Again in Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, the validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code was challenged under Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. Section 497 of the IPC deals with the provisions relating to the offence of adultery, which only punishes man for adultery and exempts the woman from punishment though she may be equally guilty as an abettor. The Court upheld the Section 497 of the IPC as valid by relying upon the mandate of Article 15 (3) of the Constitution.

• Even Section 354 of the IPC is not invalid because it protects the modesty only of women and Cr.P.C.125 is valid although it obliges the husband to maintain his wife but not vice versa.

• Similarly, Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 converting the women’s limited ownership of property into full ownership has been found in pursuance of Article 15 (3).

3.    Article 14 of The Constitution of India speaks of the Equality before law. In the light of the Constitution of India, Article 14, both men and women shall not be differentially treated in the case of harassment too. But differential treatment has always given to male because post-independence sufficient safeguards, commissions, laws, guidelines have been enacted by the state only for the female, while all laws, rules and regulations remain silent when it comes about the males.

4.     No schemes are being furthered either by the Government or eminent social celebrities for boys the way they are happening for girls. This has led to more boys dropping out of school resulting in increase of juvenile delinquency.

5.     In the last 70 years of independent India not a single rupee has ever been allocated for men’s welfare from the Union Budget.

6.    Negligence of health issues of men like prostate cancer, short life expectancy, high suicide rates, cardiac problems, diabetes etc.? Lack of government urge on the private sector to come up with Health Products specifically targeted to diseases affecting men in large numbers? 

7.     Men are not accepted by the society the way they are just normal human beings. He is reduced to the role of a robot the eternal protector and provider with no desires of his own!

8.     Men have their own issues and problems and there is no forum where they can express them. Why not a men's welfare ministry so that they can have a forum to address their issues?

9.    Any crime that can be committed my men can be committed by women too; and sometimes in a better way than men. Murders, rapes, molestation, harassment at workplace, economic offences can be committed only by men and never by women?? So what happens when these offences are committed by women? Why different laws for men and women? Everyone should be treated equal in the eyes of law.

10.  The NCRB data of 2016 which revealed that IPC 498A cases have declined from 112403 cases in 2015 to 110378 cases in 2016, a decrease of around 3%. However, the number of arrests has increased from 187067 in 2015 to 198851 in 2016 an increase of 11784 of arrests i.e.6% increase of arrests. Feminists & politicians show just one crime against woman and run to draft abusive women protection law like #498a #DV ... a package of 49. But the same Nexus turn their face off when around 86,808 married persons commits suicide. Extreme double standard.

So………why there is a lot of opposition when we demand formation of National Commission for Men. 

People are opposing the commission for nothing; at least I have not seen any solid reason of opposition.  Do people think this commission will allow rape? or say rapists are good, please don't punish them? or say that oppress women more?....hahaha.. this commission will only look into issues that men face and bring in plans for resolution. Why do people think that should be against women? Why validation of men’s problems is being assumed as invalidation of women’s problems?

• Feminists say that “Male chauvinists are claiming commission”: Superb…….so according to feminists’ logic, are men asking for rights to rape and go scot free?

• Feminists say that “Suicide is a mental issue, needs psychiatrist and medicine and not a commission”: This logic is more than superb. When married women suicide, it is termed as a dowry death and is a criminal offence and there is specific section for that. But when married men suicide, it is a mental issue. Extreme below the level attitude. The result of mental cruelty created by women is that men are far more prone to heart attacks and stroke. Their life expectancy is some 5-6 years less than women, worldwide. Similarly, the social construct of manhood makes them NOT to complain about women, even if their women are causing them grievous hurt, resulting suicide.

• Feminists say that “Men can’t be raped”: Wow….. As if women can’t have sex against a man’s consent, or sexually assault one against his consent. When women from other countries can rape men, why can’t Indian women? Do the feminists consider Indian women as less than human?

• Feminists say that “Utter shame that men want something”: Why…….. Only women have rights to want everything according to their convenience and we men ourselves does not want anything for us.

Time has come for India to change for better...There should be no double talk. Gender-equality is all about equality and not demanding preferential treatment to one particular sect. More than six decades have passed, but no study on men's issues and right have been done so far. Validation of men's problem(s) is not an invalidation of women's problem(s).Either Dissolve WCD and NCW or form National Commission for Men on same merits.

Read More

"The Myth and Untold Story of Muslim Laws" - Gender Equality

In last couple of days, a HUGE wave of statements came in media regarding triple talaq (only this issue is a hurdle for gender equality?) & UCC. After reading these statements, doubts came in my mind that where are men in the gender equality scenario. Daily some newspapers are searching a case of triple talaq and are publishing it showing bad condition of muslim women (these newspapers cannot see this analysis (Married men are twice as likely to commit suicide than married women):

Are husbands likely to commit suicide because of triple talaq?

Every nine minutes a married man commits suicide in India due to alleged misuse of section 498a of IPC against them, taking the toll to around a whopping 64,000 every year. Is this because of triple talaq?

I am sure that no one has the answer of these questions because we are behaving like three monkeys of Gnadhiji, only difference is that now a days these three monkeys becomes dumb, deaf, blind when an issue of feminism comes in picture. But, when issue of triple talaq comes in picture, all starts crying, why? Are men not human?

Let’s see these statements of our politicians and see the motive of feminism and vote bank:

• Lives of Muslim ladies couldn't be permitted to be destroyed by the practice and focused on political opponents for organizing vote banks over sexual orientation equity.
• Legislative issues and decisions have their own particular place yet getting Muslim ladies their rights according to the Constitution is the duty of the administration and the general population.
• The practice of "triple talaq" will have to be judged on the yardstick of equality and the right to live with dignity
• We have three basic issues: Gender justice, ending discrimination and upholding the dignity of women
• The mood of the country is that triple talaq to end. People don’t want discrimination against women
• All citizens, more particularly women, have a right to live with dignity. Should personal laws which impact the life of every citizen be in conformity with these constitutional values of equality and the Right to Live with Dignity?" 

Why all all the statements only about rights, dignity of women? Answer is simple, Politics & Feminism.

The most ridiculous statement “If Pakistan and 21 other countries have abolished triple talaq, why can't India”? (My some friends are also giving this excuse).

So let me first make it clear that the situation of Pakistan (& 21 other countries) and India is quite different. Pakistan as far as my knowledge goes does not yet have 498a in place to harass husbands (and now a days, unnatural sex offence to husband).

Before proceeding further it is relevant to mention here that there is a very huge and rich Islamic literature available on Talaq and without going through the principles enshrined in Islamic Jurisprudence regarding the pronouncing of Talaq by a Muslim, drama is going on.

Now come to the point ’whether a muslim woman can give talaq’, to make it clear here is the fatwa from Dargah-e-Ala Hazrat. (Note: Sunni Muslim follows any fatwa of Dargah-e-Ala Hazrat, Sunni Muslims in India comprise about 12 crore India's 17 crore Muslim population):

“A Muslim woman can give talaq to her husband if she has secured this right by way of a prenuptial agreement, Islamic seminary Dargah-e-Ala Hazrat of Bareilly has ruled. Talaq is not a one-way right. Even women can exercise this and utter the triple talaq. The woman can give talaq to her husband if he is a drunkard or is immoral, unwell or unable to lead a normal married life. For convenience, the woman should secure this right at the time of nikah," Dargah-e-Ala Hazrat said in his latest fatwa, which was sought in 2014 by Maulana Asad Masood, a religious leader from Manchester, England.”
Links:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bareilly/Women-can-divorce-hubby-Fatwa/articleshow/53900956.cms, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1160829/jsp/frontpage/story_105076.jsp#.WBY8ii197IU

The issue was debated when Mohsina Bano, a woman from Daha village in Baghpat district, gave talaq to Mohammad Arif within three days of their marriage. She uttered the triple talaq over the mobile phone in the presence of a village panchayat, alleging her father-in-law Mohammad Sattar was demanding a car in dowry. Anwari Begum, the girl's mother, stood by her daughter, saying she would be unsafe with such a greedy family. The unofficial village panchayat, which included Hindu as well as Muslim members, agreed with Mohsina's decision.

It is called the talaq-e-tafweez. The parents of a woman can secure this right for their daughter at the time of her marriage if they fear she would be unsafe or mistreated in her in-laws' house in future.... The woman can tell her husband any time in her life that she wants to divorce him for certain reasons. The husband is bound to agree if she wants separation. But the elders of both families are expected to see whether she is of a balanced mind and is not misusing her rights,

For instance, in Mohd Khan versus Shahmali, which came up before the Supreme Court, there was a prenuptial agreement saying the husband would live in the wife's parental home after marriage. When he defaulted, this became the condition for divorce. The court upheld this. Notably, the wife did not divorce her husband but got herself divorced from the husband.

Types of divorce in Islam –

1. The first type is by unilateral… by unilateral agreement, between the husband and wife – Both may say… ‘Okay, we are not compatible… let us part’. 
2. The second type, is by the unilateral will of the husband, that is called a ‘Talaq’, in which, he has to forgo his ‘Meher’. If he has not paid it, he has to pay it to her… and including the gifts, he has given to her.
3. The Third type, is by the unilateral will of the wife –I repeat, by the unilateral will of the wife… if she  mentions it in her marriage contract. If she mentions it in her Nikah-Nama… in her marriage contract, that she has the right to give unilateral divorce, she can give it –It is called as talaq-e-tafweez. 
4. The Fourth category is, if the husband ill-treats her, or not give her equal rights, she has the right to go to a Kazi,and nullify the marriage – It is called as ‘Nikah-e-Fask’.
5. And the last is ‘Khula’– that even though the husband may be a very good husband, the wife has got no complaints against the husband, but for personal reasons, she does not like the husband – she has… she can request the husband, to divorce her – and that is called as ‘Khula’. In Moonshee Buzloor Rahim vs Lateefutoon Nissa, Khula was defined as a divorce by consent in which the wife gives or agrees to give a consideration to the husband for her release from the marriage tie. Khula is thus the right of divorce purchased by the wife from her husband.

If both husband and wife feel that there is no way out except the separation, the husband should pronounce one Talaq after the woman clears her menses.  There will be a temporary separation between them. This period will give them enough time to review their decision of separation. If they think that reconciliation is in their interest, the husband should take his wife back in his arms and forget what had happened between them.  But if they think that they can no more live together, the husband should pronounce the second Talaq after she clears her menses. The second pronouncement separates both of them. They have still a time to think of reconciliation. If they decide to live together, they have to perform the Nikah afresh after the period of Iddat is over. If they do not go for any reconciliation till the completion of the Iddat period, the third Talaq will automatically come into force bringing a permanent separation between them.

So, what’s wrong in the religion? If either of the spouse is unwilling to stay with the other, and is totally unwilling to accept any kind of reconciliation or mediation, and has just made up his or her mind to get separated from the other, can the law forcibly make the other spouse stay together? Answer is a big NO, In fact all the cases which go to court ends up in separation and bitterness…..

For instance, in the Shamim Ara judgement in 2002, the Supreme Court held that arbitrary oral talaq or a talaqnama sent by post is not valid and arbitration prior to divorce is essential. The practice of 'nikah halala' (whereby a woman wanting to remarry her divorced husband must first marry and divorce another man) that is associated with oral arbitrary triple talaq has also been rendered redundant. Muslim community welcomed this judgment. Instead of using this judgment and empowering women and helping them to access the law, BMMA is set on a confrontational path. Instead of negotiations within the community, they approached the prime minister asking him to ban the practice of triple talaq and for enforcing their code. Why? Answer is simple, Politics & Feminism. 

Please........Scrap laws which turn ordinary husband into criminals? Come out with a Uniform Civil Code draft. Give to Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and everybody. Put it as code in public domain as has been done in the case of Education policy and let people respond to it…Let all to study it, and have debates all over the country. And when all finally say yes this is acceptable, make it a law.

Read More

Governments hidden agenda of feminism behind Uniform Civil Code implementation

Government has hidden agenda behind Uniform Civil Code implementation i.e. to make marriage laws more women friendly by diverting/forcing common people mind in communal direction. For this, agenda of triple talaq is being raised all over the country. But the reality is that, Uniform Civil Code would affect all the communities.

It is also being said that “Now it is for the Muslim Personal Law Board to consider whether they want to be part of the stakeholders or they want to be an individual identity... ". Indirectly Govt. is trying to make it a Hindu vs Muslim issue for their vote bank.

The previous UPA government in 2010 had initiated a move to bring a Bill in Parliament to make marriage laws more women friendly. The UPA government had struggled for a consensus on the bill. It was finally passed in August, 2013 in the Upper House but could not be cleared by the Lower House.

Then in September, 2014, because of numerous representations from people and organisations opposing the provisions of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, for the time being they had put it on hold.

As I said earlier, Uniform Civil Code would affect all the communities. Let’s see the truth/hidden agenda behind implementation of UCC.

It had been proposed that in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the following provisions shall be inserted named as 13(C), (D), (E) & (F):

13C (2) The court hearing a petition referred to in sub-section (1) shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless it is satisfied that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

(4) In considering, for the purpose of sub-section (2), whether the period for which the parties to a marriage have lived apart has been continuous, no account shall be taken of any one period (not exceeding three months’ in all) during which the parties resumed living with each other, but no other period during which the parties lived with each other shall count as part of the period for which the parties to the marriage lived apart.

13D. (1) Where the wife is the respondent to a petition for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under section 13C, she may oppose the grant of a decree on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial hardship to her and that it would in all the circumstances, be wrong to dissolve the marriage.

(2) (b) if, apart from this section, the court would grant a decree on the petition, the court shall consider all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties to the marriage and the interests of those parties and of any children or other persons concerned, and if, the court is of the opinion that the dissolution of the marriage shall result in grave financial hardship to the respondent and that it would, in all the circumstances, be wrong to dissolve the marriage, it shall dismiss the petition, or in an appropriate case stay the proceedings until arrangements have been made to its satisfaction to eliminate the hardship.

13E The court shall not pass a decree of divorce under section 13C unless the court is satisfied that adequate provision for the maintenance of children born out of the marriage has been made consistently with the financial capacity of the parties to the marriage.

13F (1) Without prejudice to any custom or usage or any other law for the time being in force,    the court may, at the time of passing of the decree under section 13C on a petition made by the wife, order that the husband shall give for her and children as defined in section 13E, such compensation which shall include a share in his share of the immovable property (other than inherited or inheritable immovable property) and such amount by way of share in movable property, if any, towards the settlement of her claim, as the court may deem just and equitable, and while determining such compensation the court shall take into account the value of inherited or inheritable property of the husband.

So, am repeating again that Government has hidden agenda behind Uniform Civil Code implementation i.e. to make marriage laws more women friendly by diverting/forcing common people mind in communal direction. For this, agenda of triple talaq is being raised all over the country. But the reality is that, Uniform Civil Code would affect all the communities.

So from my point of view, Uniform Civil Code =U.C.C. Unnecessary communal clash. Are these only formula left out for national integration? Are we morally, intellectually so bankrupt that we have no other formula for national integration? Are we forced to think in the communal ways? Are we made to think according to corrupted and polluted brains? Can we not see the motive of such opinion makers?

Indirectly Govt. is trying to make it a Hindu vs Muslim issue for their vote bank. But the reality is that, Govt. is trying to make marriage laws more women-friendly.

Read More

Uniform Civil Code - Is gender equality being assured?

Uniform Civil Code

Is gender equality being assured?

As it is being said by the government that Uniform civil code will be based on the principles of assuring gender justice, gender equality and dignity, do our law makers made sure that their proposed UCC needs to scrap laws which turn ordinary husband into criminals?

There are a lot of issues which the government has not yet implemented or even discussed in UCC. We have a constitution which is the same for all citizens, but family/matrimonial laws deals contrarily with men and women.

Following facts should also be taken care of while implementing UCC:

• Police routinely enter husband’s house at ungodly hours, take accused husband and his family into custody, and incarcerate them in the name of “protecting women from cruelty and harassment”.  Is this gender equality as being assured?
• Under the present circumstances, it is imperative that husband’s father, brothers and sons are prepared to go to jail along with husband even if they committed no crime. Is this gender equality as being assured?
• 98% of domestic violence cases registered against men are faked, Is this gender equality as being assured?
• According to IPC 497, a man can be jailed for adultery, a woman can never. Is this gender equality as being assured?
• 53.2% of rape cases filed against men are false. Is this gender equality as being assured?
• Why there is reservation on the basis of gender?
• In India women have rights, children have rights, animals have rights, and even plants have rights. But Men have no rights. Is this gender equality?
• There are ministry for women, child, even dogs but men have none. Is this gender equality?
• Every 9 minutes, a married man is committing suicide in our country. If it’s just 10-20 people who committed suicide then it is not worth the attention, if it’s just 100s-500s – we can term it as some kind of coincidence, if it’s around 1000s –we can infuse some mathematical theory on statistics and snub it. But, how can one defend the argument in support of 498a/DV/377/406 etc. when 10000+ have committed suicide? It’s not an coincidence, its pure brutality of the draconian law which got unleashed. Is this gender equality?

People may ask what does UCC has to do with 498a/DV/377/406 etc.? Well, the strongest supporters for the continuation of these marital laws is from the feminists who had a crucial role to play in destruction of the society, which they are committed to take it forward by various other bills and provisions. These laws don’t give a damn about fundamental rights, don't care about equality, and don't care about common sense.

UCC is a solution for many problems and its ideal to have UCC but not with the existing biased family laws (498a, DV, 406 and many more). Sure a uniform civil code will help the cause of national integration. But, It is a humble opinion that a Uniform civil code is possible only when the government defines gender equality not under the pressure of feminists. 

I am not asking the law to be lenient on husband for marital crime but the same standard should be applied to women.

Read More