The modern thinking Indian

After the Domestic Violence Law was faced, there was immense controversy about whether the law would help save the fate of innumerable women who face dowry claims, who face abuse in their households over whether they they give birth to male children vs. female children, and about their overall status in the household. Sadly, a lot of this abuse is also directed at them from other females in the household; or whether the law would end up being misused. No clear answers, but 2 separate stories. As an example, read this article:

It is a horror story of sorts. Two Vadodara women, who could not bear the macabre torture meted out to them by their husband for not bearing a son, have escaped to Ahmedabad to get their gut-wrenching tale heard and dealt with.
"I was being forced to abort this child that I am carrying. I refused and was being put through hell," mumbles Sunita, who is weak from years of beating and torture. She says that she went to the Padra police station a couple of times to register her complaint but fearing her husband, who is a goon, the police did not take it. All hell broke loose for Kajal, who was tricked into marriage by Rajesh, when she too delivered a girl child.
He told her he was a bachelor. Rajesh hung the baby, Khushi, when she was just over a month old, upside down in an attempt to kill her! Narrating some of Rajesh's torture methods, Sunita and Kajal say nails were hammered into their ears and chilly powder mixed with hot spices forced into Sunita’s private parts - all because she had borne a girl. And the worse - Rajesh reportedly made them drink his urine!

Now, I am not putting the whole article here, so please read it from the link above. Assuming that all the facts of the case are true, this is a true case where the husbands and family members complicit in this act should be severely prosecuted under the act and when found guilty, sentenced for their misdeeds.

At the same time when this news came out, here is another news that seeks to define some fine-tuning that a court in New Delhi has done under the Domestic Violence Act. Read this story for more details:

A court here has dismissed a woman's complaint against her in-laws under the domestic violence law, saying she could claim right of residence and maintenance only from her husband. Metropolitan Magistrate Nirja Bhatia rejected the application on the ground that the woman's husband was maintaining a separate residence and a perusal of records showed that he was capable of providing a life of dignity and peace to her.
Neetu, a mother of three, however, did not implead her husband, who had been reportedly living separately from her for some time. She claimed he earned very little, a plea that did not go down well with the court. Citing an apex court judgement, the court held that the complainant had the right to claim residence and maintenance from her husband and not from her in-laws.

The court has taken a fair amount of care in the case, clearly taking the facts of the case into account and putting the relationship as one that exists only between the husband and the wife, and legally not being able to bring the rest of the husband's family into the dispute if they are not clearly involved.
This is a fairly complex case where the women prima facie seems to have used the strong rights vested in her to try and bring his family also under control. But, the good point in this case, (incidentally the judgment being delivered by a female judge), was to go into the merits of the case and not blindly go by the testimony of the complainant.

Labels: Court, Dowry, Family, Governance, India, Investigation, Iraq, Judicial, Law

In an official statement, the Indian Government has expressed disappointment over the execution of Saddam Hussein. How many are willing to bet that the statement of disappointment is due to internal reasons (read this as an attempt to play to internal compulsions) rather than any actual concerns over how the reconciliation in Iraq between the Shias and the Sunnis may get affected. Previously, I believe that the Government also expressed concern that this may end up being perceived as victor's justice.

What are the grounds on which the Government of India expressed concern over the execution? I am reading a news story which quoted the statement by the External Affairs Minister. A small excerpt captures the main point of the statement:

"We hope that the unfortunate event will not affect the process of reconciliation, restoration of peace and normalcy in Iraq," he said.

The government had earlier expressed opposition to Hussein's execution and cautioned that no steps should be taken which could delay restoration of peace in the troubled country.

This government has plenty of people well versed in the details of international affairs, so one would expect that they will know far more about the situation in Iraq than what this bland statement conveys. There can be no reason for them to not know the amount of negative passion which he brings out among the majority of his countrymen. They would certainly know the extent of his brutalities. In fact, the crime for which he has been sentenced has been the summary torture of hundreds and killings of 148 men and boys after an assassination attempt on his life. Even in a country under a military dictator such as Pakistan, assassination attempts on the life of the president have been followed by court cases and civilized behavior, not by the full scale sweeping pick up of all adult males in the vicinity and the summary trial and execution of them. Such an brutality was made more famous by the Nazis. Secondly, the transitional government and thus the court has been accepted by India as a valid authority, so this objection to their justice seems a bit misplaced.

If you want to read more, here is a detailed life history on Wikipedia. Saddam did a few good things as well for his people, but that was quickly over-shadowed by his self-interest.

People tend to forget that Saddam could be classified as one of the mass killers of the century, just a shade below Stalin, Hitler and Mao. He is certainly equal in level with other dictators such as Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and the like. From start, Saddam's regime had been a brutal regime, ruling the country with the help of a small clique and terrorizing everybody else. It started with a show of force where people were picked out in a televised party meeting and twenty-one quickly executed. He killed other sects in Iraq such as the Shias and the Kurds with immense brutality and committed mass murder. If there is indeed such a thing as reconciliation, the way in which he was tried by his countrymen from his own country's legal service and then sentenced was as fair as it could be. It will bring closure to the majority of his countrymen who suffered immensely under his rule.

Labels: Image, India, Iraq, Minority

In a bizarre twist, the Government of India has pleaded for the life of Saddam Hussein, the former dictator of Iraq (the same one who gassed a lot of Kurds to death; who crushed a rebellion with brutal force; the same one who killed almost all the male (men and boys) of a village where an assassination attempt on his life happened; and the same one who got voted with more than 99% of the popular vote in a truly 'impartial' referendum).
India has recognized the transitional Iraqi Government, the court has been formed under the same arrangement, and after a long trial, he has been found guilty. What can be the possible motive to oppose his death. It would be a long shot to believe that the Government is concerned about the Shia-Sunni reconciliation in Iraq and has given its view in that respect. Maybe they do not want him to die before they can learn from him as how to win a vote with more than 99% majority,especially in a free and fair election :-)/
Make no words, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who actually believed that his countrymen were his to deal with as he likes. And like many other dictators who went beyond the pale in their doings, he has to reckon with his past actions.
I believe that the Government of India is so besotted with the minority vote, especially with an upcoming election that they believe that pleading for his life will get the Congress party some votes. After all, it is not that India is one of those countries that is against the death penalty and is opposing his death sentence out of some principle. India actively sentences people to death for their heinous crimes and carried out those sentences.
I believe that the Congress party is making a fundamental mistake in its electoral calculations. If they believe that the Muslim community will get inspired by these actions to vote for the party, the Congress strategeists are sorely mistaken. And if they are looking for the Shia vote, they have forgotten that the Shia majority in Iraq was severly oppressed during the Saddam dictatorship, and that a wide section of the Shia population of Iraq is looking forward to the end of Saddam Hussein.

Labels: India, Iraq, Muslim