It is obviously to honor the sentiments of all those girls
and boys who took to the streets, vociferously condemning the heinous Delhi
gang rape incident and demanding speedy action against the criminals, indeed
calling for death penalty, that the government has come up with a tough
anti-rape ordinance immediately following the submission of Verma panel
recommendations.
The ordinance brings many changes to the existing Indian
penal code: it provides for death sentence for rapists whose victims end up
dead or in a persistent vegetative state; it makes gang rape punishable with a
minimum prison term of 20 years; and it defines in clear terms as to what
constitutes unwelcome sexual acts, ranging from stalking to acid attack, which
are in turn recognized as offences warranting a higher degree of punishment. As
the ordinance was signed by the President on Sunday, February 3, 2013, which came
into effect immediately, women’s rights activists expressed their unhappiness
over the provisions.
Critics accuse the government saying that it has ignored many
of the holistic and wide-ranging recommendations of the Verma panel such as the
issue of sexual harassment at workplaces, making rape and sexual assault
gender-specific, making marital rape an
offence, removing the need for sanction in cases of sexual offences that come
under the purview of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, banning of
politicians from contesting polls when a court has recognized a criminal case
against them, etc. In sum, it is debunked as having nothing for ‘gender
justice.’
Women’s organizations have dubbed the ordinance mere eyewash
and expressed their strong resentment at the rejection of some of the
recommendations of the panel as stated by the Home ministry. But Union Minister Chidambaram has
clarified stating: “Nothing has been rejected. Some issues require more
consultations and deliberations due to divergence of opinion.” It was further
clarified that the rest of the recommendations that attracted divergent
opinions would be taken up when the bill replaced the ordinance.
True, a lot
more debate is warranted on this whole issue. There are many critical issues
that need to be addressed such as: compensation and rehabilitation to the
victims of rape and sexual assault, establishing fast track courts to deal with
rape cases, and the over all security and well-being of women in the society.
Now, the question is, when so much needs to be discussed to
arrive at a reasonable understanding of the committee’s recommendations and
come up with a final product that encapsulates everything warranted so as to
make it good enough to serve as a deterrent for the rest, why this hurry to bring
out an ordinance, that too when the Parliament is anyway scheduled to meet
shortly? Obviously, it is only acts of this nature that make citizens believe
that governments do what is easy for them to do rather than what is really
needed to be done.
That said, we must remember that mere promulgation of rules
does not and cannot ensure justice to the victims. Rather what is urgently
needed is fixing the system that is meant for administering justice: the police
must be sensitized to the need for investigating the cases with alacrity and
booking the culprits with no bias/favor. If this has to happen, obviously, the police
must be freed from the interference of the power centers, be it governmental or
political. Simultaneously, courts must find the ways and means to handle these
cases on a different footing to deliver justice soon.
Merely having laws does not mean delivery of justice. If the
system meant for administering justice is saddled with insurmountable pulls and
pushes from different quarters, any number of ordinances, as women activists
wittingly/unwittingly said, would remain mere eyewash.
Indeed, a few legal experts opine that the existing laws are
pretty good enough to book the culprits but what is needed is the ‘will’—will to
administer the rule book by the organizations meant for it. So what the women
activists/organizations must fight for is: effective enforcement of laws rather
than calling for new laws, which is incidentally the easiest thing that any
government can do vis-à-vis delivering fair justice, that too quickly.
“At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated
from law and justice, he is the worst”, said Aristotle some ages back. And so
long as the governance does not hone its resolve to bring the people under the
purview of law, the separation from law encourages man to be the worst.
And this governance should operate from within the families
first, and then the society, and ultimately the government; for social evils, after
all, cannot be arrested through criminal law alone. Remember, by the time the criminal
law starts operating, the offence has been committed and someone has already
been victimized.
image courtesy - firstpost.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment