Did this braggart lady ever have an antenna?
I usually assume most people as smart and intelligent. Then I reshape my view after they open their mouths. Interactions with people in this forum made me conclude that most people possess average intelligence, and some people have superior or exceptional intelligence. The problem is - those who have average intelligence do not know it, and they always pretend to be super smart, and make a mess out of everything.
It is pretty clear from the remarks of the Judge that - he is trying to bend the law to protect the interest of the woman. The solution is divorce, but the woman does not want it. She has built the family with her husband, but after divorce she will be on the street. If the husband goes to the jail - who will earn the living for the family? If the Judge punishes the man in some other way, he will divorce her later on. I do not know how divorce works in a Hindu family now a days, but, in case of a Muslim family – 'Tin-Talak' will be enough for a divorce. Judge knows that woman's condition will not be any better outside this marriage. So he is suggesting her to stay in the marriage. I have seen - when children become grownup, they protest and come forward to protect their mother and this kind of offense does not occur anymore. As a woman from that part of the world, Farida should know better. But, her antenna missed the signal.
Jiten Roy
--- On Sun, 9/9/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] RE: [india-unity] Wife beating is good: We need more such justices!
Date: Sunday, September 9, 2012, 8:06 PM
I have quoted from the translation of the 'Holy Quran' by A. J. Arberry. I am sure that this schizophrenic shrew does not have more reputation as a scholar than he had. Wittgenstein wrote, "Every person is known by the language he/she uses." This lady's nature is revealed by her substandard language. Besides while misogyny is permitted in the 'revealed' literature, how can the legal system be free from it. To an atheist, no religious decree is above criticism. I, for one, am a beef devouring Hindu and spare no chance to bash any fool who believes that he is guided by divine commands.
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> wrote:
Once again, Jiten Roy, Kamal Das, Sukhamoy, et al, prove incontrovertibly their obssessive communal hatred against Islam and the Muslims. Their pretensions of so called 'atheism' and the interminable talk of 'religion' are really nothing but eye-wash to hide their communal hatred. No matter what the issue or the topic of conversation is, at mukto-mona it is a closed-door discussion of how pernicious the Muslims are.
Here the topic was the misogynist behavior of a Justice at a Family Court in Karnataka, India.
How horrible the Muslims are in general, or how the Almighty Allah has decreed in the Qur'an was not the subject of discussion. [BTW I have written about this particular verse in the qur'an and presented scholarly paper at International Conferences to appreciative, erudite audience. //"beat them" is a wrong translation of the verb 'dharaba' in the context of the ayat's internal language.] I would plead with Kamal Das not to drum-beat his superfluous knowledge about this on this thread. It is impossible to deal with "chhagoler nadi" knowledge with a straight face. He will only succeed in encouraging Q. Rahman (who has no training in Arabic grammar) to present endless quotes from the Qur'an which he gathered from the internet. And the whole shenanigan of Islam-bashing v. Islam-defending will take off for the umpteenth time for the 10th or 11th year running.
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
From: kamalctgu@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 07:34:46 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] RE: [india-unity] Wife beating is good: We need more such justices!
Almighty Allah has advised wife beating in the 'Holy Quran'(IV:35-40). In it he says, men are the managers of the affairs of women...righteous women are therefore obedient,...and those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them."
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
The whole issue is a mess. I have a very vivid memory of a case, in which, a Muslim family, one of our neighbors, migrated from Murshidabad, West Bengal, to our village in Bangladesh, used to beat his wife every now and then. They are married for at least 30 years, have 5 children. One early morning, that lady started to cry with unbearable loud tone, which everybody could hear. We were thinking that may be something happened to one of her children. But, it was not so. We learned that her husband given her 'Tin-Talak (divorce)' for resisting his beating, and thrown her out of the house with her little kids. Now, she has no place to go, as her parents' family is in India. I was very young at that time, but – thought - what could be worse, tolerating the beating or getting divorced for resisting it. She had to resort to begging after the divorce.
The point of the story is women are so dependent on men in those societies that it is hard to think what's good for them. The solution is obviously – self-reliance of women, and we are nowhere near there. What could we do in the mean time? I have no opinion in this case, except to say that the judge may be weighing on the consequences of the woman after the punishment of her husband. I know – law does not care about the consequences, but – the interpretation of the law may consider it knowingly or unknowingly.
Jiten Roy
--- On Fri, 9/7/12, Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
Subject: [mukto-mona] RE: [india-unity] Wife beating is good: We need more such justices!
To: "india-unity@yahoogroups.com" <india-unity@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, September 7, 2012, 2:53 PM
The instance of the Hon'ble Justice making those obscene remarks are unacceptable and, to echo the the letter-writers' point, downright unconstitutional.
I have heard that wife-beating cases in US Family Courts do not fare much better and the offenders end up receiving a slap-on-the-wrist treatment. Anybody who thinks misogyny is not a global problem is mistaken. It is an on-going struggle, alas!
Farida
NB. Who are the signatories of this excellently written letter? This should be widely distributed.
To: india-unity@yahoogroups.com
From: ggjey1@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:56:56 -0400
Subject: [india-unity] Wife beating is good: We need more such justices!
To
The Hon'ble Chief Justice
High Court of Karnataka
Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri Vikramjit Sen,
We are writing to you in the context of the recent media reports regarding Hon'ble Justice Bhaktavatsala's verbal comments in open Court. We are bringing these comments to your notice because they do not seem to be in consonance with the oath Justice Bhaktavatsala has taken under Article 219 to 'bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and to duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge, and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear and favour, affection or ill-will and to uphold the Constitution and the laws.' The comments attributed to J. Bhaktavatsala are deeply offensive to all right thinking people, lower the dignity and agency of women who constitute literally half the population of this country and betray animus towards women.
It has been reported that J. Bhaktavatsala in open court has observed as follwos:
1) According to media reports on August 31 2012 Justice Bhaktavatsala stated to a woman litigant in a divorce matter, "Women suffer in all marriages. You are married with two children, and know what it means to suffer as a woman. Yesterday, there was a techie couple who reconciled for the sake of their child. Your husband is doing good business, he will take care of you. Why are you still talking about his beatings? I know you have undergone pain. But that is nothing in front of what you undergo as a woman. I have not undergone such pain. But Madam (Justice BS Indrakala) has."
The Court asked the woman if her parents were present, at which her father walked up to the bench. The judge was reported to have remarked in open court, "Ask your father if he has never beaten your mother!" When the woman said her husband would beat her in the open, in front of everyone, Justice Bhaktavatsala remarked that it was she who was bringing it out in the open. The court was told that the husband would beat her in the middle of the night and had thrown her out of the house.
When the woman's advocate produced photographs showing her swollen face after the beatings, the court said, "You have to adjust. Are you just behind money? There is nothing in your case to argue on merits. You have to give him a divorce or go with him. Have you read about actor Darshan. He spent 30 days in jail after beating his wife. But they are living together now. What is on your mind and what is on your agenda?" The court directed the couple to go out and talk to each other. (Bangalore Mirror, August 31,2012)
2) In another case, a young female advocate was citing the allegations against the husband, Justice Bhaktavatsala stopped her midway and asked, "Are you married?" When she replied in the negative, the judge said, "You are unfit to argue this case. You do not know real life. Why are you arguing like this? He is your (client's) partner, not a stranger. Family matters should be argued only by married people, not spinsters. You should only watch. Bachelors and spinsters watching family court proceedings will start thinking if there is any need to marry at all. Marriage is not like a public transport system. You better get married and you will get very good experience to argue such cases."
(Bangalore Mirror, August 10, 2012)
Our concern is that these comments apart from lowering the dignity of the High Court of Karnataka are also indicative of a judicial mindset which leads to judicial pronouncements which are not in keeping with the Constitution. In particular, the Constitution protects intimate choices with respect to one's partner transcending barriers of caste, class and religion, regardless of parental opposition. In Writ Petition (HC) No.67/2011, Avinash v. State of Karnataka, J. Bhaktavatsala has expressed his strong opinion against love marriages and by extension the choices made by young women about whom to marry are summarily brushed aside as choices made because of 'hormonal imbalances'. To quote from the judgment;
"In our opinion, the girls below the age of 21 years are not capable of forming a rational judgment as to suitability of the boy, who is in love. It is relevant to mention that those girls, who are suffering from harmonal imbalance easily fall prey to the boys and fall in love, marry and repent at leisure. The parents of the girl are interested in selecting a suitable boy and see that the girl leads a happy married life. Since the Hindu Marriage Act does not deal with love marriages, in our view, it is a high time that the Parliament shall take note of the sufferings and turmoil of such girls and their parents and amend the law suitably. We perpetuate our memory as to the episode of the famous Telugu Cine actor Sri Chiranjivi's daughter's love marriage. Hence, we suggest that in the case of love affair of a girl, who is below the age of 21 years, there shall be a condition that the parents of the girl should approve the marriage, otherwise such marriages shall be declared void or voidable."
In particular, Justice Bhaktavatsala's above mentioned judicial pronouncement undermines the very idea of India as a nation in which all persons are free to form consensual intimate relationships with others of their choice regardless of narrow considerations of gender, caste, religion and class. If India is to indeed move beyond being a society riven by sharp divisions of caste and religion, the antidote lies in the choices made by young people to love across these narrow domestic walls, regardless of parental opposition.
As Dr. Ambedkar noted:
I am convinced that the real remedy is inter-marriage. Fusion of blood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin, and unless this feeling of kinship, of being kindred, becomes paramount, the separatist feeling- the feeling of being aliens- created by Caste will not vanish.
(Annihilation of Caste)
The citizens of India look to the Court to protect their right to equality, dignity and liberty. Judges must keep this constitutional mandate in mind of being the protectors of the Constitution, even as they perform their duty to interpret the law. Thus judges do not have a free reign to give expression to their own private morality or even the morality of the wider public, but rather have a duty to interpret the law in the light of the Constitution. Judges are bound by what the Founding Father of the Indian Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar describes as constitutional morality. Dr. Ambedkar quoted Grote, the historian of Greece, who had said:
"The diffusion of constitutional morality, not merely among the majority of any community but throughout the whole, is an indispensable condition of government at once free and peaceable; since even any powerful and obstinate minority may render the working of a free institution impracticable without being strong enough to conquer the ascendancy for themselves."
After quoting Grote, Dr. Ambedkar added:
"While everybody recognised the necessity of diffusion of constitutional morality for the peaceful working of the democratic constitution, there are two things interconnected with it which are not, unfortunately, generally recognised. One is that the form of administration must be appropriate to and in the same sense as the form of the Constitution. The other is that it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution, without changing its form by merely changing its form of administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. ......The question is, can we presume such a diffusion of constitutional morality? Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic."
[Constitutional Assembly Debates: Official Reports Vol.VII: November 4, 1948, page 38],
J. Bhaktavatsala in making those above statements, has clearly overstepped the bounds and limits of constitutional morality as described by Dr. Ambedkar. We are extraordinarily disappointed and let down by the fact that a high constitutional functionary has through his reported comments and judicial pronouncements betrayed the enormous trust vested in him. There are serious apprehensions that in the constitutionally mandated area of non-discrimination on grounds of gender, J. Bhaktavatsala will not decide in accordance with the constitution but rather in accordance with his private morality.
We ask that you consider strong action in your capacity as a Chief Justice to send out the message that no Judge can so easily betray the mandate of the Constitution to ensure equality of gender. Judges have a duty to protect the mandate of Article 14 of the constitution which guarantees equality and non-discrimination and Article 15 which guarantees that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of gender. Justice Bhaktavatsala's comments and action in court in condoning violence against women, in requiring that unmarried women are not capable of arguing matrimonial cases and comments even about Justice Indrakala, his sister Judge are extremely gender biased and discriminating against women. This bias against women is reflected not only in his statements in court but also in his judgments. Gender bias is ordinarily defined as a tendency to think about people primarily on the basis of their sex. In the judicial system, gender bias results in decisions or actions that are based upon preconceived notions of sexual roles rather than on fair and impartial appraisals of any situation. Gender bias must be eliminated in the judicial system not only because it influences the perception of women in the courtroom, but also because it undermines the manner in which courts apply the law and thus affects the substantive rights of the parties.
In the interest of upholding the principles of our Constitution, we would request the following:
1. That J. Bhaktavatsala issue an unconditional public apology for his gender biased and offensive remarks.
2. That the all appeals from the judgments of the Family Court classified as MFA(FC) are removed from J. Bhaktavatsala's docket.
3. Set up a Commission to look at gender bias within the judiciary in Karnataka
We would also request you to take serious note of these comments and ensure that in your capacity as the Chief Justice, no judge of the Karnataka High Court again gives any room for such gross insensitivity to all forms of discrimination based on gender.
__._,_.___
****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:
http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68
http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___