Martyrs of Marriage – A Documentary on 498A misuse


We have many laws. They all misused by someone. But 498A is different. It is the provision misused more than any other law. Almost 98% of the them are misused. Used to settle scores rather than getting justice. Many feminists says, all laws are misused then why to cry only on 498A? I know it is ridiculous argument, perhaps, they too know it. But they don’t mind using the same argument again and again.

It’s true that many laws are misused, but how many laws have the provision to arrest entire family? even a toddler? There are many cases where a toddler also booked for harassing an adult women. And how many of them non-bailable, cognizable and non-compoundable? How many laws we have which misuse termed as “Legal Terrorism” by supreme court? There is only one answer. There are none other 498A. Of course, recent law passed on Sexual harassment at workplace or Nirbhaya law may surpass this, just wait and watch.

Men’s Rights Activists fought tirelessly to stop this menace in the name of protection of women from harassment. We are not against laws, we are against the misuse of laws. We are for gender neutral laws. Not for biased and anti-male laws.

One of the Men’s Rights Activist, Deepika Narayan Bharadwaj, making a documentary on this 498A misuse. “The Martyrs of Marriage”. Martyrs .. yes, we can call them as martyrs. There are many men and women who became martyrs, some of them for marrying a woman, some of them for being sisters or mothers of such a man. The promo of this documentary is heart touching. If you are a victim, you can relate their pain with you pain. If you are not a victim, you definitely empathise with them. This is one of the best promo, I ever watched on misuse of 498A.

Back to the feminists argument, there are many laws misused then why you are crying on 498A only? Well, there are many crimes happening in the world, both men and women are the victims of them. If fact, more men are the victims of the crimes than women. Then, why our feminists are crying on crime against women only??

“Rape culture” – Our feminists are part of it


There is a good website on men rights. Actually, it’s platform to give a voice for men internationally – “A Voice for Men“, shortly know as AVfM. One MRA from India recently wrote an article on Mumbai gang rape (rape on a photo journalist). You can see the post here …

India’s sexually repressive society and gangrapes

This post is a comment I made on that post. Just for my blog readers I am pasting it here.

Many feminists in India talk about “Rape Culture”. But they forget that they are part of it.

In India, men are not recognized as victims of rape by women. Law for Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace don’t recognize harassment on men, old law on rape don’t recognize boys/men as victims. These laws only recognize men as offenders. Only recent anti-rape law, popularly known as Nirbhaya Law, enacted in 2013 (after Delhi gang rape happened in 2012 Dec) recognizes men also as victims but treat only men as offenders.

As per Indian law and law makers women don’t rape. There are many incidents of molestation / rape of young boys by women in India but no law recognize them as rapists. The only way (perhaps) to punish such rapist women, may be, using the law meant to punish “Unnatural Sex”. When a man do rape it’s rape, when a women do rape, it’s just unnatural sex as per law. The rape / molestation/ harassment laws are patriarchal in nature in India.

If anyone asks about this, feminists do admit that women too rape young boys and women too harass men at workplace, men too stalked by women, but they quickly adds a suffix to cover the damage done by their confession … ” Those Incidents are very very rare”, so no need of separate law. When there is no law, no recognition for rape/ harassment/ molestation of men by women, then how do they know that such incidents are very very less?

Isn’t it rape culture, the very reason these feminists being a great critics of Indian culture and society? These feminists are just part of it.

 

What makes men rape ? are domination or humiliating victim sole reasons behind it ??


This post is a response post to comments that I got in response to my comment in the Indian Homemaker’s blog post ” What makes men rapes ? “. She didn’t published my comments, yet. So, I am posting them here. 

What that blog post says : It says that men rape because they want to dominate or humiliate woman.

But, I have a different point of view. It’s not just domination or humiliation of the victim are the reasons for rape. There are other reason including social depravity of men, lack of law or punishment also causes to rapes. When soldiers conquer another nation they rape many women because they know that they are not going to be punished for their acts, in general. If you see the history every war has these kind of rapes. And there are some other reasons as well. But IHM’s post Ignores them and only talk about domination and humiliation angle.

My first comment in that post is .. (link)

Wrong. If rape is all about humiliating the victim, why do men rape children of age which can’t understand the meaning of humiliation at all? What kind of power they feel when they are raping little children? I am talking about both men and women here. In a patriarchal country/society like India only men considered as rapists but not in the western culture. There are many cases where women punished for raping little boys and even grown up men. The total argument that men want to punish women is seriously faltered. This kind of argument gaining popularity only after feminists entered into the picture and started funding the studies and researches and opposing any study that seriously debunk their myths.

She published this comment. I got many responses for this comment. I responded to them again. But they didn’t get published yet. So, I am pasting those comments here.

One comment by “MR” in reply to my comment is here (link) …

MR: somehow the cases of men being the aggressors are higher in india

Ekalavya: This is the problem with feminism or any other so-called English knowing educated people. When it comes to rape there is no difference between the rapist in west or the rapist in far east and certainly no difference in rapes in India.

MR: why only men raped the journalist? how come a gang of women didn’t go after the male journalist???

Ekalavya: Right question. every feminist in India must ask this question to themselves. Why they don’t accept that women also rape. Why they don’t accept that women also harass men sexually at workplace? Why groping of man is considered as a favor to the man but not an assault on the man? If a man claims he was raped, why everyone laughs? Because, they treat it as a favor not a rape. When it comes to rape of women, it is domination or humiliation, but when it comes to rape of man it is all about sex, men are ready for sex, if they get it they are lucky. Are these double standards or the indication that what they actually feel about rape? few people in this blog accepted that rape happen on men too, though they quickly added a suffix statement “It is very very less” to that to cover the damage. Most of the feminist don’t accept for the “Gender neutral rape law” or “Gender neutral prevention of sexual harassment law”. That’s shows how serious they are on rape, When it happen on other gender.

MR: but rape seems to be more prevalent in india especially in males.

Ekalavya: Buddy, you seriously need some googling. Go and google about statistics about rape. India’s place is much better than the so-called liberated US and Europe. Where feminism thrives.

another comment by “Sangitha” here (link)

Sangitha: One major difference is that we’ll pick one case and take an opposite pole position just for the heck of it

Ekalavya: Where we did that. We are not picking one case to refuse the other Issue, rather I am taking the opposite case to explain something important. What’s wrong in it, when it can proves a populist belief as half truth or not truth?

Sangitha: Your kind of denial is part of justification, something the rapist AND Indian society have a lot of practice doing. We’re so good at justifying that we wonder why a person went somewhere at 6 pm to do her job, in a supposedly safe place with a male colleague.

Ekalavya: Oh!! great. When someone oppose your POV or a populist POV they become rape apologists. We are damn good at suppressing any other argument against a populist belief and painting that person as someone who she/he is not. Isn’t it? I am not giving justification to rapes, I am giving explanation to why rape happens. There is a difference between them, if you are ready to see.

Sangitha: “I have no control elsewhere, if I get it by raping a child, hey, I got control, so what if it was a child!”

Ekalavya: Still, a children don’t know about these words. All they feel is something happen to them that they don’t like. The modesty or “My body, my right” kind of things comes into their mind once the society inject them into it. IMO, the definition of rape is patriarchal. We never consider it as pure violation of someone’s choice. We attach many thing to that. Men and women both do this. As far as we can’t stop this mentality exist withing us, rapes do happen at this level.

Sangitha: Let’s take the men-versus-woman attitude out – at least if we want to think solutions. For pointless discussion, by all means, let’s gender bash!

Ekalavya: Oh well, we are talking about genders. Men vs women is just an unavoidable phenomena. And women happily do this as far as other person start pointing the wrongs that women do to men.

Another comment by “Fem” here (link)

Fem: Most child abuse, sexual or otherwise, occurs because the perpetrators have no control over their own lives, so they seek to control little children who really can’t fight back.

Ekalavya: Wrong. They do it because they are easy targets. They are innocent and they don’t know many things. Many times, rape is not about purely dominating the victim or humiliating victim though rapist need to dominate the victim physically at first to rape. For this reason they chose some one who is physically weaker than them and make it sure that they don’t oppose much. If they oppose, they resort to violence to control them. That’s how most rapes happen. And I am not saying that all rapes happen in this way. There are exceptions. Society attaches many things to women. Chastity, family pride and other things. That’s why rape is also considered as punishment for women. I do agree that rape happen to humiliate or punish the victim, but I don’t agree that that is the only reason or in majority of the cases that is the reason.

Fem: I hope you are joking. Children have an acute sense of feeling from the time they are a few months old.

Ekalavya: I am not joking. I don’t joke when it comes to rape, that too on children. I agree that children have sense of feeling but they don’t have sense of chastity or family pride or some other things, that’s why I consider it like that (regarding humiliation and punishment). And when it comes to rapist feelings, controlling a child can’t satisfy their ego. Many rapists molest children like touching them inappropriately (I think I don’t need to explain this), they do it because the consequences of doing same to grown up woman are frightening. Children are easy targets and they are innocent so rapist go for them.

Fem: “The total argument that men want to punish women is seriously faltered.” Men wanting to punish women is not a feature of every rape. But in ‘honour-bound’ societies, this often happens. As long as society sees rape as shameful for the victims and her family, this theory holds true.

Ekalavya: Seems, this statement provoked many to go against me. Let me put it this way, “The total argument that men want to punish women as the sole reason for rape is seriously faltered”. My bad. I could have checked it before posting it. Our is honor bound society, I agree that. But we must remember that our is a sex starved society too. If we miss this angle, we don’t get a right picture on the rape.

Fem: Why are you scared of feminists?
Ekalavya: Read my comment again, I am not afraid of them. I am just pissed off of feminism.

Published in: on August 28, 2013 at 11:07 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

New Divorce Law Passed. Men It’s time for banning marraige


The Killer, IrBM, passed in Rajya Sabha. It is just a formality now to pass in Lok Sabha. Will be effective may be in few months or less. Now, women officially own a man’s property after divorce. Remember all other laws remains. There is only one option left for men to retain their hard earned money from looting. Don’t marry. If you already married, sorry bro, sad news for you. But, you just enjoy with your money. Don’t save money, just spend it for yourself. Only a fool saves money necessary to live more than 6 months.

IrBM

Published in: on August 26, 2013 at 9:17 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Property division law (The divorce law) and some random questions – my answers


This post is in response with some comments in Indian home makers blog posts . Even after a day or two, she didn’t published my responses to those comments. So, I don’t have other options than publishing them here. And that too, she published my comments made after these comment.

May be she didn’t have enough time to read all the comments and publish them. Especially,if they have external links. She is getting more than 100 comments for many posts. So, I can understand her. But my priority is make people aware of the situation. I can’t leave those comments unpublished. So, I feel my act is justified.

I Brierly explain under which circumstances I made those comments, what are the other parties arguments. If you find that is not enough, you can check the article and the person’s comment.

Scenario1 – Comment by Indian Home Maker (blog owner). Blog post: Instead of eyeing their husbands’ ancestral property, why don’t Indian daughters in law make their own homes?

I replied to one comment and said women never left without proper alimony. They all compensated as per the living standards of her man. But, It Is the greed of the women that make them asking man’s property earned before marriage and ancestral property of man. for that she gave some statistics regarding this maintenance …

7. 58% of the divorced women did not receive any maintenance at all (most of their cases are pending in court).
8. The remaining 42% received approximately 10% to 13% of their spouses income as maintenance. In one case from Kerala, the woman fought for 17 years to be awarded a maintenance of Rs. 900 per month even though her male spouse was earning Rs. 56,000 per month.

my response to that comment, that she didn’t published (why I don’t know) is..

7.58? don’t you think it’s small percentage? I don’t mean to say we can leave them, but the law definitely work for them too. All we need is proper implementation of the law. Even after IrBM pass the statistics looks like this only. Because property division is a civil case. They stay in courts for years. I am sure about that and that’s why WCD ministry oppose this move of including ancestral property. I must say.

And the amount of alimony depends upon not only husband’s earning, the women’s position also. If she have other source of income she will get less alimony. And even maintenance law goes against men, if the judge is biased.

Is maintenance law fair with men?

And why do you think proper implementation of the law is the answer for it instead creating another biased law? which is not gender neutral at all?

Scenario 2– comment by Satish : Blog post: Should women be given a share in residential property of the husband, including inherited and inheritable property?

I replied to a comment made by satish who pointed women are oppressed for ages. We have a shameful history of women oppression. So, we have to share the property. But I answered him with suicide statistics of men and IHM asked me the proof for that data. I provided her two links related to married men suicides. But she didn’t published both of those comments. So, I am publishing them here.

Sharing property is not the problem. But which property thats the question we are rising. You can’t share property earned before marriage and ancestral property. That is too much. No one is denying wife shaer in martial property.

If women are oppressed since independece or before independence, it’s not my fault or any man who is alive now. You can’t punish people for the sins of their fathers or forefathers or previous generations. It’s unfair.

And every year nearly 66000 married men suciciding because of family problems, married women suicide rate is less than half of it. But women orgs and intellectuals claim many of them related to financial problems. But now they are increasing financials woos of divorced men. The suicide rate increase more and more.. after this bill passed. Why do men deserv that, because in the past men oppressed women, so some feel it’s justified if men oppressed now?

IHM: Please substantiate your claims with links, random numbers and personal opinion are not facts. Never heard/read of men committing suicide because they didn’t get enough dowry or inheritance. Or because the wife doesn’t bear male children? Generally one reads about them killing the mother,and/or child.

My reply to her questions on married men’s suicide..

These are some links that explain suicide rates of men.
One married man commits suicide every 9 minutes

NCRB stats show more married men committing suicide

Society becoming anti-male day by day with these kind of biased laws. We know domestic violence is not gender issue. Men and women both commit domestic violence but our feminist orgs and biased studies don’t show that and no body cares about a man in India. At least there is a study in america which explains doestic violence is not gender issue.
Unprecedented Domestic Violence Study Affirms Need to Recognize Male Victims

Still in India there is no study on domestic violence on men. Why? our feminists don’t let it happen. When ever people talk about male victims of domestic violence they debunk it as rare cases. The same thing american women also did in america. But the study gives different picture.

What I want to say is I am not against giving some maintenance to divorced women, but extortion they do in the name of “contribution women made”. There is no way that a women contribute to man’s property before marriage and his ancestral property. So, that should not be divided. Only marital property that means acquired during relationship need to be shared. That’s the fair game for both men and women. I ask feminists not to be greedy. Which have far reaching consequences.

Must do things for men after new divorce law passes..!!


Now the hot topic in media and blogs is the new divorce law. Many men who know the effect of that law simply opposing it. There is no way a woman can contribute to the property acquired before marriage and ancestral property of man. But our feminists with lot of self pity are going for it. This is what equality means in their eyes. And men organisations, must say out numbered by feminists, can’t stop this law because of the vote bank politics of politicians.

So, what can happen in future, after this bill pass. Women will take share in man’s property including ancestral property. So, men must follow some precautions.

1. Money is your enemy and your friend. So, be careful. Don’t marry a women if she don’t have enough property in her name.

2. Don’t marry a women if she don’t earn or don’t have job.

3. There is no profession called “home maker”. Never accept for that. Women must work outside and earn money.

4. Enjoy with your money. Don’t save money too much. You just need to save only 6months of your monthly income. After that spend your money.

5. If you have ancestral property sell it and enjoy with it. You don’t need that much money.

6. Never buy a home. It’s most stupid thing that any man can do. Take a rent house, keep your joint family in that rented house. Remember, your matrimonial home must be a rented house or house owned by your wife. Never be yours. Because, men are stripped from owning a house legally by our feminists.

7. If your wife don’t want to work outside (not as a home maker) and earn, leave your job and don’t do any job until she do. If matter goes to court, do some silly job and earn 3times or 4 times less than what you can earn.

8. If you don’t marry or simply opt for live-in relationships that’s little bit better, but it will not going to help a lot because, judges in court always consider live-in equal to marriage.

9. No love marriages. Avoid all love marriages. Arranged marriage is better.

10. And join in any Men’s right group and fight for your rights.

It’s better be careful than sorry. So, keep in touch with your friends always. Because, future seems very dark for men.

Male abortion and joint custody of children for egilitarian world..!!


When it comes to children, men have no rights. Men are considered as fathers only if they stay in relationship with mother of those children. If they divorce them their position downgrades to visitors. They will get visitation rights. Still they are fathers on records, but they can’t enjoy fatherhood. Even spending sometime with their children also become a rare task for them. That’s how our divorce laws treat men, yet men must spend all the money needed for child upbringing and maintenance of his ex-wife. That’s the irony of so-called egalitarian world.

Let us come to another concept called Male Abortion. Let us assume a scenario. A man and woman had sex, it may be extra-marital or marital with no intention of having kids. But due to some contraceptives failure or some other reason women got pregnancy. Now what? We have four situations here.

  1. Woman and man like to have baby. Then there is no problem. She can give birth to a baby and everything is fine.
  2. Woman and man don’t like to have baby. Then also no problem. She can abort that unwanted pregnancy and everything will be fine.
  3. Woman don’t want baby but man want baby. Here as per present standards in the world, men have to shut their mouth and pay the abortion bill. Because, it is her body. Her right. She can abort the child. Men don’t have anything to say other than “yes” to whatever she says. And it’s fair deal.
  4. Woman want a baby but man don’t want. Now the problem comes. As per present standards, she can give birth to the baby and man don’t have other option other than becoming father to unwanted baby. This kind of forced fatherhood is against men’s rights. Why a man don’t have a say in his fatherhood? If a women’s body is her right and she have a choice, why not a man have a choice in his fatherhood?

Here male abortion enters into picture. Male abortion is nothing but giving right to men of aborting forced fatherhood. If men are not interested in fatherhood then women have two choice.

  • She has to abort the baby. Man may be or may not pay for abortion. Or
  • She can give birth to the baby, but man is not father of that baby and he need not to take any responsibility towards that baby. They may be socially, economically or any other form. That baby will have only mother, no father.

This has some downside also. Some men may misuse it and try to escape from their responsibilities. But, misuse of the law or provision can’t be a reason for banning of such progressive provisions or laws, Isn’t it? our feminists, women orgs and intellectuals know this point better than us.

To get the egalitarian world where all are equal, men must get their rights. Men must get joint custody of the children in case of divorce and men must have a choice of male abortion in case of unwanted pregnancy of girl friend or wife.

Published in: on July 21, 2013 at 9:45 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , ,

Is wife really doing unpaid work in husband’s home…?


This post is in response with the Indian Homemaker’s article.

Her article:

Should women be given a share in residential property of the husband, including inherited and inheritable property?

First let me tell some simple facts

  1. A man and women marries. As per Indian law, marriage is nothing but legal contract.
  2. Man have a job. Women may have a job, may know all the things need to be a home maker. these two are the basic qualities.
  3. Man already have job, so he can earn with or without the help of so-called wife contribution.
  4. Man have his property, women also bring her property in the name of “stridhan”.

The contract begin…

Man earning continues as usually, women helps him to make his house as home. She give birth to babies. and all things are fine.

Now Divorce happen..

Is there any unpaid work by wife?
No. There is no such thing. Because, women is not doing all the work in husband’s home like cooking, cleaning, giving birth to children and going back to her parents home and eating there, sleeping there, leaving children to her husband not claiming anything from those children. That is not happening. She eats whatever husband and children eat, stay in husbands home with all comforts, getting every respect as a mother from children and after divorce wife takes her children with her and father will become visitor. If she fell ill, she will be treated with her husband’s money. Then where is the question of unpaid work?

After divorce, she is not going to work in that home, she is not going cook for the man, she is not going to give birth to another baby for him. Then Why a man need to support her financially?

The only reason for that is may be she is underpaid for her work and she must not sent out without any support to live. These two are the reasons. IMO.

First reason is a doubt for many women from upper middle class to high class. Because they do have many electronic home appliance to make her work easy, and they can even have a maid to do some household work. Middle class women and lower class women really deserve lot of respect here. So, women’s contribution to man’s property must evaluated case by case and award alimony as per that only. Not half of his entire property, because, she can’t contribute to man’s property earned before the marriage and his ancestral property. Only in the property he acquired and she contributed during the marriage.

That’s so simple. If women also working, then also the division is same. Only from the marital property. Not the property earned before marriage or ancestral property.

Women can get share in ancestral property of ex-husband..!!


The law passed. The law intended to provide share to wife in ex-husbands property, including ancestral property, cleared in the parliament. At first women orgs said only matrimonial property shared, then they changed their voice (as usually) and demanded share in all property of men. They seek 50% share. But the share of the property they get will be decided by the judge based on different parameters.

So, it may be advantageous in some incidents, disadvantageous in some other incidents for men. They may has to give less than 50% or more than 50% depend on circumstances and so-called parameters. At any time, only man’s property distributed. Women property is safe. My money is my money, your money is our money – philosophy of feminist economy. And that’s equality as per feminists. Long live feminism..!! Men, who cares you, not even your own men bother about you.

After divorce law

Why buying a house is the stupid idea for men in India !!


Generally, we have every right on what we buy. Nobody can deny our rights on it. In our life, house has very important role. Many people have sentiments on the house they own. People buy or build the house by spending lot of hard earned money and time. Many people feel emotional when they leave their own house or sell it. We do develop lot of affection. And most importantly, we assume, we have every right on that.

But those days were over sometime back. Now, you can be thrown out of your own house. And may be sometimes you are not even allowed to come near to it. It will be an offense and you can be punished for that!!

No, it’s not the work of land mafia or some supernatural power. That could be the work of your own family member, may be your beloved wife. Surprised?? Then I must say that your LawQ (law quotient 😛 ) is very poor. If you assume that law don’t allow this and you can get back your house using law, then I must say, you are living in wrong decade.

Your house can be occupied by your wife legally and you can be thrown out of it legally. The only difference is it’s not considered as occupying. Again surprised, then I must say about a law that came into force in 2005.

It’s none other than Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. Don’t be fooled by the name and come to a conclusion that it will protect every one from domestic violence. And don’t compare it with the laws already exist in some western countries.

This is a law that aimed to protect women and children from domestic violence. Men are not covered under this law, men are only perpetrators. And most of the times only women use this law not children. So, you can safely read it as “A law to Prevent Domestic Violence Committed by men on women and children”.

It is the law criticized by many including the supreme court as “A loosely drafted law”. It has many loopholes which can be exploited by unscrupulous women to harass husbands.

One of the important aspect of this law is right to residence for the women in the shared household. It doesn’t matter who is the owner of that house. So, she have the right to live in husband’s house. But, husband can live in it only if his wife permit him. If everything between man and his wife is well, then no problem. If not, it’s a big trouble for the man. She can simply file a case under DV Act and throw him out of his own house.

Of course, law don’t say this, directly. But it can be used that way. It is only made to protect women from the domestic violence. But to protect women, Men’s Rights can be sacrificed. Man can be sent out of his house, if court feel he is a threat to the wife. What a women need to provide as evidence to prove the man is a threat to her? nothing. She just need to file a case under DV Act, it is man’s duty to prove that he is not guilty of those charges.

Until he prove that, he may be barred from entering in his own house. May be surroundings where she live. Remember those accuses against men need not be true. They may be lies. But it is man’s duty to prove that. Even after proving that he is innocent, there will be no punishment for wife for filing false cases.

It’s not going to stop here. There is another law which is going to pass in one way or other way. That is IrBM (Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage). As per that law women are going to get 50% of what ever the property that man have. Even his ancestral property also comes into picture. So, after this the man’s house may be shared equally. Or may goes to women as a part of sharing all assents. So, A house, not at all man’s property anymore. It’s bad Idea to buy a house.

Most of the times men (lower class to upper middle class) buy house or build their dream house by taking housing loans. Every month they have to pay some amount as an EMI. Assume a situation, in which the man thrown out of his own house and still he has to pay the EMI every month and has to pay the rent to newly taken house for him. But wife and her family happily live in his dream house. Everyone who is friendly to her can enter into it, but not the man who bought/build it. Many men are already facing such situations. It is going to be worse in future.

DV Act + IrBM = Throw husband out of his own house until court order  +  Later divorce him and get half of the house legally.

Then what is the good option? Just stay in rented house. Let the women buy the house with her property. If not, just stay with her husband in rented house. If she file a DV case against him, he will be thrown out of his rented house, of course, he has to pay the rent for that. That’s true. But which one is better? thrown out of your dream home or a rented house? definitely the second one.

So, my advice is never buy a house. Always stay in rented one. Let the govt build some houses and give them to rent for all the people in the country. So, every family in the country simply pay rent to the govt.  Or let the women buy their house stay without any problem with exclusive rights on that house.

Always remember don’t save too much money either. Just have a life and enjoy it. Don’t let someone take out your hard earned money in the name of empowerment.

%d bloggers like this: