Joru ki gulami is the best policy, the SC has told the man in a divorce case. "Biwi joh bolti hai woh suno…," a vacation bench of Justice Markandeya Katju and Justice Deepak Verma observed while hearing a lawsuit by Indian Air Force officer Deepak Kumar, who had complained that his estranged wife Manisha had ruined him and his family by implicating them in false criminal cases, including sodomy. "Hum sab bhuktbhogi hain," the bench observed. "If your wife wants you to see this side, see this side. If she wants you to see the other side, do obey her," said Katju, adding, "One who obeys his wife rules the world."
Sounds like a joke, right? DT asked men for their reactions to this woman-on-top issue. They were asked two simple questions:
1. The judiciary's latest remarks have been met with amusement. What would the reactions have been, had the gender roles had been reversed, and the woman asked to 'obey her husband'?
2. Is the judiciary pro-woman, sometimes bizarrely so?
These are the responses from the other side of the gender divide.
SHE'S ALWAYS A WOMAN TO ME ... The judiciary has, in the past, been quite pro-woman (though a little more serious)
In 2007, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that a man can't sue his adulterous wife – but he can sue her lover for violating his 'proprietary rights' over his wife
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that a long livein relationship is as good as a marriage, unless proven otherwise. In 2009, it also ruled that the dowry law would apply to live-ins.
Last year, the SC also ruled that no one can force a woman who 'seems promiscuous in her sexual behaviour' into a sexual relationship, or rape her.
In 1997, the court recognised sexual harassment as a punishable crime. It was legally defined as 'an unwelcome sexual gesture or behaviour...', inspiring confidence in working women ( with inputs from Nikhila Pant, Aparajita Mukherjee and Piyali Dasgupta )
'Men, be careful about signing contracts !' 1. For a bench of judges to say such a thing is ridiculous. It trivialises the whole issue and the judicial process. We might only call the man 'poor guy' in this case and have it end there, but if a woman had been at the receiving end of such a statement, many people would have raised their voices against it. But it's not a sign of gender discrimination. Women have been subjected to domestic violence and hence, such a comment would ring alarm bells. 2. Society and its norms are against women,and hence,it's only good that the law is increasingly in favour of women. It's sending out a strong message about women's empowerment.A word of caution for liberal men like me – be careful while singing any contract! SUDHIR MISHRA, filmmaker
'I don't think anyone took it seriously' 1. I think the reactions would have been, 'How dare he?' 'This is gender discrimination' – all this would've been hurled at the judge. In today's politically correct society, women can get away with – if not murder – almost anything. However, I think the judge made a humorous comment and I think all the readers had a good laugh. I don't think anyone took it seriously. 2. I think they're bending over backwards to correct injustice to women over the last 2000 years, and that's why there are reservations for the backward classes. In a democracy, everyone should be treated as equal, but democracy also demands that everyone who's been discriminated against in the past should in some way get an advantageous position. Not forever, though – I think the reservations have gone on far too long – but to a certain extent, I do think that there should be some kind of compensatory factor for people who've been discriminated against earlier. ALYQUE PADAMSEE, adman
'Men should be petrified !' 1. Of course, there would've been fireworks if it were the woman in his place! If you go to the root of it, there has to be some sort of injustice that women are facing because of which feminist organisations make a noise. I agree that sometimes these organisations and even society goes overboard in protecting women's rights, but these things will get corrected eventually. Right now, we need to empower women and if there is some benefit of doubt that we might need to give women, it's all cool. 2. I would like the judiciary to be moreprowomen. For so many years, we have suppressed women. Now, if we're passing judgements to help them out, we should go the whole nine yards and be soprowomen that men should be scared of exploiting them." PRASOON JOSHI, lyricist & adman
'There's nothing wrong with wives being asked to listen to their husbands' 1. Why not? There's nothing wrong with wives being asked to listen to their husbands. In India, the average percentage of working women is lower than that of housewives. Indian women are good homemakers.The Indian society is a male-dominant society. At the same time, the relationship should be well balanced and men should listen to what women say. 2. I don't know about that, but women should not misuse it… RAJEEV KHANDELWAL, actor
'Waise bhi, isse kya hone wala hai ?' 1. The judges' statement reflects their own frustrations. Had such a thing been said to a woman, many from 'women's rights commissions' would've asked, 'Johhusband kahega vo hum kyun karein?' Just because it's been said to a man, we're taking it in jest. 2. There is absolutely no problem if the laws are tilting in favour of women. Waise bhi isse kya hone wala hai? Law toh bahut kuch kehta hai – aged parents ke saath aise behave kijiye, women ke saath aise kijiye. Many abide by it but a large number of people ignore it. Passing laws will not bring about social change. The indoctrination of orthodoxy will have to go if we want to remove the bias. PRAKASH JHA, filmmaker
Source : http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Q0FQLzIwMDkvMDUvMjMjQXIwMzEwMQ==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom
No comments:
Post a Comment