By Patricia Mukhim
Confusion over rape and consensual sex
It is confusing enough that we have two women-headed NGOs with similar acronyms separated by a bracket saying (I) and (K). It does not auger well for society when the honchos of two women’s organisations are at each other’s throats. But what’s worse it that the two seem to also undercut each other on important societal issues. So while CSWO (K) is on the side of a rape victim and is moving the heavens to book the self-confessed rapist, the CSWO (I) is sharing a platform with the accused while he is trying to convince all of us through the media that he had ‘consensual sex’ with an innocent, young girl who is barely in her teens. Does the turf war between the two factions of the CSWO have to be so bitter that they must take sides even on a matter that is, by all accounts, not worth quarrelling about since it involves the dignity and honour of this young girl? I do not want to pass any comment on the other women’s organisation from Mynso since we do not even know what they stand for.
Consensual sex as the name suggests means sex between two consenting adults. A fourteen year old girl is no adult. She is hardly in a position to take decisions about her own body. Some girls have not even reached the age of puberty at fourteen. While it is true that in Khasi society we have teenage pregnancies galore, that’s a matter that’s taken very lightly and which is the reason for high maternal and child mortality but which we seem to be evading ostrich like. One wonders if in Meghalaya we are aware of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (2006) which lays emphasis on the prohibition of child marriages by providing for the appointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers by the State Government and empowers these officers to prevent and prosecute solemnization of child marriages and to create awareness on the issue. The Act also gives the District Magistrate powers to stop and prevent solemnization of mass child marriages by employing appropriate measures and minimum police force apart from giving him all the powers of the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer.
In Meghalaya we have cohabitation and we may say that its customary. But custom that is no less than child abuse ought to be jettisoned and the Government ought to take such liaisons more seriously.
The Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Crl) No. 81/2006 had requested the Law Commission to state the different ages at which a person is defined as a child in different laws. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, however, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 was enacted giving certain important rights to victims of child marriage and children born from these marriages. The Commission took these changes into account and further examined whether the new Act addressed all the concerns relating to child abuse, health and human rights, which are an inevitable consequence of child marriage. Thereafter, the Commission forwarded its suggestions to the Supreme Court in December, 2007. The Writ Petition further states that though the Indian Penal Code contains no definition of the word “child”, the age of consent for the girl for sexual intercourse is 16, under Section 375 IPC.
The Petition therefore recommends that there should be a uniform definition of child in all legislations for the sake of uniformity and for the sake of protecting children against child abuse. It argues that the legal minimum age for marriage is 18 under a number of ratified international agreements and the laws of many countries. It argues that all marriages under the age of 18 should be void. It further prays that the Union of India should be directed to amend the laws relating to age of marriage and minimum age of giving sexual consent so that both are in conformity with each other. The petition prays for deletion of the explanation under Section 375 IPC under which marital rape is not considered rape unless the wife is under 15 years of age. Amongst the reasons given for declaring marriages under the age of 18 void is the reason that child marriage is usually forced marriage and no full and informed consent can be given by a person under 18. Child marriage is also stated to be akin to child abuse and for many girls is the beginning of frequent and unprotected sexual activity which can have serious health consequences like anemia, maternal mortality, infant mortality, and result in certain diseases like HIV/AIDS.
The Petition points out that young girls are more prone to domestic violence and have limited social networks. The rights of young girls like the right to education and the right to an all-round development are violated by child marriage. So having read all this, is Irene Hujon still convinced by the accused Small Phawa that he is “not guilty?” What was Irene thinking when she decided to take the side of this man versus the girl whose innocence he violated? We are not just women but mothers as well and one would have thought that at such moments we would be thinking of our own young daughters and the daughters in our neighbourhood and how vulnerable they are in a world where ‘rape’ has become commonplace. Sadly the Khasis do not even have a better, more descriptive language to define this despicable assertion of power by a man over a woman. The word is ‘bat bor’ (to hold by force). It does not even give a hint of what it means to a woman to be violated and defiled against her will and to be helpless to prevent it. Only a rape victim can adequately characterise this inhuman act but even she cringes with a million emotions as her body and soul tries to push back the unpleasant memories.
As a woman, I would at any time rather stand with and for the rape victim because no woman, and a child at that, would want dare to announce she is raped unless she had been raped. Period. Why would we women come to the aid of a rapist unless we have lost our senses? An organisation that has lost its moorings has no right to lead other women down the road to hell. For now I shall leave this matter at that!
Confusion over ‘Wife’ and ‘Special Assistant’
Journalists are a species who usually have no time to pore over boring documents to find out exactly what the entitlements of MLAs, Ministers, Speakers et al are. But like they say the devil is in the details. That’s the task of secretaries and clerks. In India and elsewhere too wives play multiple roles. Many are unpaid ‘special assistants’ to their husbands who never know where they have kept their underwear and socks and who have to be served at the table because they have never learnt to even make a cup of tea. One can also understand why most men, except the adventurous variety who prefer to be footloose in foreign soil, would want their wives along whether as formal ‘special assistants’ or otherwise. It’s too much of a hassle finding things and I think in the end that’s what most wives allow themselves to become – smart little domestic secretaries putting things together for their ‘oh so important husbands.’ But should the wife cum special assistant now demand an official pay packet for an evidently domestic role, unless she is the stenographer taking down notes, putting together a speech for her husband and helping him to tie up loose official ends? In that case there would be no need for the worthies to take along their ‘private secretaries,’ would there? It’s a pretty confusing situation when a wife suddenly also becomes the differently defined ‘special assistant.’ Perhaps now we would like the Assembly to define what those ‘special roles of assistance are.’ No wonder male politicians make a good catch. And after the series of news reports that have appeared about the special roles of wives also being part of the official pay and perks, they would become even more attractive. What about a woman MLA/Minister/Speaker? Can her husband/friend/playmate also travel along as “special assistant?” This is one reason I am tempted to join politics and contest the next elections.