Feminazis of india

Over 1 Lakh women have been illegally arrested since 2004 under section 498A. Ranjana Kumari is culpable for this abominable act as she has been opposing any amendment to this law.

She proposed the strengthening of this abominable law.

The data was compiled by the NCRB and is available online under the report titled crime in India.

Here is a compilation of the data collected by the NCRB: NCRB Data On Women Arrested Under 498A Since 2004

She has lived up to her name as a Feminazi of India.

The assets declared by Girija Vyas to the election commission in one file.

From the election commission site.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1923083,00120003.htm

Independent Vyas

So familiar | Kumkum Chadha

The Hindustan Times, February 8, 2007

Every morning, former minister and present Chairperson of the National
Commission for Women, Girija Vyas, pours herself two cups of tea: one in the
name of her mother and the other for herself. Even seven years since her
mother’s death, ‘Babli’ finds it difficult to sip tea on her own. So she
breaks into a soliloquy, pouring her heart out to her ‘omnipresent’ mother.

Vyas had wept over her mother’s body when she died. But earlier, in
Kilchipur village, Rajasthan, she was there when another loved one passed
away. Badi-bi, whose family had abandoned her because she refused to migrate
to Pakistan after Partition, lived by herself. She only drank water from the
well and Vyas often walked with her to fetch it. One night, Badi-bi ran out
of water. Her throat was parched. Seeing her state, Vyas walked to the well
and fetched water which Badi-bi drank to its last drop. Elated, Vyas felt
that she had “conquered the world”. She did not know when Badi-bi died. It
was only when Vyas’s mother came calling that a chill ran through her spine
she had slept all night next to a lifeless body.

Vyas’s mother Yamuna was a social worker in her own right. Even in the
conservative 1940s, she had taken up the cause of child-widows. Her father,
Srikrishna, was disowned by the family because he joined the freedom
movement. Hobnobbing with the British like most other successful businessmen
of those days, her grandfather banned his ‘wayward’ son from entering the
village. Vyas’s formative years were, consequently, a cross between politics
(courtesy her father) and social work (because of her mother).

In her mother’s imagination, young Girija was a “little nightingale” who
would grow up and heal wounds — study medicine and be a doctor. But Vyas had
other plans. She wanted to be a dancer. She was formally trained in Kathak
for 15 years as well as in classical music. Both, however, had to be
abandoned because of the dearth of good teachers willing to conduct classes
at home. Reluctantly, she settled down into academics, qualifying for the
administrative services which she did not join. “I valued my freedom and
wanted to be on my own,” she explains.

It was independence, more than anything else, that may be the reason for
Vyas to have remained single. She packed her bags and flew out of the
country when she sensed that marriage could be a reality. Abroad, she
researched the Gita and the Bible. One thing she is firm about not sharing
is her “loneliness” — her private space.

She has been writing poetry since she was three and she writes in three
languages, Hindi, Urdu and English. “I am not a big banyan tree/ I am a
less green bush/ The more you cut/ The more I grow.” These lines were
written after she was stripped of her portfolio as a minister.

Section 498a of Indian Penal Code has become the consummate embodiment of gross human rights violation, blackmail, extortion and corruption. What makes this section particularly amenable to all of the above is that it assumes the accused to be guilty until proven innocent. “Guilty until proven innocent” may appear on the surface to be not such a big deal, but it is the root cause of the intense corruption surrounding this section.  Enough analysis has been done on the abuses perpetrated under this section. The final nail in the portrayal of this abuse was driven when the apex court of our country, the Supreme Court, termed the abuse of Sec 498a as “Legal Terrorism”. Now, Section 498a has become synonymous with the term Legal Terrorism. 

However, not enough has been written about the perpetrators of this abuse and how civil society must deal with them. Although, you hear an occasional news article condemning the abuse, in most cases, the media has been selectively biased in reporting the truth about these abuses or the abusers. Journalistic ranks have been infiltrated by the radical feminist elements. They regurgitate the same platitudes, occasionally recycling the same old tired stories of victimhood of women in our society, to justify the continuance of such illegitimate legislation in our legal regime. Rarely do you see anyone questioning the motives or background of the abusers.

Now that we have enough number of cases in the public domain, can we use this evidence to draw some generic conclusions about these blackmailers? Who are these women who file 498a? What are their backgrounds? What is overarching truth about these abusers? How should the society deal with them? These are the questions that need some thinking and reflection. 

There are just two main classes into which most of these filers of 498a can be fitted into. 

• Adultery/Incest Category
• Extortion of money Category

 Adultery and Incest

Anecdotally, behind most 498a cases is a story of adultery or incest.  In almost all cases, the instigator for filing a 498a case is a male member, who is in some way, related to the woman filing 498a. 

Surprisingly, in majority of the cases, the male happens to be the husband of the sister of the woman (ie. the brother-in-law). If one digs deeper, there is a story of brother-in-law abusing his position to entice the gullible sister-in-law into a destructive and dependent relationship. When the wife’s sister gets married, the intensely jealous brother-in-law refuses to let go of her, often instigating her to blow up small differences into major family problems. At the right time, he connives with the rest of the family and instigates them to file a false 498a case, thus breaking her marriage and destroying the future of everyone concerned. In some extreme cases, the brother-in-law even fathered an illegitimate child. When the paternity fraud is discovered, they took shelter in a false 498a.

In yet other cases, as outrageous as it is, it is the brother, the father or a cousin that has incestuous relationship with the girl, who instigates the filing of 498a. The remaining cases involve an ex-boyfriend re-entering her life, resulting in adulterous rendezvous that invariably become exposed. When the adultery is exposed, 498a offers the only shield that can be wielded against her hapless husband at the tax-payers expense.

Extortion of money

Under this category, the women filing 498a are those who were never interested in matrimony. For these women, 498a is the get-rich-quick scheme of choice. They actively scout around in the matrimonial sites for their next bakra, preferably an NRI, induce him into matrimony and file a 498a within a few months of marriage. There are recorded cases of women repeating this trick three to four times and becoming instant millionaires in the process, finally marrying their boy friends and living happily ever after, while their hapless husbands continue fighting the corrupt criminal justice system of India.

Social Ostracism

So what can be done by the civil society to deal with these criminal families? Social Ostracism is the answer. 

498a legislation is essentially illegitimate and anti-social. However, the Government which is controlled by the radical feminist elements refuses to acknowledge the abuse of the system in the face of mountains of supporting evidence. Most media in India is corrupt and shows little regard for the societal suffering or injustice. Judiciary and police are either brainwashed or conditioned by means of tax-payer funded sensitization programs to wear blinkers that ignore the evil perpetrated by the feminine gender. All the so called “equality demanding feminists” refuse to acknowledge that equality implies women are as capable of evil as are men. If a man can commit murder, so can a woman and many women do. If a man can lie, so can a woman and many women do.

It was heartening to note in the recent Pooja Chauhan episode, where a deranged prostitute who filed a false 498a against her in-laws and paraded her naked body on the streets demanding arrest of her in-laws, the community elders rose to the defense of the accused. This should provide the model for combating the menace of 498a in every corner of India.

In every case of marital breakdown, the first question the society should ask is – has the woman’s family filed a 498a case? If the answer is yes, then close attention to that woman and her family must be paid by all the responsible members of the society. Sooner or later, the full story of incest, adultery or blackmail would become evident and then become public knowledge.

Conclusion

Next time, you find an alliance of a divorced woman, find out from whatever records you find, if the woman filed a 498a case. Let everyone at work, family and neighborhood know the truth about the filers of 498a cases. Time will not be far off when 498a becomes not only synonymous with Legal Terrorism, but also with Adultery, Incest and Blackmail.

Click the following link to read the article!

Architects of the Domestic Violence Act caught in a catfight

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Renuka-Chowdhury-misled-people/250610/

October 26, 2007 marked the first anniversary of the passage of the legislative abomination called PWDVA 2005 (Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act). On that day, a posse of dedicated volunteers from the rapidly growing Save Indian Family Foundation staged a protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, opposing the draconian provisions of this malicious piece of legislation.

Before the radical feminist propaganda machine rolls into high gear branding Save Indian Family as a misogynist, patriarchal, male chauvinist organization promoting violence against women, let me make it clear to all the readers – Save Indian Family foundation opposes all forms of domestic violence. SIFF is not opposed to legislation to protect a spouse from intimate partner violence. What SIFF is opposed to is the extremist legislation whose goals are more of fulfillment of radical feminist agendas rather than the true protection of vulnerable women. In the following paragraphs, I will illustrate how this legislative abomination called PWDVA, is more about establishing a radical feminist hegemony in Indian civil society than about protecting women from violence.

The period preceding the passing of this extremist legislation was characterized by the careful orchestration of a large scale propaganda, both in national and international media about the prevalence of domestic violence against women in India. The UN was co-opted to provide the cover of legitimacy to the radical feminists’ fictitious accounts. Some of the headlines read – “75% of Indian women subjected to Domestic Violence – UN Study”, implying a whopping 75% of the men in India are perpetrators of Domestic Violence. Many international media carried this headline, and not one sensible elder either from political parties or from the ranks of the government had the courage to condemn this fallacious propaganda or at the least challenge this study. The task eventually fell upon the volunteers of SIFF, who in coordination with other international men’s groups worked to set the record straight. The result was a retraction by the Washington Times.

Over the last one year, there were several criticisms heard from both the proponents and opponents of this draconian piece of legislation. Proponents claim the implementation is lax, not enough awareness exists about the provisions of the legislation and that the police and judiciary are not sensitized. On the other hand, the opponents claim that the law was badly drafted and it is difficult to implement it. Also, they claim there is ample scope for misuse of the provisions. One such erudite article was written by Sri R.K.Gauba and you can find the link here.

One rarely hears about any analysis of the sheer magnitude of male hating malice and callousness packed into this piece of legislation.  PWDVA was drafted intentionally to cause maximum amount of disruption and chaos in the society. The language in the act was intentionally left ambiguous, so the doors are left open for extortion and blackmail. I will elaborate on this further down. The passage of this legislation in our parliament is a reflection of the complete control the non-governmental radical feminist groups like lawyers collective, Council for Social Research have obtained over the legislative agenda and the legislative process of our country. In the following paragraphs, I intend to highlight some of the more insidious provisions of this law.

Definitional nightmare

One of the foundations of any sensible legal regime is, the predictability and reasonableness in interpretation. To that end, definitions must be made parsimoniously, so that as little room is left for guesswork or distorted interpretations. In a stroke of deliberate callousness, the authors of this legislation came up with definitions that would be a nightmare in any legal proceeding.

To illustrate - while defining the right to residence, they included the words “have lived at any point of time”.   There is no conception of when, where, how long, contained anywhere in the act. The second example is the definition of “aggrieved person”. Firstly, the aggrieved person can be only be a woman, and the one who is or has been in a domestic relationship. Taken together, these two definitions effectively leave the door open for any unscrupulous woman to implicate any man whom they have successfully induced into some sort of association.

Every word in the definition of the term Domestic Violence is dripping with male hatred of radical feminists. The authors of this legislation have given away unadulterated picture of their true agendas in this definition. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to go read for themselves the definition of Domestic Violence in this act. I just want to highlight one snippet here “any act, omission or commission or conduct”.

Wow! “Any act, omission, commission or conduct”!!! I challenge the morons who authored this idiotic definition, to show one grown up human being (either a man or a woman) in this world, who would not be guilty of having committed domestic violence as per this definition.  Given these open ended definitions; one can only surmise what were the true intentions of the authors of this legislation. Was it meant as a true protection from violence for a victimized, helpless woman; or as a weapon of blackmail in the hands of a marauding, vitriolic, supercilious, upwardly mobile, short tempered urban termagant?

Complete marginalization of male in a relationship

The most significant aspect of this whole act is – the systematic destruction of any semblance of the rights of men. Only a male can be accused under this law. Once accused under this law, there is nothing, let me repeat, literally nothing in this act that gives an accused male (the so called respondent) any chance of successful defense. All proceedings are summary – confiscation of his assets, dispossession of his rightful residence and summary penalties etc are all formalized.

Radical feminists like Indira Jaisingh would have you believe that the basis for DV act was respect for human rights of the individuals concerned in a domestic relationship. But you cannot confer rights on one section of the citizenry by removing the fundamental and human rights from another section of the citizenry. This is exactly what the DV act accomplishes.  

Lack of proportionality

One major, and perhaps very intentional, flaw in this legislation is the lack of proportionality. In every country in the world, partners in a relationship accumulate rights and responsibilities based on the duration of the relationship - the longer the duration, the higher the accumulation of such rights and responsibilities. Not so under PWDVA of India. Any woman who seduces a man into a day or two of relationship can claim Domestic violence if the man refuses to continue his relationship with the whore. She has same rights under this legislation as the wife of twenty years of a man.

Civil law charade

Another ostensible defense we hear from the proponents of this legislation is that this is a civil remedy. I want to roundly condemn this charade of civil remedy propagated by the feminist propaganda machine.

If you read through the legislation, the proceedings to obtain a protection order are summary and give not much opportunity to the male to either contradict or to have a defense in open court. Once all his defenses are robbed off, and a protection order is made, he is obliged to follow that order. Any violation, intentional or unintentional, is a cognizable and non-bailable criminal offense. This charade of ‘civil law’ is actually a mechanism to co-opt the state machinery in the blackmail scheme. Here is the subtle threat – pay up now, before I convert this into a criminal case.

With 498a, they did not have that opportunity. There was only chance – you file the complaint and hope for the best. The drafters of PWDVA have now rectified the “problem” with the 498a by legislating a so called “civil remedy”, which can be turned into a criminal offence at the convenience of the lady, for most effective extortion.

Intimidation of Judiciary

But for the existence of independent higher judiciary, one can only wonder where the radical feminists would have taken our polity to.   As the judiciary encounters more and more outrageous cases of exploitation like the “Batra vs Batra – 2006″ case, they have taken a balanced approach in interpreting the badly drafted laws to preserve harmony in the society while ensuring genuine victims receive justice. Supreme court judgment in Batra vs Batra 2006, is a great example how the courts are performing this balancing act. Let me quote from the above Supreme court judgment – “It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted”.

Many provisions in the “poorly drafted” DV Act do lead to absurdities. It is now befalling on the courts to give sensible interpretation to the most pernicious provisions in the act to forestall chaos in the society. Most litigation in our country is fought in open courts under an adversarial and rule based system we inherited from the English. Most courts pronounce judgments based on the facts of the case coupled with sound reasoning and sensible interpretation of legal provisions.  Judgments in the cases of DVAct or Dowry Prohibition act or 498a are no different.

When the apex court of our country made a criticism that the law was poorly drafted, it did not make a cavalier statement without basis in fact.  Instead of accepting the fact that the law was indeed poorly drafted, the likes of Indira Jaisingh and Brinda Karat have taken to acts of intimidation of the judiciary. Indira Jaisingh as penned two articles, one titled “Crying hoarse, not wolf”, and “Family against Woman”.   Line by line refutation of both of these inane rants can be done, but serves no purpose. Suffice it to say, both these articles were written with an oblique motive of influencing or intimidating the judiciary to tow the party line. This approach is not new to  Indira Jaisingh, who led several successive, but unsuccessful, attacks to smear the name of Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra.

The feminist collectives have very successfully and effectively rigged the political and legislative processes. However, they could not complete the process by subverting the judiciary as well. Not that they did not try, and to some extent, they may have even succeeded too. But, still one can expect (even an accused male) semblance of justice as he reaches higher echelons of the judiciary. We hope that higher echelons of judiciary will continue to uphold the principles of fair play, constitutional and fundamental rights even in the face of intimidation from corrupt and radical feminists. Any concerted attacks on the judiciary by the radical feminists must be vigorously opposed by all sections of the civil society.

Epilogue on Right to residence

Right to residence is one of the most ill-drafted and pernicious provisions in this act. The following modifications must be incorporated into the act immediately –

a)    The SC guidelines on Shared household as pronounced in Batra vs Batra must be formalized and incorporated into the act. Shared household cannot be the self acquired property of the parents of the male in a domestic relationship. Often, a couple invests a whole lifetime in acquiring s property so they can spend their twilight years in peace and harmony. An irate daughter-in-law in a strained relationship with her husband   should not be allowed to rob them of that.

b)     Joint family property – Often Indian joint families across multiple generations, both vertically and horizontally, tend to live in a joint family property which may consists of only three or four rooms. I was witness to many such families. If an unscrupulous woman is allowed a residence order in such a joint family property, it will result in the dispossession and displacement of multiple members of the joint family.  The needs of residence of an estranged wife or a live-in can surely be met without necessarily dispossessing countless others.

http://genderindian.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/03/rantings-of-senile-male-hater.htm

The Top Gun Indira Jaising has turned senile and the male hating nature which was never far from her surface has now exploded in full blood that she blabbers bordering on contempt of court in Hindustan Times.

Her View points can be summarized as

1. Dowry givers should be exempt from income tax scrutiny. High court of Delhi made a significant finding that those who make tall claims of dowry giving should be punished and their income tax should be checked. Dowry givers should be garlanded accordign to M/S Jaisingh

2. A Daughter in Law should be allowed to blackmail and demand her mother in laws stri-dhana . She has some problems with the judgment where in a elderly mother in law was granted relief from being made to face harassment from her daughter in law who was harassing her mother in law for her property in the name of domestic violence.

3. An important point of registering an Domestic violence law is that cause of action has to be proven before any adverse or protection judgment has to be given. She has drifted in such way that magistrates could ignore the required proof for cause of Action and make decisions on mare statement of complaint Indira Jaising wants decision on the mere testimonial of the complainant . This is no way to run or create a justice system

3. Exemption for women from prosecution for misusing the provision so the law. An NRI women demands property after receiving settlement from her husband after 7 years of divorce. Indira Jaising sees no absurdity in such claims .It is not justice that was being asked for but a clear misuse of provisions. It’s a shame that the judiciary did not move against this lady . Indira would have off course garlanded the women for innovative misuse of the justice

4. A Poor farmer does not commit suicide and instead request in-laws for money for manure. The wife commits sucide as result of poverty which her parents also does not help her Indira would rather have the farmer commit suicide. After all farmers commit suicide all the time after all men and farmers commit sucide all the time do not so why shouldn;t appasaheb be one more farmer commit suicide must her logic.

Now after wrecking the harmony in families she is turning her attention to wrecking the harmony in work places.

DV act ignored completely the voices of the husband with view to make men suffer in Renuka Chaudhary’s words who her self is a veteran of section 498a .

DV act was never made by any balanced person but with people “male hate ” in mind

Merely because you think that women may have suffered for centuries is no justification for banning freedom of speech for men . The DV act for all its stated loft purposes is just that and has no relation with any violence whatsoever.

Its implementation has left bad taste with CEOs, Chaiwala , dobhiwala being brought under the net and has only been misused with intention of property grabbing and money mongering.

A top gun Indira has turned senile and male hater. Her antics and thoughts would have been funny but for the tragic fact that she has the capacity to cause misery and sorrow and has friends in high place including many newspaper editors

No longer she speaks for Gender equality She has no qualms about

1. Inequal taxation
2. Inequal Violence laws
3. Inequal Adultery laws
4. Inequal Family laws
5. Misuse of laws and dragging of CEOs, HR heads etc in patently unsupported cases

Indira jaising feels hurt that the domestic violence law is called poorly drafted. Well Indira Jaising has misused the traditional sense of chivalry by most men to wreak havoc on decent men and their families because she has full fledged hatred for men in general and husbands in particular.
Male Hating and particular Husband Hating seems to be one constant

Her poorly drafted laws stand testimony to that

When it comes to the issue of men, the twice divorced Ms Jaising can be categorized as a radical feminist. Her views on equal rights for women actually tend to the extreme end of the spectrum. She is championing the tightening of section 498A of IPC, a draconian, often misused law, meant to protect women from dowry harassment. Under the provisions of this law, entire families are being arrested based on an accusation. Ms Jaising and her cohorts of like minded feminists prevent any kind of a meaningful discussion about the modifying this law to include safe guards. Each the judiciary acts to maintain balance, Ms Jaising comes out with an opinion piece bashing the decision of the judiciary. 498A is a law that has now morphed into an extortion racket, and is being being abused all over the country. Children have been arrested under this law. Ms Jaising, while posing as a champion of human rights subverts the fundamental rights of Indian men by classic tactics of bait and switch and the other tactic of let this law come into effect and we’ll modify it. Amendments are never made regardless of the extent of abuse.

Ms Jaising is also guilty of abetting  the 498A extortion racket. The most recent incidence of this was in the city of Kolkota, where a resident of Delhi was arrested and held in Kolkota and was released when her brother paid his estranged wife USD 100,000. The lady from Delhi was arrested and taken to Kolkota at behest of Ms Jaising. Ms Jaising, knowing what the lady faced at the hands of the Indian Police, filed a brief in the Delhi High Court to transfer the lady to the jurisdiction of the Kolkota police. The details of this case are given in this article [http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070307/asp/calcutta/story_7479952.asp].

Ms Jaising is now on a crusade to punish all Indian men and their families for what ever injustice, perceived or otherwise, she may have suffered in her personal life.

You can read about Section 498A Of IPC (Indian Penal Code) on the web.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1121518

Sibal, Renuka war over sex workers

Vineeta Pandey

Saturday, September 15, 2007  01:57 IST

Amendment to the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act is being reconsidered

NEW DELHI: You can depend on Renuka Chowdhury to pick up catfights with all men in general and with male colleagues in particular.

The argument she had with science and technology minister Kapil Sibal over the proposed amendment to the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act at last week’s cabinet meeting was so heated that the matter had to be referred to a group of ministers for “re-examination.”

The amendment, besides enhancing the punishment to those involved in trafficking of women, makes the client of a sex worker a criminal. Under the present law, while the women in the trade are punished for “seduction”, the men and all others involved virtually go scot-free. The amendment seeks to ensure the opposite. Portraying sex workers as “victims” instead of “offenders”, the amendment awards a jail term of up to seven years to the customers.

During the discussion on the proposed amendment, when Sibal expressed his reservations over punishing men for visiting a brothel, Chowdhury lost her cool.

While the tiff between Sibal and Chowdhury went on and on, health minister Anbumani Ramadoss and sports minister Mani Provoked further, Chowdhury kept vociferously arguing that the move is an attempt “to prevent the harassment of innocent girls who are forced into the flesh trade by traffickers.” Chowdhury asked: “If we don’t punish men, whom do we punish?”

Her proposed amendment seeks the removal of Section 8 (“seducing or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution”) under which sex workers are booked by the police. The penalty under this section is imprisonment between two to five years while the customers are let off. If the amendment is approved, sex workers will not be asked to vacate the property they reside in as they are told to do now.