It is unfortunate that the ordinance has made sexual offences gender-neutral and not considered the question of forced sexual aggression against women
It is unfortunate that the ordinance has made sexual offences gender-neutral and not considered the question of forced sexual aggression against women
When the Budget Session of Parliament is less than three weeks away, there was no pressing reason for the government to bring an ordinance on new laws concerning crimes against women, especially rape, which became the battle-cry of the country in the wake of the December 16 Delhi gangrape case.
An ordinance is to be invoked as an emergency measure between sessions of Parliament when delaying a law is untenable. In this case, it is not clear what the hurry was. Indeed, it can be argued that the national debate on the recommendations of the Justice J.S. Verma Commission, which addressed the question of crimes against women after the Delhi incident, has only just begun.
Since the government was seen as less than responsive in the initial stages of the public protests following the December 16 crime, with the introduction of the ordinance it may wish to give the impression that it does not lack in sensitivity. But looking at the hasty, patch-up job the ordinance seems to be, it is likely to leave many
dissatisfied.
One possible reason for the ordinance may be that the government wishes to rush through the trial of the six accused in the Delhi case before Parliament sits, and ensure that punishments envisaged in the ordinance are applied. But questions have lately been raised about laws taking effect retrospectively. Of course, if the accused face stiffer punishments than people expect, the government’s move may go down well.
Regardless of the issue of the desirability of the ordinance, the rejection by the Union Cabinet of some important suggestions of the Verma panel gives the impression of bleakness in official thinking.
It is unfortunate that the ordinance has made sexual offences gender-neutral and not considered the specific question of forced sexual aggression against women, which is the real issue before society. The Verma panel had specifically warned against this. The government will also justifiably draw sharp criticism for not agreeing to try the security forces accused of rape in areas under AFSPA.
The ordinance skips the conceptual question of marital rape altogether, implying that the consent for sexual intercourse is to be assumed in a marriage. This has been the traditional belief, but the contemporary discourse, in which individual rights are placed higher than under tradition and gender equality is a goal with no less validity than caste or class equality, quite appropriately seeks a new threshold. We hope Parliament will not fail to debate the point.
