 Today is International Day of Women and 2021 and 2020 were not exactly easy years for women. We have with us a very special guest to speak about this day, Kirti Singh, she's a well-known advocate. She also fights for women, she's an activist and she is going to tell us, Kirti, welcome to the show. Thank you. What was the last year like for women? Was it different from the last year when we marked International Day of Women? Was the environment very different for women then? Not very different, but last year also was a dark period in the history of women's movement. There were several cases that didn't happen, some in which there were negative interpretations of the law. There were certain comments from courts and a couple of cases in which we saw a ray of hope perhaps. When we talk about comments, this very month we had the Chief Justice of India make a comment related to a rape survivor where he asked the perpetrator, the alleged perpetrator was asked whether he would like to marry the woman. Now the man said that he is already married. So in a sense the court was it's ready to set up a precedent saying that, okay, this is a solution I come up with. What do you make of this remark? You know, there have been quite a few cases now in which the court has asked the couple to marry after a rape has taken place. And the primary objection of women's groups and of AIDWA, which I have been aligned with, has been that this should never be done. In this particular case that Chief Justice said, if you've seduced and raped this woman, why shouldn't you marry her? Seduction is of course implies consent of a kind. But rape a woman. First of all, we felt that a man should not be asked that because the woman hadn't said that she wanted to marry him. If you know that we have patriarchal norms which flourish in our society. So if the mother had agreed to get the parties married, it's because she felt she had to save the honour of the girl and the family, which is quite wrong. I mean, honour is not saved by this kind of alliance. And the bottom line that women's organisation wanted to say was how can you marry a girl to a person who has brutalised her to a person who has actually committed rape on her. And in this particular case, it was quite a horrible story. The man had committed rape on her 10, 12 times in a clandestine manner. He had tied her down. He had threatened her that he might throw acid on her. And the girl had tried to commit suicide after that. And the girl didn't want to marry this person at all. And once you say that, you know, why don't you get married? What you're doing actually is actually you don't realise what happens on the woman's body. You don't think of the woman's perspective. You don't sort of minimise the fact that a violent, particularly violent act has taken place without the girl's consent. And that it's not acceptable for her to then be with the person who has committed this violent act. So whether the family wants it or not, whether anybody else wants it or not, we feel, women's groups feel that marriage should never be offered as a solution because it is not a solution. You know, even if you look at one of the states where you get a lot of bad news about women recurrently is with the Pradesh. Many people have seen the recent laws related to love jihad as an attempt to control women. Do you agree? And how do these law works? The courts have given, you know, in UP itself, the courts have tried to sort of control the real effect of these laws. What is really going on? Why are we having these sudden love jihad issues? Yes. So first, I just want to complete the first point, because another statement or another rhetorical question, whatever it is, that was raised in the Chief Justice's Court was, you know, can a brutality ever amount to rape if the parties are married? So I mean, women's groups and others have been fighting for a change of law to do, you know, recognize marital rape. And this has been going on for years and we think it's unacceptable, even in intimate relationships for, you know, this to happen for violence to take place. So what is unacceptable to the women's groups is perhaps acceptable in certain to certain people, which is sort of patriarchal thinking part of our society. As far as the UP law is concerned, it's a draconian legislation, and it violates both the freedom to freedom of choice, which is a part of a fundamental freedom flowing from article 21, and it violates the freedom to convert. And it is a draconian measure, because after the Elhabat case, in which the court actually wrongly refused to protect a young couple who had, who were being hounded by the girl's parents, the court said, No, we are not inclined to protect them because the girl had got converted just a month before, and therefore we will not protect them, which, which is amazing because as surely the constitution allows for protection in a situation in which there is violence, in which a situation in which the girl's side is hounding the girl and boy. But the Yogi Adityanath government said that they, there are too many cases of love jihad that are happening and we are going to see that he threatened that this does not happen again. In fact, he said they will be forced to say nam nam satya and brought in this legislation, which is quite atrocious, which is quite unconstitutional, and I do hope that the, you know, that the courts will declare it to be so. And currently it is being challenged in the Elhabat High Court and the High Court has protected a couple who has appeared before it. But apart from that, what does this particular ordinance actually sees that conversion itself is wrong. You know, that it sees that if somebody coerces, if a third party coerces another or, you know, it's a very wide draft section because it says coercion and other things, and then it says all by marriage converts another. And it says anybody who facilitates that will also be punished. So wide range of people can be punished under it and even gifting a person something can be a problem, as far as the definition is concerned. So that's a facilitation also. Then, apart from that, it puts the owners of proof on the person who has, who is alleged to have converted another person. As a result, what is happening is that you don't have to prove that you're innocent. It is not presumed that you're innocent as it ordinarily is in law. It is presumed that you're guilty till you establish innocence, which is why the police have gone on a rampage in UP. You know, the Hindu reported that as of 16th of January, there are 54 of some such number of people who have been arrested under the ordinance and, you know, sections of the political right like Bajramda, for instance, are busy targeting Muslim boys, overwhelming number of people who have been arrested are of course Muslims and their Muslim boys and their families. So let us be clear who this ordinance was targeting, it was people who the UP government claimed was indulging in love which is a completely fictional thing, in which the government alleges that Muslim boys are marrying Hindu girls to convert them to Islam. This, I mean, and it's been brought up in court again and again and the courts have, in fact, asked NIA in the, Hadiya KC, NIA investigated and nowhere has it been found that there is a conspiracy to do this. But yet, UP government insists the Madhya Pradesh government is following suit and the other BJP state governments are also following suit, you know, and we have this whole phenomenon which is non-existence being justified and young people who dare to fall in love, not being allowed to get together and choose despite being the right to choose a fundamental right, as I said. And this has been announced in the privacy judgment, for instance, Puttu Swami's judgment, in which it was clearly stated, and I would like to quote that, but apart from the Puttu Swami judgment also, this was, you know, held in the Hadiya case. So, it was in Puttu Swami's judgment, for instance, the court had interpreted Article 21 as an article which gave all persons the right to privacy and choice and observed, and I quote, privacy enables the individual to retain the autonomy of his body and mind and entitles an individual to mental and physical integrity and to freedom of thought and self-determination. In the Hadiya case also, the Supreme Court had laid stress on the right to choice as a constitutional and human right, the containment of which would destroy the individualistic entity of a person. And these judgments were again quoted in the Lava judgment, which said that the right to live with a person of his or her choice irrespective of religion professed by them is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty. Interference in a personal liberty or relationship would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals. Now, in spite of that, we have this draconian ordinance and one of the sections of this ordinance, which I would like to mention is Section 6, which says that before you convert, you have to give a declaration of it. You know, two months before you convert to the magistrate and the magistrate will then launch, you know, investigation through the police and the police will find out what the real intentions of the couple are. I mean, imagine the situation and you can imagine what the consequences will be because now they have the power to go into your mind to decide whether you are, you know, converting or not of your own free will and what are the reasons and whether there has been an allurement for your conversion or not. Yes, and it is also a way to control women, right, not just the Muslim men who metalize. It is a way to control women and their body and not allow them any choice over themselves. So it attacks women at, you know, very fundamental level. At a very, very fundamental level. You know, there was also a very gruesome incident in Uttar Pradesh, which was talked about a lot, which is the heartless gang rape incident. Now, you know, compare it with the love jihad law, which says that converting a Dalit woman would involve a very high punishment, a higher degree of penalty. But when it comes to the dignity of Dalit woman, otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any interest. Yes. So, you know, what is this? Yes, in fact, obviously in Hathras, the UP's Thakur's reign. And in fact, it was the, you know, it was the rape of a Dalit girl by a member of the Thakur clan. And yet we see all kind, I mean, all kinds of inefficient or deliberately inefficient handling by the police in this case. In this case, we see how the administration and the police and the hospital authorities can all connive and not allow justice to take a prevail. Because in the first instance, though the girl, she in fact said it to a India Today journalist, you know, and that was that video was widely shown. Though the girl said that had been Zabadasti with her and rape, there was no medical examination carried out. The medical examination was carried out to eat days after the incident and the girl clearly again said that Zabadasti had been done with her and rape had taken place. And lo and behold, her forensic samples are sent for finding semen after 10 days of the rape. By that time she had been washed her clothes had been clean. There was no hope that any semen would be found in her body. The doctor when he was asked on physical examination, what she found, he said, there had been force but I can't give a final opinion about, you know, rape, as I'm waiting for the forensic reports. How could a medical doctor say that? How can he say that? I mean he knows that no semen will be found. And then the ADJ of Hathras pronounces that there's no rape has taken place because no semen is found. Right. So I mean, these kind of horrendous things happen here. And then the Mahapan child, there's a Mahapan child of the, you know, tacos in Hathras claiming that no rape has taken place and our boy is being falsely. You know, targeted. And, you know, thank God, the, there's a Delhi High Court Lawyers, Women Lawyers Association, which filed a PIL in the Supreme Court in this case. And they got some significant orders because the order that they got was one, that the girl's family will be protected by the CRPF. Two, that the Elabad High Court will monitor the case, you see, and that was very significant. And of course, by that time the girls lawyer also appeared then she said she would ask for transfer of the case to Delhi at a later stage, of course. I hope she does. But this is where the case lies. The girl, you know, actually had made what is called a dying declaration in law. And that dying declaration has a sanctity in law. And she had said that she had been raped. She had named the people who had raped her. So it was all dead. And I hope the courts consider it as a as a dying declaration because it was after that she died for thing and you know the manner in which her burial took place. I mean her cremation took place in a very surreptitious manner by the new people. So, this was a lesson that the case was a lesson to us. And what is it. And prior to that, of course, we've seen what happened. There was a case, there was the now case. And then also after the cut our case, the movie government came out with the law with sort of punish, which was supposed to be punishing rapists. What did they do? They introduced the death penalty in the law of rape against the trend in a number of, you know, quite a few countries across the world. And against what human rights activists and also been arguing in India, that death penalty shouldn't be given for rape. But anyway, and that presumes that every rapist will be caught. The truth of the matter here is that when investigation is not done properly, when you're the police when they don't have enough forensic labs when you know that the police are watching up the investigation as they are in several cases. Then I mean the certainty of conviction is something that we must try to assure the rather than the, you know, the gravity of punishment because punishment by killing would some people said it would result in rapists killing off their killing of young children. Some said the complaints won't be coming out complaints won't come because if the if the person who's the rapist is somebody known to the family or close them then it won't be coming out. So, it's interesting that conservative governments keep on increasing the punishment and saying that this will be the solution to the problem whereas it isn't. It is as we have clearly discussed it is the manner in which the investigation is done. The kind of investigation that it's done the tools that I'm available to the investigative authority that will determine the outcome of the case and determine whether a person will be found guilty or not. Now, now if you move from the village back to the city, Bangalore had the Shah Ravi was arrested from Bangalore and whisked away. And then, you know, we did see that, you know, she was given a rather long custody with the police and then then the court did allow her out on bail. Why, why do you think, you know, this this is it relevant that she's a woman in this particular matter. During the last year, there have been several women who have been incarcerated for participating participating in in various struggles. And, of course, these include the Shah Ravi these include Nordic court, the Wangana, Galata Natasha Narwhal, Bullfisha Fatima Isra Jahan, Safoora Zagar, and so on. These women have been participating equally in all these, you know that the anti CA protests for for instance were lastly led by women with others participate. But these these women have been in the forefront of struggles and we are proud of that. And, of course, when you look at the Shah Ravi's case. She is doing here again in that she was whisked to Delhi on the weekend, without a transit bail being got, which the Delhi High Court has said is necessary. In a case, then she was produced here, her lawyer wasn't here. I mean lawyer wasn't present in court. So, Magistrate mindlessly sent her back and sent her demanded her to, you know, police custody. And, you know, this is a problem in our country, because as justice Deepak Gupta the others of the, you know, the ex justice of the Supreme Court. The Magistrates don't apply their mind as they are supposed to, before demanding a person to police or judicial custody. They don't read the files even they are scared in perhaps doing so. Without application of mind, they fail in their constitutional duty to demand or not to demand perhaps a person like the Shah Ravi should not have been demanded. And an ADJ quite rightly held after that, you know, that amendment of a toolkit is not a crime. It's it can't be labeled a major crime. And he doesn't see any seditious intent in it. So, and the freedom of expression is a right that all Indians have. And if you, whether you're talking to people in foreign countries or in India, it doesn't really matter. You're not, you're a toolkit is meant to expand agitation and surely to agitate is not a crime. And it's good that the judge said that in this particular case, and talk of the freedom of expression, because the freedom of expression is being quite gutted in our country, the meaning of a democracy is that people are able to speak their mind. And yet we see in case after case, legislations like, you know, the UAPA being used, and sections like the sedition section in the IPC being used just to keep these people in jail and see that they are not given bail for a long time because under the UAPA, you can do that. It has a loose definition of terrorism, and a regular bail is something not given for 180 days. You know, the thing is that we often talk about the chilling effect of application of very stringent laws. Do you think women are going to stop protesting, there'll be fewer and fewer voices. After eight days of incarceration, and you know, as I said, the ADJ had made positive remarks about the freedom of expression but oh yes, there is the chilling effect. There's a chilling effect, people are scared to speak. People are scared to go to jail for God knows how many days. I mean, in Safura's case, Bail was actually given to her on humanitarian grounds, on very stringent conditions, but others like Natasha, Vivaangana, they remain in jail, you know, and they are not given jail because there are multiple FIAs filed against them. And the people outside can see, the public can see what is, how vindictive action is being taken against these, I would say innocent young people who are just daring to raise their voice and disagree with the government, and who are exercising their freedom of expression, which is their basic right. So, but these actions of the government do have a completely chilling effect and people are scared to speak their mind and that is what I think the government is hoping for, that people will not express themselves. People will not say anything against them because any time anybody speaks, they are called anti-nationals, they are called unpatriotic and, you know, a barrage of people. What is the way out? There has to be a solution if, you know, do you see that people will just do nothing about it, women have come out in the largest numbers we've ever seen since Shaheen Bagh, you know, is more protest going to be an answer to the chilling effect of the law? Yes, we have to keep on struggling. We have no option. Our backs are against the wall. Unless women keep on struggling, they will not achieve anything. And they have to keep on fighting. And perhaps they will, it's sad to think what is going to happen to some of them. But I think they have no options. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. A very bleak picture, but nevertheless, that's how it is. Well, cases like Priyaramani's case, you give us a ray of hope, though he used Hindu mythology, and many don't agree with that, but he let, I mean, he had, he saw that the story that Priyaramani's story was credible. He appreciated the evidence, and he, you know, squashed the case of defamation by M.J. Alpert, which was an intimidatory tactic. It was a technique tactic to stop again women from saying that. And yet, so many women in that particular case gave their affidavits also. That's right. Yeah. That they had been sexually harassed by the, by the, you know, but as far as this. Oh, yes. No, I just wanted to make one remark. I said, yes, how our society tries to control women and how they try to control their choice. And the other day we saw that a father had cut off the head of his daughter, who had actually tried to, who tried to be with somebody of our choice. And he was looking down the head to look at our society, look at the kind of awareness that we need in our society. And the kind of patriotic and misogynist views that exist, apart from in certain educated circles that we know. I mean, so I think we have a long way to go.