Pubblicato in: India, Senza categoria

India. Ong, matrimoni e Corti di Giustizia.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.


Women whispering

In piazza c’erano ottantasette donne.

Un po’ poche per una nazione di 1,335 milioni di abitanti.

L’Occidente rende conto di poco meno di un sesto della popolazione mondiale e del 29% del sistema economico mondiale, se misurato nei termini del pil ppa.

La componente liberal rende conto di una quota ancora consistente, ma in declino, come dimostrano i risultati delle elezioni presidenziali e politiche americane.

Tuttavia questa componente urla a gran voce e pretenderebbe anche di essere ritenuta essere la “voce” dell’Occidente: cosa che non è.

Un caso da manuale è il suo atteggiamento nei confronti dell’India.

Ripassiamoci la situazione.

* * * * * * *

Why isn’t marital rape punishable under the Indian Penal Code?

«Social changes are slow to occur and especially slow in large countries like India. Until the 1970s, systems across the world – even in the developed world – had permitted Marital rape and criminalized homosexuality to various levels. Since then activists have fought on those fronts and have achieved great progress.

India is a couple of decades behind the curve as the discussions on those topics have not permeated the society beyond just a thin layer at the top. Discussions on a variety of other social topics – ranging from dowry to widow burning to untouchability – was a priority for our reformers for the most part.

Since the discussions have not happened and social understanding not yet developed, even the courts have been pretty slow to ensure progress. Indian Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the 150 year old sodomy/unnatural sex laws is just an example of how much behind such discussions are. The judges were unable to contemplate LGBT due to their unfamiliarity. Same happens in case of marital rape.

In summary, many of these laws got into the books world over at a time when women were not considered equal subjects. In the past couple of decades, west has moved away from many such laws. In India, the variety of existing social problems didn’t let the society focus on such changes enable all these changes in our law books. However, I believe it is just a matter of time as activists prepare the population to understand the issue. Awareness spread precedes legal victories.»


By not seeing marital rape as a crime, Supreme Court is doing a disservice to Indian women

«The systematic pushback against women’s rights and liberties in India is going great guns. After the tepid attempt by the Supreme Court to dilute the impact of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 498A, by ordering the constitution of “family welfare committees” to look into cases before charges can be pressed, we now have the infuriating and grossly anti-women observation by the apex court that “marital rape cannot be considered as a criminal act”.

The Supreme Court was really the last straw of hope for reforms in outdated approach towards marital rape after Parliament had hung up its boots, saying the country isn’t ready to accept marital rape as a crime. The Union minister of women and child development, Maneka Gandhi, made an infamous volte-face on the issue when she said last year that marital rape “cannot be applied in the Indian context”, because of factors including “level of education and illiteracy, poverty, social customs and religious beliefs”.

Marriage over marital rape

This, despite the 2015 hoopla around the WCD ministry trying in to bring in “comprehensive” legislation to criminalise marital rape, and bring the law at par with a number of European and Western democracies, where women enjoy equal rights within marriage.

For example, marital rape is a crime in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, France, Hungary and several other countries. The list of countries where marital rape isn’t a crime is hardly enviable, including Egypt, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Needless to point out that most thriving and healthy democracies have penalised marital rape, and only authoritarian or theocratic states still retain the right of the husband to have forced sex on the wife. That India is part of the latter club is a terrible shame.

However, Maneka Gandhi’s U-turn proved that her ministry had capitulated to the larger misogynist trend in the BJP-RSS government. Now, the Supreme Court’s observation drives a nail through the coffin of demanding that marital rape be criminalised.

The two-judge bench of Justices MB Lokur and Deepak Gupta has said: “Parliament has extensively debated the issue of marital rape and considered that it was not an offence of rape. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a criminal offence.”

Raping minor/wives isn’t rape

The apex court was responding to a petition by the NGO Independent Thought, drafted by lawyers including the noted Supreme Court advocate Gopal Subramaniam, who was a co-panellist on the Justice Verma Committee report that firmed up the anti-rape legislation in the wake of the December 16, 2012 gangrape and murder of Jyoti Singh in Delhi.

The petition wanted the court to intervene and read down Section 375 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, which is the clause in the rape law that makes the exception for a man to have sex with a girl aged 15-17 if she’s married to him. “Without any remuneration, we have submitted the report to the government and that too without any extension.

It was an exhaustive work,” Subramaniam said. Basically, Section 375 (2) of the IPC allows men to rape their minor wives, and because marital rape isn’t yet a crime in India, but raping a minor is a statutory offence, the institution of marriage gets precedence over the health and well being of a girl child, just because she has been married off well before the legal age of marriage and consent, 18.

The Centre vehemently defended Section 375 (2) of the IPC, and like the debates in Parliament earlier, it fell back on tradition. MoS Home, Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary, a BJP MP from Gujarat and the minister of state, home affairs, is on record saying:

“It is considered that the concept of marital rape, as understood internationally, cannot be suitably applied in the Indian context due to various factors, including level of education, illiteracy, poverty, myriad social customs and values, religious beliefs, mindset of the society to treat the marriage as a sacrament.”

However, Section 375 (2) of IPC is against the provision of anti-rape and anti-sex trafficking legislations, such as Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, because neither of the latter two legislations makes the distinction between married and unmarried minor girl children.

This is exactly the point that was highlighted by the petitioners, but it seems both the Centre and the Supreme Court, weren’t ready to pave the way for a paradigm shift in the understanding of marriage as an institution and in ensuring the rights of women as citizens, and not as biological determinants.»

* * * * * * *

Tratto caratteristico dei liberal democratici americani è l’ossessione per le perversioni sessuali, che patrocinano sia in sede legislativa sia soprattutto attraverso le ogn (ngo) appositamente istituite, che poi si arrogano la facoltà di parlare a nome della nazione intera.

Non a caso Cina, India e Russia hanno adottato leggi che regolano il rilascio dei permessi ad agire sui loro rispettivi territori. Con i paesi africani, ammontano a sei settimi della popolazione mondiale.

«The Russian president has signed into law a bill defining the term political activity of non-governmental organizations and allowing charity groups receiving funding from abroad not to register as foreign agents.

The new law lists political activity as participation in street rallies and marches and any activity aimed at influencing the result of an election or a referendum. The list also includes elections monitoring, participation in the work of political parties, public appeals to state agencies seeking changes in laws, circulating appraisals of existing laws or state policies and attempts to influence views on political issues through opinion polls.

The act also names the spheres where no activity can be recognized as political. These are culture, science, sport, fine arts, healthcare, environmental protection, volunteering and charity. “The definition of political activity must not be vague, it must not be expandable, and there must be only one way to understand it.» [Fonte]

Le ong in Occidente usualmente agiscono attraverso due consolidate vie:

– si fanno riconoscere dall’autorità civile, se amica, quindi si fanno finanziare con denaro pubblico, ed infine si fanno nominare come consulenti della amministrazione. Di lì possono svolgere il ruolo politico per il quale i loro finanziatori le hanno istituite.

– una volta legalmente riconosciute, le ong possono costituirsi in giudizio. Questa è la loro arma più efficiente, perché nessun giudice liberal rigetterebbe mai un loro ricorso.

Seguendo queste elementari direttive, le ong hanno governato per decenni l’Occidente ed hanno cercato, fortunatamente senza successo, di conquistare il mondo.


Il codice penale indiano è inequivocabilmente chiaro, ed il giudizio della Corte è stato sequenziale.

Secondo il diritto e la giurisprudenza indiana il rapporto matrimoniale è finalizzato alla procreazione ed al reciproco aiuto. Nel caso di impossibilità oggettiva al mantenimento dello stato matrimoniale, esiste un’apposita legislazione sul divorzio, ma fino a tanto che sussiste la convivenza, questa deve svolgersi in accordo alle regole matrimoniali.

Se l’Occidente volesse essere rispettato, dovrebbe iniziare a rispettare leggi e tradizioni degli altri popoli.



«Several women’s charities are contesting this and have launched a petition that is being heard at the Delhi High Court.

Campaigners have requested that marital rape is made illegal on the grounds that sexual violence violates human rights.

They argued that, in other countries, married women are still entitled to the full range of civil liberties and human rights and are not required to have sex at the will of their husband»

Alcune considerazioni brevissime, ma non per questo irrilevanti.

– Lo stato coniugale si fonda su di una libera rinuncia ad una parte della propria libertà per il bene comune della famiglia. Per esempio, il coniuge ritiene una sua libertà di agire economico, ma solo nei limiti nei quali soddisfa le necessità familiari. Lo stesso concetto vale per la disponibilità del proprio corpo.

– Il fatto che in alcuni paesi esteri all’India il principio su esposto non sia al momento più in vigore non implica automaticamente che esso debba essere abolito anche in India. Con lo stesso metro, gli Stati Uniti dovrebbero allora proibire le ong sul loro territorio.

– Infine una considerazione giuridica. Se tutti i codici e le giurisprudenze mondiali sono concordi nel ritenere la violenza sessuale un reato, tutti altrettanto concordi esigono che debbano esistere serie ed inequivocabili prove a supporto della denuncia per arrivare a condanna. Solo in taluni stati degli Stati Uniti delle Corti di Giustizia con giudici liberal sono arrivati a condanna assumendo fosse vera la denuncia sporta dalla femmina, ancorché non dimostrata: ma tale prassi giudiziaria è da condannarsi. Gli Indiani sono troppo civili per condannare qualcuno senza prove.

Evening Standard. 2017-09-02. Indian government attempts to block plea to criminalise marital rape because it ‘puts husbands at risk of harassment’

The Indian Government has tried to block a petition in High Court to criminalise marital rape because it says it could put husbands at risk of “harassment”.


Indian penal law currently stipulates that sexual intercourse with a wife over the age of 15 cannot be classed as rape.

Several women’s charities are contesting this and have launched a petition that is being heard at the Delhi High Court.

Campaigners have requested that marital rape is made illegal on the grounds that sexual violence violates human rights.

They argued that, in other countries, married women are still entitled to the full range of civil liberties and human rights and are not required to have sex at the will of their husband.

According to the Times of India, Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code has the exception clause sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape”. 

Judges hearing the case asked the Government to detail its stance on the issue.

In their submission, the Government lawyers said: “What may appear to be marital rape to an individual wife, it may not appear so to others. 

“As to what constitutes marital rape and what would constitute marital non-rape needs to be defined precisely before a view on its criminalisation is taken.”

The submission goes on to say that, by criminalising marital rape, it could encourage it to “become a phenomenon which may destabilize the institution of marriage” and be “an easy tool for harassing the husbands”. 

They added: “That the fact that other countries, mostly western, have criminalised marital rape does not necessarily mean India should also follow them blindly.”

The petition has also been opposed by several men’s welfare charities who said it could lead to husbands being victimised.


Un pensiero riguardo “India. Ong, matrimoni e Corti di Giustizia.

I commenti sono chiusi.