If you are passionate about teaching, then Hackberry offers you franchise opportunities to turn this passion into your profession. Fill out the form now!
Does the National Commission For Women (NCW) really matter? How are its members selected and what is their record on women's rights?
Who is Alka Lamba, apart from the fact that as a member of the team sent by the National Commission for Women to Guwahati she put her foot in her mouth by naming the victim of the infamous molestation?
The name kept ringing a bell till I remembered that she was the president of the Delhi University Student’s Union in the mid 1990s, and is now an active member cum office bearer of the Indian National Congress. Her other claim to fame is that she runs an NGO called the Go India Foundation (GIF), which calls her a “Figure of justice, perseverance, and love for his (sic) people.”
Rather than apologizing for her faux pas, this NGO, on behalf of their figure of justice, put up this message on the Web,
“…who knows, what’s a bigger national shame for us to put our heads down; public molestation of the victim or naming the victim. What an irony, a public molestation, in Guwahati that is seen by hundreds and on TV viewed by millions worldwide. Shakespeare needs to sanitise and dust our collective consciousness and ask again, “what’s in a name…” (If you can decipher this, let me know, though I do get the gist)
Perhaps the current members of the NCW are a shade better; but who are they? The chairperson, Mamta Sharma, according to the NCW website, has an “illustrious political background”, meaning that she is a member and office bearer of the Indian National Congress. The website also carries in bold letters a list of countries she has visited!
Three other members, Wansuk Syiem, Shamina Shafiq and Nirmala Samant Prabhavalkar are also directly and strongly linked to the Congress. Sift through the mumbo jumbo on the website and you’ll know what I mean.
The two other members, Hemlata Kheria and Charu Wali Khanna seem apolitical, with the latter having excellent credentials (but I wonder if she has any say, knowing the NCW as I do).
A body so strongly political cannot really be expected to understand the nuances of crime against women. I would have expected a body of professionals who are sensitive, sensitized and aware.
(I must add here that the post of the Secretary, NCW (the administrative head of NCW) is lying vacant now, as it has for much of NCW’s history. This post is manned by IAS officers, who do not find it ‘important’ or ‘lucrative’ enough. They manage to avoid this posting because postings of IAS officers mainly depend on other IAS officers. It’s not for nothing that the IAS is called the strongest trade union in the country!)
And what does the NCW do? Nothing, really, where victims such as the one in Guwahati are concerned. Its mandate is limited mainly to advising, recommending and reviewing. According to the NCW itself, it “reviews the constitutional safeguards for women; recommends remedial legislative measures; facilitates redressal of grievances; and advises the government on all policy matters affecting women.”
I had, in my earlier post, ‘Tick Mark The Correct Answer’ recounted my first hand experience of the NCW; and now I find how correct I was in my assessment. They are a bunch of clueless people strutting about in their own importance and ignorance, or else they would not have recommended CCTVs inside pubs and posting policewomen outside them. If I follow their logic, we will soon have CCTVs across the country and policewomen in every nook and corner.
They, in their ignorance, have also recommended action against the bystanders- people who were watching the Guwahati horror without raising one miserable finger to help the victim. May I ask them under what law? Abetment of an offence is a crime, but sadly, watching one being committed isn’t, at least in our country. More surprisingly, the NCW has not once commented on the fact that all the sections of the Indian Penal Code under which the Guwahati molesters have been booked are bailable, and carry almost nil punishment compared to the horror of the offence.
One last thing and digressing a bit, why can’t the Indian Penal Code have a separate chapter on offences against women, in which all action against offenders would be cognizable and non-bailable, and carry a minimum jail sentence of at least ten years, and the maximum of death by hanging? How about the NCW recommending that?
Pic credit: Gastev (Used under a Creative Commons license)
I am a former bureaucrat, and have worked a lot on gender issues, disaster management and good governance. I am also the proud father of two lovely daughters. read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, indivisual posts do not necessarily represent the platofrom's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
Before expecting the daughter in law to love, respect and accept the new family, it is only fair that the family demonstrates all of these first.
If you are a married Indian woman, one of the first words you hear from your in laws is that you are now a daughter of the house. How true is that statement though? Are daughters in law really treated as daughters or is this only lip service?
A friend recently confided how hurt she felt when she wanted to visit her in-laws along with her husband but was told not to, because the in-laws wanted time alone with their son. Naturally, she was taken aback since she had always been fed this trope – that she was the daughter, not the daughter in law. Why then this sudden keeping at arm’s distance? Would a son in law ever be told not to accompany his wife on her visit to her parents because they wanted quality time with their daughter? That is unimaginable in a patriarchal society.
It is ok to want time alone with the married offspring but how does that meld into the Indian family system, where independent choices are less important than the whole family coming together?
Beauty is a very clever, very evil capitalist tool. It traps those who have it into hanging on to it for dear life and those who don't into mutilating, torturing themselves to achieve the unachievable.
I recently wrote a piece about MP Shashi Tharoor’s tweet in which he had shared a pic with six women parliamentarians tagging them and saying “Who says the Lok Sabha isn’t an attractive place to work?”
There was a rash of comments on the post shared on Instagram, which ranged from “chill, it’s just a compliment” and “stop overthinking compliments”, to (worried) men lamenting about “these feminazi”.
Here’s my answer to all those comments.
Women have every right to be out in any public space in the world, whether in Bengaluru or any other city.
Women are molested in public in Bengaluru, in mass. Bengaluru’s posh Brigade Street earns the shameful moniker as the ‘Grope Street’ for the largest numbers of groping per square foot. Supposed legislators of the country make more shameful statements that make you wonder if he lives in India or in Taliban country.
But that’s not all. A glance at the comments below the YouTube videos covering this legislator’s statements or news articles covering the New Year’s Eve incidents reveals that some people – both men and women – are stating similar things as that legislator. “If women go out at night, what else do they expect”, “Why do they wear western clothes and invite attention?” “If they drink and go out at night, aren’t they only asking for it!”
Blaming the victim in cases of molestation and sexual assault makes us feel smug, but is only paving the way for the next victim to be assaulted.
And it happened again. It wasn’t unexpected, was not at all shocking, was neither a surprise nor something that makes the mouth hang wide open. All it did was add to the feeling of disgust, contempt and loathing that is already present in the minds and hearts of a large number of people.
Recently, Gauhar Khan was slapped while hosting a reality TV show. The man in question first tried to touch her inappropriately and failing to do so, slapped the actress stating that a woman of her faith should not be wearing such revealing outfits.