#
What is India's population? If you Google it, the number you will get is just over 1.3
#
billion people. But is that the real number? Think of it this way, almost half of that
#
number is women. And in our country, women are treated as second class citizens. In most
#
of India, it's understood that a woman's destiny is to one day get married and raise
#
a family. The education of women, the education of girls rather, or their skilling is not
#
given enough importance. And if they do ever end up getting into the workforce, they are
#
already at a huge disadvantage. Simply put, half the productive resources of our country
#
are not treated as productive resources at all. In fact, all our citizens are condescended
#
to and restrained by a parasitic my-bab government and whatever we achieve as a society is in
#
spite of the state. But leave that aside for the moment. My point is that because of the
#
way we treat our women, we are functioning at any given point in time at just half our
#
capacity at best. And this is not just a function of our cultural norms. This is embedded in
#
the law. Welcome to the Scene and the Unseen, our weekly podcast on economics, politics
#
and behavioral science. Please welcome your host, Amit Verma.
#
Welcome to the Scene and the Unseen. Before we begin, a word from the sponsor of this
#
episode and indeed the last few episodes. Indian Colors is a company that licenses art
#
from contemporary Indian artists and adapts it to objects of everyday use. They have home
#
decor like cushion covers and table runners. They have accessories like tote bags. And
#
what I particularly like is their wearables like kaftans, shrugs and stoles. This allows
#
people like me who can't actually afford to buy expensive paintings to hang on the walls
#
to surround myself with art at an affordable price. And even wear some of it. Their kaftans
#
are damn comfortable. Artists get royalties on each product sold just like authors do
#
for books. And some of their artists include Sameer Mondal, Dhruvi Acharya, Brinda Miller,
#
Shruti Nelson and Harin Vakil. They've just got a new collection of stoles out with some
#
funky designs by Deepak Shinde and Dilip Sharma. You must check that out. Head on over to IndianColors.com.
#
Ask Colors with an OU to check out their offerings. And use the code IVM20. That's IVM for Indus
#
Fox Media 20, IVM20 for a 20% discount. IVM20 is the code at IndianColors.com. Colors with
#
an OU. And now on to today's episode. Later this week, on March 8th, we have something
#
called Women's Day. On the same day as it happens, a Supreme Court hearing is scheduled
#
of the infamous Hadiya case. Now it's long been my case that our laws are deeply misogynistic.
#
In fact, I launch into a rant about this at the start of my conversation in this episode.
#
And many of these are laws in the Indian penal code framed in the 19th century by the British.
#
One could argue that they exist today only because of the inertia of the system. Well,
#
it is my case that such misogyny exists not just in outdated laws, but also in the minds
#
of lawmakers and the judiciary today. And the Hadiya case is but one example of that.
#
My guests on the show today are two friends of mine who feel as strongly about this as
#
I do. Madhav Chandavarkar is a lawyer, a legal expert, and a fellow at the Takshashila Institution
#
in Bangalore. And he suggested the topic for today's episode. Hamsini Hariharan is my colleague
#
at Pragati, the magazine I edit at thinkpragati.com, and herself the host of a fantastic podcast
#
called the Pragati Podcast. Here's the conversation I had with them.
#
Hamsini, Madhav, welcome to the show. Thanks so much, Amit.
#
For my listeners, I should inform you that Hamsini also hosts an excellent podcast called
#
the Pragati Podcast at thinkpragati.com. So do check that out. And because she's such
#
a great host, and especially because she knows a lot more than I do about the subject at
#
hand today, I've requested her to co-host the show with me, which doesn't mean she'll
#
only be asking questions. She's got some great insights on the subjects, but apart from that,
#
she will also know what are the right questions to ask Madhav. Now, before I dive into this
#
episode, I just want to go on a bit of a rant. I did an episode a few weeks ago with your
#
Takshashila colleague, Manasa Venkatraman, on how prostitution should be legalized.
#
Aside the subject of that, one of the things we examined in that episode was a misogyny
#
in the Indian laws. And these are laws that, I mean, this is the Indian penal code which
#
we inherited from the British. So very briefly, there's 497 adultery. Now this is, I'm not
#
going to read this out because it has Victorian language, which is an ascetic affront to my
#
editorial sensibilities, but the upshot of this is that when adultery is committed, the
#
male adulterer who has slept with the wife of someone else is considered at fault because
#
he slept with that woman without the consent of her husband, as if she is her husband's
#
property. And there's another law, 498, which is enticing or taking away or detaining with
#
criminal intent a married woman, which really amounts to saying the same thing. I encourage
#
you to look these up, but basically she has no agency whatsoever. Now this might seem
#
like an old story. Okay, these are really old laws. We've got them from two centuries
#
ago from the British, but the misogyny that is reflected in these ancient laws carries
#
down to the present day in the mindset of our lawmakers and our judiciary. And that's
#
what we're talking about today. Yeah, we still have a Victorian morality that's sort of reflected
#
in our laws, even though it's two centuries later. But Madhav, you're the lawyer in the
#
room, right? So suppose I'm married and my husband is committing adultery or flirting
#
with another woman, then can I initiate charges against him? No, I was just about to interject
#
when Amit was saying, you don't have any right to initiate criminal proceedings against your
#
husband for sleeping with another man's wife. But a husband would be able to initiate.
#
And that's because I don't count in this equation. Is that how it works? Well, yeah, meaning
#
your agency is irrelevant because not only can you not object if your husband sleeps
#
around with another woman, you can't object if your husband decides to sleep with you
#
against your consent. That's true. Marital rape is an inherent problem. And agency is
#
something that I think we're going to be referring through all of this podcast because whether
#
it's in society and apparently by law, a woman's agency in India is of very, very little value.
#
But moving on from adultery to the very recent cases, Amit, Madhav and I were talking about
#
the triple talaq judgment recently and how it's supposed to be a champion of women and
#
particularly Muslim women. So does it live up to everything it's supposed to be a champion
#
of? Not really, because the grounds which they used to dismiss triple talaq were not
#
really about the decisional autonomy of the women involved, but just a question of whether
#
it was a quote unquote essential religious practice in Muslim personal law. So they said
#
that it wasn't and therefore it could be subject to constitutional scrutiny. I think the reasoning
#
that they should have gone with was that regardless of whether it's an essential part of a religion
#
or not, any religious practice must subscribe and fall under constitutional principles like
#
equality and the right to life, to which triple talaq clearly does not. And that should have
#
been the argument that they made, but they didn't. Your broader point there is that and
#
this is something the constitution should really have made clear that there are no exceptions
#
at all to the values in the constitution. Whatever religious practices any of our religions
#
might have, if they go against the principles we outlined in the constitution, then they're
#
unlawful period, right? Well, that would be an idealistic and the preferable way of interpreting
#
it, but that is unfortunately not the current legal position in practice.
#
Okay. So the judiciary basically passed the buck onto the parliament, right?
#
Yeah. Meaning they said that while they've pronounced on this, nothing prevents the parliament
#
from passing a law. Okay. So what did the parliament then do?
#
So the parliament, so this is a clear opportunity perhaps to reap political benefits. I don't
#
know, but they passed a triple talaq bill as it is colloquially known. The actual title
#
is the Muslim women protection of rights on marriage bill. Okay. So judging by that title,
#
you would think that they deal with not only triple talaq, but all the various issues that
#
Muslim women and Muslim women groups have been talking about for a while, like polygamy
#
or Nikkah halala, but there's no mention of those practices at all. And the Muslim women
#
groups were not consulted in the actual construction of the bill, nor were their comments actively
#
sought, which makes you question whether the bill was actually to protect Muslim women
#
or not. Maybe they had some more nefarious ulterior motives.
#
It sounds like the legislature mansplaining as a whole to Muslim women that you are pronouncing
#
something that is supposed to be in their favor to benefit them, but you don't actually
#
consult them. They're not a party at the table. Yeah. It's a we know best approach. Yeah.
#
I mean, again, this is about agency of Muslim women, right? If they're not consulted, if
#
the bill is being passed only on one front and does not take into all their other concerns,
#
then it's not really the progressive bill that they're posturing it as, which makes
#
me wonder, is this even about women? This debate doesn't seem to be about women at
#
all. Right. In which case you wonder then why bring the bill about? I mean, we can speculate
#
on what the intent might be. Maybe they're posturing to their base. Maybe it's all just
#
optics and so on and so forth. But the fact that the people directly affected by the bill
#
on whose behalf you claim to be speaking aren't actually a party at the table, the most important
#
stakeholders and consulted seems bizarre to me and a continuation of how women are constantly
#
considered not capable of agency and treated in a patronizing way. Yeah. That's the thing.
#
This is not something that's new again in Indian society or law, I'm guessing, because
#
women are generally seen as malleable, for example. And there was a more recent case,
#
wasn't it? Was it the Farooqi case? Yeah. Mahmood Farooqi, the co-director of Peoply
#
Five. So he was convicted by the trial court, but it was overturned by the High Court on
#
extremely weak grounds where basically they tried to be woke in many ways. They tried
#
to talk about global debates about affirmative consent and whatnot. But then they also have
#
a sentence that basically says sometimes a no means a yes. Wait, take a step back. What
#
is the case? What happened? So the case was that there was an international scholar from
#
Columbia who'd come to do some research. She'd gotten in touch with someone to speak
#
to Mahmood Farooqi because he is one of the premier people on the Dastogui. Dastogui.
#
In fact, if I remember correctly, she was introduced by Danish Hussein, who used to
#
run Dastogui along with Mahmood Farooqi. And despite being a close friend of Mahmood Farooqi,
#
became a witness for the prosecution. Exactly. So she'd gotten in touch. They'd met a couple
#
of times. I think most of the times that the scholar and Farooqi had met, he had been inebriated.
#
So there were some prior instances of him being inebriated before the actual event took
#
place. Plus, I think they seem to have a mutual attraction to one another. I think they may
#
have exchanged some kisses at a party. How does any of this matter? This is not a gossip
#
prank. But how is any of this pertinent to the Supreme Court judgment? Exactly. So it's
#
pertinent to the High Court judgment. I'll get into the Supreme Court later. But the
#
High Court, this was basically Farooqi in the High Court hired like the best lawyers.
#
It was in the Delhi High Court. Let's first rewind and continue with the narrative you
#
were telling us of what actually happened in the case. Okay. So basically they had these
#
sort of interactions beforehand. And then Farooqi invited her to come over. She was
#
and then to come over and Danish would be accompanying them. And then subsequently changed
#
the invitation to say, oh, I forgot, I have to go for a wedding. So the scholar was under
#
the impression that she would be going to a wedding with Farooqi and his wife. However,
#
when she reached, though the wife was there, two people were exiting beforehand, people
#
that she'd never met before. And there was a short period where she was alone with Farooqi
#
and Farooqi was described as being extremely drunk. She called Danish because I think she
#
was a little unsure because this was the first time that she'd met Farooqi where no one else
#
was there. All the other interactions, other people were present, whether it was at a party
#
or not. And he then said he was unable to come. And then he was also extremely drunk.
#
He has admitted in the course of the proceedings and in interactions with her to be bipolar.
#
And he was crying and apparently was crying to the extent that he had snort in his mustache
#
and a very unappealing, isn't a very unappealing state of, which is relevant. It actually is
#
made relevant later on in the case. So she describes having a very maternal feeling to
#
him at that point that she wanted to take care of him, ask him what his problems were.
#
He on the other hand, wanted to get fresh and kept on saying, can I, I think, can I
#
suck you? Can I suck you? And she repeatedly tried to say no, that she thought it wouldn't
#
be helpful to him in his current state of mind. He tried pulling down her clothes, she
#
pulled them back up and this happened. And then finally, I think he got a little forceful,
#
at least that's how she describes it. And she then decided that she, I think, was remembering
#
Nirbhaya, which was a recent event at the time. And she decided that maybe things could
#
get violent. I'm just going to go along with this. And she faked an orgasm to end the ordeal.
#
And she wanted to leave immediately, but the two friends who were leaving the house as
#
she came in came back and there was some back and forth about leaving in a cab or an auto,
#
auto safe. So, she finally left 45 minutes later, at which point she immediately called
#
Danish, recounted the events to which this is an undisputed fact, both sides and the
#
telephonic records to attest to that. And then a couple of days later, she sent a mail
#
to Farooqi saying that I have, I regard you well, you're a good acquaintance, I like you
#
and I love you and I want the best for you, but what you did was not acceptable. I am
#
a person who owns my, I think she meant sexuality, but in the letter says sexually, but whatever,
#
she said that she was someone who took pride in making her own sexual decisions and that
#
post this decision, she could no longer feel that she was facing a trauma and she eventually
#
left the US after which she recuperated with her family and friends, a support system and
#
then finally worked up the courage to come back a couple of months later and file a case
#
against him. And if I'm not mistaken, he replied to this email and the email trail basically
#
confirms this version of events. He says, my sincerest apologies though in the case,
#
I think with his expensive lawyers came up with some argument and how he only read the
#
first two lines and then that's the first two lines is what he expressed the, my sincerest
#
apologies comment in the reply. And, but later in court said, no, it is only to those first
#
two sentences when I read the entire thing. No, so it's not an admission of guilt.
#
That's pretty creative.
#
Yeah, it does. And in fact, it's only going to get more sickening because of the High
#
Court and the Supreme Court's interpretation of these events. So they employ what is a
#
sort of a more legal version of the, I'm not a racist, but argument where they say it is
#
irrelevant to the question of consent, whether she met with him earlier and it kissed him,
#
but it happened. They kept on saying it was irrelevant, but then they kept on talking
#
And I keep saying that every time you use but in a sentence that but invalidates everything
#
before it and saying that it is irrelevant to the question of consent, but means you're
#
basically saying it is relevant to the question of consent. And that is shocking.
#
So the actual syntax of the argument is that the sort of disclaimer, because they're lawyers,
#
it came at the end. So they said this is irrelevant to whether it is consent or not. And then
#
to the actual event that was the on which the case revolved around, the High Court took
#
this argument that basically because she was and they were both educated people of good
#
letters that that if she actually didn't consent, she would have expressed that affirmatively
#
and it completely negates all the academic studies and discussions around the various
#
power dynamics that are inherent in any sexual assault, which are irrespective of whether
#
you're educated or upper class or whatever sort of you want to say. This is something
#
that happens across all spectrums of society as Harvey Weinstein and the subsequent allegations
#
prove in abundance, as everybody knows. I mean, this is not something you need to prove.
#
So this reminds me of the time when I think post the Nirbhaya case, someone said if someone
#
is harassing you, just call him Bhaiya and he'll stop. And this is the same thing. You
#
know, if she really meant no, why didn't she say it stronger? And this is something that
#
we say to women time and again, whenever they bring about the questions of harassment, it
#
goes, why didn't you do this? Why didn't you get in touch with the police? Why didn't you
#
scream for help? You know, in all the old cases coming out now, that if this happened
#
15 years ago, why didn't you speak then? Exactly. We hear all the time. And for example, they
#
don't even take into consideration her fact that she is in immediate danger, right? If
#
she says no forcefully, she has no clue what the guy would be doing to her because it sounds
#
like the Supreme Court judges at that point in time think she's a man. And if she says
#
no, someone's going to be like, oh, you meant no. Okay, then all right. Do you want a cup
#
of tea? Yeah, exactly. So this complete disregard to the context in which the so-called consent
#
was given and basically all the onus is put on her to make sure that she is conveying
#
to him that she is not consenting. So that is why the feeble no means yes argument basically
#
amounts to that it's not the man's job to figure out why they've kissed a couple of
#
times before. So he thinks it's on. So it's her responsibility to ensure that it was clear.
#
And the Supreme Court takes this to just unreasonable levels because they say that the faking of
#
the orgasm was a sign of consent. First of all, it happened at the end of the act. So
#
how can you say that it's consent when it happens after or during as opposed to before?
#
And then how is it good to do with anything? Clearly, these judges must think that they
#
are pleasing their wives at all times and that their wives are never faked orgasm. Fake
#
orgasm is a mythical beast like a chimera. I don't know what the background of their
#
reasoning is, but it makes your blood boil. And that's just me as a guy trying to sort
#
of empathize with how women feel. I just cannot even fathom how women would react to those
#
kind of pronouncements. In fact, and this may not be pertinent, but a lot of these arguments,
#
why didn't she say no more forcefully? Why didn't she speak out before? Why did she stay
#
for 45 minutes after that? A lot of these arguments seem to me to be made in bad faith
#
where you've already assumed that the woman is making shit up or overreacting or whatever.
#
And then you're finding clever ways to make an argument and prove that per se, you know,
#
and of course the burden of proof should always be on the accuser. But if you look at the
#
email trail and if you look at everything that happened, I thought this was an open
#
and shut case, you know, clearly the man was guilty. That's what I thought. Yeah. And also
#
in the judgment, in the judgments rather, so they talk about how he had bipolar disorder
#
and typically in law, if you're going to play some kind of burden or duty on the woman to
#
make something clear, there's a standard of reasonableness. So someone who has bipolar
#
disorder would not pass the test of reasonableness because she would have to go above and beyond.
#
So the fact that he did not understand should be his fault and not hers. Exactly. And the
#
other is that it was, it's part of the undisputed facts that he was pissed drunk, which is another
#
legal sort of standard for reducing the mental capacity of someone. So all the burden is
#
placed on the woman to convince someone who is of a doubly unsound mind. And it's just
#
bizarre how it's all on her. No, you know, this brings to mind the stereotype that academic
#
feminism talks about called the ideal rape victim. Your ideal rape victim would have
#
never met her assaulter or harasser. Your ideal rape victim is chaste and pure and conforms
#
to your normal societal norms in every sense. Your ideal rape victim will be emotional in
#
court. So for example, there was a study that looked at how jurors reacted to different
#
rape cases. And in cases where the woman was calm or not expressive of her emotions, the
#
jurors were less inclined to believe her testimony because if she had been raped, then she should
#
be crying. So this is also about the way we think of women, right? I mean, pink is a movie
#
that's criticized on several counts. But again, the thing that was shown there is that none
#
of these girls were ideal victims, right? I mean, if they were educated, then why are
#
they going out to meet these men? Why are they stepping out of the norms of our ideal
#
woman type? This is not even the ideal rape woman. This is the ideal Indian woman. Why
#
are these women going beyond that? The second thing that I want to bring about is the idea
#
that everyone is talking about with respect to consent, which is the gray area, the gray
#
area, which seems like a postmodernist construct says, Oh, you never know where consent is.
#
This for example, is not a gray area. This is a very black and white. This is as black
#
and white as it can get. And it should be. No should always mean no. And the thing here
#
is that no one will ever imply that a man's no could mean no or yes. But if it's a woman's
#
no, it's up to the man to interpret it. And by chance, if he makes a mistake, well, then
#
you'll make all kinds of clever arguments later. Yes. I mean, there is now a paradigm
#
that people are saying that, you know, maybe instead of looking at no means no, we should
#
look at enthusiastic consent in the sense only if a woman says, yes, are you allowed
#
to either flirt with her or be intimate with her, which seems like a much better paradigm
#
because people clearly don't understand what you're saying. And other points that I'm going
#
to bring up is in India, the culture of consent. So if I invite you to dinner, Amit and we're
#
very close friends and you just don't want to come, it doesn't matter what your reasons
#
are because it's the both of us, you'll say, no, I'm not coming. And I'll be like, it's
#
fine. But if it's anyone else, you go, actually, you know, I have work and then I have to do
#
this thing and I have all these errands that I can't go. And this is between the both of
#
us. And you're saying this because if I just hear a no without any explanation, I will
#
just be pissed off. We have a culture in Indian society that does not take no for an answer.
#
And this is even, I think this adds a layer of complexity that consent doesn't have in
#
the West. We're not trained to say no socially. This is a fantastic point. And it's not only
#
relevant to like intergender relationships, but even if you ask someone for directions
#
on the street, he will very rarely say, no, I don't know where it is. He will give you
#
wrong directions rather than admit that he doesn't have that knowledge, which probably
#
also is a male problem. No, but it's not only a male problem, right? I mean, even within
#
genders with respect to people who are older than you, it's just, oh, why do you want to
#
offend them? It's because in Indian culture, people do not take no seriously. And when
#
you bring it down to consent, it's even more dire because a case like this, which is, as
#
you said, clearly an open and shut case is being interpreted. I don't even know in such
#
a twisted manner. And to me, the most disturbing argument is that they sort of flip a lot of
#
these discussions, which are sort of more feminist and pro-women and use it to justify
#
their decision. So for example, there's a passage in the judgment, this is a high court
#
judgment where the normal construct is that the man is the initiator of sexual interaction
#
and he performs the active part, whereas a woman is by and large non-verbal. First of
#
all, it should have been passive. I don't understand this non-verbal, like just what
#
the hell, like what are you even trying to imply over there? But however, and they talk
#
about how this is sort of become socialized in gender roles or whatever. However, in today's
#
modern world, with equality being the buzzword, such may not be the case. Equality is a buzzword,
#
it's a buzzword now, like, like stoles are in fashion. And, and then they like eventually
#
basically say that because the woman's role is no longer passive, that it was her responsibility
#
to clarify. This is a high court trying to be woke and failing very miserably. Yeah.
#
And, and ultimately like they, it's, as I said, it's a, I'm not racist, but so they
#
try and they talk about these debates on affirmative consent. But then towards the end of the judgment,
#
they talk about four circumstances in which the memory of a witness, memory recollection
#
rather of a witness can be inaccurate. And there is some, there's scientific basis to
#
those claims. But, and they go through the four instances or the four circumstances,
#
which are one, if the observation took place in a poor environment, bad lighting, distance
#
away from the event. The second is the sort of mental makeup of the observer. And they
#
say we'll go into this in detail later. And then the third are what happens in between
#
the event and the recollection and how the recollection happens, which is the fourth
#
with leading questions and such. So they go through all these four circumstances in which
#
memory can be inaccurate, but then fail to apply it to the prosecutors. Exactly. At the
#
end, you're telling me they ruled in the favor of a man who claims that he's bipolar and
#
was visibly drunk and use that in his favor. And there's a sentence, this is towards just
#
before they give the actual judgment, but it remains in doubt as to whether such an
#
incident as has been narrated by the prosecutors took place. And if at all it had taken place,
#
it was without the consent will of the prosecutors. And if it was without the consent of the prosecutors,
#
whether the appellant could discern, understand the same. So they attack a statement on three
#
levels. And the third level is the most absurd. It's like saying that even if she said, no,
#
if he wasn't in a state of mind that he could understand it, his actions are justified.
#
Really? This is like the pleading that he's insane. They are pleading that he's insane
#
or stupid or whatever. Actually, it's the last point is only something that commentators
#
say. They talk about him being drunk and they talk about him being bipolar, but nowhere
#
does that factor into the discussions of his mental capacity at the time. And also even
#
if they explain, they do not exculpate what actually happened. Especially with law, because
#
if you are intoxicated by your own will, that is not a defense. Exactly. I mean, it's only
#
if you have been sort of slipped a roofie or something like that where you can claim
#
intoxication as something that protects you from criminal offense. So this is like another
#
case where the woman's consent and her agency is completely disregarded. So, no, and just
#
to end with the Supreme Court, which recently dismissed the appeal of the High Court judgment
#
by the woman in question, where they said it was a well-recent argument. I don't know
#
on what basis they are saying that. When they were speaking to the counselor for the prosecutors,
#
it was hilarious in many ways because they said, okay, let's get down to the legal question.
#
It is clear that they have some relationship between the two. And so then the Vrindagrova
#
said, no, meaning they knew each other, but they were not really, they do not have a relationship.
#
So then they said, no, no, no, we didn't mean relationship in the colloquial sense. But
#
then that was not the obvious inference of what you said earlier. Then they made the
#
point on the fake orgasm being consent, which was just absurd. And finally, in that letter
#
that she sent two days later, they focused on just the statement that she said, I love
#
you. They did not agree with your grammatical interpretation of the word but, because there
#
was a but that came later. But they said, oh, which kind of rape victim later says,
#
no, the exact question, ma'am, you are someone familiar with the rape cases. In what kind
#
of rape case, give me an instance of rape cases where the victim says, I love you later
#
to the accused. I know it's a rhetorical question, but pretty much every marital rape in this
#
country. No, she answered, there are lots of cases say with the example of incest, at
#
which point the judge said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is heartbreaking.
#
So then she said, like, I want to get into it because you asked me. And so they basically
#
dismissed the special leave petition, the appeal, because she said, I love you later,
#
despite the fact that she said, I love you. But what you did was inexcusable. I'm traumatized.
#
I did not give consent. Context is meaningless. And the very fact that that question was asked
#
to Vrindagrova indicates a severe lack of understanding and empathy on the point of
#
the person asking it that like, come on, don't you get what she's been through so far. Hasn't
#
she been through enough without also having to face this understand?
#
So yeah, that's one thing I just like, as disturbing and sort of blood boiling as the
#
high court judgment is concerned, at least they took the time to go through it in detail
#
and came up with like a very shitty end product. But at least they said, okay, this is something
#
worthy of our time. All of what I said about the Supreme Court happened in a matter of
#
20 to 30 minutes where they dismissed it.
#
Staggering. Let's move on now to the other big case before the Supreme Court.
#
Please tell me that there is some light at the end of the tunnel, Madhav. Please tell
#
me your third case is better.
#
It gets darker. We are going to talk about hadiya now.
#
Because at the end, Vrindagrova asked, can you at least say that this case is peculiar
#
to only these facts and it is not laid down an interpretation of consent? Supreme Court
#
Let's move on now to talking about more darkness at the end of the tunnel. That's the hadiya
#
So the hadiya case is a perfect example of how the posturing does not equal the reality
#
because it is a case that should have been dismissed at the very earliest stage. Ideally,
#
what should have happened is that the moment it reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme
#
Court said, okay, this is about whether hadiya married with consent or not.
#
Hadiya, why don't you come here? We'll ask you. They took like three to four proceedings
#
to even get to that stage.
#
And then just it's right. The Supreme Court were the ones who ordered the NIA probe. How
#
The Supreme Court were the ones who remanded her to the custody of the warden. This is
#
a 24 year old woman. Custody should not be part of the equation at all.
#
Let's rewind a little bit and give a TLDR or a quick summary of what the hadiya case
#
actually was. Basically in two sentences, this woman chose to marry someone she fell
#
in love with and she's a consenting adult. She married him and she changed her religion.
#
And then her parents and various other interest groups went to court against the Kerala High
#
Court and said that, no, this is a case where she's been brainwashed and a love jihad one
#
one, a basic love jihad narrative. And this woman was forcibly separated from her husband
#
and effectively kidnapped by whoever's custody she in was in at different points in time,
#
whether it's her parents or the warden of whatever, whatever, but it's basically
#
abduction. The state abducted an adult woman. That's what happened.
#
Yeah. And the high court reminded her back to her parents custody, which was just absurd
#
because he basically kept her under house arrest. She couldn't go out. She couldn't
#
meet people. It was quite bizarre.
#
And then the matter got referred to the Supreme Court because she appealed against it.
#
Her husband, I think was big. How could she appeal? Meaning she was in house arrest. Her
#
husband was the one who appealed. So in fact, in the case until recently, she was, I think
#
like the ninth petition or something like that. She's been bumped up to two or three.
#
Well, you know, Hadiya is just a woman my age. What does she know about what she wants
#
and what she doesn't want? Right. And this is again a classic contemporary
#
ongoing example of a woman being denied her agency. If you know, if the state was to do
#
this to a man, it would, you know, there would be a whole different spin on the whole thing.
#
But she's a woman. She goes from the custody of the husband to a custody of her parents
#
to the custody of some male warden somewhere. It's like she's a piece of property. And while
#
they dispute who owns her, she is flung around the separate custodians.
#
So in fact, the case is going to be heard very fittingly on March 8th this week. And
#
but in the previous instance, she'd filed an affidavit in front of the court saying
#
because they weren't really asking her that I did this voluntary. I love my husband. Can
#
I please stay with my husband? He's my husband. I want to stay with him. This is like why
#
I married him. Disregarded. You know what drives me about this is something
#
that a lot of people say when India got independent, there was universal adult franchise. Women
#
were allowed to vote in India much before women in several other countries were allowed
#
to vote. And it gets me to thinking about how when slavery was still legal in the United
#
States, slaves were counted as three fifth of a man's property. So they didn't have
#
the vote, but they were counted as part of his property, which seems to me not very different
#
from the way we look at women today. You may have the right to vote, but you're still
#
part of a man's property. You don't know enough for yourself. This is the Indian state
#
being paternalistic, telling its women that they have no clue what they want, that they're
#
barely human and just let the adult males decide everything that you want for yourself.
#
And the most heartbreaking word in all of what you said is today. Yeah. On that note,
#
I think we'll end the episode. Madhavan Hamsini, thanks so much for being on the show. I learned
#
a lot from you guys. Thanks so much. Thanks for letting me be here.
#
If you enjoyed this episode, you can follow Madhav on Twitter at MadChap88. Oh, wait a
#
minute. That's MadChap88. Much simpler. You can follow Hamsini at HamsiniH. I also strongly
#
recommend you check out the Pragati podcast, which Hamsini co-hosts with our colleague
#
Pawan Srinath. You can find it by going to the online magazine Pragati at thinkpragati.com
#
and clicking on the podcast tab. For archival episodes of The Scene and the Unseen, head
#
on over to sceneunseen.in. Both The Scene and the Unseen and the Pragati podcast, by
#
the way, are produced in association with IVM podcast. So we have more than 20 great
#
podcasts that I recommend you check out. You can listen to them all on the IVM podcast
#
If you enjoyed listening to The Scene and the Unseen, it makes complete sense for you
#
to check out the Pragati podcast, a show on public policy. Pragati is a magazine I edit
#
and the Pragati podcast is hosted by two of my colleagues, Pawan Srinath and Hamsini Hariharan.
#
Every week, Pawan and Hamsini analyze views and news from India and the world and talk
#
to experts and practitioners on a wide range of issues. Episodes out every Thursday. So
#
there's your midweek fix right there.
#
He bends down to test the warm water for his bath. He comes here to quench his thirst for
#
a hot shower and some podcasts. You can witness how he enjoys having other people talk about
#
cool stuff in his bathroom. Indeed, it helps him with his loneliness. You can find more
#
of his PCs on ivmpodcast.com, your one stop destination where you can check out the coolest
#
Indian podcasts. Happy listening.
