The very act of rape is so heinous that there should be no debate on whether or not we must have a law against it (“Centre against making marital rape a crime”, Aug. 30). Just because a law could be abused does not mean that there shouldn’t be a law. By that logic most laws are abused; does that mean they all shouldn’t exist? This is a frivolous excuse to deny women autonomy over their own bodies. The Centre argues that a law against marital rape may destabilise marriage, but what about the fact that marital rape affects a woman psychologically and could destabilise her mentally? Is such a marriage worth staying in?
Shreyashi Panja,
New Delhi
According to Section 375 of the IPC, rape means having sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, or without her consent. I don’t understand the exception to this. How is it different if it’s by a man who is her husband? How convenient this exception is for a male-dominated society that otherwise keeps shouting about the empowerment of women. The Centre’s silly justification, that if brought under the ambit of crime a marital rape law will be misused, is unpalatable. Advanced civilised societies have no such exceptions in their rape laws as we do; India sadly shares space with backward nations in propagating such a mindset.
Balvinder,
Chandigarh