Even when it reports on a story about the antiquated and backward attitudes towards raping women in India, the BBC still finds a way to blame the British (white males only of course), for the law in India's attitude towards rape.
Apparently, according to one school of Indian jurisprudence (male lawyers only), the fact that the 1860 laws that the British put in place used a 'flowery language' to describe sexual offences against women that are not penetrative, allows Indian judges (and juries), to consistently let men off sex attacks, on the most misogynist of grounds. And yes, its really is that long since India bothered to change the sex offence laws (but apparently that’s not considered backward, or in anyway should be considered a condemnation of the Indian males views on women), but seemingly that's not the India's responsibility, even though they have been independent since 1948.
Oh and the 'flowery language' that has survived in the Indian penal code for so long? .... well the term used in the act was “Outraging the modesty of a woman" … which apparently allows many Indian judges to uphold the male centric idea that holds that a woman raped, or subject to an attack, does not have any 'modesty' left which could be 'outraged'. Of course this being the Indian sub-continent, the girls who have the least modesty in the eyes of the courts are the Dalits (or untouchables) i.e. lowest caste, while the rapists who are from the highest castes, who appear in court accused of rape, are therefore the least likely to be convicted.
The Indian police still even use the "two-finger test" …. which I hardly need to explain, is the method used by some court appointed doctors to determine if a the rape victim is still a virgin. Apart from the fact that it’s not a reliable test, in Indian courts its used like the old witch evidence was in 17th century Europe. If the accused survived the ordeal then she was convicted as being a witch and killed. If she died under the ordeal, then she must have been innocent. Similarly, if the Indian rape victim is deemed as 'still a virgin', then there can have been no crime, or maybe only a 'minor crime' (known as ‘Eve Teasing’ in Indian male society). If however the girl is declared as not a virgin, then she was obviously 'asking for it', and probably a willing participant in the act.
This barbaric and totally irrelevant 'determination' of virginity, is also declared as a ‘colonial legacy’, and therefore not the responsibility of the 65 years of Indian independent government inaction, and it’s therefore still possible for the BBC to blame the British, for the legacy of legal attitudes towards rape in India being so bad.
You are left having to wonder whose side the BBC are on, and who pays the licence fee …
Apparently, according to one school of Indian jurisprudence (male lawyers only), the fact that the 1860 laws that the British put in place used a 'flowery language' to describe sexual offences against women that are not penetrative, allows Indian judges (and juries), to consistently let men off sex attacks, on the most misogynist of grounds. And yes, its really is that long since India bothered to change the sex offence laws (but apparently that’s not considered backward, or in anyway should be considered a condemnation of the Indian males views on women), but seemingly that's not the India's responsibility, even though they have been independent since 1948.
Oh and the 'flowery language' that has survived in the Indian penal code for so long? .... well the term used in the act was “Outraging the modesty of a woman" … which apparently allows many Indian judges to uphold the male centric idea that holds that a woman raped, or subject to an attack, does not have any 'modesty' left which could be 'outraged'. Of course this being the Indian sub-continent, the girls who have the least modesty in the eyes of the courts are the Dalits (or untouchables) i.e. lowest caste, while the rapists who are from the highest castes, who appear in court accused of rape, are therefore the least likely to be convicted.
The Indian police still even use the "two-finger test" …. which I hardly need to explain, is the method used by some court appointed doctors to determine if a the rape victim is still a virgin. Apart from the fact that it’s not a reliable test, in Indian courts its used like the old witch evidence was in 17th century Europe. If the accused survived the ordeal then she was convicted as being a witch and killed. If she died under the ordeal, then she must have been innocent. Similarly, if the Indian rape victim is deemed as 'still a virgin', then there can have been no crime, or maybe only a 'minor crime' (known as ‘Eve Teasing’ in Indian male society). If however the girl is declared as not a virgin, then she was obviously 'asking for it', and probably a willing participant in the act.
 |
| 'Eve Teasing' = Sexual Harassment. |
This barbaric and totally irrelevant 'determination' of virginity, is also declared as a ‘colonial legacy’, and therefore not the responsibility of the 65 years of Indian independent government inaction, and it’s therefore still possible for the BBC to blame the British, for the legacy of legal attitudes towards rape in India being so bad.
You are left having to wonder whose side the BBC are on, and who pays the licence fee …
