Ad­min­is­tra­tion of Jus­tice to Women in In­dia: Ac­tion and Re­flec­tion

Economic Challenger - - CONTENTS - − Dr. Kanika Pan­war

AB­STRACT

The present pa­per dis­cusses the re­al­i­ties of In­dian so­ci­ety and the ad­min­is­tra­tion of jus­tice to women in In­dia. The In­dian con­sti­tu­tion has pro­vided var­i­ous rights to the weaker sec­tions of so­ci­ety, but the ques­tion is− are th­ese rights prac­tised in real life. Have they em­pow­ered the tar­get group and given them their due place in so­ci­ety. This ar­ti­cle at­tempts to re­flect the ac­tual way in which the jus­tice is ad­min­is­tered to women in In­dia.

IN­TRO­DUC­TION

Con­sti­tu­tion of In­dia meets the de­mand for jus­tice of its peo­ple by build­ing its demo­cratic ideals on: Jus­tice ( So­cial, Eco­nomic and Po­lit­i­cal), Lib­erty (Thought, Ex­pres­sion, Be­lief ), Equal­ity (Sta­tus and Op­por­tu­nity), Fra­ter­nity (Dig­nity of In­di­vid­ual and unity of In­dia)

CON­STI­TU­TIONAL AND LE­GAL PRO­VI­SIONS

The con­sti­tu­tion of In­dia not only grants equal­ity to women but also em­pow­ers the state to adopt pos­i­tive dis­crim­i­na­tion in favour of women for neu­tral­is­ing the so­cio−eco­nomic, ed­u­ca­tional and po­lit­i­cal dis­ad­van­tages that they could be fac­ing. The state pro­vides for an elab­o­rate sys­tem of laws to pro­tect the rights of women which have been en­acted from time to time to re­move gen­der dis­crim­i­na­tion. The law and con­sti­tu­tion has pro­vided op­por­tu­nity to women to choose any form of ed­u­ca­tion and train­ing freely and as­pire for po­si­tion in na­tional life. Part III of our con­sti­tu­tion con­fers cer­tain fun­da­men­tal rights on the ci­ti­zens and th­ese pro­vide equal­ity be­fore law and equal pro­tec­tion of law to all ci­ti­zens. It says "The state shall not dis­crim­i­nate against any cit­i­zen on grounds of re­li­gion, race, caste, sex, and place of birth or any of them". Not only this, the mak­ers of con­sti­tu­tion, aware of the then pre­vail­ing weak sta­tus of women and mind­ful of the need for spe­cial ef­forts to im­prove that sta­tus, have added, "Noth­ing in this ar­ti­cle shall pre­vent the state from mak­ing any spe­cial pro­vi­sion for women and chil­dren". The con­sti­tu­tion of In­dia guar­an­tees to all the In­dian women: Equal­ity be­fore the Law− Ar­ti­cle 14 No dis­crim­i­na­tion by the state on grounds of re­li­gion, race, caste, place of birth or any of th­ese − Ar­ti­cle 15(1) Equal­ity of op­por­tu­nity for all the ci­ti­zens in mat­ters re­lated to em­ploy­ment or ap­point­ment to any of­fice un­der the state − Ar­ti­cle 16 Equal pay for equal work for both men and women − Ar­ti­cle 39(d) Pro­vi­sions to be made by the state for just and hu­mane con­di­tions of work and for ma­ter­nity re­lief − Ar­ti­cle 42 To pro­mote har­mony and to re­nounce prac­tices deroga­tory to the dig­nity of women − Ar­ti­cle 51 (A) (e) In ad­di­tion, ar­ti­cles 2430(3), 2430(4), 243T(3) and 243T(4) of the con­sti­tu­tion make pro­vi­sion for re­serv­ing not less than one third of the to­tal seats for women in the di­rect elec­tions to lo­cal bod­ies, viz Pan­chay­ats and Mu­nic­i­pal­i­ties. Other than

th­ese pro­vi­sions, many im­por­tant so­cial leg­is­la­tions re­lated to women were passed af­ter in­de­pen­dence. Such as: Hindu mar­ried women’s right to sep­a­rate res­i­dence and main­te­nance act, 1946 Hindu mar­riage Act, 1955 The spe­cial mar­riage act, 1954 The Hindu suc­ces­sion act, 1956 Hindu adop­tion and main­te­nance act, 1956 The Child Mar­riage Re­straint (amend­ment) act, 1976 The Dowry Pro­hi­bi­tion Act, 1961 The Im­moral Traf­fic (preven­tion) act, 1986 In­de­cent Rep­re­sen­ta­tion of Women (pro­hi­bi­tion) Act, 1986 Th­ese and many more rights have been given to women by the con­sti­tu­tion, but in re­al­ity there is a ’vis­i­ble gap’ be­tween the law as it stands and the law as it op­er­ates, which is reg­u­larly marred by the in­ci­dents of over­whelm­ing in­jus­tice. With re­gard to leg­is­la­tions, there is no lack of le­gal recog­ni­tion of women’s needs in the con­sti­tu­tion of In­dia and leg­is­la­tions en­acted af­ter in­de­pen­dence, but lit­tle is en­forced. A wide va­ri­ety of leg­is­la­tions have been able to check only a small part of so­cial dis­abil­i­ties women suf­fer in the coun­try. The im­ple­men­ta­tion of the laws for women’s wel­fare and pro­tec­tion is ques­tion­able and varies from gross in­ad­e­quacy to in­ef­fec­tive­ness. The law has cer­tainly given Hindu women the right to sep­a­rate res­i­dence and main­te­nance but the­ory is dras­ti­cally dif­fer­ent from prac­tice.

SO­CIAL PER­CEP­TION VI­O­LENCE: WEAR AND TEAR OF MAR­RIED LIFE

Many in­stances can be sighted where Hindu so­ci­ety over­looks per­sonal vi­o­lence to the wife by the hus­band as a part of nor­mal ’wear and tear’ of mar­ried life. In a case, Kon­dal Ray­all vs. Ran­ganayaki Am­mal (48) the hus­band who used to beat his wife con­tended that in vil­lages per­sonal vi­o­lence to­wards wife by the hus­band is ex­cus­able and that we should not ap­ply to the par­ties the prin­ci­ples which would gov­ern a case where the par­ties are ed­u­cated and en­light­ened. This view shows ac­cept­abil­ity of vi­o­lence in re­la­tions as a part of pub­lic mind− set. Not only un­e­d­u­cated peo­ple but those who are highly ed­u­cated and hold high po­si­tions in In­dia also are of the same opin­ion. Jus­tice K. Bhak­tha­vat­sala, a High Court judge in Kar­nataka state in the south­ern part of the coun­try, re­port­edly made the re­marks dur­ing a court case in which a woman was seek­ing to di­vorce her vi­o­lent hus­band. The judge ap­par­ently told the wife to "ad­just" to the harsh re­al­i­ties of her spouse for the sake of their chil­dren.

"Women suf­fer in all mar­riages. You are mar­ried, with two chil­dren, and know what it means to suf­fer as a woman. Yes­ter­day, there was a techie cou­ple who rec­on­ciled for the sake of their child. Your hus­band is do­ing good busi­ness; he will take care of you. Why are you still talk­ing about his beat­ings?" Bhak­ta­vat­sala told the plain­tiff, ac­cord­ing to The Ban­ga­lore Mir­ror news­pa­per.

Even if the judge is sym­pa­thetic and gives judge­ment in favour of the woman there is no guar­an­tee that the or­der of main­te­nance will be fol­lowed. In cities many cases can be sighted where in spite of court’s or­der of main­te­nance to the wife, the hus­band does not fol­low it. When this is brought to the honourable judges’ no­tice, they or­der en­quiry but in most cases the hus­band goes miss­ing or he re­luc­tantly starts liv­ing again with wife,( to avoid pay­ment of main­te­nance) only to con­tinue the misbehaviour.

CHILD MAR­RIAGES: NOT A WORD OF PAST

The Hindu mar­riage act 1955 has de­ter­mined the mar­riage­able age of girl as 18 and boy as 21 years. It is a well known fact that thou­sands of young chil­dren even be­low the age of 10 get mar­ried ev­ery year on Akha Teej or Ak­shya Tri­tiya a fes­tive day in Ra­jasthan state of In­dia. Al­most 45 per­cent of In­dian girls are mar­ried be­fore they turn 18, says the In­ter­na­tional Cen­ter for Re­search on Women.

Ex­perts say child mar­riage re­mains among the big­gest hur­dles to women’s devel­op­ment in In­dia and has a domino ef­fect. A child bride will drop out of school and is more likely to have com­pli­ca­tions dur­ing child birth. One in five In­dian women, many child moth­ers, dies dur­ing preg­nancy or child birth, the United Na­tions says. Their ba­bies, if they sur­vive, are more likely to be un­der­weight and suf­fer stunt­ing due to poor

nour­ish­ment. Many will be lucky to sur­vive be­yond the age of five.

Chil­dren mar­ried at young age are not able to ad­just well with each other af­ter grow­ing up. They grow with dif­fer­ent per­son­al­i­ties which de­velop fric­tions be­tween them as adults. An ex­am­ple seen by the re­searcher in the field can be cited here "A girl who be­longed to S.T was mar­ried off by the par­ents at a very young age. She was ed­u­cated by her par­ents while the boy re­mained un­let­tered. They grew up to be in­com­pat­i­ble and hence had to re­main sep­a­rated for rest of their life. Even fil­ing a di­vorce did not serve the pur­pose and the case was then re­ferred for fam­ily coun­selling. Chances are that such cou­ples will marry again with­out get­ting a for­mal di­vorce, or they will look for a com­pan­ion out of the mar­i­tal re­la­tion, which will fur­ther ag­gra­vate the se­ri­ous­ness of the sit­u­a­tion.

Monogamy has been de­clared as the only form of Hindu mar­riage but in prac­tice many man are seen as hav­ing re­la­tion other than mar­riage. This makes life un­bear­able for the wife. Even if the hus­band has il­licit re­la­tions with other women the wife stays back in the fam­ily and con­tin­ues to bear the ne­glect and tor­ture. She does not dare to take the dras­tic step of leav­ing the hus­band due to fear of bad name, love of chil­dren, and most im­por­tantly fi­nan­cial in­se­cu­rity. Most In­dian women do not ap­prove of di­vorce even if the con­di­tion be­comes un­bear­able due to so­cial pres­sure and tra­di­tional up­bring­ing. A woman in In­dia is gen­er­ally so­cial­ized to wor­ship hus­band like God. The word ’pati parmesh­war’ is a tes­ti­mony to this truth posed by In­dian so­ci­ety. A woman is given var­i­ous names and treated badly by the gen­eral pub­lic if she tries to take the step of di­vorce. Most of the women who have filed a di­vorce have ac­cepted the fact that they are looked down by their neigh­bours, rel­a­tives and so­ci­ety and are treated as im­moral women hav­ing af­fairs. They have to face fi­nan­cial in­se­cu­rity and are also not given any share in hus­band/ fa­ther’s prop­erty.

RE­AL­ITY: FAR FROM RE­AL­ITY

The Hindu Law of In­her­i­tance Amend­ment Act of 1929 and the Hindu women’s right to prop­erty act of 1937 are re­pealed by the Hindu Suc­ces­sion Act of 1956. This act en­ti­tles the fe­male chil­dren to share the prop­erty of their fa­ther along with their brothers. The women have the right to sell, use and mort­gage or dis­pose the in­her­ited prop­erty the way they like. This act may have given the right to fe­male chil­dren to share the prop­erty of their fa­ther along with their brothers. But in prac­tice how many women in­herit the fa­ther’s prop­erty? Our so­ci­ety does not al­low the free­dom to women alone to sell or buy prop­erty at their own will. "The in­her­i­tance law was re­formed in 2005, bring­ing women’s le­gal equal­ity in agri­cul­tural land. In re­al­ity, how­ever, less than 10 per­cent women own some kind of land," said Govind Kelkar from land rights group, Lan­desa In­dia.

"This is more stark, as 84 per­cent of ru­ral women are en­gaged in agri­cul­tural pro­duc­tion. There is pol­icy si­lence on the im­ple­men­ta­tion of laws for women’s rights."

In a pa­tri­ar­chal so­ci­ety like In­dia the daugh­ters are given dowry and it is con­sid­ered that equiv­a­lent share of the prop­erty has been given to them.

DOWRY: A PRICE FOR MAR­RIAGE

In spite of the Dowry Pro­hi­bi­tion Act, 1961 pro­nounc­ing dowry as a pun­ish­able of­fence, the prac­tice of dowry which is a deep rooted so­cial mal­ady, con­tin­ues. The word dowry has be­come syn­ony­mous with In­dian women’s op­pres­sion un­der pa­tri­ar­chal sys­tem. Dowry means any prop­erty or valu­able se­cu­rity given or agreed to be given ei­ther di­rectly or in­di­rectly by one party to an­other. Un­ful­filled dowry de­mand re­sults in the bride be­com­ing a vic­tim of tor­ture, both men­tal and phys­i­cal. She’s ha­rassed, beaten up, tor­tured or even burnt to death. The mur­der of women by the mem­bers of their mar­i­tal fam­ily is as­so­ci­ated with both the escalation of dowry de­mands and with the ha­rass­ment and se­vere beat­ing of women. They are mur­dered if their dowries are too small, if she is dis­liked by her hus­band or his kin, if her house­hold skills are per­ceived as lack­ing, or even if her skin is too dark. Of­ten such mur­ders are ar­ranged to look like ac­ci­dents, or sui­cides with bod­ies sus­pended to re­sem­ble hang­ing, or burn­ing be­ing passed of as cook­ing re­lated in­juries.

The suf­fer­ing con­tin­ues even af­ter more than sixty years of In­de­pen­dence of In­dia. The state­ment of Women and Child min­is­ter is enough to prove this sit­u­a­tion.

Ac­cord­ing to a writ­ten re­ply in coun­try’s up­per house of par­lia­ment, Kr­ishna Ti­rath, Women and Child Min­is­ter, said con­vic­tion rates for dowry−re­lated mur­ders over the past five years were rel­a­tively un­changed with 23.3 per­cent in 2010 com­pared to 27.3 per­cent in 2006.

"The pri­mary re­spon­si­bil­ity of preven­tion, de­tec­tion, reg­is­tra­tion, in­ves­ti­ga­tion and pros­e­cu­tion of crimes, in­clud­ing crimes against women, lies with the state gov­ern­ments." a state­ment from Ti­rath’s min­istry quoted the min­is­ter as say­ing in her re­ply to leg­is­la­tors.

Ac­cord­ing to lat­est fig­ures from In­dia’s Na­tional Crime Records Bureau, there were 8,391 cases of dowry−re­lated deaths in the coun­try in 2010 com­pared to 8,383 in the pre­vi­ous year. That works out to a shock­ing one death ev­ery hour ap­prox­i­mately. Bride−burn­ing is on the in­crease −just a decade ago, in 2000, there were 6995 cases. The NCRB also said there were al­most 90,000 cases of tor­ture and cru­elty to­wards women by their hus­bands or fam­ily in 2010, an in­crease of five per­cent from 2009.

Although the government pro­hib­ited dowry through leg­is­la­tion in 1961, it was never im­ple­mented prop­erly. Pro­hi­bi­tion of­fi­cers were sup­posed to have been ap­pointed in each district, tak­ing the bat­tle to the grass­roots but noth­ing hap­pened. And, the tide of greed driven mur­der of young brides con­tin­ued un­abated.

In 1986, un­der huge pres­sure from the women’s move­ment, the In­dian Pe­nal Code was amended to in­clude Sec­tion 304B, specif­i­cally against mur­der fol­low­ing ha­rass­ment for dowry. Sec­tion 498A was added to de­fine ha­rass­ment and cru­elty by hus­bands and his rel­a­tives. Strangely this too has not had much ef­fect. Lax­ity of the government ma­chin­ery can be one rea­son for the fail­ure of le­gal mea­sures. Af­ter all, con­vic­tion rates in bride burn­ing cases have dipped from an al­ready weak 37% in 2000 to 34% in 2010. In sec­tion 498A cases, the con­vic­tion rates are even lower: just 19%, although re­ported cases were 94,000 in 2010.

The dowry con­tin­ues to be a so­cial disease which has also low­ered the place of girl child in the so­ci­ety and a girl child is con­sid­ered as a heavy bur­den on the

fam­ily. The sit­u­a­tion is so bleak that peo­ple have re­sorted to killing new­born girl child to get rid of it and the bur­den of

dowry in fu­ture.

DEATH OF LAK­SHMI

The birth of a girl, so goes a pop­u­lar Hindu say­ing, is akin to the ar­rival of Lak­shmi − the four−armed god­dess of wealth, of­ten de­picted hold­ing lo­tus flow­ers and an over­flow­ing pot of gold. This be­lief is in stark con­trast to the cen­sus data 2011 that re­veals the gen­der ra­tio in the age group 0−6 years to be 914 girls to 1000 boys. Which means, for ev­ery 1000 boys, there are at least about 60−70 girls un­der the age of 6 years who died be­fore or within 6 years af­ter birth. This is the low­est gen­der ra­tio recorded since In­dia’s In­de­pen­dence in 1947. A 2007 UNICEF report af­firmed that girls’ un­der−5 years in In­dia had a 40% higher mor­tal­ity rate than boys the same age. This es­sen­tially is neg­li­gent homi­cide. A 2011 report on a study con­ducted jointly by the In­dian Coun­cil of Med­i­cal Re­search and the Har­vard School of Pub­lic Health con­firmed that girls un­der 5 years in In­dia were dy­ing at an ab­nor­mally high rate be­cause they were be­ing sub­ject to in­hu­mane vi­o­lence at home by their fam­i­lies. The study ob­served that girls were 21% more likely than boys to die be­fore their 5th birth­day be­cause of vi­o­lence. In­fant girls, who were one year younger were 50% more likely to die be­cause of vi­o­lence than boys of that age. The head re­searcher com­mented, "Shock­ingly this vi­o­lence does not pose a threat to your life if you are lucky enough to be born a boy."

Life for a girl in In­dia is full of threats that range from fe­male foeticide, child mar­riage, dowry and hon­our killing and crimes such as rape, domestic vi­o­lence and hu­man traf­fick­ing to dis­crim­i­na­tion in health and ed­u­ca­tion.

In­deed, a girl’s fight for sur­vival be­gins in the womb due to an over­whelm­ing de­sire for sons and fear of dowry, ris­ing cost of health and liv­ing which has re­sulted in 12 mil­lion girls be­ing

aborted over the last three decades, ac­cord­ing to a 2011 study by The Lancet. This has led to a de­cline in the num­ber of women in pro­por­tion to men in many ar­eas, re­sult­ing in a rise in rapes, hu­man traf­fick­ing and, in cer­tain cases, prac­tices such as " wife−shar­ing" amongst brothers.

In­dia is the fourth most dan­ger­ous coun­try for women to live in the world ac­cord­ing to a sur­vey by Thom­son Reuters Foun­da­tion. The sur­vey has been com­piled by the Thom­son Reuters Foun­da­tion to mark the launch of a web­site, TrustLaw Woman.

RAPE: THE BIG­GEST ABUSE

Re­ports of women be­ing picked from the streets and gang−raped in mov­ing cars are fre­quent in Delhi and its neigh­bour­hood. News­pa­per re­ports are full of sto­ries of traf­fick­ing and sex­ual ex­ploita­tion. MP has re­ported high­est num­ber of rape cases (3,406), ac­count­ing for 14.1% of to­tal such cases in the coun­try last year. The report finds that in 94% of the rape cases, the of­fend­ers were known to the vic­tims and 10.6% rape vic­tims were un­der 14 years, while 19% were teenagers. All the data that shows crime against women are con­sid­ered un­der­re­ported by var­i­ous so­cial ac­tivists. Rape of a woman is one of the most ab­hor­rent of all the crimes. It is the in­va­sion, vi­o­la­tion and abuse of a woman’s body and mind. It is not merely about men im­pul­sively ex­press­ing their sex­u­al­ity. As more In­dian women en­ter the pub­lic space vi­o­lence against them is on the rise.

NOT SO HONOURABLE

The re­cent spurt in the cases of hon­our killings in In­dia mostly in Haryana, Ra­jasthan, and Ut­tar Pradesh tes­tify the fact that there is a dras­tic need to change the mind set of Pa­tri­ar­chal In­dian So­ci­ety. An hon­our killing is the homi­cide of a mem­ber of a fam­ily or so­cial group by other mem­bers, due to the be­lief of the per­pe­tra­tors that the vic­tim has brought dis­honor upon the fam­ily or com­mu­nity. The per­ceived dis­honor is nor­mally the re­sult of one of the fol­low­ing be­hav­iors, or the sus­pi­cion of such be­hav­iours: dress­ing in a man­ner un­ac­cept­able to the fam­ily or com­mu­nity, want­ing to ter­mi­nate or pre­vent an ar­ranged mar­riage or de­sir­ing to marry by own choice, es­pe­cially if to a mem­ber of a so­cial group deemed in­ap­pro­pri­ate, en­gag­ing in het­ero­sex­ual acts out­side mar­riage and en­gag­ing in ho­mo­sex­ual acts. Th­ese hon­our killings are sup­ported/ en­cour­aged by the Khap Pan­chay­ats which are the union of a few vil­lages (of a par­tic­u­lar caste), mainly in north In­dia. Lately they have emerged as quasi−ju­di­cial bod­ies that pro­nounce harsh pun­ish­ments based on age− old cus­toms and tra­di­tions, of­ten bor­der­ing on vi­o­lence. Even Supreme Court has re­flected on the se­ri­ous­ness of the sit­u­a­tion. The Supreme Court has de­clared il­le­gal ’Khap pan­chay­ats’ which of­ten de­cree or en­cour­age hon­our killings or other in­sti­tu­tion­alised atroc­i­ties against boys and girls of dif­fer­ent castes and re­li­gions who wish to get mar­ried or have mar­ried.

" This is wholly il­le­gal and has to be ruth­lessly stamped out. There is noth­ing honourable in hon­our killing or other atroc­i­ties and, in fact, it is noth­ing but bar­baric and shame­ful mur­der. Other atroc­i­ties in re­spect of the per­sonal lives of peo­ple com­mit­ted by bru­tal, feu­dal−minded per­sons de­serve harsh pun­ish­ment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of bar­barism and feu­dal men­tal­ity. More­over, th­ese acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kan­ga­roo courts, which are wholly il­le­gal," said a Bench of Jus­tices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra. In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ra­machan­daran, Se­nior Ad­vo­cate ap­pointed by the Court to as­sist it in PILs against Khap Pan­chay­ats has called for ar­rest of "self styled" de­ci­sion mak­ers and proac­tive ac­tion by the po­lice to pro­tect the fun­da­men­tal rights of the peo­ple. It also asked for the rec­om­men­da­tions be­ing con­verted as di­rec­tions to all States and the Union, till a law is en­acted by the Par­lia­ment.

AC­TIONS

The most sig­nif­i­cant bar­rier to women’s rights in In­dia there­fore, is a hos­tile state that is ac­tu­ally not in­ter­ested in giv­ing them any rights. The most hideous face of de­nial of equal­ity to women is the use of vi­o­lence against them. Vi­o­lence needs to be un­der­stood as one of the most com­mon mech­a­nisms by which women

are forced into a sub­or­di­nate po­si­tion. From birth or even prior to birth women be­come sub­ject of dis­crim­i­na­tion and re­sul­tantly face vi­o­lence. Other fac­tors that have ad­versely af­fected women’s sta­tus in In­dia in­clude the lack of im­ple­men­ta­tion of laws by the state, law and or­der ma­chin­ery and gen­der bias per­va­sive in the sys­tem at all the lev­els. Most In­dian women do not have ac­cess to the courts or knowl­edge of law; they can­not af­ford to fight for their rights in a hos­tile so­cial en­vi­ron­ment. Even when a woman is ha­rassed and bat­tered she lacks courage and aware­ness of the laws to reach the po­lice or some other help. In ab­sence of proper knowl­edge of the mech­a­nisms and laws to help her, she keeps on suf­fer­ing and as a re­sult, per­ishes.

The government must build var­i­ous strate­gies to en­sure proper jus­tice to women. Th­ese strate­gies should be built on prin­ci­ples of de­ter­rence, de­fence and an­swer­abil­ity. A mul­ti­di­men­sional strat­egy that ad­dresses the gen­der dy­nam­ics of power, cul­ture, so­cial struc­ture and so­ci­etal causes of in­jus­tice to women should be made. It should pro­vide im­me­di­ate ser­vices to vic­tims as the main strat­egy and should elim­i­nate atroc­i­ties and the vi­o­lence against women in the first place, if it at all takes place then must en­sure timely jus­tice to the vic­tims be­cause "jus­tice de­layed is jus­tice de­nied".

REF­ER­ENCES

1. Kelly, L., (1997). "A cen­tral Is­sue : Sex­ual Vi­o­lence and Fem­i­nist The­ory" in Kemp, San­dra and Squires, Ju­dith (ed.) Fem­i­nism, Ox­ford Univer­sity Press, Ox­ford. 2. Grif­fin, Su­san, (1979). Rape : The power of Con­scious­ness, San Fran­cisco, Harper and Row. 3. Gita Arava­mu­dan (2007). Dis­ap­pear­ing Daugh­ters−The tragedy of Fe­male Foeticide, Pen­guin Books, In­dia. 4. Mooney, Jayne, (2000). Gen­der Vi­o­lence and So­cial Or­der, MacMil­lan Press, Lon­don. 5. Palai, A.K., (1998). Na­tional Hu­man Ver­sus com­mis­sion of In­dia: For­ma­tion, Func­tion­ing and Fu­ture Prospects, Khanna Pub­lish­ers, New Delhi. 6. Pan­war, Kanika.(2010) Vi­o­lence against women, Ritu Pub­li­ca­tions, Jaipur

Web Sources:

1. Crime in In­dia 2011, Na­tional Crime Records Bureau, www.ncrb.nic.in 2. We Are A Na­tion of Daugh­ter−Killers, Af­firms In­dia’s 2011 Cen­sus, APRIL 1, 2011,trust.org/trustlaw 3. Judge’s In­cen­di­ary Re­marks On Women High­lights In­dia’s Domestic Vi­o­lence Cri­sis, a. Palash R. Ghosh | Septem­ber 07 2012 10:59 AM 4. Owen Bow­cott, Afghanistan worst place in the world for women, but In­dia in top five, The Guardian, Wed­nes­day 15 June 2011 5. No place for atroc­i­ties: SC de­clares Khap Pan­chay­ats il­le­gal, Dai­lyb­haskar.com | Jul 16, 2012, 14:36PM IST 6. FEA­TURE−In­dia ad­vances, but many women still trapped in dark ages, Neeta Bhalla, TrustLaw, Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:31am IST 7. Dowry death: One bride burnt ev­ery hour, Su­bodh Varma, TNN, Jan 27, 2012, 03.32AM IST

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.