Human right

Jack Donnelly’s Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (3rd Ed., 2013) is a
fundamental text for those studying any area of human rights. Starting out by establishing a basic
understanding of what “human rights” means, Donnelly leads up to his main premise that human
rights are equal, inalienable, and universal, even with cross-cultural relativism considerations. He
ultimately argues that human rights are not culturally relative because culture is not the cause or
a factor in the development of human rights ideas and practices and is not necessarily for or
against any particular human rights. Donnelly states, “No particular culture or comprehensive
doctrine is by nature either compatible or incompatible with human rights. It is a matter of what
particular people and societies make of and do with their cultural resources. Cultures are
immensely malleable…”

Amartya Sen is an important author, economist, and philosopher for anyone in human rights
work to know, and his book Development as Freedom (1999) is a perfect example of his
expertise and deep understanding of human development and the importance of human rights.
Sen argues that human freedom should be both the means and the end of development, rather
than a casualty of it, as is often the case. He advocates for an integrated approach to development
that involves multiple institutions and creates freedoms such as economic opportunities, political
freedom, social supports, transparency from authorities, and security for society. Stating that
development often forsakes freedoms and opportunities in the name of economic and human
development, Sen argues that freedom must be central to development in order to create
sustainable and effective change.

In particular, Sen uses his own experiences from and expertise in Asian culture to argue that
human rights and freedoms are not dependent upon cultural values or morality. He writes, “The
case for basic freedoms and for the associated formulations in terms of rights rests on: 1) their
intrinsic importance; 2) their consequential role in providing political incentives for economic
security; 3) their constructive role in the genesis of values and priorities”
Domestic violence act of india is Against Men !!
This project attemps to explain the future disastrous results of badly formulated and gender
biased law Domestic violence against women law - 2005 which grossly violates the liberty and
dignity of an average man and his family members. Anyone who is educated and reads the
guidelines of the law can see how vicious this law is and what it's social implications will be.

Feminist organizations have unequivocally and unanimously hailed the implementation of the
Domestic Violence (DV) Act in India. They claim that this law will empower victims and protect
them from abuse.

Most people in their right state of mind would agree that domestic violence in a relationship is
not acceptable. It is only fair that for their own mental and emotional health and for the well-
being of the children, that the victims be protected from abusive partners.

On the face of it, the law appears to be a blessing for people in abusive or violent relationships.
However, a careful analysis reveals that, under the ploy of “women and children welfare”, this
law is yet another misguided attempt to enact legislation to grant women legal supremacy over
men and to create a society where men are deprived of their rights.

There are three fundamental problems with this law – a) it is overwhelmingly gender biased in
favor of women, b) the potential for misuse is astounding and c) the definition of domestic
violence is too expansive.

The DV act singles out men as perpetrators of domestic violence and assumes that only women
are victims. As per this law, only a woman can file a complaint against her male partner. A man,
who is a victim of domestic violence, has no rights under this law. The fact is that it has been
comprehensively proven in numerous studies that women are no less abusive as men in intimate
relationships. Giving such sweeping legal powers to women while withholding protection to
male victims is tantamount to systematic legal victimization of men. In the western world, the
domestic violence laws are gender neutral and provide protection to the victims, both men and
women. The fact that the Indian version explicitly prohibits any male victim to seek relief under
this law defies all logic and is beyond comprehension.

The second significant flaw in this law is that it lends itself to such easy misuse that women will
find it hard to resist the temptation to “teach a lesson” to their male relatives and will file
frivolous and false cases. A similar trend is already being observed in the case of anti-dowry law
(498a), which is being misused to such an extent that the Supreme Court has termed it “Legal
Terrorism”.

a) If she demands any amount of money from him, for any reason whatsoever, he is legally
bound to pay that amount in full, failing which he can be imprisoned. Under the pretext of
preventing economic abuse of women, this law legalizes the extortion of money by women.
Interestingly, if he asks for money from her, he can be jailed for that as well. Furthermore, he is
responsible for paying the rent if the couple resides in a shared rented accommodation.

b) b) As per the law, she retains the right to the residence. This is a very convenient means
of getting control of the house regardless of whether she has any legal right on the property.
Moreover, if he is booked under DV, he is responsible for paying the rent as well, even though
he may not be allowed to live in the house or he might even be in jail.

c) If she decides not to cook and wishes to eat out in a restaurant everyday, he cannot afford
not to oblige, lest he invites the DV provision for “not providing food”, for which he could be
jailed.

d) If she has an affair and he tries to prevent her from meeting her lover, he could be
punished under the DV act, as he is preventing her from meeting someone.

e) He can be booked under the DV act if she feels that she has been insulted. Insult is a
relative term, which is totally left to her discretion. Interestingly, if she insults and abuses him
verbally or even physically, he does not have any legal recourse in this law.

These are just some of the ways in which women can exploit men in a legally permitted manner.
The fact that the complaint by a woman will be treated, prima facie, as “true and genuine” opens
up a whole new realm of possibilities where innocent men will be accused and implicated in
false cases, just because they refuse to give in to her unreasonable demands.

Most people readily agree that the law will be misused. Their counter arguments generally are;

a) The number of miuses will be very low OR every law is misused – The objective of any
law should be to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The persecution of innocents cannot
be justified in any circumstances. As is the case with 498a, this law will be heavily misused in
urban India.

b) If she is happy, then why will she file a complaint – Ah ! So, the man exists at the mercy
of the woman. If the wife wants to kick out old parents from home or wants to pursue an affair
and should the man dare to object, she can get him incarcerated with alacrity. Any law that
forcefully subjects a section of a society to conduct as per the pleasure of another section is
deemed oppressive and should be vehemently opposed.

c) There are other provisions to deal with the misuse of this law – The fact is that there are
other legal provisions to deal with domestic violence as well. If a strict law is made for a specific
purpose, then the provisions for dealing with its misuse should be in the law itself.

The third major flaw in this law is that it provides an all-encompassing definition of domestic
violence and some terms (insults, name calling) are extremely subjective. The radical feminists
claim that 70% of women in India face domestic violence which comes as no surprise as even an
insult is considered domestic violence. Interestingly, they are mum on how many indian men
suffer domestic violence using the same criteria. This law strikes at the very foundation of
marriage by promoting intolerance and litigation for petty domestic disputes. It is universally
recognized that from time to time differences arise in a marriage and sometimes people, both
men and women, behave in hurtful ways towards each other. Most people, though, are able to
work them out and lead a more or less happy life with their loved one. However, this law makes
it very easy to escalate the domestic problems in daily life to such a level that it eventually leads
to a breakdown in marriage. Once a man has been accused of domestic violence for a something
relatively minor (insult), while he might have been subjected to the same treatment from her, he
will perpetually feel threatened by his partner and that is the beginning of the end. This law will
lead to more divorces, broken homes and the children will pay the ultimate price by getting
deprived of a pleasant childhood.

There are degrees of domestic violence and not all conflicts in a relationship can be termed as
domestic violence. This law trivializes the issue of domestic violence by including minor
differences in its realm and by explicitly denying protection to half of the population.

The law in its current form is grossly inadequate to tackle the problem of domestic violence. It
imposes a lot of responsibility on men, without giving them rights. On the other hand, it gives
lots of rights to women without requiring them to be responsible. At the very minimum, it should
be made gender neutral, offering protection to both men and women. Also, provisions for
stringent punishments need to be incorporated into the law to prevent misuse. Moreover, the law
needs to be made more practical by differentiating between various degrees of conflicts and by
unambiguously defining what constitutes domestic violence.

The fact is domestic violence is a serious problem and a neutral and unprejudiced law is needed
to protect the genuine victims of domestic violence, irrespective of gender. The perpetrators of
domestic violence need to be appropriately punished and dealt with. At the same time, protection
cannot be withheld from real victims for any reason whatsoever, least of all their gender. One
can be certain that there is something sinister about a law, when it intimidates and instills fear in
innocent people. When a person who has not committed any crime, begins to fear punishment
under the provisions of a law, it is not a law anymore – it is state sponsored terrorism.

ANTI DOWRY LAWS

The men's rights activists claims that the anti-dowry laws are being frequently misused to harass
and extort husbands. The high rate of suicide among married men in India is also attributed to
harassment under these laws by the activists. The practice of giving dowry was first criminalised
in 1961 under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and later the Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code was introduced in 1983. The Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which deals with
cruelty to a wife states that:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine.

For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means:

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

The Section 113b of the Indian Evidence Act, 1879 says that if a married woman committed
suicide within seven years of marriage, it must be assumed by the court that her husband and his
family abetted the suicide, especially if there was evidence of prior dowry demands.

Until July 2014, the Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code allowed the police to arrest the
persons mentioned in the complaint without a warrant or without any investigation. The crime
was non-bailable, so chances of getting a bail are low and husbands usually lost their jobs while
in custody. On 2 July 2014, the Supreme Court of India in an order stopped automatic arrests
under the Section 498a. The Court directed the police to use the Section 41 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, which contains a checklist, to decide whether an arrest is necessary.
The Court also stated that in all arrests the magistrate must examine whether further detention
was necessary.There is also no provision of withdrawing a complaint in case of a reconciliation.
However, an amendment to rectify this has been proposed.

Of all arrests made the Indian Penal Code, 6% are made under the Section 498a. Of all crimes
reported under the Indian Penal Code, 4.5% are filed under Section 498a, which is the highest
barring theft and hurt. The police finds 9% to be false or under the wrong law. Of the cases that
go to trial, only 15% result in conviction. In July 2014, 3,72,706 cases under Section 498a were
pending in Indian courts.

According to SIFF, these laws don't follow conventional legal premises where a person is
innocent until proven guilty. It has also pointed out that several of those who are arrested under
this law are women themselves, i.e., female relatives of husbands. Former justice of Delhi High
Court Shiv Narayan Dhingra has admitted that this law is being used by women to harass their
husbands and in-laws. He has opined that parents should not go through with a marriage, if
dowry is being demanded of them. Swarup Sarkar, a spokesperson of SIFF, has said that men
with low incomes are rarely targeted and most victims of misuse are well-off. He has claimed
that these laws assume that women are always truthful, and don't place much importance on
evidence.He has termed misuse of these laws, legal terrorism.
Almost of a quarter of people arrested under Section 498a are women, mostly mothers and sisters
of the accused husband. In 2012, 47,951 women were arrested under this law.According to Ram
Prakash Chugh, a large majority of the women in Tihar jail are there due to dowry charges. He
has claimed that sometimes mothers of the bride bring dowry charges on their in-laws when the
bride fails to adjust to her in-laws. Organisations like All India Mother-in-Law Protection Forum
(AIMPF) and Mothers And Sisters of Husbands Against Abuse of Law (MASHAAL) have been
formed to represent such women.According to Sunil Gupta, a spokesperson for Tihar Jail, there
280 in-laws in the prison accused of dowry harassment and most of them are women. The
women are held in a separate section of the prison, which has been nicknamed Saas-Nanand
(mother-in-law and sister-in-law) barrack.

Some non-resident Indians (NRI) groups have also demanded amendments to the anti-dowry
law. Anindya Chatterjee, a California-based IT worker who runs an online support group, was
accused under the law. He has said that sometimes while visiting India, men are accused under
the law and get arrested by police without verifying if the case is genuine and their passports are
seized. The cases often take a year to clear up, as a result the men lose their jobs abroad due to
frequent travels to attend the court or being unable to leave India.Canada and United States have
issued travel advisories warning of India's anti-dowry law misuses in the past.

Jyotsna Chatterjee, member of the Joint Women's Programme which was involved in drafting the
Domestic Violence Act 2005, has responded to these criticism of the anti-dowry law, by stating
that compared to the men who have faced the misuse of the anti-dowry law, many more women
have suffered from dowry demands. She has said that there has been no change in the way
society sees women and they are still treated as second-class citizens.Indira Jaising has also
rejected the view that anti-dowry law and domestic violence laws are being misused. She has
also claimed that the high acquittal under dowry cases occurs because prosecutions are
conducted improperly and people are encouraged to settle out of court. Indrani Sinha of Sanlaap
has said that the anti-dowry cannot be easily misused. She said that if the husband and his family
are innocent then they should go to the police before the wife and file a complaint.

Notable verdicts and legal panel reports

In November 2003, the Committee on Reforms in the Criminal Justice System (CRCJS), headed
by V. S. Malimath, recommended that Section 498a be made bailable and compoundable.

In July 2005, the Supreme Court admitted that in many instances complaints under the Section
498a of the Indian Penal Code are not bona fide and have oblique motives. The court added that
acquittal in such cases doesn't erase the suffering the defendant has to go through, which is
compounded by adverse media coverage. The court also directed the legislature to find ways to
check such false cases.
In August 2010, the Supreme Court directed the government to amend Section 498a of the Indian
Penal Code in view of the rising numbers of false or exaggerated complaints against husbands
and their relatives by women. It further added that such complaints result in the husband and his
relatives remaining in custody until trial or bail, which kills all chances of an amicable
settlement.

In January 2012, the Law Commission of India recommended that Section 498a should be made
a compoundable offense. But, the court will decide if the particular case is compoundable or not.

On 2 July 2014, the Supreme Court said that this law is being used by some women to harass
their husband and in-laws. The court prohibited the police from making arrests on the mere basis
of a complaint. The court asked the police to follow Section 41 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, which provides a 9-point checklist which must be used to decide the need for
an arrest. The court also said that a magistrate must decide whether an arrested accused is needed
to be kept under further detention. The decision was in response to a Special Leave Petition
(SPL) filed by one Arnesh Kumar challenging his arrest and of his family under this law.The
decision was welcomed by men's right activists but was criticised by women rights activists.
However, due to lack of communication to police stations, the guidelines of Supreme Court of
India are still not getting followed.

Ranjana Kumari of the Centre for Social Research has criticised the Supreme Court's judgement
which said that anti-dowry laws are being misused and stopped arrests based on FIRs. She said
that if laws are being misused then the law enforcement should be held responsible.

Divorce and custody laws

The men's rights activists in India claim that the divorce and child custody laws are biased
against men.They say that this allows divorced wives to stop men from seeing their children for
long periods of time.They have said that alimony should not be granted if the wife is the primary
earner of the family and the law should see men capable of bringing up children.

In India, child custody is granted to the father only if the mother is mentally unstable or has left
home leaving behind the child. At present, the matter custody in case of divorce is governed by
two laws: Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. But,
both laws do not have any provisions for shared parenting or joint custody.

Under the Evidence Act, 1872, if a child is born within a marriage or within 280 days of
dissolution of a marriage, then the child is considered legitimate and is entitled to child
supportand inheritance. At present, DNA paternity tests do not take precedence over this law.
The courts may still choose to ignore the genetic evidence and ask a non-biological parent to pay
for child support.
An organisation named Children's Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) has demanded
better child access laws and has called the current custodial laws gender-biased.[86]It has
demanded amendments to the Guardians and Wards Act be amended to make shared parenting
mandatory.

Swarup Sarkar of Save Family Foundation has speculated that now two out of three Indian
couples actively share parenting. Kumar Jahagirdar, president of CRISP, has noted a growth in
men who are the primary caregivers in the family.

MASS KILLING
In situations of structural violence that include war and genocide, men and boys are frequently
singled out and killed.The murder of targets by sex during the Kosovo War, estimates of civilian
male victims of mass killings suggest that they made up more than 90% of all civilian casualties.
Other examples of selective mass killings of civilian men include some of Stalin's purges.

Non-combatant men and boys have been and continue to be the most frequent targets of mass
killing and genocidal slaughter, as well as a host of lesser atrocities and abuses.[51] Gendercide
Watch, an independent human rights group, documents multiple gendercides aimed at males
(adult and children): The Anfal Campaign,(Iraqi Kurdistan), 1988 – Armenian Genocide(1915-
17) – Rwanda, 1994.Forced conscription can also be considered gender-based violence against
men.

Proposed amendments
In 2014, the National Commission for Women proposed some changes to the law which included
widening the definition of the term dowry and increasing the penalty for false cases. But, the
suggestions were rejected by the Ministry of Women and Child Development. The Minister for
Women, Maneka Gandhi, told the Lok Sabha in December, "The NCW had recommended
certain amendments in Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the ministry has taken a considered
view on the matter and decided to drop the amendment proposed by NCW in the present form
after taking into account the comments of the high level committee on the status of women and
the ministry of home affairs". Ranjana Kumari of Centre for Social Research welcomed this
decision to not dilute the law.

In March 2015, it was reported that Government of India was planning to amend Section 498A.
It would be made compoundable, which would allow the parties to settle if the court
recommended it. The fine for filing a false case would be increased from ₹1,000 to ₹15,000.
Amit Gupta, of National Coalition for Men, has opposed making the law compoundable. He has
said that it would make extortion easier. He has pointed out that after Andhra Pradeshmade it
compoundable, the number of case rose by 150% and conviction rate fell by 400%.

Maneka Gandhi, the Minister for Women & Child Development, has also opposed any changes
to the existing dowry laws. Ranjana Kumari of the Centre for Social research has also expressed
disagreement over demands to amend the anti-dowry law, pointing out that dowry deaths are still
occurring in India.
An Analysis of Section 497
Section 497 penalizes sexual intercourse of a man with a married woman without the consent of
her husband when such sexual intercourse does not amount to rape. That is, it draws a distinction
between consent given by a married woman without her husband's consent and a consent given
by an unmarried woman. It does not penalize the sexual intercourse of a married man with an
unmarried woman or a widow or even a married woman when her husband consents to it. In case
the offence of adultery is committed, the husband cannot prosecute his unfaithful wife but can
only prosecute her adulterer. However, since the offence of adultery can be committed by a man
with a married woman only, the wife of the man having sexual intercourse with other unmarried
women cannot prosecute either her husband or his adulteress. What is interesting here is that the
section itself expressly states that the unfaithful wife cannot be punished even as an abettor to the
crime. The offence of adultery therefore is an offence committed against the husband of the wife
and not against the wife.

Adultery cannot be committed without a woman's consent. Yet, the section burdens man alone
for the offence. Though the reasons for this may be justifiable, the woman here is always treated
as a victim of the offence. Hence, this section does not contemplate a situation where the same
married woman has sexual intercourse with more than one person other than her husband without
her husband's consent. It is highly implausible that even in such a situation the woman would
always be the victim and not the person who provokes the offender for the crime. No doubt that
the law, as it stands, is inadequate.

Motives And Instigators;

Let’s start with the motives and instigators:

• Money: The greatest of motivators. A 498A can lead to great terms for a fat cash settlement, or
help her dad

or sibling in their ventures, etc, etc.

• Vengeance: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. She will have her revenge and your family
will

collectively bear the brunt of it. The 498A Wives have a soft corner for your mother and your
sister (s).

Prepare your mom and sister(s) for special treatment. They may very well see the inside of a
prison.

• Guilt: She’s done something wrong, may have committed adultery and got caught in the act.
She wants to
cover it up with a dowry harassment case to garner sympathy and to provide cover for her guilt.
It also puts

her in a good position to negotiate a fat settlement and gain custody of kids, if kids are involved.
498A will be filed when paternity is in question. Don’t count on DNA evidence, as the courts are
reluctant to allow it. Indian law is still ruled by the evidence act from 1872.

• She Is Just Not Into You: I’m sorry to hurt your pride, but she just doesn’t like you and wants
to get out of the marriage. The 498A is a convenient tool to do so.

• She Is A Control Freak: She wants to control you in every possible way. She may also want
you to not support your parents and siblings in any fashion regardless of your ability to do so.
She may want you tothrow your parents out of your/their house. Her goal is to gain control of all
aspects of your life, including finances and to break the bonds and responsibilities that tie you to
your family. Her failure to do so will result in a 498A.

To Marry The Boyfriend: This is a new trend whereby she will file a 498A just to force you into
settling the divorce with a chunk of cash and then go on to marry her boyfriend. They will use
your cash to set up their “Chota Sa Ghar”, or their “Premiyon Ka Mahal” if the settlement is
large enough.