This Thursday, we saw a tweet from an “India expert” at an American think tank about a college in Delhi:
- “StS ppal allegedly:”men & women were not equal–they were diffrnt like apples & oranges,like eggs & stones & hd 2 b taken care of diffrntly”
This tweet and the accompanying story reminded us of our three week old article titled Explosion of Anti-Feminism in India. That article was prompted by an unbelievable case in India in which a warden of a women’s dorm was arrested and the principal of a women’s school was suspended only because a 17-year female student in that dorm/school delivered a child. In that article, we asked:
- “What were the dorm warden and the principal supposed to do? Lock up all the young women students inside the dorm like in a harem? Forbid them to venture out of the dorm/school without female chaperons? Or should the warden or the principal have installed medieval style chastity belts on all young women students? These crazy, jail-like or harem-like conditions are the only way you can forcibly prevent a young woman of 17 from having sex outside the dorm or school.”
The principal of a Delhi college did not go that far. But he certainly acted as if he agreed with our medieval sounding question. According to a published article by students of St. Stephens college in Delhi, the principal of that college has established a 10 pm curfew for resident female students (the men have no such curfew). During a general body student meeting organized to protest this curfew, the principal reportedly walked in. This student-written article states:
- “The Principal came to the GBM, and behaved in an extremely high-handed and authoritarian manner, terming the issue of curfew as a ‘petty grievance’ contrived by a few mischief makers. He made highly sexist comments proclaiming that men and women were not equal – they were different, like apples and oranges, like eggs and stones, and had to be taken care of differently. He refused to recognize the students right to voice their demand, claiming that they were mere guests and that he could force everyone out of residence and keep the buildings empty if he so desired. A student pointed out that women’s curfew is a traditional patriarchal gesture, a question he ignored.”
The above tweet from the female “India expert” at the American “think tank” (misnomers aren’t they) seems to suggest that she agrees with the sexist adjective applied by the students to the principal’s proclamation about difference and non-equality between men and women in India.
Sorry, Ms. India expert. Unfortunately, the principal is correct in both spirit and law. As we wrote in our Explosion of Anti-Feminism in India article,
- “The Indian legal system considers women as a “victim” class of individuals incapable of making decisions for themselves in sexual matters. That is why they are never held liable for their sexual activity. This is just as true of adult and married women. A married woman engaged in adultery is held as non-responsible and legally blameless for that sexual activity. Only the man involved in that adulterous relationship is held legally responsible and can be imprisoned for that activity.”
The new anti-rape law is even worse than the older version in its differential treatment of women and men. Under this law, an Indian man, under virtually any circumstances, is pre-judged guilty as a matter of law, regardless of evidence or guilt. The Indian Legal system has regressed to such a level that, in Mumbai, they have announced establishment of women-only courts where men are not allowed in any capacity except of course as criminally accused.
So we ask you what is a college principal to do? What would happen to the principal if a female student ventures out at night into the unsafe, disgusting city called Delhi and gets raped? The outrage will ruin his reputation and doom his career. Forget rape. What if a female student has sex outside the college, gets pregnant and delivers a child? He would be suspended like the principal of that women’s school in Rajasthan.
The principal of the St. Stephens college has gone much further according to the student-written article:
- “A month before the semester examinations, the students have been told that they would not be granted hostel facilities next semester automatically. They would have to go through an interview process, which would take place on 22nd and 23rd April. The Principal himself would be conducting those interviews. Grant of hostel facilities would be based on academic excellence, contribution to college activities, and attendance. A new form for reapplication to the hostel has been brought out, asking vague questions about students’ contribution to college and asking them to specify if they disagree with residence rules.”
You got to hand it to this principal. He is moving with authority to protect his college. The students are being reminded that residence in the hostel (dorm) is not a right but a license granted under certain rules. And these rules merely obey the spirit of the new anti-rape law of India in which free sexual acts by women are the problem of Indian men, institutions & society and not at all of the women who engaged in those acts of their free will.
The real question is whether this principal is being generously liberal or foolhardy in risking his and his college’s reputation? Shouldn’t he try to separate his institution into women’s and men’s colleges? Why? Because a man is only safe in India, legally speaking, when he is completely segregated from Indian women. That is the lesson of the new anti-rape law in India.
So Mr. Principal, establish a nunnery institution in your college and tell your women students to get there. That way you can simultaneously honor the bard and remain within the spirit of the laws of Incredible India.
Send your feedback to e
firstname.lastname@example.org Or @MacroViewpoints on Twitter