This post is a response to the attitudes of the Delhi Police on rape. Fictional incident:
Thugs in a car shot policemen at a check point.
FictionTV interviews witnesses who saw the incident unfold.
Anchor: “Tell me what happened”
All the cars were going through the check point. This car came and rolled down the window and two of the policemen went to speak with the men inside. We don’t know what they said, but the men got angry with the policemen and shot them. The police always take money from criminals to not arrest them, then gangs shoot them when they ask for too much.
Anchor: “Police take money from criminals?!!?”
Well… these police are all hand in glove with the mafia. They know when goods get moved, they take money to ignore. If they take money and still stop the car, then the gundas can shoot them. They shouldn’t be corrupt if they don’t want to get shot.
Anchor: “Did these policemen take money?”
That is what they do. All these check point jobs have big bribes to get the job, then they earn like that. Why else would someone shoot a policeman for stopping a car? How come all policemen don’t get shot? Only the corrupt policemen get shot. They get shot, because they do illegal things. Sometimes other policemen shoot them, because of competition.
Anchor: “Why do you think this happens?”
Everyone knows. These policemen all come from bad families. Their parents are thieves, robbers, they bring their children up like that. They have these connections. Then they apply to join the police force and use them to make profit. How else will they earn so much money? It is bad company, that is why they get killed.
Anchor: “Are all policemen corrupt?”
Honest policemen don’t get into such situations. They know their limits and they do things in a legal way. If the policemen were honest, wouldn’t they be prepared for criminals? Wouldn’t they approach cautiously? Why would they talk with strangers if they didn’t know them and they were checking for criminals? Why would they get shot? They knew the people in the car.
Anchor: “Do only corrupt policemen get shot on the job?”
See, it is like this. If a policeman’s job were about getting shot, no one would apply. It is only these people who get involved with the mafia and gangsters, take their money and double cross them … then the thugs take revenge. Then they pretend to be victims to get the reward money from the government.
Some policemen even have made a business of getting injured and taking reward money. Sometimes they cut themselves, or shoot a hand or foot and say they got injured while chasing criminals. It is all a business.
Anchor: “Do you have anything to add?”
Yes. GOOD they got killed. When my sister got raped, they said she was a loose character. They asked the rapist what really happened, and blamed my sister for wearing cheap clothes. Is a salwar kameez cheap? It is because they have loose character that they see that in everyone. Good they died.
I hope you read this and know what rape victims feel about you.
5 thoughts on “Thugs shot policemen while escaping – Witness interviews”
It would be good, right in the opening paragraph to differentiate between victims of domestic violence at the hands of women and the propaganda machine. Not all men who speak of misuse of the act are misogynists. Also, if you label all of “them” as evil reason-less misogynists, there is no place for dialogue, change and resolution. Try get funds for research into gender violence perpetrated by women, no one other than these mens right orgs will fund you. there is misandry in the misogyny-preventing institution.
Why is there a need to differentiate at all? Why the need for apologetic disclaimers to prevent lynch mobs? The words speak for themselves.
As for the mens organizations funding research, I have written to at least a couple, and they are not really interested in further probing claims they get. The problem is not funding. Initial research can be something as simple as a webform that people fill, to get an idea of what needs done. Perhaps it is the fear of a minority of seeing its ranks reduced further or split into sub-interests, but without that willingness, you cannot hope for research.
At the same time, the rabid projections of women as primarily predatory about men is very, very far fetched – research or not. One reply I got was along the lines of “Women pretend to be weak in order to harass men. Almost every man in India suffers at the hands of a woman. Far more than women do, but there is a big lobby that profits from showing women as victims” This, without *any* numbers to back it up is plain dangerous incitement.
The need to differentiate is because men also get beaten up by women. And as i said already, believing that the dowry act is used as a truncheon is not misogynist in itself. hundereds of men call mens-helplines, meaning they are facing domestic violence.
See, it doesnt matter if mens right agencies are interested in investigating, anything they produce will be rejected, its TISS and other main-stream that needs to research. and no, its not as simple as a web-form research. too many confouders, too much emotional involvement.
the need to differentiate is also becuase misgyny is real, and calling every instance of dissent misogyny is itself misogynistic.
Am not talking about blanket disclaimers of ‘dont be offended please” am talking about getting definitions right.
There is little use in using the “i dont know a single case” argument, both sides will respond with a good old simple recollection bias.
The “Not interested in probing claims” is in the sense of examining the whole and quantifying the exact extent kind of surveys. They do provide support for individual cases, and I have heard several comments that they have helped individual men with specific cases in great detail. And I am sure that is true.
Another thing worth attempting may be getting a male researcher to contact them. Possibly with so many of the people they support being victims of female abuse on men, they may not be open to the idea of a woman poking at the cases.
Here are two of their objections:
1. //Sexual harassment and refusal of sex has happened with more than 82%
Indian men as their wives refused for physical union at least once in 6
months and 42% have faced once in 3 months.//
Refusal to have sex by wife once in six or three months is sexual harassment of husband?
2. //“There is a provision, wherein taking and giving dowry is an offence.
However, police are quick to register an FIR against husbands and their
families for seeking dowry, but not a single FIR has been registered
against girls or their families for giving dowry”, said Arun Kumar ,
coordinator, Chandigarh chapter.//
Does this mean men’s families actually go and report against having been forced to accept dowry? Obviously not. So a case should be registered against the parents after a daughter has been killed by her in laws (or died in suspicious circumstances) – so fear of police action ensures that a daughter’s parents agree that the bride took her own life or that her death was an accident?