Rape and its sociology

Gender inequality remains a great cause behind rape like heinous crime. Gender inequality is rooted in the female-male power relationship. Society considers males with stereotypically masculine expressions of sexuality and females with stereotypically feminine expressions of sexuality. In India, cross-cultural perspectives were mainly occupied by men. Here in India, being subordinate to men, women could not oppose strongly to the socialisation of gender stratification based on traditional gender roles within the family. Moreover, social institutions like religion, family, education, employment, etc. promoted the traditional socialisation of women in an era where cross-cultural boundaries were continuously diminishing. The market based or market oriented socialisation on western parameters represented women as a good economic instrument based on sexuality. Men feel no discomfort in embracing women prestige and status, because the opposing societal forces were already overlapped by market forces. So, to improve the status and role of women from second-class to a leading and equally participating entity in country's development, the most effective tool is political system because only State with, in capacity of its Legislature, Executive and Judiciary organs can break the stereotypically masculine expressions of male through establishing a legal framework in which women with their right-based approach can achieve a status of gender equality. But social participation and social regulation in reorganizing women's status on their social security front will remain the most important throughout entire structural reform process.

Is it our own society?

Every rape causes social death of the suffered woman. Rapists are the best example of worst mentality in any society. In India, after flooded rape cases, women’s protection and their security is become a matter of greater concern. Delhi gang-rape case slaps on the face of our so called “intellectual” society. This incident shows complete failure of our Legislation, Executive and Judiciary in taking proper concerns of women’s respect and their rights. By nature, women, being physically less stronger than men, are not able to protect themselves or to restrict against these (sexual assault and rape) kind of violence. To provide them some kind of restrictions against these sexual offences, it is State’s duty to take some efficient measures in form of stringent punishment and strict laws for crime against women. Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010 is not sufficient to curb such kind of activities. There should be a special law for crime against women having stringent punishment not only for the commission of the offence but also for “attempt to commit an offence” and “abetment of the offence” as we have in the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for sexual offences against children. Special courts for speedy trail, women friendly procedures, relief and rehabilitation of women, etc. must be State's priority while curbing out such a heinous crime against women. Society, also, has to play a major role in regulation of itself. The morality and respect for women must be injected into coming generation’s blood through education and family values. Without protection of women from sexual offences and other violence, their empowerment will have no mean in practical.

A Capitalist Move Of Indian Brand Of Socialism

The Union Government's step of allowing 51 per cent FDI in multi brand retail segment, boasted as the next biggest step since 1991 reforms by government, has proved political opportunism overriding the economic logic. Government thinks FDI as it is a source of filling the savings, forex reserves, trade deficit, management and technological gap and as an instrument of international economic integration but without considering the socioeconomic status and needs of the people of India, a policy like the multi brand FDI may prove the smacking of utter policy paralysis. Government's arguments behind the adoption of FDI in multi brand retail segments are like recognition of serious supply-side constraints (particularly in the food-related retail chains); improvement in back-end infrastructure promotion of share values of the farmers by reducing the role of intermediaries who obtain a disproportionate share value; identification between interests of consumer (nearly 115 crore) and the interests of retailers (nearly 5 crore); strengthening the tax collection of the government by improving the possibilities to tax the unorganised retail sector; improvement in quality standards and customer expectations; etc. Moreover, Indian Council of Research in International Economic Relation (ICRIER), which was appointed to look into the impact of big capital in the retail sector, also come to the conclusion that investment of big money (as FDI in multi brand) in the retail sector would, in the long run out not harm interests of small, traditional retailers. But above all, the most important fact is that FDI driven modern retailing is labour displacing to the extent that it can only expand by destroying the traditional retail sector. cmpanies like Wall Mart, Carrefour, Tesco, etc. will offer a range of household items and grocery directly to consumers in the same way as the ubiquitous 'kirana' stores. With their incredibly high capital, FDI driven retailing units such as Wall Mart, Correfour, Tesco, etc. will be able to sustain losses for many years till its immediate competition is wiped out. This is normal predatory strategy used by these companies to drive out small and dispersed competition. Once a monopoly situation is created, they will then turn into buying low and selling high. To obtain goods and services at the lowest possible price is in the interest of the consumer and it is his/her privilege but it cannot, in any circumstance, override the responsibility of any society to provide economic security for its population and collective well-being must take precedence over individual benefits. The primary task of the Government of India is still ti provide livelihoods and not create so called efficiency of scale by creating redundancies.

--Piyush Tripathi

A "Compromised Governance"

The UPA Government's 'Direct Cash Transfer Scheme' in place of subsidies is not more than an example of what we call "compromised governance". Cash in place of subsidies ("services") lacks a sense of responsibility and accountability towards providing social security and social protection of the poor people. The two basic pillars of this scheme are-  Aadhaar cards and opening of new bank accounts. The implementation of Aadhaar scheme is already in question as the National Identity Authority of India Bill 2010 was rejected by the Parliamentary Standing Committee in 2011 and on November 30 this year, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Union Government seeking their response on the Constitutionality of implementing the Aadhaar scheme for social entitlements. Opening of millions of new bank accounts on the basis of Aadhaar cards (which already have some technical flaw) is the next challenging aspect of this lofty cash transfer scheme. today, our banks are flooded with number of cases related with accounts having fake identity, illegal transactions, discrepancy, etc. In that case millions of new accounts will make it more difficult to handle the situation. The access of banks and banking activities, easy availability of markets, etc. will have to ensure to the poor people on behalf of the government. If the scheme is implemented, then the scene would be like this- a beneficiary will go to the bank, collect the sum of cash after standing for hours in a long row, then will go to the market, purchase some items of daily uses and finally will back to home............when will he work to make some earn? Because a poor eats what he earns everyday. An economy running under the inflationary pressure, such kind of schemes can prove a wrong move. Government should never be hasty in taking those decisions influencing a large public domain.