The primary rule of being an intellectual is appreciating the opposite sex, and the secondary rule is to be wary of those whom you are likely to appreciate. Everyday, as I sieve a newspaper to gauge the circumstantial world, somehow one page has the brandished opinions of a volatile feminist’s ire over the umpteen of rape cases that garner up every other day. A particularly intriguing one was endorsed with the following (I shall not provide both, the name suffused in the byline and the exact content as I have no functioning intention to be sued.):



“A seventeen year old girl, a denizen of the capital, was brutally raped on the third of November. … blah, blah, blah… The city is literally unsafe for woman… Women reserve the right… blah, blah, blah…”

What actually ensued was an enormous sermon on feminism and rights of a woman as a human being. Now, extrapolating on the feeble matter above, I unearthed two narrowly expounded details as rather a tad ludicrous and lackluster. Firstly, what irked me was the presence of the adjective ‘brutally’, and second of all, the astute veering of events to an expedient position which doesn’t have to compromise with the reality of the juncture but advertises the aptitude of the author towards a feminist cause.

This is the ilk of typecast jargon feminists have been utilizing to enthuse and provide for the Machiavellian topical theme – feminism. Ere, I assail the same with a polemic, I’d like to emphasize on the soul and rationale of this article – rape, in the Indian society.

The vintage Indian attitude towards rape is very redundant, passé and grossly clichéd.

How much is rape different from casual sex?

Sex with hubby – making love. Sex with stranger – getting raped.

Someone offered on the topic that a woman’s ‘willingness’ is a priority to be considered.

How many times is sex not perfunctory? How many times is a woman in point of fact willing to perform? How many times is sex directed at a woman and not ‘brutally’ contrived, extorted of one? Is a woman always ‘willing’?

This is not a besotted diatribe with a sexual propaganda. This is a besotted propaganda against the infernal diatribe of feminist discursions.

Let’s observe the most facial vein of the clause in the prior mentioned article. It goes –

“A seventeen year old girl, a denizen of the capital, was brutally raped on the third of November.”

Now, let us ridden it of the contextual dirge. We get –

“A girl was raped.”

This is a very subjective line and like most subjective entities, it is based far too much flippantly on perception and its accomplice, perspective. It can be viewed in two reforms –

A girl was raped.

A girl was raped.

The natural ability of an author to apprise any kind of an audience of something that is contradictory to what years of anal-retentive, fickle mind-sets have given way to, not only peters down but also, is absolutely riddled out of proportion. Here, the advent of allegories and anecdotes escalates to pose as de rigueur. So, apparently, I have mine own allegory to voice. Observe.

A woman, Jyoti, we’ll call her, had a little brother. Now one sunny day, this brother, Gautam lets say, comes home with a searing brim and bulging torpid eyes with an iced gaze of coin-silver. Jyoti, out of angst at abandon, seizes and bitches him unto a Doctor (accede me to designate him, Rahul S.). Doctor Rahul S. is simultaneously appalled and nonplussed – he declares and adjudges that Gautam is down with something of a non-formative disease that the medical files do not possess any cultured erudition or acumen of. It is atypical and a radically new disease borne by a human. All Jyoti covets is that her brother be duly cured. Conversely, Doctor Rahul S. is concerting on the disease itself, regarding its abominable nature and methodical potency of contagiousness; concisely put, he yearns to eradicate the disease.

Who is right here?

Who is enabled to the bigger picture?

If, as a reader, you hold the dogged grit to renegade that erroneous, hermit-outlook, and hold the decent conscience to answer the twain questions, you also would be able to cast a new adjunct perspective on the premise where we left to begin with –

A girl was raped.

A girl was raped.

Alas, the final question, the ultimate qualm, please –

Who is right here?

Who is enabled to the bigger picture?