“Committed to the cause of women” is the phrase you encounter frequently when you peruse the legislation proposed by the feminist outfits like Lawyers Collective and NCW. You also hear this phrase in the numerous representations made to the authorities by the feminists. Examples include the draft Sexual Harassment bill where the Service Providers “committed to the cause of women” were to be given powers to arbitrate the disputes. Similarly, in the representations made to the Government by the radical feminist outfits like AIDWA and Lawyers Collective, they are demanding filling up the judiciary and the police with officers “committed to the cause of women”.

Questions raised in any thinking individual’s mind when one hears the phrase “committed to the cause of women” include –

1. What is the meaning of “cause of women”? Is it related to women’s advancement in various areas of social life? Is it arming a woman with unchecked power to unleash “legal terrorism” against anyone at her fancy? Is it achieving true gender equality, so women are given equal opportunity to advance in any area of endeavor on par with men? What is the true cause of women?
2. Which particular segment of women’s cause is it? Urban women or rural women? Rich women or poor women? Educated or semi-educated or uneducated? Mothers-in-laws/sister-in-laws or the daughters-in-laws? Live-ins or wives? What if the cause of one segment of women is in direct opposition to the cause of another segment? Which segment’s cause should take precedence?
3. Can the authorities, whether they are in the judiciary or in the executive like the police, who derive their powers from the constitution and democratic institutions, be committed to the cause of one section of the society at the expense of another section of the society?
4. Where should the commitment of an individual who professes to practice a certain profession lie?

The “cause of the women” from the legislation already passed so far, and the legislation proposed, appears to be neither the true advancement of women nor the redress for victimized women, but that of arming an urban, upwardly mobile shrew with unchecked powers to unleash the full force of state machinery on unsuspecting individuals at her fancy. It is that segment of women’s cause that the radical feminists are vociferously advocating and advancing.

Coming to the last two questions raised above, it is obvious an individual’s commitment must lay towards the cause of the profession he or she professes to practice and not towards one section of the citizenry at the expense of the other. This is particularly applicable in professional matters, no matter what his or her private opinions or viewpoints may be.

For example, there is a doctor in your town who is “committed to the cause of women”. She routinely administers incorrect medicines to her male patients, often causing death and disability, because of her belief that all men are abusers of women. Would you condone such a doctor? Would you be willing to send your son, your father or your brother to such a doctor for treatment?

Now imagine that the judicial ranks are filled with judges “committed to the cause of women” and not to the cause of truth, law and justice. What would be the confidence level of a citizen who approaches such a court for justice? What if the accused person in such a court is a female and the victim a male? What confidence could the citizens repose in any judgments delivered from such a court?

In the same way, when police ranks are filled with persons “committed to the cause of women”, instead of to the cause of upholding law, what kind of redress can a citizen expect when approaching such a biased agency?

From the above, it is amply clear that “committed to the cause of women” is not the right commitment for any professional – whether one is a judicial officer, a doctor, a lawyer, the police; or for that matter any other professional.

Then what is the true agenda of the radical feminists when they exhort the authorities for the appointment of officials “committed to the cause of women”?

Their true agenda is an insidious attempt to infiltrate and subvert the sacred institutions of our democratic society, like the judiciary and the law enforcement, from the inside. This phrase “committed to the cause of women”, as innocuous as it may sound, is the most dangerous Trojan Horse let loose on our society by the radical feminists, that all civil society must vigorously guard against.

It was a bright April morning. He kissed his three week old son and his darling wife good bye, took his car keys and dashed off down the stairs from his second floor apartment. Few minutes into his drive, he realized that he had left his wallet at home. He returned home pronto, parked the car on the street, and climbed the stairs. He found the door ajar, stopped upon hearing his wife’s voice and realized she was speaking over the phone about him and the child. Without betraying his emotions, he entered the house. His wife hung up the phone. He picked up his wallet, and right before leaving, he took a good look at the infant. A few weeks later, his worst fears came true when he received the results of the DNA Paternity Test. He is not the child’s biological father!

This is just one of the many cases of Paternity Fraud happening all over the world. In the United States and Australia, statistics indicate that about 30% of the alleged fathers tested for paternity were proved to be non-fathers. More recently, a similar study in China indicated that the numbers were no different in China, and that about 30% of the fathers tested for biological paternity in China proved to be non-fathers. No such study is known to have been conducted in India so far. However, there is no reason to believe that numbers would be any different in India.

In spite of the serious consequences of adultery and paternity fraud, our archaic laws still treat women who commit adultery and paternity fraud as innocent victims. Many non-biological fathers are forced into accepting another man’s children as their own, and required to fulfill all the responsibilities of a biological father.

Under Indian Penal Code section 497, a man committing adultery with a married woman is punishable with five years of imprisonment. However, an adulterous woman cannot be charged under the section. When the Malimath committee made the recommendation that a man and woman be made equally liable in cases of adultery, the National Commission for Women (NCW), under the stewardship of the radical feminist Girija Vyas, raised a hue and cry rejecting that recommendation. For NCW, a woman is always a “victim of her circumstances” and it is wrong to “blame the victim”.

Under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, children borne by a married woman are considered the legitimate children of the husband unless the husband can prove non-access to the wife during the period of conception. This provision ensures ample opportunity to the married woman to commit paternity fraud and take cover under section 112 of Indian Evidence Act.

Feminist outfits like the NCW, Ministry for Women and Child Development and Lawyers Collective behave like the proverbial ostriches and pretend as if the problem is non-existent. The lawmakers are hesitant to make any changes in section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act for the fear of tainting the infallible image of the “sacred Indian woman.”

Not content with ensuring protection for adulterous women from penal consequences, the shameless feminist outfits, spearheaded by the NCW and Girija Vyas made further recommendations that maintenance under the criminal section 125 CrPC not be denied to women who indulge in adultery.

In summary, the feminist fraud lies in -

• cherry picking the laws and amendments that favor women and simultaneously disempower men.
• remaining silent on archaic laws, such as the presumption of paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act which have no relevance in the present world where paternity can be conclusively established through DNA testing.

So, the next time you hear of any amendments to the existing laws or proposals for new ones emanating from the feminist mouthpieces such as the NCW or Lawyers Collective, be they relating to adultery, maintenance, rape, sexual harassment, divorce or child custody; please pay close attention – you will see the feminist fraud in all its nakedness.