Posted:
The channel/CVs have miscalculated, both in legality and in viewership.
As far as viewership is concerned, they will get good viewership if JM plays ablaa naari, forgives her husband and sticks to her marriage for the sake of her maayka-relatives, he is remorseful, and they reconcile.
The track has got excellent viewership in several serials, without ever manifesting track-support online.
But the CVs seem set on showing something that that audience won't be interested in watching - the wife fighting back, that too on basis of a concept that legally does not exist.
Marital rape is not a legal offence in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Don't know if exception is made for girls under what age in the other countries, but in India, girls under 15 years of age are exception and protected from the ambit.
By law, India does *not* recognize marital rape as a crime unless the wife is younger than 15 years old.
Every attempt to get marital rape considered in the category of rape keeps running into a clear demarcation line which makes non-marital rape a crime, but if the rape has been done by husband against his wife, then it's not considered rape.
So Raja saying that it's not rape if a husband consummates with the wife (regardless of her consent) is legally correct.
The basic law is totally in favour of the husband's right.
The husband has the right to consummate with his wife.
The wife does not have the right to refuse to consummate with the husband.
If the wife refuse to consummate, but the husband forces consummation, the law does not consider it rape.
In marital rape, regardless of the woman being willing or unwilling, it is considered the husband's right to have conventional consummation within the marriage, with the mitigation being that if she would not have objected, he would not have needed to force.
Even if they claim time-leap as excuse in this series, everything else in the story is according to today's times.
So their showing that she gets her husband arrested for something that is legally not a crime...
It's likely to mislead people into thinking there is actually such a law.
This is the one thing that even many developed countries took ages to finally get recognized as a legal offence.
JM only has the option of domestic violence law - not that her husband was wrong to force consummation on her, but that he injured her in other ways during the process.
And the current legal situation's humiliation for women is that if the rape is done with sufficient caution to prevent any other injury to her, then she has no recourse.
Raja can also claim persecution within the marriage by her refusal to consummate. And both can declare the other to be a liar on any number of matters. All that is fine points.
But that dratted promo had been having JM stand and say something which efforts have been on for, but she goes saying it like an existent law, and any number of people seeing it may assume that the act itself is legally a crime, rather than that everything on the periphery has to be used since the act itself is not a legal crime.
The problem here is that they are claiming that she'll be going after him for marital rape, which is not legally considered rape.
The wife actually does not have the option of punishing him for taking her against her will, attempted or otherwise.
It's an ongoing endeavour, but even developed countries took ages on this one.
So legally their great plan to show JM proving that wives have the right to refuse conventional consummation to the husband - it's a mess.
If any women see it and assume it's actually true, they will further find that not only is not true, law will protect them from physical cruelty but not from the husband's 'rightfully' getting consummation.
So they can lie to extreme degrees or they can endure - either way, it's not an inspiring situation.
The CVs are interested in showing something that is financially not viable by any means.
And the more they pit their ideas into this, the less they will look like championing crusaders, and more as legally ignorant who may cause actual hurt to women who may think that what is being shown in the serial is actually legally an option.
So if they want the female lead to emerge mahaan, it has to be through her forgiving this unnecessarily scripted atrocious act, and reconciling.
If she tries to legally punish him, it will be on basis of a law that does not exist in this country.
And beyond that, she would have to lie to an extent where mass-audience may lose all sympathy for her and doubt the original offence as well.
If they had emphasized it as a battle against domestic violence, then the rape scripting was not even remotely needed. So climbing down to domestic violence after finding out that marital rape is not a crime would look awkward for the CVs shoddily written track as well as the fictional story.
This is a disaster, and they should never have opted for scripting this particular social crusade where the main law is not in favour.
As far as viewership is concerned, they will get good viewership if JM plays ablaa naari, forgives her husband and sticks to her marriage for the sake of her maayka-relatives, he is remorseful, and they reconcile.
The track has got excellent viewership in several serials, without ever manifesting track-support online.
But the CVs seem set on showing something that that audience won't be interested in watching - the wife fighting back, that too on basis of a concept that legally does not exist.
Marital rape is not a legal offence in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Don't know if exception is made for girls under what age in the other countries, but in India, girls under 15 years of age are exception and protected from the ambit.
By law, India does *not* recognize marital rape as a crime unless the wife is younger than 15 years old.
Every attempt to get marital rape considered in the category of rape keeps running into a clear demarcation line which makes non-marital rape a crime, but if the rape has been done by husband against his wife, then it's not considered rape.
So Raja saying that it's not rape if a husband consummates with the wife (regardless of her consent) is legally correct.
The basic law is totally in favour of the husband's right.
The husband has the right to consummate with his wife.
The wife does not have the right to refuse to consummate with the husband.
If the wife refuse to consummate, but the husband forces consummation, the law does not consider it rape.
In marital rape, regardless of the woman being willing or unwilling, it is considered the husband's right to have conventional consummation within the marriage, with the mitigation being that if she would not have objected, he would not have needed to force.
Even if they claim time-leap as excuse in this series, everything else in the story is according to today's times.
So their showing that she gets her husband arrested for something that is legally not a crime...
It's likely to mislead people into thinking there is actually such a law.
This is the one thing that even many developed countries took ages to finally get recognized as a legal offence.
JM only has the option of domestic violence law - not that her husband was wrong to force consummation on her, but that he injured her in other ways during the process.
And the current legal situation's humiliation for women is that if the rape is done with sufficient caution to prevent any other injury to her, then she has no recourse.
Raja can also claim persecution within the marriage by her refusal to consummate. And both can declare the other to be a liar on any number of matters. All that is fine points.
But that dratted promo had been having JM stand and say something which efforts have been on for, but she goes saying it like an existent law, and any number of people seeing it may assume that the act itself is legally a crime, rather than that everything on the periphery has to be used since the act itself is not a legal crime.
The problem here is that they are claiming that she'll be going after him for marital rape, which is not legally considered rape.
The wife actually does not have the option of punishing him for taking her against her will, attempted or otherwise.
It's an ongoing endeavour, but even developed countries took ages on this one.
So legally their great plan to show JM proving that wives have the right to refuse conventional consummation to the husband - it's a mess.
If any women see it and assume it's actually true, they will further find that not only is not true, law will protect them from physical cruelty but not from the husband's 'rightfully' getting consummation.
So they can lie to extreme degrees or they can endure - either way, it's not an inspiring situation.
The CVs are interested in showing something that is financially not viable by any means.
And the more they pit their ideas into this, the less they will look like championing crusaders, and more as legally ignorant who may cause actual hurt to women who may think that what is being shown in the serial is actually legally an option.
So if they want the female lead to emerge mahaan, it has to be through her forgiving this unnecessarily scripted atrocious act, and reconciling.
If she tries to legally punish him, it will be on basis of a law that does not exist in this country.
And beyond that, she would have to lie to an extent where mass-audience may lose all sympathy for her and doubt the original offence as well.
If they had emphasized it as a battle against domestic violence, then the rape scripting was not even remotely needed. So climbing down to domestic violence after finding out that marital rape is not a crime would look awkward for the CVs shoddily written track as well as the fictional story.
This is a disaster, and they should never have opted for scripting this particular social crusade where the main law is not in favour.
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
