Talk:Rape in India

The Law on Marital Rape in India

The law on Marital Rape in India is governed by Sections 375 (Rape), Section 375 read with Section 376 (Punishment for Rape), and Section 375 read with Section 376 and Section 376A (Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation) of the Indian Penal Code. This law was enacted in 1860, and amended several times thereafter from time to time by the Parliament of India and by state legislatures, which have the power to make certain types of state-specific laws and amendments to national laws, which become laws which are applicable only in particular states.

The "Exception" clause in section 375 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code deals with spousal sexual intercourse with or without the consent of the wife, in case the wife is more than 15 years old. It reads as follows, "Exception.-Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape."

A fragment of Sub-section (1) of Section 376 (Punishment for Rape) deals with rape by a man of his wife who is between 12 and 15 years of age. This sub-section declares, "Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both".

Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code deals with "Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation". It declares, "Whoever has sexual intercourse with his own wife, who is living separately from him under a decree of separation or under any custom or usage without her consent shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine."

There is a discrepancy between the Hindu Marriage Act, the Special Marriage Act, laws relating to marriage between any religious combination of husband and wife (except marriage between a muslim man and a muslim woman, which is governed by the Muslim Marriage Act, and by judgments of the Supreme Court relating to this subject), and the Sections of the IPC dealing with marital rape. According to all these laws, the minimum age at which a woman can legally be married is 18 years. While the IPC sections dealing with rape, discuss wives as young as 12 years of age. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act also prohibits marriage of girls younger than 18 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.100.14.160 (talk • contribs) 10:20, January 6 2013 (UTC)‎

Reported ratio

I couldn't find a source that would compare the statistics with the ratio of reported cases with those of the US. I have added a source from niticentral regarding the "among lowest". Sankrant Sanu, the author of this article has written articles for multiple news websites. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a disclaimer at the bottom of Sankrant Sanu's piece that says :"Opinions expressed in this article are the author's personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of Niti Central and Niti Central is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article." Just sayin'..... DanS76 (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"1 in 10"? It is attributed to a general secretary of a women association, Sudha Sundararaman. These are neither official or hold any credibility compared to any other related stats. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Already attributed the source to say it's explicitely from an article from WSJ, which is a reputable news publisher. The US stats were from withing the article, but the figures have changed since the article, so I've updated it plus added the source (taken from WSJ). Zhanzhao (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

They don't qualify WP:RS, unless there is some scarcity of sources. That is not the case here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In which case we would have to take away the whole chunk referencing from Sankrant SAnu's article as well, since as DanS76 pointed out, it admits itself to being an opinion piece too, and hence does not qualify as RS. So.... we could leave both in, take both out, or put both to WP:RS and let them decide. I'm just not agreed to taking out base on abuse of the "Opinion" label, since proper attribution has already been made to qualify it. :/ Zhanzhao (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

While it is certain that the reported ratio of rape is among lowest in India, there is no proof about "1 in 10", an extraordinary claim. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is already one section dedicated to the issue of unreported rape.(doh). We could just take that whole para in the lead out rather than have the lead go into grey area by sourcing from opinion pieces. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

WSJ says in her "field experience". Which means "1 in 10" is a complete guess. Also, please stop deleting academic books like "Deviant Behavior."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You might want to check exactly who's been deleting rather than just randomly throw accusations in the air. Who's the one deleting the source you mentioned, VG? And there has been no concensus reached, so why are my edits being deleted? Zhanzhao (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand the difference between academic books and junk articles, then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You are telling us that you had consensus to add this kind of content to the article? Show me the related discussion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait, 2 against 1 is consensus? Whatever you say, man. (Not counting DanS, cos seeing his edit habit, his probably gonna go missing again) Zhanzhao (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this here is apparently the edit where the ratio was originally added. Instead of just randomly chasing a target on a whim without evidence, I've instead given you the scent. Go. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Zhanzao, please quote specifically all the sources for the 1 in 10 sentence here on the talk page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct and that something I had also included in my last summary. Also this SPI needs to be resolved. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually don't bother. Me and DanS are brothers and live in the same household. At best you might call us "meat socking" since we basically argue about the same stuff of the same router, but I'm the "regular" so to speak, he pops in once a while. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Such self-admission of WP:MEAT is somewhat enough. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Erm, no, "I said "At most you might call us "meat socking". other than a few common topics we edit, he edits some articles that I do not touch. Btw, there are many articels quoting the 1-in-10 figure, even up to 1-in-30. B but I am only including the most commonly reported figure. What's supposed to be wrong with that?Zhanzhao (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of characteristics, even if you don't say that "I have theft", yet you say that "I have stolen a purse", the meaning would still be the same. It is usually estimated that around 75% - 95% of rape incidents goes unreported. We need a source here that would compare the ratio with any other country, since that is what you are attempting to do. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

My gosh.... can you seriously PLEASE look at the edit history of the page, I was not the one who put up the comparison originally. Someone else did. I only reverted what I saw was a removal of what was apparently sourced content. See here [[1]] for my first edit on this page. On hindsight, I realize that this is synthesis on the part of a part editor since it was basically combining facts from 2 articles. I'll still add a one liner about many of the rape being unreported though. Zhanzhao (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

False rape cases in India

There is a disturbing trend emerging in India, especially in metropolitan cities where women misuse the strong provisions in the rape act. For example, 53% of the rape cases reported in the national capital between April 2013 and July 2014 were determined to be false. This was found in an investigation by the Delhi Commission for Women, an official women rights body[1]. This trend of filing false rape cases has inflated the number of rape cases and put additional burden on the judiciary, according to the Delhi High Court. Also, it pointed out that the male victims of false rape cases are under a lot of stress and humiliation [2][3] [4]. This has even led to two suicides by male victims of false rape cases. [5] [6] According to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 if the female victim states the intercourse had happened without her consent, then there is a presumption that the woman did not give consent thus placing the burden of proof on the man to refute the accusation [7]. There are numerous cases when consensual sex has taken place, but the woman filed a rape case against a man. These false rape cases has been pointed out by the Delhi and Bombay High Courts. [8] [9] [10]. This issue has also been investigated by The Hindu, an Indian newspaper. Among its key findings is that a third of all the sexual assault cases in Delhi heard during 2013 dealt with consenting couples in which the female's parents had accused the male of rape.[11][12] [13]. These false rape cases have inflated the number of rape cases at a time when the international media has turned a keen eye on cases of rape in India. K.Goutham Babu (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Help me out, I do not have much experience at editing Wikipedia

Thanks for this sort of information, after the article is back to semi-protection I will add this. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There issues with the suggested writeup that needs to be addressed first though. Either with more sources, or tweaks to the writing.

• This trend has inflated the number of rape cases at a time when the international media has turned a keen eye on cases of rape in India. This line is not in the source at all, so it's actually Original Research.
• The male victims of the false rape cases are under a lot of stress and humiliation, even leading them to commit suicide. The way this line is currently written, generalizes the situation using one single reported case.

K.Goutham Babu, the "Stress and humiliation part is addressed by new link, but not the suicide bit. Alternatively, include the old link and reword to reflect that it led to one reported suicide in one case.

• There are numerous cases when consensual sex has taken place (with or without a promise of marriage) but the woman filed a rape case against a man. These false cases has been pointed out by the Delhi High Court. According to the article, it specifically relates to cases concerning consensual sex based on the promise of marriage, the "with or without" gives it a totally different meaning. And it mentions only one case, not "cases" as per the writeup. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 March 2015

There should be links between people mentioned in the article and their page on wikipedia.

E.g. Mamata Banerjee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamata_Banerjee 220.241.0.9 (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will link it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussing Consensus about Travel Advisory Writeup and section re-org.

Since this is requested, can someone (actually seems like just any of 2) please explain why the section about travel advisories was removed? Its definitely a related notable reaction by government bodies around the world regarding the issue and incidents. The sources are all clearly RS and the co-relation is all reported, non clearer than the actual government issued travel advisory issued by the UK government,, and even Mahesh Sharma has been doing active damage control, poor guy. Plus there is definitely more than enough content so far to break this up as a separate section (the amount of writeup is beefier than the other sub-sections). If I didn't know better, I would almost think this was an attempt to whitewash the issue. But I'm assuming good faith here and waiting for a reasonable explanations for now before bring this up. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that at least with the writeup about the drop in tourism, at least it can then be balanced off by the writeup about what The Indian government is doing to protect and warn tourists. Else there is no need for action if no problem is being acknowledged. Also the absense the travel advisories implies that the various governments of the victims are not doing anything to warn or protect their nationals even after past cases, which is not the case here at all.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is trivial and it is not even related to rape in India. First sentence is about the issues, that they take place, second sentence concerns the plans that are yet to happen. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Beg to differ, it IS about rape in india, the only qualifier here is that its against internationals rather than citizens, which is why it should be separated to its own section, thanks for pointing that out. For something thats "trivial", it lead to governments updating their travel advisories to reflect it (how many countries do you see doing that), and its covered by multiple news agencies around the world. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Gov.uk is a primary source. Read WP:WPNOTRS. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If you understand WPNOTRS, you'd know that this is one instance where a primary source is allowed. Its no different from how the Penal code is being sourced in the main article since it is the authority on the matter. You should be removingnthat as well, based on your application of WPNOTRS Zhanzhao (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)