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)

Yes the Penal code should also be removed.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Travel advisories, and most newsworthy developments do not qualify for inclusion in wikipedia. See WP:WWIN, particularly WP:NOTNEWS. There are zillion travel advisories, in different countries, about China, North Korea, Russia, Iraq, Israel, etc - and they are of no encyclopedic value. Penal code is, however, relevant as it is not news, is reliably sourced and legally relevant. See Rape in the United States.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, M Tracy Hunter. I am trying to understand how it meets NOTNEWS. Particularly as it is not a news writeup about travel advisories per se, but about how travel advisories have been updated to specifically reflect the concern of rape and possible rape against the various country's citizens. The Indian tourism authority has also been taking active steps against this backlash, so its definitely notable even on the government level. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Travel advisories are issued by most governments, as news bulletin. Advisories change. Often. On wiki policies, read the whole WP:WWIN. Articles are not travel guides, not advice, not trivia, not many other things. You wouldn't find travel advisory notes in an encyclopedia in any good university library.

Legal definition of rape, in contrast, is important because rape means different things in different countries. Sweden has one of the most complicated definition of rape, for example. Brazil defines rape differently for different victims. Many Islamic countries do not consider most types of sex as rape; and marital rape is not rape in all Muslim-majority countries because of Sharia. Such legal definitions of rape is notable and of encyclopedic value in respective wiki articles.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the writeup is about the advisories being changed to reflect the rape of the various country's citizens. If the advisory has been changed to no longer reflect the cautious note, that would itself be a point that can be noted in the article. You mentioned that advisories change. So do laws, yet we have a very detailed history about the changes to rape law in the article. And as to the semantics about the word "rape", it is not up to us to argue and define the meaning of the word, we merely report what and how the sources define as such. And if the sources from the various countries define the acts as rape, it is not up to us to opine that it is not. (That being the case, I'm pretty sure the cases against internationals all involve nonconsensual penetrative act against the victims, though that's beyond the scope of this writeup debate.)Zhanzhao (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The changing travel advisories are newsworthy, but not encyclopedia worthy. Legal definition of rape in each country is encyclopedia worthy. See Rape in Sweden, Rape in the United States, Rape in China and other related articles.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If its just some random change, I'd agree. But if its a concerted change across many countries that led to significant repercussions, to the extent that the Indian government is taking note, the sum total of which has been reported widely, I'd say that goes beyond the regular newsbite or one-off travel advisory update. And though I do agree that definitions/differences of rape are encyclopedia worthy, that goes beyond the scope of this article and is a can of worms you might not want to open. Cos in the lede para, there's this line The incidence of reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world..... by your logic and for consistency's sake, it would be necessary to add a disclaimer there too to justify its ranking among the lowest, since, in your words: "Legal definition of rape, in contrast, is important because rape means different things in different countries". Zhanzhao (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You write, "...significant repercussions" and "... Indian government is taking note". Both of these should be, and are already covered by the article. It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS to allege causal connection you imply in the first sentence "to the extent that the". Wikipedia is not the place to speculate and insert your pet theory, out of many possible theories, on why Indian or other government has or is "taking note", or on "why the rates per 100,000 women are high or low". This article must just summarize "encyclopedia worthy" reliably sourced verifiable information, in NPOV manner, without original research or copyvio. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a battleground, nor a propaganda vehicle, nor a place to advocate speculations and POV theory. See WP:SOAP.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"significant repercussions" [2]. "Significant" is frequently used. Feel free to change "repercussions" to drop/negative effect/damage/plunge(fill in random thesaurus substitute - note some of the words preceeding were actually used in some of the news articles). As for the "taking note", The Indian tourism minister initiated quite a number of programs to attempt to tackle the situation [3]. You're not saying he's doing this "just for fun", not after "taking note" of the drop in tourism?. And here's a different minister talking about this [4]. PS: You're the one wanting to open the can of worms that is "the difference in definition of rape around the world", I'm just pointing out another part of the article which would be affected by your rationale/take on that matter.... which happens to the the "rates per 100,000" part. Do think of the implications of your arguements and not just make them for the sake of it Zhanzhao (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

So I took a closer look at some of the recent history for this article. It seems someone moved the paragraphs in the lead. I've moved the evaluation of the number of reported rapes back to the second paragraph, as it is not as important as the first paragraph. I also think this will satisfy some of the concerns about the lead's appropriateness. I also rearranged the second paragraph to move the "parliamentarians dispute this ....underreporting of rapes" (not verbatim) sentence closer to the top, as it is in response to the first sentence.

However, I also feel that the paragraph in question already mentions enough that it is referring specifically to 'reported' rapes. We also cannot comment on how severe the under-reporting is, that is mostly speculation, and also, estimates of the underreportedness in the US are irrelevant to India's situation. --Padenton (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, now that you mentioned it, it makes more sense. The previous leading sentence sounds like it was written by an apologetic and better suited for an article on Reported Rape in India rather than Rape in India per se. And to pre-empt since a comparison was made to the Rape in the United States article, that also starts with a line on "reported rape", but then again that article's lede did not have a "bigger picture" line on rape in general, in its lead either. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)