Under the barb and paradoxical veil of creating awareness about women’s problems (due to the inherent sympathy that women enjoy), the media has blasted the society with so much anti-male views that misandry has conquered the minds of the societies like a virus which is self-multiplying.

And in this exercise, men’s problems went into oblivion like a needle in a haystack. Moreover the increasing leniency of media towards women criminals and increasing hatred towards accused men has cornered men to such an extent that not only men who are victimized are committing suicides in large numbers (in fact double than women), but also unaffected men (at least they consider themselves to be such by living in a world of denial) find it very difficult to support such men.

Because these men think, abusing men is a social service and supporting men is a crime. And this thought has been embedded into their psyche, not only by the emotional castration that men are made to undergo since the age of 6, but also by the continuous blasting on women’s issues into media and a very negligent mention of men’s issues and that too after a lot of activism and street shows by men’s rights activists.

In fact, the situation is so bad, that as a men’s rights activist, whenever I blog about men’s issues and post it, people in the society start talking of women’s issues! This is a very poor show of insecurity on their part and conclusively proves how hollow are women’s issues. And what big a myth is the concept of Women’s torture that it comes to picture only to suppress the awareness about men’s issues so that men can be castrated for eternity and women can enjoy the fruits of self-imposed victimhood.

Women’s issues are rather used as a tool to extort men and treat them as FREE ATM MACHINES. And the irony of the matter is that only affected men understand this psyche, unaffected men (at least they consider themselves to be such by living in a world of denial) think, “What’s the harm in that?”

Though rampant in numbers and deep in statistics, because of the above jeopardy, men’s issues are like a needle in the haystack. Everyone knows there’s a needle but no idea how to locate it merely because it’s next to impossible. Similarly, everyone knows men have issues but either do not want to address them or simply do not have the guts to address them.

While finding needle in a haystack, can be a daunting task, however, if men drop the urge to protect women at the cost of other men, men’s rights activism is a cake walk then, but only if men drop the urge to protect women at the cost of other men.

Civilization progress has been in phases. There are four phases of civilization progress.

Hunter-Gatherer Community: Men used to go out, hunt and gather the food while women used to stay back home. This period lasted prior to 3000 years from today. Muscle power was the definition of a man and chivalry was his prized possession.
Agriculture: Again muscle man was the hero in these days as he used to not only provide for his family but also protect the community and often requirement of protection required the man to be immune to violence. This requirement set the foundation of the emotional castration of men as well which will not be covered in detail here. This period lasted from 3000 years to 300 years from today.
Industrialization: This was the era of pacification as well wherein the businessman gained prominence over muscle man. This period lasted from 300 years to 30 years from today.
Post Industrialization: This era witnessed the emergence of the service industry and entrepreneurship models which we have been witnessing since the last 30 years or so.
Although muscle power was no longer the need of the day for men but because of thousands of years of hardwiring it had become a male gender trait. And presumption of violence on part of the male was very easy for everyone – male or female.

However, it is pertinent to note that the anti-male laws have emerged now only in the last 40 – 50 years or so wherein the MAN was no longer violent but was carrying remnants of a violent history and today’s men are paying the price of the violent imageries of their ancestors. The anti-male laws are so badly drafted that they violate cardinal principles of natural justice. Even though no one protests against them as they are creating social rampage.

And the most draconian feature of these anti-male laws is that the accused are held GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT – which typically transpires down to the reality that the mere presence of the complaint can form the basis of punishment quintessentially which boils down to the fact that men will be punished for being men.

Women and their pamperers well know that due to the fact that the man is GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, he can be easily trapped in false allegations. And then making complaint as the basis of punishment, the man can be extorted. Not all men are strong enough to fight for their innocence and would ultimately give up. This defeat of men is viewed as acceptance of guilt on part of the man and justification of the abuse that men undergo making the whole cycle a vicious self-feeding circle. Also even if the man commits the crime one can never be sure of the circumstances which led him to commit the crime.

Till the time men will be considered GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, to me, as a men’s rights activists, ALL MEN ARE INNOCENT.

Perhaps Tarunabh’s comment: “Kicking a person would have been an offence under s. 498A as well if it was motivated by dowry, and was likely to drive her to suicide or cause grievous hurt” was slightly confusing as one may understand it to mean that cruelty must be motivated by dowry demands. But his earlier comment (“It must be motivated by a dowry-demand, must be likely to drive her to suicide OR cause grave physical or mental injury etc”) I think clarifies the issues and also suggests that he regards the provisions as disjunctive.

Our daily experiences show that the implementation of law is actually manifestation of implementer’s biases, and reinforces palm tree justice (e.g. ‘racial profiling’, torture in police custody , trial by social affiliation, etc.). Thus, the post rightly points out that the reasoning of the judgement is something to be celebrated. Though I am not sure, if any directions were sought from the Court to direct institution of separate proceedings for trial for causing hurt. That, I guess, would have been a better situation, than just letting the mother-in-law off the hook. (But, I am not too sure if the advocate for the complainant pleaded that, or was there a separate charge under ordinary sections of the IPC)

Secondly, the rule of strict interpretation extends even to taxation statutes, and the ambiguity in anti-avoidance provision in the new proposed tax code does need some thought. The distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance needs a further clarification if the rule has to find any relevant continued application in the field of taxation.