It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
You don't know about the millennium long jihad Muslims are waging in India?
Rape is a weapon that Muslim radical use in Jihad, and that is why this is very relevant to the situation.
They don't report if the perps were Muslim. MidEast oil money does a good job of controlling mass media, as well as exporting terrorism.
As colonizers, the British had followed a divide-and-rule policy in India. In the census they categorized people according to religion and viewed and treated them as separate from each other...instead of examining how people of different religions coexisted. They also were fearful of the potential threat from the Muslims, who were the former rulers of the subcontinent, ruling India for over 300 years under the Mughal Empire. To win them over to their side, the British helped establish the Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College at Aligarh and supported the All-India Muslim Conference, both of which were institutions from which leaders of the Muslim League and the ideology of Pakistan emerged. As soon as the league was formed, Muslims were placed on a separate electorate. Thus, the separateness of Muslims in India was built into the Indian electoral process.
There was also an ideological divide between the Muslims and the Hindus of India...This was a severe drawback as Muslims found that cooperative Hindus found better government positions and thus felt that the British favored Hindus. Consequently, social reformer and educator Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, who founded Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College, taught the Muslims that education and cooperation with the British was vital for their survival in the society. However, tied to all the movements of Muslim revival was the opposition to assimilation and submergence in Hindu society.
Hindu revivalists also deepened the chasm between the two nations. They resented the Muslims for their former rule over India. Hindu revivalists rallied for a ban on the slaughter of cows, a cheap source of meat for the Muslims. They also wanted to change the official script from the Persian to the Hindu Devanagri script, effectively making Hindi rather than Urdu the main candidate for the national language.
The partition of India left both India and Pakistan devastated. The process of partition claimed many lives in riots, rapes, murders, and looting. Women, especially, were used as instruments of power by the Hindus and the Muslims.
Following the ‘divide and rule’ policy Bengal was divided by the British, on October 16, 1905, into Hindu and Muslim areas. By doing this British had hoped to increase tensions between the Hindus and the Muslims. Lord Curzon was the British governor general at this time. The following excerpts from Curzon’s letter of 2nd February 1905 to St. John Brodrick, Secretary of State for India, give an idea of his aims in partitioning Bengal.
“ CALCUTTA is the center from which the Congress Party is manipulated throughout the whole of Bengal, and indeed the whole of India. Its best wire pullers and its most frothy orators all reside here. The perfection of their machinery, and the tyranny which it enables them to exercise are truly remarkable. They dominate public opinion in Calcutta; they affect the High Court; they frighten the local Government, and they are sometimes not without serious influence on the Government of India. The whole of their activity is directed to creating an agency so powerful that they may one day be able to force a weak government to give them what they desire. Any measure in consequence that would divide the Bengali-speaking population; that would permit independent centres of activity and influence to grow up; that would dethrone Calcutta from its place as the center of successful intrigue, or that would weaken the influence of the lawyer class, who have the entire organization in their hands, is intensely and hotly resented by them. The outcry will be loud and very fierce, but as a native gentleman said to me – ‘my countrymen always howl until a thing is settled; then they accept it’.”
The stories of what happened to women during partition are marked by a particular brutality, perhaps partially explained by the intensely political nature of the rift. Borders and Boundaries: How Women Experienced the Partition of India, by Ritu Menon and Kamla Bhasin, opens with one woman’s testimony that recalls an especially gruesome detail: she saw patterns of tooth-marks disfiguring the skin of many rape victims. In Borders and Boundaries, the authors detail cases in which women’s bodies were tattooed with symbols of their attackers’ religions. Several attacks included men carving political slogans, such as “Pakistan Zindabad” (Pakistan forever) or “Jai Hind” (Long live India) into a woman’s skin—demonstrating the ways that women’s bodies formed living trophies of war.
The updated edition of Secret Affairs covers the momentous events of the past year in the Middle East. It reveals the unreported attempts by Britain to cultivate relations with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after the fall of Mubarak, the military intervention on the side of Libyan rebel forces which include pro-al-Qaeda elements, and the ongoing reliance on the region's ultimate fundamentalist state, Saudi Arabia, to safeguard its interest in the Middle East. In this ground-breaking book, Mark Curtis reveals the covert history of British collusion with radical Islamic and terrorist groups. Secret Affairs shows how governments since the 1940s have connived with militant forces to control oil resources and overthrow governments. The story of how Britain has helped nurture the rise of global terrorism has never been told.
“Britain likely sees the Brotherhood – as it did from the 1950s to the 1970s – as counter to the secular, nationalist forces opposition in Egypt and the region….” Pages 308 – 9. Secret Affairs. Mark Curtis. 2010.
Secret Affairs is a pioneering and unsettling study. It unravels how British officials have worked with apparently ‘anti-imperialist’ Islamists that they have found “useful at specific moments.” It sheds light on one of the less publicly acknowledged sides of British global policy – its “collusions” with Islamist groups and parties. Mark Curtis writes, “With some of these radical Islamic forces, Britain has been in a permanent, strategic alliance to secure fundamental long-term policy goals; with others, it has been a temporary marriage of convenience to achieve specific short-term outcomes.” (Page xi) Two geo-political aims have guided this policy, to keep control over energy sources in the Middle East and maintain the City’s place in a stable international financial system. More than out of sheer delight in the undercover world British intelligence agencies have pursued these rational, foreign policy, objectives.
For many it will be a mental wrench to consider that the British State could be complicit with Islamism. Islamists, in all their heterogeneous forms, are, according to a refrain that tends to drown out all others, a real or exaggerated threat. To the right they are from a civilisation out to clash with the West; to most of the left, a riposte to its imperial, Crusader, ambitions. After digesting Secret Affairs the claim that the West has declared a no-holds barred ‘war’ on Islam, sounds hollow. On occasion even the most extreme Salafist inspired Islamists have been in the loop of the secret services, though more public state policy has been to nurture “moderate” Muslims, a moderation that exists sometimes only in comparison with the most violent Jihadists. If one turns the study’s conclusions upside down, one can also see some interesting aspects of Islamist politics: why, and how, they expect to use their contacts, half-hostile, half-respectful, with countries like Britain. Mark Curtis equally offers important signposts to the future direction Whitehall policy will take towards a key Islamist actor in post-Mubarak Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood.
In 2004, just before local elections, the British National Party aired a party political broadcast featuring a Sikh man talking of the hardships his family faced during partition. He recounted how his family were killed by Muslims and said they were not to be trusted. Mr Singh made another appearance later on BNPtv, where he talked of his experience at length.
The BNP's strategy wasn't merely a shot in the dark. It was based on earlier dealings with extremist Sikhs who were openly willing to form alliances with the BNP against Muslims. "Divide and rule", the mantra that British forces used so effectively in India, had been transplanted to modern Britain.
In many ways, this is not surprising. While the 60th anniversary of Indian and Pakistani independence has brought us a dearth of programming where people re-visit the respective countries or talk of their experiences, less light is shed on how the carnage of partition still impacts Britain's South Asian Hindu, Sikh and Muslim communities. It is impossible to provide a good overview in a short-ish blog, so I will focus here on one key element: the role of women.
In patriarchal and feudal societies, women are almost always seen as the bearers of culture and "honour". Traditional, conservative South Asian culture fetishises women to such an extent that, while the official line says they are held in high esteem and regard, in actual fact, they are treated simply as vessels of that honour, and their lives are forced to be structured around preserving that. They are not allowed to do anything that compromises those ideals, while men have much freer reign without the same burden.
Partition exposed this deeply ingrained misogny in the most brutal fashion. When Muslim, Hindu and Sikh men wanted to take revenge for their peers being killed by the other, they deliberately went out searching for women of other religions to rape and kidnap. When villages were confronted with angry baying mobs, the women were told to commit suicide by jumping in the well for their own benefit rather than fall in the clutches of the other (this is told and handled amazingly in the film Khamosh Pani - Silent Waters).
The love for sons and hatred for daughters is not a modern phenomenon. In ancient pre-Christ Greece girls were killed with wanton abandon so much so that only 1% of families in some cities had more than one daughter. In Bombay as recently as 1984 out of 8,000 abortions 7,999 were females. Women in India are huge liabilities due to exorbitant dowries women’s families are forced to cough up to marry off their daughters... If the girl passes the infancy hurdle she is a rape target during her youth. If she manages to get married she might become one of the 5,000 Indian brides who die (‘killed’) each year due to low dowries. Around twelve women die daily in ‘accidental’ kitchen fires in India. Sons on the other hand are insurance policies and generate income for the family and are treasured and held in high esteem. Men are idolized and put up on a pedestal in India and Hindu women are taught that the husband is equivalent to a ‘god’ and so she is to honour and respect him to the utmost degree.
Let us talk about Ram Singh, the chief rapist of the Delhi gang-rape victim, who told his rape-colleagues, as they cleaned the bus, “not to worry, nothing will happen.’
Ram Singh and his five fellow rapists were right. After all, the conviction rate for rape cases in India, between 2001 and 2010, is only 26 per cent. And in Delhi, in the same period, only one in four culprits of reported rape was punished, reveals a survey by Thomson Reuters' Trust Law Women.
In the case of Muslim and Dalit women, the rate of conviction is almost nil. Three Dalit women are raped daily in some part of our country. When Bhanwari Devi was raped in a Rajasthan village, the judge asked, “How can a Dalit woman be raped?” Most women say they wouldn’t even think of telling the police about an attack for fear the cops would ignore them or worse blame them and abuse them.
This culture of impunity certainly emboldened Ram Singh but the more important question is, what motivated him? It is no coincidence that the family names of the rapists are Singh, Sharma, Gupta and Thakur - all upper caste men whose sense of traditional entitlement based on their caste may have been challenged in the big city of Delhi. Were Ram Singh and his rape cohort simply claiming masculinity as promoted by their role models in politics, business and the media?
Originally posted by maddy21
The rate of rapes per 100000 people where 27.3 in America in 2010
While you compare that to India it is 1.8
So will i be correct when i say "American culture and way of life leads to rape ? "
So yeah deny Ignorance
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
...I fail to see how it is a deterrent.
Originally posted by Miracula
Repent! Jesus is the word!
Originally posted by maddy21
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
Incorrect....there is no 82% less Salary....thats bunk..... i would like to know where you got that statistics from.. Women working have a huge advantage over men as not only do men get more work..but women..being women are treated 10 times better than men at work place ....Usually if you have a man and a women working at a same place..both get equal salary but the men gets most of the job..... The idea behind women staying hope has very less to do with "woman not being empowered" but being given specified roles in the family in Indian culture.. "looking after kids, household" this trend being broken may be good but check any family with both man and women working and you clearly see that the child is the looser in the department as they never get personal care....
The recent survey findings by the World Economic Forum (WEF) put the spotlight on India, ranking it among the bottom 10 countries in the world in terms of women’s participation in the economy. The WEF report reveals a shocking disparity between the wage structure of men and women in corporate India. The average annual income of a woman in India is US$ 1,185, compared to US$ 3,698 for the men employed in the India’s corporate sector.
This translates to an average woman’s pay of less than one-third of the average man’s pay in India. The WEF survey finds that India has fared worse than last year in terms of “economic participation and opportunity” for women, pushing the country among the bottom 10 countries on the WEF list. Overall, India achieves a score of 59.4% in terms of gender equality in the survey, but in terms of economic participation and opportunity, it scores a dismal 39.8%. India’s general participation of women in the workforce stands at 36%, where as for professional and technical workers, the figure is 21%.
In 2010, more than four decades after the US had enacted a law in 1963 to end wage discrimination on the basis of sex, President Barack Obama had to bring in yet another legislation to give women the right to seek remedy against wage discrimination since, in the US women earn only 77 cents per dollar earned by men. In 1963 women were paid 59 cents per every dollar earned by men. Obviously, the progress from 59 cents to 77 cents has been a slow crawl to say the least.
In India, the Constitution recognized the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' for both men and women, and 'Right to Work' through Article 39(d) and 41. As far back as 1976 the Equal Remuneration Act came into effect and yet unequal pay dogs working women in India. From small businesses to large organisations to the unorganized sector, women are paid lesser wages than men for the same work.
According to the Annual Survey of Industries of 2004-05 the gender pay gap for regular workers in the formal or organized sector was 57%, which is much higher than among casual workers in the formal sector which was over 35-37%. And in agriculture, where an estimated 60% of all operations are handled exclusively by women, the hourly wage rates vary from 50 to 75% of male rates.
Delhi rape accused Ram Singh made our lives hell, neighbours say
ONE of the most enduring cliches about India is that is a country of contradictions. Like all cliches, this one too has a grain of truth in it. At the heart of the contradiction stand Indian women: for it is true to say that they are among the most oppressed in the world, and it is equally true to say that they are among the most liberated, the most articulate and perhaps even the most free. Can these two realities be simultaneously true?
During the 18 years that India had a woman as Prime Minister the country also saw increasing incidents of violence and discrimination against women. This is no different from any other time: a casual visitor to any Indian city – for example Mumbai – will see hundreds of women, young and old, working in all kinds of professions: doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, scientists... and yet newspapers in India are full of stories of violent incidents against women, of rape, sexual harassment, sometimes even murder. But to have a woman in the highest office of the State and to simultaneously have extreme violence against women are merely the two ends of the scale. As always, a more complex reality lies in between.
One of the first issues to receive countrywide attention from women's groups was violence against women, specifically in the form of rape, and what came to be known in India as 'dowry deaths' – the killing of young married women for the 'dowry' or money/goods they brought with them at marriage. This was also the beginning of a process of learning for women: most protests were directed at the State. Because women were able to mobilise support, the State responded, seemingly positively, by changing the law on rape and dowry, making both more stringent. This seemed, at the time, like a great victory. It was only later that the knowledge began to sink in that mere changes in the law meant little, unless there was a will and a machinery to implement these. And that the root of the problem of discrimination against women lay not only in the law, or with the State, but was much more widespread.
Originally posted by poet1b
The only thing you proved is that there are Indians who rape women.