Sushant, Rhea and Women’s rights
I have always talked and written about issues of National or Societal importance, and this post may sound that I too have got swayed by the conundrum raised by the media and public at large. But, the point I would be trying to bring here is not what everyone seems to be talking about, this point that I would be talking about now is again an issue of national importance drawn out of the example of Sushant Singh Rajput’s and Rhea Chakraborty’s current issue.
What is everyone talking about SSR’s case — Whether it is a murder or suicide, whether Rhea is involved in it? Whether Mumbai or Bihar police should investigate or if CBI is best positioned to investigate it? Whether there is a nepotism angle to this etc., etc., and I am careful not to mention the depression part, because I am neither with the suicide nor with the murder plot. I would rather wait for the investigation to tell me this. So, the point I am going to make here is about
Women’s Rights, Women’s liberties and liberation
Intrigued as to how this particular case has any parallels with the women’s rights? And perturbed with me drawing parlance between this specific case to women’s liberties? Hold back and think again, if Sushant and Rhea were married partners and not live-in partners, would the society react the same way that it did? Of Course not, I believe there would be a stark difference in the reaction, and in fact some may just have shown sympathy towards the wife! So, if we brood over this contrast in the reactions, what may be the reason for it? Quite obviously the Marriage!!
So, all the progress we have made from decades and may be even since centuries in reaching where we have reached in terms of women’s upliftment is being drained down the pipe? Even the supreme court has upheld the liberties of women by giving a similar status to a long term live-in relationship to that of a marriage, although it is not very clear what exactly long term means here.
The supreme court in connection to a property settlement had stated, “Where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary is clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage, and not in a state of concubinage,”. The apex court has also given full protection to the female partner by incorporating the live-in relationship under Section 2 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Which means the live-in female partner has all legal rights which a marriage as an institution provides to the women. Marriage may be an institution that is well accepted by the society, but live-in relationship in terms of legal withstanding has no less of an acceptance.
There is a strong reason why the courts have always protected the women’s rights with respect to the cases related to concubinage. And the reason is, if these rights were not legally inscribed the men had their way and in umpteen number of cases, the man simply tried to distance himself from the shared responsibilities citing that they were not married! Some even resorted to domestic violence, as there were no legal safeguards in place. In some instances, even the families tried bullying the woman, hiding under the garb that they are not within a wedlock! So, the courts did the right thing by extending every possible rights to a live-in partner as well.
Now, with the SSR case, we have ample evidence to state that Sushant and Rhea were in a state of concubinage, the other word for cohabitation or live-in. So, as per the Supreme court observations, did the family have a right to stop her from attending his funeral? And, also a larger debate should be encouraged to decide upon who is the legal heir, the father or the live-in partner? Shouldn’t the burden of proving that SSR and Rhea were not in a state of concubinage rests on the shoulders of Sushant’s family?
I am appalled to see that none, literally none has been seeing this whole episode from this angle of women’s rights! Let alone discussing it! Even the legal counsel for Rhea seems to have missed this huge point! So, to me this entire issue is an issue of national importance, when women’s rights and dignity is not upheld and when the law is not safeguarded against the popular sentiments. And, the society at large should have set the right example by reacting in the right perspective, but alas we have not disappointed ourselves, did we?