Two boys have gone through a trial----and tribulations because of an alleged rape in which 1.the victim has never testified,2. the complainant's [who was not raped, but is reportedly the mother of the alleged victim] version has not been concurred by the person [a nun] who is said to have got the first testimony of the so-called rape. It is accepted that the nun has denied the version put out by the alleged mother of the alleged victim. Still there are many who think that the boys had somehow committed rape while keeping the hymen intact. The panel of doctors have not agreed. The trial judge has not agreed. Yet, the hype of leaders of some well-meaning[ but apparently emotionally misled] organisations still has the confidence of the lynching party. If given the opportunity, they would like to set up a kangaroo court and execute[ or, as demanded in 2003, castrate the boys.] How that makes them different from the people who believe that scantily clad girls should be raped or that Kingfisher Airlines advertisements are good, one fails to understand.
An immodestly dressed girl does not necessarily want to be raped. She may just be an exhibitionist...or from a culture that does not find the dress immodest. Persons who find short-cropped blouses and ABCD jeans immodest think nothing about women in backless choli blouses and belly-button showing sarees. That is Indian Culture...full of double standards. We have women's rights. All men are potential rapists. When we speak about Gender Equality, rape needs to be re-defined. The Giver should not remain at the Receiving end of the law. The law needs to be even handed. Thank God for good judges. Thank God the judge in this case was a lady. Otherwise some women's organisations might have alleged that there was a miscarriage of justice. The State and the Complainant should do reparations, tender an apology to the two falsely accused [ or at least, without evidence to substantiate the accusation] boys and pay compensation for their lost years. It was malafide at source. The evidence of the nun clearly nails the lie of the accuser. Let the State recover the costs from the major players in this seedy episode, including the doctor who supported the claim of rape and those that bore false witness for the prosecution, in person or by affidavit or statement to the police. Let justice be seen to be done. The so-called journalists will continue to be spineless. No one has apologised for defaming Pratima Gaokar after she was dead. No one will have the courage to apologise to the two defamed boys. Journalistic licence is their mask. Quite doubtful if the Goa Union of Journalists[ GUJ] can do something about it. If the journalists and Editors of newspapers in Goa really believe that the two boys are guilty, let them implead themselves and go into appeal or give evidence of the guilt. The law says the accused is an accused, just that. He is innocent till proven guilty. When acquitted, the person is either proved innocent or NOT proved guilty. Who is an Editor to sit in judgement after the judge has acquitted. His role is limited to tendering an apology and publishing a retraction of equal prominence and size in his newspaper as the original report. Pratima was accused of having a penis. These boys were accused of unauthorised use of the same organ. The Editors are more circumspect while writing about the famous two-in-one who frequents the Panaji end of the old Mandovi bridge after dusk. Perhaps they are uncomfortable discussing it. After all, it is reported to have given at least one cop literally a ' run for his money' at the new Secretariat end of the bridge! Down with hypocrites at the masquerade ball of journalism. Viva Goa. Miguel
