Thinking Out Of The Witness Box

Mahmood Farooqui’s rape conviction for forced oral sex opens a hectic debate about the ‘lacunae’ in the amended criminal law

- Pragya Singh

Like the plot of Pipli (Live), occasionally a story becomes so big that everyone descends upon it. The irony is, ever since Pipli’s director Mahmood Farooqui was held for raping an American scholar, there has been a great deal of debate on the nature of his assault and, after the verdict, on the quantum of punishment.

Feminists and legal luminaries have weighed in, and while all agree that anyone accused of rape needs to be punished, how the law defines and punishes the crime is being contested. Further, the debate has split the women’s movement on other asp­ects of criminal law, as amended in 2013.

To be sure, Farooqui isn’t the first well­ placed man charged with rape and at the centre of a controversy. When Tarun Tejpal, founder­ editor of Tehelka, faced similar charges, a polarising disputation erupted over whether what he did was ‘rape’.

“Indeed, feminists are debating these issues, but the women’s movement always had spirited discussions. It’s a very healthy trend,” says feminist writer Urvashi Butalia.

That said, participants are cautious. Critics fear being misunderstood and painted anti­woman. Those who spearheaded the anti­rape law reform in 2013 worry about ‘red herrings’ and dilution of rights. “Nobody is closing the door to discussion.

I object only to how lacunae in the law are being brought up after high­profile men are found guilty of rape,” says senior Supreme Court lawyer Rebecca John.

“Critique of the judgement has been misread by some as a call for trivialising forced oral sex as a minor indiscretion, or a misog­ynist reversal of battles hard won. Why it should be so is puzzling. Have we not critiqued judgements earlier,” asks Manisha Sethi, who teaches at Jamia Millia Islamia.