Talk:Rape in India

The Law on Marital Rape in India

The law on Marital Rape in India is governed by Sections 375 (Rape), Section 375 read with Section 376 (Punishment for Rape), and Section 375 read with Section 376 and Section 376A (Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation) of the Indian Penal Code. This law was enacted in 1860, and amended several times thereafter from time to time by the Parliament of India and by state legislatures, which have the power to make certain types of state-specific laws and amendments to national laws, which become laws which are applicable only in particular states.

The "Exception" clause in section 375 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code deals with spousal sexual intercourse with or without the consent of the wife, in case the wife is more than 15 years old. It reads as follows, "Exception.-Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape."

A fragment of Sub-section (1) of Section 376 (Punishment for Rape) deals with rape by a man of his wife who is between 12 and 15 years of age. This sub-section declares, "Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both".

Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code deals with "Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation". It declares, "Whoever has sexual intercourse with his own wife, who is living separately from him under a decree of separation or under any custom or usage without her consent shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine."

There is a discrepancy between the Hindu Marriage Act, the Special Marriage Act, laws relating to marriage between any religious combination of husband and wife (except marriage between a muslim man and a muslim woman, which is governed by the Muslim Marriage Act, and by judgments of the Supreme Court relating to this subject), and the Sections of the IPC dealing with marital rape. According to all these laws, the minimum age at which a woman can legally be married is 18 years. While the IPC sections dealing with rape, discuss wives as young as 12 years of age. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act also prohibits marriage of girls younger than 18 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.100.14.160 (talk • contribs) 10:20, January 6 2013 (UTC)‎

False rape cases in India

There is a disturbing trend emerging in India, especially in metropolitan cities where women misuse the strong provisions in the rape act. For example, 53% of the rape cases reported in the national capital between April 2013 and July 2014 were determined to be false. This was found in an investigation by the Delhi Commission for Women, an official women rights body[1]. This trend of filing false rape cases has inflated the number of rape cases and put additional burden on the judiciary, according to the Delhi High Court. Also, it pointed out that the male victims of false rape cases are under a lot of stress and humiliation [2][3] [4]. This has even led to two suicides by male victims of false rape cases. [5] [6] According to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 if the female victim states the intercourse had happened without her consent, then there is a presumption that the woman did not give consent thus placing the burden of proof on the man to refute the accusation [7]. There are numerous cases when consensual sex has taken place, but the woman filed a rape case against a man. These false rape cases has been pointed out by the Delhi and Bombay High Courts. [8] [9] [10]. This issue has also been investigated by The Hindu, an Indian newspaper. Among its key findings is that a third of all the sexual assault cases in Delhi heard during 2013 dealt with consenting couples in which the female's parents had accused the male of rape.[11][12] [13]. These false rape cases have inflated the number of rape cases at a time when the international media has turned a keen eye on cases of rape in India. K.Goutham Babu (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Help me out, I do not have much experience at editing Wikipedia

Thanks for this sort of information, after the article is back to semi-protection I will add this. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There issues with the suggested writeup that needs to be addressed first though. Either with more sources, or tweaks to the writing.

• This trend has inflated the number of rape cases at a time when the international media has turned a keen eye on cases of rape in India. This line is not in the source at all, so it's actually Original Research.
• The male victims of the false rape cases are under a lot of stress and humiliation, even leading them to commit suicide. The way this line is currently written, generalizes the situation using one single reported case.

K.Goutham Babu, the "Stress and humiliation part is addressed by new link, but not the suicide bit. Alternatively, include the old link and reword to reflect that it led to one reported suicide in one case.

• There are numerous cases when consensual sex has taken place (with or without a promise of marriage) but the woman filed a rape case against a man. These false cases has been pointed out by the Delhi High Court. According to the article, it specifically relates to cases concerning consensual sex based on the promise of marriage, the "with or without" gives it a totally different meaning. And it mentions only one case, not "cases" as per the writeup. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 March 2015

There should be links between people mentioned in the article and their page on wikipedia.

E.g. Mamata Banerjee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamata_Banerjee 220.241.0.9 (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will link it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussing Consensus about Travel Advisory Writeup and section re-org.

Since this is requested, can someone (actually seems like just any of 2) please explain why the section about travel advisories was removed? Its definitely a related notable reaction by government bodies around the world regarding the issue and incidents. The sources are all clearly RS and the co-relation is all reported, non clearer than the actual government issued travel advisory issued by the UK government,, and even Mahesh Sharma has been doing active damage control, poor guy. Plus there is definitely more than enough content so far to break this up as a separate section (the amount of writeup is beefier than the other sub-sections). If I didn't know better, I would almost think this was an attempt to whitewash the issue. But I'm assuming good faith here and waiting for a reasonable explanations for now before bring this up. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that at least with the writeup about the drop in tourism, at least it can then be balanced off by the writeup about what The Indian government is doing to protect and warn tourists. Else there is no need for action if no problem is being acknowledged. Also the absense the travel advisories implies that the various governments of the victims are not doing anything to warn or protect their nationals even after past cases, which is not the case here at all.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is trivial and it is not even related to rape in India. First sentence is about the issues, that they take place, second sentence concerns the plans that are yet to happen. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Beg to differ, it IS about rape in india, the only qualifier here is that its against internationals rather than citizens, which is why it should be separated to its own section, thanks for pointing that out. For something thats "trivial", it lead to governments updating their travel advisories to reflect it (how many countries do you see doing that), and its covered by multiple news agencies around the world. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Gov.uk is a primary source. Read WP:WPNOTRS. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If you understand WPNOTRS, you'd know that this is one instance where a primary source is allowed. Its no different from how the Penal code is being sourced in the main article since it is the authority on the matter. You should be removingnthat as well, based on your application of WPNOTRS Zhanzhao (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes the Penal code should also be removed.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Travel advisories, and most newsworthy developments do not qualify for inclusion in wikipedia. See WP:WWIN, particularly WP:NOTNEWS. There are zillion travel advisories, in different countries, about China, North Korea, Russia, Iraq, Israel, etc - and they are of no encyclopedic value. Penal code is, however, relevant as it is not news, is reliably sourced and legally relevant. See Rape in the United States.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, M Tracy Hunter. I am trying to understand how it meets NOTNEWS. Particularly as it is not a news writeup about travel advisories per se, but about how travel advisories have been updated to specifically reflect the concern of rape and possible rape against the various country's citizens. The Indian tourism authority has also been taking active steps against this backlash, so its definitely notable even on the government level. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Travel advisories are issued by most governments, as news bulletin. Advisories change. Often. On wiki policies, read the whole WP:WWIN. Articles are not travel guides, not advice, not trivia, not many other things. You wouldn't find travel advisory notes in an encyclopedia in any good university library.

Legal definition of rape, in contrast, is important because rape means different things in different countries. Sweden has one of the most complicated definition of rape, for example. Brazil defines rape differently for different victims. Many Islamic countries do not consider most types of sex as rape; and marital rape is not rape in all Muslim-majority countries because of Sharia. Such legal definitions of rape is notable and of encyclopedic value in respective wiki articles.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the writeup is about the advisories being changed to reflect the rape of the various country's citizens. If the advisory has been changed to no longer reflect the cautious note, that would itself be a point that can be noted in the article. You mentioned that advisories change. So do laws, yet we have a very detailed history about the changes to rape law in the article. And as to the semantics about the word "rape", it is not up to us to argue and define the meaning of the word, we merely report what and how the sources define as such. And if the sources from the various countries define the acts as rape, it is not up to us to opine that it is not. (That being the case, I'm pretty sure the cases against internationals all involve nonconsensual penetrative act against the victims, though that's beyond the scope of this writeup debate.)Zhanzhao (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The changing travel advisories are newsworthy, but not encyclopedia worthy. Legal definition of rape in each country is encyclopedia worthy. See Rape in Sweden, Rape in the United States, Rape in China and other related articles.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If its just some random change, I'd agree. But if its a concerted change across many countries that led to significant repercussions, to the extent that the Indian government is taking note, the sum total of which has been reported widely, I'd say that goes beyond the regular newsbite or one-off travel advisory update. And though I do agree that definitions/differences of rape are encyclopedia worthy, that goes beyond the scope of this article and is a can of worms you might not want to open. Cos in the lede para, there's this line The incidence of reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world..... by your logic and for consistency's sake, it would be necessary to add a disclaimer there too to justify its ranking among the lowest, since, in your words: "Legal definition of rape, in contrast, is important because rape means different things in different countries". Zhanzhao (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You write, "...significant repercussions" and "... Indian government is taking note". Both of these should be, and are already covered by the article. It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS to allege causal connection you imply in the first sentence "to the extent that the". Wikipedia is not the place to speculate and insert your pet theory, out of many possible theories, on why Indian or other government has or is "taking note", or on "why the rates per 100,000 women are high or low". This article must just summarize "encyclopedia worthy" reliably sourced verifiable information, in NPOV manner, without original research or copyvio. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a battleground, nor a propaganda vehicle, nor a place to advocate speculations and POV theory. See WP:SOAP.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"significant repercussions" [1]. "Significant" is frequently used. Feel free to change "repercussions" to drop/negative effect/damage/plunge(fill in random thesaurus substitute - note some of the words preceeding were actually used in some of the news articles). As for the "taking note", The Indian tourism minister initiated quite a number of programs to attempt to tackle the situation [2]. You're not saying he's doing this "just for fun", not after "taking note" of the drop in tourism?. And here's a different minister talking about this [3]. PS: You're the one wanting to open the can of worms that is "the difference in definition of rape around the world", I'm just pointing out another part of the article which would be affected by your rationale/take on that matter.... which happens to the the "rates per 100,000" part. Do think of the implications of your arguements and not just make them for the sake of it Zhanzhao (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

So I took a closer look at some of the recent history for this article. It seems someone moved the paragraphs in the lead. I've moved the evaluation of the number of reported rapes back to the second paragraph, as it is not as important as the first paragraph. I also think this will satisfy some of the concerns about the lead's appropriateness. I also rearranged the second paragraph to move the "parliamentarians dispute this ....underreporting of rapes" (not verbatim) sentence closer to the top, as it is in response to the first sentence.

However, I also feel that the paragraph in question already mentions enough that it is referring specifically to 'reported' rapes. We also cannot comment on how severe the under-reporting is, that is mostly speculation, and also, estimates of the underreportedness in the US are irrelevant to India's situation. --Padenton (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, now that you mentioned it, it makes more sense. The previous leading sentence sounds like it was written by an apologetic and better suited for an article on Reported Rape in India rather than Rape in India per se. And to pre-empt since a comparison was made to the Rape in the United States article, that also starts with a line on "reported rape", but then again that article's lede did not have a "bigger picture" line on rape in general, in its lead either. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Jabalpur

Jabalpur has the what? Peter Jedicke (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Says here [4] that it has the highest rate, so I put that ― Padenton |☎  22:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Unproven/non-notable allegations

Such as these allegations have to be rectified from the article. Also considering the WP:BLPCRIME, we cannot list a unproven allegation as rape. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually the crime is being reported as a rape, not alleged rape, by most news agencies. The allegation/ambiguity relates to dentifying the perpetrators since its still under investigations (even though arrests have been made) and the motives. So ias long as the writeup reflects this it should be okay. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Every news agency has its own policies, how they report and how they analyze the issue. Wikipedia's policies differs a bit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

As I explained, it definitely meets WP:CRIME. You're saying that there's a danger of WP:BLPCRIME, which I do not disagree with. These 2 are not mutually exclusive though. That a crime took place doesn't seem to be a question here. And that's where the writing part must be handled carefully to not identify the alleged perpetrator while investigations are still ongoing.Zhanzhao (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with OccultZone. In addition to WP:BLPCRIME, I feel we need to cleanup the individual instances of rape in this article. This is the Rape in India article, and while tragic, individual incidents that do not have an impact or relevance in India as a whole don't really belong here. News organizations will cover individual incidents. But what makes the few stories of rape (whether alleged or having already resulted in a conviction) that are already listed in the article important compared to the tens of thousands that occur every year in India? If we allow them, on what basis do we deny the addition of other incidents? ― Padenton |☎  21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The information being removed is being removed for what can only be NPOV reasons. This article is about Rape in India but you want to remove well referenced pieces about Rape in India??? TCKTKtool (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute they are well-enough referenced. But they are non-notable to Rape in India as a whole. Are you suggesting we include in the article a section on each rape committed in India? What importance do these individual stories have that is not shared with every instance of rape? The section says "Notable Incidents". ― Padenton |☎  22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If those other cases you speak of make major news around the world, then yes they should be included. You do know what notable means right? These are well referenced because they were such big stores of major notability. TCKTKtool (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a separate issue from the previous debate between WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME, but other than significant news coverage from not just international and local press for this one individual case, it led to a protest march, a condemnnation by the local catholic diocese, a visit by the Vatican city itself (all of which received quite a bit if coverage as well), and also quite a bit of news coverage about the aftermath and investigation itself. Its not up to us to determine or weigh its significance over the other tragic rapes that are also occuring but unreported, but the facts are facts that this particular case is standing out. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Zhanzhao, don't restore it again. WP:WIKILAWYERING is meaningless at this point. These are unproven allegations and not notable anymore. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone, I do not see any concensus for your removal, and may I point out, you're the one who started wikilawyering with WP:BLPCRIME. I see you have removed more stuff than what I added (note I only mainly reorganized content that was previously written and buffed it with more references, yet you're even removing pre-existing content not written by me wholesale. If you feel my edit is not in order, I would welcome this to be moved to a more authoratative Wikitalk space where other non-involved editors can weigh-in. This has bounced around between us longer than it should. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What is "unproven allegations"? And who are you to tell others to not revert/edit? TCKTKtool (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

For what reasons you are keeping the "rape of foreigners", there is no official alert on visitors, to "use caution" is not extreme the way you are representing it.

For what reasons you are keeping these non-notable and unproven allegations? Even alleging a politician of rape when he has not been convicted yet?

WP:WIKILAWYERING means, misrepresenting the policies/guidelines of en.wiki. If you cannot understand the meaning of the word, refrain from using it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This is up for discussion at the dispute resolution notice board. To avoid whats beginning to feel like WP:OWN on all our parts, I suggest leaving this to editors/admins who have not been previously involved with this article, and accept an unbiased judgement call from them. What say you? Zhanzhao (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton, OccultZone, and Zhanzhao: As I entered this fray by unblocking several individuals, I thought I'd make some comments.

1. Thank you Zhanzhao for taking this to DRN. That was one very smart move.
2. OccultZone, Zhanzhao did not do Wikilawyering. It did not approach that level.
3. Personally, I would keep the first paragraph in. ("Rape cases against internationals have lead to a number of countries to issue travel advisories...") It is referenced and very much points out the problems of rape other country may see in India. I would also list some of the countries.
4. There could be listed hundreds of rapes of international people in India. I have to agree with Padention's statement, This is the Rape in India article, and while tragic, individual incidents that do not have an impact or relevance in India as a whole don't really belong here. However....

1. The Russion national case did cause the Russian consulate to issue a warning [5] about not staying out late. This could be used as an example for the first paragraph.
2. The "Swiss couple" sentence was about tourists. This also could tie into the first paragraph.
3. If the above two cases (or similar ones) are two be used, I don't think separate paragraphs are needed. Use them in the first paragraph.

Bgwhite (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good alternative. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite @Zhanzhao I just think that those rape cases which are in court or sub judice should not be mentioned here, only those cases in which honorable court has convicted or sentenced accused should be mentioned but those should be a very very notable cases because we can't add each and every case here just because its article of rape. Nearly all rape cases mentioned in this article are sub judice except few like in Nirbhaya case accused is convicted and sentenced. Even greatest lawyers and public personalities don't comment anything on matter which is sub judice, how we can write it publicly on wikipedia? Everyone has access to wikipedia easily, does things written here about that case should taken as proof in court? --Human3015 13:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding undated comment added 10:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I just looked and the cases I looked up all have final court actions, but it has not been updated in the Wikipedia page. So if the only reason some want for removal is the conclusion then instead of deleting just find a updated reference and update it properly. But aside from that Wikipedia is not a court. If things were only posted when the person was found guilty then OJ Simpsons page would be very much smaller. I don't see any major issue with the current Rape of foreigners section other than it needs to be updated. A simple Google search showed the conclusions of these cases with verifiable and good reference quite easy. Resaltador (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)