Round The World

New Delhi, 4 July 2025

Quad Meet In US

AN INDIA MOMENT!

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof of Practice, NIIS Group of Institutions) 

The Quad Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Washington on 1 July opens up strategic opportunities for India. Will New Delhi make the most of it having missed the bus a few times before? This is the time for reckoning for Quad in the context of freedom and security in India Pacific in the face of Chinese belligerence. For India, Quad meetings in the run-up to the Summit later this year become doubly important as New Delhi has been somewhat marginalised in the recent SCO meet. I will juxtapose Quad against other regional structures India is part of, namely BRICS and SCO. This is to drive home the point that New Delhi has to make a choice in the current chaotic geo-political situation. 

The Foreign Ministers’ meeting at the behest of US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio was the second this year. Rubio had organised a smaller one, last January, on the fringe of Donald Trump’s swearing-in ceremony. The meeting this week sounded more assertive and definitive in its pronouncements. It excluded references to Israel-Iran war as well as Russia-Ukraine war in order to sharpen its focus on India Pacific. Although China was not mentioned by name, several statements called out Chinese high-handedness in the region - aggressive moves in East and South China Sea, needling India through Pakistan and even directly, crossing swords with Australia on its defence budget and so on. 

For the first time, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar led the charge by asking for greater focus and cohesion in Quad. He said, “Quad will deliver better if it works in a more focused manner”. The Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya was equally forthright as he said, “Quad will shape the future of India Pacific region”. Jaishankar was, however, platitudinous when he asked for a rule-based international order. He could be more effective for India if he eschews to be esoteric. China is a threat, an adversary, a manipulator which has to be recognised and factored into India’s security strategy. 

Quad, by far, is the best strategic option for India. Quad was created in 2007 with a formal proposal by then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Although it started as Tsunami Core Group following the earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004, there was little doubt about its real intention. That was to contain China. That is why for about a decade, Quad remained dormant, largely due to Australian concerns about potential negative impacts on its relationship with China. 

Fast forward, Quad was vigorously revived in 2017 in the face of growing assertiveness of China. Since then, Quad has experienced increased engagement, greater institutionalisation, and sharper focus. There have been regular foreign ministerial consultations, sector-level meetings, and leader-level summits. The key objective of Quad has been to ensure, “free, open, prosperous and inclusive Indo-Pacific region”. The Quad countries also participate in joint military exercises like Malabar Naval Exercise which have since expanded to include all the four countries. Significantly, Quad is perceived as an Asian NATO. 

Several experts have construed Quad as a counter-weight to China. The American think tank, Centre for a New American Security (CNAS) suggests that it is because of the rise of Chinese power Quad should serve as a tool for American statecraft. Admittedly, Quad has not yet achieved much in practice. It is because it has lacked a common ground or a coherent strategic approach. New Delhi is partly guilty of watering down Quad’s security structure by suggesting that it is a developmental and a humanitarian outfit. 

Quad provides a great strategic opportunity for India as the interest of other three members converge with India’s especially on a common Chinese threat. It beggars understanding of why India is reluctant to project Quad as a security alliance. India is a member of BRICS and SCO, initiated and largely controlled by China. BRICS has expanded beyond five founder countries to ten in order to enlist allies for China and Russia in an increasingly polarised world. For India, the recent SCO meeting was an embarrassment caused by isolation on calling out terrorism. The joint statement issued by SCO mentioned terrorism in Baluchistan but omitted to do so in Pahalgam where innocent tourists were murdered in cold blood on religious identities. 

Contrast that with the Quad Foreign Ministers condemning the Pahalgam terror attack in strong terms. It said, “The Quad unequivocally condemns all acts of terrorism and violent extremism in all its forms and manifestations including cross-border terrorism”. It added, “We call for the perpetrators, organisers and financiers of this reprehensible act to be brought to justice without any delay in accordance with their obligations under international law…. and to cooperate actively with all relevant authorities in this regard”. The phrase ‘relevant authorities’ here refers to Indian authorities. 

Quad came down heavily on China although it did not name the country by issuing unequivocal condemnation of Chinese action in South-China Sea and by implication in other sovereign and independent areas. It said, “We express our serious concerns regarding dangerous and provocative actions …. repeated obstruction of the freedom of navigation and overflight, and dangerous manoeuvers by military aircrafts and maritime militia vessels”. 

The Quad announced a few other initiatives. They agreed on a ‘new agenda’ that focuses on four key areas  - maritime security, economic prosperity, critical and emergent technologies and humanitarian assistance and disaster response. They launched a Sea - Ship Observer Mission. This is supposed to deepen cooperation in maritime field in the India Pacific. This should reduce illicit maritime activity such as piracy, drug trafficking and illegal fishing etc. 

Second critical step taken is the launch of ‘Quad Critical Minerals Initiative’. Quad members were concerned about China’s domination in critical minerals meant for emerging and new technologies. This initiative will aim at diversifying supply chains, minerals recovery and reprocessing. Quad will focus on supply chain resilience for critical minerals and will coordinate with private sector partners for increased investment in this critical field. 

All in all, Quad renewed its focus which will result sharpening Quad’s ability to leverage resources in order to face the most pressing challenges in the region. It also reiterated its opposition to any ‘unilateral action that seeks to change the status quo by force or coercion in the Indo Pacific’. This should be good news for India, Australia as well as Japan. Depending on the depth of diplomacy of these three countries, Quad should grow stronger nudging USA to take an active part in the region. Washington should fall for it as it feeds the US objective of retaining the numero uno position in the global power structure. 

To be sure, the onus of steering Quad rests largely on New Delhi as it faces the brunt of Beijing’s belligerence. New Delhi must play it cards well at least until the Quad Summit in November this year. This is important against the backdrop of Donald Trump’s flip-flops in foreign policy and New Delhi’s situation of being an Alice in the wonderland. Without doubt, New Delhi is more capable than it is perceived to be given its philosophical depth, cultural heritage and policy scruples. New Delhi will just have to recalibrate and reposition itself. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 3 July 2025

TO PUNISH OR NOT TO PUNISH

By Inder Jit

(Released on 4 April 1978) 

What many have felt all along has now been confirmed by the Shah Commission in its thought-provoking Interim Report. The greatest excess committed by Mrs Indira Gandhi and her regime was the proclamation of the Emergency itself. A careful narration of the facts emerging from the evidence tendered by top government functionaries before the Commission, together with relevant material culled from official records, leads to one inescapable conclusion: the proclamation was mala fide and was designed solely to enable Mrs Gandhi to impose personal rule on the country and become the de facto Empress of India. The Constitution was wantonly subverted and a dictatorship established through a hush hush, pre-meditated coup. Indeed, a veritable war was unleashed on the innocent and unsuspecting people of India.

The Interim Report, which runs into less than a hundred printed pages, is expected to be made available to Parliament by about the middle of the month. At one stage, it appeared as though the report might be presented to the Lok Sabha before it adjourned briefly for Good Friday and Holi. But the presentation was postponed when some Cabinet Ministers insisted at a meeting on March 23 for time to examine the report carefully. They also cautioned against getting into another flap. A suggestion that the report be tabled with the announcement that it was being referred to the Secretaries Committee for processing and necessary action was found unacceptable. Under the Commission of Inquiries Act, the Government cannot merely present a report within a six-month deadline of its receipt. It is simultaneously required to indicate the action it proposes to take on the report.

A small committee, headed by the Cabinet Secretary, is now examining the report and will recommend to the Cabinet follow-up action relating broadly to two categories. First, issues concerning specific matters such as the abuse of authority and short-circuiting of procedures. Second, long-term issues such as the control of intelligence agencies and their role: exception is particularly taken to the report submitted by the then Intelligence chief to Mrs Gandhi on developments within the Congress Party. The Shah Commission, for instance, feels that there is need to provide built-in safeguards to prevent intelligence agencies from being exploited by any individual for political spying -- as was strongly demanded in the U.S.A. during the aftermath of Watergate. However, the committee's principal concern will be devoted to the question of preventing another over-ambitious leader from imposing personal dictatorship.

What are the broad facts relating to the proclamation of the Emergency? First and foremost, the entire operation was put through surreptitiously by Mrs Gandhi and her hand-picked accomplices almost in the style of a cloak-and-dagger conspiracy. Neither the Cabinet Secretary, nor the Home Secretary nor the Prime Minister's own Secretary, Prof P.N. Dhar were anywhere in the picture. Mrs Gandhi put through the operation with the help of her chosen loyalists. Mr R.K. Dhawan, her additional Private Secretary, personally took the proclamation to the President, Mr Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, and quietly got it signed by him around 11.30 p.m., notwithstanding the advice of Mr Balachandran, Secretary to the President. Mr Balachandran had earlier taken the stand that the President should sign the proclamation only in case the Council of Ministers advised him to do so and not otherwise.

Mrs Gandhi advised the President to sign the proclamation entirely on her own. In doing so, she invoked Rule 12 of the Government's Transaction of Business Riles on the plea that there was unfortunately no time to call a meeting of the Cabinet. (This rule is said to empower the Prime Minister to permit or condone a departure from rules in any case.) Once the proclamation was signed by the President "Operation Emergency" was launched beginning with countrywide arrests. The Cabinet Secretary was thereafter pulled out of bed at about 4.30 a.m. and asked to convene an emergent meeting of the Cabinet at 6 a.m. (Under the rules, a Cabinet meeting can be summoned at a notice of one hour.) The Cabinet met at 6 a.m. -- about six and a half hours after the proclamation was signed -- and the proclamation approved post facto, leading Mrs Gandhi to claim that the procedure adopted was entirely constitutional.

Three questions arise. First, what is the Constitutional requirement in regard to the proclamation of Emergency? Second, does resort to Rule 12 empower the Prime Minister to over-ride the Constitution itself? Third, did Mrs Gandhi really have no time to convene a meeting of the Cabinet before approaching the President? Insofar as the Constitution is concerned, Article 352 stipulates: "If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external aggression or internal disturbance, he may, by Proclamation, make a declaration to that effect." As pointed out by Mr Balachandran to the late Mr Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, the President's satisfaction was not personal. It was governed by Article 74 which provides: “There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions."

Constitutional experts question Mrs Gandhi's claim that resort to Rule 12 empowered her to by-pass the Cabinet. It is pointed out that Government rules regarding transaction of routine business could not conceivably be applied to a matter as grave as the proclamation of Emergency and one to which the Constitution devotes a whole part. In support, attention is drawn to the section in Conduct of Government Business and specifically to the wording of Article 77(3) which provides: "The President shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business." The experts also argue that Rule 12 only empowers the Prime Minister "to permit and condone" the action of third persons, namely his colleagues, and not his own. Significantly, the Transaction of Business Rules include a schedule that lists Proclamation of Emergency and other subjects mandatorily required to be taken before the Cabinet.

The Shah Commission's Interim Report leaves no scope for any doubt on the third point. Mrs Gandhi could have easily called an emergent meeting of the Cabinet on the night of June 25 prior to approaching the President on her own. As the evidence adduced before the Commission shows, heavens would not have fallen had she decided to wait for a day, indeed many more. In fact, the question that needs to be put is: Did Mrs Gandhi at all wish to take the Cabinet into confidence prior to the fell act? Or, did she calculatedly choose not to take any chance and conveniently get post-facto Cabinet approval virtually at gun point? What is more, an Emergency was already in operation. She could easily have availed of the powers thereunder to deal with the situation instead of imposing something unnecessary, unwarranted and illegal. At one point, Mr Justice Shah is believed to have expressed doubt even about the legality of the second Emergency when the first was already in operation.

To cut a long story short, Mrs. Gandhi and her key advisers appear to have been subsequently haunted by "a guilty conscience" and fear of exposure. A special exercise was thereupon launched to cover up the track and plug loopholes. Two specific provisions were inserted for the purpose in the Constitution in the notorious 42nd Amendment, which have their own tale to tell. The first added a new clause IV to Article 77 in regard to Conduct of Government Business which provides: "No court or other authority shall be entitled to require the production of any rule made under Clause III for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government." Further, anticipating possible trouble about the legality of the Emergency proclaimed on June 25, the second amendment significantly added a new Clouse IV to Article 352 relating to Proclamation of Emergency. This clause states: "The power conferred on the President by this article shall include the power to issue different proclamations on different grounds... whether or not there is a proclamation already issued..."

Where do we go from here? Should Mrs Gandhi be punished or not? The Janata leaders are generally agreed that the Constitution was wantonly subverted by Mrs Gandhi for personal ends. A few even talk in accents reminiscent of the days of Bishop Rochester when his cook was ordered "to be boiled to death" for poisoning his master. But we are not living in medieval times or those of Charles I when the British Parliament first sought to impeach Lord Stafford for subverting the system and imposing despotic rule but eventually voted a one-line resolution that he be beheaded. The Janata leaders are eager to uphold the rule of law, which creates its own difficulties, including one posed by Article 20(1) of the Constitution which provides: “No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence."

Some among the doves argue that Mrs Gandhi has already been punished adequately by the people and, in the changed situation, she should only be fought politically. But the hawks sharply disagree and are frantically trying to find some way to punish Mrs Gandhi adequately. Said one Janata leader: "The former Prime Minister's crime against the people may be unprecedented. It may not have been foreseen by the Constitution makers. But it must not go unpunished." Another leader said: "If necessary, we should enact a special law and set up a special court. Yes, we can get the law through Parliament, if necessary at a joint sitting of the two houses. Perhaps the Citizenship Act, 1955, provides a possible way out. Clause 10(2) provides that the Central Government may, by order, deprive any citizen of Indian citizenship if it is satisfied that (b) "that citizen has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Constitution of India as by law established.”--- INFA.

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 2 July 2025

Emergency Revisited

NOW ‘UNDECLARED’: CONG

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

The BJP is marking the 50th anniversary of the Emergency, emphasising how power was misused by Late Indira Gandhi for personal interests without considering the broader national interest. Going into top gear, Union Home Minister Amit Shah highlighted Narendra Modi's “nation first” approach. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge launched a counter attack stating that an “undeclared emergency” has prevailed for the past 11 years and claiming that Modi is addressing this issue to divert attention from ‘governance challenges and institutional control’. 

Observing June 25, the BJPsaid the Congress should not divert from the Emergency-era excesses on people and tender an apology. It insisted it’s imperative to discuss the sufferings the then government inflicted on people so that it is never repeated. As against this, critics of the BJP-led NDA government are raising questions about freedom of expression in the country and accusing the government of lacking tolerance and trampling liberty and fraternity.In particular, they allege journalists and student activists are being imprisoned for simply being critical of the government and opposing its policies. 

A recent study undertaken by the Clooney Foundation for Justice’s TrialWatch Initiative in partnership with the National Law University, Delhi and Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute analyzed 624 incidents of criminalisation of journalists in relation to their work from 2012-2022. The dataset breaks down 423 criminal cases against 427 journalists across states and Union Territories of the country. It has been found that reporters in metros were arrested 24 percent of the total incidents but this rises to 58 percent for journalists in small cities/towns and villages. The latter are more vulnerable to arrest and detention as they lack necessary legal support and access to justice. Across the country, police invoked a multitude of offences against journalists and registered large number of cases against them. 

Additionally, recent data from India Hate Lab, an international research centre, witnessed a rise in anti-minority hate speeches by an astonishing 74 percent in 2024, year of the General election. Worse, the crisis of free speech transcends its contamination by hate, it noted. The foundational tenet of regimes endorsing free speech, as was pointed out in a recent talk byone of the country’s foremost intellectuals Pratap Bhanu Mehta, has traditionally been rooted in a milieu of trust between State and citizens. 

While the imposition of Emergency has to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, the Opposition is of the opinion and flogs the BJP’s dislike for civil society. The authoritarian manner of functioning of Modi has been successful in controlling all aspects of governance and administration, it claims. There is no transparency and institutions, vital for a healthy democracy, have been deprived of autonomy. 

A deeper analysis perhaps may reveal that both the Congress and the BJP have misused the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act(FCRA) to target NGOs and civil society, particularly those criticizing environmental and human rights issues. This reflects the government’s fear of an independent scrutiny. The prime minister’s extraordinary and unprecedented act of avoidance of the press exemplifies this concern, it’s argued. Additionally, there have been attacks on the press, with journalists and activists jailed under the UAPA for criticising government policies and highlighting its failures. 

The overall hostility to civil society and independent thought is common worldwide. The BJP, in power in most Indian states, often uses its authority to suppress and crush civil society organisations, which are vocal. It is pertinent to mention here that the French thinker, Alexis de Tocqueville argued that American democracy thrives because of its voluntary organisations, which remains true today, but is under threat. After India's Emergency period ended, democratic culture allowed both critical and constructive voluntary organisations to flourish, benefiting the political system and society. 

Statistics spell out how democracy is increasingly in peril across the globe. The Economist’s recent Global Democracy Index indicates that just 6.6 percent of the world’s total population, residing in 25 out of the 165 countries assessed, enjoyed full democracy in 2024. The first GDI in 2006 had credited 28 countries covering 13 percent of the world population with ‘Full Democracies’. Ten years later in 2016, it reported a sharp decline with 19 countries and just about 4.5 percent of the world population in that category. The Economist distributed its results based on 60 parameters in four categories – ‘full democracies’, ‘flawed democracies’, ‘hybrid systems’ and ‘authoritarian regimes’. Over the last two decades, much less than one-fifth of the world’s countries have been described as fully democratic. Despite the dilution of its content, democracy is still in circulation in the public discourse of political leaders though they may be practicing ‘hybrid systems’ or ‘flamed democracies’. 

Some political analysts have observed that of all the prime ministers India has had since independence, Indira Gandhi and Modi have been the two instinctively authoritarian. Both tried to undermine institutions through autocratic means and ensured a committed bureaucracy and also, to an extent, a committed judiciary. These prime ministers,it is alleged, would not allow federalism to flourish, and both used the office of the governor to weaken elected governments. However, despite her dictatorial ways, Indira Gandhi upheld the plural idea of India enshrined in the Constitution, wherein citizenship is not defined in terms of language, religion or ethnicity.   

In fact, in the present times, the poison of religious bigotry has pervaded society and brought enmity, jealousy and hatred among communities. This resulted in hate speech among political leaders and the steady loosening of bondage among communities. This bigotry is increasing day by day with the tacit support of political leaders, who are only interested in reaping electoral advantage. Political analysts and sociologists rightly point out and, if unchecked, this may not just destroy democratic plurality but also the social fabric of the country.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 1 July 2025

Rape & Reality

INDIA FAILS ITS STREEDHAN

By Poonam I Kaushish 

India is at war with its girls and women. As terrifying tales of savagery, nightmarish rapes, domestic abuse and violence occur daily. But three incidents over three months have shaken and horrified us once again. Gang rape of a 24-year-old law student inside a Kolkata college campus by an ex-Trinamool Chhatra Parishad leader is not merely a tragic anomaly, it’s a grim indictment of a State system that increasingly fails to protect women.

Coming three months after rape-murder of a postgraduate trainee at R.G Kar Medical College it underscores nothing has changed: West Bengal’s institutional spaces are becoming dangerously unsafe and politics often shields the guilty. A cue of how political affiliations enable a sense of impunity.

Even as Mamata’s TMC publicly condemned the act and sought distance, its silence on the broader issue of student safety and political interference speaks volumes. The State’s crime rate against women is 71.8 per lakh population, higher than national average 66.4 while conviction rates remain worryingly low.

In March, picturesque idyll Hampi, Karnataka turned into horror for five: two Israeli women who were raped and three men thrown into the canal.  Yes, police swung into action, arrests were made. Yet, once again we were reminded that a decade plus after Nirbhaya, brutal sexual violence continues to run rampant country-wide. Don’t variations of this happen to innumerable women in India?

Confronted with conscience-jolting and repugnant acts of depravity, India reacts with vindictive anger and revulsion. But the howls of vigilantist fury that reverberates through corridors of power stands apart for their immaturity and impetuosity

Alas, a lot of political outrage is along Party lines, reflecting a hellish normalization of sexual brutalities. But gang-rape is not an aberration. It is the outcome of a system where institutional decay, political muscle and silence enable recurring violence.

Last year, after a Spanish tourist with her partner was gang-raped in Jharkand guess what our National Commission for Women was concerned about? The entire country should not be ‘vilified,’ as over 6 million tourists arrive, many of them single and their safety we take very seriously. Sic. It’s another matter, Albania, one-sixth Karnataka’s size gets 12 million tourist but is safe.

Undeniably, India regularly ranks among most dangerous and unsafe for women. Wherein, rape is a “national problem”, according to UN Human Rights Commission. Sounds harsh? But hearing rape is not harsher than living rape. We live in a society where marital rape is legal. Even a wife’s subsequent death doesn’t weaken a husband’s immunity, a High Court said recently.

Arguably, when law doesn’t take rape too seriously, neither does India. This begs a question: Why is India failing its women so miserably? Are they gajar-mooli which can be relished and then spat out?

Perhaps it has something to do with our patriarchal lineage and misogynistic culture whereby, we show utter disregard and disrespect for women. The Hathras rape case brought forward the barbarism of those who sit at top of the gender and caste hierarchical systems.

As sexual violence is not only a structural outcome of entrenched patriarchy but a political failure. When male-dominated institutions, be it educational, legal or political treat women’s bodies as collateral damage in power struggles, violence becomes normalised.

Clearly, in a society which lives with the regressive mindset that freedom and equality for women tantamount to promiscuity, we swing between two extremes. One where a girl child is bad news and nurtured on “conform” paranoia: Not to rock the boat, be fearful of what lies around the corner and subjecting them to countless restrictions in the name of women’s protection. Whereby fathers make the rules, husbands enforce them and male bosses reiterate them, speaking out against someone’s wrong doing is tough.

Sadly a large section of women do not have rights over their bodies and are viewed as sex objects and mince-meat for male lust camouflaged as human animals to either comply or reconcile to battling it out at every level. They are morally policed by society, their bodies sexualized right from their choice of wearing dresses to make-up.

Recently, a BJP leader charged “women in ripped jeans and running towards nudity” for rising cases of moral turpitude, his Bihar colleague advised women to carry condoms and accept rape, a Rajasthan Minister blamed TVs and mobiles for “fast” girls read loose morals, a Haryana khap leader said eating Chinese chowmein caused rape, another counseled women to get ‘godfathers’ who can “make them” professionally. A Maharashtra Minister asserted liquor sale would increase if they are given women's names ‘Bobby’-‘Julie’.

Instead of punishing attackers for heinous crimes, victim-blaming and slut-shaming a woman for the choices she makes is what our society resorts to save its “honour.” One only has to see our community attitudes and derogatory comments on social media to comprehend how women are treated. Either way the damage is done.  Getting married and raising kids is the core of female existence. Sic.

In a culture where the national narrative conditions people to think that sexual harassment has no consequences; where sex crimes are dismissed as result of an imbalanced sex ratio; and where women have little or no cultural respect, it is going to be a steep uphill to change what is just ‘normal’.

Rape is not just an act of lust or anger; it is often an assertion of dominance, enabled by systemic failures and cultural silence. Unless both patriarchy and political capture are addressed together, safety reforms will remain cosmetic.

Shockingly, the National Crime Records Bureau reveals crime against a woman is committed every minute, rape every 5 minutes, dowry death occurs every 77 minutes and cruelty committed by either husband or relative occurs every 9 minutes. Any wonder our high rate of female infanticides and sex-selective abortions.

Undeniable it is a wake-up call for change. Women safety cannot be restored without urgent and tangible reforms. One, police must be guaranteed autonomy to investigate cases without political interference. Two, empowered internal complaints committees and crisis cells staffed by gender-sensitised professionals. Three, public commitment to zero tolerance for violence, with action against those who intimidate or coerce. Four, survivors must also be empowered by improving access to legal aid, mental health support and fast-track courts.

We need to change our approach to sexual harassment. One option is radical feminism to make a social impact and safety of women an important article of faith with people, society and Government. Laws should be tightened which would deter men to think thousand times before they commit crime, along-with transparency, accountability and good governance. Our leaders need to pay heed and address this seriously.

Every rape is a dark moment --- but it should also be a turning point. Governments has made false promises of ensuring safety and fast-track courts still remain a far-fetched assurance for assault victims. If India wishes to remain a place that values equity and justice, it must break the grip of power networks and re-establish the rule of law. Anything less would betray the victims.

We need cry halt to women being playthings of voyeuristic men. Will she continue to constitute  weaker gender? Will we persist to wallow in tokenism? Or break new ground and unshackle women? Will there be beginning of a new dawn to make “Her Story?” ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)