Fenil and Bollywood

Posts Tagged ‘humiliation

Madhur Bhandarkar
Is Madhur Bhandarkar a victim of the country’s rape laws?

TEAM BT Times News Network (November 19, 2009)


Poor Madhur Bhandarkar. The Bollywood filmmaker, who’s just had a critically acclaimed release in Jail, finds himself in the dock once again for rape charges by aspiring actress Preeti Jain dating back to July 2004. Fortunately, the Andheri Metropolitan Magistrate who rejected the Versova Police’s adverse report of the charges from back then and decided to conduct an inquiry into the case, has not ordered Bhandarkar’s arrest. The flamboyant filmmaker is not unduly worried by this development. “But my family is going through trauma,” he admitted to BT. It is a bittersweet moment for him. The news comes at a time when he is in Egypt attending the Cairo International Film Festival where five of his films — Chandni Bar, Traffic Signal, Page 3, Corporate and Fashion — are being screened as a tribute to Indian cinema. “My films reflect society and are liked by the classes and masses,” said Madhur, “I’ve got name and fame after a struggle, and I request society not to make a judgement until the case is over, so please don’t give me a trial in the media, I have faith in the judiciary.” But, the question uppermost in people’s minds is this: is Madhur a victim of the country’s rape laws? The filmmaker, naturally, thinks so. “It also amounts to blackmail,” he alleged of this sordid bit of dirty linen that was washed in public by the starlet.


Facts of the case
In July 2004, Preeti had lodged a complaint with the Versova Police against Madhur alleging he had raped her 16 times between 1999 and 2004 under the pretext of casting her as actress in his films. Madhur insists the complaint was of “cheating” and did not mention rape.

Our View: Irrespective of what relationship they shared, how can what happened between Madhur and Preeti amount to rape? She claims she was raped 16 times in four years, which is not like saying several times in one night. If this was rape, what prevented her from going to the police after the first incident? Why wait four years? And what prompted the complaint? Was it outrage, jealousy, indignation, a burning desire to teach the man a lesson? If Madhur had promised to cast her in his films, and if he had honoured this alleged commitment, would their alleged sex still be rape? The humiliation, the hurt, the abuse of body and soul that is caused by rape, is as much the 16th time as it would be the first… and any woman suffering this exploitation for four years and then crying rape, sounds like she’s complaining against rejection. Not the sexual act itself.

What is Rape?

The dictionary defines it as “the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse; and the act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person”. The Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of rape in recent years has been to stretch the ambit to include consensual sex based on ‘‘false promise to marry’’. What was clearly never in its contemplation was to bring the casting couch — promise to give work in exchange of sex — under the definition of rape. Even if Preeti’s allegations are taken at face value, it is debatable whether they constitute prima facie evidence to try Madhur on the charge of rape. The allegation, if a promise was made and broken, is a case of fraud. But when sex is involved, courts tend to treat it as a case of rape. Sex by deceit. The opening made by the Supreme Court to provide relief to those who had been deceived into having sex on false promise to marry cannot be pushed further for the sake of those who claim to have been deceived similarly by false promise to give work.


Our view
The idea that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman can occur only if they intend to marry clearly has no place in a liberal society. Also, if the woman gets into a physical relationship because she has been fooled into believing that marriage is on the cards, we may question the morality of the man, but is it not extreme to equate his deception with rape? We would suggest that it is time the law adopted a more nuanced approach to what is universally acknowledged to be a complex issue. Having a breach of promise law to deal with such cases would be more suitable than clubbing it with rape, which is an extremely violent offence.


Is having sex for work any different from prostitution?
This does not come under deception and so on or being conned on the basis of a false promise of marriage, etc. In the case of the casting couch, the lady gives consent as she has been promised something and if she is able to prove that she was deceived into giving her consent then it does attract the provisions of the law… but this, of course, is quite difficult to prove.
— M N Singh,
Former Mumbai Police Commissioner


The starlet cannot say it’s rape. She can call it cheating. She cannot say that “I had sex with him because he promised me work.” This kind of deal is anyway not legal. She had no business to sell herself for a role. If she had alleged (and could prove) that the filmmaker agreed to marry her, then this would have been worth considering. But as it is, she has no case here. If she was a commercial call girl, then this would perhaps fall into the category of prostitution.
— Majeed Memon,
Criminal Lawyer

Advertisements
Elesh Parunjanwala hits back at fiancée Rakhi Sawant for maligning him with accusations about his financial instability and eventual move to Toronto

By Vickey Lalwani (MUMBAI MIRROR; October 28, 2009)

 

Elesh Parujanwala may have been the lucky suitor to win over Rakhi Sawant among 16 contestants on Rakhi Ka Swayamvar, but he has wisened up to one fact fast — Mother Mary she ain’t.

 

Elesh, who came to Mumbai with hopes of settling down with the controversy queen, has been at the centre of controversy himself, thanks to Rakhi’s outbursts.

The man is deeply hurt and angered by Rakhi’s attempts to malign his image with her accusations of his financial instability and his plans to relocate to Toronto post-marriage with her. So far, Elesh had maintained a dignified silence, but having been pushed too far, he now sets the record straight. There is a distinct sadness in his eyes and voice when he speaks about Rakhi.

Rakhi Sawant and Elesh Parunjanwala

Elesh says that he tried his best to make the relationship work. Talking about his incompatibility with Rakhi, he says, “I tried my best to understand this woman, but failed. I tried to know her past, I tried to understand her moves. I tried everything, but failed. On the contrary, Rakhi never tried to understand where I am coming from. Her notion about NRIs is so limited. I think it is based only on watching movies and TV. Rakhi needs to understand that real life is different from reel life.”

To begin with, Elesh is amused that Rakhi did not want to stay in his hometown, Toronto after marrying him. He elaborates, “Honestly, I never told her to settle in Toronto. She can always travel back and forth. What’s wrong if I suggested that if and when we have a baby, he/she should be born in Toronto? I have my parents there and they would be a support system to my family. Anything wrong with that?”

Commenting on Rakhi’s accusation that Elesh is financially not stable, he says, “What does she mean by saying that I don’t have money? That’s all so stupid and unnecessary. I am studying and have decided not to take money from my parents. I want to be an independent person. Am I doing something bad?”

Clearly, Elesh has realised that Rakhi has used his name to play to the gallery and get her nautanki’s worth of airtime. Getting more vociferous, he says, “Frankly, I am shocked by the allegations. Anybody else in my place would have sunk into depression. Had it not been for the support of my family, I don’t know what would have happened to me. I do realise people have their own reasons to try to make others feel small and bad in the eyes of the public, so that they can gain sympathy. Part of being in Bollywood, I guess. But I am hurt. The controversy and the humiliation that I have been put through; the name calling to mar my character has hurt my family and me tremendously.”


Advertisements