Advocate AP Singh, who represented two of the four gang rapists who were sentenced to death last week for the December 2012 murder of a student, said that he was pressured by an “anti-social element” to say that he would burn his daughter alive if he caught her out late at night with a boyfriend or having sex outside of marriage.
Singh told the WSJ India Real Time blog on Sunday:
“I was so agitated, upset and stressed after the sentence and this person kept egging me on for a response. I said I would make her lovingly understand that this is not suited for Indian culture. But this person wasn’t satisfied with my response.
“In the spur of the moment, I said that I would burn my daughter or sister if she indulges in premarital sex despite my many attempts to try and dissuade her. I said so only to get rid of him.
“I never said the woman was engaging in premarital sex or that she had a boyfriend. What happened with her was very, very unfortunate. I was specifically asked what I would do if my own daughter or sister had engaged in premarital sex. There was no need to link my remarks to the gang-rape victim. I didn’t refer to her at all.
“Which father or brother would want women of their house to have premarital sex? There is nothing wrong with what I have said, which is that I will not welcome it. In fact, no Indian household in the right frame of mind would welcome this, that is reality.”
The Delhi bar council was also investigating whether to suspend his licence, according to the regulator’s chair Surya Prakash Khatri.
Comments
Despite this completely valid comment(from a personal point of view), is LI making arbitrary exceptions in censorship of comments...? Double standards on decorum.. LI.
The BCI has no right to suspend his license merely because of the fact that he thinks that pre-marital sex is immoral. Indeed it is undesirable for an officer of the court to speak of killing someone (and express his willingness to break the very laws he's under an oath to uphold) and for that he may be let off with a warning and that would be a fair decision in this case.
Now it seems convicts lawyer is giving convoluted logic that "he would have burned his daughter were she to step out at night."
Don't we see a striking similarity in the thoughts of the convicts and the lawyer? If one reads criminal psychology, one would understand that psychology plays an important part in crimes. A person acts based on his thoughts. If he has evil thoughts, his thoughts act as fuel to commit any act under volatile circumstances. What could be more evil then killing a person, burning a human being alive !!
I have a question for the male members of our society. Don’t you not think that supporting his words is like supporting the evils of patriarchy and misogyny. Is this what you want to convey to the women folk ? Women are also human beings just like you fellow men. They have feelings and desires. They seek freedom as much as you do. Why is the disparity then? You say it is his personal view, are you justifying the fact that it is ok to burn a female member of your family just because one thinks it is the right thing to do. Is this the kind of society we want to live in ?
However, the BCI is initiating action against him for "professional misconduct". Whether personal view (howsoever crappy it may be) could amount to professional misconduct.
I don't know suddenly why this rape mentality has become a common norm in India. The worst part is its prevelant thtoughout the country - north, south, east, west. Fathers raping their daughters, brothers raping sisters, random stangers raping girls, date rapes, rape of mentally challenged girls. When will this stop?