BaKhabar, February 2013, Page-7

“Since you think women who dress immodestly are asking to be raped, you won't object when I punch you in the face and steal your watch. You provoked me by wearing it - I wanted it, so I took it.” Well, sleeper-class/ general compartment passengers receive similar advice to keep their hands inside the compartment when the train takes off from a platform (snatching of nose or ear-rings from women, and watches from men, do occur in the lanes and by-lanes of backward districts). In small cities, women do avoid showing off costly jewelry in the streets, for fear of being robbed – the injury caused by snatching comes as not so pleasant a bonus!
Andhra Pradesh DGP, V. Dinesh Reddy, in a widely reported remark linked women's fashionable dresses to increase in rape cases (January 2012). RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, said that rapes mainly occur in urban India due to western influence and not in rural India; a BJP minister in Madhya Pradesh, Kailash Vijayvargiya, defending the RSS chief, said that women should not invite trouble by crossing the "Lakshman rekha" (4th January 2013). Madhya Pradesh Cabinet Minister Kailash Vijayvargiya said women should dress in a way that earns them respect and not arouse sexual excitement — a statement that evoked strong reactions in the state (22nd July 2012). Vijayvargiya said: "I am sure if women start dressing up decently, perversion will stop automatically." Quoting a businessman friend, he rued how the sale of dupattas has reduced in recent times.
Across the country, once every 40 minutes, a woman is kidnapped and raped. Molestation happens once every 25 minutes on the city streets, revealed the ASSOCHAM Social Development Foundation (ASDF) study (24th December 2012). Should we believe the advice of (un)wise men who blame the victims of rape/ assault for provoking the culprits, or should we believe the media which goes wild ridiculing such suggestions? There is much sense in the claim that the ultimate motive behind a rape is show of masculine control and power rather than sexual desire. However, does provocation leading to sexual desire play no role? If men were modest the way Quran asks them to be (lower their gaze and guard their modesty, Quran, 24:30), provocative dresses (or nudity) of the women would not invite trouble. Are men designed by the Creator to be so unmanly as to lower their gaze even at the sight of women’s attractive flesh or inviting gestures, and not to get aroused? If not, in order to follow the Quranic advice, they would need to remain within their homes (and let the women expose their body to women alone – hope this does not encourage lesbian rapes). There is quite some sense even in the claim that it’s not the arousal which leads to rape, but the desire to dominate? But, a relevant question is whether the arousal plays no role at all? Or, is it that the arousal caused by the exposed flesh or luring signs (lure may be just a perception, or may be real; whatever), complemented by the manly desire to dominate, combined with the impatience to do so, causes the heinous crime? If the exposed feminine flesh cannot arouse a man, either the flesh is not worthy to be displayed, or the man has some deficiency in his chromosomes.
Quran may be the only divine book asking men to keep their gaze away from women; however, all divine scriptures (including Quran) advise women to be modest in behavior, laying emphasis on their dresses. Bible says “shave off the head of the woman who does not cover her head”; even head may not be exposed, what to talk of the body! Who thinks of raping a nun, even if she is the most attractive woman around? “She should not go out with attractive, fashionable, semi-transparent dress. She should wear simple clothing.” [Duties of Women: By Swami Shivananda (1887-1963)] In a society which worships glamour more than the Creator, what is the source of its value systems and morality?

"Take religion away from human society and what remains is a forest of brutes" -Swami Vivekananda
lower your gaze