As we promised, we want to unmask the self-serving and unethical (not to mention disastrous in its cruelty) life and work of many Indian feminists.
Her very face is am emblem of hate. The following is the best portrait a paid photographer could take of her:
- She and her organization (the “Lawyers’ Collective”) is a beneficiary of another feminist-infested organization funded with taxpayers’ money (aka the United Nations). According to this report, she was paid $140k for an article reviewing the implementation of a law (the draconian and feminist PWDV Act) drafted by herself and other feminists.
- She has opened the floodgates of coercive and extortionist litigation at the hands of disgruntled wives in India. By actively working to promulgate badly-designed laws which were later somewhat rectified by the Supreme Court (read this), she has been a major cancerous force in modern India.
- She loves to trivialize misuses of laws that she helped draft, forgetting that these laws were tailor-made for misuse.
The Supreme Court had in a judgement in 2010 said as it stood now, the law had become a “weapon in the hands of disgruntled women”. It had also observed that serious re-look of the entire provision is warranted by the Legislature.
Opposing the move to dilute the anti-dowry provision of the law, senior Supreme Court lawyer Indira Jaising said it is a law which gives relief and protection to harassed woman and it should be continued.
“Violence against women is a violation of human rights. There is no compromise of that. I would disagree with the government move,” Jaising said.
Yes, violence against women is a violation of human rights. But so is violence and cruelty against men.
She has not written a single nuanced paper on the social realities in India. Instead, she and her ilk deal in invective, rhetoric and blabbering to obscure the issue. Then they proceed to make money by writing trivial reports, becoming “guest faculty” and UN ambassadors due to their feminist credentials.
Her unscrupulous nature can be observed by her contribution in blackmailing an NRI husband of a “deserted” wife. Remember, the deserted wife could very well divorce her husband. In fact the husband filed for divorce. But no, they wanted their pound of flesh, and it was extracted by jailing a female relative of the man:
Sunita moved Alipore court and the commission took up the matter. The court asked Dipak to appear, but he gave power of attorney to Sunita, who moved a Delhi court on his behalf, seeking divorce. “We engaged advocate Indira Jaisingh, who asked the Delhi court to send the divorce case to the Calcutta Family Court… When the husband could not be arrested, we pleaded with the judge in Alipore court to issue a warrant of arrest against Sunita, who had negotiated the marriage. Sunita was arrested by Bengal police from her residence at Mandakini Enclave, in New Delhi, on January 25 this year,” said Mutsuddi.
Sunita’s imprisonment for over a month forced Dipak to surface. “We told Sunita that Veenita would withdraw the maintenance case against Dipak if he agreed to pay Rs 40 lakh. Dipak agreed. After getting Rs 30 lakh in cash from him onTuesday, we prayed before Justice S.K. Gupta of Calcutta High Court to quash the case pending against Dipak in Alipore court,” Mutsuddi said.
And she’s a hypocrite:
Lawyers Collective’s Indira Jaising, also an additional solicitor general, famously preached something and practiced quite the opposite. In the book, Cause Lawyering: Political Commitments and Professional Responsibilities, edited by Austin Sarat William Nelson, she is quoted as saying, “The main reason why we don’t believe in accepting foreign funding is because we think that groups that do that often end up developing a vested interest in being professionals rather than servicing the community, and they get very alienated from the community for whom they work.” Outlook reported in its September 19, 2011 issue that she had received $1240000 from the Ford Foundation.
The amount might be even more, from certain accounts:
She is a professional, raking in money from western liberal institutions to solve a third-world “problem” by introducing a solution that is worse than the problem.
If a so-called gender activist does not understand male misery in addition to female misery, she’s not an equalist. Such a beast is called a feminazi, who doesn’t hesitate from inflicting cruelty on men to give women an advantage, even if unwarranted and unfair.
Shame on Indira Jaisng.