On December 9, 2024, Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old techie based in Bangalore, died by suicide, alleging unfair alimony demands from his estranged wife, Nikita Singhania. In April 2022, Singhania had accused Subhash of dowry harassment and assault. Men’s rights activists cite this incident as evidence of women exploiting domestic violence laws for personal gain. Social media platforms are now flooded with calls for a patriarchal backlash against progressive legal measures, with proposals such as doubling dowries, restricting wives’ visits to their families, controlling their finances, and even advocating violence.
The ferocious ease with which Subhash’s suicide has fueled a patriarchal backlash is unsurprising. His letters and suicide note reveal a man who sees the world through a misogynist lens. Subhash harbors a range of deeply problematic beliefs: abortion should be opposed; a wife is merely a “very costly prostitute”; women commanding officers are unfit for their roles; marital rape falls outside the judiciary’s purview, dismissed as an issue “peddled by unmarried, childless lady lawyers’; husbands “eve-teasing” their wives is trivial; and men should “take matters into their own hands” to remind women “how badly a man can beat them black and blue before being abusive to men in public.” He further asserts that “some men will rightfully become judge, jury, and executioner”.
All of Subhash’s misogynist beliefs flow from his fundamental assertion that the “biggest legal genocide of men” is taking place in India. This is a more hyperbolic version of the garden-variety belief that India’s legal system is biased towards women. On September 11, 2024, the Supreme Court observed that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses cruelty against married women, and provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, is among the most abused laws in the country. In her book Domestic Violence Law in India: Myth and Misogyny, Shalu Nigam, advocate, researcher, and activist, incisively refutes this myth.
Data from the 2005–06 National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) indicates that only 2% of women who experienced violence sought police help, suggesting underreporting rather than over-reporting. Arrest rates for Section 498A (6%) were not disproportionately high compared to other offenses like rash driving, theft, and riots, where arrests were higher. This undermines the claim that innocent men are routinely targeted under Section 498A. The low conviction rates under Section 498A result from cases being compounded or settled out of court due to societal pressures, not necessarily because the allegations were false.
According to Nigam, the argument that women misuse legal provisions ignores the reality that they often endure violence silently for years, seeking every possible solution before approaching the police or courts. Women’s organizations highlight that cases are rarely registered immediately or without significant hesitation, and courts frequently overlook the trauma women experience. Nigam emphasizes that filing a complaint is not an impulsive decision; it may take years for a woman to reach that point, and even then, leaving a marital relationship can be incredibly challenging due to various social and personal barriers. Women typically turn to legal avenues as a last resort, only after exhausting all other options and finding themselves with no alternative.
The patriarchal claim about women’s misuse of legal provisions is a cover for a more insidious objective: the maintenance of an extremely violent state of masculinist oppression. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), on an average, one rape takes place every six minutes. It means approximately 100 rapes a day. 71% of rapes go unreported. Women are reluctant to report rape because of threats, intimidation, and coercion by family and friends. Advocate Vrinda Grover, who has been representing seven women who were gangraped in the Muzzafarnagar violence in 2013, remarks: “we know of cases where a woman has not come to court because her father has been attacked, she is facing dire threats or has been harmed if she tries to give evidence.”
Subhash expresses the pervasive violence of patriarchy in the letter to his son, wherein he talks about the “great, pure, passionate and purposeful violence that resides in every man”. He regards this violence as a supra-historical force that maintains the status of the “apex predator” called man. Regarding gender-just laws as an “evil,” he declares that it “shall get destroyed for a new phase of creation to start”. When masculine violence encounters women who are unwilling to bear the burdens of patriarchy, it becomes anxious and enraged. Subhash asks: “Why does a wife who is not living with her husband deserve anything beyond basic sustenance while cases are going on? Why does a woman deserve the same standard of living of a man who is making money based on his own talent, merit and hard Work? Why not a lesser standard of living? What is the basis of this bullshit?”
Subhash is unable to understand the necessity of a substantive amount of maintenance due to his misogynist ignorance of women’s unpaid labor. According to Oxfam, Indian women and girls put in 3.26 billion hours of unpaid care work every day – a contribution of at least ₹19 trillion a year to the Indian economy. Women’s unpaid care work is hardly accorded any importance in India. The country’s law does not recognize the concept of joint ownership or equal division of matrimonial property. Property is usually divided based on ownership titles or financial contributions, which disproportionately disadvantages women, as they often contribute in non-financial ways (e.g., household work, child-rearing). Women, who are forced to sacrifice career opportunities for domestic responsibilities, are left without a share in the property despite their substantial non-monetary contributions. Without legal entitlements to property, divorced women face financial insecurity, particularly if they lack independent income sources.
Glancing at the large-scale exploitation of women under patriarchy, one wonders why they have remained so exceedingly moderate, why they haven’t been more revengeful towards their male oppressors. What would it mean if they started doing what men do? Periyar gives an accurate description of this scenario: “If a man has the right to kill women, a woman should also have the right to kill men. If there is a compulsion that women should fall at men’s feet, then men should also fall at women’s feet. This is equal rights for men and women.” As long as systemic patriarchal oppression exists, we have no right to single out women who choose to fight back by disrupting men’s privileges. Are these women “perfect victims”? No. Instead of passively suffering patriarchal violence, they give their male oppressors a taste of their own medicine. This behavior can become an object of serious condemnation only if men renounce their exorbitant privileges. If the peaceful renunciation of male privileges is not forthcoming, then I don’t see why we should be outraged when women make men’s lives hell.
Yanis Iqbal is studying at Aligarh Muslim University, India. He is the author of the book Education in the Age of Neoliberal Dystopia.
