Rights of women and men and how to frame the debate: Advocate Vrinda Grover speaks to Nidhi Suresh

[@thenewsminute]

Like our journalism? Become a subscriber: www.thenewsminute.com/subscription Or contribute to our reporting fund: rzp.io/l/reporting-fund

[@EccentricLSP]

As a woman who believes in equality I feel victims of sexual violence and/ or domestic violence are not only women but men too in increasingly greater numbers. Let us not forget of the shame that the societally conditioned male gender feels associated with reporting such crimes. This discussion requires diversity and must have apt representation across gender as well- I find it hard to digest how only women (no offense to their laurels and activism efforts) may be able to adequately bring to light all aspects associated with such issues that intricately impact the opposite gender. Having said that I am an ardent consumer of NewsMinute content and really love your work but would love to see some diversity in discussions surrounding this topic- felt it missing even in the South Central episode that spoke of this important issues @thenewsminute

[@sandeepmenon2822]

@@EccentricLSP The number of men being affected by sexual violence is much lesser. Unfortunately, even if the numbers are higher (and unreported), it's due to a societal setup created by the men - the patriarchal system keeps men from reporting such crimes. So, something men built is now biting us in the backside. Any discussion is best done with diversity included but let's also face the fact that gender related issues are best conveyed and clarified by folks of that gender. Majority of men would never be able talk about being harassed on a bus, being catcalled while walking on a street and a bunch of experiences that women go through, on a daily basis.

[@RealSIFF]

How to know, a law is being misused? Very simple. If a woman is demanding 2-3 crore rupees after filing a case, then she is misusing the law.

[@aspirant9845]

All she did is Whataboutry

[@siddharthc1327]

Investigation agencies aren't doing their job properly but it doesn't reduce the accountibility of wives filing fake cases and involving names of innocent relatives of husband.

[@fdvcs21]

Ok.. The ncrb data indicates 6450 dowry deaths in India in 2022. But haven't you read the same NCRB data of number of men who committed suicide due to family and marital issues? It is 8 times more in number. But the feminist advocate can conveniently ignore those numbers..

[@sandeepmenon2822]

Did you see the entire video? Did you not see the explanation of suicides mainly including farmer deaths?

[@aayushkumar709]

With all my respect for ma'ma for whatever she has done for women empowerment in our country, but I would like to present my humble disagreements: 1. The issue in which the male journalist was brutally killed is solely an issue related to journalism and free press and has no gender specific angle to it, we have seen instances in which journalists (including women) were beaten by police for interviewing various protesters in Delhi. If a woman is walking by the street and someone comes and steals her purse or chain and injures her because of this, would that be seen as a patriarchal crime..... 2. When high male suicide numbers are raised by MRAs, they are not just raised in context of dispute with spouse or family but also to highlight the fact are men are also burdened by patriarchal norms of society. 3. MRAs are not husband rights activists only, they do talk about issues which are often stigmatized in society which don't recognise male vulnerability like: male mental health, male sexual/domestic abuse, early male deaths etc. which are often missing in popular feminist discourses (perhaps not intentionally), and in many parts of the world they have spoken about issues like forced male circumcision which is largely prevalent in various religions and males are most affected by it. Just because some of them express misogyny, you cannot misrepresent all the men's rights movement. 4. You are saying that instances of misuse and female on male offences are individual cases, first you need to understand that the government doesn't collect any data at least in India when it comes to offences of domestic violence/rape on men, this area is largely under researched. So, you have to give MRAs benefit of doubt. Globally the percentage of such issues are indeed far lesser than what women face, but they are far away from just an anomaly. Even full length simple Wikipedia articles are available on it which do point to authentic papers and other sources. 5. Even if we admit that these are in fact individual cases, why did the courts not punish any women who are doing so, in the cases of PMLA and sedition law misuse one can understand that the state and other powerful people are involved so the courts might not be able to do much (a personal remark) but what could be the problem in these kinds of misuse cases. If you remain silent on these issues and unaddressed grey areas like this that would reinforce patriarchal norms on those men who had nothing to do with these things and falsely portray every man as an oppreasor in front of law. And she proposed no solution to this. That's what almost every sensible person wants and nothing else.... I didn't want this comment to be that big but it eventually became. Thanks if you have read thus far especially if you are from @thenewsminute.

[@danCK1990]

idiots of newsminute please read this .... the due has literally spat common sense... cant u guys bring a mra onboard... is it that expensive???

[@sandeepmenon2822]

1. Yes, that was a bad example on her part. I understand what she was trying to do, but don't agree with her approach/execution. 2. Yes, men are indeed burdened by the patriarchal norms - absolutely. Unfortunately, it's created by men itself. And even worse, men 'get to' take out their frustration and anger due to something created by other men, on women. So, the woman gets affected for no fault of hers. We've got to remember that as well. 3. Yes, the 'husband right activists' - again, I get her intent. Every problem you've mentioned - mental health, sexual abuse, suicides etc. - they are, like I mentioned above, are unfortunately man made (as in, made by the male gender, as part of the patriarchal society construct). We must attempt to get out of it - and this is possible only by breaking patriarchal norms. There is no other way. 4. I agree - it does happen but the numbers are certainly miniscule compared to injustices on women. In developed nations, we can expect some laws for such a small fraction of cases, in India - that's a pipe dream. It won't happen unless it's a widespread problem. 5. Excellent question on why the courts do not punish women who are filing wrong/fake cases. I ended up writing a comment above, a couple of comments above why gender neutral laws are something for the future. Laws are based on incidents, events and societal setups. Let's change the premise, and then ensure the laws are changed. One can't ask for laws to change without the foundation changing.

[@ThePeeyoosh]

As a lawyer she spoke nothing on what a man can do if he is falsely implicated and if there should be some law to protect people who are accused falsely. Shame on her for being such a biased lawyer.I wonder if any male should go to her for any case...for I will suspect her judgemental take on men will let her fight honestly.for him...

[@Workdaily2024]

she is a wife right activist

[@somu87i]

Yes When women and men separated , she should not be entitled on wife rights Else we need Gender neutral laws and wrong women(mental cruelty) also has to go jail

[@varun_trikha]

I’m genuinely disappointed. I didn’t expect such a simplistic and flawed perspective from a lawyer of her status.

[@aviseksharma1843]

Full of prejudice against men... And she did accept that she didn't know anything about the Atul Subhash Case... We are all aware about history and no one denies that. But since 2005 judgement to Arnesh Kumar judgement to last 2024 December judgement... Are we supposed to still chern the 1980s scenario??

[@chandradt0010]

In the last 20+ years SIFF provided help to millions of men and their family who are suffering from matrimonial cases.

[@aspirant9845]

Again a baised perspective

[@MoonmoonChatterjee-l2l]

I know her from last 10 years in media biased support women rights. She is product of Left wing Feminist views and She is anti-family and Radically pro-women above all. New Minute is a Radical leftist news agency who believes in already debunked Feminist views of patriarchy.

[@vira1340]

They make out as if Atul Subhash is an isolated case. They always fail to mention that nearly 20 exactly similar cases have happened in December alone. This omission is a part of newlaundry's trying to silence men by minimizing and trivializing the issue .

[@Workdaily2024]

dumbest interview of 2025, ..............thank god i cancelled my newslaundry subscription already.

[@critical_thinker06]

Some valid points but there were also some biases. Outrightly rejecting Mens rights activists shows she is not ready to engage. I would like to hear men's perspective.

[@VP12368]

She has obviously not done her homework on the subhash case….

[@fdvcs21]

Nothing more than BS

[@Whatever_22]

Hi! This was a very engaging and also very necessary discussion. Thank you for doing this. For me, as a lawyer, this is so much of learning from the very best , Ms. Grover. The thing she said about the need to have nuanced discussions as opposed to reactions ( I would say, in today's times, it may not be an exaggeration to say that these are motivated too, in a lot of cases) is actually the need of the hour, provided our intent is at the right place. And the distinction she draws to say that the most noise makers are actually the "husbands' rights activists' and not the Men's Rights Activists, as they claim to be. Mr. Subhash's incident is extremely unfortunate. There is no denying that. However, it still does not call for affirming regressive patriarchal institutions, like that of marriage, where it is not a partnership of equals, as human beings, but of the lords and the subordinates, of service the man by the ever so self sacrificing "virtuous" wife. We need honest , nuanced discussions for sure.

[@skylark9694]

Fake feminism. Only supports wife not sister mother and grandmother

[@kunalvyas6827]

Join SIFF to fight against false cases

[@sumitarora7842]

Hats off to the cleverness of wife's right activist. I wish the reporter questioned her in the monologue and had a debate. Some keys points: 1) Discuss matrimonial property. But Istridhan and all earnings of wife belong to her only? 2) Husband have protection, that's why when they use it they get a barrage of cases? 3) Unfortunately the whole system misguides women and they just fall into the trap. So cute!! 4) Any wife dies for any reasons, it is labeled dowry. And now you claim so many dowry death occur? How do statistics from unproved allegations count? Men are even scared to file allegations. 5) And these cute wife settle for money while in Divorce they want to spoil husband's life? Strangely the same person behaves so differently.... just because of money 6) Maintenance and permanent alimony of wife are civil matters. Why mix/bring criminality into it? Why is mental cruelty on men not a criminal offence for which he can seek compensation? 7) Rights of the women are enshrined but the duties (household labour as she calls) are not enshrined? Stupidity at its best...

[@anempath24]

there us nolegal obligation to fo housework. there is no legal duties & responsibility for women. even if they leave the child they have consequences.

[@ThePeeyoosh]

And she says that india female labour is not accounted Yes it's not and it's sad that they lack financial independence... But this idea is so shallow and hollow that it holds no ground and in fact brings disrepute to care and love given by house wives ,mother or alike... 1) let's take her points and show how this(her) logic denigrates the " care economy " A) a wif/ mother cooks food ,keep room clean ,and nurture child till 10 ( after which it is almost automatic mode for childcare) So for cooking ,I give 1000-1500 / month to my cook For other house work 2000 So let's make it 4000 So basically she is saying that a mother work is valued 4000/month ,right ???? Let's be extremely liberal and take mumbai cost ( the costliest we can get ) ..so 15000 a month And for 10 years ,child care 10000 per month So 25000 per month ... And after 10 years ,back to 15000 per month .. So ,we are saying that our wife or mother work can not be valued more than 15000 or 25k ... Wow...now ,who is disrespectful These bogus logic of economics is ,"feminism ghost " that has no reality... 25k ×12 months = 3 lakh... So ,if a wife ask for a divorce ...should we use this economic principle... No..then ,this idea will be twisted that how can you treat a women just as a machine and equate her as some machine... Then logic will come of emotions trauma( it's so convenient) as it cannot be quantified..let's make this as a means of extraction...as it's easy... And ,a man who is in divorce ( regardless initiated by anyone in marriage) can not face any trauma ... In all this fight that , unfortunately led to divorce...it was only female that faced truma ..not the male ..all the ruckus that she might have created ,and destroyed his health wealth and reputation. That's bogus ...let's just not even count that ... Idea is very simple In India female definitely has to face the hard times but that is not the only truth ...there are many other aspect as well...which these unhappy people will never be able to see.for they come from space of vengeance and vindictive mind .. They are never palliative or curative ..they are all and all about retribution..that's it ..they don't water the dying plant ,they uproot the the plant to give them nursery ... regardless if that's right , regardless if she( victim )wanted that... And , teaching value of accountability in female ...bcos man accounting has been well taken care of by laws ...

[@vikramisro]

Much better than the previous one. I would recommend calling in Ms. Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj also for an interview to listen to the other side of the conversation.

[@Workdaily2024]

I am able to watch only upto 17 minutes.......they both dont know what topic they are discussing....

[@ThePeeyoosh]

Madam ji 80s se nikal hi nahi pata rahi hai . Every line is preceded with *in 80s*.. This is 2025...just let me clarify

[@Kali97]

Thank you for this.

[@balakrishnankt5822]

Vrinda grover exposed clearly the power of patriarchy... Exposed the injustice & inequality in patriarchal family... Explained the role of constitution in alleviating the sufferings of women in patriarchal family... Clear words Brave words Thanks vrindaji 💐 Thanks newsminute 💐 Thanks nidhi 💐💐

[@Workdaily2024]

two feminist or women discussing men's rights without a man

[@siddharthc1327]

Let's say asking money is wrong. Than there is no difference between dowry and alimony. Take divorce and move ahead instead of dragging cases for years for alimony. None should demand money from each other.

[@sandeepmenon2822]

If you (or most men) decided that starting from the wedding, all expenses would be equal (for women, it'd start earlier - the parents would have to ensure the girl child is given equal opportunity as the male child), and you wouldn't expect any gifts, gold from the girl's family and if this becomes a norm in the country, then yes, certainly - alimony should not be needed at all. So, let's fix the premise, let's fix the problems leading up to the issue, and then resolve the issue. How about that?

[@AyushGupta-rq4qu]

But more people take dowry over alimony. Alimony is legally recognized internationally because their is a logic behind that. You can read if you want.

[@anempath24]

​@@AyushGupta-rq4qu Dowry is a choice u cal always avoid that. but you cant avoud alimony. and its not recognised globally. it doesn't exists in China. it diesnt exists most part of middleast and africa. Maintainance should be reasonable. but the law says "Wife is Entittled to the same Lifestyle" even after divorce. thats the problem. there is no checks and balance. even if she married for one month she is entittled to half of wealth.

[@anempath24]

​@@AyushGupta-rq4qu Dowry also has a Logic. just becsuse soething is Legal doesnt mean it is right. even Marital grape is also legal.

[@AyushGupta-rq4qu]

@anempath24 you tell as a man would you refuse dowry? No. It's not a choice when society conditions one gender that their mere existence is to get married and have no future prospects. When a ugly pimp asks for it dowry you have to give it! Same lifestyle argument is flawed. Because most of the Indians marry in similar class households hence it's not that some poor beautiful girl is gonna come who's going to take away your wealth.

[@Aryan-t2h1j]

I really feel pity for the judiciary when I see such baseless arguments being made by lawyers practicing there.She claims that men's rights activism is solely about husbands' rights. Have you not noticed that men's rights organizations are also fighting against false accusations of rape, false sexual harassment cases, and baseless acts like Section 69 of the BNS?Following the same logic, one could also argue to Vrinda Grover that women's rights organizations are only about wives' rights rather than advocating for all women's rights. After all, biased laws supporting women can also negatively impact the lives of women in a husband's family. Do you have any answers to these points?She is misleading viewers by focusing solely on the history of Section 498A, but there are many other issues being overlooked, such as: Legal extortion in the name of alimony Issues around child custody Shifting court hearings to the woman's location Lack of support for virtual conferencing Corruption within the judiciary and legal profession Highlighting only the history of Section 498A serves to dilute the discussion around these real and pressing issues.

[@Search_Exmuslim_Sahil]

Why did she pulled out of Kolkata R@pe Case?

[@tempsha5236]

because she did not get money...she was just make her name , fame and money there

[@sridharvelusamy7067]

Nowadays no dowry demand the law which was in the context in 1980 will not solve issues 2024.if women are suffering so much why marry simply live in parents home

[@sandeepmenon2822]

As expected, most folks, me included, listen to such interviews wanting to hear what we already believe, because changing one's belief system is extremely difficult. We see that in our political choices, which come into picture after adulthood. So, something related to family, especially if it's deeply ingrained in patriarchal values, is something anyone would feel difficult to shake. In an ideal world, gender neutral laws are a must, yes. There is a reason why 498A came into being - just like Ms. Grover mentioned, a huge number of cases (reported and unreported) of dowry harassment cases and dowry deaths started becoming public. The scary part, just like the iceberg example, is that if a few thousand cases of dowry deaths became public, can you imagine the number of cases that would have actually happened? In India, be it any crime, more of it goes unreported - I assume that's a safe bet. If you have lived in India any number of years, you can't deny that. The same is the case for the SC/ST atrocities law as well. Even today a large number of folks don't marry into someone of a 'lower caste'. It's part of the arranged marriage paradigm, so, let's face it, caste based discrimination exists - in majority of Indians' minds. If it's not in your mind, kudos. Sadly, the marriage part - just like the above mentioned iceberg example, is the tip of the problem. Teachers treat students of backward classes differently, this translates into kids treating their classmates of backward classes differently and this cascades into cruelty including lower caste folks not allowed to drink water using the same glass as you, not allowed to appear in front of the family on an auspicious day, not allowed to get water from the same source as the upper caste folks - yes, these all happen in today's India, and I can be sure this happens more often and regularly than false 498A cases. The reason behind the essay above - just to point out that we aren't in an ideal world, we are not in a gender neutral or a caste neutral world. We are far from it. Yes, we should strive towards the world where laws do become gender neutral, absolutely. For the law to take it's course, let us (as citizens) do what's required. As Ms. Grover calls out, let's fix the foundation, let's fix the premise. Let's make society gender neutral first. In your house, out of 365 days, how many days do you (this is for me specifically) make tea for your family? How many times of the year do you initiate making of breakfast/lunch/dinner? If the household chores were broken up into tasks, do you perform half the tasks, or more? If you are married or live with a female partner - do you get to go out by saying "I am going out" vs. your partner having to ask "I need to go out, shall I?". Are you, in all honesty, tell yourself that you share half the load at home, and the way you treat your female partner is the way she treats you? The answer, ideally, shouldn't be with your patriarchal mindset wherein you convince yourself that "This is how it is" or "Men are meant to be this way and women are meant to be that way" or "We ask women not to step out casually because we care about their safety" (yes, that's a patriarchal thought too because the danger these women have are also from men, it's rare it's other women who pose a safety threat. So, if you feel there's enough reason for women to be unsafe outside, it's because there are enough men with that thought process outside). So, if you are able to keep your patriarchal thought process aside and say with conviction (to yourself, not to others - lying to oneself is the most difficult, easy to lie to others) that - "Yes, I do consider my wife/partner/mother/sister/SiL etc. to be my equal and it reflects in my actions", then yes, you are in line to fight for gender neutral laws. until this happens in large numbers, really large numbers, laws just can't be gender neutral. Women suffered for centuries, not just months or years. Not to say men should do the same, and we have the power to ensure it doesn't happen. All it takes it majority of men decide that we will not longer have a patriarchal mindset and treat the women (at least the ones in our family, to start with) as equal - we'll be able to advocate for gender neutral laws very soon. I am a male and I understand the terrible consequences of a 498A - my life can be destroyed, yes, but then, like it or not, a very large number of men are responsible for 498A in the first place.

[@sridharvelusamy7067]

Brinda grover speaking for every one how she is hell bent on breaking families

[@MypartySh]

You are not talking about women's rights you simply talking about wife's rights which is baseless. You are talking about dowry but what about alimony? Join save India family foundation for men's rights.

[@sandeepmenon2822]

If you (or most men) decided that starting from the wedding, all expenses would be equal (for women, it'd start earlier - the parents would have to ensure the girl child is given equal opportunity as the male child), and you wouldn't expect any gifts, gold from the girl's family and if this becomes a norm in the country, then yes, certainly - alimony should not be needed at all. So, let's fix the premise, let's fix the problems leading up to the issue, and then resolve the issue. How about that?

[@anempath24]

6 lakh women are jailed under Falae dowry cases. so its clearly Wifes rights and not Womens rights.

[@sandeepmenon2822]

@@MypartySh At least see the whole video, with intent to learn and understand before making this comment. The whole hour has been about saving families but with a long term approach. Men's rights, it seems. First equate women's rights with men's rights and then we can talk about equality and equity. Read my long winded boring comment below for more details.

[@gundlururammohan]

Wonderful conversation.

[@KumarPallav01]

It's hilarious how after 5000 years of suppression, men have their arse torn apart in just 10 years of giving it back !🤣🤣 Wonderful wonderful conversation 👌👌

[@aayushkumar709]

@@KumarPallav01 Are you fighting against men or against patriarchy.....?

[@tempsha5236]

Your argument is baseless. In 5000 years of history, there have been examples of Tadaka, Putana, and other Rakshasis. How can one claim that women were universally oppressed throughout history when there are instances of women taking active roles, sometimes even as antagonists? For instance, when Surpanakha attempted to seduce Lakshman and attacked him upon being unsuccessful, it highlights a narrative where women were not always portrayed as passive or oppressed but as active participants in the unfolding events.

[@annamalaian0711]

You did not suffer. I didn’t suppress. Wake up from victim hood.

[@anirudhasen1]

This is an interesting point of view

[@mayamenon3965]

Very well said advocate Grover

[@Kumavat299]

amazing conversation, we need more of such videos and knowledge....keep up news laundry

[@shivamverma3338]

Every nation has gender neutral dv act and cruelty laws. A man can't take restraining order against wife unlike most countries. She is a baiswd speaker on this topic and just promoting her peopaganda

[@Workdaily2024]

"percentage of man suicide is smaller" so no neutral law, but "percentage of female suicide in marriage as compare to total number of marrige is far far less" but laws need to step in to maintain equity............. ......AAPKE KHARCHE PR AZAAD HAI KHARBEE......

[@anempath24]

they dont know that justice do not work on statistics. justice should be Fair, Equal for everyone. even if its 1%. they deserve justice.

[@jayalalithakunnath52]

All the best Molu@ Nidhi

[@Workdaily2024]

nidhi did not do home work for this interview

[@annamalaian0711]

Glad TNWs own subscribers are calling out your B.S. like this. Pathetic biased piece.

[@Ronnien]

Bakwas