In the quest for justice, Bharat has seen a steady rise in institutions and laws dedicated to protecting the marginalised. Though rooted in noble intentions, these structures have, over time, revealed limitations — and in some cases, have caused unintended harm.
Today, we stand at a crossroads, facing the consequences of biased laws and exclusive commissions that no longer reflect the needs of a balanced society. This is not a call to deny justice to women, minorities, or the marginalised. Rather, it is a call to realign our legal and institutional framework with the very principles of equality, fairness and accountability for all.
Why a Men's Commission Matters
The purpose of any democratic structure must be to uphold justice for everyone, not selectively for one group over another. Unfortunately, many laws and institutional mechanisms have evolved in ways that compromise this universality.
The proposal for a Men’s Commission — or ideally, the consolidation of all identity-based bodies into a stronger, unbiased Human Rights Commission — is not about competition. It’s about restoring balance, fairness and the confidence of every citizen that justice serves them equally, regardless of gender, religion, caste, or region.
- Men and women are not competitors.
- Religious minorities and majorities are not competitors.
- Different castes and communities are not competitors.
- Regions within a nation are not at war with each other.
Impact
No man should fear divorce because of obligations to a woman’s lifestyle or her children from another relationship. Men must have the liberty to use their resources not under legal compulsion, but from voluntary choice.
Justice must not cater to women’s emotions and reject men’s evidence. Boys, men and fathers are often denied empathy. Either extend emotional rights to boys and men, or remove them altogether from the legal domain.
Men distancing themselves from the legal system is not cowardice — it is an act of informed self-preservation. Trust erodes when laws become tools of revenge rather than instruments of justice. A human-centric commission can restore that trust.
Men must be allowed to disengage from unequal systems without guilt or societal condemnation. Reconciliation can only begin when both genders accept their roles in harm and healing. Until then, solitude with self-respect is healthier than love with legal traps.
If the system cannot protect men from abuse and false cases, it must not expect them to participate in that system’s intimacy. Rights without protection are manipulation, not maturity.
Bharat Needs Balance, Not Divisions
We are living in the 21st century — a time when humanity has access to unprecedented knowledge, tools and technologies for personal safety, social support and justice. Yet ironically, many institutional frameworks still operate on outdated blueprints of division: between genders, castes, religions and regions. While commissions like the Women’s Commission, Minority Commission, or Backward Class Commission were once necessary responses to historical injustice, their unchecked continuation in their current form often leads to institutional imbalance, favouritism, and, at times, the marginalisation of those not covered under such labels.
- Establish a Majority Commission
- Introduce a General Class Commission
Or better still, eliminate divisive labels altogether and replace them with a single, strong Human Commission that ensures justice based on need and circumstance — not identity?
- The vulnerability of the victim
- The intent of the accused
- The context in which an event occurred
- The power dynamics at play
- Recognise real need
- Demand real proof
- Penalise false claims
Any ideology that claims to uplift one group at the cost of vilifying another needs re-evaluation. Uniform Civil Code (UCC) doesn’t mean erasing diversities. It means creating a framework where being different doesn’t mean being disadvantaged — where all genders, religions, castes, or regions can trust the same system to protect them without bias.
Checks and Balances Must Be Universal
- Who checks misuse of minority status for personal gain?
- Who questions the misuse of women-centric laws where men suffer injustice?
- Who listens to the silent struggles of the so-called “general class” who face real-world disadvantages without state support?
If religious or caste minorities are afforded dedicated commissions, then parity demands the same for the majority and general category — or better yet, a unified structure for all.
If a woman can go to a Women’s Commission, a man should have equal recourse. If a religious or caste minority has a commission, the majority and general category should too — or none should, with everyone accessing a single, impartial platform that prioritises human dignity.
From Divisiveness to Inclusiveness
In Bharat, our goal should not be to divide power and privilege but to unify access and accountability. Every citizen — whether from a religious minority or majority, a backward caste or general category, male or female — must feel equally protected and represented.
- Legal protection
- Economic opportunity
- Emotional and social well-being
- Civic and political participation
The goal is simple yet profound: a Just Society, not a divided one.
Let us evolve:
Principles for Equitable Justice
Presume Innocence, Not Gender or Identity
- Don’t assume a woman is a victim or a man is a perpetrator.
- Don’t assume a minority is always oppressed or a majority is always privileged.
- Base actions on facts, evidence, and verified context — not labels.
Cross-Verification of Claims
- Introduce consequences for false accusations.
- Use digital tools (CCTV, chats, GPS, etc.) and legal testimony to validate claims.
- Involve neutral third-party observers in sensitive cases.
Remove Legal Immunity Based on Identity
- No commission or group should be above cross-examination or public audit.
- All identity-based institutions must report transparently and be accountable to human rights standards — not internal ideologies.
Weighted Evaluation System
- Develop a scoring framework where both demonstrated need and individual accountability carry equal weight.
- For example: A single mother with proof of abuse may get priority legal support — but a single father with evidence of being denied access to his child should receive the same.
For Humanism, Not Hierarchy
The future of Bharat lies in dismantling systems that divide and building frameworks that unite — not through sameness, but through fairness. Justice should not bend to the ego of one section to appease another. It should rise to the standard of truth, reason and empathy — for every individual.
Let us be the generation that replaces division with dialogue, identity politics with human rights and fear-based compliance with dignity-based coexistence.
