Syria: Crisis and Human Rights

There has been a huge spurt in the number of social media posts on Syria during the past few days. People are sharing posts with photos and videos saying that the world is not taking note of the developments in Syria.

The context is the Syrian government’s moves to take back East Ghouta from so-called “rebels”. East Ghouta, a pocket lying just 15 km east of the Syrian capital Damascus, has been held by “rebels” (basically terrorists) affiliated to Al-Qaeda and similar groups for quite some time.

There has been a large number of shellings and attacks on Damascus from East Ghouta. At least 116 people, including 18 children and 14 women have been killed as a result of these attacks since 16 November, according to pro-“rebel” sources . Now the Syrian government has moved to take back East Ghouta, following which the media campaign that we are now seeing began.

The source of much of the material that is being shared in Facebook, WhatsApp and so on are Western media outlets, including The New York Times and The Guardian, and also major West Asian media outlets such as Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera’s affiliate AJ+, and Al Arabiya. Why that is the case, I’ll get to in a while.

There has been a war going on against Syria for long now, with the US military itself being directly involved for more than five years in an attempt to topple the Syrian government.

On the frontline of the war against Syria are so-called “rebels”, led by some of the most vicious religious fundamentalists and terrorists in this planet. The “rebels” are backed by the US and its NATO allies, as well as by the Gulf monarchies led by Saudi Arabia.

Who are these “rebels”?

Leading the pack is Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Nusra front), which was renamed Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, and renamed again as Tahrir al-Sham after its merger with some other groups. The al-Nusra Front is the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda. They are the most monstrous and murderous of all “rebel” groups.

Then there are, among others, Jaysh al-Islam, the proxy army of Saudi Arabia (it is financed by Wahhabists from Saudi and Kuwait), and Ahrar al-Sham, the proxy army of Turkey.

Another one is Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki, which beheaded a 12-year-old Palestinian child supposedly because they suspected him of spying, and then posted the video of the beheading online!

What do the “rebels”/terrorists want?

Does it need to be explained what the Al-Qaeda stands for? To say the least, they are fighting for a society where women would be treated as slaves, and where minorities would be second-class citizens (that is, if they are not killed off). This is based on their fundamentalist religious worldview of Wahhabism.

Why are Saudi and other Gulf monarchies supporting the terrorists?

The Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, except Iraq, are ruled by monarchies. They are led by Saudi Arabia, a medievalist kingdom which has been funding religious fundamentalist and terrorist activities across the world.

Syria is a problem for the Gulf monarchies, because unlike them, Syria is a secular state, and it is a republic. Arab nationalism, which Syria has championed, has always been considered a threat to the reactionary monarchies in the region. As Aijaz Ahmad points out, the historic battle in the Arab region since the late 1940s has been between reactionary monarchical regimes on the one hand, and secular, republican, anti-Zionist and anti-monarchical Arab nationalism on the other.

The Islamist regime of Turkey, another regional power, would also like the Syrian government gone.

Why is the US supporting terrorists?

Anybody who has observed what happened to Iraq and Libya would know at least part of the answer would be oil. While Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich Gulf monarchies have been staunch allies of the United States, Syria has maintained its independence. Its policies have not been sufficiently beneficial to US corporations.

Syria is the last remaining representative of the kind of Arab nationalism mentioned earlier. The US has, for long, propped up reactionary Islamist forces and regimes to fight Arab nationalist and socialist forces in the region which maintained an anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist stance. Syria, on the other hand, was closely aligned with the socialist block when it existed. In the more recent years, it has been aligned with Iran, another country with a government that the US considers a “threat”.

Syria has also been historically a strong opponent of Israel, with which it shares a border, and which has been in occupation of a part of Syria, the Golan Heights. Syria shares a close bond with the Palestinian people, and has stood solidly in support of the Palestinian cause. It has warm ties with Hezbollah, which played the leading role in fighting and pushing Israel out of Southern Lebanon, which the Zionist regime had occupied for 18 years. Once the Syrian government falls, Israel would have no Arab regime in its neighbourhood as a major adversary.

Arab nationalist forces having faced defeat practically everywhere else, Syria is now the last one standing. The US wants it gone, and hence its attempts to bring about “regime change” in Syria.

For this purpose, they have been aiding the terrorists backed by the Islamist regimes in the region, with funds, arms and military support.

Many of the most hideous Islamist forces in the world have been backed by the US and its allies. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan which morphed into the Taliban, for instance, was backed by the US.

Even the Islamic State was a product of the destruction of Iraq by the US and its allies.

Why the media campaign now?

The West Asian region has been mired in wars for a long time now, and there has been a number of occasions in the recent years when battles were fought to wrest control of cities from the hands of terrorist groups.

More than 3,200 civilians were killed in the battle by a US-led coalition to take back the Syrian city of Raqqa from the Islamic State. The US had even rejected a ceasefire that the UN requested to evacuate civilians.

About 11,000 civilians were killed during the battle by US-backed Iraqi forces to wrest control of the Iraqi city of Mosul from the Islamic State.

But did we see the kind of outcry and media campaign that we see today demanding that the US should halt the fighting? No.

Instead, such campaigns are reserved for occasions when a sovereign country which refuses to ally with US imperialism is on the verge of taking back a city in its country from the hands of terrorists who enjoy the support of the US and its allies.

Thus we saw the #SaveAleppo campaign in December 2016, when the Syrian army liberated Aleppo, the largest city in Syria, from the terrorists. Now a similar campaign is being mounted as the Syrian government has moved to liberate East Ghouta.

The propaganda around “White Helmets” – who are actually US-UK agents who are embedded with terrorist groups – was a key part of the #SaveAleppo campaign. The same is being repeated now. (Another entity which is to be watched out for while reading Western and Islamist propaganda pieces is the ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’, a pro-terrorist organisation run by ONE person, sitting in Coventry, UK.)

Also note that many of the pictures that are being circulated now do not pertain to the current developments in Syria. Some pictures are several years old, and some pictures are not even from Syria! People have been sharing the 2017 photo of a father and a daughter from the Iraqi city of Mosul, for instance.

Why are the Western media and Al Jazeera backing the War on Syria?

The corporate media in the West has always acted as an integral part of the imperialist war machinery. Media outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post had drummed up support for the War on Iraq by falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The Saudi-owned Al Arabiya, of course, is solidly in support of the war against Syria.

Al Jazeera is owned by the despotic ruling family of Qatar. Al Jazeera Arabic had played a major role in fanning the flames of jihadi Islamism with hours and hours of fiery preaching by Muslim Brotherhood preachers on the channel. Al Jazeera English is just the more “sophisticated” mask for Al Jazeera’s politics.

Save Ghouta?

The groups which are controlling East Ghouta currently are three – Jaysh al-Islam, the al-Nusra Front, and the al-Nusra Front’s allied group Faylaq al-Rahman.

Jaysh al-Islam, in 2015, had paraded about 500 civilians – including hundreds of women – who are believers of Alawite Shia religion in CAGES to protect themselves from bombing.

The “Save Ghouta” campaign, just like the #SaveAleppo campaign, is intended to prevent the liberation of Ghouta from the grip of terrorists such as these.

The Syrian armed forces, with the help of Russia, have liberated most of the country from the clutches of the likes of al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The purpose of the “Save Ghouta” propaganda is not to save the people of East Ghouta who are enduring untold hardship, but to gather international support to somehow salvage the failing efforts by US imperialism and its Islamist allies to capture Syria.

There must be international pressure on the US and its allies to withdraw their armed forces from Syria, and to withdraw their support to terrorist groups in the country. If the terrorist groups which have been occupying East Ghouta or any other part of Syria do not surrender, the Syrian government deserves international support to liberate those regions. There must be pressure on the government to do so with the least possible civilian casualties.

As The Morning Star newspaper pointed out as Aleppo was being liberated, “ultimately there will be no negotiated peace with the likes of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. They must be fought and beaten.”

Manusmriti: A Rationalist Viewpoint (Part 2)

Women in Manusmriti

Hindu apologists consider the Manusmriti as the divine code of conduct and, accordingly, the status of women as depicted in the text has been interpreted as Hindu divine law.

While defending Manusmriti as divine code of conduct for all including women, apologists often quote the verse: “yatr naryasto pojyantay, ramantay tatr devta [3/56] (where women are provided place of honor, gods are pleased and reside there in that household), but they deliberately forget all those verses that are full of prejudice, hatred  and discrimination against women.

Hindu scriptures treat women as commodity, and equates them to animals. Even a Brahmin woman is like a Shudra as per the Hindu scriptures.  In Hinduism only the wife has to fast during Karvachauth but not the husband. The wife has to wear Mangalsutra and apply Sindoor to signify that ‘She is the property of others’ just like a board is set up in an open land stating it’s owner but the husband has no such thing to wear. If the girl is born in inauspicious months then she is termed as Manglik, and per this superstition the husband of such girl dies soon so she is made to marry a peepal tree or a dog but on the other hand there is no such thing for a man.

As per Hindu scripture the wife either has to lead a life of celibacy after the death of her husband or mount husband’s pyre on the other hand there is no such option for husbands. The husband is free to marry another wife after the death of his wife and can marry many wives even when the wife is alive. Only the son can light the funeral pyre of his parents while the daughter is barred from it.

Manu does not even give women the right to read Manusamhita.

“he for whom”,  ‘he’ is surely a man, who has the right starting from the ‘right to impregnate’ to ‘funeral right’.  Suresh Chandra Bandyopadhyay explains that “he” is a ‘dwija’ or a man of upper caste (Brahman, Kshatriya or Bhaisya).  (Manu Sanhita –by Suresh Chandra Bandyopadhyay  pg 83)

Let’s see what Manu says about women.

Manu prohibits education for women

Undoubtedly, in the earliest layers of Vedic texts (circa 4,000 years ago) there are several references to women sages. There were women composers, venerable teachers, scholars capable of philosophical disputation.

In Rig Veda we find names of several women who composed Rig Veda.  Romsha (1.126), Lopamudra (1.179), Vishwawara (5.28), Indrani (10.145), Sachi (10.159), Apala (8.91,7), Surya (10.85), Sarparagyi (10.189).  We also find names of several women in other Vedas who composed Vedic verses.  They were referred as ‘Brahmabadini’

In later Vedic period we find several women scholars like Batsi, Gargi, Maitrayee.

In all honesty, we can neither confirm nor deny whether girls were universally encouraged or discouraged from studying. We can say with certainty they were not prohibited.

By the time we reach the dharmaśāstra of Manu, things are not looking too good for women from the normative point of view. He explicitly prohibit girls from being educated.

In Manusamhita, education was restricted to males of the three upper varnas officially. Manu also creates circumstances such that it is practically impossible for girls to study. Manu said that serving her husband and taking care of her family is the only ‘dharma’ of women.

Manu gave order of various other rituals for men apart from ‘upanayana’ (thread ceremony). He said that a brahmin should do ‘keshanta’ (shave his head) at an age of sixteen, a kshatriya at an age of twenty-two and a bhaisya at an age of twenty-four. (Manusamhita 2/65)

He did not speak of  any religious rituals for Sudra men, as for him women and Sudras were equal to animals.

Vedic verses which were once composed by women, were prevented from being used for them in Manusamhita. Manu made women ‘amantrak’ (no vedic mantras for women).  (Manusamhita 2/66)

Before Manu era, learning Vedas were the first step of education. Manusamhita explicitly prohibits women from learning Vedas. Manu says that women do not have right to sacred verses, so they are as evil and impure as falsehood. (Manusamhita 9/18)

According to Manu, women do not have right to Vedic mantras as when women were created, they were allotted with love for bed (uncontrollable lust and desire to sleep), seat (laziness), greed of ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice and bad conduct. (Manusamhita 9/17)

Not only Vedas, Manu denied women’s right to any kind of education. Manu also denied women’s right to perform agnihotra (fire ritual). He said girls, women, man of little learning, ignorant man, sick man, man who urinated does not have the right to perform agnihotra. (Manusamhita 11/36)

Any such person if performed agnihotra along with the person for whom agnihotra is performed, will sink into hell. (Manusamhita 11/37)

Manu wanted upper caste men to have complete dominance over women. For that it was essential to keep the women ignorant.

Marriage in Manusamhita

Though very few, there used to be women who remained unmarried in the society.  In Vedic period, we find names of several women scholars – Vishwawara, Apala, Bak, Lopamudra who led their life unmarried. But Manu made it mandatory for women to get married. To become a ‘dwija’, a son has to go through ‘upanayana’. For women, ‘upanayana’ was marriage ceremony. Marriage is the only way to salvation for women.

Manu clearly defined the age of men and women for marriage.

A thirty year old man should marry twelve-year-old girl and a twenty-four year old man should marry a girl child of eight years. However under certain conditions,  Manu also gave a provision of getting married at a lower age. If otherwise his duties are impeded, he can marry sooner.

Manu wanted girls to be married before they attained puberty. A daughter is just a commodity for the father, equal to land or cattle and can be gifted (sampradana). Manu gave a provision that a girl child less than eight years of age could also be married.

Manu mentions clearly that the stage of life after the brahmcharya ashram is the grihastha ashram. The former is the first part of life, during which a young man goes from being born to being a student and learning about the scriptures. This ashram is entered into by all men of the twice born castes (dwija), i.e. Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas.  (Manusamhita 3/4)

Manu mentions clearly that the minimum requirement for a Hindu man to get married is to find a chaste woman from his own caste, or an equal caste –virginity being as important as caste. Manu further says that only a woman with auspicious marks on her body may be married. This leads to the inevitable suspicion that Manu did not want Hindu men to marry disabled women. Manu goes on to mention several categories of women who cannot be married. These include epileptic women. (Manusamhita 3/4).

A few other categories of women who cannot be married are sapindas of the Hindu man on his mother’s side, or women who are related to him on his father’s side of the family (Manusamhita 3/5).

He disallows women who belong to families which do not follow Vedic rituals; those who have thick hairs or suffer certain specified diseases (Manusamhita 3/7); women with reddish hairs, lot of hairs or no hairs, women with redundant body parts (e.g. a sixth finger), one who speaks too much, one who has red eyes (Manusamhita 3/8); women named after constellations (so all men who get married to women named Swati are breaking Manu’s Law!); or women who have fear-inducing names (no Kalis, Kalindika, Chamunda, Kaal Bhairavis or perhaps even Durga). women who are named after rivers (no Ganga, Titas or Mandakini); women who are named after trees (no Ambikas or Kadambaris); women who are named after birds (no Mayuri, Kokila, Sarika, Doyel)(Manusamhita 3/9).

Manu forbids marrying  women with bodily defects. One should marry a women with graceful names, moderate amount of body hairs, small teeth and soft limbs  (Manusamhita 3/10).

Manu also forbids marrying women who have no brothers and whose father is not known (Manusamhita 3/11).

Manusamhita on Polygamy and inter caste marriages 

Manu permits polygamy for men. He is in fact much more liberal in terms of caste requirements in the case of consecutive marriages than in first marriage. He says that any man needs to marry his own caste in case of first marriage but can marry any woman of his own caste or a lower caste should he decide to remarry. For e.g if a Brahman man wants to marry a Bhaisya girl, he needs to marry a Brahman girl for his first marriage, then a Kshatriya girl for his second marriage. Only after that he can marry a Bhaisya girl for the third marriage.

A Brahman’s first marriage should be in the same caste. If he wish to remarry, he can either marry from same caste or from three consecutive lower castes.

A Kshatriya’s first marriage should be in the same caste. If he wish to remarry, he can either marry from same caste or from two lower castes, that is Bhaisyas and Sudras.

A Bhaisya’s first marriage should be in the same caste. If he wish to remarry, he can either marry from same caste or from the lower caste, that is Sudras.

A Brahman or Kshatriya should never have only a Sudra wife. One who does that, degrades himself and his family to Sudra.

This in part shows the concept of Anuloma and Pratiloma; the first being a marriage between a man of a higher caste and a woman of a lower caste. Such a marriage is permitted. The other kind ­–Pratiloma (marriage between a woman of a higher caste and a man of a lower caste) is not.

Anuloma, however comes with the provision that any Brahman who takes a Shudra wife as his second wife will go to hell after death if he sleeps with her. If he happens to procreate with her, he will lose his caste and acquire her caste. Should this make us deduce that losing caste was worse than going to hell for Manu?

Verses of Manusamhita, apparently liberal towards women, debunked

There are few verses in Manusamhita that apparently looks liberal towards women. Let us take a closer look.

In verse 9/89 of Manusamhita, we find  Manu says that if a suitable groom is not found the daughter should live in her father’s house till death. She so should never be given for marriage to a person destitute of good qualities.

Some Manu researchers say that this verse was a warning for the society so that girls are not given for marriage to an unsuitable groom. Some researchers go one step further and say that this verse actually proves that Manu was against child marriage.

But their argument does not stand at all. We have verse that says at what age should a girl be given for marriage (Manusamhita 9/94).  Manu also confirms that in case if the groom is suitable, a girl even if she is less than eight years, can be given for marriage (Manusamhita 9/88). So the argument that Manu was against child marriage, falls apart.

Manu also mentions that even if the husband is a loose character,  lecherous, lax, devoid of any good quality, the wife should still constantly worship him. That is the duty of the wife.

If the wife violates her duty towards her husband, she is disgraced in the world. As a punishment for her sin, she will born in a jackal’s womb in her next birth and will be tormented by diseases. No, Manu does not talk about any punishment for the husband.

No women on their own, in that period used to choose a husband who lacks moral code. They were given for marriages. The verse 9/89 does not prove that Manu was merciful towards women. In fact Manu was apprehensive that if a woman is married to a man devoid of moral code, she might not follow her duty (stri-dharma) either.

According to Manusmriti, a woman can choose her own husband if her parents are unable to choose a deserving groom for her. After attaining puberty, she needs to wait for three years and after that she can choose her own husband (Sayamwara). (Manusamhita 9/90). In doing so she, or whom she weds, will not be guilty of anything. (Manusamhita 9/91)

Manu gave these verses to put pressure on the father so that he gets his daughter married  before she attains puberty, rather than she waits for three years after attaining puberty, get rebellious and marry someone on her own. If not, why did Manu keep a punishment for such women? Sayamwaras were not allowed to take any gift from her father’s family. Why did Manu deprive them of their rightful stri-dhana? If she accepts any gift from her father’s family, she was to be guilty of theft.

Types of Wedding in Manusamhita

Manu also mentions eight types of weddings. These are –in decreasing order of merit–

1) Brahma Vivaha (wedding rites followed by Lord Brahma and by Brahmans) – In this way of conducting weddings, the father of the bride gives her away to groom who have completed his Brahmacharya Ashram (studenthood and knows Vedas)  –invited by the father himself– after decorating the bride with jewellery and fine clothes.

2) Daiva Vivah (rites followed by the gods) – In this type of wedding the father of the bride gives her away to the officiating priest at a yagya or a yajna (a sacrifice), while the yajna is ongoing.

3) Arsha Vivaha (the rite of the rishis) – In this type of Hindu wedding, the father of the bride gives her away to a groom who gifts to the father one cow and one bull or two cows and two bulls.

4) Pragapatya Vivaah (wedding ala prajapatis)– In this type of wedding, the father of the bride gives her away to any groom after blessing the couple, and honouring the groom.

5) Asura Vivaah (the system of the asuras)– In this type of Hindu wedding, the groom voluntarily gives as much money and gifts as he can afford to give to the bride and to her family in order to get her consent for marriage.

6) Gaandharva Vivah (wedding in the way followed by gandharvas)– In this type of wedding, a man seduces a woman and takes her as his wife by virtue of the seduction, without any rites whatsoever. This is simply another name for the eternal dance between men and women.

7) Rakshasa Vivaah (the system of the rakshasas)– In this type of ‘wedding’, the killer or assaulter of a woman’s family members or father takes her as his wife by kidnapping and raping her. This may have the added highlight of the man breaking into the woman’s house.

8) Paisaka Vivah (wedding in the manner of pishaachas, or lost souls)– In this type of ‘wedding’, a man rapes a sleeping or intoxicated or imbecile woman.

Lawful wedding according to Manu are, first six weddings for Brahmans (Brahma Vivaha, Daiva Vivah, Arsha Vivaha, Pragapatya Vivaah, Asura Vivaah and Gaandharva Vivah), last four for Kshatriyas (Asura Vivaah, Gaandharva Vivah, Rakshasa Vivaah and Paisaka Vivah) for Bhaisyas and Sudras, the same last four except Asura Vivaah. (Asura Vivaah is approved for Kshatriyas).

According to Manu, the most Approved or Desirable marriages  (Prasastha)  for Brahman are the first four (Brahma Vivaha, Daiva Vivah, Arsha Vivaha and Pragapatya Vivaah),  Rakshasa Vivaah for Kshatriyas and Asura marriage for  Vaisyas and of Sudras.

Manu approves rape and mass murder 

The forcible abduction of a maiden from her home, while she cries out and weeps, after her kinsmen have been slain and wounded and their houses are broken open, is called the Rakshasa rite. (Manusamhita 3/33, 3/23)

This is the most desirable form of  wedding for Kshatriyas. (Manusamhita 3/24)

This is called assault, kidnapping, mass murder and rape which sage Manu approved.

When a man by sexual intercourse with a girl who is sleeping, intoxicated, or psychologically disordered, it is called Paisaka Vivah. (Manusamhita 3/34)

Though it is undesirable (aprasastha) form of wedding and is most sinful and should not be done, it is still a lawful wedding. (Manusamhita 3/23)

This is pure sociopathy and/or lunacy.

Manu  legitimized rape and abduction of females in the name of marriage.

There are several holy scriptures where rape is legitimized.

Swami Prabhupada writes, ” Even if one is forcibly kidnapped and later on accepted as a wife, that is also accepted…” A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagawatam 3.22.15 [http://vanisource.org/wiki/SB_3.22.15 ]

Brihadarayaka Upanishad also promotes rape,

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.7 ”If she does not willingly yield her body to him, he should buy her with presents. If she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with his hand and overcome her, repeating the following mantra: “With power and glory I take away your glory.” Thus she becomes discredited.”  [The-Upanishads-Volume-III By Swami Nikhilananda page 372-373, Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York]

Let me take the liberty of sharing some quotes of Swami Prabhupada.

A man is always famous for his aggression toward a beautiful woman, and such aggression is sometimes considered rape. Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape.” A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagavatam 4.25.41 [ http://vanisource.org/wiki/SB_4.25.41 ]

In next verse he says that when a husbandless women is raped, she takes this action as an act of mercy.

“When a husbandless woman is attacked by an aggressive man, she takes his action to be mercy. A woman is generally very much attracted by a man’s long arms. A serpent’s body is round, and it becomes narrower and thinner at the end. The beautiful arms of a man appear to a woman just like serpents, and she very much desires to be embraced by such arms.

The word anātha-vargā is very significant in this verse. Nātha means “husband,” and a means “without.” A young woman who has no husband is called anātha, meaning “one who is not protected.” As soon as a woman attains the age of puberty, she immediately becomes very much agitated by sexual desire. It is therefore the duty of the father to get his daughter married before she attains puberty. Otherwise she will be very much mortified by not having a husband. Anyone who satisfies her desire for sex at that age becomes a great object of satisfaction. It is a psychological fact that when a woman at the age of puberty meets a man and the man satisfies her sexually, she will love that man for the rest of her life, regardless who he is. Thus so-called love within this material world is nothing but sexual satisfaction.” A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagavatam 4.25.42 [ http://vanisource.org/wiki/SB_4.25.42 ]

 

Swami Prabhupada also writes,

”Both man and woman desire one another; that is the basic principle of material existence. Women in general always keep themselves beautiful so that they can be attractive to their lusty husbands. When a lusty husband comes before his wife, the wife takes advantage of his aggressive activities and enjoys life. Generally when a woman is attacked by a man-whether her husband or some other man—she enjoys the attack, being too lusty…”A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhu on Srimad Bhagavatam 4.26.26 [ http://vanisource.org/wiki/SB_4.26.26 ]

What made Swami Prabhupada utter these? Well, actually almost every Hindu god raped women. As a matter of fact Hindu gods were no different from present Swamis and other Hindu priests who are caught in rape and murder cases.

For more information on this read Hindu Gods: Their lust, perversion and sex crimes