The Kissinger Cables & India - Part 2 – Manmohan Singh Vol. 1

The Present 

Dr. Manmohan Singh is the present Prime Minister of India. Loved and adored by almost every Indian before the Commonwealth scam broke out, then 2G scandal claims by various media became true, and then came barrages of revelation, one after another. India found out the he is incapable of decision making, can’t control the allies in his coalition or his cabinet ministers or the spokesperson.

Myths in Media:

Media had created a huge amount of myths around him. Such as He is 

• Accidental politician (as if that is a virtue), 
• Eminent economics professor (he didn't even retire as one, last semester was way back in 1971, age was 39 then, yes younger than present day Rahul Gandhi). 
• Manmohan Singh is also said to be “Man of few (or No) words”, though back in ’66 to ‘70, he was the Chief, Financing for Trade Section, UNCTAD, United Nations Secretariat at Manhattan, New York, a very apt position man who talks less?

Past:Dubious Debut

During Manmohan Singh's Tenure at Delhi School of Economics as the professor , he was as willing to talk to press as the proverbial “Rahul Gandhi’s bee” which landed him a bureaucratic position in Economic Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Trade, India; Offered by none other than Lalit Narayan Mishra, a close Indira aide, then Minister of Foreign Trade, later Railways Minister who was murdered in an unsolved bomb mystery. Mishra was mentioned in Mitrokhen Archives (A KGB equivalent cablegate of wikileaks) for being many a things, including double agent working for both CIA and KGB . Unfortunately we can’t verify any of them as of yet, as No direct mention of him in any of the Kissinger Cables.

Enter Kissinger Cables:

Manmohan Singh is transferred to Chief Economic Advisor, Ministry of Finance, India in 1972 and in this post we find a very talkative Manmohan Singh appear in Kissinger files; First Cable (1973NEWDE04707_b) says US Under Secretary of Treasury, Paul A Volcker is visiting India and Meeting with Finance Minister Y. B. Chavan is scheduled on 30^th April at 10:15 AM on a Monday. Manmohan Singh & Mr. M. R. Shroff (officer in charge of Bank/Fund Transfer) will be present. Imagine that, Manmohan Singh talking on a Monday at 10: 15 AM. Volcker actually met 6-8 persons, but rest of them don’t get a mention in the cable.

IMF/IBRD Meeting of 1973:

Next cable (1973NEWDE09146_b) on Manmohan Singh, is when he was Deputy of Indian delegation of C-20 (at a time when The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 1973 was on in Ottawa, Canada). Now we find Manmohan Singh on his return to talking about Ministerial meeting held on 30-31 July. But why would he give such detail to US? Like

  SINGH EXPRESSED DISAPPOINTMENT THAT WHILE THERE HAD BEEN PROGRESS ON ISSUES OF PRIMARY INTEREST TO THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, THERE WAS NO SIMILAR PROGRESS ON THE SDR-AID LINK. HE FELT THAT BOTH GERMANY AND JAPAN WOULD ACCEPT AN SDR-AID LINK AND THAT IT IS ONLY THE US THAT STILL ACTIVELY OPPOSES THIS CONCEPT. HE SAID THAT INDIA WILL NOT SIGN A DOCUMENT REFORMING THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR AN SDR-AID LINK, SAYING, "WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO ALONG WITH A PACKAGE THAT DEALS WITH SOME PROBLEMS BUT NOT OTHERS."

Mr. Manmohan Singh, which treaty India would sign or not, The Chief Financial Advisor of Finance Ministry, can’t disclose? Especially to USA, when India’s official stance was “Non-aligned” and rhetoric to countrymen was “Socialism & Pro-soviet”. Didn’t you sign any NDA for this job? NDA of course is Non-Disclosure Agreement. But He was concerned about Non-disclosure to Elected Indian Parliament. As the next paragraph of the cable suggests:

SINGH INDICATED THAT HE SHARES THE US VIEW ON THE ROLES OF SDRS AND GOLD IN A NEW SYSTEM. HE INDICATED THAT INDIA HAD MORE OR LESS BOWED TO THE INEVITABLE ON THE ISSUE OF FIXED BUT FLEXIBLE EXCHANGE RATES, ALTHOUGH HE CONTINUES TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF PRESENTING TO PARLIAMENT A REVISED IMF CHARTER THAT CONTAINS ANY HINT THAT THE EXCHANGE RATE OF THE RUPEE COULD BE AFFECTED BY INCREASES OR DECREASES OF INDIA'S RESERVES, OR ANY BROAD COMBINATION OF OTHER OBJECTIVE INDICATORS.

No wonder USA loves Manmohan, for him briefing the US government seems first priority (A practice he continues till date). I am no enemy of USA, but for me India comes first.

Understanding the detail and importance of India’s stand on IMF reform and government’s vulnerability, Moynihan hurriedly writes another cable (1973NEWDE09158_b) in next 30 minutes, this time detailing the Press reaction to same Ministerial meeting as briefed by then Finance Minister Y. B. Chavan & Manmohan Singh to the press on 3rd of August. In the press conference Manmohan had said Indian foreign exchange was “quite comfortable” and 

CHAVAN NOTED THAT INDIA'S IMF POSITION CONSTITUTED A SECOND LINE OF RESERVES AND THAT "IF IT IS NECESSARY WE WILL MAKE USE OF IT."

Had the information shared by Manmohan and Y.B. Chavan’s press conference detail been exactly same, I could have asked you to overlook his conversation, but it is not the same. While US embassy was doing great work for their team, Manmohan Singh was letting India down.

By now, US is treating Manmohan as an “Asset” or a “Dear Friend” and he appears quickly in cable 1973NEWDE09583_b on Aug 17. The cable states Indian Delegation to IMF/IBRD meeting (IBRD = World Bank, International Bank for reconstruction and Development) in Nairobi on 24-30 September, is now decided, led by Finance Minister Y.B. Chavan. The delegation also contains Reserve Bank Governor, Jagannathan; Economic Affairs Secretary, M. G. Kaul; and of course Manmohan Singh and M. R. Shroff. USA is already briefed about Indian Position by Manmohan Singh, may be some in the delegation does not even know that. But important part in why this cable was done: In the reference section you will find a cable (1973STATE159015_b) from Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, US Govt. asking embassies to report  on IMF/IBRD meeting delegations across the globe citing :

ADDRESSEES REQUESTED CABLE BY SEPTEMBER 7 AT LATEST INFORMATION ON (A) ANY IMPORTANT PROPOSALS COUNTRY INTENDS TO AISE IN PLENARY OR TAKE UP WITH IMF/IBRD OFFICIALS, (B) ANY MAJOR ISSUES WHICH COUNTRY DELEGATION INTENDS TO RAISE WITH U.S. DELEGATION, (C) ANY MAJOR ISSUES U.S. SHOULD RAISE WITH COUNTRY DELEGATION. RE 2(C), IN VIEW OF LARGE NUMBER OF COUNTRY DELEGATIONS, FORWARD ONLY ISSUES OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE RELATING TO ACTIVITIES OF FUND AND BANK.

Of course New Delhi Embassy of USA had done that already, as early as August 7. Those who read about IMF meetings of 21st century, has very little idea about what transpired in 1973, even in morning of 24 September, cables were sent from Lisbon about who has boarded the plane for Nairobi or Chinese protest on some countries or even African countries threatening to walkout if the Apartheid regime of South Africa attends . If you want to read about them, please go to wikileaks website, search Kissinger cable, put “IMF/IBRD Annual meeting” in search string, select date range from August 1973 to October 1973 and search.

Thanks to Manmohan Singh, USA had very little to worry from India. In next volume of Cables on Manmohan Singh, we will delve deep into business of IMF, Rupee Crisis and Debt crisis of many countries including India in 1973-74.

The Kissinger Cables & India - Part 1 - Rajiv Gandhi

It has often being told by Indian Media, that, Rajiv Gandhi wasn't groomed to be a politician, he was merely thrust into the politics arena by unfortunate incident like his brother Sanjay Gandhi's Airplane crash and made a prime minister by tragic assassination of his Mother, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

My long-held belief and the knowledge gathered in my life is quite different from the popular myth. In 70's Indira struck an amazing third world like non-aligned balance, by letting herself do the soviet union friendly rhetoric and her sons being friendly to the west.

Sanjay Gandhi, was then the face of the nehru-gandhi dynasty; was whimsical and would go from socialist in the morning to ultra-capitalist at the dinner.

Rajiv Gandhi, we were told, was the soft-spoken airlines pilot, who earns his bread by flying planes (though he & his family lived with his mother like in a traditional Indian joint family and every penny of their expenses came from the taxpayer's money).

Now we find in Kissinger Cables, his wife, Sonia Gandhi, was a director in Maruti Vehicle's Limited. She however had no prior training, experience or qualification in Automotive Industry. 

Rajiv Gandhi was himself an agent of Swedish VIGGEN AIRCRAFT

This US cable was dated, 1975 October 21, 12:25 (Tuesday)

Even the US diplomat was shocked, "INDIAN NEGOTIATOR WITH SWEDES ON VIGGEN AT NEW DELHI END HAS BEEN MRS. GANDHI'S OLDER SON, RAJIV GANDHI. LATTER'S ONLY ASSOCIATION WITH AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY (TO OUR KNOWLEDGE) HAS BEEN AS PILOT FOR INDIAN AIRLINES AND THIS IS FIRST TIME WE HAVE HEARD HIS NAME AS ENTREPRENEUR." 

Viggen Aircraft was manufactured by Saab, US promoted this plane since 1960 military-technology agreement at the time of President Eisenhower. So veracity of this US claim can't be denied. In fact, The United States blocked an export of Viggens to India in 1978 by not issuing an export license for the RM8/JT8D engine, forcing India to choose the SEPECAT Jaguar instead. 

At that time, fighter aircraft experts will tell you, Saab Scania Viggen was much much inferior the  Anglo-french SEPECAT Jaguar or french Mirage, in fact Saab upgraded it considerably in 78-79.

But the French company, Dassault Aviation, was no saint either, same cable quotes " DASSAULT HAS SON-IN-LAW OF INDIAN AIR MARSHALL MEHRA AS ITS CHIEF NEGOTIATOR FOR MIRAGE SALE."

The question remained, who would take the call, the cable is crystal clear on this 

"MRS. GANDHI (ACCORDING TO SWEDISH INFO) HAS MADE PERSONAL DECISION NOT TO PURCHASE BRITISH JAGUAR BECAUSE OF HER PREJUDICES AGAINST BRITISH. DECISION WOULD BE BETWEEN MIRAGE AND VIGGEN. THE SWEDISH DIPLOMAT SAID THAT SWEDEN'S NEUTRAL POSITION IN WORLD POLITICS IS OFFSETTING VIGGEN'S HIGHER COST. HE EXPRESSED IRRITATION AT THE WAY MRS. GANDHI IS PERSONALLY DOMINATING NEGOTIATIONS, WITHOUT INVOLVEMENT OF INDIAN AIR FORCE OFFICERS."

There is no denying the fact that in following year, 1976. Indira Gandhi had signed the deal to purchase Saab-Scania Viggen, canvased by Rajiv Gandhi. This can also be verified by any leading newspaper archive or by anyone with strong memory.

Here is the chronology of Rajiv-Indira corruption in Saab-Scania Viggen Deal:

• June 26, 1975: Emergency starts.
• Oct 4,1975: US embassy, sweden informed in a separate cable (microfilm) on Oct 4-5 that India has expressed desire to buy "SAAB-SCANIA VIGGEN".Interest is "Somewhat passive"
• Oct 11,1975: DR.CURT MILEIKOWSKY. THE INDIANS HAVE ASKED FOR PROPOSALS FROM SWEDEN, GREAT BRITIAN AND FRANCE AND ARE SCHEDULED TO MAKE A DECISION THIS YEAR ON WHICH AIRCRAFT, IF ANY, THEY WILL PURCHASE. Saab is requested by Indians, to get, the permits from US for " ENGINE, A MODIFIED PRATT & WHITNEY JT8D, MANUFACTURED ON LICENSE BY VOLVO FLY MOTOR". Sweden has given go ahead on the deal. This memo gave the no-objection from US embassy, Sweden.
• Oct 21,1975: Back at US, Dept. of State, mentions that the Swedish deal needs USG clearances. US laws need to be amended to include India or China
• Oct 21,1975:  US Embassy,New Delhi, Sends Infamous Rajiv Memo.
• Oct 24,1975: British claim Jaguar is back in contention. IAF quantifies order, initial order of 40 planes, followed by 40 more.
• Nov 12,1975: SUPREME COMMANDER of SWEDISH DEFENSE FORCES GENERAL STIG SYNNERGREN is against the deal. USA is neutral, but US Ambassador is still recommending sale to go ahead
• Nov 14, 1975: India is showing interest towards Jaguar, aircraft with advanced technology.
• Nov 15, 1975: US Embassy is eager for Viggen sale, but unsure of US stand, do they need a Dept. of State approval or would the swede have to downgrade (US manufactured) armament.
• Jan 23, 1976: DR. CURT MILEIKOWSKY of SAAB-SCANIA is now in favour of the sale, wants clarification on US Govt stand on approvals.Jan 23, 1976: Departmental study of Conventional Arms Supply Restraints claims "Evaporation of the prospective sale of the VIGGEN to NATO countries left INDIA and Australia AS POSSIBLE CUSTOMERS." So we were buying junk at high price, thanks to Rajiv & Indira Gandhi. 
• Feb 6, 1976: Swedes see Viggen sale as a bright prospect. Swedes are in New Delhi, including Dr. Curt Mileikowsky. IAF agrees to send a pilot (Rajiv) to test ride Viggen, existing models (even older ones) at Sweden. Crucial bit lies in last paragraph where Rajiv is misspelled as Ranjiv by Saxby

"THE SWEDES HERE HAVE ALSO MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THEY UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF FAMILY INFLUENCES IN THE FINAL DECISION IN THE FIGHTER SWEEPSTAKES. OUR COLLEAGUE DESCRIBES RANJIV GANDHI IN FLATTERING TERMS, AND CONTENDS HIS TECHNICAL EXPERTISE IS OF A HIGH LEVEL. THIS MAY OR MAY NOT BE. OFFHAND WE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT A TRANSPORT PILOT NOT THE BEST EXPERT TO RELY UPON IN EVALUATING A FIGHTER PLANE, BUT THEN WE ARE SPEAKING OF A TRANSPORT PILOT WHO HAS ANOTHER AND PERHAPS MORE RELEVANT QUALIFICATION."

• March 8, 1976: Kissinger writes memo himself, as US Ambassador recommends and endorses the viggen sale.
• April 12, 1976: US & Sweden discuss Viggen especially to India
• May 18, 1976: SAAB-Scania formally requests US for permission of sale to India
• May 20, 1976: US comments on SAAB-Scania request, cites possible instability in arms race.
• March 16-20, 1977: General Election in India. Indira Gandhi loses election.
• March 21, 1977: Emergency lifted.
• 1978: US blocks Viggen sale.

Why India is not a BEEHIVE!

Recently the crown prince of morons of India, has compared India to a Beehive and China to an Elephant. I leave my Chinese friends to do the rebuttal on the Elephant issue. I would like to say why India is not a beehive, despite risking venomous stings from the royalist, loyalist & dynasty loving supporters of Rahul Gandhi and his Congress party.

Firstly By Definition: A Beehive is a colony of bees; India on the other-hand is an independent nation of human beings (Constitutionally, at least) and not a colony. Social structure of Bees is Matriarchal, most of India is Patriarchal! So even not correct on that front :) 

Secondly FDI is not pollen : Bees gather pollen from flowers, which are found in the neighborhood of the beehive; Indians don't show any such characteristics and produce food within the country. Some naturalized Indian household however import some olive, parsley, pizza making material etc from the Mediterranean region. Perhaps Rahul Gandhi thought FDI (Foreign direct Investment) is pollen gathered from outside.

Thirdly Size Constraint: Beehives grow in size with the work of worker bees; but the landmass of India is independent of the efforts of her work-force. At this is point, Rahul Gandhi loyalists would scream "Oh! You fool, Rahul baba meant the economy of India, not the geographical India". If its just economy, then its true for every nation on earth, not just India.

Fourthly Real Estate: Real estate industry of India provides various housing solutions in apartment blocks, they come in various sizes and types, 1 BHK, 2BHK, .. 4BHK... Duplex and also Villas and Mansions. They are occupied by people coming from different strata. (Rahul Gandhi can be safely advised to talk to his CII buddies, or even his brother-in-law to verify this statement).

The honeycomb, however is more like a warehouse first and residence afterwards. Most cells are uniform in design and size and occupied by worker bees. The residence of Queen Bee is different, its peanut shaped and hangs mostly at the bottom of beehive.

Does Rahul Gandhi think 10 Janpath hangs from bottom of India? Some may argue, Rahul Gandhi thinks is a false premise.

Fifthly Drones and Indian Male: Indian men are no drones; of course I generalize here, some princes do show drone like natures.  Drones are male bees, they don't work, they don't build beehive, they don't gather pollen, carry water, fan or cool the beehive, they just don't work. Invite a drone to join the cabinet of ministers to shape the future of the country, he would disappear in thin air.

Indian men work in the field, in factories, in offices; They build homes, they start family, take up all sorts of mundane non-princely responsibilities. At this point, it is important to note, they do it well with increasing help from Indian women (Not being politically correct here, its hard fact). Among Bees, workers are actually sterile female bees. Only women work in beehive, how is that for a difference, Mr. VP Rahul Gandhi?

• Drones don't sting, Indian Men do (For gods sake, what do you think I am doing here, joking?)
• Drones don't have much say in sexual encounters, they don't get to choose the mating partner, but the scenario is exactly the reverse in Human beings.
• Genetically Drones are half bee, they just have one set of chromosomes. Don't know about Rahul prince, all Indian male DNA tested had standard 22 pairs of chromosomes, plus XY chromosome, hence fully Human being.
• Drones have sex just once, they are driven out of beehive before harsh winter. Indian men enjoy far more enjoyable life-style.

Lastly Queen Bee & Indian Woman: Even to compare women with queen bee, is insulting to the nature of Human females. Though female population of India is dwindling, but still it is nowhere as abysmal as one to thousand as seen in big beehives.

Genetically Queen Bee is programmed to be promiscuous and drones even act like Oedipus. India is no such place.

Virgin Queen Bees kill competition by killing sisters. Indian women generally will never do that.

So many differences and so few similarity, perhaps Rahul Gandhi should do some Google before choosing metaphors or selecting euphemisms. Remember Lack of knowledge is not a crime, but not learning from it, is idiocy. Men in 40s should not be like that, unless they are useless drones.

Verma Commission Report goofed up by government

Has Govt of India changed Verma Commission Report? Yes, Indeed! But how? When we look into the details we find huge ramification by the changing words here & there!

At the onset let me put some disclaimers:

1.        I don't oppose death penalty in heinous crimes such as rape.
2.        I'm not against conviction in Marital rape or rape by armed forces.
3.        I am not a huge fan of the Verma commission sentences, on the contrary I think some of them are very lenient. But after reviewing govt of India ordinance, I've found that many sentences have been deliberately diluted by the government.

Lets start reviewing IPC (Indian Penal Code) changes proposed by Verma Commission:

1. Section 100 of the Code shall be modified as follows:

When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death:

The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the
assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:-
Firstly, Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Secondly, Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault, which shall include a crime punishable under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code.
Thirdly, An assault with the intention of committing rape
Fourthly, An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
Fifthly, An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;
Sixthly, An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release. 

Ordinance proposes "In section 100, in the clause Secondly, after the words "grievous hurt", the words "including the offence of grievous hurt punishable under section 326A" shall be inserted." 

So govt is retaining old section, instead of modifying , note how cleverly words "an reasonable cause the apprehension" gets lost in clause 2.
3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th clause got lost all together. 

2. Addition of Section 166A:

After section 166 of the Indian Penal Code the following section shall be inserted,

namely:—

166A. Public Servant knowingly disobeying direction of law

Verma Committee recommends "shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine."

Ordinance proposes "shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both"

Why this lenience?

3. After section 326 of the Penal Code, the following sections shall be inserted,

namely:—

‘326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt through use of acid etc:

Verma Committee recommends "rigorous imprisonment" which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to life, and shall also be liable to pay compensation to the victim, adequate to meet at least the medical expenses incurred by the victim.

Government's ordinance calls same prison terms but conveniently forgets the word "Rigorous" and omits the explanation given by Verma commission. Wonder why? Government also restricts fine upto rupees 10 lakh and drops "at least the medical expenses", wonder why? Is face-reconstruction surgeries & medication & rehabilitation possible is that amount, in today's India?

Same dilution as above in fine is also noted in govt. ordinance in respect to, newly inserted IPC section 326B. Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid etc.  Here even minimum fine amount is not even mentioned. However explanations are included in this section.
One strange clause inserted is "intention of .... maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt", and we thought "grievous hurt" is covered 326A???!!!!

4. Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code shall be replaced by the following:
 And Verma Committee detailed a refurbished section, with two subsection, i) carrying 5 years prison, ii) carrying 1 years prison but govt kept the old law by modifying:

 In section 354 of the Penal Code, for the words "shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both", the words "shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term of one year which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine" shall be substituted.

Once again govt choice "ambiguity" over "fine law making".
5 & 6. Verma committee recommendations on voyeurism, stalking & Trafficking are done exactly same.  
7. Section 375 shall be replaced as suggested below:
Section 375: Rape 

Here huge changes has taken place making the law ambiguous, easy to misconstrue! Firstly this section is no longer go under the title Rape but "Sexual assault", throughout government avoids the term "rape" or "intercourse" however mentions "consent" in many a places! Who gives Consent to Sexual Assault! How ridiculous!

• Verma commission stated "A man is said to commit rape if he—
  (a) penetrates the vagina or anus or urethra of a person with—
  (i) any part of his body including his penis or,
  (ii) any object manipulated by him, except where such penetration is carried out for
  proper hygienic or medical purposes; or,
  (b) manipulates any part of the body of a person so as to cause penetration of the vagina
  or anus or urethra of another person; or,
  (c) engages in “cunnilingus” or “fellatio”,
  under the circumstances falling under any of the following six descriptions:—"
• Government of India ordinance now defines sexual assault as "A person is said to commit "sexual assault" if that person--
  (a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth urethra or anus of another person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or
  (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of another person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or
  (c) manipulates any part of the body of another person so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or
  (d) applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of another person or makes such person to do so with him or any other person;
  (e) touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the person or makes the person touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of that person or any other person,
  except where such penetration or touching is carried out for proper hygienic or medical purposes under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:--"

•  Consent given "impliedly" as mentioned in sixth case of Verma commission dropped.

 Marital rape defining explanation of Verma commission is dropped.

" Consent will not be presumed in the event of an existing marital relationship between the complainant and the accused."

 In fact, to guard & perhaps to not to provoke some pervert vote-bank created a banal, foolish, ambiguous exception:

"Exception.-- Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under sixteen years of age, is not sexual assault."

 I will give you 3 reason why this is ambiguous, eminent legal experts can give more:

1. Minimum Legal age for marriage of women in India is 18 not 16.
2. In this same section the ordinance goes on to say : "With or without the other person's consent, when such other person is under eighteen years of age." so even government agreed that it is 18, then why reinvent 16 from old IPC clauses? 

1. Later in CrPC amendments same government goes on to say "198B. No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under section 376B of the Indian Penal Code where the persons are in a marital relationship, except upon prima facie satisfaction of the facts which constitute the offence upon a complaint having been filed or made by the wife against the accused husband."

          So Criminal Procedure says Marital rape punishment of IPC 376B is valid, but IPC 375 calls it not   a rape, oh sorry, I should say "Sexual Assault"


Now which section should police file a case on Section 354 for sexual assault, or will it be section 375! 
I need to a do a part II on this topic to finish many more ambiguity fostered by this government.