Such was the argument made in court by one Shrikant Shivde, lawyer for Shiney Ahuja, Bollywood actor arrested on charges of rape. "She", of course, refers to the victim. (Thanks to Jai for the pointer, in a comment here).
The nauseating nature of this remark reminded me of this other one that came my way, from three years ago:
"its not our fault if the backwards (well most of them) dont value education."
What I was prompted to reply then applies equally to Shivde's observation: remarks like these, the attitudes they speak of, make the case for reservations better than most of its proponents would.
Apart from that, I've had it up to here with the argument -- often made in such cases, or mentioned by the police while arresting a thief -- that the accused is from a "good family" (for example).
(Alternate formulations: "respectable family", "decent middle-class family", "good respectable excellent wonderful army background decent god-fearing middle-class family" -- mix and match as you please).
Just what is this supposed to mean? "Good families" don't produce criminals? "Middle-class families" don't produce criminals? "Army background" or "god-fearing" automatically implies innocence?
I can easily think of examples that undermine all those claims, and so can you. I hope someday there will be a judge in a court who will cut through such phrases and say, politely, "The defendant is on trial, not his family. So I don't want to hear any more about them."