As I write this, there are protests going on all over Delhi, and in other parts of the country, against the gang-rape of a young woman on a moving bus a few days ago in the city. People are out there in large numbers — young, old, male, female, rich, poor — and they’re angry. They want the rapists to be caught, they want them to be taught a lesson, many are suggesting they should be hanged, or castrated, but also that the State should act, bring in effective laws, fast track courts, police procedures and more. Not since the Mathura rape case have there been such widespread protests. The difference is that then, it was mainly women’s groups who were protesting; today’s protests are more diverse. Sometimes, tragically, it takes a case like this to awaken public consciousness, to make people realise that rape and sexual assault are not merely ‘women’s issues,’ they’re a symbol of the deep-seated violence that women — and other marginalised people — experience every day in our society.
At a time when every politician, no matter what colour, is crying foul, every judge and lawyer, no matter what their loyalties, is joining the chorus, every policeperson, no matter from where, is adding his/her voice, it is worth remembering some key things. First, more than 90 per cent of rapes are committed by people known to the victim/survivor, a staggering number of rapists are family members. When we demand the death penalty, do we mean therefore that we should kill large numbers of uncles, fathers, brothers, husbands, neighbours? How many of us would even report cases of rape then? What we’re seeing now — the slow, painful increase in even reports being filed — will all disappear. Second, the death penalty has never been a deterrent against anything — where, for example, is the evidence that death penalties have reduced the incidence of murders? Quite apart from the fact that the State should never be given the right to take life, there is an argument to be made that imposing the death penalty will further reduce the rate of conviction, as no judge will award it.
Then, and this is something that women’s groups grasped long ago: a large number of rapes are committed in custody, many of these by the police. Mathura was raped by two policemen, Rameezabee was raped inside a police station by police personnel, Suman Rani was raped by policemen. There are countless other cases: will we hang all police rapists? Put together, that’s a lot of people to hang.
Police action is, in fact, one of the demands. Yet, the police’s record, whether in recording cases or in conducting investigations, is nothing to write home about. On a recent television show, a police officer put his finger on it when he said: how can we expect that police personnel, who are, after all, made of the same stuff as the men who gang-raped the young woman last week, to suddenly and miraculously behave differently? I was reminded of a study done by a local newsmagazine not so long ago of the attitudes of high ranking police officers in Delhi about rape. Roughly 90 per cent of them felt the woman deserved it, that she asked for it, that she should not have been out alone, or should not have been dressed in a particular fashion. Strange that women’s bodies should invite such reactions — could it be that the problem is in the eye of the beholder? Why, for example, does it seem to be more ‘legitimate’ for women to be out during daylight hours, but not at night?
Lawyers and judges too have joined the protests — and this is all to the good for the more diverse the protests, the more impact they will have. But it’s lawyers who use every ruse in the book to allow rapists to get away, judges who make concessions because the rapists are ‘young men who have their whole lives in front of them’ and so on. Do women’s lives not have a value then?
And then there are our politicians. Perhaps we need to ask how many politicians have rape cases, or allegations of rape pending against them. Perhaps we need to ask why no one is asking this question: that here you have an elected politician, your next prime ministerial candidate, someone under whose rule Muslim women in Gujarat were not only subjected to horrendous rape but also to equally dreadful violence. How can we, how can the media, how can journalists — all of whom are lauding the success of this politician, how can they not raise, and particularly at this time, the question of his sanctioning, encouraging the use of rape as a weapon of war? And more, we need to ask: if the politicians are indeed serious about this issue, why are they not out there with the protestors? When Anna Hazare was fasting, there wasn’t a day that went by when one or other politician did not go to see him. Where are they now?
Rape happens everywhere: it happens inside homes, in families, in neighbourhoods, in police stations, in towns and cities, in villages, and its incidence increases, as is happening in India, as society goes through change, as women’s roles begin to change, as economies slow down and the slice of the pie becomes smaller — and it is connected to all these things. Just as it is integrally and fundamentally connected to the disregard, and indeed the hatred, for females that is so evident in the killing of female foetuses. For so widespread a crime, band aid solutions are not the answer.
Protest is important, it shakes the conscience of society, it brings people close to change, it makes them feel part of the change. And there is a good chance that the current wave of protests will lead to at least some results — perhaps even just fast track courts. But perspective is also important: we need to ask ourselves: if it had been the army in Manipur or Kashmir who had been the rapists, would we have protested in quite the same way? Very likely not, for there nationalism enters the picture. Remember Kunan Posphpora in the late nineties when the Rajasthan Rifles raped over 30 women? Even our liberal journalists found it difficult to credit that this could have happened, that the army could have been capable of this, and yet, the people of Kunan Poshpora know. Even today, women from this area find it difficult to marry — stigma has a long life. Would we have been as angry if the rape had taken place in a small town near Delhi and the victim had been Dalit? Remember Khairlanji? Why did that rape, of a mother and her daughter, gruesome, violent, heinous, and their subsequent murder not touch our consciences in quite the same way.
It is important to raise our collective voice against rape. But rape is not something that occurs by itself. It is part of the continuing and embedded violence in society that targets women on a daily basis. Let’s raise our voices against such violence and let’s ask ourselves how we, in our daily actions, in our thoughts, contribute to this, rather than assume that the solution lies with someone else. Let’s ask ourselves how we, our society, we as people, create and sustain the mindset that leads to rape, how we make our men so violent, how we insult our women so regularly, let’s ask ourselves how privilege creates violence.
It is important we raise our collective voice for women, but let’s raise it for all women, let’s raise it so that no woman, no matter that she be poor, rich, urban, rural, Dalit, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever, ever, in the future, has to face sexual violence, and no man assumes that because of the system and people’s mindsets, he can simply get away with it. And let’s raise it also for men, for transgenders, for the poor — all those who become targets of violence. Let’s not forget that the young rape survivor in Delhi was accompanied by a friend who too was subjected to violence and nearly killed. Let’s talk about him too.
(Urvashi Butalia is a feminist writer and founder of Zubaan, an independent non-profit publishing house.)
Source
OP: I felt out of all the articles that I have read on the protests in India, this one is the best because it raises the questions that people either avoid or push aside, esp when it comes to the military and their violent actions in various parts of the country, but more especially in Kashmir where the Army is given a clean slate no matter what they do, no matter how much evidence is given. If people want change they have to ensure that with it the accountability is equal across the board.
Mods! Thanks for the Kashmir tag!!!
I'm against the death penalty for a number of reasons, so no, I don't want all these scum bags put to death. I would like them tried and put in prison for a very long time, though.
Being an uncle/father/brother/husband/neighbor...n
I do agree that the death penalty would keep women from reporting. (Both because they might feel affection, but also because of the social backlash they'd face.) I do suspect that the death penalty might do something - but I suspect not as much.
Either way, I think a better move would be to look for more reporting and to work on quickly trying *anyone* who's been accused (while protecting the victim from harassment by lawyers, etc.) This would be true in the US. It's fairly disgusting how even if rapes are reported, most of the time it's just shrugged off since how do you prove it, etc.
"(while protecting the victim from harassment by lawyers, etc.)"
How would one protect the victim from her family? I think that's an important question Indian lawmakers must ask.
Edited at 2013-01-05 08:25 pm (UTC)
It would be exceedingly difficult to protect a victim from his/her family. I think that's one of the major challenges in a lot of assaults, not just in SE Asia, but throughout the world.
"That may be the difference. I think for a western audience, there is a bit of a tone of "some rapes are more rape-y than others", which goes over a bit badly, I think, esp. considering some comments made by US politicians."
There are plenty of crappy statements made by politicians all over the world, but I understand.
I might be wrong, but I think there is some confusion when she discusses police officers, lawyers, judges, politicians etc. I guess some feel that she's saying those situations wouldn't warrant a backlash? I actually don't think that's her intention at all, I think what she's doing is attempting to bring up awareness of how the public reacts in different circumstances, if the police etc are involved, if military personnel are involved, if the victim is lower caste, or a certain religion. I think it's comparable to discussions in the US regarding how a victim's race effects national reaction, or how when the accused is a celebrity how the public reacts to that. I think she's attempting to address the discrepancies in how the public reacts, but some are seeing that as apologism if it's a relative, police officer, politician, soldier etc.
I don't know, I got the impression that the author's primary intention was to discuss the society's and challenge how society reacts depending on different circumstances. I just feel that this discussion is necessary for anything to change.
"I think that's one of the major challenges in a lot of assaults, not just in SE Asia, but throughout the world."
Yes, I just limited my comment to India and the US because I know more about Indian and US laws than those of other nations (though, I'm not a lawyer and there's a lot I don't know/understand), and because the article was focused on India/Indian society/culture. Plus, I feel that in India there are some simple legal changes that could make a huge difference and it frustrates me that I see/hear no discussion about those laws that are in place to "protect" women, but just make women 2nd to men.
There are a lot of crappy statements all over the world, but the last US election cycle seemed to be punctuated by a bunch of incredibly stupid politicians (most of whom fortunately were not voted into office) trying to define how most rapes aren't "real" so that they could disallow abortions. So I do suspect it's a point of soreness particularly for people in the US. Which might explain a bit of twitchiness.
I definitely think that you're right regarding the author's tone. And while it's not universally true, I do think that there's a tendency to say, "Oh, it's fine" when it's high class/caste against low or someone in authority vs. someone in less...but not the opposite. (The US had similar problems with lynching black men who may or may not have raped white women...but being pretty cool with the opposite occurring. Still does, to a real extent.) It's a bad situation.
From what I've been given to understand, there are a lot of fairly simple laws that would do a lot in India...and it's really sad to see that those aren't being implemented. (Fast tracked trials, I believe, were one of them?) And I agree that laws that "protect" women by making their lives more difficult aren't the way to go. *sigh* The sad thing is that it feels like the biggest thing that needs to change is a large cultural change...which is a lot harder than passing a new law.
A lot of interesting points here. I may re-read and re-digest. But thanks for the primer on Indian gender relationships. I really learned a lot!
Ugh, I feel like I haven't stated that well, I hope I was clear.
I do agree, though, that it rather sucks that men seem to get far more of the active rolls...good sex tends to involve *both* parties being active. ;) (And yeah, ignoring consent on either side is a terrible thing to do.)
I never thought that this article was unclear. To me it was pretty obvious that what the author is saying is that using the death penalty is 1) not going to prevent rape 2) is going to actually backfire on the victim, because if you're about the accuse the breadwinner of the family-the family isn't going to care what was done to you (not to mention you will be "tainting" the family by even trying to report the case). I guess it is easier understood in an Asian context...
I really wish India would stop with the worshiping of the military, cause much like the US it seriously freaks me out how much they turn a blind eye to all the evils committed continuously and are rarely held accountable. I just don't get it.
It might be confusing in that in the US/West there's a greater focus on the individual, whereas in many cultures -even today- there really isn't a concept of the individual. Like, there is but there isn't, the individual is less important than the family (or village, or the "whole" entity).
I'm not all that familiar with India's (or Indians') adoration of the military specifically, but I think there's a general authority problem in India and assume that it helps lead to military worship. I really don't understand it though, it seems that everyone I know recognizes the corruption and how problematic it is, but then also defends the system? It realllllly confuses me. It's like, if the system doesn't harm or hasn't harmed that person, the idea is that there's not need to fix it or something.
well that was a nice little cold douse of water to the face.
Rape isn't properly reported as it is. And everyone who rapes is SOMEONE'S son.
I say hang them.
I can't be rational about rape/sexual violence or what I think of as physically expressed misogyny - I just don't care anymore.
And a policeman who commits rape of a woman in custody? Castration first. Then hanging.
Yes, exactly. So we need to humanize the perpetrator, but not the victim? (Not aimed at you, to be clear.)
I didn't see this mentioned elsewhere, but there's a situation brewing the U.S. too.
FYI -- http://www.yourdailymedia.com/post/steu
Regarding police officers, while I personally believe that cops, politicians, judges etc should always get the maximum, but considering how corrupt the system is in India (much, much more so than the US), would harsher penalties make it easier or harder for the victims/survivors? I don't know the answer to it, I'm just worried drafting laws that the society isn't ready to handle could create some sort of backlash. I think there are a lot of other laws that probably should be changed first (India's tax laws for example), in order to foster an environment in which women aren't constantly under male guardianship.
Reg the article...I couldn't read through it because of the pictures, oh that poor girl.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the situation in India, beyond what has been in the news recently, but it does sound like backlash is a possibility. Is it possible to have the conversation about rape in way that that doesn't happen?
We also have to consider, that India as a nation is only 65 years old, and it went through a lot of what I call "misogynistification" during the Mughalai rule and especially during British Colonial rule. Hopefully if the women and the youth continue to speak, things will begin to change...even slow change is better than no change you know?
(Btw, have you seen this? http://news.yahoo.com/judge-law-wont-pr
I just read about this and am so disgusted. I can't even.