All Things Beyond Justice For The Indian Woman | Ruksana and Nitish

Navigating societal double standards in twenty-first century India, such as, Ladkon se galtiyan ho jaati hain and Ladkiyon ko chup rehna chahiye (Boys err, Girls should shut up), is a hazardous task even today. In this ancient land of Ardhanarishwara, Devi worship and temples adorned with erotic sculptures, Kinnars, Gandhavas (legally considered female) , Ganika’s who were tax-paying professionals some 2,500 years ago, equality in practice for the Indian woman is still an iffy thing.

When one reads up on society in ancient India, one smells the whiff of liberation that vanished by the 10th century of the Common Era. Cast rules against women were rampant. By 1550s, Tulsidas’s Ramayana successfully popularised the dictum, Lakshman Rekha for women (a phrase not found in any of the Ramayanas before that). The women of the Agalassoi tribe in northern India carried out mass self-immolation ( Book 6 of The Anabasis of Alexander, Arrian’s military history of Alexander’s invasion of the subcontinent, written 500 years later). This was a war-time activity, historians say, as during the Chittor fort immolations in 1303. By that time sati for women only too began to be observed, tied to religious practices. By the late seventeenth century, this became a socio-economically-convenient practice. Victorian colonialism brought in more dress-codes, behaviour codes and discrimination for women in colonies of all European jurisdictions.

Laws, especially for Indian women, came when Lord William Bentinck, the first governor general of East India Company-ruled India outlawed sati in 1829 through the Bengal Sati Regulation. The regulation made the practice of sati illegal and punishable by law. The regulation said sati was ‘revolting to the feelings of human nature’ and that it was ‘unlawful and wicked’. Rammohun Roy thanked him for ‘rescuing us forever from the gross stigma hitherto attached to our character as willful murderers of females’. Sati practices, however, went on till 1987 (the Roop Kanwar case) when The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 was passed to prevent the practice burning or burying alive of widows or women. In the 1960s-‘80s, dowry deaths too became social practices. 

In 1868, police in the city of Kolkata sent a woman called Sukhimonee to prison for evading a genital examination which had been made compulsory for ‘registered’ sex workers. She denied, she was a sex worker, and the Calcutta High Court set her free. Believe it or not, The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act came only in 2006, when The Maternity Benefit Act was promulgated in 1961, nearly seventy years ago. And do child mother’s get any benefits? No. The Equal Remuneration Act came in 1976, more than fifty years ago, are women’s wages in the formal economic sector same as men? No. In the informal sector? No. The Vishakha Guidelines were promulgated in 1997, and it took fifteen years and several gruesome rapes (including the Aruna Shabaug case of 1973) and murders for The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013. The paradoxes are mind-boggling.

THE VERDICT IN the Kolkata lady doctor rape case serves as a stark reminder that the struggle for justice is never complete. The Sealdah Court found a man named Sanjay Roy guilty of raping and murdering the doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital. The perpetrator has been sentenced to life imprisonment, and the court emphasised the need to rise above the primitive instinct of retribution, stating, ‘We must rise above the primitive instinct of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a nail for a nail, or a life for a life’, the judge remarked, directing the State of West Bengal to compensate the victim’s family. This case has sparked nationwide outrage and protests, highlighting the urgent need for stronger security measures in government hospitals and a more effective judicial system.

According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report, every third woman, or roughly 35% of women worldwide, are survivors of sexual violence. The rape and murder of the Kolkata lady doctor fully captures the ins and outs of these figures. The ‘Hema Committee Report’ also reveals the alarming instances of sexual abuse and gender discrimination within the entertainment industry and workplace. Every such case witnesses many protests, gatherings, candle-light marches, ‘hang the culprits’ slogans, demands for safer spaces, and stringent laws to punish perpetrators.

At first glance, there appears to be nothing wrong with this approach. However, the introduction of the Nirbhaya Act or Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, in the wake of the brutal gang rape and murder of Nirbhaya tells a different story. Despite the implementation of several important provisions, such as ensuring a speedy trial, expanding the definition of ‘rape’, enhancing the protection of victims, increasing penalties, and strengthening the overall legal framework, these measures have somehow failed to deter crimes against women.

To put it in perspective, as many as 32,033 women in 2019, 28,046 women in 2020, and 31,677 women in 2021 (where 51 per cent of the population is female) reported cases of rape as per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). If we take the data for 2021, it translates into 49 cases of crime every hour against women. These numbers suggest that there is a need for reformed steps that not only consist of legal provisions but also incorporate the revision of societal norms to get to the root of gender-based violence.

But what are those social norms?

The phrases, ‘Ladkon se galtiyan ho jaati hain,’ and ‘Ladkiyon ko chup rehna chahiye,’ underscore the societal double standards and faulty gender norms that mark the beginning of ‘poor’ socialisation of children leading to hatred and crime towards women. Girls are often told how to walk, talk, and dress, and penalised for breaking the ‘boundaries’, the so-called Lakshman Rekhas. On the other hand, men often have the luxury to make repeated mistakes that may include fighting with their fellows, stealing, breaking things, or molesting someone.

The dual standards of punishing girls and forgiving men in the pretext of ‘boys will be boys’, often lead to tragic incidents like those involving Abhaya and Nirbhaya. The perpetual feeding of such attitudes becomes institutionalised, suppressing women’s voices and dismissing their experiences. It creates a society where leaders say, ‘ladke, ladke hain… galti ho jati hai (boys will be boys… they commit mistakes)’. Other leaders comment that women, too, are responsible for their rape due to their ‘clothing and behaviour’.

The victimisation of victims results from the stereotypical colonial gender norms undergirding behaviours and perceptions of both boys and girls in modern India. Furthermore, the intersection of societal norms and gender creates such gender dynamics, where women are invariably forced to bow down to men in all spheres of life. Sometimes, it becomes so deep-rooted and internalised that women start blaming themselves. Many studies suggest that some women justified their beating by their husbands. For example, we heard a woman saying, ‘maarat hain to maarat hain, machhli bhi khilabat hain (he beats up, but he is the one who gives fish to eat)’.

The stage for perpetual violence against women is set in early childhood itself, and marriage consequently increases the likelihood of oppression manifold. And, it is not merely physical violence we are making a case for, but the gradual and systematic deprivations of girls from an early age that snowball into significant long-term psychological trauma, economic disadvantages, and societal marginalisation. It starts from female children getting leftovers and boys getting the best meat pieces, families sending male children to private schools and girls to ill-equipped public schools. These discriminatory practices later on spiral into situations where if some men follow a girl, it is the girl who will be questioned and face consequences like her family stopping her from pursuing what she was doing. So depraved is societal thinking that if any ‘bad’ news about a girl is heard, the brothers get the right to beat up their sister.

Many times, emotional violence takes place, which is ‘hidden’, and it impacts women’s psychology profoundly. The kind of taunts they hear or abuses they get further scar the girl-child’s soul. Women are raised questioning their decisions and doubting themselves every time. Mostly, they have to follow others’ decisions. Women are ‘believed’ to be incapable of doing their own work, even going to the nearest grocery shops; girls are sent with their brother no matter how young he is. At the same time, boys and men do not need permission for anything, and if they do anything wrong, they are protected by other family members in peculiar ways, their sins of omissions and commission safely hidden. It is not an exhaustive list; it is just a tiny part of the story we see in our day-to-day lives; there is much more to that.

Multiple narratives are made where women are characterised through the patriarchal lens, which is manifested in crimes and violence against women. But what does society say after all? It tells women that they are supposed to be silent and bear everything. It says, the woman was wrong being at the place where she was harassed and raped. It says, ‘she had it coming’ because she drank and partied with her male friends. It tells ladkon se galtiyan ho jaati hain, par ladkiyon ko chup rehna chahiye (men make mistakes, but women should stay silent).

But do we have any solutions? We feel that to reach any solution, we need to work from multiple dimensions, especially socio-sciences and laws alone cannot help. Of course, women-centric and women-led laws and policies are required, but ‘reengineering’ societal behaviour’ is crucial at the fundamental level – within families and within institutions, small and big. Comments such as, ‘ladkon se galtiyan ho jaati hain’ or ‘ladkiyon ko chup rahna chahiye’ show the need to work on the mentality and socialisation of children.

To get started, two processes of parenting and socialisation need elaborate revision – first, raising boys as the epitome of the family’s pride and masculinity, and second, raising a girl child as subordinate to men and ‘unworthy’ or ‘incomplete without a man’ – as if they are different species altogether. Moreover, the lesser the interactions between girls and boys, the more difficult is the process of normalisation and co-existence; segregation further deepening the cleavage between them. Both these processes contribute significantly to the perpetuation of gender inequality and, therefore, need to be thoroughly altered.

It can start with women gaining self-esteem and men supporting them in this endeavour. Raising both genders as equal and co-educating (in a real sense, not in formality only) could be substantial steps toward normalising interactions between boys and girls and paving the path for a just society. Our schools have sex -education classes only for girls and the boys grow up strangers to women’s bodies and social identities. The least one can expect from elected leaders is, that they promote equality and not the patriarchal mindset and defend harassers and rapists. We also need to engage more in conversations and awareness regarding rape and sexual harassment. At the same time, it is crucial to recognise that rape and sexual violence are not limited to women; they affect all genders. Little boys are among the most raped and abused. Such awareness can help create a society where every individual, regardless of gender, has a greater likelihood of experiencing freedom and a life with dignity, respect, and security.

Note: A Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) study in 2007 which interviewed 125,000 children in 13 Indian States revealed that the prevalence of all forms of child abuse is extremely high (physical abuse [66%], sexual abuse [50%], and emotional abuse [50%]). This major state-sponsored survey in India reported the prevalence of CSA as 53%. Boys were equally affected and more than 20% were subjected to severe forms of sexual abuse.

(Authors: Ruksana is doing her Ph D in Sociology from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi; Nitish is doing his Ph D in Sociology from Jamia Millia Islamia and works as an intern at Impact Circles, Berlin e.V.)