Tag:

rape

By Lauren Prem

“The first revolution is when you change your mind” – Gil Scott-Heron

Festivals and traditions bring people together, be it for sharing joy or age-old miseries! The yearly routine of sculpting Durga goddess’s idol for Dussehra, has taken a revolutionary turn this year as sex workers in Sonagachi refuse to give brothel soil for sculpting the Durga goddess, as a form of protest demanding safety and justice for women in the society. The Hindu tradition involves fulfillment of certain sacred requirements when it comes to collecting soil for sculpting the Durga idol. One of the requirements, that has turned extremely controversial, is the use of brothel soil for sculpting.

People from different sections of the society joined the RG Kar Protest, including sex workers from Sonagachi. They gave a radical touch to this protest by stating that they would not give soil for Durga till justice is served. The tradition of soil collection also entails that no one must demand soil from sex workers. Rather, it must be requested. Therefore, the eve of Durga depicts an ironic, sad situation where sex workers, who are otherwise excluded from the society, are requested for soil.

The particular demand of Sonagachi sex workers is not merely justice to the victim of the RG Kar rape and murder case. More so, this case is being used by the sex workers to highlight the pathetic situation of women across the country in general and sex workers in particular. By ‘till justice is served’, they mean to emphasize the cruelty inflicted upon women in our country. While putting forth their demands, they precisely stress upon the fact that sex workers’ families and children do not have the sense of security that other families generally do.

The RG Kar rape and murder case is not the main reason for the refusal of brothel soil. A sex worker clarified that the important reason for this refusal is due to the lack of acceptance regarding the profession of sex work itself. Further, they also underscore the safety of women to be at stake in every place, not just brothels and how reporting of such cases are very less compared to the actual incidents that take place.

Numerous beliefs are attached to the use of brothel soil for Dussehra. According to Vedic studies, nine women are worshipped for Durga Puja. A nati (dancer/actress), a vaishya (prostitute), rajaki (laundry girl), a brahmani (Brahmin girl), a shudra, a gopala (milkmaid) form these nine categories, also known as ‘Navakańyās.’ The use of brothel soil is considered to be a form of worship or respect to one of these nine categories of women – the Vaishyas.

This Vedic interpretation that bases the tradition on worship and respect flies in the face of reality. Symbolic traditions of reverence hold no value when someone’s reality is filled with struggles. The NHRC survey on rehabilitation, poverty eradication and employment generation revealed the true condition of sex workers in the districts of Kolkata. The report suggested, an obvious fact that majority of the sex workers lived in poverty. The shocking fact is that around 80% of the workers professed sex work unwillingly.

Another prominent belief underlying this tradition is the brothel soil being a place where people shed their virtuous attributes and enter the world of carnal desire and sin. This is a long-ingrained stereotype that has totally led to ostracization of sex workers. The stereotype is premised on the belief that sex work itself is an undignified job and therefore, they do not deserve to lead a life with dignity.

The plight of sex workers, recorded in the NHRC survey mentioned above, reveals an absence of dignity that all of us, common people, assert to be a matter of basic right. The constitution that upholds right to dignity under article 21 – right to life, has practically failed. The provision which begins with the term ‘no person’ implies a sense of dignity for all, and not to a few persons. Yet, discrimination based on stereotypes are the reality of life, a curse that law has failed to cure.

Festivals generally symbolise happiness, love and unity among people. On the flip side, they reflect a dark reality – one where people are celebrated without being accorded the most basic human rights. As Gil Scott-Heron states, The first revolution is when you change your mind.” Sex workers have changed their mind about hypocritic traditional symbols that portray love and reverence only during the time of festivals and not otherwise. The society must not have the benefit of portraying itself as unified and loving when it is not.

Durga Puja – a festival celebrating women, ironically excludes certain women from leading a dignified life like others. A thousand judgements upholding sex workers’ rights would prove to be unfruitful if we as a society recognize do not them as equals with dignity. Laws and verdicts would be useless if the reality presents an entirely different scene. While law certainly is the first step, societal changes that shape mindsets, subsequently make the society a comfortable place for everyone to live!

0 comments 36 views
5 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

By Kokila Bhattacharya

I started writing this is in disbelief, and exhausting rage, which quickly extinguished into helplessness, and permeated as grief and eventually settled down as our default state of being — despair. But despair doesn’t warrant change, so I’m writing to you, in hope. Hope that doesn’t exist in this burning world, but is created, over and over again. And even though I am yet to witness this personally — I want to believe that you, our integrity to change and respond with accountability and our blueprint for the future can sit here together.

If you’re a cis het man and feeling a bit helpless, anguished, angry and even defensive — you’re at the right place.

(TW: persistent mention of sexual violence) (scroll to the end for “the point”)

On Anger and selective rage

Thomas Merton

OURS :

This is not about you. Inside our anger lies a deep sense of betrayal of our boundaries and autonomy from the moment of our birth. It often turns into grief because, despite the continuous injustices we face, no one truly listens. You may trigger or provoke this anger, but it’s not about you personally — it’s about what you have come to represent. Our anger is sacred and generational, growing with each episode of injustice, rooted in our collective experiences and solidarity. We are accustomed to our experiences being invalidated and our anger dismissed as an overreaction. Let my anger, our collective rage, be about that.

YOURS :

If you feel discomfort or defensiveness, it’s an invitation to begin understanding the intensity of what many experience on a daily basis. There is a larger systemic problem that hurts you as well. This write up is obviously propelled by the (outrage at) heinous violence at RG Kar. However, at the risk of meddling in whataboutery, I’d like to examine our collective reactionary bouts. After all, its 22 years since Gujarat, 12 since December 16, 4 since Hathras and not even a second since the last act of violence by a man.

  • When you feel anger about the violence at RG Kar, what exactly are you reacting to? Besides death, what parts of this kind of violence makes it ‘heinous’ ?
  • Are you outraged because the victim shares certain identities with you? How might that shape your response?
  • Would your empathy and sense of justice be the same if the survivor were male, a trans person, or a sex worker? A bahujan homemaker, a muslim farmer; would your anger be just as intense?
  • How did you respond to the news of the dalit minor whose life was taken by sexual violence in the same week? Did it evoke the same level of outrage?
  • Are there any underlying biases or societal influences shaping the strength or direction of your anger?

On the nature of Rape

Rape is a tool — a political one. By defining politics as the exercise of power, rape becomes an instrument of power. It’s rarely driven by sexual desire but often by hatred, which can be cultivated and manipulated. This makes rape a political tool, used in warfare and to settle scores. Like any violent act, understanding the politics of rape requires understanding the politics of violence across caste, communal, economic, and gendered contexts. It is to dehumanize— a blazing statement to anyone taking space, “How dare you?”

It is not merely the lack of consent. If sex is about pleasure, rape is designed to inflict pain.

In a country where nothing and nobody moves until the politician does, why only have this exception about not politicising rape? Asks Rama Lakshmi

I find it pertinent to note that unlike above, the “politicization” of rape is, different, the latter being the conniving exploitation of an issue for political gains, (like we witnessed post Kathua) and choosing some over others as electoral agendas. As stories from Dalitbahujan women, muslim women and wmen from Manipur will tell you, the system has not just failed us but enabled perpetrators over and over. And women’s lives and their bodies have been the unacknowledged casualties of war for too long.

A few examples:

Rape is political | Ashfika Rahman

Patriarchy x Caste

Both are rooted in a shared desire to assert dominance and control, with sexual violence often being used as a deliberate tool to reinforce caste-based oppression. Just as caste determines social status and access to resources, it also dictates who holds power over others, perpetuating a system where violence, including rape, is wielded to maintain and enforce these hierarchical boundaries. Savarna men, at the top of this hierarchy, benefit the most and often operate with impunity.

It’s illuminating that NCRB’s data reveals there was a 45% increase in reported rapes of Dalit women between 2015 and 2020. The increasing incidences of gender-based violence (GBV) against lowered-caste women prove that we fundamentally undermine their social, economic, political, and cultural rights.

Patriarchy x Nationalism ( ≠ patriotism)

When a hyper-masculine country believes it is greater than anything else, nationalism becomes a force that valorizes strength, creates enemies, and shields perpetrators of violence. This belief system, intertwined with the invocation of religion and cultural purity, turns rape into a tool for silencing dissent and asserting control. Much like caste and gender, which are rigidly defined by birth and upheld as a form of superiority, nationalism is often treated as an inherited virtue rather than something earned or truly virtuous. This narrow, inherited blindfold of “nationhood” is celebrated as a mark of superiority, obscuring the humanity of those outside its definition and perpetuating an environment where degradation and misogyny are normalized. Just as ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ became a symbolic and pious deification, this narrative is also where Jyoti’s story was appropriated into “India’s daughter”, reinforcing nationalistic and patriarchal ideals rather than addressing the underlying issues of gender violence.

By Kokila B

Capitalism x Patriarchy

It is no surprise that gendered violence and ecological destruction go hand in hand. Capitalism prioritizes competition, dominance, and the commodification of resources, fosters a culture where power imbalances are normalized and exploitation is justified. This mindset reduces people and their bodies to commodities, fueling a sense of entitlement that contributes to rape culture, where women’s bodies are seen as objects to control rather than autonomous beings deserving of respect. By dehumanizing individuals and prioritizing profit over empathy, capitalism nurtures the conditions in which rape culture thrives, mirroring the exploitation of natural resources with the exploitation of vulnerable populations.

Examples like exploitation and bonded labour in Tamil Nadu’s textile mills and rampant harassment at companies like TCS are just a few byproducts of this production frenzied. Marginalized communities face the greatest risks.

What is Rape Culture?

It is the stinking environment we live and breathe — a culture where sexual violence is normalized and even glamorized. Misogyny isn’t just present but actively perpetuated, feeding into a system of rampant objectification and systemic degradation. This culture is both deliberate and structural.

The hyper-masculine nature of movements like Hindu supremacism mirrors global alt-right trends, where violence disproportionately targets women, especially those from marginalized communities. This toxic masculinity, often intertwined with nationalism, normalizes sexual violence as a tool of power and control. Rape culture thrives in environments where patriarchy and autocracy coexist, making it crucial to understand how these dynamics shape and perpetuate systemic violence against women.

While violence itself isn’t inherently gendered, the vast majority of it is committed by men, and patriarchy benefits from this reality. As a man, be cautious of right-wing narratives, particularly those with religious or mythological undertones. These narratives often confine women to roles where their honor or dignity is at stake, thus allowing men to assert their valor by “protecting” it. This dynamic only reinforces patriarchy and demonizes certain castes. We’re now at a point where a victim’s trauma is turned into a source of illicit pleasure for the public, an even distorted schadenfreude. This phenomenon is part of a troubling trend where violence is sensationalized and even eroticized, underscoring how deeply ingrained and exploitative these cultural dynamics can be. Ultimately, a ‘culture’ shapes behavior.

We don’t need your protection. We need you to be decent human beings.

Rape is Consensual: Inside Haryana’s Rape Culture | Documentary by The Quint | India’s rape culture: the survivors’ stories

On Masculinity

I’m nobody to define what it’s like to be a man. Even on days when I envy your perceived freedom, I wouldn’t trade my compassion for conflict. We’re all at odds with the patriarchy but men* embody it in ways I cannot entirely fathom. Often, it’s difficult to see when aggression has crossed into toxicity, because alpha male tropes are so normalized, especially in far-right narratives. As a country hinging towards the pious hyper-masculinism, we must question at what point religion became the creator of violence.

If gender is learned what can one ask oneself as a man to unlearn toxic masculinity

  • What does it mean to be a man for me?
  • What parts of this answer were actually perpetuated by the society growing up?
  • What parts do I want to inculcate, which parts do I wish to unlearn, for myself?
  • Post the #metoo movement — What has changed for me? Inside me?

Encouraging Healthy Expressions Of Masculinity To Prevent Rape Culture In India

On the idea of Justice

Judicially, there are four ‘theories of punishment’ ;
the deterrent theory which seeks to prevent future crimes by making severe examples of offenders and has had little impact on crime rates, the preventive theory which aims to stop reoffending by imprisoning criminals, but can lead to hardened behavior rather than rehabilitation, the retributive theory focusing on punishing offenders in proportion to their crime (like the death penalty in the Nirbhaya case). the theory of compensation which seeks to financially and morally compensate victims, but can oversimplify the complexities of crime and victim impact and the reformative theory rehabilitates offenders to reintegrate them into society, though it requires significant resources and may not work for all individuals.

Can the justice system, itself an extension of the patriarchal framework even offer solutions beyond this cycle of violence? In a country where rapists aren’t just let free but celebrated, garlanded in pomposity, survivors are dismissed, disbelieved, and left mentally undone, and legal processes remain inaccessible, what does justice truly mean? It is no wonder that 90% of rapes go unreported because the system is meant to re-traumatize. Here retributive justice feels like mere vengeance, running around in the perpetual cycle where violence begets violence.

Mob violence and lynchings mirror this issue under the garb of taking the law into their own hands. Often viewed as a democratic response, is frenzied, unconstitutional, and non-reparative. Its immediacy and spectacle offer a false sense of gratification, frequently reinforcing biases rather than addressing underlying systemic issues. Is this ‘poetic’ justice, or just another form of oppression?

Now, as these systems fail, for survivors of sexual violence, and anyone having witnessed violation of their bodily autonomy, what is justice?

Can justice be about healing, even from the confines of traditional expectations of what this crime is supposed to do to me? Can we decenter rape from its stigmatized and sensationalized position as the ultimate violation against women. To effectively respond, we have to re-imagine justice. It needs to transgress beyond the punitive into restorative. It needs to become survivor led and centered, incorporating lived experiences into the process. It needs to recognize that each survivor’s experience and needs are unique and solutions cannot be straitjacketed. A sense of justice that involves the perpetrator’s accountability and the survivor’s recovery; a justice that isalso embodied, possibly even somatic.

A friend reminded me as I was recovering from a trigger meltdown, “If trauma shames and isolates, then recovery must take place in community”.

One Future Collective has many fantastic resources exploring justice, especially for supporting GBV survivors.

The perfect victim

We’ve all experienced that even in the most supposedly progressive places, women are supposed to become worthy of justice. Solidarity becomes conditional, subject to various `facets of our identities, whereabouts, promiscuity, because ‘respectable’ Indian women do not get raped. So it is of no surprise that atleast 40,000 of us aren’t respectable.

میںسچکہوںگیمگرپھربھیہارجاؤںگی،وہجھوٹبولےگااورلاجوابکردےگا۔

(मैंसचकहूँगीमगरफिरभीहारजाऊँगी, वोझूटबोलेगाऔरलाजवाबकरदेगा)Parveen Shakir

Tropes like ‘Bharat Mata,’ ‘Nirbhaya,’ and ‘Abhaya’, calling us sisters and mothers only reinforce this narrative, catering to those who consume victimhood for sympathy. The ideal victim is portrayed as chaste (either a ‘virgin’ or married), attacked by a stranger, resisting her attacker, and suffering severe injury or death.

Moreover, rape laws are far from gender-neutral. They are not friendly but rather patriarchal, reflecting a system where men’s experiences of coercion are either minimized or dismissed even as pleasure, and where they face threats without adequate protection.

India’s New Criminal Law Offers Little Protection Against Sexual Assault To Men & Trans Men | Kartikeya Bahadur & Sumati Thusoo

To truly move forward and address injustice, acknowledge that rape victims/ survivors are imperfect. They’re human.

The Demonised Rapist

The perils of stereotype do not limit itself to our idea of a rapist just because these are brutal crimes. In fact, by avanlanching the distance between ‘society’ (achha aadmi) and sexual assaulters, we ignore that these perpetrators are not anomalies but products of systemic design. If an assaulter were truly an isolated anomaly, there wouldn’t be over 3,000 searches for the victim’s name on porn sites, like vultures picking at ruins.

Deterrence or reform is unlikely unless we understand where this violence takes root. Such binary views vilify perpetrators and undermine the possibility of achieving justice or taking responsibility.

These may help to understand : Muskan Garg | Rape MindsetPsychology Behind Sexual Violence // Kamala Thiagarajan | In Interviews With 122 Rapists, Student Pursues Not-So-Simple Question: Why?

(More on) Capital Punishment :

Knee jerk reactions like these do not offer solace to the survivor, but absolves us all of collective responsibility and accountability towards both cure and prevention. In its discomfort to face the perpetrator as the mere byproduct of a system, it wants to shove it away as garbage — loin des yeux, loin du cœur (out of sight, out of mind) — and pretend the underlying problem is solved. We will soon find out, as many feminists know, that the stench catches up sooner or later. If we are to really look at a person not devoid of his humanity, we must peer into the society that created him and acknowledge that a person is inseparable from his surroundings.

By Aindriya Barua

To point out the irony, 
if rape is about power & control,
and the death penalty (supposedly) punishes you for 
the ultimate heinous crime,
is it not a perverse reward to a rapist? 
If not, this perspective certainly reinforces the idea that a woman’s worth is tied to her victimization, defined by their suffering rather than their agency, contributions, or rights, which is a tall patriarchal assumption.

To well meaning men around me, including my father, who staunchly believe a rapist should be hanged, I want to ask if they would advocate equivocally given the perpetrator is their brother, cousin, best friend, OR is all our demonizing limited to other (/othering of) men? And are we all ready to receive the punitive damages for creating and nurturing this ever growing macho aggression? Instead of focusing on revenge, we could invest in prevention, support, and systemic change to truly confront the violence at its core.

Let patriarchy be the only casualty.

Sahana Manjesh rightly elucidates here, ‘Why The Death Penalty Is Not A Solution To India’s Rape Problem’

West Bengal’s new ‘Aparajita Woman and Child Bill 2024

A Checklist

In my early teens, a listicle on how not to get raped stayed pinned to my cupboard. It took years for me to see just how regressive it was, but by then the work was done. It drilled into me a relentless hyper-vigilance, a suffocating belief that my safety was solely my responsibility, that if I was attacked or raped, it would be my fault. As women, we carry this list in various forms, etched into our very bones — always on alert, never safe, never calm. Betrayed nevertheless.

Here’s a list for you, of questions you can ask yourself instead.

As a human being

Personally :

  • Have I fully owned and acknowledged my past actions or abusive behaviors, and am I committed to genuine repair?
  • In what ways can I address and repair the harm I’ve caused, both to myself and others?
  • How do I handle my own experiences of being abused, and am I actively working towards healing and not perpetuating the cycle?
  • Am I engaging in actions that contribute to a culture of silence or complicity, and how can I actively oppose these patterns?
  • How do substances like alcohol affect my behavior, and what steps am I taking to ensure I remain accountable?
  • When you witness harassment, do you take action to support the victim or confront the perpetrator, or do you remain passive?

It’s harrowing to reckon with having been abusive in the past, but the only thing worse is never acknowledging it. Even though a bit redundant, here is the Attitudes Towards Women Scale test.

If you are struggling with trauma, Mithra Trust has a freshly baked beautiful resource : A guide to Understanding Trauma

Interpersonally :

As a PartnerI want to unashamedly start by stating that around 30% of violence against women in India is perpetrated by intimate partners. I have personally witnessed it more than once. What does the deplorable legality of marital rape in India reveal how we view ‘partnerships’?

Relationships or kinships are often the first place where childhood wounds get excoriated, both triggered and caused. Pleasure, love, and affection are the body’s ways of understanding safety. By failing to provide our partners with a sense of safety, we are saying that to be violated is a norm rather than an aberration. Cascading betrayals. You and your partner could ask yourselves :

  • Do I understand non verbal cues of a no? Do I take no as a complete answer?
  • Do I understand boundaries and what they look like when drawn?
  • Do I understand the power dynamics in our relationship and how they might influence consent?
  • What steps am I taking to address and heal my own toxic behaviors and patterns?

Why we don’t get consent by Paromita Vohra

( More : How Men Can Help Women Recover from Sexual Violence )

As a Parent

If your child lashes out at you for not protecting them enough, please see it as a sign of possible past harm. They are not necessarily blaming you, they saw you as their protectors. I hope you can take this opportunity, even in retrospect, to let them know you believe them and stand up for them (especially if there’s an abuser in the family)

Most of us did not have that privilege.

Further, as a father, you may ask yourself

  • How am I teaching my children about consent, respect, and healthy boundaries to prevent sexual abuse?
  • How am I, as a model, actively challenging and changing any harmful attitudes or behaviors I might have inherited or witnessed?

Here are helpful resources from Protsahan India Foundation : How to talk to your kids about child sexual abuse and rape .

As Friends / Active listeners / First Personal Responders —

When I’ve shared my experiences of abuse with male friends, their responses — ranging from wanting to react violently, showing disgust, prying for more details, blaming me, or offering superficial apologies — have been unhelpful. I know this is just my experience, but I’ve regretted confiding in them.

  • How can I listen supportively without reacting with disgust or blame?
  • How can I create a safe and empathetic space for survivors to share their experiences?
  • How can I challenge and change harmful attitudes about sexual violence in my circles?
  • Have I already taken the step to unfriend or distance myself from those who are rapists or abusers, given that they have not changed?

If you are a feminist, you will be a perpetual killjoy.

Here are a few questions you can ask yourself if you belong in these spaces

Tech Sector

  • In what ways are you ensuring that your data collection and research practices are equitable and reflective of diverse experiences, especially those of marginalized women?
  • Is your intervention aka product focused on making women’s lives safer through gadgets, or is it addressing the root causes and holding perpetrators accountable by shifting the responsibility from women to those who commit violence?

When our bodies are war zones, pepper sprays aren’t designed to scare away the patriarchy and a safety ‘hack’ is the last thing we need.

The Arts

Art is political — stop pretending it’s not. Women are being molested at mosh pits, by classical gurus, and even by supposedly progressive writers, designers, comedians. Our beliefs must transcend the content we create and become the lives we lead.

Sameera Iyengar says, “It is the role of the arts to ask the hard questions, to understand the world through emotion and experience, to propose other ways of being”. She asks How do we collectively create a world of theatre where women feel safe and respected?

  • Does your work challenge harmful stereotypes and promote respect?
  • Are your actions and public stances aligned with the values you promote in your art?
  • What initiatives are you supporting or leading to create safer environments in Indian art spaces where women and marginalized artists can thrive without fear?

Films as maker and viewer

  • What steps are you taking to create a safe and respectful environment on your sets, and how do you ensure that your films do not glamorize or trivialize violence against women?
  • In what ways do you support and seek out films that offer respectful and nuanced representations of women’s experiences in India?
  • How do you respond to problematic content in popular films — do you challenge it, discuss it, or dismiss it as mere entertainment?

A movement is brewing within the Malayalam & Tamil film industry thanks to the courageous women rising against the rotten system of Kerala. I am looking forward to your amplification of it.

Health Sector

The body stores trauma at a primal level. Aruna Shanbaug, who was failed by the system time and again gave us the gift of escaping this body’s entrapment. Despite her vegetative state, it is documented that Aruna would react violently if she heard a strange male voice.

Gabor Maté, renowned physician, argues alongside Dr. Bessel van der Kolk, an expert on trauma, that “the body keeps the score,” and this storage can manifest as physical symptoms, chronic stress, and various health issues.

  • Are you advocating for trauma-informed care that acknowledges the long-term effects of abuse, or is your focus limited to immediate medical needs?
  • Do your practices and policies address the chronic pain and PTSD that many survivors endure?

Socio-Developmental Sector

  • Are you integrating gender equality into every aspect of your projects, or is feminism treated as a peripheral concern?
  • Are your initiatives designed to drive systemic change rather than offering token gestures?
  • How is your organization ensuring that its Internal Committee (IC) is compliant with the POSH Act, with a diverse and well-trained team capable of handling cases with sensitivity and urgency?
  • Additionally, what specific measures have you put in place following recent amendments to the POSH Act to make sure survivors feel safe and supported when coming forward, especially in cases involving senior or influential members?

Education

  • Are you teaching boys about consent and respect from an early age?
  • Are your educational programs comprehensive and inclusive, or do they fall short of addressing the complexities of gender dynamics?
  • Is your school curriculum periodically audited to ensure that they eliminate the scope of perpetuating prejudice, stereotyping and patriarchy?

Politics

  • What concrete steps are you taking to introduce or support legislation that provides comprehensive support for survivors of sexual violence, especially those from marginalized communities, while also ensuring that politicians accused of such crimes are held accountable?
  • How are you actively advocating for the reform of training and procedures within law enforcement and the judicial system to ensure that cases of sexual violence involving politicians are handled swiftly, impartially, and with a deep understanding of intersectional issues?
  • What initiatives are you leading to promote transparency, accountability, and survivor-centered approaches within the political sphere, particularly in collaboration with civil society organizations, to ensure that all survivors receive the support they need and that accused individuals are held responsible?

Avani Bansal and Kanksshi Agarwal urge us to introspect Charity Begins at Home: Political Parties Must Lead the Way to Make Working Spaces Safe for Women

Workplace

  • How are you implementing evidence-based strategies to create a safer and more inclusive workplace while actively challenging harmful informal conversations among peers that perpetuate a toxic culture?
  • How are you using research on gender dynamics and power imbalances to disrupt behaviors that silence women’s voices, and how are you standing with women who speak out against harassment in your organization?
  • What steps are you taking, both professionally and personally, to ensure that anti-harassment policies are rigorously enforced and supported by a culture of accountability and respect for all voices?

Sports

  • When confronted with the pervasive culture of power in sports federations, how are you actively challenging those who use their influence to protect abusers?
  • What actions have you taken to ensure that women athletes in your care feel safe and supported, even when speaking out against powerful figures?

Social Media

Our indulgence at the salacious details of the victim’s injuries caused brings us to question where rape culture ends and distorted consumption begins.

  • How does your advocacy against sexual violence on social media align with your behavior in private conversations and relationships?
  • When you encounter content that trivializes or sensationalizes sexual violence, how do you actively challenge it, both online and in your personal interactions?
  • How do you navigate engaging with the work of individuals accused of abuse, and what actions do you take to address cyber sexual bullying or misogyny, ensuring you’re not leaving the labor to others?

Media

An extension of this is the fact that in this culture, to be socially obtrusive, an incident of rape needs to provide some rasa to the ‘consumer’bībhatsa, bhayānaka or karuna, to be consumed and derived the respective values from. These emotions are not just organic reactions but are rather deliberately cultivated to create a consumable narrative that caters to a voyeuristic audience.” write Sagrika Rajora and Aditya Krishna.

  • How often do you critically evaluate the impact of the stories you choose to cover, ensuring they do not perpetuate harmful stereotypes or sensationalize sexual violence for shock value?
  • Are you demanding better representation and respectful portrayals of women, rather than allowing harmful stereotypes to persist?
  • In what ways are you actively challenging and transforming existing narratives within media to promote respectful and sensitive representation of survivors of sexual violence?
  • Are you supporting feminist grassroot media outlets that fosters positive and respectful narratives?

Law

  • Are you actively ensuring that your legal practice is sensitive to the needs of survivors and inclusive of LGBTQIA+ individuals?
  • How are you confronting and changing the systemic misogyny and indifference present in legal procedures?
  • What immediate actions are you taking to advocate for gender-neutral rape laws? How are you applying insights on dismantling rape culture to drive meaningful change in legal protections and support equitable reforms?

Creation of Alternate Systems

Every act of violence is an opportunity for us to recreate the systems we operate in. When we are fraught from fighting systems, dismantling hierarchies and and the dust of the ruins envelope us (an everyday gathering), what do we make?

What kind of culture do we want to embody, instead? What can our children learn here of freedom and what would it take for us to live through ecologies that are casteless, egalitarian, equitable, inclusive, compassionate? How can we enable each other to become ourselves in our wholeness? Can we relearn the craft of repair and healing, mending and fostering healthy, sustainable relationships with ourselves, each other and the system?

As Nora Samaran writes,

“violence is nurturance turned backwards.”

In its place, she proposes “nurturance culture” as the opposite of rape culture, suggesting that models of care and accountability — different from “call-outs” rooted in the politics of guilt — can move toward dismantling systems of dominance and oppression.

For everyone catharsis means a different ideal. To forge a future rooted in justice, we must begin to actively dismantle hierarchies that perpetuate caste, class, and gender oppression now. This means creating systems that prioritize the dignity and liberation of the most marginalized, ensuring our structures support genuine social justice. We must decentralize power, with relationships and governance built on cooperation, mutual aid, and accountability.

May our focus be on fostering environments where respect, compassion, and connection are central. By repairing broken ties to ourselves, each other, and the Earth, we can build communities that truly value and support everyone. In doing so, we lay the groundwork for a future where justice and care are the driving forces in our collective lives.

I don’t know if I believe in the future carrying catharsis or healing for us. But I hope you do.

First Published Here: https://medium.com/@KokilaB/so-what-can-men-do-ffe8917c9154

0 comments 36 views
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

By Kanksshi Agarwal & Avani Bansal

(First published by The Wire: https://thewire.in/politics/charity-begins-at-home-political-parties-must-lead-the-way-to-make-working-spaces-safe-for-women)

The mind-numbing story of the brutal rape and murder of a young doctor at RG Kar Hospital in Kolkata has left us all aghast! Colloquially being called Nirbhaya 2.0, people, especially women, hitting the streets at midnight under ‘Reclaim the Night’, is all but a sombre reminder of history repeating itself.

While the leader of every political party has expressed disgust and condemned the incident, the question is – will anything change for women’s safety or just a couple of protests before everything returns to business as usual?

It was heartening to see that across party lines, political leaders expressed the need to see the guilty punished but we also saw calls for not ‘politicising’ the issue.

Mamata Banerjee is reported to have said: “I want to tell these political parties – don’t try to politicise the incident just for a few likes on social media and media footage.”

Sagarika Ghose said, “As the mother of a doctor I am appalled and shocked at the heinous ghastly crime at RG Kar hospital over which there should be NO politics…”

“I would like to express my pain once again, from the Red Fort today. As a society, we will have to think seriously about the atrocities against women that are happening – there is outrage against this in the country. I can feel this outrage. The country, society, and state governments will have to take this seriously,” Prime Minister Narendra Mod said from the Red Fort on Independence Day.

Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition, also took to X (formerly, Twitter) to express his deep shock at the Kolkata incident and expressed that women and the doctor community are feeling unsafe. He also suggested that from Hathras to Unnao, and from Kathua to Kolkata, there is a rising number of incidents of violence against women and every sector of the society needs to discuss and take concrete steps towards addressing this.

So if all top political leaders are aligned on the need to address women’s safety – will they take the necessary steps, voluntarily, to address women’s safety in political parties?

In the wake of the Kolkata ghastly rape, the real question is – will the political parties in India take it upon themselves to implement PoSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace, 2013) within political parties? After all, no one would argue that the safety of women is also much needed in political spaces, as well as in informal sectors.

A 2014 United Nations study, Violence Against Women In Politics highlighted the violent nature of politics in the subcontinent, during and after elections. Such violence, combined with a lack of implementation of protective laws dissuades women from joining the political arena.

As per a study published in Livemint (30/04/2014): Physical abuse suffered by women politicians in India is 45% as against 30% in Pakistan and 21% in Nepal. Verbal abuse suffered by women politicians in India is 49% as against 23% in Pakistan and 31% in Nepal.

The Centre for Social Research with the UN published a report on violence against women in politics in 2014: “Nearly 50% respondents said they faced verbal abuse and 45% said physical violence and threats were common, particularly true during election campaigns. 67% of women politicians said perpetrators were male contestants and 58% party colleagues. Violence and harassment at the hands of colleagues is a reason why we see only women from political families in politics.”

The UN General Assembly resolution 2018 (73/148): “Encourages national legislative authorities and political parties, as appropriate, to adopt codes of conduct and reporting mechanisms, or revise existing ones, stating zero tolerance by these legislative authorities and political parties for sexual harassment, intimidation and any other form of violence against women in politics.”

It is in accordance with this that the European Union passed Resolution No. 459, 2020 against violence against women in politics at the local and regional levels. Bolivia became the first Latin American country to criminalise violence against women in politics through Law No. 243 in 2012. Kenya, which has the highest representation of women in their parliament, thanks to reservation, has gone a step further and set up a Political Parties Disputes Tribunal, under the Political Parties Act 201. The UK Equality Act 2010 includes political parties. Peru, Mexico, and Costa Rica have bills pending in their parliaments to deal with violence against women in politics.

So why are the Indian political parties resting at “expressing deep concern and dismay” without actually taking steps to demonstrate their intention in real action? After all, no political party can be singled out, where the women haven’t raised serious questions regarding their male colleagues.

In the Kerala high court in Women in Cinema Collective v. State of Kerala (2018), the issue of bringing political parties within the ambit of the 2013 Act was raised but the high court did not deal with the matter at any length and did not consider whether members of a political party can be said to be in an employer-employee relationship, especially for members who may be employed by the party or even for those who work with a party on a voluntary basis.

But if all political parties are seriously enraged at the Kolkata incident, why not take voluntary steps to redress the situation, at least that which squarely falls within their own power by setting up voluntary mechanisms to address sexual harassment complaints?

After the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka, the Government of India enacted the PoSH law (Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace, 2013), but with its implementation left entirely to district magistrates with no accountability measures in place, implies that it remains largely on paper.

For instance, under PoSH any workplace, private or public, which employs more than ten people is required to set up an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) for addressing complaints pertaining to sexual harassment by the employees. Even if the employees are working on a voluntary basis, or if the work-related meeting takes place at someone’s home, any incident of sexual harassment is covered within the ambit of the Act. All employers are also required to conduct mandatory training under the PoSH Act to sensitise all its workers towards the norms and the law under PoSH.

But why do politicians get away with making rules for others, while conveniently avoiding implementing them on themselves? Charity, as they say, begins at home!

This incident requires true inner reflection beyond everyday politics. It’s a call to all the conscious keepers in India, and all politicians who do truly espouse women’s cause in politics beyond lip service, to do more than ‘everyday politics’ in an ‘everyday way’. They need to do ‘visionary, nay revolutionary politics in revolutionary way’. It begins with voluntary steps, of doing what they very well can within their own control, of ensuring equal women representation at all levels, of giving women more than just symbolic space in politics, of making political spaces safe for women.

It can begin with all political parties voluntarily setting up an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). If the argument is that it can be potentially abused, we have to be mindful that the law that applies to all corporates in the country, to all other workplaces, can also be resisted on the same logic. In fact, allowing for ICC means that women raising complaints will be subject to scrutiny by senior women leaders in the party and will be acted upon if found right. But establishing no mechanism for women to address it is akin to turning a blind eye or pushing women’s safety under the carpet.

True homage and justice to the young doctor will be coming forward from some politicians and setting up ICC within their own political parties, and then also setting up committees to explore systemic efforts needed across sectors to ensure the safety of women in India. Any visionary takers?

0 comments 25 views
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

ग्राउंड रिपोर्ट, कशिश सिंह, संपादक (The Womb)
लेखन, राजेश सिंह

यूपी के फर्रुखाबाद में दो दलित लड़कियों के शव पेड़ पर लटके मिलने की घटना ने एक बार फिर पूरे देश में डर का माहोल पैदा कर दिया है। कोलकाता में ट्रेनी डॉक्टर के साथ हुए दुष्कर्म की घटना पर पूरे देश में आक्रोश का माहौल अभी शांत ही नही हुआ कि यूपी से एक ओर दिल दहला देने वाला मामला सामने आया है। बीते 26 अगस्त की शाम को दो सहेलियां जिनकी उम्र 15 वर्ष और 18 वर्ष थी, पूरे उत्साह से जन्माष्टमी का कार्यक्रम देखने मंदिर गई परंतु फिर वापिस अपने घर नहीं लौट पाई।

परिजनों से मिली जानकारी के अनुसार, उस रात को बारिश होने लगी थी इसलिए उन्होंने सोचा कि बेटियां बारिश रुकने के बाद घर लौट आएंगी परंतु जब देर रात तक दोनों बेटियां घर नही पहुंची तो उन्होंने खोजबीन शुरू की। मंदिर में जाने पर पता चला बेटियां वहां नहीं थी इसके बाद आस पड़ोस में अपने संबंधियों के यहां पता किया परंतु बेटियों की कोई जानकारी वहां भी नही मिली। सारी रात परिवार वाले बेटियों को ढूढने की असफल कोशिश करते रहे। सुबह पड़ोस की एक महिला ने गांव में सूचना दी कि दूर खेतों में आम के बगीचों में कोई टंगा हुआ है।
जानकारी मिलते ही परिवार ने वहां जाकर देखा तो पाया कि आम के पेड़ों पर लटके दोनों शव उनकी बेटियों के हैं।

पुलिस मौके पर पहुंची और शवों को बरामद कर सीधा पोस्टमार्टम के लिए हस्पताल ले गई, परिवारजनों को अपनी बेटियों के शवों को छूने तक नही दिया। पुलिस अधिकारी इस वारदात को प्रथमदृष्टिय आत्महत्या करने की घटना की आशंका जता रहे हैं। परंतु परिवारजनों का मानना है की लड़कियों के साथ दुष्कर्म करके उनकी हत्या की गई है। क्योंकि पोस्टमार्टम के बाद जब दोनों बच्चियों के शवों को घर लाया गया और महिलाओं ने जब बेटियों की अंतिम यात्रा के लिए उनके कपड़े बदले तो उन्होंने पाया कि बेटियों के शरीर पर नाखूनों के निशान है, एक बेटी की पीठ पर डंडे से प्रहार किया हुआ है, दूसरी बेटी की पीठ पर बेल्ट का निशान है, बालों में कांटे फसे हुए हैं और प्राइवेट पार्ट पर टांको के निशान है। जब महिलाओं ने ये बात बाहर पुरुषो को बताई तो उन्होंने पुलिस से पोस्टमार्टम रिपोर्ट मांगी, परंतु पुलिस ने रिपोर्ट नहीं दी और कहा कि पोस्टमार्टम रिपोर्ट में आत्महत्या का जिक्र है।

इसके बाद पुलिस ने परिवारजनों पर दबाव बनाया कि शवों का अंतिम संस्कार जल्दी से जल्दी किया जाए। परिजन पुलिस की राय से सहमत नहीं थे, परंतु पुलिस ने परिवार के विरुद्ध जाकर उनकी मर्जी के बिना ही शवों को उठाया और 12- 13 किलोमीटर दूर ले जाकर किसी घाट पर उनका अंतिम संस्कार कर दिया। इसमें बेटियों के परिवार के किसी सदस्य को साथ भी नही ले जाया गया। इससे ये शक और गहरा होता है कि फर्रुखाबाद की घटना को भी हाथरस की तरह प्रशासन द्वारा लीपापोती कर इसको आत्महत्या का मामला साबित किए जाने का प्रयास जोरो पर किया जा रहा है। इसके अलावा यह घटना और भी अनेकों प्रश्न खड़े करती है- क्या कारण है कि पुलिस ने अभी तक पोस्टमार्टम रिपोर्ट परिवार को नहीं दी? पुलिस ने इतना जल्दबाजी में अंतिम संस्कार क्यों कर दिया? पुलिस इस मामले को आत्महत्या सिद्ध करने का प्रयास क्यों कर रही है?

इस घटना से बीते वर्ष हाथरस में हुई वारदात का दृश्य तरोताजा हो जाता है, जहां एक दलित बेटी का गैंगरेप करके, उसकी जीभ काट दी गई और रीढ़ की हड्डी तोड़ दी गई परंतु पुलिस आरोपियों को बचाने में लगी रही और बेटी की मौत के बाद परिजनों की अनुपस्थिति और बिना अनुमति के पुलिस ने अफरा तफरी में रात को ही बेटी का संस्कार कर दिया। एक और ऐसी ही घटना आज से 10 वर्ष पूर्व उत्तरप्रदेश के बदायूं में हुई थी, जहां दो चचेरी बहनों का गैंगरेप करके उनकी हत्या कर दी गई और उनके शवों को पेड़ों पर टांग दिया था। महिलाओ के साथ यौन हिंसा की घटनाओं का दिनों दिन आम हो जाना यूपी के मुख्यमंत्री योगी आदित्यनाथ के दोहरे मापदंडों को दर्शाता है। एक तरफ मुख्यमंत्री कहते हैं कि उनके प्रदेश में कानून का राज है। वहीं बेटियों की ऐसे हत्या हो जाने पर प्रशासन द्वारा आरोपियों को बचाने का काम करना प्रदेश में जंगल राज की और इशारा करता है।

0 comments 36 views
18 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

By Lauren Prem

Rape and murder, considered brutal crimes, almost always evoke huge public outrage. Such is the recent case of a man, named Sanjay Roy, who is alleged to have committed rape and murder of a 31-year-old doctor, whose body was found on 9th August 2024, at the seminar room of R G Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. This horrendous incident has infuriated the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and so many doctors, across the state and other parts of India, leading them to protest regarding speedy imposition of punishment on those responsible for the said crimes.

Colloquially called the Nirbhaya 2.0, this incident has stunned the entire nation that was heading towards the goal of safety and equality. According to the autopsy report, the woman’s private parts were covered in blood, injury marks were present on her body and her neck was broken. This dismay strikes at the very core of a woman’s right to dignity and bodily autonomy under article 21 of the Constitution. The basic rights envisioned by the drafters of our Constitution, has repeatedly, proven to be at jeopardy due to the violence against women that happens in our country at an enormous rate.

This incident is devastating in the sense that it reinforces the safety issues faced by women at workplaces. An insecure working environment is not only a threat to the current women workforce, rather it prevents women, especially from rural areas, from entering the job sector. Indirectly, progress and independence of women is at stake, consequently obstructing the vision of equality that our Constitution envisages.

Apart from equality, sexual assault cases followed by horrific crimes like murder, indirectly prevent women from accessing other fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Instillment of fears regarding one’s safety obstructs the right to free movement enshrined in article 19(1)(d) of our Constitution. With regard to the case at hand, article 41 under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), is relevant as it places an obligation on the state to secure right to work. A safe working environment can reasonably be interpreted to fall within the scope of this article. Remotely, women are obstructed from freely exercising their right to work due to the horrific message that such incidents communicate to the women in the society.

Other than impacting the career development of women, deep-seated stereotypes aggravate the trauma faced by women as a result of being victim to these crimes. Usually, women are considered to be at fault in rape and sexual assault cases. Victim-blaming is a very common term used in this context to denote the society’s denigrating attitude towards women – who are often accused of inviting the interest of sexual offenders through their clothing or actions. In this particular case, the principal of the College, Dr. Sandip Ghosh, was forced to step down after allegations of victim-blaming as he questioned why the woman was sleeping in the seminar room, rather than dealing with the main issue of safety and security.

According to the Kolkata police, the accused has confessed to the crime and the police had found a pornographic video on his phone. This particular digital record has direct relevance to the case at hand, owing to the detrimental effects of porn on an individual’s state of mind. While the Supreme Court considers access to pornography to be a part of one’s right to personal liberty under article 21, implementation of safety measures for women must be properly put in place. If not, this right would prove to be against the larger societal interests that are as, if not more, crucial as the right to personal liberty.

Public outcry, like in this case, is an expression of frustration towards the gender-based issues happening in our society, wherein the fault is completely perceived to be on the perpetrator rather than the victim. In this way, public outcry changes societal perceptions that is largely rooted in patriarchy, or male superiority. The change here represents a shift towards regarding fundamental rights as ultimate and a shift away from lingering stereotypes – those that form excuses for violence by placing the blame on women.

0 comments 32 views
10 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

By Srishti Sarraf 

On 31st October 2022, in its recent judgement titled The State of Jharkhand versus Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Raidated (Criminal Appeal No 1441 of 2022), a division bench of the hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of hon’ble Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli has equivocally pointed out that “whether a woman is “habituated to sexual intercourse” or “habitual to sexual  intercourse” is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC are present in a particular case.”  The Hon’ble Bench further objected to the insensitive and unscientific practice of conducting a “two-finger test” and declared that “any person who conducts the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination while examining a person alleged to have been subjected to a sexual assault shall be guilty of misconduct.” The Hon’ble justices went on to observe that “this so-called test has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted, and is an affront to their dignity…….. The so-called test is based on the incorrect assumption that a sexually active woman cannot be raped.  Nothing could be further from the truth – a woman’s sexual history is wholly immaterial while adjudicating whether the accused raped her. Further, the probative value of a woman’s testimony does not depend upon her sexual history.”

Notably, this view came as a parting remark in the case wherein the deceased, a rape victim, in her ‘fardbeyan’ alleged that on the afternoon of the fateful day the accused “pushed her to the ground and committed rape upon her while threatening to kill her if she sounded an alarm. She called out for help, at which point the respondent allegedly poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with a matchstick. Her cries for help led her grandfather, mother, and a resident of the village to come to her room. The respondent is alleged to have fled the scene upon seeing them.” She was immediately rushed to the hospital where she was admitted and underwent treatment for the injuries sustained by her. Unfortunately, she lost the battle against life after about a month and as per the post-mortem report death was caused by septicaemia, which was a result of the deep burn injuries sustained by her. Meanwhile, the case was lodged against the accused based on her ‘fardbeyan’ and upon the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was submitted for offences under Sections 307, 341, 376 and 448 of the IPC. Notably, a supplementary charge sheet was also submitted regarding Section 302 of the IPC post the death of the victim. 

In the course of the investigation, a Medical Board was constituted to examine the victim when she was undergoing treatment for her injuries. The Medical Board believed that “the deceased was about 16 years of age, and the possibility of intercourse could not be ruled out although no definite opinion could be given in this regard.” However, in the report, it was stated that “a vaginal examination revealed that two fingers were admitted easily.” On this point, the Medical Officer in her cross-examination further stated that “the deceased may have engaged in intercourse prior to the date of the alleged crime, and that the admission of two fingers in her vagina meant that she was habituated to sexual intercourse.” 

It was against this background that the Hon’ble Division Bench demurred the patriarchal and sexist suggestion that a woman cannot be believed when she states that she was raped, merely for the reason that she is a sexually active and laid emphasis on the radical change which was brought by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 which inter alia also amended the Evidence Act to insert Section 53A highlighting that “in terms of Section 53A of the Evidence Act, evidence of a victim’s character or her previous sexual experience with any person shall not be relevant to the issue of consent or the quality of consent, in prosecutions of sexual offences.”  

To substantiate the arguments against the archaic and outdated “two-finger test” the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 2013 titled Lillu v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 643 was quoted wherein the “two-finger test” was held to be violative of the right to privacy, integrity, and dignity of the rape survivors. In that particular case, the victim was a student of 6th standard who was found the age 13 years 9 months and 2 days old on the date of the incident thus the court outrightly held that the question as to whether she had been habitual to sexual activities or not, is immaterial to determine the issue of consent and further for “two-finger test” observed that:

                 “13. … rape survivors are entitled to legal recourse that does not re-traumatise them or violate their physical or mental integrity and dignity. They are also entitled to medical procedures conducted in a manner that respects their right to consent. Medical procedures should not be carried out in a manner that constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and health should be of paramount consideration while dealing with gender-based violence. The State is under an obligation to make such services available to survivors of sexual violence. Proper measures should be taken to ensure their safety and there should be no arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy. 

                   14. Thus, in view of the above, undoubtedly, the two-finger test and its interpretation violate the right of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.”

Attention was even drawn to the guidelines directed towards the health providers in cases of sexual violence so issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which proscribe the application of the “two-finger test” and states as follows:

                   “Per-Vaginum examination commonly referred to by laypersons as ‘two-finger test’, must not be conducted for establishing rape/sexual violence and the size of the vaginal introitus has no bearing on a case of sexual violence. Per vaginum examination can be done only in adult women when medically indicated.  

                     The status of a hymen is irrelevant because the hymen can be torn due to several reasons such as cycling, riding or masturbation among other things. An intact hymen does not rule out sexual violence, and a torn hymen does not prove previous sexual intercourse. Hymen should therefore be treated like any other part of the genitals while documenting examination findings in cases of sexual violence. Only those that are relevant to the episode of assault (findings such as fresh tears, bleeding, edema etc.) are to be documented.”

Finally, regretting the continued practice of the “two-finger test” the Hon’ble Justices have used the case in hand to set a strong and progressive precedence directing the Union Government as well as the State Governments to do as follows:

a. Ensure that the guidelines formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are circulated to all government and private hospitals; 

 b. Conduct workshops for health providers to communicate the appropriate procedure to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape; and 

c. Review the curriculum in medical schools to ensure that the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination is not prescribed as one of the procedures to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape.”

Besides, it was held that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and its officers were responsible for ensuring the implementation of the directions issued. 

0 comments 26 views
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

By Srishti Sarraf 

On 31st October 2022, in its recent judgement titled The State of Jharkhand versus Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Raidated (Criminal Appeal No 1441 of 2022), a division bench of the hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of hon’ble Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli has equivocally pointed out that “whether a woman is “habituated to sexual intercourse” or “habitual to sexual  intercourse” is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC are present in a particular case.”  The Hon’ble Bench further objected to the insensitive and unscientific practice of conducting a “two-finger test” and declared that “any person who conducts the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination while examining a person alleged to have been subjected to a sexual assault shall be guilty of misconduct.” The Hon’ble justices went on to observe that “this so-called test has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted, and is an affront to their dignity…….. The so-called test is based on the incorrect assumption that a sexually active woman cannot be raped.  Nothing could be further from the truth – a woman’s sexual history is wholly immaterial while adjudicating whether the accused raped her. Further, the probative value of a woman’s testimony does not depend upon her sexual history.”

Notably, this view came as a parting remark in the case wherein the deceased, a rape victim, in her ‘fardbeyan’ alleged that on the afternoon of the fateful day the accused “pushed her to the ground and committed rape upon her while threatening to kill her if she sounded an alarm. She called out for help, at which point the respondent allegedly poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with a matchstick. Her cries for help led her grandfather, mother, and a resident of the village to come to her room. The respondent is alleged to have fled the scene upon seeing them.” She was immediately rushed to the hospital where she was admitted and underwent treatment for the injuries sustained by her. Unfortunately, she lost the battle against life after about a month and as per the post-mortem report death was caused by septicaemia, which was a result of the deep burn injuries sustained by her. Meanwhile, the case was lodged against the accused based on her ‘fardbeyan’ and upon the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was submitted for offences under Sections 307, 341, 376 and 448 of the IPC. Notably, a supplementary charge sheet was also submitted regarding Section 302 of the IPC post the death of the victim. 

In the course of the investigation, a Medical Board was constituted to examine the victim when she was undergoing treatment for her injuries. The Medical Board believed that “the deceased was about 16 years of age, and the possibility of intercourse could not be ruled out although no definite opinion could be given in this regard.” However, in the report, it was stated that “a vaginal examination revealed that two fingers were admitted easily.” On this point, the Medical Officer in her cross-examination further stated that “the deceased may have engaged in intercourse prior to the date of the alleged crime, and that the admission of two fingers in her vagina meant that she was habituated to sexual intercourse.” 

It was against this background that the Hon’ble Division Bench demurred the patriarchal and sexist suggestion that a woman cannot be believed when she states that she was raped, merely for the reason that she is a sexually active and laid emphasis on the radical change which was brought by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 which inter alia also amended the Evidence Act to insert Section 53A highlighting that “in terms of Section 53A of the Evidence Act, evidence of a victim’s character or her previous sexual experience with any person shall not be relevant to the issue of consent or the quality of consent, in prosecutions of sexual offences.”  

To substantiate the arguments against the archaic and outdated “two-finger test” the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 2013 titled Lillu v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 643 was quoted wherein the “two-finger test” was held to be violative of the right to privacy, integrity, and dignity of the rape survivors. In that particular case, the victim was a student of 6th standard who was found the age 13 years 9 months and 2 days old on the date of the incident thus the court outrightly held that the question as to whether she had been habitual to sexual activities or not, is immaterial to determine the issue of consent and further for “two-finger test” observed that:

                 “13. … rape survivors are entitled to legal recourse that does not re-traumatise them or violate their physical or mental integrity and dignity. They are also entitled to medical procedures conducted in a manner that respects their right to consent. Medical procedures should not be carried out in a manner that constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and health should be of paramount consideration while dealing with gender-based violence. The State is under an obligation to make such services available to survivors of sexual violence. Proper measures should be taken to ensure their safety and there should be no arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy. 

                   14. Thus, in view of the above, undoubtedly, the two-finger test and its interpretation violate the right of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.”

Attention was even drawn to the guidelines directed towards the health providers in cases of sexual violence so issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which proscribe the application of the “two-finger test” and states as follows:

                   “Per-Vaginum examination commonly referred to by laypersons as ‘two-finger test’, must not be conducted for establishing rape/sexual violence and the size of the vaginal introitus has no bearing on a case of sexual violence. Per vaginum examination can be done only in adult women when medically indicated.  

                     The status of a hymen is irrelevant because the hymen can be torn due to several reasons such as cycling, riding or masturbation among other things. An intact hymen does not rule out sexual violence, and a torn hymen does not prove previous sexual intercourse. Hymen should therefore be treated like any other part of the genitals while documenting examination findings in cases of sexual violence. Only those that are relevant to the episode of assault (findings such as fresh tears, bleeding, edema etc.) are to be documented.”

Finally, regretting the continued practice of the “two-finger test” the Hon’ble Justices have used the case in hand to set a strong and progressive precedence directing the Union Government as well as the State Governments to do as follows:

a. Ensure that the guidelines formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are circulated to all government and private hospitals; 

 b. Conduct workshops for health providers to communicate the appropriate procedure to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape; and 

c. Review the curriculum in medical schools to ensure that the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination is not prescribed as one of the procedures to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape.”

Besides, it was held that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and its officers were responsible for ensuring the implementation of the directions issued. 

0 comments 18 views
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

By Meenu Padha (Advocate and Women and Child Rights Activist)  and Lavanya Bhatt (Third-year law student at DME Law School, GGSIPU)

As practitioners/students of law and justice, we are all well aware of Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Even those who are from the non-legal areas of society are aware of the term “sexual harassment”.  The basic definition of sexual harassment comes from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.” 

It makes us both sad and angry at the insensitive approach of the bench of the Hon’ble Kozhikode Sessions Court towards such sensitive issues. The Session Court order passed by Judge S Krishna Kumar held that to draw in the offense under Section 354A, there should be some sort of unwanted sexual gesture. However, in the present case, the photos of the complainant showed her “exposing herself in provocative dresses”. “In order to attract this Section, there must be a physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. There must be a demand or request for sexual favours. There must be sexually colored remarks. The photographs produced along with the bail application by the accused would reveal that defacto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one (sic). So Section 354A will not prima facie stand against the accused,” were the exact words of the Bench. 

The learned counsel for the victim alleged that Chandran made sexual gestures toward the de facto complainant, who is a young female writer, and attempted to outrage her modesty in a camp meeting at Nandi beach in the Kozhikode locale in February 2020. The Koyilandi police registered the case and charged the offenses under Sections 354A(2) (Sexual Harassment and Punishment), 341(Punishment for Wrongful Restraint), and 354 (Assault of criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code. 

This wasn’t the first case where the 74-year old accused was granted bail. Earlier, on August 2, he had obtained anticipatory bail in another sexual harassment case filed against him. The court likewise observed that the dissident is old and physically debilitated and he could never have constrained himself upon the lady. Referring to Section 354, the court additionally observed that it is exceptionally certain that there should be an intention on the part of the accused to outrage the modesty of a woman: “While granting bail to Chandran, the court also expressed disbelief that the 74-year-old physically disabled accused, Chandran, could forcefully put the de facto complainant in his lap and press her breasts.” 

The citizens of India, from all genders, have raised their voices, expressing their anger and disappointment with the court for giving out such a judgement. Everyone has the same question for the Bench- “What is a sexually provocative dress?” Time after time, women have to face these atrocities. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution provides the right to each and every citizen to express themselves in whatever way they want. But, after such incidents, all these “Freedoms” seem to be gender-based. Confining women’s freedom and versatility won’t diminish the crimes against them. It will only minimize women further, slant the overall influence further towards men, and debilitate society. Would the victim have anywhere to turn to obtain justice if the courts, which we as citizens consider to be our source of justice, made such biased statements? It has been said numerous times, and we feel the need to say it again- If women’s dressing was the reason, no infant in diaper, no senior-citizen in saree, no un-married girl in a kurta-salwar or a lady in a burqa would have been assaulted. The problem lies solely in the eyes and actions of those people who objectify women and see them as a sexual-being only. In addition, somewhere down all these years, it can be observed that the judgements by some courts and the imprecise laws related to offences against women have also resulted in the increase of these crimes against women. However, as pleasantly as these opinions are phrased, they are regressive. It endeavors to fault women for the sexual assaults against them and to expect that women adjust to a way of life that makes them protected in a male-ruled society. Such retrogressive advances have never worked, and won’t work in the future.

0 comments 24 views
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

By Adv. Avani Bansal

Nothing that is ‘imposed’, survives for too long. Marriage as an institution continues to exist, around the world, because a large majority of people ‘choose’ to opt for it. But it is also true that world over, many people are now questioning the institution of marriage and opting instead to remain life-long companions without the shackles or protection of the law.

In India, while many young men and women are choosing to get married late in their lives and some opting for live-in relationships as well, there is still a large majority of boys and girls, whose families do not leave them with an effective choice as regards marriage. The law steps in aiding this choice by providing an entire ecosystem – a web of laws to ensure protection of the rights of married partners, especially for women.

But the exception for ‘marital rape’ as per Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 creates a logical bind – it excludes non-consensual sexual intercourse between married partners from the definition of rape. The recent split verdict from a division bench of the Delhi High Court in the RIT Foundation v. Union of India case, has once again brought to light an age old debate in India as regards the role of consent and the recognition of the agency of women in marriage. It throws open a bigger question – does allowing for marital rape actually protect the institution of marriage or does it harm it?

While Justice Rajiv Shakdher held that the marital rape exception under Section 375 IPC is violative of Article 14, 15, 19 (1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution and should be struck down; Justice Hari Shankar dissented with him and held that non-consensual sex within marriage cannot be termed as rape.

The fear writ large in Justice Hari Shankar’s legal view that – ‘if non-consensual sex by a husband is classified as ‘rape’, it will affect the very institution of marriage’, needs cross examination. The legal opinion of judges expressed in lengthy judgments need to be deconstructed to see what part of their thinking is visible on the face of it, but what is the underlying fear that a judge may or may not spell, but shapes his thinking on a particular issue – like the hidden part of an iceberg.

This line of reasoning that – marriages are so sacred, that when two people decide to get married, they somehow are signing for a lifetime of sex, and that spouses need not obtain consent, every single time, they are about to engage in a sexual act, is fraught with challenges.

First, it is important to see the role of law in the institution of marriage for what it is i.e. a web of protection for facilitating entry and exit into the institution. Law cannot by itself grant ‘marriage’ some holy veil, that the concept of marriage itself does not have. By allowing for violence in any shape or form, within marriage, by the instrument of law, amounts to over-interference by the law in an institution.

Secondly, the institution of marriage , especially as viewed in India, is a mix of a sacrament and a contract. In India, while there are different personal laws governing marriage, the dominant cultural view is that marriage is not a pure contract. Nor is it an institution to satisfy one’s lust. It is seen as a spiritual union of two people. Therefore allowing for non-consensual and forced sex within marriage tantamounts to eroding away at the very foundation of this spiritual union/institution. So the logic offered by Justice Hari Shankar, that criminalising marital rape will somehow protect the institution of marriage, stands falsified by his own logic. If marriage is a sacred institution – there cannot be any space for violence in it. If you allow for marital rape to be legal – than marriage cannot be held as a sacred institution.

Thirdly, marriage requires two adults who are equal partners. Allowing any room for non-consensual sex, takes away the agency of the woman within the relationship. To think that the husband can impose himself on his own wife, suggests that somehow the wife is less of a woman, less than the whole, than she was before marriage. Such a view of marriage is more likely to dent how the coming generations view marriage. Also, law cannot give or take away any agency from both the partners, even in the name of marriage. Laws are meant to step in when one partner in any way, violates the agency of another partner – not to automatically erode away the agency of the wife, as soon as she decides to get married.


Fourthly, we really need to have an open conversation about how do we view ‘sex’ as a society. Will our laws protect non-consensual sex in any case/situation? Should they? Sex has to be based on the mutual consent of two adults – marriage or no marriage. Marriage is neither for sex nor equivalent to it. Marriage is a promise to take care of the well-being of each other, to be there for each other in thick and thin. How does this even sound logical – “you married me, so you got to have sex with me, every time, I want it, whether or not you want it.” This logic is contrary to everything that’s sacred about marriage.

Fifthly, let us unwrap the concept of ‘Consent’ as it has wide ramifications than just the marital rape debate in India. One question that’s often asked is – “do we need to understand consent based on cultural context?” So, is it logical to say that while in America, a woman saying ‘no’ should be understood as such, in India, somehow, even when a woman is saying ‘no’, it can be understood as ‘yes’? This suggestive argument that somehow – thanks to the cultural context, even a woman’s no is not an actual no, lays the foundation of perpetration of major crimes against women. By treating ‘consent’ as having different shades of grey, we not only reduce the agency of women, but we impliedly attempt to veil the refusal of men to take ‘no’ for an answer by giving a cultural justification for the same.

India is certainly not alone in debating the definition of consent. We are in the midst of a global movement, that’s pushing for a legal framework and universal definition of ‘consent’. The Council Of Europe Convention On Preventing And Combating Violence Against Women And Domestic Violence, better known as the Istanbul Convention adopted in May, 2011, was signed by 45 countries and the European Union. States who have ratified the Convention are required as per Article 36 of the Convention to declare as a crime – “sexual violence, including rape, explicitly covering all engagement in non-consensual acts of a sexual nature with a person.” Similarly in 2019, the Platform of 7 independent United Nations and regional expert mechanisms on violence against women jointly called upon all States and relevant stakeholders worldwide to act against rape as a ‘form of gender based violence and a human rights violation, and, to ensure that the definition of rape is based on the absence of consent, in line with international standards.

While we now wait to see how the Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue in Appeal, let us hope that India will not be left behind in ensuring that Women remain equal partners and whole individuals in Marriage, Sex and Consent. Clearly, while allowing marital rape to be criminalised, we will be saving the institution of marriage, instead of eroding it, assuming that the institution needs saving at all, which ofcourse is an arguable proposition for another day.

(Avani Bansal is a practicing Advocate in the Supreme Court and can be reached at advocateavanibansal@gmail.com’; Tweet @bansalavani)

First published here :
https://www.outlookindia.com/national/sex-in-marriage-criminalising-marital-rape-will-save-institution-of-marriage-magazine-202759

0 comments 34 views
4 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

Why the amended abortion law in India restricts access and fails to grant pregnant (women, transgender and nonbinary) persons, complete control over their reproductive choices.

Mani Chander

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020 was approved by the upper house of the parliament and received presidential assent in March, 2021. Some of the amendments brought in by the new Act were hailed by many for further liberalizing access to abortion in India. On the other hand, some leaders of the opposition had voiced concerns, demanding a detailed scrutiny of the Bill by a parliamentary standing committee. The Bill, however, was passed without any further deliberation or amendments.

One of the key amendments brought by the Act was in terms of easing the process of approval by doctors. While the earlier law required one doctor’s approval for pregnancies up to 12 weeks and two doctors’ for pregnancies between 12-20 weeks, the new law requires only a single doctor’s approval for pregnancies up to 20 weeks. The approval of two doctors is now needed only for the 20-24 timeline reserved for abortion seekers of special categories such as rape or incest survivors. The upper gestation limit for abortion in cases of foetal disability has also been removed.

The other significant change introduced by the new Act was the mandatory constitution of a medical board in every State and union territory (UT), which would decide on pregnancies beyond 24 weeks in cases of foetal abnormalities. As per the amended act, the board would have one gynaecologist, one radiologist or sonologist, one pediatrician, and other members as prescribed by the respective state or UT.

Nearly six months since the new act came into effect, several issues around the revised mandate have come up, showing that the new law, though well intended, continues to restrict reproductive rights. 

The first obvious and fundamental drawback is that our lawmakers have failed to recognize that reproduction is not just a women’s issue. Seeing only women as natural mothers is exclusionary and deeply problematic as it ignores the fact that trans and non-binary persons can also become pregnant. It reinforces harmful stereotypes around reproduction and sexuality.

Furthermore, while the establishment of medical boards in every state and UT seems like a noble idea, ground reality points to its infeasibility. A recent report based on the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s Rural Health Survey, which analyzed district-wise availability of medical specialists, found that there is a severe shortage of doctors. As many as 82% of these posts for surgeons, obstetricians, gynaecologists, physicians and paediatricians lie vacant. In rural India, where 66% of the country’s population resides, there is a shortage of approximately 70%. While states like Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Sikkim revealed a 100% shortfall of pediatricians, others such as Tamil Nadu, Arunachal Pradesh, and Gujarat have recorded near-absolute absence of certain specialists in rural areas.

Besides, even if the state governments manage to set up the necessary medical boards, access will remain a challenge, particularly for those in remote areas. It is noteworthy that the new law fails to include any provision whatsoever for ensuring logistical or financial assistance to those who need to consult a medical board. Rather than ensuring access and convenience, forcing pregnant persons to run around in search of medical boards would create further hurdles for them.

Not to mention that these medical boards have no clear mandate, leaving the scope of their functions excessively wide. Absolute discretion when considering requests for abortion allows medical boards to venture into subjective issues such as viability of the foetus and possibility of corrective surgery. 

Time and again, courts have reiterated the right of a woman to control her body and fertility. In 2016, the Bombay High Court in a suo moto public interest litigation held that “the right to autonomy and to decide what to do with one’s own bodies includes whether or not to get pregnant and stay pregnant”. It flows logically, that any encroachment of bodily autonomy would also amount to infringement of privacy, as observed in the Puttaswamy judgment of the Supreme Court.

While restrictions on the fundamental right to privacy may be imposed on account of larger interests, they ought to be “just, reasonable, and fair.” It appears, however, that the amended Act, if challenged, would fail to satisfy this constitutional mandate.

Contrary to their own precedents upholding bodily autonomy, courts have sometimes rejected petitions seeking approval for abortions. The reason is that courts ultimately rely on the decision of the medical boards, while ignoring the advice of the woman’s own gynaecologist. For instance, the Supreme Court rejected the termination of a 27-week pregnancy even though the foetus had severe physical abnormalities, because the medical board had found that there was no physical risk to the mother. The same fate was met by a 25-year-old woman whose foetus was diagnosed with Arnold Chiari syndrome, an abnormality that leads to underdeveloped brain and distorted spine.

Moreover, the process of setting up medical boards and delayed decision-making has forced women to carry their pregnancies to term. In one case, an HIV-positive rape victim from Bihar, who was denied abortion when she was 18 weeks pregnant, was forced to give birth as a result of delay. While awarding compensation to the woman, the Supreme Court remarked, that “the fundamental choice (of termination of unwanted pregnancy) which is available in law was totally curtailed and scuttled, ..the entire action has caused her immense mental torture”. In another case, after the Supreme Court allowed abortion of a 13-year-old rape survivor, she ended up giving birth two days later. Bureaucratic delays coming in the way of women’s reproductive rights can hardly be considered just. 

In yet another striking suit, the top court refused to allow an abortion for a 10-year-old girl, allegedly raped by her uncle, because the medical board was of the opinion that termination would be “too risky”. What medical boards and courts seem to be ignoring is that in most cases involving children, the pregnancy itself is discovered too late because they are unaware of their condition. Yet, they are made to pay the price for no fault of their own.

The central argument is that medical boards and doctors continue to decide and make the final call. Leaving the decision to anyone other than the woman grossly undermines her dignity and agency, particularly when those assigned the task of decision-making are not bereft of their own personal and moral beliefs. 

India is considered to have a fairly progressive abortion law when compared to other countries, yet it is regressive in more than one way. While we still have a long way to go, we mustn’t hesitate to learn lessons from the rest of the world. Texas’ recent law which effectively bans abortions is a painful reminder that hard-won rights can be stripped away all too easily. 

We cannot be complacent, for we are not free until all of us are.

_______

*Views are personal. The author is a Delhi-based practicing lawyer who holds a special interest in gender justice. She holds a Master’s degree from the University of Virginia School of Law and is admitted to the Bar Council of India as well as the New York State Bar.

0 comments 24 views
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
The Womb - Encouraging, Empowering and Celebrating Women.

The Womb is an e-platform to bring together a community of people who are passionate about women rights and gender justice. It hopes to create space for women issues in the media which are oft neglected and mostly negative. For our boys and girls to grow up in a world where everyone has equal opportunity irrespective of gender, it is important to create this space for women issues and women stories, to offset the patriarchal tilt in our mainstream media and society.

@2025 – The Womb. All Rights Reserved. Designed and Developed by The Womb Team

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?