2021 GVR Launch: Rukmini Sen Lecture Notes

Prajnya 2021 Gender Violence in India Report Launch

Rukmini Sen, AUD 25/11/21

Good morning everyone. My sincere thanks to Prajnya for having me be part of the launch of their flagship and extremely significant Gender Violence in India Report 2021. I am especially delighted that this launch coincides with the launch of the 16 days of activism and International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women—today the 25th of November. While I am certain that most in this audience are aware, yet I would like to remind us that on, November 25, 1960, the three Mirabal sisters—Patria, Minerva and Maria Teresa were brutally assassinated because of their identity as women and activists. Their only crime was having fought for their rights against the Dominican dictator, Rafael Trujillo helped to organize and grow the underground movement challenging the regime. The state’s murder of the three sisters, aged 36, 34 and 25 on Nov. 25 1960, outraged the public and was a key trigger for Trujillo’s own assassination by a group of dissidents and former allies six months later. After the transition to democracy in the late 1970’s, the Butterflies, as Dominicans call the sisters, became symbols of both democratic and feminist resistance. On December 20, 1993, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. Their goal was to eradicate violence against women and girls on a global scale. On February 7, 2000, the UN officially designated November 25th as the International day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Today starts the 16 days of activism, ending on December 10th, Human Rights Day. Remembering state impunity on any form of resistance and specifically being threatened by any form of resilient solidarities, I would like us to salute the fighting spirits of all women and people of multiple genders encountering, negotiating, surviving violence in their homes, workplaces, streets, or caught in the crossfires of ‘conflicts’. It is equally important to foreground the importance of care and support that is needed as we engage with violence. This year’s theme “Orange the World: End Violence against Women Now” aims to a) Advocate for inclusive, comprehensive and long-term strategies to prevent and eliminate VAW b)  Amplify the success stories demonstrating that VAWG is preventable c) Promote the leadership of women and girls in their diversity and their meaningful participation in policy making and decision making and d) Engage Generation Equality Forum commitment makers in your country or region to collaborate in the implementation of bold new commitments. Linking the UN theme and the Prajnya report findings in a co-relation, this talk is proposed to be divided into the following sections:

  1. Conceptual and methodological questions in Prajnya’s report
  2. Studying violence, researching violence
  3. Talking care alongside violence

Conceptual and methodological questions in Prajnya’s report

The most important aspect of the report, not just this year, but over the years is the use of NCRB data since 1955 to highlight the different categorisation of crimes against women. This quantitative classification, is a good example of both—numbers and narratives behind numbers. From which year a particular crime was identified and started getting calculated gives an indication on what is the kind of data that the NCRB is intending to collect. Also, enactment of specific laws lead to enumeration of certain kinds of criminal acts against women. The extent to which intersectional information is available is for crimes against SC and ST women (including outraging the modesty, kidnapping, rape), while girl children form a separate category in cyber crimes and minor girls in trafficking. Since 2018, identifying rape of a women with physical/mental disability and rape of pregnant woman is happening separately. There are sixteen categories of gender based violence that is discussed in the report following a consistent form—a) what is the nature of the violence in question, b) the manner in which international human rights conventions/protocols define this violence, c) data available on the violence from government sources, international agencies, Indian human rights fact finding reports d) existing laws and the specific provisions in the Indian Penal Code that address the gender based violence in question e) recent newspaper based reporting and news on the specific violence f) ways of accessing the criminal justice system when the specific violence has occurred and g) brief discussion on the decisions coming in recent judicial pronouncements around the violence. As someone who has been teaching and writing on gender based violence for many years now, this is a very comprehensive approach and also with the annual reports all available online, it is a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners to compare and see trajectories of violence over the years. The FIR ready reckoner as the Appendix is equally relevant and tells the reader the before and after of the FIR together with steps/processes/officers that needs to be remembered at the police station. While violence on women with disabilities specifically does not form a part of this report, I was wondering whether it can find some space, although this disaggregated data is not collected through NCRB, yet Prajnya together with Shanta Memorial Rehabilitation Centre did come out with a report on sexual and gender based violence against women with disabilities in 2020, where the sites of violence was earmarked—public spaces, institutional contexts and violence related to structural inequality. I want to refer to a recent case Patan Jamal Vali v State of Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court of India arising out of Special Leave Petition. The case involved a 19-year-old blind woman who was raped by her brother’s friend. The court in its April judgment, rendered by Justice Chandrachud, using the lens of intersectionality where caste, gender and disability where all entangled, acknowledged the threat of sexual violence for women and girls with disabilities as “an all-too-familiar fixture of their lives.” It sets straight that women with disabilities are not weak, helpless, or incapable: “Such a negative presumption of disability translating into incapacity would be inconsistent with the forward-thinking conceptualization of disabled lives embodied in our law and, increasingly, albeit slowly, in our social consciousness.” The judgment went ahead to record that he National Crimes Record Bureau should seriously consider the possibility of maintaining disaggregated data on gender based violence women with disability. In another context, while since 2016 the NCRB is adding transgender among trafficked victims or those ‘rescued’ yet that may not truly represent the magnitude of crimes against transgender persons. A 2015 report by Sangama of Kerala, highlighted high rates of violence against transgender persons, particularly perpetrated by police personnel. More than half (52%) of the respondents said they had been harassed by the police and nearly all (96%) said they had not raised a complaint because of their gender identity. The government has not initiated any survey or census on important issues that affect the transgender community,” said Kalki Subramaniam, founder and director of Sahodari Foundation on the lack of countrywide data addressing transgender issues. “We have no data on how many transgender persons are educated, how many are uneducated, how many are homeless, how many live with their families and how many live on the streets. While more detailed discussions on violence against transgenders and women with disabilities would further enrich these reports, I sincerely hope that these reports will find a way into reading lists of students pursuing gender studies, interdisciplinary law courses, or human rights education, and make engagements not only with the content but also the methods in which the content is gathered.

Studying violence, researching violence

Gail Omvedt, whom we lost earlier this year, in a classic contribution in 1990 Violence against Women: New Movements and New Theories in India makes two very fundamental arguments—a) the pervasive violence against women has an obvious economic function—in keeping women under control, in preventing them from going out of the home, forcing them to the most low paid or unpaid forms of labour and b) the close connection of violence with sexuality—does violence necessarily have a sexual character and is sexuality inherently linked to the force and dominance or can we locate social and historical facts that determine the nature of the linkage? And c) the need to look at different forms of violence confronted by different sections of women—the relationship between violence and caste/class/rural-urban divisions, nationality and other divisions. While Origins of Family, Private Property and the State by Frederich Engels gives us one kind of theoretical explanation about the interconnection between women-economy-exploitation; the other argument is got from the Phule-Periyar-Ambedkarite traditions and engaging with questions of marriage-sexuality and brahmanical patriarchy. Marriage, for Periyar, regulated and disciplined women’s familial and reproductive labour, even as it actively denied their desires and rights to a self-respecting life of their choice. As V Geetha wrote in her essay “The Story of a Marriage: Being a Tale of Self-Respect Unions and What Happened to Them”, self-Respect marriages refused the services of brahmin priests but did not insist that these should be replaced by either non-brahmin or Tamil priests. The Self-Respect marriage form was premised on the idea of revocability and with the freedom to part being inscribed into the marriage ideal, no guarantees could possibly be given or taken, except of course those which were voluntarily agreed upon by the couple in question7. Often these guarantees had to do with love, companionship and want and, in insisting on these as the founding premises of marriage. In the contexts of ‘honour’ killings and ‘love jihad’ talking about self respect marriages is a radical step as the Allahabad High Court pronounces in September 2021 that two adults have the rights to marry whoever they want, irrespective of their religion. The judgment adds, ‘As the present petition is a joint petition by the two individuals who claims to be in love with each other and are major, therefore, in our considered opinion, nobody, not even their parents, could object to their relationship’. What the judiciary is pronouncing today, is what we could remember Dr B R Ambedkar writing in his famous Annihilation of Caste (1936) speech, “I am convinced that the real remedy is intermarriage. Fusion of blood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin, and unless this feeling of kinship, of being kindred, becomes paramount, the separatist feeling—the feeling of being aliens—created by caste will not vanish”.

In a recently completed course on Marriage, Kinship and Family Forms in 2020, with undergraduate Sociology students at AUD, students said how they felt that the course had organically led to discussions on violence and feminism and had posed the question to me can we sociologically study family in separation from violence? This seemed to resonate with Kalpana Kannabiran’s point of departure in the edited book Violence Studies—Violence is embedded in our everyday. We encounter not only its overt, raw, and brutal nature but also the deeply buried invisible and insidious forms that normalise violence in the collective conscience, making it less noticeable and more tolerable.

On the other hand, while doing a course on ‘Violence: Feminist Critiques and Resistances’ with Gender Studies students in 2018 again at AUD, the ordinariness of violence, not the event-driven ones but the everyday ones, not the ones which only make ‘national’ headlines but also the ones that are projected as politicised or political, invariably the instances where intersectionality of the violence is evident—Hathras (about which Kalpana Kannabiran spoke in last year’s lecture) and Unnao (which finds mention twice in this year’s Prajnya report). Through this course we had done an exercise of ‘walking the city’ as a group of people with identifying themselves through multiple genders—in the evening, in an area which is historically significant (The Qutb and Mehrauli archaeological complex) and yet is not explored as a site for feminist ‘classroom’. My praxis was to walk is to know and knowing is the first step towards overcoming fear and developing a feminist consciousness. In the assignment, on of the students reflected ‘This took the form of an experiential walk because it not only assured us that public spaces are in reality supposed to be ‘public’ but because each one of us who shared this experience now holds the narrative that affirms faith in solidarity’.

I want to end this section by talking about the need to interrogate the legal language and practices through which violence is juridically expressed. Thinking with Professor Upendra Baxi (Taking Suffering Seriously) that it is important for one major institution of governance to take people’s miseries seriously. He says, “For these who take people’s sufferings seriously, there is no rejoicing; even revolutions provide transient occasions of celebration”. In the language and practice of law, the insistence on certainty, the need to translate the suffering or experience of violence into a language of reasonableness in order for it to be judicially recognised need to be questioned not just in the courts of law but also in the way law is taught. The French feminist Anne Leclerc wrote, “All I want is my voice, you let me speak, yes, but I don’t want your voice, I want my own….I have to reveal everything that you have so determinedly hidden….the only thing you demand insistently is our silence…” While clearly silence around violence against women has been broken in many ways, and that is also evident in the number of reported cases having gone up; yet they still continue in connection to social and state based hierarchies and definitely in connection to modes of accepted expressions of the violence.

Talking care alongside violence

I will conclude by pointing out something that we all are aware of—the shadow pandemic with the global health pandemic that we encountered. The National Commission for Women has noted there was a 46 per cent rise in complaints of crimes against women in the first eight months of 2021 over the corresponding period of last year. Of the 19,953 complaints received between January to July 2020, the highest number of 7,036 were recorded under the right to live with dignity clause, followed by 4,289 complaints of domestic violence and 2,923 complaints of harassment of married women or dowry harassment, the NCW said. The right to live with dignity clause takes into account the emotional abuse of women. Inclusion of emotional abuse under right to live with dignity is definitely a significant move and it brings me to argue that it is necessary to talk care, support, friendships together with discussions on violence. In my own 2020 piece in EPW Stay Home, Stay Safe: Interrogating Domestic Violence, I suggest that we need to push the contours of discussion to re-conceptualise home/domesticity—initiate talking about various kinds of shared residencies not only the ones formed through heterosexual monogamous marriage, and foreground the political importance of affordable, abuse-free community housing for women. And when I say this I am not talking about shelter homes but the right to housing and shelter. The pandemic, again, and more formidably proved to us how care and support networks outside of the familial became valuable—for surviving and sustaining. There is a need for feminist support groups and conversations at workplaces, much beyond the administrative requirements of setting up an Internal Complaints Committee. These support groups need to talk about everyday gendered misogyny in the wake of the concerns raised through #MeToo as well as the deeply troubling Tejpal judgment. The Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 gives a functional/service oriented understanding of care. Care as feeling is assumed and naturalised even within a legislative framework, while care in the affective sense is silenced. I propose that it is needed to articulate that ethics of care, taking into account the exploits of the care economy but also propagating a feminist politics of interdependence and care alongside violence for a sustainable just future.

Thanks again to Prajnya and wishing them the best for the all the subsequent 16 days activism programmes. 

In Solidarity, October 16, 2018

We, the Prajnya community, express our solidarity with the women who have spoken out across professions to share their experience of sexual harassment in the workplace, acknowledging the courage it takes and the pain that this involves.

We acknowledge too that this is the beginning and that countless others are still silent or unheard; that many workplaces remain unexamined; and moreover, that violence pervades our lives well beyond the workplace. The sexual harassment and sexual violence revelations of the last week have once more illustrated what we have always known—that violence and misogyny are deeply embedded in our society.

There is a role for each of us, wherever we are located, to play in the road ahead.

As human beings, we must bring empathy and compassion to our listening and as citizens, prioritise justice and fairness in our response. One in three women are said to experience violent abuse in their lifetime and only one in four of these women speak about it. To raise questions about the delay in reporting and the timing of these testimonials is to lie to ourselves that the world has always been a sympathetic and supportive place and that our institutions are committed to equality. Let us accept our complicity in silencing survivors, now, as then.

Both the Vishaka Guidelines and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, identify workplace sexual harassment as a violation of the fundamental right to equality. Non-compliance is thus tantamount to a violation of an employee’s fundamental right. We therefore urge organisations that have yet to comply with the 2013 law to put in place zero-tolerance policies, set up Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) and conduct sensitisation programmes for their entire team, including ICC members.

For its part, the government too has been a laggard in setting up the mechanisms required to support compliance with the law. In most districts, the administration has not set up Local Complaints Committees (LCCs) and in their absence, women working in the informal and unorganised sector, women working in shops and small organisations and self-employed women, including professionals, have nowhere to turn for justice. State governments must ensure that district administrations immediately set up LCCs; ensure their competence through training; and make known to the public how they can be reached.

Further, the enforcement infrastructure required by the law must also be a priority for the government. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, requires annual reporting but the government has neither set up nor announced to which office these reports must be sent and who will monitor and penalise non-compliance. We hope this tidal wave of revelations will move all levels of a lackadaisical Indian state to seriously create and provide resources for this infrastructure.

Political parties and their leaders must make a simple commitment that will have a lasting impact on gender inequality in India. They must promise never to nominate or endorse those who make misogynistic statements and those who have been charge-sheeted for sexual and gender-based violence, including street sexual harassment.

The government and political class have so far ignored our collective anguish and anger in the hope that they will pass. They will not. We will stand our ground.    

At Prajnya, we reiterate our commitment to facilitate conversations around gender-based violence including workplace sexual harassment and to encourage and support organisations in their journey, beginning with legal compliance but going beyond it towards equal, inclusive and safe workplaces.

The Prajnya Community
October 16, 2018

#16D17: Children depict Human Rights

On the last SSR_9133day of the 2017 Prajnya 16 Days Campaign against Gender Violence, we went to the Roshni Matriculation School in Guduvanchery where in partnership with the school, we had arranged a poster competition for children from schools in the area. 72 children from Class V to Class X participated, and the results were stunning. We selected six posters from two age categories for special recognition but all the posters spoke volumes for the awareness level of the children–and the efforts of teachers and parents!

We had identified eight themes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all of which related to gender equality (and therefore, ending gender violence).

We present a digital exhibition of the posters herewith.

Theme 1: You are born free and equal in rights to every other human being.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Theme 2: Everyone has human rights no matter what race, skin colour, sex, language, religion, opinions, family background, class or nationality.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Theme 3: Nobody has the right to torture, harm or humiliate you.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Theme 4: You have a right to be protected and treated equally by the law without discrimination of any kind.

SSR_9309

Theme 5: Each and every person who is legally old enough has the right to marry and have a family.

SSR_9329

Theme 6: Nobody should force you to get married.

SSR_9350

Theme 7: You have the right to have a healthy and comfortable life.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Theme 8: Mothers and children should receive special care and help.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Please respect the intellectual property of the children, although they have not signed their work, and do not copy the images.

Introducing the 2013 Campaign Coordinator

The search for a Campaign Coordinator was unusually tough this year because we had such a large set of really great candidates. After much deliberation, we invited Nithila Kanagasabai to join our team. Nithila, who takes charge today, comes to us after years in journalism and graduate work at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences.

With this, the 2013 Campaign season begins in full earnest at Prajnya! We enter it with the usual nervous excitement.

Our Lives… To Live: Panel Discussion Report: Making Violence Visible, February 23, 2013

SSR_2311

Featuring: Geetha Ramaseshan, Tishani Doshi (moderator) and Anita Ratnam

Rapporteur: Archana Venkatesh

Ms Doshi opened the discussion by introducing the topics of female genital mutilation (FGM) and acid attacks; and asked how the arts could be a platform for social transformation. She also raised a question about what kind of legal structure is required in order to facilitate the process of reporting and addressing violence against women.

Ms Ratnam responded that dance (as an art form) is the least equipped to address violence against women, since traditional Indian dance forms focus on beauty and the aesthetics of the dance. She did point out that in all the stories told by dance, sex is never addressed directly. Only the pre and post-coital scenes are depicted. Even then, there is no mention of sex as being pleasurable for women. Ms Ratnam felt that theatre, music and poetry could channel rage better than Indian dance forms. A dance may not always be interrupted by who the dancer is as a woman. When it comes of addressing violence against women, dance theatre is probably the most effective tool; especially when performed by those artists who can intersperse reality with beauty.

Addressing the second part of Ms Doshi’s question, Ms Ramaseshan spoke of the clamor for harsher punishments for rapists and perpetrators of acid attacks. While acid attacks have recently come into the purview of the Indian Penal Code, there is a gap between legislation and execution. Laws by themselves are of no use unless the application of the law addresses the inequalities in society. The judicial system’s understanding of gender and sexuality is skewed, as we can see from various cases in which the victim is said to have “provoked” the harasser or rapist; and the way the victim’s “character” is the first thing to come up in a rape case. Cases of gender violence are often seen as crimes of passion rather than crimes of violence.

Ms Doshi then addressed the issue of violence within the family. She noted that it seems to be on the rise, and pointed out that there must be something inherently wrong in today’s family structure; and in the way we raise our sons and daughters.

Ms Ramaseshan said that there is no law which addresses violence within families, except for crimes against children. Feminists who point this out are accused of breaking up homes and attacking tradition. Women in abusive marriages always find it extremely difficult to escape these relationships, and more often than not, get pulled back into an abusive situation.

Ms Ratnam spoke about domestic abuse faced by South Asian women from affluent homes in America. Many of them don’t leave because they have nowhere to go. Ms Ratnam spoke of her own experiences in sheltering victims of domestic abuse, and the fear that the abuser would take revenge. Today, there are a few safe houses for women who have experiences abuse, but many women return to a violent situation. The two most common reasons are the fact that they are used to an affluent lifestyle, and find it hard to adjust; and also for the sake of the children of the marriage.

Ms Doshi added that it is important to remember that violence is not restricted to one class or community, but is a widespread phenomenon in society. She also added that the media does seem to influence discourse on violence against women.

Alluding to the Delhi rape case, Ms Ramaseshan felt that the demands for the death penalty for the rapists stemmed from an emotional reaction to the horror. She felt that certainty of conviction is more essential than harsh retribution. Also, legally speaking, the Delhi case is an open-and-shut one. There are witnesses and medical evidence available. In other cases, this might not be so clear. Especially in cases of date rape, the waters a murky and much seems to depend on the way the cross-examination is conducted and the public reaction.

An audience member brought the discussion back to domestic violence, stating that there is enormous social pressure on the victim to go back to an abusive partner, since the conjugal bond is seen as sacred. A woman who leaves her partner, however abusive he may be, is usually stigmatized by society.

Dr Rajagopalan (from the audience) responded to this by saying that we, as society, raise our daughters to be uncomfortable on their own – and this is where the root of the problem lies.

Ms Ratnam drew our attention to a small minority of urban Indian women who are economically independent and are beginning to assert their choices and express their sexuality. While this is a (very) small minority, it is important to acknowledge their existence.

A member of the audience stressed the need to look beyond the laws for a remedy to gender violence. Societal mindsets need to be changed to prevent replication of stereotypes.

Returning to the topic of art and activism, Ms Doshi said that the role of an activist is a heavy burden for an artist. Activism may be a part of her art, but is not its primary purpose. It is also not fair to expect an artist to address only contemporary problems, since her art may be interpreted differently by future generations of artists and activists.

An audience member suggested that if we are exposed to more ‘good’ news on TV and in newspapers, society might become less violent. Ms Doshi responded by pointing out that even if we only see good news, it doesn’t mean that the events which comprise ‘bad news’ are not happening. Ms Ramaseshan added that misogyny on TV should be discussed and not unilaterally banned. Another member of the audience added that instead of insisting that we see only ‘good news’, society should focus on teaching children to show good judgment. We need to shake off our apathy to stories about gender violence.

Another audience member felt that parents of girls need to take the initiative and educate their daughters about the consequences of their actions. Ms Doshi pointed out that it is not the responsibility of women to ensure their own safety, but the State’s responsibility.

Ms Ratnam emphasized the importance of information. With the advent of the internet, we have more opportunities to access information that we ever did before. It is clear that gender violence is a worldwide phenomenon.

Ms Doshi ended on an optimistic note, saying that it was heartening to watch stories of women speaking out about violence.

Our Lives… To Live: Panel Discussion Report: Gender, Sexuality and Violence, February 22, 2013

Rapporteur: Archana Venkatesh

Featuring Revathi Radhakrishnan, Aniruddhan Vasudevan and L Ramakrishnan (Moderator).

SSR_2165

Ms Radhakrishnan opened the panel discussion on Day 1 of the film festival with a comment clarifying that all sexual violence is, in fact, violence, and that society often fails to recognize this. For example, rape by the armed forces is still violence, and should be seen as such. Similarly, violence faced by sex workers is often ignored or shrugged off as being an occupational hazard.

Mr Vasudevan joined the discussion by observing that recent conversations and discussions about Gender Violence have been reduced to “firefighting”, i.e., addressing only the question of what we can do/change in terms of legal reform. What activists, mediapersons and people in the public sphere should be focusing on is the underlying cause for gender violence: a predominantly patriarchal society. He cited the recent case in Delhi as an example of this: all the activists immediately sought to change the law rather than societal mindsets. The question we should be asking ourselves is how violence has become the norm in society, and how we can change this. We need to move from an attitude of crisis management, and start a discourse on how to address the root cause of such a society. Mr Vasudevan added that the “crisis mode” approach to gender violence actually works in favor of the State, since no real societal change is called for, and activists are usually appeased with a few legal reforms.

Mr Ramakrishnan added that while talking about gender violence, most people seem to only include violence against women, and ignore violence faced by those who are LGBT.

Ms Radhakrishnan responded by saying that when we fight violence, we should fight all violence. Activists have a tendency to shut themselves into “constituencies of protest”; where women protest against violence against women, LGBT activists protest against violence against the LGBT community, and so on. This kind of division between groups who are ultimately fighting for the same cause needs to stop. Violence is violence, and all violence is the same. Dividing ourselves into constituencies of protest ensures that any dialogue about violence becomes pointless and fragmented. Activists should focus on the points that connect their causes.

Mr Ramakrishnan pointed out that there are “hierarchies” of violence. Even a certain kind of patronizing humor can be seen as violence.

Coming back to Ms Radhakrishnan’s argument, Mr Vasudevan asserted that the connecting point between violence against women and violence against sexual minorities is patriarchy. People who act in ways that don’t conform to roles prescribed by the patriarchal definition of what is masculine/feminine are seen as a threat to society, and targeted as such.

Responding to Mr Ramakrishnan’s statement about hierarchies of violence, Mr Vasudevan suggested that society conditions us to imagine rape as the only form of gender violence or brutality that exists. We rarely (if ever) acknowledge emotional violence for what it is.

Mr Vasudevan was of the opinion that as long as the law doesn’t recognize violence and discrimination within the natal family, there is no point in having a law for workplaces, schools and other institutions. The law glorifies the family as an institution and the prevailing attitude of the legal system (and society at large) is that the parents are always right, and know what is best for their child. Mr Vasudevan felt that this stemmed from and resulted in a bizarre understanding of the concept of love. Do our parents have the right to correct us because they love us, irrespective of what they choose to ‘correct’ in us? The State needs to realize that the intervention needs to happen within the family itself in order to successfully address gender violence.

Ms Radhakrishnan pointed out that in the aftermath of the Delhi rape case, much of the discourse about rape has revolved around ‘honour’ and ‘chastity’. The perception that a woman’s (or a community’s) honour is violated through rape is counter-productive in any dialogue about gender violence.

Mr Vasudevan added that based on this perception of honour, there is retributive violence on women. Thus, violence against women (as differentiated from gender violence) needs to be addressed in a separate category.

Mr Ramakrishnan clarified that rape is not about sexual frustration, but rather an attempt to establish power and control over the victim.

The discussion was then thrown open to audience members, and the first questions and comments related to the manner in which gender violence is reported. It was noted that the media seems to focus only on metropolitan cities while reporting gender violence. Ms Radhakrishnan responded in tune with her earlier statement about constituencies of protest. It is fruitless to compartmentalize gender violence in this way. If the current topic of discourse is rape, this does not mean that acid attacks are not a part of our consciousness. An audience member pointed out that discussion brings these topics into the public forum, and pressurizes the State to take notice. Ms Radhakrishnan replied that setting up our own hierarchies of violence (as activists) is as counterproductive as when the same is done by the media. Mr Vasudevan added that while it is important to talk about why certain things don’t get talked about, it is important not to attack each other and turn reporting gender violence into a blame game. There has to be a better way to bring important issues out of the silence which surrounds them today.

The idea that violence against sexual minorities is not seen in the honour-shame paradigm was also brought up. Mr Vasudevan suggested that this was because those of the LGBT community are viewed as having turned their backs on reproduction – which, according to society, is the only purpose of sex. However, being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is seen as violating the family honour rather than the honour of the community.

The final topic of discussion was love – an audience member suggested that our perception of love is skewed, and Mr Vasudevan concurred that our exposure to discourses of love at home and in the media serve to create a bizarre understanding of the concept. Ms Radhakrishnan concluded the discussion, saying that love is a deglamourized version of friendship – which doesn’t need to be taught!

 

 

 

 

Photo album: IAWRT Film Festival in Chennai, February 22-23, 2013

SSR_2010 SSR_2021 SSR_2030 SSR_2019 SSR_2051 SSR_2080 SSR_2146 SSR_2153 SSR_2157 SSR_2169 SSR_2183 SSR_2149 SSR_2031 SSR_2226 SSR_2235 SSR_2254 SSR_2259 SSR_2275 SSR_2288 SSR_2293 SSR_2338 SSR_2306 SSR_2188

For a review of the festival, see Samidha’s article in OyeChennai.com.

Press Statement on reported Ordinance on Criminal Law Amendments relating to Sexual Violence, February 2, 2013

Press Statement on reported Ordinance on Criminal Law Amendments relating to Sexual Violence

Chennai, 2 Feb 2013:  Prajnya joins representatives of women’s organizations, civil society groups, and activists committed to women’s rights around India, in conveying our strong disapproval of the Government’s decision to move an Ordinance on the criminal law amendments related to sexual violence. We call upon the President of India to not sign such an Ordinance.  

Media sources have suggested that an Ordinance on amendments to sexual assault law was cleared by the Cabinet yesterday, on February 1, 2013, about 20 days before the next parliamentary session. We are appalled by the lack of transparency and the unseemly haste of this action. Parliament meets in three weeks, and in our view, the proposed changes in law should be debated there, openly along with an inclusive, consultative process in the Standing Committee. We read the stealth and haste of this Ordinance as a sign that the government in fact considers this too trifling an issue to debate on the floor of Parliament.

The sidelining of the Justice Verma Committee report also worries us. The report took on board the views and considered suggestions of many individuals and organizations with many years of experience as advocates, support service providers and social workers working with survivors of the whole spectrum of sexual and gender-based violence. We are particularly concerned to hear that the following recommendations made by the Justice Verma Committee have been ignored:

  • recognition in law of marital rape;
  • bringing sexual violence by members of the armed forces under the purview of criminal law; and
  • change in definition of consent to any sexual act.

Prajnya is very concerned to hear that the Ordinance introduces the death penalty as a punishment for sexual assault. In principle, Prajnya is opposed to capital punishment.

Women’s groups have been demanding comprehensive amendments in criminal law related to sexual violence for over two decades, and have expressed our endorsement of the Justice Verma Committee Report. We have made oral and written submissions to the Justice Verma Committee and our voices and concerns were reflected in the Committee’s report. We congratulate the Justice Verma Committee for completing the report in record time without compromising on consultations, dialogue, due process and transparency. Along with other groups, we reiterate the call to the Government of India to implement the recommendations of the report comprehensively, in letter and spirit—but with due process and open, thoughtful and inclusive debate in Parliament and other public fora.  

Seminar report: Making Numbers Count

Very belatedly, here’s a brief report on the seminar we organised late last year – Making Numbers Count: The Gender Violence Tally. This seminar was special for many reasons – as a milestone, since it was our first full day research seminar but more importantly, because it discussed an issue that had been – and continues to – bother us. As people who work on gender violence, we often wonder about the data that exists, the data we need and the data we lack. This seminar was a first attempt at beginning a conversation around this and we are very grateful to all those who took the time to be there!

You can read the report here

Podcast on gender violence research

We’re delighted to share with you a podcast on the state of gender violence research in South Asia, based on my paper for the Global Consortium on Security Transformation.

The Pod Academy is, in their own words, ” an independent, not-for-profit platform for podcasts on academic research.  Set up by a group of academics, techies and journalists, it aims to inform public debate and uncover intriguing and challenging new ideas. Pod Academy is a showcase for new research and a resource for business, NGOs and the public sector nationally and internationally – keeping them up to date with research findings.”

In this podcast, I talk to Rachael Jolley from the Pod Academy about some key themes and questions that emerged from my work on the state of research on gender violence in the South Asian region.

You can listen to the podcast here.