Parliamentarians and patriarchal mindsets

The mounting public pressure against the release of the juvenile, at the expiry of the three-year sentence — the maximum which can be awarded to a juvenile offender — has led to a knee-jerk amendment which will have adverse repercussions for child offenders in the country.

The contentious Act has been criticised by legal scholars some of whom have appealed to the President to restrain from giving his approval to this legislation.

What amazes me is how the gang rape of a young woman in the capital city three years ago continues to frame all public discourse on sexual violence, and provide the justification for enacting laws which violate the human rights of the poor and the marginalised.

Ostensibly this is being done to provide greater security to women as the new law will act as a deterrent and prevent the commission of heinous crimes, according to Maneka Gandhi, Minister for Women and Child Development. Though her portfolio demands that she protects the rights of two vulnerable groups, women and children, it is perturbing to note that she has chosen to pit one against the other and place it within a class context — middle-class women versus lower-class boys.

As per NCRB records, there was an all-time increase of 8,000 cases from 2012 to 2013 and further increase of 3,000 cases the following year as compared to a marginal increase of 1,000-odd cases in previous years.

During the same period, the conviction rate has decreased. Cases continue to languish in courts and nothing seems to have changed for victims, who are raped due to their multiple levels of marginalisation. The only cases which the media finds newsworthy are the less frequent rapes by lower class boys upon middle class women.

The myth that all acquittals are ‘false cases’ continues to prevail despite the fact that the primary reason for acquittals is poor investigation, outdated mode of evidence collection, lack of a convergent model among stake holders, and indifferent prosecutors.

The only efforts of providing long-term support to victims are by a few NGOs in some cities which add up to less than a drop in the ocean.

The budget allocated for providing support to victims has been squandered away on quick-fix solutions — CCTVs in public transports, street lighting and an ill-formulated and non-workable model of a stationary “one-stop crisis centre” as against a mobile outreach model which would provide long term socio-legal support to help transform victims into survivors.

The study conducted by Majlis, a Mumbai-based NGO which provides support to victims of sexual violence, has brought out the startling fact that 33 per cent of girls in the age group of 10-15 and 36 per cent in the age group of 15-18 were pregnant at the time of reporting rape, most were children out of school from poverty-stricken backgrounds and that stranger rapes were fewer in number than rapes by fathers and other family members.

As against this reality, the public continue to view draconian laws as the easiest solution. The recent amendment will permit boys between 16-18 years from poor and marginalised sections, to be tried as adults under a stringent law, with poor quality legal aid and they will be meted out with the harshest punishment as the discussion in the Rajya Sabha indicated.

While members identified with the victim’s parents, there was no one who could identify with the utter poverty and desolation of the juvenile’s mother.

The feudal mindset was evident when during the debate Trinamul MP Derek O’Brien stated that if his daughter had met with a similar fate, he would take a gun and shoot the accused. A clear case of legislators speaking unparliamentary language. This brings back memories of Sushma Swaraj’s infamous phrase zinda laash three years ago in December, 2012, while referring to the brutal gang rape of Jyoti, while she was still alive.

Derek O’Brien’s comments subscribe to the same view that a rape violates the honour of the family, which the father, acting as a feudal lord, can avenge by killing the rapist.

This just goes to prove that deep-seated patriarchal biases against women are not dislodged even while enacting draconian laws in their name. The same father will not hesitate to pick up his gun and shoot his daughter, if she elopes with a boy of her choice from the lower class / caste or minority religion.

Women’s sexual choice and bodily integrity is not a concern. All that our parliamentarians are concerned with is family honour and that sexual penetration by a lower caste / class/minority boy not only pollutes the girl but also dishonours the entire clan.

Only the virginity and sexual purity of the girl matters. It is for the same reason O’Brien chose not to defend Suzette, a gang-rape victim, an Anglo-Indian single mother fond of drinking, dancing and visiting the bars, when his party chief passed derogatory comments about her. A reflection on our parliamentarians and their patriarchal mindsets.

(Flavia Agnes is a women’s rights lawyer and director of the Mumbai-based legal NGO, Majlis)