The India that woke up to the dawn
of December 17, 2012 was not the same India that went to sleep the last night.
That night changed, or at least initiated to change, something crucial. The
change was visible when a 23-year-old student’s unheeded cries for help, which
were confined to a bus till last night, started reverberating in the form of
angry slogans from India Gate to Raisina Hill the next morning. And the echo
did not only contain the pain and anger of that young girl, but of the millions
who went through the same ordeal as her in the past. Somehow that young paramedic
was able to shake a people’s conscience. They were not ready to let it go in
the history as just another case of rape among millions. Those who felt the
pain came out in that winter morning to register their disagreement with the
state of affairs; and they were many. When the water cannons and teargases
failed to placate those common men and women, the government was forced to change
the law against rape and gender-related violence.
That thousands of rapes happened in
the country even after that is another issue, what was significant was that the
incident initiated a discussion. It gave the issue the attention it deserved.
People began to talk about rape. They started discussing patriarchy and the
mindset which grows out of it. That things are no more the same became evident
when a noted author had to publicly apologise for using the word “rape” humorously.
“Rape” was no longer a synonym for humiliating defeat or insult or misery. Rape
“victims” became rape “survivors”. It was asked why the law doesn’t allow a
raped woman to be named? Why the women who are raped, often commit suicide? Why
it is more “shameful” to get raped than to rape? What causes rape and why the
raped woman is seen as a prostitute? Such questions found their way from
feminist literature to the common voters’ dining table. And many rape survivors
came forward to say that we’re not someone out of this world; we’re the women
you see every day in different roles.
Some argue that a surge was seen in
the number of rapes after the incident not because rapes increased abnormally,
but because more and more women started reporting rapes, including marital
rapes, rapes by friends, family members and acquaintances. It was one change
that the incident surely brought to a society in which rape was seen as the end
of life. The message that their crime will not go unreported dissuaded many of
the potential rapists. And this was very important, as not all rapes happen in
deserted streets. Statistics of the National Crime Records Bureau show that
about 70% incidents of rape involve family members, friends and acquaintances
of the woman. This severely contradicts the notion that women should not go out
of home at night, as the walls of home do not guarantee safety.
More than two years after the
incident, and about a year-and-a-half after the rapists were sentenced to
death, a British filmmaker reviewed the incident in a documentary. The film
showed the unrepentant rapist blaming the girl for the incident and even
learned lawyers saying that if a woman goes out to watch a movie with her
friend at night, she ought to be raped. The documentary was a message that the
change was still in its very initial stage and that the mentality, which was
being fought after the incident, is still prevalent.
It was good that such a film came,
so as not to let the discussion subside. It again sparked the debate against
patriarchy and the need for a radical change. It proved that even the capital
punishment failed to change the rapist’s mindset and therefore something basic
needs to be changed; only tough laws will not suffice.
But, shockingly, the government of
India chose to ban the documentary, accusing the filmmaker of flouting rules
and cheating jail authorities by showing them an abridged version of the film
and not removing the parts objected to by the officials.
This was a jolt to those who wanted
the discussion to continue; who knew that not talking about the issue only has
made the problem grow into a menace. Indian lawmakers argued that the
documentary revisits the horror and will scratch the wounds of the girl’s
family. Well, being politicians, they might think that a parent can forget such
an incident, that too when they’re still fighting the case in the Supreme
Court. Yes the movie revisits the horror, and it may again intensify anger, and
that’s what governments fear the most.
The move has endangered the debate
the incident had initiated. It is again putting the issue under the carpet. The
film does not give a platform to the rapist to justify his crime; rather it
shows the rapists, their family, the girl and her family as people and not just
names in newspapers. The film has also not violated any law by naming the girl,
and even if it did, one may ask, what’s so sacrosanct about the law? Isn’t the
practice of not naming rape survivors endorses the so-called “shame” attached
to rape? Doesn’t it serve as an example of the notion that if you want to shame
a woman, rape her? It’s high time such bizarre laws changed. Why will the woman
not name her? She will come out and will claim her right on her body. This, no
doubt, is the most fundamental right one may ask for.
Rather, silencing the voices of
dissent will encourage the rapists. They will again start feeling that they
will get away as nobody will talk about it. And therefore, keeping the
discussion, the debate going is important. India’s daughter will once again
feel herself betrayed when a debate that gave her some hope for a change will
be silenced in such a manner.
If democratic governments will offer
such instances of intolerance, they will also fail the struggles to overthrow the
Tsars or Louis VI or the British Empire. The governments which find the people
mature enough to vote and elect their rulers, should not consider the same
people immature enough to be violently incited by a film or documentary. Those
who praised the people’s wisdom for voting them to power now doubt the same
wisdom. What a paradox.
But the likes of those who braved
water cannons and teargases on that winter morning will continue to push for
reforms. The “powerful” regime should not think they can be cowed. They will
continue to hit the wall till it is broken. They will not submit, nor will they
retreat, as that half-naked little brown man with a bamboo stave had asked them
not to.
