(Very rarely do I venture into writing on
topics of current interest. A humorist, I am afraid, tends to be taken for a
joker and is very seldom taken seriously unless his humor takes the form of
Satire – which mine doesn’t. Sometimes, however, there are things that refuse
to remain unsaid)
The
horrendous incident in Delhi and
the aftermath have left us all questioning ourselves about the sort of Society
that we have built. Yes, it is not merely a Society we live in but a Society we
have had a hand in making – with our thoughts, deeds and the behavior we build
in our children. In particular we need to be concerned about what is in the
minds of the youth of this country.
Four
questions, I think, require answering before we talk of how we can make things
better.
Should men be sexually attracted at all to
women? If not, what in Society gets them so attracted and what needs to be
changed?
On
the face of it, it seems an absurd question. It seems obvious that men will be
sexually attracted to women. Almost all religions, however, view such sexual
attraction as taboo – except in the accepted manner between husband and wife.
Even when it comes to that, there are some religions that seem to consider it
as sinful and think that sexual activity – other than for procreation – is
sinful.
Further,
when it comes to sexual attraction, it is considered the weakness – not a sin -
of men alone. A woman’s sexual interest – even for her husband – is considered unnatural. In short, they are seen as 'objects of sexual desire' and not as participants. It is further assumed that the dress and behavior of women can either
provoke the libido of men or not. Thus, women tend to get labeled between the
Sati Savitris and the temptresses – with no other category possible in-between.
Therefore,
for a woman, if your dress or behavior does not fit the strait-jacket image of
a Sati Savitri, you are by definition a temptress. It is this mind-set that
causes the ‘leaders’ to mouth off the absurdities that we have been hearing
these days. Since they consider sexual attraction as somehow sinful, they seek
to offer solutions that will, in their ‘considered’ opinion, avert the
possibility.
Obviously,
what needs to change is that mind-set. Even assuming that this idea of a
completely channeled sexual interest is desirable – and assuming that requires
an infinitely elastic stretch of the mind particularly when you consider that
it, inter alia, includes the absence of any sexual interest in a woman’s mind –
it is an ideal that can be aspired to but not achieved by all, as in the case
of any ideals. An unforgiving approach to the non-achievement of this ideal –
and the consequent diatribes about the dress and behavior of women – is totally
unwarranted.
Should men be free to force sexual
attentions on women – ranging from molestation to rape? If not, what in Society
makes some feel like doing it and what needs to be changed?
The
fact that it is considered natural for men for feel sexual interest for women
does not necessarily mean that it is equally as natural for them to force their
attentions on women. The first right of any person is the right over her own
body – life, bodily harm whatever – and there is a vast difference between
wanting to have sex and feeling entitled to do so.
How
then do some men feel free to force their attentions on women? One major reason
is the assumption – built over the generations – that women are subordinate to
them and exacerbated by the fact that they see women who refuse to accept this
subordinate role. Another is their own sense of impotence in their social roles
and the need to regain some measure of power by exercising it over those whom
they think they can subdue.
The
one thing that the ‘leaders’ of our Society seem to be unable to understand –
always crediting them for having the necessary equipment to understand – is the
fact that, when they mouth off about how women act as temptresses, the message
they pass on to the fringe elements is that it is ‘all right’ to molest or rape
a woman who does not behave like the ideal ‘Sati Savitri’. This sort of assumption
of tacit social sanction to such behavior can only exacerbate the situation.
Not
that the attentions of molesters is restricted to the so-called ‘temptresses’.
I mean, it is difficult to see how three year-olds and five year olds could
have appeared like the Rambhas and Menakas of yore. The other reason that
contributes to this behavior is the fact that they assume the silence of the
victim – which they may consider near-certain in small children and highly
probable even in adults considering that there is still a lot of social
opprobrium attached to having been a rape victim.
Lastly,
of course, is the fact that the molesters may be confident of not being
punished for their crime even if the crime is exposed.
Unless
the views about acceptable behavior by women as well as the status of women
changes in Society and Society learns to treat victims with compassion, a
radical reduction of such crimes may not be possible. The certainty of being
punished would, however, go a long way to reducing such crimes.
In case there are laws in place to avert
undesirable social behavior, should the Police be an arbiter of whether to
accept the lodging of such a case or of the manner in which they treat the
person lodging the case? Is an underlying mindset in Society a sufficient
excuse for the Police not doing its duty in the manner prescribed? If not, what
are the measures to be put in place to ensure that the laws are enforced as
prescribed?
The
problems in getting the perpetrators punished start from the time the attempt
is made to lodge a complaint. Considering that getting the perpetrators
punished largely depends on the investigative process, the behavior of the
Police is crucial to this issue. The news and views about Police behavior makes
it difficult to believe that a victim can even muster the courage to go and
lodge the complaint in the first place.
One
of the major reasons that seem to crop up is that the Police come from the same
Society we come from and are informed by the same opinions. Does that mean that
any change in the perceived behavior of the Police can come only if the
underlying structure of Society is improved?
It
is undeniable that a change in Society will necessarily improve the behavior of
the Police. But it does not seem to me to be a necessary pre-condition. I have
yet to hear that it is understandable for a Police constable to not salute a
Woman MP or Minister because he comes from a Society with male chauvinistic
tendencies. If organizational discipline can instill one sort of ‘unnatural’
behavior, it can instill others as well. It is, then, for the Police
department to ensure that discipline in such behavior is instilled in its
officials – by punitive action if necessary.
Of
course, it is also necessary to ensure faster processing of cases in the legal
system – fast-track courts, if need be. I am not a votary of the belief that
stricter laws and strict and efficient enforcement serve no purpose in reducing
crime. To me it appears much like arguing that since there is so much crime
anyway we might as well dispense with the Police.
Is it acceptable behavior - in the Society
that we want to live in - for the common man to sidestep a scene of crime and
go about his business? If not, what needs to be changed?
The
fact remains that a lot of crimes – including molestation – happen in public and
the public prefers not to get involved. This avoidance of involvement may have
become an ingrained cultural trait – a sort of misplaced sense of allowing
other people their privacy – or it may have its roots in selfishness or fear.
Society
needs to assume that people will be selfish to an extent. If the involvement in
the stopping of a crime requires too much investment in time and inconvenience,
it requires a far higher quantum of selflessness on the part of a person to get
himself involved. This, in effect, mean that the organs of Government with whom
such people may need to interact must instill confidence in the public about
being considerate of their time.
The
fear of getting involved arises from the distrust in authority that has been
built into our psyches. Unfortunately, government officials – including the
Police - have been seen and have seen themselves as people with authority
rather than as public servants to such an extent that the phrase public servant
seems to connote Royalty to Indians. Thus, even without the perpetrators
threatening dire consequences because of who they are, the public prefers to
avoid getting in touch with any organ of government unless absolutely
necessary.
Yet
another problem is that there is no real sense of community in India.
We have family, we have friends and then we have the rest of the world. There
is no real sense of ownership to the area or city we live in. Unless a sense of
community is developed, we will continue to ignore crime around us.
It
is perhaps time that we started developing community institutions –community
service and what have you - that shall not only help develop a sense of
community but shall also bring us in touch with public servants as people
instead of authority figures, thereby eliminating in part, at least, that
ingrained fear of authority.
The discussions I have heard, hitherto,
seem to consider social change and changes in the legal system as some sort of
either-or alternatives to the issue of attempting a solution of this problem.
Social change is most necessary and every possible step needs to be taken in
this regard. That is a long-drawn process, however, and there will always be
fringe elements who shall indulge in crime regardless of what Society thinks of
it. Stricter laws and strict enforcement, therefore, need to go hand-in-hand
with any attempt at Social change.
If you liked this you may like to check out the index of other posts of this genre or read a selection of similar posts.
This post has been published by me as a part of the Blog-a-Ton 35; the thirty-fifth edition of the online marathon of Bloggers; where we decide and we write. To be part of the next edition, visit and start following