Popular culture and the ‘system’ itself – including police and courts – is complicit in seeking ways of rehabilitating sexual violence as romance, love or even marriage.
The mother (C) of an Indian girl who was raped and set on fire cries out during her daughter's funeral in Greater Noida near the Indian capital New Delhi on March 9, 2016. Image: AFP
In countless instances of popular Indian cinema, stalking is valorised as a macho and successful romance strategy. It isn’t just popular culture – the ‘system’ itself – including police and courts – is complicit in seeking ways of rehabilitating sexual violence as romance, love or even marriage.
This complicity is most clearly reflected in the phenomenon of ‘compromises’ brokered by police and even courts in rape and sexual violence cases all over the country. This phenomenon persists in spite of repeated Supreme Court judgements (Hindu, Indian Express) reminding that sexual violence crimes in India’s criminal justice system are generally non-compoundable and therefore not open to out of court settlements or compromises.
It is significant that a closer look at the two recent instances of women being stabbed to death by stalkers in Inderpuri and Burari in Delhi reveal a history of ‘compromises’ brokered by the police.
In the Burari case, "Karuna, who was working as a teacher, had filed a complaint against Surender five months ago but the police say that the families had submitted letters of a ‘compromise’, and no action was taken."
In the Inderpuri case, "Two days before this gruesome crime, 28-year-old Laxmi was stabbed to death by her stalker in West Delhi's Inderpuri area. Twenty-six-year-old Sanjay Kumar had allegedly harassed Laxmi for the past six years, despite repeated complaints filed by Laxmi and her husband, Manoj.
After Laxmi's complaint, Sanjay was arrested on charges of stalking but was released on bail. Laxmi's family says that even though they had complained earlier, no action was taken because Sanjay's family gave a written undertaking that he would stop."
What was the basis on which Sanjay, the accused in the Burari case, secured bail? Was the ‘written undertaking’ by his family of his good conduct a factor that the court considered? Bail is a right and should be the norm – but one of the strongest bases for refusing bail is when the accused is in a position to influence the investigation by intimidating the victim or witnesses, or in a position to harm the victim or witnesses.
Cases in India drag on for years because we lack enough courts and judges – the delay deters victim-survivors from complaining, increases the pressure on victims and the chances of a ‘compromise’, and also puts victim-survivors in danger of their lives. In stalking cases, should there not be any protocol for monitoring the case if the accused is out on bail – to check if he is again harassing the victim, if he is maintaining distance from her or not?
Unfortunately, much of the media coverage in the Delhi stabbing cases has avoided any discussion of chronic ‘compromises’ brokered/legitimised by police, and their role in making these killings possible. The PTI story on the Inderpuri case referred to the stalker as a ‘lover’. TV channels aired CCTV footage of the Burari stabbing repeatedly, focusing mainly on the ‘insensitivity’ of people watching who did not intervene to ‘save’ the victim.
Social media mirrored the same tendency – there was very little reflection on our tendency as a society to see stalking as ‘romance’ and broker compromises in stalking and sexual violence cases; only an easy self-righteousness about passive bystanders watching the stabbing without heroic intervention.
How many of us would know how to intervene to disarm a man armed with a knife, and attempt to do so when a murder is being committed? The question to ask – and as far as I know no journalist has yet asked or tried to answer – would be: did any of the eyewitnesses call the police, which as responsible citizens they could and should have done? Did the police respond, and how soon?
In India, consensual elopements, especially inter-caste or same gotra or same-sex relationships, are reported by women’s parents as ‘abduction/rape’. Meanwhile, cases where the woman herself has complained of rape and expressed abhorrence for her assailant are sought to be ‘settled’ by marrying the victim off to the rapist!
Rape is seen as harm against the victim’s marriageability, so the fact that the victim-survivor is offered and often accepted by courts as grounds for ‘compromise’ or leniency towards the rape convict!
Why are there no public campaigns by governments on sexual violence that make it clear that consensual elopements are not rape; that rape is a harm against women’s bodily integrity and autonomy and not against her virginity or marriageability; that stalking is not ‘love’; that rape or stalking or any other form of sexual violence cannot be settled by ‘compromises’ whether these are brokered by khaps, families, cops or courts?
In Delhi, the Aam Aadmi Party complains, as its predecessor did, that it does not have jurisdiction over the Delhi police. But surely the Delhi government has a duty to run public campaigns against rape culture? Surely the Delhi government has a duty to monitor implementation of the laws against sexual and gender violence, and can be much more proactive in offering institutional support to survivors of sexual violence, thereby helping them resist pressure to ‘compromise’ and file complaints against police if they collude in attempts at ‘compromise’?
Instead, from the AAP government also, we are getting more of the same patriarchal posturing – calls by ministers for public hanging of rapists, or rhetoric against the Delhi police on ‘women’s safety,’ with no action to actually change the patriarchal matrix in which crimes against women play out and justice is ‘compromised.’
(Kavita Krishnan is secretary, All India Progressive Women’s Association).