For a successful revolution it is not enough that there is discontent. What is required is a profound and thorough conviction of the justice, necessity and importance of political and social rights.

— Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

In a harrowing incident, two infants suffered serious burn injuries after two gang-rape accused out on bail set fire to the 11-year-old Dalit rape survivor’s house in Uttar Pradesh’s Unnao district. The incident happened on February 13, 2022, when the men gang-raped the minor girl. One of the infants who was injured was the victim’s six-month-old son, who was conceived during the assault, and the other was her two-month-old sister.

According to the PTI, a group of men led by the two rape suspects burned down the survivor’s home and beat up her mother after she refused to withdraw her complaint against them. According to chief medical superintendent Sushil Srivastava, the rape survivor’s infant son received 35% burns on his body while her sister received 45% burns in the incident. The two injured infants are fighting for their lives in Kanpur hospital.

According to media reports, a thorough investigation into the incident is underway, and the Uttar Pradesh Police is looking into others named in the FIR.

It is crucial to note here that this is not the first attack on the victim’s family as a result of their refusal to drop the rape case. On April 13, five days before setting fire to the house, the survivor’s father was attacked with an axe by her grandfather and uncle, who had sided with the accused, along with four other people. The police allegedly took no action despite the father’s identification of the men involved in the attack on him. In a video of her father, he can be heard saying that he complained to the police, but they did nothing. The family has accused the local police of protecting the accused. The mother of the survivor has also claimed that their home was purposefully set on fire in order to kill her daughter’s infant son.

The post regarding the news can be read here:

While all eyes are on #AtiqueAhmed, 2 INFANTS with major BURNS are struggling for their LIVES.

One of the babies was born after a minor Dalit girl’s alleged gang-rape in Unnao last yr. 2 accused got bail last week, beat up victim’s father, cops took no action. And this happened pic.twitter.com/aV2hGoj9Jm

— Tanushree Panday (@TanushreePande) April 18, 2023

This incident comes just a day after the Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath had boasted of the law and order situation in the state, saying, “UP guarantees you (businessmen) the best law and order situation.” But, not all is okay in Uttar Pradesh, and has never been for the Dalit community, especially for the Dalit women. Prior to this, in the year 2017, Adityanath had also claimed that Dalits, farmers and the poor are the government’s priority. 

The situation of caste and gender-based atrocities against Dalit women in India

For most Dalit women, the reality of caste-based gender violence is perpetual, persistent and constant. In the year 2020, the chief minister had launched ‘Mission Shakti’ campaign which promised ‘zero tolerance’ towards crimes against women. However, during the same year of 2020, 604 cases of rape of Dalit women were registered in Uttar Pradesh. Of them, 122 victims were minors, according to data from the National Crime Records Bureau. It is also to be noted that in 2019, there were 545 cases of rape in UP in which victims were Dalit women, and 526 in 2018, which means, that as the years have progressed, gender and caste based atrocities faced by Dalit women have only increased. And yet, according to the Chief Minister of the state, all remains well.

But, these atrocities and discrimination faced by the Dalit survivors and families do not end at the commission of the crime. India is failing to fulfill its legal and moral responsibilities to protect Dalit women and girls from sexual violence. Survivors and their families frequently face multiple obstacles to justice, and these common impediments highlight the systemic nature of discrimination faced by Dalit communities in India’s criminal justice system and wider society. The condition has become so dire that instead of fearing the consequences of committing a crime against human body, perpetrators are well aware that if they commit crimes against Dalit community members, they will face far less punishment because crimes are rarely investigated or prosecuted. And in cases where the perpetrators belong to the dominant class, the chances of the authorities siding with the accused are higher than the case ever reaching a conviction.

It is to be noted that the conviction rates remain abysmally low for the small proportion of sexual violence assaults that India’s criminal court system does prosecute. According to the National Crime Records Bureau’s latest data, there was a 45 percent increase in reported rapes of Dalit women between 2015 and 2020. The data said 10 rapes of Dalit women and girls were reported every day in India, on average. According to the National Family Health Survey 2015-2016, sexual violence rates were highest among women from Scheduled Tribes (Adivasi or Indigenous Indians) at 7.8 percent, followed by Scheduled Castes (Dalit) at 7.3 percent, and Otherwise Backward Castes (OBCs) at 5.4 percent. For the sake of comparison, as per the data, the rate for women who were not marginalised by caste or tribe was 4.5 percent.

According to studies, the vast majority of rapes against Dalit women go unreported. Common barriers include a lack of family support and police reluctance to register complaints against upper caste men. The legal and judicial systems are inaccessible to many Dalit women. Furthermore, those Dalit women who want to file police complaints frequently face difficulties. Collecting evidence and witness testimony is even more difficult. Police are slow to register complaints, investigations into Dalit women are frequently delayed, and officials frequently deny that a rape had even occurred.

According to a Human Rights Watch report, if a case is filed, the woman will face new challenges before a judge “whose gender biases and caste affiliations can greatly influence the judgment in the case.” Additionally, fearing the retaliation from perpetrators, who are frequently in positions of relative power in the community and belong to the dominant caste, witnesses rarely agree to come forward to testify or corroborate the victim’s statement. In rare cases that they do, incidents similar to the aforementioned happen.

On March 15, 2021, a parliamentary standing committee on Home Affairs report on ‘Atrocities and Crimes against Women and Children’ was presented in the Rajya Sabha. According to the report, it was held that Dalit women faced difficulties in filing atrocity cases against them due to “poor implementation of existing laws and the apathetic attitude of law enforcement agencies.”

According to the National Council for Women Leaders, who published a report titled ‘Caste-based Sexual Violence and State Impunity,’ caste becomes a critical factor in how sexual violence survivors access justice. According to the report, even if a FIR is filed, the accused or his family threatens the woman or her family with further violence if they refuse to drop the case. Many survivors and their families also struggled to keep track of lengthy investigations and trials. Furthermore, institutions dealing with the cases, such as hospitals, frequently violated established investigation protocols.

According to the NCWL report, caste-based attitudes and discrimination pervade the entire law enforcement and criminal justice system, including the police, medical officials, prosecutors, and judges, and these attitudes impede Dalit women and girls’ access to justice. It is important to note that under the  Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (PoA Act), the Indian legal system has special provisions for crimes committed against people marginalised by caste and tribe, including state support and special courts to streamline cases filed under the law. However, in order for cases to be tried under the law, survivors must first report the crimes to the police, after which an investigation takes place, and only then is the case brought to trial. As per the NCWL report, access to justice is limited for women from less privileged castes, particularly in rural areas, at each stage.

The authorities’ reluctance to include appropriate provisions under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act weakens the survivor’s case. It should be noted that there is no provision for anticipatory bail under the POA Act, and the quantum of punishment in the event of conviction is higher. In 15 percent of the cases where survivors or families of victims were able to get an FIR registered, justice was stalled due to the police not including applicable provisions of the PoA Act. It is crucial to highlight here that in the aforementioned case, the rape accused hate gotten bail even after having raped a minor Dalit girl. Since the PoA act does not allow for bails to be granted the accused, it can fairly be deduced that the perpetrators had not be booked under the PoA act.

This case highlights the terrifying impunity that dominant caste rapists enjoy in India, as well as the criminal justice system’s failure to provide justice to marginalised community survivors. It is a major betrayal of the justice system’s promise to hold criminals accountable and to provide a safe haven for women in the country. This tragic Unnao case reaffirms Dalit women’s complete powerlessness in the criminal justice system and serves as yet another cautionary tale for women considering approaching the police or the courts for redress against violence. Despite the hashtags and outrage surrounding the Hathras case, sexual violence against Dalit women is not a new phenomenon.

Provisions under PoA Act for providing protection to the kins of the survivor

It is essential to highlight here that in addition to the above-mentioned protections provided to the victims of caste-based crimes under the PoA Act, the act also provides for granting protection to the family of the survivor. These provisions guaranteeing protection to the families of the survivor are owning to the atrocities, hatred and oppression faced by the marginalised communities at the hands of the dominant communities for having had the audacity to rise against them. The provisions are as follows:

Section 15A. Rights of victims and witnesses—

(1) It shall be the duty and responsibility of the State to make arrangements for the protection of victims, their dependents, and witnesses against any kind of intimidation or coercion or inducement or violence or threats of violence

(3) A victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any Court proceeding including any bail proceeding and the Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government shall inform the victim about any proceedings under this Act.

(4) A victim or his dependent shall have the right to apply to the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, as the case may be, to summon parties for production of any documents or material, witnesses or examine the persons present.

(5) A victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction, acquittal or sentencing.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court trying a case under this Act shall provide to a victim, his dependent, informant or witnesses–

(a) the complete protection to secure the ends of justice;

(b) the travelling and maintenance expenses during investigation, inquiry and trial;

(c) the social-economic rehabilitation during investigation, inquiry and trial; and

(d) relocation

(7) The State shall inform the concerned Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court about the protection provided to any victim or his dependent, informant or witnesses and such Court shall periodically review the protection being offered and pass appropriate orders.

(8) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (6), the concerned Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court may, on an application made by a victim or his dependent, informant or witness in any proceedings before it or by the Special Public Prosecutor in relation to such victim, informant or witness or on its own motion, take such measures including–

(a) concealing the names and addresses of the witnesses in its orders or judgments or in any records of the case accessible to the public;

(b) issuing directions for non-disclosure of the identity and addresses of the witnesses;

(c) take immediate action in respect of any complaint relating to harassment of a victim, informant or witness and on the same day, if necessary, pass appropriate orders for protection:

Provided that inquiry or investigation into the complaint received under clause (c) shall be tried separately from the main case by such Court and concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the complaint:

Provided further that where the complaint under clause (c) is against any public servant, the Court shall restrain such public servant from interfering with the victim, informant or witness, as the case may be, in any matter related or unrelated to the pending case, except with the permission of the Court.                                                   

(9) It shall be the duty of the Investigating Officer and the Station House Officer to record the complaint of victim, informant or witnesses against any kind of intimidation, coercion or inducement or violence or threats of violence, whether given orally or in writing, and a photocopy of the First Information Report shall be immediately given to them at free of cost.

(10) All proceedings relating to offences under this Act shall be video recorded.

(11) It shall be the duty of the concerned State to specify an appropriate scheme to ensure implementation of the following rights and entitlements of victims and witnesses in accessing justice so as–

(a) to provide a copy of the recorded First Information Report at free of cost;

(b) to provide immediate relief in cash or in kind to atrocity victims or their dependents;

(c) to provide necessary protection to the atrocity victims or their dependents, and witnesses;

(d) to provide relief in respect of death or injury or damage to property;

(e) to arrange food or water or clothing or shelter or medical aid or transport facilities or daily allowances to victims;

(f) to provide the maintenance expenses to the atrocity victims and their dependents;

(g) to provide the information about the rights of atrocity victims at the time of making complaints and registering the First Information Report;

(h) to provide the protection to atrocity victims or their dependents and witnesses from intimidation and harassment;

(i) to provide the information to atrocity victims or their dependents or associated organisations or individuals, on the status of investigation and charge sheet and to provide copy of the charge sheet at free of cost;

(j) to take necessary precautions at the time of medical examination;

(k) to provide information to atrocity victims or their dependents or associated organisations or individuals, regarding the relief amount;

(l) to provide information to atrocity victims or their dependents or associated organisations or individuals, in advance about the dates and place of investigation and trial;

(m) to give adequate briefing on the case and preparation for trial to atrocity victims or their dependents or associated organisations or individuals and to provide the legal aid for the said purpose;

(n) to execute the rights of atrocity victims or their dependents or associated organisations or individuals at every stage of the proceedings under this Act and to provide the necessary assistance for the execution of the rights.

(12) It shall be the right of the atrocity victims or their dependents, to take assistance from the Non-Government Organisations, social workers or advocates.]

Section 21. Duty of Government to ensure effective implementation of the Act.

(1) Subject to such rules as the Central Government may make in this behalf, the State Government shall take such measures as may be necessary for the effective implementation of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, such measures may include,–

(i) the provision for adequate facilities, including legal aid, to the persons subjected to atrocities to enable them to avail themselves of justice;

(ii) the provision for travelling and maintenance expenses to witnesses, including the victims of atrocities, during investigation and trial of offences under this Act;

(iii) the provision for the economic and social rehabilitation of the victims of the atrocities;

(iv) the appointment of officers for initiating or exercising supervision over prosecutions for the contravention of the provisions of this Act;

(v) the setting up of committees at such appropriate levels as the State Government may think fit to assist that Government in formulation or implementation of such measures;

(vi) provision for a periodic survey of the working of the provisions of this Act with a view to suggesting measures for the better implementation of the provision of this Act;

(vii) the identification of the areas where the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are likely to be subjected to atrocities and adoption of such measures so as to ensure safety for such members.

(3) The Central Government shall take such steps as may be necessary to co-ordinate the measures taken by the State Governments under sub-section (1).

(4) The Central Government shall, every year, place on the table of each House of Parliament a report on the measures taken by itself and by the State Governments in pursuance of the provisions of this section.

These provisions are not talked about, and the marginalised community often remain unaware about them. The most recent instance where the family of the Dalit victim was provided police protect was that of the Hathras Rape Case. In the case of the alleged gang-rape and murder of a 20-year-old woman in Hathras in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian had asked the UP state government if witnesses in the case had been provided protection and if the family of the victim had a lawyer. In a compliance affidavit filed in the top court, the Yogi Adityanath-led government said “in order to ensure the security of victim’s family/witnesses, three-fold protection mechanism has been devised” — armed constabulary component, civil police component comprising of guard, gunners and shadows and installation of CCTV cameras and lights.

It is unfortunate that, despite laws aimed at protecting the rights of individuals from the marginalised community, the situation continues to deteriorate and is becoming worse. These laws, designed to protect human rights, remain out of reach, continuing to be on paper while the perpetrators escape. Even after these crimes are committed openly and visibly, the state and parts of society in India conspire to downplay or erase the links between sexual violence and caste hierarchies. Today, as more Dalit women dare to stand up to caste oppression, the backlash appears to be more brutal than ever. It is the responsibility of the state and its agencies, as well as the citizens, to ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes are brought to justice. It is critical that, in the face of a consistent pattern of families of Dalit victims and rape survivors facing backlash, human rights and Dalit rights defenders hold consistent protests so that the state is held accountable to providing the police protection guaranteed under laws to the families of the victims, in addition to the other legal provisions available for safeguarding the Dalit community’s rights.

Related:

Caste Census Would be Real Tribute to Ambedkar

Complaint to NCSC over Bihar Police assault on minor Dalit boys for playing music at Holi

India’s Justice Delivery System Exposed: Startling Statistics Revealed in 2022 Justice Report

More 90k undertrials in UP prisons with 24% SCs, 5% ST and 46% OBC: MHA

IN UP’S MEERUT, A DALIT YOUTH LAKHAN’S HAND AND FEET TIED TO THE TREE AND HIS FACE WAS BLACKENED AND THEN MADE BALD IN FRONT OF THE CROWD.

DALIT STUDENT BRUISED AND BEATEN FOR DRINKING WATER FROM BUCKET IN SCHOOL: UP

INDORE : DALIT FAMILY BRUTALLY ASSAULTED BY THAKURS, FORMER HAD GONE TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THEIR FARMLAND

Anti-Dalit violence all pervasive even in April 2023, #DalitHistory month

Safai Shramik Union raises demands for a law that safeguards rights of sanitation workers: Maharashtra

Is Caste name calling not an offence under the SC/ST Act?

The post UP: Five days after attack on father of Dalit gang rape survivor, two infants and survivor set on fire at home by gang-rape suspects appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“This action made me nauseous enough to re-live the trauma of being raped.”

Since childhood, women in India have been taught that a family’s honour is attached to the virtue of the women and daughters of the family. For the numerical majority, girls are often regaled with of the story of Sita, wife of Ram who “willingly walked through fire”, gave an “Agni-Pariksha”, to prove her chastity after being “kidnapped” by another man. Another mythological character of Ahilya, has been often portrayed as a socially ostracized woman. Her fault was she had an intimate relationship with a man while her husband was away for years, praying to God. Even among Semitic minority communities “chastity and purity” are badges of honour to be closely held by women.

Thus, the ideal of the Indian woman as “pure”, is upheld by family and society, concepts challenged over decades by individual and collectives of women.

The purity-virginity taboo, which persisted during the colonial era and continues to this day- albeit in a somewhat modified form, gave birth to the two finger test. The Two Finger Test, often known as a vaginal examination, is used to determine whether the woman concerned has ever engaged in sexual activity prior to conducting of this test. This extremely regressive practice that has been protested and condemned by women rights’ activists for decades deserved to be shunned a long time ago, for not only being denigrating towards women but also because it further traumatised a survivor of sexual assault.

The test was outlawed by the Indian Supreme Court in 2013, but the Ministry of Health never made the statutory regulations public, therefore several regions of India have continued to routinely administer the test. In 2013, SC clearly stated that this so-called test violates the rights of rape survivors. The verdict followed the sexual assault amendments in 2013 that recognised other forms of penetration besides penile-vaginal as rape. It was post the much-protested Nirbhaya Delhi Rape Case (Mukesh v NCT of Delhi), this, the Justice Verma Committee was constituted to recommend legal changes into the laws related to sexual assault against women. The amendments made a woman’s sexual experience irrelevant in determining the issue of consent. Besides, one of the major recommendations made by Committee was that the Ministry of Health should create standards for medical professionals assessing survivors.

It has therefore been close to a decade (nine years) since this unscientific and intrusive practice of two finger test has been outlawed. Yet this offensive practice persists. Even specific guidelines have been made for medical professionals to follow in cases of sexual offences against women. Despite this ban, numerous cases have been found where rape survivors have been subjected to the two-finger test. Even today, the Supreme Court of India has to examine cases, and adjudicate on the invasive test whenever still used/applied. Minor girls too continue to face this test, often also dubbed the virginity test.

In October 2014, the Union health ministry, issued guidelines stipulating the ‘test’ should simply not be conducted as “it had no bearing on a case of sexual violence.” The guidelines also barred doctors’ comments on “past sexual experience or habituation to sexual intercourse.” However, many states have simply not implemented the 2014 Guidelines. Two states, Gujarat High Court (State of Gujarat v. Rameshchandra Rambhai Panchal, R/Cri Appeal No. 122 of 1996) in 2020 and Madras High Court (Rajivgandhi v. The State, 1770 : (2022) 3 Mad LJ (Cri) 265) in early 2022 have severely criticised its continued use.

The order of the Gujarat HC can be read here:

The order of the Madras HC can be read here:

On October 31, 2022 the Supreme Court ruled that anyone who performs the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination on a victim of an alleged sexual assault shall be considered to have engaged in unprofessional conduct. In this case, the SC bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli overturned the impugned Jharkhand high court’s decision and found the respondent guilty of rape and murder under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The fact that even today, in 2022, 29 years after the test was banned, a constitutional court thought fit to tolerate its use, is reflective of the vastly contradictory standards within India’s higher judiciary when it comes to the dignity of women.

The appeal, in this case, was filed challenging the order of the Jharkhand High Court that set aside the order of conviction and sentencing of the respondent to life imprisonment under Sections 302, 376, 341, and 448 of the IPC, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II Deoghar. The respondent allegedly entered the victim’s home on November 7, 2004, raped on her, and threatened to murder her. The respondent doused the victim in kerosene and set her ablaze when she cried out for assistance. The station-in-charge at Sarwna Police Station documented the victim’s dying declaration on the same, wherein she described the offence that took place. On December 14, 2004, she passed away.

The victim was examined by the Medical Board, who used the “two-finger test” to see if she was accustomed to having sex, the Court noted. According to Section 375 of the IPC, it is irrelevant if a woman is “habituated to sexual intercourse,” and her past sexual behaviour is “wholly immaterial” when evaluating whether she was raped, the court noted. While restoring the conviction in a rape case, the division bench of the SC, expressed its displeasure that two finger tests were still being undertaken. The court strongly recommended against doing the examination, describing it as “regressive” and “intrusive” and lacking any scientific support for the claims of rape and sexual assault. The Bench remarked, “It is patriarchal and sexist to suggest that a woman cannot be believed when she states that she was raped, merely for the reason that she is sexually active.”

The Supreme Court cited the judgment, given in the case of Lilly v. State of Haryana (2013), to support of ruling, which provided that the “two-finger test” violated the rights of rape survivors to “privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.” The Indian Evidence Act’s Section 53A, added by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013, was also referenced to by the court. This section states that in sexual offense prosecutions, evidence of the victim’s character or her prior sexual experiences with anyone is not relevant to the question of consent or the quality of consent. It also made reference to instructions provided by the Ministry of Health and Financial Affairs for medical professionals in situations of sexual assault indicating that such a per vaginum examination must not be conducted for establishing rape or sexual assault.

“Evidence of a victim’s sexual history not material to case. It is regrettable that it continues to be conducted even today… The so called test has no scientific basis…it instead re-victimises and re-traumatizes women,” the top court stated on October 31. Most significantly it held that,

The legislature explicitly recognized this fact when it enacted the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 which inter alia amended the Evidence Act to insert Section 53A. In terms of Section 53A of the Evidence Act, evidence of a victim’s character or of her previous sexual experience with any person shall not be relevant to the issue of consent or the quality of consent, in prosecutions of sexual offences. (Para 63)

The Court directed the Union and State Governments, expressing regret over the continued usage of the “two-finger test,” to distribute the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s guidelines to all public and private hospitals, hold workshops for healthcare professionals to clarify the proper procedure, and review the medical school curriculum to ensure that the “two-finger test” is no longer taught.

The court declared that anybody who undertakes the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination (when evaluating a person believed to have been subjected to a sexual assault) in violation of the directives of this Court shall be guilty of misconduct. The court also stated, “Any person who conducts the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination (while examining a person alleged to have been subjected to a sexual assault) in contravention of the directions of this Court shall be guilty of misconduct.”

Detailed directions by the SC are contained in Paras 66-68 of the October 31 judgement. These are:

“Although the “two-finger test” in this case was conducted over a decade ago, it is a regrettable fact that it continues to be conducted even today. (Para 65)

“We direct the Union Government as well as the State Governments to: a. Ensure that the guidelines formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are circulated to all government and private hospitals; b. Conduct workshops for health providers to communicate the appropriate procedure to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape; and c. Review the curriculum in medical schools with a view to ensuring that the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination is not prescribed as one of the procedures to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape. (Para 66)

“A copy of this judgment shall be shared with the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India shall transmit copies of this judgment to the Principal Secretary (Department of Public Health) of each state. The Principal Secretaries in the Departments of Health of each state shall also be responsible for ensuring the implementation of the directions issued in Part E of this judgment. The Secretaries in the Departments of Home of each state shall in addition issue directions to the Directors General of Police in this regard. The Directors General of Police shall, in turn, communicate these directions to the Superintendents of Police. (Para 67).

Any person who conducts the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination (while examining a person alleged to have been subjected to a sexual assault) in contravention of the directions of this Court shall be guilty of misconduct.(Para 68)

The order can be read here.

On paper, India’s jurisprudence around gender justice are occasionally even more progressive than those of so-called industrialised nations, but when it comes to implementation, everything is for nothing. A report by Human Rights Watch was released in the year 2010, which highlighted the widespread use of this practice. It described this test as “unscientific, inhuman and degrading” and a second assault on traumatized women, and raised concerns about the Indian courts bringing views of rape victims’ general moral character into their rulings.

India is a signatory of many international covenants, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights of 1966 and the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power of 1985. India is under the obligation to ensure that ape victims have a right to legal action that does not traumatize them or infringe on their physical or mental integrity and dignity. They also have the right to medical procedures that respect their right to consent. When dealing with gender-based violence, health should always come first and medical procedures shouldn’t be performed in a way that is cruel, inhuman, or demeaning to others. To provide these assistance to victims of sexual assault is a duty on the part of the State. To protect their safety, appropriate steps should be taken, and there should be no arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy. This “archaic and outdated” practice of two-finger test, conducted to determine the virginity/consent of a rape victim, is violative of the right of the victim to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.

Medico-legal authorities, such as doctors and police officers, usually obstruct the victim’s path to justice because they are uninformed about the complexities of sexual abuse. In the year 2019, a woman at the Indian Air Force College at Redfields, Coimbatore, accused a colleague of raping her. She also alleged that medical staff at the academy had subjected her to the “two-finger test,” which was regarded as an illegal, preliminary examination of rape victims to determine sexual assault. Along with the employment of this prohibited approach, the aforementioned incident also demonstrated the necessity for empathy and sensitization while handling incidents of sexual assault. For instance, the survivor claims in her FIR that the officer who presided over her complaint was consistently “rude.” The officer allegedly attempted to get the complainant’s friend to sign the statement withdrawing the complaint.^[1]

This obstacle has far-reaching implications as when survivors do decide to report, law enforcers run the risk of further traumatising and disempowering them due to their insensitivity and lack of knowledge. In order to protect women from assault, patriarchy must be defeated, and efforts to address the worldwide and Indian rape problem must be based on education and sensitization. It is people who create institutions and mould society, after all.

It is necessary to create an environment where justice can prevail beyond the boundaries of rights, where rape has nothing to do with a woman’s habit of engaging in sexual activity, where women protest for an egalitarian world, where such sexist ideas can be replaced, and where research can be conducted in a useful manner. The two-finger test is just one illustration of how a fledgling democracy has failed miserably to provide dignity in redressal for women and other members of the gender; it is only through the widespread application of laws and rules that ban such arcane and offensive practices, that gender discrimination can be arrested especially after a violent assault has taken place.

States and even the Centre has often failed in both disseminating and implementing what the constitutional courts, especially the Supreme Court has turned unlawful. Many medical practitioners and doctors are similarly either uninformed or unmindful of such seminal judgements that affect real lives and ensure good practices. A real challenge for India’s apex court is to ensure that it’s directives, be it on this practice or torture or custodial death are actually implemented within police stations, hospitals and even lower courts.

^[1] IAF rape case survivor subjected to two-finger test: Why such practices and a lack of empathy add to trauma (firstpost.com)

Related:

Accused under POSCO granted bail on condition of marriage to victim: Allahabad HC

Kerala HC: “Even if a woman wears a ‘provocative dress’ that cannot give a licence to a man to outrage her modesty”

BREAKING: SC stays Bombay HC’s controversial POCSO judgment

Groping minor without physical contact, not sexual assault under POCSO Act: Bombay HC

National commissions for women and child rights decry Bom HC POCSO judgment

The post Patriarchy and Virtue: Why is the outlawed practice of the Two Finger Test still in practice in India? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a shocking incident, a 15-year-old rape survivor was set ablaze by her rapist and his immediate family members in Mainpuri, in Uttar Pradesh. The accused had allegedly raped the girl three months ago causing her to get pregnant, reported Times of India.

The girl was first rushed to the Mainpuri district hospital and then referred to the Saifai Medical College Hospital in Etawah district where she is receiving treatment at present. According to the girl’s mother the girl had initially not told anyone about the rape, but it came to light when she developed pregnancy related aches in her abdomen. When they found that the alleged rapist was her uncle’s son, they approached the Panchayat on October 6. But according to the mother, the local panchayat was pressuring the family to “reach a compromise” as the crime was committed “within the family.” The same day, the accused and his family tried to burn the girl alive.

The publication quoted the mother as saying, “We first agreed not to file a police complaint because we were being pressured by the village panchayat to compromise. The accused’s mother publicly apologized for the crime committed by her son.” The survivor’s aunt, who was also the accused’s mother, then reportedly promised the survivor’s mother to have the child aborted and have the girl married to someone else, something the survivor’s mother agreed to. But the aunt, and her son and daughter then set the survivor on fire.

Mainpuri Superintendent of Police Kamlesh Kumar Dixit told TOI, “On Saturday, a woman filed a complaint stating that her sister-in-law’s son raped and then attempted to immolate her daughter on October 6.” Th epolice officer further confirmed that the girl had identified her assailants as “her uncle’s son, daughter and wife” and, “The minor confirmed that she was raped by her cousin three months ago.”

Police also confirmed that a case had been registered under sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 376 (rape), as well as relevant sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act. The accused aunt has been taken into custody and is being interrogated.

Related:

Delhi: 10-year-old boy, allegedly raped by friends, succumbs to injuries

Lakhimpur Kheri: Postmortem confirms Dalit sisters were raped before murder

Varanasi: Martial arts teacher allegedly rapes Dalit girl

The post Pregnant teenage rape survivor set ablaze by alleged rapist appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post A step closer to justice for rape victims: landmark ruling of Bangladesh HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.