People's Democracy

Whose India?

G Mamatha

THE world is supposed to end on December 21, 2012. It might be a false prophecy, but for a girl, a boy and their families it nearly ended – if not on that day, little earlier. They did not foresee that watching a film in a Delhi mall will ruin their future. India is no country for women, screamed a newspaper, not after this incident, but many days prior to the day this gory incident took place. India is not a safe place for women! Just days before, when reports about child abuse appeared in the media, they screamed, India is no country for children. When there are attacks on dalits, India is no country for dalits. When minorities are attacked, India is no country for minorities. When the poor are dying of hunger, India is no country for the poor. Deducting from all the above statements, whom does India belong to? India, it appears is only for the rich, people from the majority religious denomination, 'upper-caste' and young. Of course, underline this, all of them should be Male! (and yes, with a capital M)

This naturally gives rise to the question, then what is India to us – the children, women, poor, dalits and minorities? Of course, the Constitution of our country, a 'democratic, secular, socialist, republic', opens its Preamble with an inclusive 'We the people...' Constitution guarantees everyone in the country, irrespective of their gender, religion, caste, race, region, equality, freedom and right to live a dignified life. The responsibility for the realisation of its guarantees is given to the executive, legislature and the judiciary. So the question, as famously posed by former President KR Narayanan is: “We have to consider whether it is the Constitution that has failed us, or whether it is we who have failed the Constitution”. BR Ambedkar, commending the Constitution for acceptance before the Constituent Assembly in 1949 had stated: “However good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it happen to be a good lot... it is futile to pass any judgement upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to play” (emphasis added). Without venturing into a discussion about the merits/de-merits/lacunae of the Constitution, let us look at the role played by the 'people and their parties', to understand the present plight.

The Preamble of our Constitution, states that we have 'resolved' to “secure to all its citizens” justice, equality, liberty and fraternity, assuring “the dignity of the individual”. Are our guardians of the Constitution living true to this directive and upholding the Constitution, an oath they had taken when assuming their respective responsibilities? Forget their duty to promote 'scientific temper and humanism'! If they had been at least true to the Constitution, we would not have been in this predicament.

According to the latest statistics, in our country, a woman is raped every 40 minutes and for every 27 minutes a woman is molested. All these are statistics of the women who dared to report these incidents. If we calculate all those incidents that go unreported, it would paint a more blacker picture of our country, which prides in its 'respect' for 'woman' – Shakti, Kali, Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati and so on, not to forget Bharat mata.

The incident that had taken place in Delhi had shaken the entire country because of its brutality, not because it had happened for the first time – either in the capital city or in the country. This incident had once again brought the 'safety' of women into discussion, not only in the parliament but also in the media and general public. Many opinions were floated. Most of them (one can even say, a majority of them) centred on the punishment that has to be served on the culprits of this gruesome crime. They argued that the more severe the punishment, the more is the possibility that it would act as a deterrent. No second opinions on severely punishing the culprits. But is that enough? Experience of handing out maximum punishment to persons in other instances show that this move alone might not bring in the desired change.

Another set of discussions centred on the need for women to resist and fight. In fact, the Delhi police have been running a commercial in the media asking women not to bow down but show spirit and resist. Deducing what is unsaid in this statement is demeaning. Let us only consider some aspects of what was stated. The Delhi incident itself is an example of how valiantly the girl fought and tried to resist the criminals. Not to forget another recent incident in Mumbai, where a boy was beaten to death as he had tried to stop the harassment of a girl, and the police constable who lost his life fighting those who were harassing his daughter in Punjab. These are not stray cases. If one closely follows the reports in media about the crimes committed on women, we also find reports about the resistance and fight put up by these women. Women should resist and in most cases do resist, but is that the solution? Remember, sexual attacks on women are perpetuated not on any one particular age group. As reports do point out, months old infants to women who have seen many summers (who have crossed the mean age of life expectancy in our country) are all subjected to sexual attacks. Media reports the day after the Delhi incident show that a six year old girl was raped by her neighbour and a few columns later we find a report about the rape of a seventy year old woman who was also robbed. Can anyone advice them how to fight these perverted-sexual brutes?

More than them fighting, the larger question is, is 'security' the responsibility of an individual? Then what is the meaning of Article 21 of our Constitution that guarantees every citizen 'protection of life and personal liberty'? Article 21 is a fundamental right guaranteed to all the citizens of our country and it was explicitly stated they will not be suspended, unless of course in an 'emergency'. The point is, it is the responsibility of the State to enforce these rights and see that they are not infringed. Instead of bringing pressure on the State – the government and its other arms – what is being suggested is 'privatisation' of this responsibility of the State. 'It is your responsibility to fight or, stay at home'. This should not be allowed.

Arguments instantly prop up in defence of the lethargic State that it cannot put personnel to police every mohallah, house and individual. True, but this is not what one means by advocating that 'security', 'protection of individual rights' is the responsibility of the State. It means, above policing, it is the responsibility of the State to ensure the prevention of crime. The State today is doing nothing to stop the prevention of 'quasi-state' structures like the khap panchayats that give obnoxious 'rulings'. It does not do anything to stop the spread of cultural misconceptions and biased prejudices. The State that intervenes correctly, if not effectively, stating that 'cigarette smoking is injurious to health' and 'consumption of alcohol is dangerous to health' in films, does not even contemplate the harm that a hero teasing the heroine, all in the name of true love, does to the audience. A film that can influence a person to smoke, will certainly influence to tease. The 'absurdity of thought' of our 'creative' artists shows out when they produce/enact films that show girls actually enjoying such teasing and desiring them. The impact of such 'creative absurdities' is immense and the State turns a blind-eye to this nonsense.

The insensitivity of the State does not end here. The Supreme Court judgement in the Visakha case (1997) is still waiting for proper legislation and implementation. Forget about the recent Supreme Court ruling on eve-teasing. Eve-teasing, of course is a misnomer, it is sexual harassment.

A related aspect is the portrayal of women to be subservient to men. Justification of such portrayal is derived from the oppressive Manu shastras – “Pita rakshati kaumare, bharta raskshati youvana, putrah rakshati varddhakye, na stree swatantryam arhati”. Individuality of women is not at all allowed, forget toleration. Woman, an 'object' is also for 'subjugation'. Is the State doing anything to counter such rubbish? Nothing. Is it not the duty of the State to counter such trash, if not 'campaign', and ensure that woman is an equal, individual and a citizen.

This can be ensured when the work done by women is acknowledged and respected. The State does not ensure equal wages to equal work. It does not ensure safety in workplaces and measures to protect them from discrimination. With this apathy from the State, can one expect any acknowledgement about the other substantial 'unseen' work done by women, mostly as 'house-wife'. Of course, recently the term is replaced by a more respectable 'home-maker'. Change of term, did not, in any way, change the perception. According to studies, “the value of women's unpaid housework and community work is estimated at between 10-35 per cent of GDP worldwide, amounting to $11 trillion in 1993”. As years passed, this has only increased. This is something which we are averse to recognise, acknowledge, leave alone respect. Often the idea circulated is, 'men go out to work, while women stay idle in their houses, whiling away their time'. This 'superiority' of the men is stamped by 'subjecting' women to violence, demeaning them and downplaying their role in the families. This grows up on the generations that are reared in a family. What is being done to break these stereotypes? Whose responsibility is it to counter this stereotypical projection of women?

Media, that is rightly shouting hoarse after the Delhi incident, should not shy away from introspection about the part it is playing in the projection of women. A genuine introspection will show that it too cannot escape from its responsibility.

Here we come to another stereotypical reporting done by the media in the Delhi incident. They had splashed pictures of the slum from where the culprits hail and one headline read, 'Underbelly breeds brutes'. It is true that the culprits come from a slum, but is it correct to play it in such a way? Not to be left behind, the 'responsible' chief minister of Delhi commented about the 'porous' borders of Delhi, trying to blame the people from other states for all the recent crimes committed on women. One can only wonder how short one's memory can be! Few years back, a diplomat was raped near Siri Fort in Delhi, a case that was not solved till date. Who was responsible for that? Nobody from slums. None from other states. Without discounting the 'porous' borders and the persons responsible for the recent crime, is it proper to typecast certain sections/classes of people for all the crimes? Is this not the way in which Muslim community was typecast for all the terror attacks in the country? Unfortunately the slap-on-face received by the investigating agencies after the bursting of 'Hindutva' terror models does not seem to be a lesson sufficient to prevent them from further indulging in such malicious typecasting. Or is there an ulterior motive behind all this, to cover up their investigative failures?

Similarly there are many other obnoxious arguments that don't merit consideration at all – like the way girls dress and the food that men eat. Broadly, 99 percent of the arguments are identifying 'the individual' or 'the family' as the causative/responsible factor. The role of the society, State is completely pushed to the back. This actually serves the purpose of the ruling classes and their neo-liberal, post-modern philosophy.

As sensitive human beings, we should not allow this to happen. The State should be coerced to perform its Constitutional duties – protection of citizens, irrespective of their gender, race, caste, religion and economic standing and safeguarding their rights is paramount among them. The government should be made to act, and act fast, to change the gender stereotypes prevalent in our society, it should be made to act to sensitise people about gender equality and, of course, enforce severe punishment on the perpetuators of gender crimes.

It augurs well for the government to remember Ambedkar: “Times are fast changing...They (people) are getting tired of Government by the people. They are prepared to have Governments for the people and are indifferent whether it is Government of the people and by the people. If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them”.