"They will commit rape"- Ruling Party Politician
Today I glanced at the television and caught the news ticker titled “As long as the world exists, rapes will be there”. Unfortunately, the channel discussions were in Kannada so I had no idea what was going on. On my way to get my sari blouses (3 weeks late and another story) I picked up my three daily English newspapers- Hindu, Deacon Mysore and Deacon Bangalore- to get the full story.
Well, it seems that a politician has put his foot in his mouth about rape. While addressing the rise of crimes against women, All India Trinomial Congress (TMC) political leader Dipak Haldar said, "There was rape earlier, there is rape today. As long as the earth exists, there will be rape.” He went on to describe rape as a "social disease". Unfortunately, this is not the first time statements like this have come from members of this West Bengal ruling party. Last month MP Tapas Pal threatened to unleash rapists on the wives and children of opposition party’s supporters saying “Earlier, you guys have bullied me on various occasions. If you insult the mothers and daughters of Trinamool workers. Then I won't spare you. I will let lose my boys in your homes and they will commit rape. I will teach each of you a lesson."
Of course, these men have come out with apologies and excuses in response to these calls for their heads. Basically it is the same- my words were misconstrued/ take out of context/ twisted. In a letter of apology to his party Pal stated “Some remarks made by me in the heat and dust of the election campaign have caused dismay and consternation. I apologize unreservedly for them," and that he should never have made the comments despite the "provocation".
This is not enough as people are looking toward the Chief Minister (equivalent to the state Governor) to “reign in” and control these men. This is particularly profound given the TMC’s founder and current leader is a woman named Mamata Banerjee. She was originally from Calcutta (now Kolkata), and rose to power through her eventual establishment of the TMC. Her ability to have ascended to and hold onto this leadership position is apparently framed as an example of changing attitudes and opportunities for women’s empowerment. However, these two public statements by key party members supporting the use of and excusing of rape indicate that her presence does not have an impact on her key party mates’ perceptions of women.
And we should not expect it to. Just because a woman is in charge does not mean 1) she actually is “in charge”, 2) that her presence will change perceptions of women, and 3) she would automatically challenge patriarchy. India has had a long history of women in leadership positions- including Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi, and Pratibha Devisingh Patil [Note: No women in the USA have reached these heights of the political leadership; Canada did have Kim Campbell as Prime Minister- for four months]. The presence of these women did not reduce the number of child marriages, sex workers, female infanticides, or rape cases. The reality is that Mamata Banerjee is a politician in a highly patriarchal community and is relying on these men to do their part and represent the party in the best light- and maybe they are. You and I may not agree with what these men have said, but the cheers of the crows in the videos (see left and below) indicate that they have the support of their constituents.
We need to recognize that just because we may see something is wrong, it does not mean that the same meaning and value translates into another culture. In the case of violence against women, it is very politically correct (PC) to say it is wrong, but the reality is that excuses for these kinds of acts are made every day. The work I have done in the United States around verbal sexual coercion and I am doing here highlights that there are surface level responses, and various, deep cultural influences that say something else. Region, religion, caste and class significantly influences the ways in which people view violence against women, choose to respond to it, and engage/ accept it within their homes and communities.
More importantly, the culture of gender may impact how we experience violence but may not change how we view it when it is experienced by others. Women themselves have to look at how they respond to violence against women in all forms and how we often subconsciously support these kinds of positions. For example, Dipak Haldar’s wife Nandini asked for forgiveness even before he did saying "I apologize for his comments. I am saying sorry on his behalf." Most disturbing is that Mamata Banerjee herself has attributed the increasing incidence of rape in the country to "more free interaction between men and women". She said, “Earlier if men and women would hold hands, they would get caught by parents and reprimanded but now everything is so open. It’s like an open market with open options.”
Because of the work I am doing on intimate partner violence I often talk about how men and women express intimacy and the boundaries around these interactions. While I have yet to hear a woman in Mysore openly support violence- most speak out against it- I continue to hear occasional subtle comments that indicate a level of acceptance of it, which contributions to the ongoing problem of violence against women. For example, there still an acceptance among some women I spoke to that if you dress a certain way you should expect that you will be harassed or raped by men. I hear two women cluck their tongues about girls who went to coffee with too many boys. More recently, a girl was beaten by a boy that had “liked her” and gone to coffee with him a few times; he was angry that he still loved her but she had decided she was interested in someone else. The Youtube video of his attack was circulated, showing him beating her and the boy she was with leaving her to fend for herself; there was no sense of sympathy for the girl in most women’s responses. It was more that she should have known better.
And this is not simply a critique of Indian culture. The same thing occurs in North America. Look at the history of the Global Slut Walk. That came about after a police officer speaking at York University in Toronto stated that “Women who dress a certain way should expect to be raped”. None of the women in the audience spoke up at that time- it was later that a widespread response was initiated. Also, in my research examining the 2009 Chris Brown’s assault of Rihanna found that both mothers and daughters in the study held Rihanna responsible for his actions. They pointed to her alleged provocation through insults, and not “knowing her place as a woman” as legitimate reasons for him beating her unconscious. [A study by the Boston Department of Health found similar results]. And women have been among those raising questioning about the Steubenville rape victim’s culpability; why was she over there, wasn’t she already hanging around those boys, hadn’t she had sex with them before?
Fortunately, there has been a country wide backlash against these men’s statements. Indian women’s groups, in particular, have condemned both men. Competing parties (of course) have come out with strong statements that question why these men continue holding key positions in the ruling party. The National Commission for Women in India has also said it will request the President and the prime minister to expel Pal from Parliament. Still, there needs to be more conversations about the ways in which women (and men) construct violence, victimization and perpetration. This will require more research about the sexuality, culture, and gender expectations.
We’ll see what happens. Because of what I’m seeing through my work, at this point I’m expecting another foot in the mouth first!
