Slut Walking… Against Sexual Violence

Good on you Bhopal!

So a small, fairly conservative city like Bhopal has played host to India’s first ‘Slut Walk’. Called the ‘Besharmi[1] Morcha’, the city took on its chauvinistic male population head-on, even if most of the people taking them on were other men. Men who’ve been raised well, with sensitivity and maturity, men who’ve earned the right to be called men. The women meanwhile stayed indoors, except for the few who dared to venture out, braving the sidelong glances of their neighbours. The rest remained sequestered, under the stern eye of parents and relatives – after all, the world outside contains too many demons. It’s safer to stay home, and as long as it remains unspoken, incest isn’t something we’re ready to deal with… not yet anyway, even though we read about it in the papers, in what is now slowly being recognized as a common occurrence in closeted societies like ours. It isn’t an imported phenomenon, even if we’re tempted to term it so, it’s always been there. We’ve just looked the other way.

I’m beginning to wonder meanwhile, if all police officers are insensitive or just plain moronic, as a rule, or if it’s just a few who make it to that hallowed Hall of Shame. Didn’t we recently have the Delhi Police Chief B. K. Gupta sticking his over-sized foot in it when he said that Delhi is a safe city, but women shouldn’t venture out late at night, unless accompanied by a male friend, relative or even their driver… that’s presuming the driver is male and trusted? Unfortunately he isn’t the first to make such irresponsible and thoughtless statements, which serve to perpetuate the existing situation, instead of articulating responsible solutions to curb instances of sexual and other forms of violence against women. Sheila Dikshit, the Chief Minister of Delhi beat him to it when she spouted such swill earlier, and then took credit for cleaning up Delhi’s streets and making them safe for women, by telling them to stay indoors. The solution that these individuals have come up with to tackle offences seems to be aimed at ‘victimizing the victim’ and not at punishing the offender, the reason why offences against women continue unchecked.

It also reminds me of an encounter I had with a motorcycle riding creep in Delhi, in a fairly crowded parking lot near ‘Flavours’ in Defence Colony, in broad daylight a couple of years ago. That I’m Mumbai born and raised and don’t stand for nonsense from anyone, saw me take him on, even as he brought his face centimetres from mine, giving it back to him, enough to have the people standing by applaud, even though they chose not to step in and intervene. I did not back down and the man left after uttering a few choice abuses I chose to ignore, and I left immediately after, just in case he returned with a gang of his pals and a gun. While it’s okay, and in fact necessary to stand up against abuse, and to confront people who perpetrate such abuse… it would be foolish to wait to be shot dead.

The Delhi Police Commissioner therefore needs a couple of lessons in sensitivity, or perhaps he suffers from the same malaise that some members of the lower judiciary tend to suffer from when they suggest that rapists marry their victims in lieu of a reduced sentence, or in exchange for bail.

Lesson No. 1 – People do not molest, sexually abuse or rape others because they love them. Molestation, sexual abuse and rape are acts of violent domination, perpetrated by people who pick on others on whom they can exert such control. So the victim is traumatized by the event and what do we do – condemn them to a lifetime of violence and abuse, because instead of trying to remove the stigma surrounding such events, we feed into it, playing matchmaker instead of law-enforcer for people we think no one would or should marry. 

And the phenomenon is not just restricted to India.

Micheal Sanguinetti, a Canadian police officer, who I presume just returned from vacationing in Saudi Arabia and Iran, where he was on loan to the ‘moral police’, came back to his own home-town, duly enlightened and said that - “Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”. Is that so Mr. Sanguinetti? Is that what you’ll say to the eighty year old grandma who got raped by some sick moron, with self-esteem issues? That it was her new dentures that did it, because she smiled at the man, thinking that he reminded her of her grandson whom she hadn’t seen in a while… or to the four year old girl who was raped by her own father who had abandoned the family when she was born because he wanted a son, then met his family after four years, and raped her…?  

What will you say to them?

Or to Aruna Shanbaug, the spirited nurse who still lies in a semi comatose and vegetative state in a hospital bed in Mumbai, almost thirty-eight years after being sexually assaulted, sodomised and choked with a dog chain, by a sweeper at the hospital where she worked because she had castigated him, pulled him up for stealing food meant for stray dogs adopted by the hospital staff? Charged with the offence of robbery and attempted murder, the offender Sohanlal Walmiki, was convicted and served two concurrent sentences for robbery and assault… just seven years, before he was released, since the Dean of K.E.M. Hospital where Aruna worked, hoped that she would recover and did not want to bring into focus the true nature of the sexual offence perpetrated against her. An act, considered one of shame for the victim, and therefore to be concealed, even at the cost of allowing her attacker and rapist to roam free after serving just seven years in prison, to reclaim his life, while she still lies condemned. That is the price of shame.

It is time to wake up if we haven’t already, to the truth, that no one asks to be raped, molested or assaulted. Not by circumstance or the fact of their gender… or even due to the clothes they wear.

Michael Sanguinetti’s insensitivity towards women has however catalyzed into the world’s first ‘Slut Walk’ in Toronto, a movement which has gone viral, prompting women all over the globe to stick it to all those who blamed them for offences perpetrated against them, by marching against such unjust and offensive attitudes. A brilliant idea, and long overdue… but to be quite frank I baulked when I heard the term ‘Slut’. I’m conservative. So while I agree with the motive and intentions behind the movement and I’m all for girl power, I can’t seem to get my head around the term ‘Slut Walk’ and this whole thing about owning words.

Why own a word that’s derogatory, I wonder, especially in a day and age when we’ve so distorted the dictionary trying to be politically correct? Even though we all tend to use terms that may skirt the borders of political correctness, and have personally been name called, mostly by some of our best friends, with what we believe to be a degree of affection, I do have a problem owning the term ‘slut’. I guess to each his or her own.

We happen to live in a world that’s predominantly male dominated, and we’ve let them get away with it. Our mothers pander to their sons, and it’s not just an Indian phenomenon, though it is more noticeable in Asian cultures than anywhere else. Even our advertisements tend to depict the woman primarily in the home, in the kitchen more specifically, with an international brand like Kellogg’s depicting the wife as less crabby and more willing to search for her husband blue socks, once she’s had a bowlful of their cereal…

I’m switching brands. 

In India, women are guaranteed equality, freedom, opportunity and protection by the Constitution – but the several provisions of the law that are seemingly created to uphold these constitutional rights and directives are often inadequate, unfairly worded and toothless, leaving women as perennial victims to domestic violence, including marital rape, and violence, discrimination and harassment both at the workplace and in the communities in which they live.

To compound these issues we have archaic laws to protect and safeguard women from eve-teasing, molestation, assault and rape, with the maximum punishment of life imprisonment in cases of rape under Sec 376 being used only in extreme circumstances, most often reduced on appeal. Further, the definition of ‘Rape’ under Sec 375, traditionally, only refers to rape in terms of penile penetration… with the Explanation to the section stating that “Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape”. In addition, the ‘age of consent’ in the section is contradictory and varies from 15 to 16 years of age. A point that is relevant considering the marriageable age for girls stands at 18 years in India.

The punishment for ‘Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty’ – under Sec 354, IPC – also seems farcical, with the maximum punishment for this offence being two years imprisonment, or a fine or both imprisonment and fine. While Sec 509, IPC – ‘Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman’ – under which the loose term ‘eve teasing’ falls, carries a maximum punishment of a term of simple imprisonment which may extend to one year, or a fine instead of imprisonment, or both (imprisonment and fine).

Meanwhile the proposed Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 – which aims to increase the scope of the definition of “rape” under Sec 375, by the usage of the term ‘sexual assault’, and raises the age of consent to 18 years of age, is still to be enacted, which isn’t surprising considering the amendment is a half-baked attempt to change the laws with regard to sexual offences against women. One of the glaring anomalies is the unwillingness to include “marital rape” under the definition of rape, a depiction of how Indian society continues to treat women, as chattels… possessions of their husbands who own them, body and soul.

The amendment meanwhile also seeks to extend and increase the punishment for the offences of “Rape”… now termed as “sexual assault” under Sec 376 – to a maximum of seven years to life, with a fine and in case the offender is a police officer, public servant, a person in the management or staff of a jail, remand home or any other place of custody established under the law, or part of the management and staff of a hospital, or a relative of a person, in a position of trust or authority or is in a position of economic, social or political dominance – the punishment is to range from ten years to life imprisonment with a fine.

The punishments under Sections 376-A, B, C and D – have also been enhanced in the Bill in like manner, with the Bill also purporting to widen the scope of Sec 509 to make the offence punishable with maximum imprisonment (i.e. Simple imprisonment) extending to seven years and with a fine, of not less than one thousand rupees.  However, nowhere does the Amendment Bill seek to curtail instances of the use of criminal force or assault on women envisaged by Sec 354, which is in dire need of both revision and enhancement, since more often than not, offenders charged under this section tend to get away, with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, if at all an offence is registered in the first place.  As offences under this section (Sec 354) are not only bailable, but are also compoundable (i.e. they can be mutually settled by compromise between the offender and the victim, with in this case the permission of the Court) - this takes on a serious tone which needs to be addressed, more so in a traditional society like ours where most people are unlikely to lodge complaints for fear of being socially ostracised. The lack of sufficient punishment under this section, therefore, in cases where individuals do come forward to lodge complaints, not only serves as an impediment to the complainant but also fails to deter offenders, giving them the green signal as it were to perpetrate violence with impunity. That our legislative provisions are aimed at a curative rather than a preventative approach is apparent on a cursory examination of the laws regarding sexual offences, which in turn seems to indirectly abet the commission of more serious offences.  

Meanwhile, Sec 294, IPC – ‘Obscene acts and songs’, which punishes anyone who ‘annoys’ another by performing obscene acts in a public place or sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near a public place – with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with a fine or with both also seems inadequate and in dire need of amendment… as being a precursor to more serious forms of sexual harassment if left unchecked and unpunished.

Our laws therefore only seem to penalize after the deed.

Section 354 was prominently brought to the forefront by Justice R.S. Bachawat, who as part of the three judge bench, also comprising Chief Justice of India, A.K. Sarkar and Justice J.R. Mudholkar in:

State of Punjab v. Major Singh [AIR 1967 SC 63: 1967 Cri. L.J. 1 (S.C.): 1966 SCR (2) 286]

Held that -         

“The Code does not define “modesty”. What then is a woman's modesty? I think that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The modesty of an adult female is writ large on her body. Young or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or sleeping, the woman possesses a modesty capable of being outraged. Whoever uses criminal force to her with intent to outrage her modesty commits an offence punishable under s. 354. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive, as, for example, when the accused with a corrupt mind stealthily touches the flesh of a sleeping woman. She may be an idiot, she may be under the spell of anesthesia, she may be sleeping, she may be unable to appreciate the significance of the act; nevertheless, the offender is punishable under the section.”

The case being one of the rape of a seven and half month old infant, what is important in this instance, is the fact that for the first time, an infant girl-child was categorized as a ‘woman’, bringing her within the purview of the term – ‘outraging the modesty of a woman’ as contained under Sec 354, IPC.

Justice Bachawat went on to say –

“A female of tender age stands on a somewhat different footing. Her body is immature, and her sexual powers are dormant. In this case, the victim is a baby seven and half months old. She has not yet developed a sense of shame and has no awareness of sex. Nevertheless, from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex.”

In my opinion, though this case highlighted an important issue, that of the modesty of a woman, I do feel that in this particular instance, the court erred in not converting the offence to one of rape under Section 376, and the accused was convicted under the lesser charge of “Outraging the modesty of a woman” – sentenced to a term of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of rupees one thousand.

This definition came under the lens again in 2007, when the two judge bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia (now CJI) in:

Ramkripal s/o Shyamlal Charmakar vs State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (4) SCR 125]

Reiterated that -

“The essence of woman’s modesty is her sex.” before going on to say that, “The act of pulling a woman, removing her sari, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence...”

Translated, this means that the offence of ‘outraging the modesty of a woman’, as contained in Section 354, will apply to crimes against women that stop short of penetration, in which case, the offence shall be one of Rape under Sec 376 IPC, under which the appellant in this case –Ramkripal, was rightly held guilty.

The government meanwhile continues to drag its feet on several key laws that need to be implemented, notable among them – ‘The Protection of Women Against Sexual Harassment at Work Place Bill, 2010’, which has its origins in the famous Vishaka judgement [Vishaka and ors. vs State of Rajasthan and ors., AIR 1997 SC 3011], wherein the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment of women at the workplace, to be followed by all employers and institutions, until suitable legislation was put in place to address the issue. It has been fourteen years since that judgement.

The second very pertinent legislation that is pending before Parliament is – ‘The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Bill, 2011’, a Bill which again and rather unfortunately seems to be punitive rather than preventive in nature. But considering the fact that we have no legislation aimed at protecting children from such offences, something does seem better than nothing.

So all things considered, what does ‘Slut Walk’ propose to do, in a society that’s as blinkered as ours, apart from garnering a few sniggers from the general public and an intellectual debate or two from the intelligentsia amongst us? And if I’m a man, will it change the way I look at women, or will I just look on as they march past me – whether shrouded from head to toe or dressed provocatively, whether an infant, a young woman, or a grandmother – and will it make a difference to the way I perceive them? Will I look on with admiration at their courage or will I dismiss it as a parody, and depending on how much beer I’ve had or if I’m on a testosterone high – will I pick out the ones I like, going off into little flights of fancy… imagining what I would do, if only I could…?   

Are we in India, and around the world ready for any debate or discussion or even a movement which chooses to de-objectify women, whether we call it a ‘Slut Walk’ or a ‘Besharmi Morcha’, or any such name, and are we a mature enough people, an evolved enough society, to realize that crimes occur because a perpetrator chooses to commit them, regardless of the victim?

In my opinion therefore, unless we have mechanisms in place and lessons in sensitivity imparted, to both our law- makers and law-enforcers, coupled with stringent and more effective legislation – aimed not just at penalizing offenders but at effectively preventing the occurrences of such offences, these crimes will continue, whether we ‘Slut Walk’ or not.

---

[1] The Hindi word ‘Besharmi’can be loosely translated as ‘shameless’