'India's Daughter'
Hostile Responses from the State and a Section of Indian
Feminists
Sukla Sen
It was on March 3 last, the Union I&B Ministry "issued an advisory
preventing the documentary from being aired keeping in mind the
implications of the programme." (See:
<http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/IB-Ministry-Stops-BBC-Documentary-on-Nirbhaya-Rapist-From-Being-Aired/2015/03/03/article2696363.ece>.)
The same day, at 9:57 AM, it had been reported: "Delhi Police obtains
restrain orders barring media from broadcasting and publishing the
interview of December 16 gang-rape convict: Police." (See:
<https://twitter.com/pti_news/status/572818103131750401>.)
Quite in tandem, it was on March 5, Indian parliament discusses the
film, and its scheduled airing on March 8 - the International Women's
Day, "with women MPs registering strong protest even as home minister
Rajnath Singh promised that the film will not be telecast in India. "
(See:
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2979766/Gang-rape-documentary-sparks-uproar-Parliament-Home-Minister-vows-NOT-aired-India.html>.)
"The home minister [further] said the government would investigate why
and how the permission was given to British broadcaster the BBC to
make the documentary with one of the four rapists who are on death
row. " (See: ibid.)
It was on March 3, an online site carried an article by Kavita
Krishnan, a leading Indian feminist, wherein she, inter alia, opined:
I have tried to convey that while we in India are in fact engaged in
confronting the violence and discrimination against women here, it
does not help for people in other countries to imagine that such
brutality is India's "cultural" problem; that India's "backwardness"
is the problem; or that gender violence is "worse out there in India".
She also added:
Mukesh Singh's and Sharma's words are instances of rape culture - rape
culture that is widespread, in India and all over the globe. But the
stories that focus on Singh's and Sharma's interviews are framed to
take away from that realisation. Instead, the responses they invoke
are about how these men are brutes, animals, vile beasts and so on.
And, further:
Mukesh Singh's and Sharma's words are instances of rape culture - rape
culture that is widespread, in India and all over the globe. But the
stories that focus on Singh's and Sharma's interviews are framed to
take away from that realisation. Instead, the responses they invoke
are about how these men are brutes, animals, vile beasts and so on.
(See:
<http://www.dailyo.in/politics/kavita-krishnan-nirbhaya-december-16-indias-daughter-leslee-udwin-mukesh-singh-bbc/story/1/2347.html>.)
The same day, on her FB page she writes:
I like others will wait to watch the film before commenting on it. But
since a very high voltage campaign has taken shape around it, and it's
shaping our response to rape and rape culture, I would like to put on
record ....
(See: <https://www.facebook.com/kavita.krishnan/posts/10205641738624330>.)
And, on March 5, eight prominent feminists, including Indira Jaising,
Kavita Krishnan and Vrinda Grover, apparently at the initiative of the
first-named, wrote a rather longish letter (see:
<http://feministsindia.com/activists-discuss-concerns-over-indias-daughter/>)
to the NDTV Chief urging him not to air the film on 8th March as
originally scheduled: "we write this letter to seek a postponement of
the telecast, till the appeal and all other legal processes and
proceedings relating to the 16 December 2012 gang rape and murder case
have concluded.".
Given the fact that the Union Ministry of I&B had already issued an
advisory and the Delhi Police had obtained a restraint order against
airing the film from a lower court, as noted above, this appeared to
be in a way superfluous.
Be that as it may, some of the the points made out by the letter were as under.
1. The film infringes upon and compromises the rights of both the rape
victim and the accused men. It vitiates the judicial process. 2.
"Further the film makes a disturbing and direct incitement to violence
[against potential rape victims]." Also: "This film gives
disproportionate attention and significance to hate speech against
women and here lie our deep concerns." The film " gives a platform to
canvas misogynist views and hate speech." 3. The film has a pronounced
class (and also racial?) bias.
So, while the demand for "postponement of the telecast, till the
appeal and all other legal processes and proceedings relating to the
16 December 2012 gang rape and murder case have concluded" is
essentially based on the legal argument that the airing of it would
vitiate the judicial process, the letter goes well beyond and opts to
decry the film, inter alia, for being prejudicial to the interests of
the "accused" and, all at the same time, for inciting violence and
hatred against the potential rape victims - women.
It is specifically in that context, a tweet by one of these three, on
March 5 itself, becomes highly relevant: "Rapist Lynched After BBC
Rape Documentary
Aired @sarahdevin http://voc.tv/1w87moo This is wht we fought 2
resist 1/n." (Look up: 'Kavita Krishnan @kavita_krishnan ยท Mar 5' at
<https://twitter.com/kavita_krishnan>.)
And a detailed examination of the sequence of events leading to the
savage (racist) lynching in Dimapur clearly shows that the claim that
the BBC film had triggered the ghastly murder was just a canard.
(See:
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/india-unity/conversations/topics/55665>
and
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/india-unity/conversations/topics/55684>.)
And it is pretty much interesting to note that here the (main) ground
for objection against the film is cited as the fight to resist
(likely, or possible?) lynching of the rape accused. Not the narrow
technical-legal justification!
It is, of course, quite another matter that the long letter issued the
very same day talked of incitement of violence against the potential
rape victims, not the accused.
And, this what Vrinda Grover, another prominent Supreme Court lawyer,
posted on her FB page, the very same day: "I hold that the film should
not be telecast till all legal proceedings have concluded. Also the
film amplifies hate speech agianst (sic) women; misogyny and incites
violence." (See:
<https://www.facebook.com/vrinda.grover.56/posts/10153086132561358?fref=nf>.)
(For evident reasons, this (weird) line of argument, identifying the
subject documentary as the trigger for the lynching in Dimapur, was
not understandably pursued much further.)
In this context, also relevant are the two signed articles by Indira Jaising.
The first one, 'Documentary Violates The Law, Does Nothing For
'Awareness'', (see:
<http://www.huffingtonpost.in/indira-jaising-/documentary-violates-the-_b_6862010.html>),
posted on March 14, goes on to harp on the legal arguments, just not
only against airing the film but also the very process of ts making.
It goes on to assert: "And how do we know that the convict Mukesh is
telling the truth? ***How do we know that he is not performing for the
benefit of the filmmaker or a larger audience on a predetermined
script*** [emphasis added]? There is no way of knowing, which is why
the interview with the convict is legally, and morally wrong." And,
does not stop at that. It does pointedly tell, in so many words, that
the film's claim of raising "awareness" about rape and misogynist
attitude of Indian males is all bunkum: "Some believe the film should
be shown to children. For what? Presumably to raise awareness and
prevent violence against women. ***It will do no such thing***
[emphasis added]. It contains no conceptual understanding within which
to comprehend rape as an act of power within a patriarchal society."
And, the longish harangue also includes: "Is this film part of that
protest culture? Does it strengthen the rule of law, which in turn
will end impunity for rape? Far from it.." Also: "The film trivialises
the enormity of rape. It presents the rapist's point of view as a
rationalisation." And, on and on.
The second one, 'Crossing an ethical line: India's Daughter comes in
the way of a fair trial for Nirbhaya convicts', datelined March 19
(see:
<http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/crossing-an-ethical-line-indias-daughter-comes-in-the-way-of-a-fair-trial-for-nirbhaya-convicts/>),
quite interestingly, as the caption suggests, pretty visibly shifts
its weight. Here it is focused almost exclusively on the legality
issue. Not only that, it no longer talks of the film allegedly
promoting misogyny etc. It rather restricts itself to voicing concerns
for the rights of the accused. And, consequently, the need to restrict
"freedom of expression".
These so very tangled arguments cannot but raise the suspicion the
real reason for opposing the film is rather something else other than
the publicly stated ones.
Here, it would be rather unfair, if one does not mention that there
were as well quite a few contrarian feminist voices out there. Here is
a sample, not intended to be an exhaustive list: AIDWA statement,
dated March 5th (see:
<https://www.facebook.com/AIDWA/posts/779935928758615>); 'Face the
truth', dated March 6th, by Brinda Karat (see:
<http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/face-the-truth/>);
'India's Daughter: since the Delhi rape things have got worse', ated
March 6th, by Jayati Ghosh (see:
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/06/indias-daughter-delhi-rape>);
'Inside the minds of rapists', dated March 8th, by Flavia Agnes (see:
<http://www.asianage.com/columnists/inside-minds-rapists-043>). If the
first three in this list are connected with the CPI(M), the last one
is not.
(Two reviews of the ongoing controversy are particularly informative:
<http://www.thethumbprintmag.com/indias-daughter-debate-a-struggle-over-gender-censorship-and-colonialism-toby-miller/>
and
<http://www.hopemonkey.org/pitch/7-must-read-articles-indias-daughter-controversy>.)
The question that keeps coming back to one's mind is why a section of
the Indian feminists is so very hellbent on running down the film and
doing their utmost to have it gagged even at the risk of being seen to
be on the same side as with the incumbent regime, a prospect which
they evidently don't relish - just refer to the point 14 of the joint
letter and Vrinda Grover's FB post in particular, and to be fair,
which goes against the very grains of their respective public careers.
There is no easy answer.
To be fair, the legal argument that airing of the film while the court
case is on amounts to contempt of court as it may prejudice the
judges, this way or that way, is, on the face of it, a quite sound
legal argument. And, the Delhi High Court has, in fact, (already)
endorsed this line (see:
<http://ibnlive.in.com/news/delhi-hc-refuses-to-lift-ban-on-nirbhaya-documentary-indias-daughter/533472-3.html>).
But there is an obvious catch here, though not too visible to
untrained eyes. The catch is that in India in the past on several
occasions high pitched public campaigns - press conferences, newspaper
articles, TV debates, public meetings, online and offline petitions,
street demonstrations etc. - were conducted to influence the judicial
verdict. None from those who're now indulging in legal nitpicking are
known to have objected. A few of them, in all probability did even
take part. (In fact, the public campaign to get the film gagged, while
the Delhi High Court was examining the gag order, itself, by the same
token, appears to amount to contempt of court!)
So, coming back to the issue, the most plausible answer is perhaps a
sense of insecurity, a threat perception, the fear of loss of one's
exclusive territory to a rank "outsider".
The implicit message underlying the shrill campaign appears to be:
"Keep off the grass! Trespassing is strictly prohibited!"
That's, given the gravity and the salience of the issue concerned, is
profoundly unfortunate.
--
Peace Is Doable
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
