by Dr. Ugen Bhutia and Dr. Maanvender Singh
It is no coincidence that the rape and murder of a doctor at Kolkata’s R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital on August 9 immediately brought to mind the rape and murder of a physiotherapy student in Delhi in 2012. While one might attribute this to the horrific nature of both crimes in key metropolitan cities of India and the widespread national protests demanding justice for the victims. A deeper reflection may also reveal that the extensive attention given to both the cases and the parallels drawn is because they resonate and fit into the hegemonic narratives of gender-based violence in India. In other words, the discourse on rape in India construct a rather simplistic narrative on gender-based violence which is often reflected in the urban bias in reporting of sexual abuse and rape cases in mainstream Indian media. More than often the stories of violence against women in India resonate with the experience of urban upper/middle class women and the stories of violence and abuse against the women of marginalized section is invisiblised. It is this exclusionary discourse that has created the sense of commonality between these incidents.
Media’s role
The role of media, specifically the news media, becomes important not merely because it reports on such incidents but also through the nature of the reportage it sets or at least builds the platform for the discourse(s) on the event in the public sphere. On August 21st The India Express carried an opinion piece by Vrinda Shukla titled Kolkata rape and murder: When the law fails women. The write up reflected upon the criminal justice system’s failure in protecting women from other forms of violence. On August 30th The Hindu carried a column titled Kolkata doctor rape-murder | Step outside the bubble where author and journalist Veena Venugopal lamented that “one of the reasons social change is so hard to push for in India is because its educated upper-class chooses not to advocate for it.” While these two different columns published on two different papers addressed distinct issues, they shared one commonality: both referred to or mentioned the Delhi rape and murder case of December 16, 2012. This is the case in the western media too. On August 22, The New York Times on the incident published a report Is India a Safe Place for Women? Another Brutal Killing Raises the Question. This report began with the lead providing brief description of Delhi incident followed by second paragraph informing the readers about the rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata.
The general subtext behind the connection between these two incidences of violence against women is that India, as a nation and society, has not progressed in last decade despite massive protest following the 2012 Delhi incident.
An exclusionary discourse
One of the reasons why commentaries mentioned above, and many others being published in the media feel it necessary to connect the recent rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata on August 9 with the rape and murder that occurred more than a decade ago is that they stem from the same discourse of violence urban women experience. The discourse which galvanises people to participate and raise their voice against the gender-based violence and for the gender equality but while demanding and advocating for women’s liberation fails to recognise its own exclusionary practices.
What about the other cases of gender-based violence which do not fit into the images of violence faced by an educated urban middle-class woman? Why does media fail to report and visiblise range of situations in which women face violence and abuse? Why it is so difficult to visiblise the stories of violence Dalit and tribal women experience?
If we reflect on these questions, we will realize that the act of connecting the violence in Kolkata solely to the 2012 Delhi violence overlooks the violence experienced by other women, particularly those from marginalised communities.
It is really difficult to find discussion on women belonging from rural, lower-caste and poor background and the issues and violence they face in their daily lives in the media. They either remain absent or marginalised in this discourse. Take for example, the commentaries in the Hindu and The New York Times referred earlier. The Hindu column intentionally keeps the marginalised communities at bay and calls for activism from the affluent class (in most cases affluent class meaning upper caste). The members of marginalised communities are not even in the thought process. There is an assumption that once affluent class mobilise themselves for social change the benefit would automatically trickle down to the marginalised sections of the society. Such views in the media were propagated particularly during the decades after second world war with the emergence of Modernisation theory when the significance of communication was realised for developmental projects. Within the domain of development communication both academic and political such views were heavily criticized by theories and concepts like Dependency theory and Paulo Freire’s conscientization where the participation and emancipation of marginalised was emphasised for the emancipation of the society. In simple, social chance for good cannot happen without the involvement of the common people.
The New York Times article reflects the continuous existence of orientalist outlook of the western media through which it views the non-western societies. Just like other forms of stereotypical lens that provides mainstream media in India to interpret and understand people and events in Northeastern part of the country, orientalist outlook provides western media a lens through with it can easily view non-western societies. No effort required to critically engage with the people and their society and merely say “longstanding customs that both repress women and in many cases confine them to the home have made their safety in public spaces an afterthought.” While this piece touches upon various themes including women’s participation in workforce and safe working environment, the intersectionality between gender, caste and class remains absent.
While the discussion on criminal justice system vis-à-vis violence against women is much required, it is imperative to discuss them from the perspective of the marginalised sections. This is because such discussions are held within the rights-based discourse. Krupa Shandilya in her article notes that rights-based discourse “..has limited success with garnering justice for dalit women, that is, rural, lower-caste, non-Hindu and poor women who live outside the purview of the state.”
Authors’ Bio
Ugen Bhutia teaches at the department of Media studies and Liberal Arts, Easwari School of Liberal Arts, SRM University, AP.
Maanvender Singh teaches at the department of History, Eswari School of Liberal Arts, SRM University, AP.
