Ambika Satkunanathan
THE rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata is the most recent in a long list of forewarnings about the grave harm that entrenched structural violence, and the resulting normalisation of violence can cause to society, especially women. The responses to the incident range from calls for the death penalty, more effective policing to the sensitisation of the police and in September the West Bengal government enacting the populist Aparajita Act, which includes a mandatory death penalty for certain sexual offences. However, an examination of factors that drive and enable sexual and gender-based violence highlights that the aforementioned are superficial fixes that either do not address the root causes of sexual violence, or are strategies that have been proven ineffective, such as the implementation of the death penalty.
Elements such as the nature of the state, the government ethos that drives state policies, the treatment of social groups that are historically and/or structurally discriminated and marginalised, affect the place of women in society and create conditions that in some instances even require violence to be perpetrated against women. Therefore, when structural violence is entrenched and the ethos of the (national) government is driven by discrimination and violence, an environment that drives, enables and normalises violence, including sexual violence comes into being.
A continuum: state violence and inter-personal violence
Sexual violence does not exist in a vacuum but is part a continuum; a part of everyday violence, which we often fail to recognise. The failure to recognise an act as violence is also perhaps because violence has seeped into many aspects of everyday life and has been normalised to the extent that the threshold of what is considered to be violent increases. This in turn contributes to de-humanization. The minute details, the small incidents/actions and the little gestures that serve to de-humanize in everyday life are captured perfectly in Deepa Mehta’s film An Anatomy of Violence. The film depicts the constant and relentless process through which violence becomes firmly intertwined with everyday living; the process which makes barbaric, inhuman behaviour acceptable.
Failure to view sexual violence as part of a continuum means sexual violence comes to public notice only when it is particularly horrific or brutal. Perpetrators of sexual violence are portrayed as evil and as monsters because that makes it easier for society to deal with the fact another human being is capable of such brutality and inhumanity. Thus, it becomes easier to deny the entrenched and everyday nature of violence and distance ourselves by saying “a monster did it. No-one I know would ever do such a thing”. Yet, those who perpetrate such acts are people we know and see every day, and we become complicit in the violence by what we choose to ignore, what we tolerate and what we accept.
The West Bengal government’s initial lackadaisical and thereafter fumbling response, including the appalling treatment of the victim’s family, descended into a political theatre in a hasty attempt to stem widespread criticism and outrage, amidst protests by doctors. Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of Bengal for instance delivered an ultimatum to the central government, by declaring, “Within Sunday (August 18), CBI has to facilitate the hanging of the guilty and complete the entire probe. Our Kolkata Police has completed 90 per cent of the probe”, to deflect attention from the state government’s failures. Instead of acknowledging their failings, the Chief Minister also responded in an aggressive and dismissive manner that was completely lacking in empathy, to the protests and demands of the doctors.
Not one to miss the opportunity to gain political mileage, Prime Minister Modi, similarly, said, “Now the need of the hour is that there should be a wide discussion about the criminals who get punished so that even those who commit such sins fear the consequences including hanging to death. I feel that it is very important to create this fear”. The calls for the death penalty as punishment for sexual violence are not surprising since the instinct of a patriarchal, violent state (and foot soldiers of patriarchy that can also include women) is to view violence as the answer to every problem. The reality is very different; one that the Justice Verma Commission established after the 2012 gang rape of a paramedic student in New Delhi, when it recommended against the use of the death penalty. Furthermore, evidence from around the world demonstrates that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. It only diminishes the value of life and the humanity of society and normalises the use of violence.
How to normalise violence
Moving beyond the cacophony resulting from the urgency to apportion blame for the brutal violence, this piece seeks to contextualise this violent incident within the broader context of systemic normalisation of violence at the national level, especially during the past decade in India. The purpose is to demonstrate the links between the normalisation of violence at the macro level nationally, that embeds violence within state structures, which then bleeds into societal behaviour and inter-personal violence at the micro level, particularly violence against women.
Violating the Constitution and undermining the rule of law, enabling or ignoring vigilante justice, meting out collective punishment and the targeting of certain communities, such as Dalits and Muslims, have not only entrenched structural violence and impunity but have also led to the creation of a de facto, parallel state that is driven by violence and is above the law.
In Modi’s India, the promise of a Hindu Rashtra (state) comes with the duty to keep non-Hindus in place, through discrimination and violence. Hence, those engaged in this project, as well as those supporting it, view it as their entitlement to engage in violence. In such a context, violence against dissenters (activists, journalists) and Muslim and Dalit women is normalised and viewed as necessary to protect the Hindu state and keep these groups in their place.
Measures that supposedly aim to protect women, instead curtail women’s agency, allow extra-legal action by state actors and empower civilians to engage in illegal action with impunity. An example is anti-Romeo squads established to crack down on sexual harassment in public spaces. These squads engage in moral policing, police inter-faith relationships, which are criminalised, and profile possible perpetrators based on arbitrary, subjective criteria. The squads also mete out extra-legal punishments to suspected perpetrators, sometimes with the help of right-wing Hindu nationalist entities, such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Hindu Yuva Vahini. The government turning a blind to such vigilante action, and sometimes enabling it, entrenches a culture of impunity and broadens the scope for and normalises everyday violence.
The law is also used to militarise the state, which contributes to entrenching within society a masculine, hierarchical, militarised, violent and control-based ethos. At the same time, the law legalises impunity of the military. For example, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) decrees that the armed forces cannot be prosecuted without the authorisation of central government. It should be noted that the Justice Verma Committee recommended that the continuance of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) needs to be revisited, and that “the requirement of sanction for prosecution of armed forces personnel should be specifically excluded when a sexual offence is alleged. Complainants of sexual violence must be afforded witness protection. Special commissioners should be appointed in conflict areas to monitor and prosecute for sexual offences. Training of armed personnel should be reoriented to emphasise strict observance of orders in this regard by armed personnel.” The government ignored these recommendations.
The rule of law holds little value in such a context. Instead, disregarding the rule of law to safeguard Hindutva is a badge of honour. It becomes the norm, and even compulsory to maintain the patriarchal, anti-minority, social order deemed necessary to build a Hindu Rashtra (state). When violence is normalised, sexual violence is inevitable.
At the nexus of patriarchy and Hindutva
In a patriarchal state in which structural violence is entrenched, Hindutva exacerbates sexism and misogyny, and thereby worsens the conditions that drive sexual violence against women.
In Modi’s Hindu nationalist regime, public institutions defer to the government and take care not to cross the invisible boundaries of the envisioned Hindu Rashtra (state) as set out by Prime Minister Modi. For instance, at the consecration ceremony of the Ram temple in Ayodha that was built on the ruins of the Babri Masjid Modi proclaimed
“This is a temple of national consciousness in the form of Ram. Ram is the faith of India. Ram is the foundation of India. Ram is the idea of India. Ram is the law of India. Ram is the prestige of India, Ram is the glory of India. Ram is the leader and Ram is the policy.”
The patriarchal government while paying lip service to women’s empowerment requires them to remain within the boundaries of the ‘good’ woman constructed by the majoritarian state; a woman who is ‘pure’, does not challenge authority or patriarchy and accepts the traditional roles foisted upon her. A key figure in the ruling Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) and Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath once said
“Shastras have talked about giving protection to women. Just like urja (energy) left free and unchecked causes destruction, women also don’t need independence, they need protection. Their energy should be channelised to be used productively.”
Any empowerment therefore must be within the boundaries prescribed by (Hindu) cultural mores. Violence against women who transgress these boundaries or women who are not of the privileged social groups that are deemed unworthy of the protection of the law, such as Muslim and Dalit women, is considered inconsequential or acceptable. In fact, perpetrating violence and sexual violence against those that fall outside the socially prescribed boundaries, is a required as a means of keeping those communities under control and reminding them of their place as second-class citizens. For instance, at a rally several years ago a Hindu Yuva Vahini activist referring to Muslims said, “Now is the time to get their mothers and daughters out of graves and rape their children. This is the need of the hour, friends. And only the Hindu Yuva Vahini can do it”.
“Hindutva’s vision of Akhand Bharat is a form of militarised and masculinised nationalism that relies heavily on procreative (hetero) sexuality.” This form of masculinised nationalism which entrenches patriarchy, portrays Muslim masculinity as dangerous and promotes “hatred and derision of the ‘other’. Hence, in the eyes of the perpetrators, one way of emasculating Muslim men or men of other communities that are viewed as threats to or as not having an equal place in the envisioned Hindu India, is by subjecting the women of that community to sexual violence.
Bhanwar Meghwanshi, a Dalit who left the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), describes the process used to instil this ideology in members of the group as follows,
“We talked only about purusharth, male dominance. It is evident that there was no place for women. Seen one way, the meaning of purushartha is masculinity, patriarchy…It is told very clearly that non-violence is cowardly and it is due to this cowardliness that we stayed enslaved for thousands of years. So, they teach satey satayam samacharet, which means tit for tat.”
Violent speech by BJP members, such as Yogi Adityanath, is actioned by members of the BJP and its off shoot organisations, such as the Hindu Yuva Vahini. Yogi Adityanath’s speech proclaiming that, “If [Muslims] take one Hindu girl, we’ll take 100 Muslim girls. If they kill one Hindu, we’ll kill 100 Muslims”, illustrates that violence is an integral part of creating the Hindu nation and anyone that does not fit within the envisioned Hindu society is expendable.
The assault of an elderly Muslim man in a train in September on the suspicion he was carrying beef further demonstrates the normalisation of violence in the service of Hindutva, how it enables sexual violence and the structural nature of it. In this case, the Muslim man was threatened with rape of women in his family, the persons who assaulted and threatened him were travelling to sit for the police entrance exam and one of them is the son of a special reserve police officer. None of the passengers videoing the incident intervened to stop it.
The Kolkata incident took place in West Bengal, which is governed by the opposition, and has a woman Chief Minister. West Bengal is a state thought to be less patriarchal and safer for women than many other parts of India. Hence, it can be argued this incident is not connected to the values and narratives perpetuated by Hindutva discussed above, which drive and enable violence against women. That it is an isolated incident that was committed by an individual due to the negligence of the director, lapses in safeguarding practices, lack of proper facilities for doctors etc. This may be particularly so given that there is a culture of violence perpetuated at the state level as well. However, that cannot discount how the violent rhetoric, processes and culture perpetuated at the national invade the psyche of individuals in a deeply patriarchal society in which women continue to be treated as second class citizens. Hence, it cannot be denied that the BJP’s project to build a Hindu Rashtra (state) will and has had an impact on, and resonates with the national (patriarchal) psyche, particularly given that patriarchy is a pillar of Hindutva. Furthermore, although BJP’s seat share in West Bengal reduced in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, their vote share has generally increased in the state from 17% in 2014 to 45% in 2024 during the Modi government indicating the in-roads they are making in opposition states.
This leads to the critical question- whether states governed by the opposition are isolated islands that can be shielded from the devastating consequences of the hate, bigotry and violence unleashed by Hindutva at a national level and its insidious and deep social impact. To what extent do national policies, practices and narratives driven by Hindutva impact even states governed by the opposition? Given the deeply entrenched structural violence and the normalisation of violence, it is reasonable to conclude that the misogyny perpetuated by Hindutva finds resonance in a patriarchal society, even in societies that are supposedly less patriarchal and sexist and safer for women.
Outrage and demonisation of the perpetrator are the easy way out because they individualise the problem and allow it to be portrayed as an isolated incident which in no way is driven, enabled or shaped by structural and systemic factors. This is why they are the refuge of both the state and national governments, which are competing to instrumentalise sexual violence against women to gain political mileage and discredit the other. The root causes of sexual violence remain unaddressed, while violence becomes unavoidable for women due to the normalisation of everyday violence in a patriarchal society with a majoritarian government that is driven by Hindutva.
C. Kafila