Don’t blame women for sexual harassment crimes

Most of our public spaces are not safe for women, since sexual violence is increasing by the day and being done with impunity, reflecting a mindset that has no respect for women. Contrary to the popular perception echoed by the Home Minister of Karnataka who is supposed to have remarked that these things happen because women copy not just the mindset of the West but also their dress, women who don’t wear the “western attire” ( whatever that means) also face such assault that affront their dignity every day. 

Most women choose to keep quiet about such behaviour precisely because of the social and legal response that somehow blames her for a crime being committed against her. Such blame is imposed on her by many forces starting from her family, the community, the educational institutions, her colleagues, her employer and the law enforcement authorities. The blame takes many forms. Some of these include her dressing in a particular fashion or behaving in a particular way. Other kinds of blame include the fallacy that when she says no she means yes, or that sexually aggressive behaviour is more hormonal than criminal. The most common fallacy is that sexual offence is an act of passion and not of violence. There are many such myths that are churned when a woman complains of sexual violence and the list can go on. 

The statement attributed to the Minister is not the first instance of a senior person in authority making such a comment based on a myth. In what is referred infamously as the Park Street rape case, the chief minister of West Bengal attributed the gang rape of a survivor in Kolkata to a fabricated case to embarrass her government. On another occasion a senior leader in UP talking in the context of rape, commented “boys will be boys”. When persons in power and authority dismiss the agony of a survivor in such ways, it not only reinforces the myths but also sends a message to all others in positions of authority that such crimes are either not to be treated seriously or are false, thereby encouraging such behaviour. These are equally detrimental to a survivor’s rights and freedom as the act of assault perpetuated on her. 

One of the major changes in criminal law after the Verma committee related to amendments in the Penal code and the introduction of new offences that made such behaviour a serious crime. Some of these were sexual harassment, stalking, and voyeurism that gave clarity to a conduct that was prevalent for a long time but often ignored. The amendments also enlarged the definition of rape and addressed the vexed issue of consent in rape cases in a more nuanced way. Additionally, changes were made to the code of criminal procedure that brought into focus the survivor’s voice into the criminal justice system. Thus, significant changes were made in the legislation in tune with today’s times. But that the committee itself was constituted after Nirbhaya is a telling commentary on the fact that despite vocal demands over the years from women’s movements for changes in criminal law, it took a violent crime for the law to change. 

The new legislation is well begun, but, as the adage goes, only half done. Laws cannot really bring about a transformation unless an enabling environment is created for women to access justice. And access in this context means not just a system where she can get legal redress promptly, but also a system that does not blame the survivor, hears and understands her voice, and is not judgemental of her conduct.