Banned for publication in India,
Leslee Udwin’s ‘India’s Daughter’ documentary is fraught with critiques such as
the documentary perpetuating neo-colonial narratives, and the legal question of
contempt of court. The documentary investigates the brutal 2012 Delhi gang-rape
of Jyoti Singh that lead to her death. While the above questions are legitimate,
they do not fall within the remit of this blog entry. I believe consideration
should be given to both rape statistics per country, and the extent to which
rapes are actually reported in each country. Given this, this post does not
take a position on the position on whether women in India face a higher rate of
sexual violence. The purpose of this post is therefore to analyse power
relations and questions of masculinity raised by the documentary. Before
analysis, I provide a brief outline of the comments made by Mukesh Singh (a defendant),
the defending lawyers and female relatives of the defendants. If you have seen
the documentary, feel free to skip this.
Mukesh Singh, one of the
defendants, talks in great detail about how the ‘nature’ of women should be (housewives,
appropriately dressed, behavior restricted based upon time) and states that
rape is a tool used to teach a lesson to women who breach these norms – ‘a
lesson from shame’. He therefore concludes that women are more responsible for
rape than men.
The defending lawyers,
M.L. Sharma and A.P. Singh appear to legitimise these attitudes, justifying
violence towards women for breaching social codes and supporting restriction of
women to the home. Women have no place in Indian culture, argued Sharma; while
Singh defended his previous comment that he would set his daughter alight if
she engages in pre-marital activities.
Defendant Akshay’s wife
did not accept the guilt of her husband and was concerned about losing the
protection of her husband should be face the death penalty. Ram and Mukesh
Singh’s mother speaks of her concern about no longer having a son to perform
her burial rites.
ANALYSIS
There are several important
points raised in the documentary. Jyoti Singh may symbolise a
changing India – she represents a young woman, becoming successful, gaining
greater autonomy and freedom. As was referred to in the documentary (albeit
briefly), there is clear issue of changing power relations. Where women are
becoming empowered and norms of masculinity dictating that men should be
breadwinners are left unchallenged, a 'free' woman presents a great threat to the
power relations between men and women. This creates a potentially toxic mix;
especially where cultural trajectories of shame that focus around female
sexuality and freedom persist.
Scholars such as Arendt who theorise power and violence, state that violence is a product of impotence
and loss of power, rather than as a tool to exercise existing power. One would
not need to enact violence if they (perceived they) had power. This is why
actions of violence require a moral justification.
Where hegemonic masculinity may
require breadwinner status and authority over women, any male (working or not)
will therefore see an empowered women as a threat to his status and power over
women, and therefore a legitimate target to act out alternative forms of
masculinity (violence). Such violence may be a challenge to shifting power
relations. This is why women’s economic empowerment must also accompany a
qualitative, grassroots shift towards changing gender roles. This will benefit
both men and women in a multitude of ways. Women will not be essentialised to conduct housework after coming home from work, heterosexual men will not feel
humiliated by having a wife who works when he doesn't (or earns more than him),
and such men will be free from the restrictions of hegemonic masculinity that
both oppress men and women.
Shame as a concept, is
undoubtedly a masculine, patriarchal form of controlling women. Although the
victim, shame was referred to only in relation to Jyoti, with no comment (even
by Jyoti’s parents, who supported her completely) that the rapists were
bringing shame upon themselves or their family. This is perhaps the most
pernicious form of controlling women in India and serves to deeply entrench and
legitimise rape culture. Perhaps the most revealing is the above noted comments by the
defendant’s female relatives about the case. Not only do they reject their sons’/husband’s
participation in the crime, they also speak of their concerns about no longer
having a man to fulfill the requirements of his hegemonic masculinity (breadwinner,
burial rites).
I have referenced the patriarchal bargain several times in my blog,
and it is women who uphold hegemonic masculinity and patriarchy that serve has
a contributing factor towards this type of violence towards women. It is for
this reason that where gendered power relations develop and change in India, norms
of masculinity must be challenged. Such an approach must not only be at the grassroots
level, but also require significant inputs from various sources – this is
clearly not just about the notion of a breadwinner masculinity. Without a
multi-pronged approach that is willing to delve into sensitive areas (e.g. religious
constructs), it may prove impossible to completely destroy rape-culture and the
legitimization of
violence against women – without this, women’s continuing empowerment stokes
fears that this problem may only worsen.
No comments:
Post a Comment