Hope, inspiration, extreme sadness, anger, love, and courage
are among various emotions that I experienced when I watched today the much
talked about documentary India’s Daughter on BBC4 online in the UK.
Jyoti Singh, a brave and intelligent young woman,
experienced the most horrific trauma and lost her life at hands of a gang of
drunkards, perverts, with pathologically sick views about half of humanity. Many
men with their uneducated, sick and unevolved mind view women as weaker,
dependent and vulnerable half of mankind. They forget that their mother belongs
to that very half. This heinous crime took place in India but such crimes
happen all over world. The most shameful thing for India is not what one of
the convicted rapists says in the documentary but it is something I mention later.
But first let me say what I liked about documentary.
What I liked in the documentary:
A friend and tutor of Jyoti, who helped her prepare for
studies, portrays picture of Jyoti as a courageous, compassionate and
intelligent young person. There is story of a poor boy snatching Jyoti’s handbag
on streets of Delhi. The boy was caught by police but Jyoti stopped the policeman and asked him to let go the boy. She took the boy to side and asked him why the boy
did what he did. The boy said he too wanted to eat burger and to consume things
people with money could afford to pay for. Since he could not afford he snatched the
bag from her. Jyoti bought the goodies for the boy in exchange for the promise
that the poor boy would not steal again.
Jyoti was daughter of enlightened parents. With inadequate
income to afford medical education for their daughter the parents sold their
only piece of land to part pay for her education. Jyoti told her parents to
spend money that they were saving for her wedding instead on her education. That’s
foresight and ambition that most young Indian men and women have. They want to
make it in life. But unlike most Jyoti was above the average. Her dream was to set
up a clinic in her ancestral village. Sheer determination and self-esteem of
Jyoti shone through, like her name, in her conduct and work. To finance her
medical studies she worked 8.00 p.m. to 4.00 a.m. in a call centre. She slept
3-4 hours only and was doing very well in studies. Compassion, love,
determination, thrift, and courage are all visible in this extraordinary story
of an ordinary Indian. Jyoti comes out as a bundle of virtues in the
documentary.
On the fateful night in December 2012, six men took away the
light out of Singh family but that light, as Jyoti’s father says in the documentary,
started a storm. What appeared spontaneous mass mobilisation of protests by
students and residents of Delhi actually seems to be a volcano of anger and
frustration that was waiting to erupt. This tragic and gruesome crime just
ignited the volcano that manifested in the protests. The solidarity in pain of
other ordinary residents of Delhi, particularly youth and women was a spark
that was and is sign of hope. Peaceful marches and street protests are a hope
and a signal that the government dare not ignore the crimes against women.
What I did not like in documentary
I did not like to hear the graphic details about the
injuries and brutalities inflicted on a young woman and her friend. The pain in
the eyes of parents of Jyoti was more saddening for me than the description of
the nature of injuries mentioned so many times. The moist and blank eyes of
Jyoti’s mother let you peep into the abysmal darkness and void that death of
Jyoti has left in her. The soft spoken father of Jyoti recounts raising her
lovingly and then having to cremate her. Jyoti means lamp flame but in the Singh
family she shone like sun. Her death has thrown the family into an emotional
black hole from which both parents are shown struggling to come out. That parental pain is enough to choke one's throat. There was no need to provide gory details
of the crime in the documentary.
I did not like Sheila Dixit, the only politician seen in the
documentary, pontificating about family background of criminals and explaining how
seeing things bad in life and surrounding one becomes insensitive and
therefore, takes violence against women for granted. She was the Chief Minister
of Delhi when the incident took place. I heard no word of sympathy, shared pain
(human concern) or criticism of the judicial system (governance and institutional concern). It is possible that Ms Dixit
did say something on those lines but the editorial scissors did their work.
What was shameful in the documentary
The most shocking sentences in the documentary were not from
the criminal. What the criminal says is outrageous but one could expect no
different from such people. He only gives voice to his sick views about women. I have heard versions of such thoughts from a range of people including politicians and others which does not make such attitude less sick but these are not rare to find in India. There is a former lady jurist who argues in the documentary that
the solution to problem of sexual violence lies in educating men. There may be some connection
between lack of education and tendency to commit crimes against women. Fact is that rapists can be rich,
poor and middle income, old, young and juvenile, degree holder and school
drop outs or those who saw no door of school.
The most shocking statements come from the two lawyers who
demonstrate their sick and prejudiced views about Indian culture and women. It
is shameful to see these ‘educated’ lawyers practising in courts of
India. These lawyers could one day become judges as fears Prof.
V Raghunathan in his blog posting. If this happened the judiciary in India
will have regressed to the bottom of humanity and that will be real shame for
India.
Ban of documentary
Banning of the documentary has achieved following. The
attention of the media and public at large has now been shifted away from the
seriousness of the problem of crimes against women to issue of freedom of
expression. Whether the government intended to do that is not my worry in this
instance and neither do I want to imply conspiracy theory. But freedom of expression
debate replacing the debate on horror of crimes against women is worrying. The
government must be happy with this consequence than to face two potential
consequences that telecast of the documentary could have entailed.
The documentary shows immense crowds and strong public
opinion that seized Delhi in aftermath of the Nirbhaya Jyoti case. It is plausible
to expect that after watching the documentary people would have asked difficult
questions from the judiciary and political establishment about the lack of
progress in not only in the Nirbhaya case but also about thousands of other cases of rapes
pending in courts. Only about one in four rape cases tried in Indian courts
results in conviction according to National Crime Records Bureau report. I don't know how this ratio compares internationally but absolute ratio does not inspire confidence in prosecution. This time the questions would have been asked not only by frustrated, awakened
and agile residents of Delhi but perhaps by people from other parts of India.
One of the lawyer in the documentary questions why there was
no hurry to pursue cases against 250 MPs against whom the cases involving
sexual violence were not being pursued with same speed as these cases.
Given the context of the documentary and the debate it would have generated,
the parliamentarians would have found this question too hot to deal with. This Is second potential consequence avoided by banning the telecast in India. A pointed question on accountability and
responsibility of people’s representatives in parliament is once again buried under
the noisy TV studio debates and protests by media against the ban.
