dailyO
Politics

India's Daughter: An honour killing for Indian sons

Advertisement
Gayatri Jayaraman
Gayatri JayaramanMar 07, 2015 | 11:36

India's Daughter: An honour killing for Indian sons

The debate about India’s Daughter, the now banned-in-India-via-court-order documentary made by Leslee Udwin and telecast via the BBC, has intensified in the last day or two.

The prime and only valid objection against it is that testimony from an accused with the power to interfere with a case that is yet in appeals and therefore sub judice, should not be publicly aired. That sees the need to prevent it from being screened on broadcast platforms in India. I am not clear that YouTube would fall under the same category, except under Section 66A, currently being contested as a law itself in the Supreme Court.

Advertisement

Other claims, that the documentary is badly made, shoddily researched, is not true to those it has interviewed and has the potential to unleash nationwide misogyny and misandry, to wound national honour, or to incite mobs in the manner of the Dimapur rape accused who was lynched to death this morning, are not free speech issues - they are either ethical issues in research and filmmaking, which may be fixed by writing in to the Beeb, making a counter film, or responding with civil suits in the case of extreme misrepresentation (We seem to have an issue understanding we do not control a filmmaker’s point of view and whom she chooses to include or leave out). Or law and order issues that becomes the responsibility of local governments and police to regulate. The government clearly has taken the easy way out in preventing the screening of the film so that the latter does not become its headache.

Even more interesting than the commentary the film offers on the incident of rape, or the status of women, is the inadvertent comment on the self-image of Indian sons.

The outrage in fact spells out some typical flailings of male patriarchy:

Advertisement

It wounds national honour: This is the macrocosm of the average Indian patriarch’s ongoing concern: Will my daughters besmirch my reputation? In this case they have. Limit the damage. Prevent people from viewing it. Kill the video. This ban is an honour killing.

Go and make a documentary about your own rape. Thus spake the foul-mouthed Ashoke Pandit, who ought to stand for representation in the Male Chauvanist Party of India. This holds several levels of misogyny. Women who are raped are somehow lesser than women who are not raped. Their statements must be questioned. They must be put in their place. They must not be allowed to pollute the minds of those who are unbesmirched. It invokes misogyny from issues of purity to that ingrained fear of feminists, or women who imagine they have rights.

It generalises Indian male society: I am not a rapist, an Indian filmmaker posted on his timeline. This goes back to the old saying that when a man transgresses, the sin is his own, but when a woman transgresses, it paints all of womanhood. Sure, there are some good Indian men, but the experience of Indian women is that this is largely the exception and not the rule. The rule is to stay safe, keep your wits about you, don’t talk to strangers, don’t make eye contact, don’t loiter, don’t be late, don’t fall asleep in cabs, keep your phones on etc, etc. The rule is that Indian women don’t trust the mass of Indian men. No Indian woman walks around without a care in the world for her safety or the fear that she will be blamed for what happens to her. Not one. The concerted effort is to deny women the veracity of their experience of Indian male society.

Advertisement

It is a foreign point of view: Sorry to break it to you, but we are an open society. We are not North Korea. If you issue visas, people from countries in which they are open to hold opinions, will come here and make judgements and return. If what they see shocks them enough, they will write and document it. They will express a point of view that does not owe allegiance to the state. Their ideas may be critically flawed, their perspective limited, but critiques are allowed. Hell, even films and articles that counter their points of view are allowed. In Sanskrit, it is called Pratijna, or what is put forward or to be argued. Nyaya Vidya, is not law, as it is often simplistically translated, but the science of argument, first postulated as anvisiki, and an essential part of the training of any young ruler, in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Satpratipakshata or the counter-inference is that which proves the hypothesis contradictory. (Source: Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies). This is an ancient part of traditional Indian culture; this ability to counter with logic. It will be good to revive it as an art form. The crucial points of views of foreigners like Megasthenes helped develop an understanding of Indian culture and connect it with cultures outside. Krishna was identified with Herakles, and Sankarsana with Dionysius. Mention of Heliodorus, a Greek ambassador to India occurs in the Besnagar inscription. Kindly note that visitors were never then, nor are now obliged to form favourable opinions of India. They take back what they see. If what they see is rape, their opinion is of rape. Resolving what they see here is our problem, not theirs.

It glorifies the rapist: It paid the rapist. As per Free Speech and Fair Trial under CPC 1973, 200th Law Commission Report, prejudicial publications were found to possibly impact judges subconsciously: “It is recognised in several countries and also in India that publications which refer to character, previous convictions, confessions could be criminal contempt” the report states. The documentary in all probability violates the rapist’s rights by eliciting a “confession” of what he did and why he did it. That shouldn’t perturb the mob that wants to see him hanged too much. It probably does him more harm than good. It is unclear how that constitutes glorification; it definitely does make for irrefutable revelations. Maybe everyone really means to say is “I cannot deny that, so let me discredit it”? As for payment, all research in Western universities requires respondees to be paid for their inputs from the grant/funding money. To elicit unpaid contributions is considered unethically obtained information. I suspect (Leslee Udwin will have to confirm) that this is the case here. But it’s only in India we consider a free contribution ethical and not the other way round (I reiterate the documentary falls under research, and filmmaking, for its clear intention to present a subjective point of view, and not journalism).

It’s voyeurism: The Nirbhaya trial, arguably India’s most important rape trial, has not been heard for a year. The Bhanwari Devi rape trial did not earn her justice, though it did pave the way for the Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act 2013. In the Tejpal case, it was concerted leaks and media focus that forced the state to intervene and prevent the accused from "recusing" himself, which is where that would have ended. From justice AK Ganguly to Pachauri, media focus on rape cases are the reason why the victims have had the confidence and the power to take things forward. It forms a crucial part of social support for women victims, who are only now beginning to come forward in India’s restrictive social set up. In the case of Jyoti Singh, she is not alive to fight for her justice. Films and articles that push the cause of justice are crucial contributions to war efforts against sexual assault. We seem to assume the fight ends with the framing of rape laws; often the FIR is just the beginning of the long walk towards freedom for the victim, who is besieged by everything from character assassination (she deserved it, she asked for it, who told her to be out late) to oblivion. It is inevitable that the Patriarchy label this spotlight "voyeuristic" and seek it shut down. Indeed it would be a flawed and flagging state that didn’t.

The film, with all its flaws, speaks so many uncomfortable truths about an Indian patriarchal society, that no wonder the most offended by it are men. "India’s Sons" would have been a better name for it. Let’s respect those of them who are our brothers and fathers and sons... Of course.... The rest of them I mean, need to look at why this documentary offends them on so many levels again.

Last updated: March 07, 2015 | 11:36
IN THIS STORY
Please log in
I agree with DailyO's privacy policy