Decidedly no, but this case is really interesting. A female politician in Utter Pradesh, India representing the Congress Party, Rita Bahuguna Joshi, suggested that the leader of opposing group, Bahujan Samaj party, Mayawati, be raped in order to understand the suffering of rape victims. Her attempted "criticism" was about how the state of Utter Pradesh is treating rape victims,
In her speech Joshi criticised the Uttar Pradesh government for paying Dalits who had suffered rape compensation of just 25,000 rupees (£315). "I had simply sought to draw the people's attention to the fact that Mayawati's dole of 25,000 rupees to every Dalit rape victim was quite ironical as the state police chief was spending lakhs [hundreds of thousands] on the helicopter ride that he undertakes to hand over that paltry amount to the victim," she said.
While it is common for people to say incendiary things in politics, especially in India where people take very dramatic creative liberties in their political speeches, I think this is taking too many liberties, especially since the point is to have either a decrease in sexual violence or better reparations for instances of sexual violence. Suggesting sexual violence against a woman kind of defeats the purpose.
But that is not what people are protesting in Joshi's statements. According to the article, "She faces charges of insulting a woman's modesty, insulting a person of a lower caste and promoting enmity between groups. The charges all carry possible 10-year jail sentences." Joshi's house was burned down and she was put in jail. The crime however was not hatespeech, it was violating a woman's modesty, or suggesting that she is not modest. So, basically, if a woman is raped, she is the one that is immodest, not the person that raped her. Sounds like classic victim blaming to me.
So while, I don't necessarily agree with Joshi using such dramatic word choice to get her message out, I think it is interesting that her house was burned down and she was jailed, not because this was a hateful and potentially violent thing to say, but because she threatened a woman's assumed modesty.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Are Vengeful Comments About Rape Ever OK?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15008
Not to be the white-man telling other people how to live, but this seems like a classic result of patriarchy to me. The fact that a woman's "modesty" trumps her right to safety from sexual violence reveals just how entrenched patriarchal thought still is in some parts of India. The importance of men's control over women's sexuality produces this ironic law. Rape is viewed not as an affront to a woman's dignity and an unjust tool of power wielded by men, but as a threat to perceived "modesty" and "purity" of womanhood. It's as if women cannot be the drivers of their own sexual selves, but must rely on men to safeguard their sexuality. So a man taking advantage of another woman produces not a human rights violation, but a violation of the code of conduct that says women are only to be sexually active in the service of the men they are married too. Sad. Too sad.
Actually, Joshi's being charged under a couple of laws about inflammatory speeches and one that was designed to protect Dalits ("untouchables") from persecution by upper castes -- the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (Sorry I don't know how to link) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS-India-UP-Cong-chief-Bahuguna-Joshi-sent-to-14-day-judicial-custody/articleshow/4783028.cms
It's very much a question of hate-speech kinds of laws. I think that it's extremely important to the case to note that Mayawati is a Dalit woman, of the lowest caste, and Joshi is a Brahmin woman, of an upper "priestly" caste. The intersectionality of caste and gender -- not to mention the often inflammatory dynamics of Indian politics -- should not be overlooked.
"Insulting a person of a lower caste and promoting enmity between groups" pretty much sounds like our hate speech laws.
Not that that makes the modesty charge ok... or the ridiculous jail sentence...
In this context, who is "our?" I presume you're not American, and I'm curious what country you're living in that has a similar regime.
I, for one, think Americans can legitimately be proud of our free speech near-absolutism. I think this case shows why hate speech laws and criminalizing certain speech is so dangerous.
No, I'm American. Our hate speech laws cover inciting violence (i.e. promoting emnity), esp. against minorities (i.e. lower social caste). The Indian laws are somewhat more extreme, yes, but I don't think they're all that outlandish. Frankly, I'm all in favor of stricter hate speech laws.
I also just wanted to point out her actual quote: "You should also be raped" (at least according to the MSNBC article you linked). The offensive part there is the SHOULD, but I think if she had worded it differently, it would have been fine. Hypothetical example: "You will never understand what it's like until you are raped." That doesn't imply that you want the other person to be raped, just to STFU&L. Which is fine =)
Is that the actual quote or is it a translation though?
I hate to say it, but I guess I can kind of see what made Joshi go over the top with this comment. Admittedly the reparations are a slap in the face of victims. The insulting a lower caste charge is twisted here because the cheap shot had nothing to do with Maya's caste. It is understandable to be so exhausted by injustice of women especially when women in power positions take on what seems to be anti-women stance on issues until eventually Joshi just gives. Maya reminds me of a lower caste phyllis schlafley or sarah palin. I hope no one burns my house down for saying these things...
I hear you, and it does seem like Mayawati is grandstanding, using rape victims. (THEIR concerns, of course, are largely being ignored in the conflict between these political leaders.)
However, I don't think the question of caste is irrelevant, nor that the charge of "insulting lower castes" has been twisted. One of the most common ways to keep Dalit women "in their place" has been rape and sexual humiliation by men of higher castes. To me, a non-Indian, Joshi's remark seems like she's saying "This compensation is pitiful and doesn't begin to make up for being raped!" I could well believe, though, that mere mention of rape in connection with a Dalit woman could sound far more sinister in the ears of those who have lived for years and years being subject to systematic rape without recourse because they are seen as non-people.
Sorry I'm going to town on this topic...I'm writing about it and have been a lot -- I think it's important not to oversimplify an extremely complex situation. This isn't just about "modesty."
Maybe you should explain more about the "immodesty" statute Samhita, because we have no legal context for it here. It stretches the imagination to call this victim blaming. A less inflammatory reading is that it associates rape with violating a woman. Without the context its a huge charge to hurl.
Actually, did you know that Joshi was simply re-quoting Mayawati's comment, when Mayawati made a very similar statement like this, a few months ago to an audience of females.
Secondly, this is a "huge deal" because Mayawati is a very popular, well known politician and many of her supporters are making this known in the media.
Anyone correct me if I am wrong about Joshi re-quoting Mayawati's statement, though.
Do you have a source for this? I'd love to read it because, yeah, that would totally change the whole situation.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=385&sid=1718808
Second to last paragraph.
"In January 2007, Mayawati had used almost exactly the same words by saying that the nieces of another political archrival could be given monetary compensation if they were raped."
I also read somewhere that she'd made the comments about the daughters (rather than nieces) of a Muslim political rival, but I'm having trouble re-finding it.
I just don't agree with the philosophy that violence or vendetta is "always wrong". While I can agree that raping rapists isn't going to fix anything and is more likely going to continue a cycle of violence, and that there is no perfect system of justice so we never really know %100 who is and who isn't guilty (which is why I'm avidly anti death-penalty); but the complete adherence to pacifism, even in regards to the use of words strikes me as silly and ignorant of historical evidence that contradicts the effective use of violence is nonexistent.
To reiterate and clarify: The only problem I have with violence is two-fold:
1) As we have seen in fairly recent matters (can't find the article but a man beat or killed a neighbor based on a false accusation of child molestation); there are just too many incidents of people who are falsely accused of crimes to allow for a public mandate of allowable vendetta.
2) The idea of proportionate response. How would we determine the appropriate response to each offense? Is a broken nose adequate compensation for a broken nose? Does it compensate for the fear and horror of the initial attack?
But if, as individuals, we can laud the notion of someone being attacked and turning the tables on the attacker (which it seems is a fairly approved of concept) then we are already approving of violence as an appropriate response to certain kinds of transgression.
As an aside: Anyone who believes in some form of prison system is tacitly approving of violence as a public institution. Violence is the tool used to force compliance and coercion when attempting to restrain prisoners from leaving,m after all. Accepting the threat of violence is accepting the use of violence.
I'm not going to respond to all of your points because I'm no expert here myself, but I suggest you read more on pacifism, because it seems you don't fully understand it.
I'm not implying that formal pacifism is the absolute rejection of violence, I know that in it's formal iteration it is violence as a last resort. I'm responding to the idea that it is "always wrong" which is why I put that in quotes in the first place.
There are plenty of avowed pacifists who don't understand the distinction and go with the "never ever" philosophy.
samhita, this is definitely one of your more nuanced, thoughtful posts...strong work!
Definitely a poor choice of words, if she was simply trying to suggest that Mayawati wasn't being empathetic towards rape victims.