Shakti Mills gangrape: State takes care of high profile survivors, ignores the poor

After the December 16 gangrape, which drove many to protests across the nation, the second ‘high-profile’ case of violence against women that caught the media attention was Mumbai’s Shakti Mills gangrape case. The brutal gangrape of a photo-journalist in the Shakti Mills compound in August 2013 ended the myth of Mumbai as the safest city for women. More disturbingly, within weeks of this case being reported, another woman came forward (known as the “telephone operator”, even though it’s a misnomer) saying that she too had been raped and brutalised by the same gang. In a sharp and well-written piece on Economic and Political Weekly, Flavia Agnes, Audrey D’Mello, and Persis Sidhva of Majlis Legal Centre – they’ve supported both survivors in the case – have highlighted the difference between the treatment of high-profile cases such as the photojournalist’s and that of a rape survivor from a poorer background. You can read the full piece here. The authors highlight how both young women showed a gritty resolve to fight for justice and that they should be seen as survivors not victims. They also reveal how the prosecution and defence in India continue to rely on the sexist arguments when arguing rape case. The authors point out,

“he (the prosecutor) advanced the most conventional and sexist argument: rape is a state worse than death. These comments were far removed from the reality of the lives of the two girls, who possessed great survival instincts due to which they had survived the attacks and had courageously withstood the criminal trial despite the media onslaught. They were well on their way from being ‘victims’ to ‘survivors’.”

They note that when asking for death penalty, the prosecutor informed the court that the girls “had been scarred for life and would never recover from the ‘vegetative state’.” Flair for drama aside, the arguments used by the prosecution are ones that feminists have been fighting against for a long time. One is almost reminded of BJP leader Sushma Swaraj’s famous statement at the time of the Delhi gangrape that the victim would be a ‘zinda laash’ (living dead body) even if she survived. [caption id=“attachment_1430125” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] The Shakti Mills compound where the gangrapes took place. Image: Firstpost[/caption] As the authors stress, the prosecution’s line of argument stuck to the idea that rape is the worst fate to befall a woman, one from which there is no recovery. Yet the survivors in both cases have fought hard for justice. As for the defence, the arguments put forward were typical. “The girls might have indulged in sex with their male companions and then in order to cover up had put the blame on the accused,” was one. The authors also do an exceptional job of pointing out how the two victims were treated differently by the state, the media and the police. They write,

“While [the photojournalist’s] medical bills at a private hospital amounting to lakhs of rupees were paid by the state in order to make the case ‘high profile’, [the telephone operator] was examined at the J J Hospital where routine vaginal tests were conducted… On the other hand, no treatment was provided nor paid for, despite the fact that Suman was still in pain and was also in an acute depression. The public prosecutor’s tone while addressing her was different, less patient and laced with irritation and disrespect which was rather jarring, as compared to his behaviour in the …[photojournalist’s] case.”

It should be noted that at the time of the incident, some newspapers had reported that other gangrapes had taken place in the Shakti Mills compound, but these never came to light. During the interrogation one of the accused had allegedly told the police that they had raped raped four rag pickers at the same spot. Like it or not, class seems to be a deciding factor in the matter of which rape survivor gets more sympathy or even justice in India.  As Firstpost Editor Lakshmi Chaudhry had noted then , “Would we have cared as much if the four poor women did report the crime? The police, notoriously unresponsive in matters of rape, may scramble into action on a headline-making case, but is unlikely to show such alacrity when the victim is a lowly rag-picker.” She had added that despite assumptions, “when it comes to rape, class privilege does not protect women from assault, but offers them the luxury of ‘staying safe’.” The authors have also questioned the emphasis on death penalty pointing out that where the accused were concerned, questions of class, poverty, etc were ignored and instead “state’s own concern for retributive justice and the city’s desire to salvage its pride became the prime concern.” They give another example of how justice operates when the survivor belongs to a demographic that is low in the social pyramid. A 13-year-old rape survivor from a poor background was raped by four men belonging to the more prosperous middle class. The accused in this case went scot free because the girl turned hostile as did other witnesses. The pertinent point being made by the authors is that only some rape cases seem to ‘prick’ the so-called collective conscience of our nation. They also highlight how the state tends to different between ‘a high-profile’ survivor and those who can’t lay claim to that tag. When it comes to rape, the death penalty is not enough; survivors of such brutal sexual assaults need help, medical, counselling, and legal help as well to aid their case, irrespective of the class to which they belong. Until this becomes the norm, only the ‘high-profile’ will get justice. Read the full piece here.