The rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata has been an inflection point for the country. But as we feel rage and anguish at the crime, its cover up and the shocking mob vandalism that targeted protesting doctors, there are many other problematic responses in the aftermath of the horror that should give us pause.
The Mamata Banerjee government did many things wrong in its response to what unfolded in the R.G. Kar Medical College. The most egregious is its unexplained protection of Sandip Ghosh, the principal of the college. Not only did the violence unfold on his watch, doctors say he blamed the victim by callously questioning why she was alone in the seminar hall at night—this after she had wrapped a 36-hour shift. He is responsible for college officials lying to the parents of the victim and telling them that their daughter died by suicide. He allowed suspicious ‘renovations’ to take place 20 metres near the crime scene, triggering apprehensions of a cover-up. And, worst of all, when he finally resigned, he was not sacked. Instead he got a new job as the principal of the Calcutta National Medical College. It is to the credit of young doctors there that they refused to let him enter the premises. But, bizarrely, two local Trinamool Congress politicians—a legislator and a state minister—reached the college to persuade students to call off their agitation against Ghosh. As the Calcutta High Court asked while sending Ghosh on long leave, why is this man so powerful? The court pointed out that a government lawyer had been sent to defend him.
The attempt to improve working conditions for women doctors in the aftermath of the crime has come with its own problems. While measures like separate resting space, toilets, mobile apps connected to local police stations are all welcome, two advisories are extremely problematic—avoiding night shift for women doctors and restricting their working hours to 12. This is the exact opposite of the ‘reclaim the night’ movement led by protesters after the rape. Women have not sought differential working hours. Women have sought freedom and security at all hours. This move is antithetical to the very spirit of the protests besides being yet one more obstacle in the career trajectory of women professionals.
Some of the media’s descriptive cliches also need a review. To call this Nirbhaya 2.0 or Justice for Abhaya as many have is well-intentioned but needs examination. When we call a rape victim by these nomenclatures, we are foisting a forced idea of fearlessness on a woman who is no longer there to speak about her ordeal. Women are brave but no one is fearless about sexual violence. No one should be fearless about an attack so brutal that it left the doctor bleeding from eyes and private parts. This idea of thrusting fearlessness on murdered women who suffer assault needs to be examined. This language also takes away from demanding change in what creates fear to begin with.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud called this a moment of national catharsis. Which it is. But we need to learn some lessons from it. And the first one is, how not to react to rape and sexual violence.
editor@theweek.in