In a short but powerful monograph titled Hindutva And Violence Against Women, Communist Party of India (Marxist) Politburo member Brinda Karat, also one of the founders of the All India Democratic Women’s Association, joins the dots from Roop Kanwar to Bilkis Bano, Manipur to Hathras, but most compellingly from women’s mobilisation in present day India to the Manusmriti. 

Occurring within the wider project to create a Hindu Rashtra, Karat argues, this mobilisation aims on one hand to encourage women’s direct participation in aggressive Hindutva drills but on the other also reiterates that women have a predetermined role and space in society, designated as ideal wife or mother.

Contending that Hindutva’s dominance since 2014 has altered how political leaders, administrators, police departments and courts respond to cases of violence against women, the book recounts the role of women right-wing leaders such as Sadhvi Rithambara and Uma Bharti, examines majoritarian violence against women and the communalisation of sexual crimes as witnessed in the Bilkis Bano case, in the covert cremation of the body of the Hathras rape victim; and the rape and murder of Kuki women in Manipur.

All of these processes lead to new rape cultures that affect the processes of justice for all women, Karat says.

EXCERPT

It was the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat who had said in 2013: ‘Husband and wife are involved in a contract in which the husband says, you take care of my house and I will take care of your needs…If the wife violates the contract he can disown her.’ This is much like Hitler's address to the National Socialist League of Women in Germany in 1934. He had said: ‘We do not consider it correct for the woman to interfere in the world of the man, in his main sphere. We consider it natural if these two worlds remain distinct. To the one belongs the strength of feeling, the strength of the soul. To the other belongs the strength of vision, of toughness, of decision, and of the willingness to act. In the one case this strength demands the willingness of the woman to risk her life to preserve this important cell and to multiply it, and in the other case it demands from the man the readiness to safeguard life.’ 

This kind of thinking among top leaders of the Sangh Parivar reflects the cultures being promoted which ultimately coerce women back into subordinate acceptance. When those in power hold such opinions, administrations and importantly the police also act in tandem, siding with the wife beater. The Manusmriti ordains: ‘Though he may be bereft of virtue, given to lust and devoid of good qualities, a good woman should always worship her husband like a God.’ (Chapter 5, Verse 149) Elsewhere, it states, ‘As a child she must be under the protection of her father, as a wife under the protection of her husband, and when her husband is dead, by her son.’

The approaches and policies upholding the domestic role of women are a reflection of Manuvadi cultures in practice. This is of direct concern because cases of domestic abuse are steadily rising. In the latest NCRB report, 6,517 dowry deaths were registered in one year (2022). If one adds up the number of dowry deaths from 2014 to 2022, the figure is an astonishingly high number of 65,633 deaths, more than the number of soldiers killed in the wars independent India has fought. Who were these young women? By religion, almost all of them were Hindu. Who burnt them to death or left them with no choice but to kill themselves? The men, too, were Hindu. Have you ever heard or seen a single campaign or demonstration by any organisation of the Hindu ecosystem against the tradition of dowry and the violence associated with unfulfilled demands on the bride’s family? They claim to be representing Hindus—but their silence when it comes to fighting such social evils as affect the women of the community is deafening. On the other hand, they laud and promote women's capacity to ‘sacrifice’ as an intrinsic quality of a good wife. 

The ecosystem of the BJP RSS ideology never fights dowry but certainly spends a great deal of time popularizing such male-centric rituals as Karwa Chauth in states where it never existed. Recently, the prime minister has given a call to ‘rich’ Indians to follow the ‘wed in India’ policy rather than spending money on expensive destination weddings in foreign lands. The prime minister is concerned that the business should stay in India. That's fair enough. But when he thinks of weddings, has he ever thought of the bride and the expenses her family has to bear? Why is the government so unconcerned about the increase in demands for dowry and the killing of young women for dowry? It is hard to recall statements against dowry from BJP leaders. The writ of the Constitution of India guaranteeing equal citizenship does not and cannot stop at the door to the bedroom or the kitchen. Unfortunately, cultures promoted by the BJP-RSS eco-system brand such ideas as ‘Western’, which are therefore to be refuted as antithetical to ‘our traditions’. 

The attitude towards the domestic sphere being ‘sacrosanct’ reflects in the government's total opposition to required legal steps to protect women's bodily integrity and autonomy. In India's anti-rape laws, there was an exception to the offence of rape if the man is married and his wife is not under fifteen years of age. In other words, even if a minor of fifteen years in a child marriage did not consent to intercourse with her husband, and he had forced sex with her, it would not be considered rape. The consent of a girl was not considered necessary. Additionally, this clause was in conflict with many other laws which held the age of consent for a woman to be eighteen years. Shockingly, in this case,the government argued against any change in the name of a ‘pragmatic view’. In its counter arguments, quite contrary to its current position on ‘uniformity’, the government held that ‘uniformity in criteria for determining age in different context is not necessary.’ It further argued that marriage ‘is a bedrock of society and needs to be protected’. The Supreme Court rejected this argument of the BJP government and the anomaly of legal sanction for intercourse with a fifteen-year-old girl by her husband was removed.

The government’s hypocrisy can be seen in another aspect. If a girl between the age of 15 and 18 has consensual sex with a friend, but is not married, then that is considered rape. At least three high courts, in Delhi, Meghalaya and Karnataka, had echoed the views of women's movements when they questioned the criminalization of consensual sex between adolescents with the male partner being accused of rape, opining that the law required to be sensitized to these consensual relations between adolescents, which should be treated in a different way. But the government has refused to consider this approach.

In the ongoing case on the criminalization of marital rape in adult marriages, initially, the central government opposed it, but then sensing the inclination of courts to criminalize marital rape, took a position that it should be left to parliament to legislate and decide upon. In its petition before the Delhi High Court, the union government quoted the ‘misuse of Sec 498A’ to oppose criminalization of marital rape. It stated that ‘gross misuse of the offence of marital rape by the wife cannot be ruled out’. The case in the Delhi High Court led to a split decision delivered in May 2022. Justice Shakhder, in favour of criminalization, noted, ‘Irrespective of who the perpetrator is, forced sex mars the victim—psychologically, physically and emotionally… rape as an offence deserve societal disapprobation in the strongest terms, notwithstanding the fact that the rapist is in a marital relationship with the victim.’ Justice C. Hari Shankar recorded in a dissenting note that ‘Marriage between a husband and wife is not like any other relationship and the sexual aspect is the bedrock on which their marriage rests’.

The case is pending before the Supreme Court. Here too,  the government has opposed criminalization. Its petition states: ‘It would destabilize the institution of marriage apart from being an easy tool for harassing husbands’. Meanwhile, when the issue of criminalization of marital rape came up in the Rajya Sabha, it was BJP leader Sushil Modi who said ‘criminalization of marital rape will end the institution of marriage’. Sushil Modi's ideological predecessors like Shyama Prasad Mukherjee argued at the time of the discussions on the Hindu code bill against any rights for women in the domestic sphere, and were vociferous against the right to divorce, arguing that ‘marriage is held as being sacred and sacrosanct’. All these decades later, this approach is being extended against a woman's right to bodily integrity, upholding sexual rights of a husband over his wife, even without her consent. This argument was amplified during the recent hearings on same sex marriage and the protection of the rights and against violence faced by LGBTQI+ persons. The cogent reasoning advanced by the Chief Justice of India came to nought when the bench accepted the basic argument that a decision upon such a subject was outside the jurisdiction of the courts and was up to the parliament to decide.

When a country is ruled by those whose ideology is based not on the Constitution but on their selective interpretations of religion, tradition and culture, for the court to abdicate responsibility poses new challenges to those fighting for justice. 

In Conclusion

Nari Shakti—Words, Deeds Ideologies

The prime minister often speaks of nari shakti. Unlike right-wing dictators who wear their male-centric retrograde ideology on their sleeve, our prime minister is a right-wing leader with a difference. His speeches often include praise of women and their achievements. He makes it a point to seek out women achievers such as women scientists associated with the successful Chandrayaan launch and hold them up as models. All this is as it should be in any democracy. A prime minister's words encourage women and give them self-confidence. Equally, a prime minister’s silence, following some of the worst atrocities committed against women, such as in the case of Bilkis Bano, or in Manipur or Hathras, demoralizes women and gives strength to the perpetrators of violence. The problem of credibility arises because the prime minister’s silence is louder than his words. The chasm between slogans and practice is  deep.

(Excerpted with permission from Hindutva and Violence Against Women, published by Speaking Tiger Books.)

Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.