So there I was, today morning, sitting on my bed with my morning cuppa and the day's newspaper, with all the time in the world to spare, given as I am nursing an injured foot, and can't walk much...ergo, no office for me today.
Working backwards from the cartoons page, as I am wont to do (yes, yes...I do that. Don't judge me now!), I finally reached the first page of the 'paper, only to have my blood boiling, for there on the front page was an article about the opinions of the women and child welfare minister of a certain state, who, the article stated "was not in favour of women wearing provocative clothing", i.e., donning "flimsy and fashionable" dresses. The article further quotes the minister saying that while he is not in favour of a dress code for women because of varied cultural and caste considerations (How kind, nyet? Wonder whether he would have insisted on one otherwise!) he did think women had to decide what kind of clothes make them feel safe. The irony being, that these remarks were prefaced by a statement to the effect that today's lifestyle makes it mandatory for women to work with men and live on equal terms with them.
This stand taken by a minister, which comes close on the heels of similar statements made by the director general of police of a neighbouring state, and the events of the past year, including the Slutwalk and the fracas over a similar slutwalk being organised in India, serve only to highlight the depressing truth that many people in positions of power, or even otherwise, appear to believe that the blame for rape or any act of sexual harassment can be placed squarely (and fairly) on the woman because of what she wore (or didn't wear, for that matter!)... the necessary conclusion being that the responsibility of preventing a crime and ensuring safety for women rests entirely on the women themselves, thereby clearly, and cleverly, passing the baton of responsibility about a duty that is otherwise to be shouldered by the law makers and the enforcement machinery.
So where does that leave us, the women in question? Clearly without the support of any policy maker or enforcement agency, for starters... so does the only hope, as the minister puts it succinctly and not so helpfully, lie in being "dignified" in what we wear? Who decides whether something is dignified...the minster in question apparently classified a salwar kameez as being dignified...but how does that tie in with reports of women being raped every few minutes in rural and semi-urban India, where surely, "western clothing" could not be a possible culprit?
What will it take, I wonder, for people to realise, that plummeting morals of the perpetrators of crime against women have less to do with plunging necklines and more with opportunity for commiting a crime? What will it take for the law makers and enforcers to realise that this opportunity is presented not by the presence of a skimpily-clad woman but the absence of a strong law enforcement mechanism that will bring offenders to the book?
In today's day and age, with all this talk about greater and equal opportunities for all, how is it that these equal opportunities cease to become available when it comes to seeking protection from law breakers? For a woman in this country is foremost a citizen, and a perprator of a sexual offence, foremost, a law breaker.. or is it that the rules are different based on our prejudices?
Working backwards from the cartoons page, as I am wont to do (yes, yes...I do that. Don't judge me now!), I finally reached the first page of the 'paper, only to have my blood boiling, for there on the front page was an article about the opinions of the women and child welfare minister of a certain state, who, the article stated "was not in favour of women wearing provocative clothing", i.e., donning "flimsy and fashionable" dresses. The article further quotes the minister saying that while he is not in favour of a dress code for women because of varied cultural and caste considerations (How kind, nyet? Wonder whether he would have insisted on one otherwise!) he did think women had to decide what kind of clothes make them feel safe. The irony being, that these remarks were prefaced by a statement to the effect that today's lifestyle makes it mandatory for women to work with men and live on equal terms with them.
This stand taken by a minister, which comes close on the heels of similar statements made by the director general of police of a neighbouring state, and the events of the past year, including the Slutwalk and the fracas over a similar slutwalk being organised in India, serve only to highlight the depressing truth that many people in positions of power, or even otherwise, appear to believe that the blame for rape or any act of sexual harassment can be placed squarely (and fairly) on the woman because of what she wore (or didn't wear, for that matter!)... the necessary conclusion being that the responsibility of preventing a crime and ensuring safety for women rests entirely on the women themselves, thereby clearly, and cleverly, passing the baton of responsibility about a duty that is otherwise to be shouldered by the law makers and the enforcement machinery.
So where does that leave us, the women in question? Clearly without the support of any policy maker or enforcement agency, for starters... so does the only hope, as the minister puts it succinctly and not so helpfully, lie in being "dignified" in what we wear? Who decides whether something is dignified...the minster in question apparently classified a salwar kameez as being dignified...but how does that tie in with reports of women being raped every few minutes in rural and semi-urban India, where surely, "western clothing" could not be a possible culprit?
What will it take, I wonder, for people to realise, that plummeting morals of the perpetrators of crime against women have less to do with plunging necklines and more with opportunity for commiting a crime? What will it take for the law makers and enforcers to realise that this opportunity is presented not by the presence of a skimpily-clad woman but the absence of a strong law enforcement mechanism that will bring offenders to the book?
In today's day and age, with all this talk about greater and equal opportunities for all, how is it that these equal opportunities cease to become available when it comes to seeking protection from law breakers? For a woman in this country is foremost a citizen, and a perprator of a sexual offence, foremost, a law breaker.. or is it that the rules are different based on our prejudices?
No comments:
Post a Comment