LEADER ARTICLE
Rape of Justice

A shocking case of sexual assault in broad daylight on one of the Capital’s busiest streets, and almost the next thing that follows is a burst of loose comments from the highest political quarters.
The high point of this competitive statement-mongering is without doubt the astonishing remedy offered by — who else? — George Fernandes.
The defence minister wants rapists shot dead in the same way as the Chinese shoot their corrupt: Catch the culprit, dismiss his appeal and get his relatives to buy the bullet that will kill him.
Why only rapists? If we must follow the Chinese example, why not go the whole hog and dispatch the corrupt as they do? Think of it, Mr Fernandes.
No Tehelka-kind commissions of inquiry, no cross-examinations, just plain and simple death sentence.
If a political veteran of Mr Fernandes’s vintage can so easily advocate Kangaroo court-style trial of rapists, it is little wonder that the idea resonates so much with the public at large. In surveys done after the Delhi rape case, respondents invariably asked for rapists to be put to death. And preferably without the botheration of a trial, hearing etc.
Given the context, the emotion is understandable, but is legal shortcut the answer to crime, however reprehensible?
Worryingly, reactions of this kind seem more and more part of a pattern, especially among the urban classes — a pattern that suggests a moving away from the due process towards a form of vigilantism. The most recent example of this is the Ansal Plaza shoot-out, justified by any number of people as absolutely the right way to deal with terrorists. What if they were not terrorists but two ordinary youths? Too bad, but that can’t be helped.
What if they were terrorists, but the encounter was stage-managed? Of course, encounters have to be stage- managed; there is no other way to get the terrorists. Besides, those who kill cannot ask for a fair trial for themselves.
This reasoning was advanced as much by the common men and women as ministers in high offices. But the whole point of the justice system is precisely that even those who kill have a right to a fair trial. Guilt must be established prior to punishment. In fact, there is a description for a country that doesn’t follow this elementary principle: A banana republic. Sadly, that is the way we are moving. Gujarat demonstrated this only too graphically. For Narendra Modi & Co, the post-Godhra riots were a natural reaction to the Godhra carnage. Before long the logic caught on: “Who started it?� was a question that one was to hear again and again. Forget the absurdity of dispensing justice in this rough and ready fashion, it didn’t even matter that the perpetrators of the Godhra crime were in no way connected with those who paid for that crime.
Agreed, the justice system in this country is scandalously tardy. But surely the cure for this doesn’t lie in Hindi movie-style revenge and retribution. A more rigorous prosecution and speedier delivery of justice are what we must fight for. Instead, we seem to veer between extremes.
Between no prosecution and straight death sentence. Ordinary law will not be followed, but the most draconian of laws will be enacted. From Bofors to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots to the Babri masjid demolition case to now the Gujarat riots, prosecution is a disgraceful story in this country. As appalling is the situation as regards rape, for which the death sentence is being demanded: What use the death sentence when there is almost no one to convict?
In truth, what the “hang them, kill them� chorus reveals is our increasing impatience with things complex. It is so much easier to strip an incident of its social context and pronounce judgment than to ask questions, take a socio-political perspective and then address the problem. One saw this in Gujarat. The mob fury was justified without the slightest attempt to understand the essential differences between the Ghanchi Muslims and other Muslims.
One sees this in the ready sanction granted to fake encounters. The reactions to rape are similar. Outrage without analysis. Rape is treated with horror not because it is violent but because of the disgrace that attaches to its victim. It is precisely this attitude that empowers the rapist whose goal is the humiliation of his victim. Legal redressal is important. But it is as important to de-stigmatise and de-mystify rape.
In his book, Men Who Rape, Nicholas Groth describes rape as “sexuality in the service of non-sexual needs�. He divides rapists into three categories: Power rapists, anger rapists and sadistic rapists. Sexual gratification is not the objective for any of them.
Indeed, for most, rape is a violent means of suppressing their own insecurity. This demystification is very, very necessary to tackle rape. Groth’s study also establishes that victims who know the psychology of rapists are most successful at resisting rape. Rape must be understood as a sign of weakness and not strength. That is the only way to remove the fear in potential victims.
That is also the way to fight the stigma associated with it. Once the fear and stigma are gone, rape will cease to be the potent weapon it is.
Exaggerated calls for death sentence do precisely the opposite. They invest rape with just the kind of power that makes it so fearsome.