A decade after the Delhi gangrape, we now have a fairly predictable public response cycle for exceptionally violent rape and murder cases in India. With the Kolkata case involving the rape and murder of a trainee doctor, we see yet another iteration of this cycle.
The first stage involves hot-take headlines often claim India is the “rape capital of the world”, emphasising the large number of cases reported to the police every year. Unsurprisingly, there is little regard for the billion-plus population size. Addressing this will require more effort and highlight a very inconvenient fact – India has curiously low reporting rates of rape.
The next stage in the public response cycle involves reporting and reposting specific case details. Not all cases of rape elicit visceral reactions or public condemnation. Certain elements are vital for a case to be considered high profile.
Typically, the victim is a young person engaged in ordinary activities and the violence they suffer must be both sexual and fatal. Concerning the accused, they are usually expendable strangers, almost certainly from marginal groups.
The third stage, which we are now entering with the Kolkata case, is the stage of public demands. This stage has several components. One of these is the expression of feminist frustrations with the constant threat of harm and the inability to move freely. This manifests in public marches demanding changes in both public policy and social norms.
However, these demands often get overshadowed by calls for “swift and severe” justice, with suggestions ranging from Central Bureau of Investigation cases, immediate arrests and the death penalty to castration and extrajudicial killings.
At a primal level, demands for immediate retribution are understandable. Faced with a senselessly violent act, especially one that prompts thoughts like “it could have been me” or “it could have been someone I know”, our instinct is to try to eliminate the source of our fears. But these solutions do not work either in practice or principle.
Attempting to fast-track or short-circuit the procedures of due process significantly increases the likelihood of gross miscarriages of justice. Perpetrators could escape the consequences of their actions if innocent people are arrested in their place based on flimsy evidence, with investigators under immense public pressure to act swiftly.
The most egregious recent example of this was the encounter killing of the accused in the 2019 rape and murder of a young woman outside Hyderabad. In the days following, many in the city lauded the responsible police officer, but without a full trial, doubts will always linger about the culpability of the four men who were killed.
As it stands, the existing cycles we follow inevitably fail to address practicable demands. We need safer spaces for everyone, greater respect in our streets and homes, and justice that persists throughout our lives, not just after our deaths.
This form of justice requires carefulness and consistency. It does not concern itself with whether the victim was at a club the night before or whether the perpetrator was in a boardroom during the day. Ultimately, only this form of justice can create a realm where love and life are freely given, not taken by force – whether by criminals or the state.
Anisha Thomas is a Mumbai based social worker and a lecturer in the Department of Feminist Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Also read: Has rape outrage brought us to a dead end?
