Editor,
In 2012, the entire country watched in shock the news of a young woman being brutally gang raped, tortured and murdered. In what I think was a remarkable turn of events, widespread rage slowly but startlingly began to spill over into streets in the form of mass citizen protests. Something about Nirbhaya’s story hit a raw nerve with millions of Indians who know that sexual harassment and rape in our country, often with impunity, is all too real. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the death sentences for the accused in the case has been widely welcomed. However, what is surprising is the glee and frivolity that has followed in public domain discourse, including the chest thumping by political parties who wish to leverage this to their advantage.
Personally, I am against capital punishment but I’m not batting against the judgment, which I believe has followed due legal and judicial processes. However, this celebration of deaths of rapists as some great victory is I think somewhat misplaced. They are rapists and murderers, but still human beings- if that word has any gravity at all. So the levity with which their lives (and deaths) are talked about gives a hint of blood-thirstiness. Also, many do not grasp the terrible conditions in Indian jails unless you’re privileged and when you factor in the fact that rapists get exceptionally horrible treatment in jails, one might even argue that life imprisonment is worse than capital punishment. I believe speedy action and impartial judgment will be a better deterrent for rapists considering the huge numbers of rape cases we have rather than death sentences for the accused in one high profile case. But ultimately, unless we foster a culture of gender parity and equality, these differences in what we consider to be good deterrents will not matter, simply because rape and sexual harassment will continue to happen.
Without working together to really change how Indian society perceives and values its women, sadly we are simply perpetuating the popular refrains which emerged in Kolkata after Dhananjoy Chatterjee was hanged for raping and murdering a 14-year-old girl in 2004: dhora porle Dhananjoy, na porle enjoy (“if caught, Dhananjoy, else, enjoy”). Nirbhaya’s legacy should be so much more.
Yours etc.,
Karen L. Donoghue
Asst. Professor, Dept. of Journalism and Mass Communication
NEHU, Shillong,
Incorrect reading of history
Editor,
Apropos the letter “The RSS misreads history” (ST January 21, 2020) by Glenn Kharkongor, it is ironic that in his zeal to oppose the viewpoint of Mr Mohan Bhagwat, Mr. Kharkongor makes some blatant misreads himself. Firstly, Mr Kharkongor equates Hindus with Aryans and North Indians, ignoring the fact that crores of Dravidians and several Adivasi communities also practice Hinduism. Hinduism is not limited to North India in its practice. It is practised by communities all over the subcontinent, from Nepalis and Manipuris to Dravidians and Aryans alike. In fact, several of the most venerated Hindu shrines, like Tirupati, were established by Dravidians in South India.
Secondly, the statement that Hinduism was formed four thousand years ago is wrong. Unlike Abrahamic faiths like Islam and Christianity, Hinduism does not have a founder and does not consist of a uniform method of worship. Hinduism is a confluence of several modes of worship and meditation that are often extremely different from each other. The Hinduism we see today was not formed four thousand years ago. Rather, the various faiths and beliefs that comprise Hinduism coalesced into a somewhat homogenous religion around the time.
Thirdly, the Munda and Khasi tribes have different origins and ethnicities. The Mundas belong to a group of tribes and communities who were the first settlers in India. Their descendants are today called Adivasis. The Khasis, on the other hand, migrated to India from South East Asia at a much later point, as evidenced by the fact that the Khasi language bears striking resemblance to the Khmer language spoken in Cambodia. Interestingly, the Khmer language itself was influenced by Sanskrit and Pali when Hinduism spread to Southeast Asia.
Instead of using history to further divide our society and raise a pointless debate about who came to India first, we should strive to be tolerant and welcoming towards all communities.
Yours etc.,
NK Kehar
Shillong 3