Editor,
The gangrape and surrounding responses by the public on social media have left me terrified. I wish the survivor got the support and love needed for healing and recovering from this horrifying ordeal. At the same moment I also wonder when and how our society has stooped so low as to justify both the act of rape and the circulation of the video that the perpetrators uploaded online. From attempts at assassinating the survivor’s character and victim blaming, we find it easier to look at the survivor and shame her instead of the perpetrators of this horrendous act. I also grew up with victim blaming and shaming. The narrative always focuses on the survivor and all kinds of useless questions about the state that she was in and her character is questioned.
But what about rape? Can we all take a moment and see that it is a horrifying act? It is never okay to rape, never. It does not matter what and who the person is, rape is a crime against another human being. It is a violent, unwarranted, and devastating act. It requires the perpetrator to disregard the humanity of the person they rape and to intentionally discard the different forms of protest, verbal, body language, show or fear or physical resistance. In this specific case, the intention of the people to rape is even clearer through silencing the survivor with drugs. There can be no form of consent or mutual agreement to a physical, sexual act when the other person cannot express their consent, cannot say “yes” or “no” or “stop.” Are we as a society going to accept that it is alright to rape? Are we going to teach our children that rape can be validated and justified? Or are we going to teach our children to respect others and to teach them that there is no situation whatsoever where rape is warranted or justified.
I want my child to grow up knowing that rape is wrong and there is never and can never be any argument to make it alright. I want my child to stand up against such acts of horror. I want my child to never smear the survivor. Sex without the consent of the people involved is rape, regardless of what kind of people are involved. It does not matter if the person, the woman is out at night, in the day, at home, in a friend’s house, out partying, travelling, whatever….rape is wrong. There is no excuse for rape. And if it happens to one of us it can happen to any of us. Why is it so hard reject the excuses and reiterate that rape is a crime and an affront to a person’s human rights and dignity?
Our response to the survivor right now is shamefully wanting and downright disgusting. We as a society are sending out a message that she deserved it, which really means that we justify rape. And the sad truth is that we do look for excuses to justify the crime. Social media is frothing with rabid hatred and violence in relation to this case. Our Christian souls are implicit in the judgement that we have made on this woman. Had Jesus been here, he would have surely silenced us with his wisdom on who deserves to cast the first stone on this woman. Our Khasi “Tip briew, tip Blei” is apparently called to mind only when it is convenient for us. Is this the precedent that we want to set for future crimes such as this one? We will unfortunately have to bear witness and respond to such crimes again as a society.
I and many others find it horrifying that a crime of this nature and magnitude was committed but we are also terrified by our societal response to it. There should be no room for voices that try and justify rape; there should be an outpouring of support and comforting for the survivor instead of the hate and vilifying that we have right now. While the law follows its due process, we should teach our children that rape is a crime and nothing justifies it.
Yours etc.,
Dr Natha Wahlang,
(Student of Speech
Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm,
Sweden)
Via email
Conflating rights with special privileges
Editor,
It seems my previous letter managed to rile up some people through the points I raised. I have observed some amusing arguments which I would like to address.
Of course, I came across the typical response of “non-indigenous should not comment on indigenous matters.” This logic naturally never seems to extend in the opposite direction, as the individuals arguing this will themselves comment on everything concerning everyone, be they indigenous or not. And to top it off, the commenter also decided to, for some reason, start criticizing Hinduism, despite it having nothing to do with the matter at hand (perhaps they simply wanted to air their bigotry) and despite not being a Hindu themselves. The logic is frighteningly consistent: a Hindu (or any other outsider) knows nothing about Niamtre or indigeneity and thus should stay silent, but we know everything about Hinduism and can comment on it however we please. I am sure such solid reasoning needs no further response.
Coming to the serious arguments, one of the points raised was that since many tribals retain a few traits of their unique culture (such as matrilineality), they remain deserving of protections even if they have forsaken a dozen other traits (such as religion, names, attire, rituals, etc). Not only that, they supposedly remain equal stakeholders in the culture with those who have not forsaken any of their cultural traits. Not only does this reek of bias (because it is argued that one of the few traits left just so happens to be more important than the many traits abandoned), the fact that matrilineal societies do exist elsewhere while followers of Niamtre do not is enough to understand which trait is the more unique and defining feature of the culture.
Another argument raised is that communities across the world such as the Europeans and other Indians no longer follow their original cultures either, so why should “we” be singled out? While many of the historical “facts” mentioned here are wrong, let us assume they are correct. Even then, neither Europeans nor most Indians enjoy any special protections due to them being “indigenous”. Hence, going by this logic, it appears the commenter and I should reach the same conclusion: that many of Meghalaya’s special protections are being fraudulently enjoyed by undeserving groups. A further point to note is the reference to the Meitei, as similarly indigenous people who have adopted a “foreign” faith. Yet again, I raise the same question: the Meitei also do not enjoy any special protections due to their “indigeneity.” So, what are these comparisons with Europeans and the Meitei doing other than highlighting strongly that these protections in Meghalaya are being appropriated by the undeserving through deceit?
Finally, the last major response to my letter is a reiteration of the same false logic I had mentioned previously: the conflation of “rights” with “special privileges.” The right to religion is a “right” because it applies to all. These “special privileges” are not rights, because they do not apply to all. They are meant for a very specific purpose, and if people are circumventing that purpose, they deserve none of these protections at all. Perhaps this misunderstanding is honest, but it is likely a product of the materialistic, practically selfish desire that births all these arguments: people do not want to lose privileges, even if they do not deserve them. Statements about “community unity” and “divisive forces” sound fancy but are nothing more than attempts at obfuscation to cloud the real deceitful motivations behind these arguments.
Yours etc.,
N.K. Kehar
Shillong-3