Kolkata Rape-Murder Case: Trading Freedom for Security
The country has been shocked by the gruesome Kolkata rape. Once again, a promising young woman has been silenced most cruelly. We all became part of token marches, night vigils and social media posts.
Suddenly, similar reports started pouring in from all over the country, the Badlapur sexual assault case being the most prominent one. This news sends shivers down my spine as a mother of a 2.5-year-old daughter. I enquire about camera access in her playschool and get panic attacks thinking about her future in this country.
I suspect that I will also become an anxious mother like many others. It is quite ironic that a woman who once raised slogans for ‘bekhauf azadi’ (fearless freedom) is today thinking about how she will justify policing her daughter.
The women’s movement has always walked on a double-edged sword. Whenever women start challenging patriarchy by participating in the labour force and collectively bargaining for their rights, incidents such as these derail the movement.
This news sends shivers down my spine as a mother of a 2.5-year-old daughter.
These mishappenings make freedom negotiable. When the State cannot ensure safety and freedom, citizens are forced to voluntarily curb their freedom. So, late night shifts or offsite visits are avoided, all girls’ schools are preferred and participation in the labour force becomes need-based and not a choice. An unsafe State indirectly supports curfew for girls and regressive parents. In short, nothing changes, and patriarchy continues uninterrupted.
Gender-based violence is rooted in deep-seated gender inequalities and underscores the persistent challenges that women face in their quest for equality and safety. The impact of horrifying cases such as the Kolkata rape case or the Badlapur sexual assault case reverberates through society, often undermining the progress made by feminist movements and reinforcing patriarchal norms that the women’s movement strives to dismantle.
Reinforcement of victim-blaming culture
One of the immediate setbacks caused by incidents such as the Kolkata rape case is the reinforcement of a victim-blaming culture. In the aftermath of such crimes, public discourse often shifts toward questioning the victim’s actions— her choice of clothing, her reasons for being in a certain place at a certain time, or her behaviour before the attack.
This narrative, deeply entrenched in patriarchal thinking, suggests that women are somehow responsible for the violence inflicted upon them. This not only diverts attention from the real issue— the perpetrator’s actions— but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes that women must adhere to certain behaviours to avoid being assaulted.
For the women’s movement, which has long fought against such victim-blaming attitudes, these incidents represent a significant regression. Instead of focusing on the systemic changes needed to protect women and ensure justice, the conversation often devolves into debates over women’s conduct, reinforcing the very biases that the movement seeks to eliminate.
Undermining of public space for women
Another setback is the further restriction of women’s access to public spaces. In response to incidents such as the Kolkata rape case, there is often a societal push to ‘protect’ women by imposing restrictions on their freedom of movement. Curfews, warnings to avoid certain areas after dark, and advice to dress conservatively are common reactions.
The women’s movement has always walked on a double-edged sword.
While these measures may be framed as protective, they effectively penalise women for crimes committed against them, limiting their autonomy and reinforcing the idea that women’s presence in public spaces is inherently unsafe.
The women’s movement has long advocated for the right of women to occupy public spaces freely and safely, challenging the notion that certain spaces or times of day are off-limits to women. However, when high-profile crimes occur, these hard-fought gains are often reversed, with society reverting to a protectionist mindset that restricts women’s freedoms rather than addressing the root causes of violence.
Shift in focus away from systemic change
High-profile rape cases often prompt calls for immediate, reactive measures such as harsher penalties for offenders or increased policing. While these measures can be important, they sometimes overshadow the need for broader, systemic change.
The women’s movement has long emphasised the importance of addressing the root causes of gender-based violence, such as ingrained patriarchal attitudes, economic inequality, and inadequate education on gender issues.
When the focus shifts primarily to punitive measures, there is a risk that these deeper issues will be neglected. The women’s movement’s efforts to promote long-term, sustainable change— through education, advocacy and cultural shifts— can be sidelined by the urgency of responding to the latest incident.
This can stall progress on the broader goals of the movement, as resources and attention are diverted away from the structural changes that are necessary to prevent such crimes.
Psychological impact on women and activists
The psychological impact of incidents like the Kolkata rape case cannot be understated. Such crimes instil fear and anxiety among women, reinforcing a sense of vulnerability and helplessness.
For activists within the women’s movement, these incidents can be particularly demoralising. Despite years of advocacy and progress, the recurrence of such brutal acts can evoke feelings of frustration and despair, as it becomes clear that the fight for gender equality is far from over.
One of the immediate setbacks caused by incidents such as the Kolkata rape case is the reinforcement of a victim-blaming culture.
This psychological toll can lead to burnout among activists, slowing the momentum of the movement. The constant need to respond to such incidents, to provide support for victims, and to campaign for justice can be exhausting, leaving less energy for proactive efforts to drive systemic change.
The delicate balance between individual freedom and collective safety is a cornerstone of any democratic society. However, in the aftermath of heinous crimes, this balance is often disturbed, leading to a shift in how citizens perceive their personal liberties and their trust in the State’s ability to ensure their safety.
Erosion of trust in the State
One of the immediate consequences of such traumatic events is the erosion of trust in the State. When a crime as brutal as rape occurs, especially in a public space, it shakes the very foundation of citizens’ belief that the government and its institutions can protect them.
The perceived failure of the State to prevent such crimes or to respond swiftly and effectively can lead to widespread disillusionment. This disillusionment manifests in many ways, most notably in the preference for self-reliance over State dependence for safety.
In many cases, citizens begin to feel that their individual freedom is compromised not only by the threat of crime but also by the State’s response to it. When the State imposes stricter security measures, such as increased surveillance, curfews or heightened policing, it often does so at the cost of personal freedoms.
While these measures are designed to protect the public, they can also create a sense of confinement, where citizens feel their movements and activities are being unjustly restricted. This, in turn, can lead to resentment and a further decline in trust in the State’s ability to balance safety with freedom.
Rise of self-protection and vigilantism
As trust in the State erodes, citizens often turn to self-protection measures. This shift is driven by the belief that if the State cannot guarantee their safety, they must take matters into their own hands. This can manifest in various forms, from the adoption of self-defence practices to the rise of neighbourhood watch groups.
Another setback is the further restriction of women’s access to public spaces.
While these measures may provide a sense of immediate security, they also contribute to a more fragmented society, where collective safety is replaced by individualistic approaches to protection.
In more extreme cases, this shift can lead to vigilantism, where individuals or groups take it upon themselves to punish those they perceive as threats. This breakdown of trust in the legal system is particularly dangerous, as it undermines the rule of law and can lead to further violence.
Vigilantism is often fueled by the belief that justice will not be served through official channels, leading to a cycle of retribution that destabilises the social order.
Impact on social cohesion
The shift from relying on the State to prioritising self-protection has profound implications for social cohesion. In a society where individuals feel they must constantly look out for themselves, the sense of community and collective responsibility diminishes. People become more isolated, suspicious of others, and less willing to engage in public life. This erosion of social trust weakens the very fabric of society, making it more difficult to foster cooperation and mutual support.
Moreover, the emphasis on individual safety can exacerbate social inequalities. Those with more resources can afford better security measures, leaving vulnerable populations at greater risk. This unequal distribution of safety further fragments society and deepens existing divides.
The women’s movement has long emphasised the importance of addressing the root causes of gender-based violence, such as ingrained patriarchal attitudes, economic inequality, and inadequate education on gender issues.
The notion of ‘trading freedom for security’ is particularly poignant when it comes to women navigating their daily lives. In many societies, women often find themselves making this trade-off, sometimes consciously and at other times subconsciously, as they seek to protect themselves in environments that can feel unsafe. This balancing act between personal freedom and safety reflects broader societal issues, including gender inequality, cultural norms and the persistent threat of violence against women.
The pressure to self-regulate
Women frequently alter their behaviour, limit their movements, or adjust their appearances to minimise perceived risks. This self-regulation is a form of trading freedom for security, where the freedom to move, dress, or speak as one wishes is compromised to avoid potential harm.
For example, many women avoid certain areas after dark, choose clothing that they think will not attract attention, or refrain from engaging in activities that might be deemed risky. These choices, though often seen as necessary precautions, represent a significant reduction in personal liberty.
The societal pressure to self-regulate is reinforced by a culture that often places the responsibility for avoiding danger on the victim rather than addressing the root causes of violence.
Women are socialised from a young age to be cautious, to avoid making themselves targets, and to always be aware of their surroundings. This creates an environment where the burden of safety falls disproportionately on women, who must continuously negotiate their freedom in the face of potential threats.
Impact on personal autonomy
This constant need to prioritise security over freedom has profound implications for personal autonomy. Autonomy is the ability to make choices about one’s own life, free from external constraints.
However, when women are forced to adjust their behaviour to avoid danger, their autonomy is compromised. The choices they make are not entirely their own but are influenced by the fear of what might happen if they do not conform to certain safety protocols.
These societal expectations are deeply rooted in patriarchal norms that view women as inherently vulnerable and in need of protection.
This compromise can be seen in various aspects of life. Women might turn down job opportunities that require late hours or travel, limit their social interactions, or avoid public spaces where they feel vulnerable.
These decisions, made in the name of safety, can have long-term effects on a woman’s career, social life and overall well-being. The opportunity cost of this trade-off is substantial, as it restricts women’s participation in public life and limits their potential.
Internalisation of fear
Over time, the repeated need to trade freedom for security can lead to the internalisation of fear. Women may begin to view the world through a lens of potential danger, where every decision is weighed against the risk it might pose. This internalised fear can become a pervasive part of a woman’s psyche, influencing her decisions, actions, and even her self-perception.
This internalisation is not just a personal issue but a reflection of broader societal attitudes towards women’s safety. The fact that women feel the need to trade freedom for security highlights the failure of society to create an environment where women can feel safe without compromising their autonomy.
It underscores the persistence of gender-based violence and the inadequacy of measures to protect women without infringing on their freedoms.
The role of societal expectations
Societal expectations play a significant role in this trade-off. In many cultures, there is an implicit expectation that women should prioritise their safety, even at the cost of their freedom. This expectation is often reinforced by family, friends, and the media, which collectively send the message that a ‘good’ woman is one who knows how to protect herself by making ‘wise’ choices— choices that often involve sacrificing personal freedom.
These societal expectations are deeply rooted in patriarchal norms that view women as inherently vulnerable and in need of protection. This narrative not only limits women’s freedom but also absolves society from addressing the real issues of gender-based violence and inequality.
Instead of challenging the structures that make the world unsafe for women, the focus is placed on how women can adapt to these unsafe conditions.
A call for change
To move beyond this trade-off between freedom and security, there needs to be a shift in societal attitudes and policies. Instead of placing the onus on women to protect themselves, society must focus on creating safe environments where women do not have to choose between freedom and security. This involves not only legal and institutional changes but also cultural shifts that challenge the norms and expectations that restrict women’s autonomy.
Empowering women to reclaim their freedom without fear requires a collective effort to address the root causes of violence, promote gender equality, and support women’s rights to move, speak and act freely.
Only then can we create a world where women no longer have to trade their freedom for security but can enjoy both equally.
Manika Kamthan is a lawyer by training, an academician by profession, and a mother by choice.
Over 900 Groups, Individuals Speak up Against Brutal Rape, Sexual Violence Cases Across Country
_0.JPG)
Representational image | Image courtesy: Wikimedia Commons
New Delhi: Over 900 organisations, including trade unions, women’s and students’ groups and individuals have demanded urgent, unbiased and independent investigation into cases of brutal rapes and culture of impunity across the country, be it in Kolkata, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Manipur, Gujarat among others.
A joint statement said: “Let us not forget that the suffering and death of this young woman in Kolkata is only the latest in a series of such terrible incidents, each of them a signpost of the state’s dereliction of duty. Laws framed to protect women – in their homes, on the streets, in their workplaces – are flouted with impunity. Mechanisms to monitor the implementation of these laws exist only on paper. It is the state – whether at the Centre or in the states – that creates an enabling climate for sexual violence and ensures that abusers go free. “
The statement also hoped intervention of the Supreme Court would help ensure accountability for the failure of institutions, elected representatives, police and bureaucracy.
“We unite to build a society where women’s rights are non-negotiable, and our safety is a fundamental guarantee. The time for that change is now,” read the statement, noting the “abysmal failure of the state to stand firmly with victims and their families, and rigorously implement the law has created a rampant culture of impunity in which gender-based crimes deeply rooted in oppressive structures of patriarchy, caste, class, capitalism, communalism, homophobia, transphobia and ableism continue unabated.”
Read the full statement below:
WOMEN RIGHTS NOW!
CITIZENS SPEAK OUT AGAINST BRUTAL CASES OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE FROM KOLKATA TO MANIPUR, GUJARAT, UTTARAKHAND, BIHAR, UTTAR PRADESH…
DEMAND URGENT, INDEPENDENT AND UNBIASED INVESTIGATIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY!
NO MORE SHIELDING OF PERPETRATORS AND THEIR PROTECTORS
JUSTICE TO VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES!
26 August, 2024
Amidst distressing news of brutal rape cases coming from multiple states, women’s rights groups were joined by mass organisations, trade unions, students’ groups, and other civil society organisations initiated the following statement seeking immediate investigation and action against perpetrators and demanded an end to sexual crimes and gender-based violence.
The heinous rape and murder of a medical practitioner reported from RG Kar Hospital and Medical College, Kolkata, and the cover-up by the institution and authorities are a stark reminder of the callousness of societal attitudes and systemic failures that in fact, perpetuate such violence. Within days of the Kolkata rape and murder, several gruesome cases of sexual violence have been reported from Uttarakhand, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh. Each, a grim reminder that the violence against women and young girls across the country continues undeterred.
It is condemnable that elected representatives, government officials and some political parties are rushing to make political capital out of each case, rather than being invested in the cause of justice or even simply fulfilling their mandated responsibility to ensure accountable working of the machinery of criminal investigation, law and governance. Far from being concerned with prevention of such crimes, governments at the state and the union are resorting to rhetoric – wanting to treat ‘rapists as terrorists’ or seeking the death penalty without stopping to consider that the rapists at RG Kar weren’t deterred by the hanging of the four men held guilty for the rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi in 2012, or the hanging of Dhananjay Chatterji in 2004… How could they be, when global data has established that the death penalty does not end crimes, it only ends the criminal.
We condemn the actions and inactions of the West Bengal government led by Mamta Banerji for trying to obfuscate the issue as a suicide case and a political conspiracy, ‘transferring’ Sandip Ghosh, Principal of the RG Kar Hospital as Principal of the Calcutta National Medical College Hospital, and only rescinding the order under great public pressure. It also had the temerity to transfer 43 doctors and professors, including some from the RG Kar hospital, in the middle of nationwide protests by healthcare professionals! Against the backdrop of vandalism at the hospital, in which some protesting doctors were also attacked, such actions evidence the state government’s attempts at muzzling those demanding justice and reveal exactly why perpetrators of such heinous crimes feel no pressure or fear of the law.
We urge the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) now investigating the Kolkata case to rise above political interests and conduct a fair and unbiased investigation. However we recognize that the demand for fair trial and implementation of the law is even more challenging in these times when the Union Government, while making claims of making more stringent laws to ‘protect’ women, systematically releases and even felicitates those held guilty of gang rape, and multiple murders such as those convicted in Bilkis Bano’s case (Gujarat 2002), Muzzaffarnagar (2013), Ariyalur (2016), the Kathua case (2018), or Hathras (2020), Muzzafarpur (2024). This is also the same Union government which stood silent despite widespread evidence of women being brutally assaulted, raped and paraded naked in Manipur. And it is the same central government that assaulted women (and male) wrestlers when they agitated against being molested by the President of the Wrestling Federation of India Chief, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. Not to mention the political support they extend for ‘spiritual leaders’ convicted of sexual crimes such as Asaram Bapu and Gurmeet Ram Rahim to constantly be out on bail.
Let us not forget that the suffering and death of this young woman in Kolkata is only the latest in a series of such terrible incidents, each of them a signpost of the state’s dereliction of duty. Laws framed to protect women – in their homes, on the streets, in their workplaces – are flouted with impunity. Mechanisms to monitor the implementation of these laws exist only on paper. It is the state – whether at the Centre or in the states – that creates an enabling climate for sexual violence and ensures that abusers go free.
Such abysmal failure of the state to stand firmly with victims and their families, and rigorously implement the law has created a rampant culture of impunity in which gender-based crimes deeply rooted in oppressive structures of patriarchy, caste, class, capitalism, communalism, homophobia, transphobia and ableism continue unabated. In such a system, women, and gender-based minorities especially those of oppressed castes, religions, class continue to be much more vulnerable to all forms of sexual violence. And the evidence lies in the relentless calendar of cases we hear of everyday (and many more we don’t). According to the National Crimes records Bureau (NCRB) about 30,000 cases of rape are reported every year – that’s an average of about 86 rapes every day, and we have a national conviction rate as low as 27%!
Installing CCTV cameras or calling for the death penalty does not enhance safety or counter systemic impunity. Concealing the facts, silencing whistle-blowers and crushing those who call for justice as we have seen in case after case – these can bring neither safety nor justice.
Let us also make the connection between the budget that was passed just a few weeks ago, and the horror of this and countless other incidents of sexual violence. How much does this budget allocate to monitoring the implementation of the rape laws, the DV Act, the POSH Act, POCSO, the SC/ST Act. The Ministry of Women refuses to disclose whether the mechanisms mandated by these laws are in place and functioning as they should be. Does this data even exist?
Today, we stand in solidarity with the victims’ families and survivors and demand that action be initiated against perpetrators of these crimes.
We demand a fair trial that deals with sexual violence cases with expertise and empathy.
We hope the intervention of the Supreme Court will help ensure accountability for the failure of institutions, elected representatives, police and bureaucracy.
We unite to build a society where women’s rights are non-negotiable, and our safety is a fundamental guarantee. The time for that change is now.
TOGETHER, WE CAN…
Break the silence around sexual violence
Challenge institutional, individual and community patriarchy
Stand up for justice and accountability
Endorsed by the following organisations and individuals:
All India Dalit Mahila Adhikar Manch (AIDMAM)
All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA)
All India Mahila Samskritik Sanghatan (AIMSS)
All India Progressive Women’s Association (AIPWA)
All India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA)
All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (AILAJ)
All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP)
Act Now for Harmony and Democracy (ANHAD)
Basti Suraksha Manch
Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA)
Conference of Religious India (CRI)
Delhi Solidarity Group
Dwarka Collective
Federation of Catholic Associations of Archdiocese of Delhi (FCAAD)
Fight Against Inequality
Financial Accountability Network (FAN)
Forum of Religious for Justice & Peace
Indian Christian Women’s Movement (ICWM)
Khudai Khidmatgar
Muslim Women’s Forum (MWF)
National Alliance for People’s Movement (NAPM)
National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW)
New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI)
Pakistan India Peoples’ Forum for Peace & Democracy (PIPFPD)
Pragatisheel Mahila Sangathan (PMS)
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
Saheli Women’s Resource Centre
Sangrami Gharelu-Kamgar Union (SGU)
Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS)
Sheheri Mahila Kaamgar Union (SMKU)
South Asian Solidarity Collective
UCF
Unity in Compassion
Young Women’s Christian Association of India
YWCA-New Delhi
And a hundreds of activists and individuals….
Pornography, Populism and the Rape Culture
The 77th anniversary of India’s Independence was marked by women taking to the streets, protesting sexual violence and reclaiming the night.
Powerful images of protests emerged from across the country. The protests were triggered by the rape and murder of a postgraduate trainee doctor on duty at the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata on August 9.
This is no cause for celebration. In fact, it should be worrying that almost eight decades after the country gained Independence, women still have to organise to reclaim time and space that should be universally accessible. Moreover, these peaceful demonstrations were met with the usual State response— tear gas and lathi charges.
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)’s 2022 report puts the number of rapes at 90 every day. And these are just the reported numbers. Sexual and intimate violations without consent are a common occurrence globally. Rape, by virtue of being so common, becomes socially unobtrusive.
What is rape culture?
Rape culture can be defined as a deliberate system of intimidation where men keep women in a constant state of fear through the pervasive normalisation of violence against women.
It should be worrying that almost eight decades after the country gained Independence, women still have to organise to reclaim time and space that should be universally accessible.
An extension of this is the fact that in this culture, to be socially obtrusive, an incident of rape needs to provide some rasa to the ‘consumer’ — bībhatsa, bhayānaka or karuna, to be consumed and derived the respective values from. These emotions are not just organic reactions but are rather deliberately cultivated to create a consumable narrative that caters to a voyeuristic audience.
The first thing worth noting in this consumerist nature of rape culture is that there is always an ideal victim. As Prof. Mrinal Satish, professor and dean of research at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, also notes, there is a perpetuating image of an ‘ideal’ rape victim. She is, inter alia, chaste (i.e., either a ‘virgin’ or married), is attacked by a stranger, resists her offender, and is badly injured (or killed) in the process.
The more the incident matches the description of the ideal, the more likely is it to be believed and responded to. In the present case, the repeated invocation of the memory of Nirbhaya is an obvious manifestation of the nostalgia of the past outrage. The logical inference would be that this invocation of nostalgic memories stems from the search (read: requirement) of an ideal victim. Hence, the threshold of sparking outrage among the people is raised with each such incident.
It is noteworthy that much of the media coverage consistently referred to her as a ‘young’ doctor, despite her age. This choice of language is not incidental; it reflects a deeper societal tendency to infantilise women based on their marital status and perceived ‘youth’.
As feminist writer and activist Susan Sontag astutely observed decades ago, aging is often viewed as enhancing a man while it progressively diminishes a woman. In India, social norms dictate that women should marry early, lest they become ‘too old’ to be considered acceptable.
Yet, there is an ironic flip in the public portrayal of this victim, where her ‘youth’ is emphasised despite her being 31 years old, as if to preserve a certain narrative. Age and the politics of respectability have been reflected in how a victim is referred to beyond mere descriptors of empty relationships that do not protect women from being raped.
For women, age is not merely a number but a marker of their perceived value in a patriarchal society— a society where womanhood is constantly constructed and reconstructed by male-dominated narratives. This is echoed in writer and intersectional feminist Audre Lorde’s exploration of differences, where the social construction of womanhood is wielded to control and define women’s identities, often to their detriment.
In this case, the victim’s portrayal as ‘young’ serves to highlight how societal perceptions continue to shape our understanding of women, even in death. Her identity is not allowed to simply exist; it must be filtered through the lens of her ‘youth’, an unspoken nod to her unmarried status.
Another significant factor to take into account to properly understand rape culture is the role of the State and the media. While on one hand the State claims parens patriae jurisdiction, we receive news reports about rape offenders in two, polar opposite manners. Either there will be the news of the State going all-out, seeking to impose capital punishment (or worse, effectuating extra-judicial killings), or we will have instances of what seems like investigative cover-ups or leniency in sentencing.
Our intent is to highlight two key points. First, although there is no mandatory death penalty for rape simpliciter, aggravated forms of rape may warrant it.
In cases involving murder, the law prescribes life imprisonment or the death penalty. When both rape and murder occur, the court considers the crime exceptionally severe. Over the past twenty years, the death penalty has been carried out in only two types of offenses: terrorism-related crimes— Ajmal Kasab, Yakub Menon and Afzal Guru— and cases involving rape and murder— Dhananjay Chatterjee and the convicts of the Delhi 2012 incident.
Rape, by virtue of being so common, becomes socially unobtrusive.
While comprehensive safeguards are essential for the effective prosecution of sexual offences, the death penalty is not one of them. The Justice Verma Committee Report, which shaped the 2013 amendments to sexual offence laws, described the deterrent effect of the death penalty as “a myth”, arguing that applying it in non-homicidal cases would be regressive.
Women’s rights groups contend that the death penalty in rape cases is an impulsive, populist response that perpetuates the patriarchal domestication and victimisation of women.
Civil rights activist K. Balagopal has condemned the regressive nature of capital punishment, arguing that society should focus on addressing the underlying social and political issues that contribute to crime, rather than depending solely on harsher punishments.
Populist legislative amendments responding to public outrage, coupled with judicial endorsement of the death penalty on the flawed basis of ‘collective conscience’, legitimise the simplistic notion of harsher punishment for harsher crimes. This approach evades the real task of social reorganisation necessary to eradicate the rape culture ingrained in our society by systemic patriarchy.
How badly an incident offends and disturbs this ‘collective conscience’ of the electorate is a crucial factor in determining the outcome of the case. This connects to the next part of our argument about manufacturing the discourse around rape.
There is a visible pornification of the reporting in all cases of sexual abuse, particularly rape. The use of disturbing narrations and violent imagery is the most unnecessary yet descriptive details of violence— replicating nothing but rape culture. It has been twelve years since the Nirbhaya case, which was reported similarly, and triggered comparable outrage.
The media’s portrayal of rape often shifts from a necessary reporting of facts to a form of entertainment, either as sadistic pleasure or masochistic empathy, that satisfies a consumerist demand for emotional engagement.
This commodification of rape ultimately reinforces rape culture, reducing the crime to yet another spectacle for public consumption. This is usually bracketed under the broad term ‘sensationalism’— implying that the media discusses this issue in this manner because it attracts attention and viewership, and hence is normal reporting.
This is damaging in two very distinct ways— one, it completes the demand–supply cycle of those ‘details’, which in the usual market-based competition results in a more details-specificity and vividness competition of reporting, which borders pornographic vividity.
Therefore, the incident gets reduced to a medium of supplying pornographic vividity to the consumers who indirectly (and sometimes, directly) demand it.
The first thing worth noting in this consumerist nature of rape culture is that there is always an ideal victim.
Two, this links back to the previous points about the ideal victim stereotype and the outrage threshold. The victim’s identity, profession, location (urban or rural), the severity of the violence and the surrounding circumstances are often used to categorise gendered violence and obscure the reality of rape.
The pornification of rape reporting also means that where either the victim-survivor fails to meet the standards of the ideal, or the incidents themselves are not violent and brutal enough, the incident fails to gain the requisite amount of attention.
In other words, only the ‘unacceptable’ forms of rape demands outrage. This reinforces the notion of rape being ‘rough or violent sex’ instead of ‘violence using sex’, making the affair more about sex than violence, and hence redirecting the protective and preventive measures in the wrong direction.
These preventive measures begin with the domestication of women in the name of protection, and are in turn perpetuated using either violence, or the threat thereof.
Ironically, one of the manifestations of this domestication using violence is marital rape. This further permeates in the workplace. Gendered relations are replicated and maintained throughout spaces that one might normatively distinguish as public, private and professional.
The National Medical Commission has directed healthcare institutes and medical colleges to enforce the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) (PoSH) Act, 2013; yet in this case— where a doctor was brutally raped and murdered on duty— the issue of workplace sexual harassment has been barely addressed.
As feminist legal scholar Catherine Mackinnon writes, “Working women have been subject to the social failure to recognise sexual harassment as an abuse at all.
“Tacitly, it has been both acceptable and taboo; acceptable for men to do, taboo for women to confront, even to themselves.”
Sexual harassment at work and extreme sex-based violence are linked to pornography. Media sensationalism often obscures the connection between widespread pornography and sex-based violence, hostility, and discrimination.
Studies, including feminist writer and activist Diana E.H. Russell’s Pornography and Rape: A Causal Model, demonstrate the correlation between pornography and sexual aggression, underscoring pornography’s broader impact beyond moral debates.
The issue can then be traced with the legal and discursive problematisation of pornography itself. The normative legal framework treats pornography primarily as a victimless crime— a moral issue rather than a matter of personal harm or public safety.
It is noteworthy that much of the media coverage consistently referred to her as a ‘young’ doctor, despite her age.
The primary concern of obscenity laws has been to maintain a community’s moral standards, often neglecting the harmful impacts of pornography on individuals and society.
By focusing on moral purity, these laws overlook the ways in which pornography can contribute to sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual brutality.
As a result, sexual violence is frequently dismissed as a personal moral failing rather than recognised as part of a broader pattern of inequality and exploitation. This moral framing prevents a deeper understanding of the structural issues that allow such violence to persist, reinforcing existing power dynamics.
Ad hocism won’t work
Therefore, to defeat the rape culture is to defeat the structures of consumerism, where the severity or importance of rape is measured by the voyeuristic value it creates for the consumer.
If the problem is so deeply rooted in culture and popular discourse, it is meaningless to talk about ad hoc solutions. The penal law, however integral it may be, still remains an inadequate tool to deal with this problem.
The infrastructure of rape culture is bolstered by populism, which thrives on the public’s appetite for vivid descriptions and calls for brutal, medieval punishments, further distorting public perception and reinforcing harmful narratives.
As long as the media continues to prioritise sensationalism over factual reporting, and society fails to address the underlying issues of sexual harassment and violence, particularly in spaces such as the workplace, these harmful narratives will persist.
Addressing the broader implications of pornography and its connection to sexual aggression is crucial in reframing the discourse around rape and sexual harassment. The challenge lies in shifting the focus from compliance and moral debates to a serious engagement with the legal and societal structures that perpetuate these issues, ensuring that the protection and dignity of women are upheld in all spheres of life.
Women’s rights groups contend that the death penalty in rape cases is an impulsive, populist response that perpetuates the patriarchal domestication and victimisation of women.
The fact that rape videos related to the Kolkata doctor case are trending on porn sites reveals a disturbing facet of our society. This is not just an isolated search but a reflection of how deeply ingrained voyeuristic tendencies have become in the wake of sexual violence.
The brutal rape and murder of a young doctor in Kolkata has once again triggered a morbid curiosity, where the violation itself becomes a consumable spectacle. Disturbingly, this is not the first time such a trend has emerged.
After the horrific rape and murder of a veterinary doctor in Telangana, and even following the brutalisation of an eight-year-old girl in Kathua, searches for videos related to these crimes surged online.
Even more troubling is that these are not just one-off instances; ‘forced sex’ and ‘rape videos’ remain among the most searched terms on porn sites in India.
These patterns expose the infrastructure of rape culture, where the intersection of pornography and populism normalises the objectification and commodification of violence against women.
If the problem is so deeply rooted in culture and popular discourse, it is meaningless to talk about ad hoc solutions.
The public’s appetite for such content only strengthens the very structures that perpetuate these crimes, turning rape into something that is not just lived and endured but consumed, dissected, and ultimately, trivialised.
Sagrika Rajora graduated from the Jindal Global Law School in 2023 and has been actively involved in mobilising community action since their student years, working with sex workers, domestic workers and trade unions.
Aditya Krishna lives in Darbhanga (Bihar) and is an independent researcher graduating from the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru in 2023.
