Why target India when gender crime is a global issue?

Even as I write this column, comes the news that a senior lady executive of an Indian IT company has been murdered in the Sydney suburbs. So much for the safety of women in that land of wealth and tranquillity! Prima facie, the crime does not seem to be one of robbery, as none of her personal belongings had been stolen by the miscreant. It is possible that the crime was motivated by racial prejudice. Very few countries can, therefore, lambast India for not taking care of its women because the former themselves have serious problems. The issue is universal and there are only shades of difference in severity. 

I still remember how in the late 1990s when I was a graduate student in Philadelphia, the lady teachers used to plead with me to escort them to the parking lot at the end of late-evening classes. This was despite the fact that I was a foreigner, and totally new to the environ. They never wanted to walk alone even within the campus. I also vividly recall how a cousin’s wife refused to get off the car even for a moment when her husband was dropping me late in the evening at my apartment at the Newark campus of Rutgers when I was a visiting fellow there. I cite these instances only to prove that in whichever part of the globe you are, crime is a harsh reality, and women, especially, felt insecure and scared of the male predator. 

This is, however, poor consolation to the Indian society and the Indian police, both of which will have to do a lot more to ensure that our women feel much safer than now. It is against this backdrop that the BBC documentary carrying interviews with the Nirbhaya prisoner Mukesh Singh and others in Delhi’s Tihar jail assumes importance. 

It is difficult to comprehend what Leslee Udwin, the British filmmaker, was trying to tell the rest of the world about Nirbhaya, a crime for which all of us should put our heads down in shame. I am not for any form of censorship, that too at the behest of the  government, unless what is banned directly causes harm to society. The documentary in question may be realistic and carry the truthful introspection of some prisoners. On the face of it, however, Udwin’s objective seems dubious and it smacks of commercialism. I could be grievously wrong. I am, however, convinced that it would convey a very wrong picture of what India is and what it stands for. 

BBC is a great organisation, a public broadcaster of immense reputation for objectivity and truth. Udwin’s interview of Mukesh Singh, who appeared remorseless during the interview, could only exacerbate an already delicate situation, as seen by the public reactions to the defence lawyers’ convoluted and crude justification for the heinous crime. Enough had been written about Nirbhaya in the days that followed the horrific crime. To rationalise the circumstances under which it was committed and to give a platform to an undeserved offender is definitely unacceptable to every right-thinking Indian. I am appalled at the song and dance of some in condemning what the government has done. The present rulers in Delhi had nothing to hide, and they could have exploited the whole issue to their political advantage. I suppose this is a case of ‘damned if you did, and damned, if you didn’t’! 

This is why I would plead for moderation and a perspective that takes into account the pros and cons of the reproduction of a crime that all of us would like to forget. Let us concentrate on how we should protect our mothers, sisters and daughters who definitely feel insecure like their counterparts elsewhere in the globe. 

The writer is a former CBI Director