In Half a Life, V.S. Naipaul narrates the tale of a rich merchant plagued by domestic woes engendered by the folly of two marriages. Approaching the hero’s father, who runs a sort of ashram, for help, he seeks to win sympathy by comparing himself with King Dasrath who had three wives (and therefore more problems) as opposed to his own twosome. The association enrages the hero’s father, who is appalled that the merchant should compare his life of petty lusts with that of a monarch revered for his righteous reign; the supplicant is given an earful before being ousted from the ashram.
A similar fury engulfed me as I read the sickening account of the public rape of a mentally-challenged twelve-year-old girl-child in the cramped confines of a moving train, in the presence of five grown men who took a conscious decision to do nothing about it. Nothing, apart from their voyeurism, that is. The reason given was their “middle class sensibilities” (whatever that means), though insensitivity is perhaps the more apt description.
One worthy witness was a member of our ethically challenged elite (you guessed it – a journalist). He had absolutely no qualms about recording a careful account of the atrocity in first person, while excusing himself with a blasé reference to Mahatma Gandhi’s three monkeys. I was taught that the monkey business was an admonition against idle gossip, but then, one lives and learns. Nonetheless, try as I might, I am unable to concur that the rape could not have been prevented, specially when I find the story accompanied with a byline and no trace of consciousness on the part of the writer that he might be penning a blistering self-indictment.
“…I saw Salim Samsher Khan sexually assaulting the girl…“Yeh kyaa kar rahe ho. Stop it,” I told Salim. An angry Salim reminded me of the Sanskrit proverb that a person mad with sexual desire has neither fear nor shame. “Go away. Why are you here? I shall throw you out of the running train,” he snapped. He was drunk… The girl’s screams had caught the attention of the other passengers… What we saw left us numb. Salim had pulled the girl to the floor and was raping her. Burdened with our middle-class sensibilities, we remained silent. As the train slowed down at Borivli station, Salim smoothly alighted, but only after telling the girl to keep her mouth shut. She staggered to the nearest seat. I saw Salim striking up a conversation with someone, as if nothing had happened. I and a fellow-passenger, Vasant Kulai, then handed him over to the railway police”(The Times of India, 14 August 2002).
Two of the eye-witnesses slunk away in the darkness. One does not know if they were ashamed of their acquiescence in the crime, or if they were simply unwilling to be late for dinner and cable television. But those who helped the police arrest the culprit offered the lame excuse that the drunken rapist “could have done anything” (like giving them a bloody nose or a richly-deserved punch in the jaw). They did not once think that by engaging him physically, they could have saved an innocent child. Even worse, they justified their complete non-action – not even pulling the chain to stop the train – on the ground that Salim might have escaped under the cover of darkness. They did not care that stopping the train could have prevented the rape, hence it would not matter so much if the accused made a getaway.
It is, therefore, entirely in the fitness of things that the Mumbai police are refusing the buy their pathetic, unmanly defense, as the crime could easily have been averted if even one person had acted in time. As an official of the Borivili police station rightly commented, “There were five grown-up men who literally stood over the girl and watched the rape…Many things could have been done; the chain could have been pulled, help from passengers in the next compartment could have been sought.” Additionally, a member of the staff could have been alerted. Yet everything that could have been done was left undone, and the tragedy allowed to unfold in all its gruesome ugliness. Surely the nation hit a new low in unilateral moral disarmament.
It is now incumbent upon the police to prosecute these eye-witnesses for being accessories to the crime, as the rape of a minor is also statutory rape in which the law does not permit or accept mitigating circumstances. It is said that the victim, a poor mentally- challenged orphan, screamed for help but succeeded only in bringing unholy spectators to watch over her plight. This disgusting denial of help is surely also a denial of human rights and human dignity, and the law would do well to look into this aspect of the tragedy.
It has been reported that the police are registering the case under Section 376, which provides for ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. Given the poignant nature and timing of the atrocity – on the eve of the fifty-fifth anniversary of independence – it is hoped that the courts will try the case expeditiously, so that justice is done and seen to be done. In fact, given the fact that crimes against women are increasing exponentially in the country as a whole, the courts would perform a sterling service to society if such cases are heard within a strictly limited time-frame and stringent punishments meted out to culprits, particularly in cases involving child abuse.
The courts also need to take cognizance of the growing depravity in society, and the increased brutality of incidents being reported to the police. Over the past one month, the capital has seen horrendous instances of abduction and gang-rape of women in moving vehicles. In one instance, a drunken youth even raped his friend’s eighty-five year old grandmother! In Mumbai, a gang of ten drunkards mutually agreed to commit a crime and descended upon a sleeping household in the wee hours of the morning; the groggy householder was pulled outside and held at knife-point, while the men took turns to assault his teenaged wife. It is clear that most of these crimes are pre-meditated – committed by men looking for ‘fun’ – and it will be a sad day in our judicial history if the courts are not sufficiently mindful of this reality.
In several instances of abuse, particularly of young children, police investigations show that the accused is often a known and trusted person, and could be a family member or a neighbour. Where assault is coupled with such a grievous betrayal of trust, the punishment needs to be appropriately harsh. We have reached a stage where even infants in cots are not safe from sexual predators, something unheard of only two decades ago. Another aspect not getting adequate public cognizance is the abuse of young boys; and the offence is by no means limited to foreign tourists and street urchins.
Finally, my most disturbing observation is a penchant in the media to report crimes against women in an unduly sensational manner, without sympathy. This aggravates fear and insecurity in society, and indirectly tilts the scales in favour of predators by projecting them as inevitable winners in their war against humanity.
The Pioneer, 27 August 2002