Rape Myths About How Victims “Should” Behave

In the wake of the Tejpal rape case, some articles and comments in Indian media have propagated certain myths about how “true” rape victims “should” behave. These myths echo depictions of rape in cinema and television, and go something like this:

  • rape victims always fight back against their attackers;
  • rape victims always scream “rape” and display hysterical distress after the assault;
  • rape victims always give complete and consistent testimony to the police after the assault.

When one looks at the scientific research on victim responses to sexual assault however, it becomes clear that the expectations that all rape victims “should” behave this way are unfounded. So let’s take a look at the research.

The Neurobiology of Sexual Assault

The first resource to see, is this seminar from the U.S. National Institute of Justice (NIJ), titled “The Neurobiology of Sexual Assault”. The NIJ is the research and development agency of the U.S. Department of Justice – it improves knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science. The seminar is part of a series of seminars on translational criminology, which attempts to guide and improve criminal justice through scientific research. The speaker is Rebecca Campbell, a professor of psychology at Michigan State University, who has conducted research on rape for the past twenty years – in particular on medical, legal and mental systems’ responses to rape. The seminar is an hour and a half long (and includes a lengthy Q&A with law enforcement and legal professionals); you can view all the slides along with the audio at the link above, and you can also read the entire written transcript here.

Here are the key research findings she shares during the talk, which are relevant to the above myths. She describes the neurobiology of sexual assault: the hormonal and emotional effects of the assault on the brain. Various hormones come into effect in the victim of a sexual assault – the catecholamines (one of which is adrenaline), cortisol (the “stress hormone”), endogenous opioids (like endorphins), and oxytocin. These hormones affect two parts of the brain: the amygdala, which modulates events that are important for the organism’s survival, and the hippocampus, which processes memory. The consequences of this on the victim are:

1) Tonic Immobility, also known as rape-induced paralysis. This is a muscular paralysis experienced by the victim during the assault, and explains why some victims do not fight back. As Dr. Campbell says, (emphasis mine):

The catecholamines are often going to be at very, very high levels during the assault. We talked about how these hormones are very helpful for the fight-or-flight response. On the other hand, we’ve also hinted at a little bit that those hormones may not be the best things in terms of memory. The other thing that these hormones are not the greatest at is that they impair the circuits in our brain that control rational thought. So the parts of our prefrontal cortex that allow us to do “IF this THEN that” — that’s rational thought in simple terms — those circuits literally do not work at their optimal levels when catecholamine levels are high. So a victim under sort of normal levels of catecholamine — meaning not being victimized — might be able to look at a situation and say, “Oh, well of course the rational, logical thing for me to do is this.”

The victim literally can’t think like that during the assault. The catecholamines have caused structural cellular damage to those circuits. It’s not permanent; it’s temporary. But at the same time, they can’t do that “IF this THEN that” thought. So when they’re in the middle of the assault, strategies like “Oh, you coulda, you shoulda, you would have done this” — they can’t even think of the options, let alone execute them. So again, kind of a tragic situation where our body is working at cross-purposes. On the one hand, it can help here, and on the other hand it’s not going to help the rational thought mechanisms.

[...] And then finally, for some victims, it’s the corticosteroids that have dumped out at very high levels and actually reduces the energy available to the body. Now, I’ve been talking so far about fight-or-flight. It’s actually fight, flight, or freeze — that for some victims, they don’t fight back. They don’t flee the situation. Their body freezes on them because of this hormonal activation by the HPA axis. And it can trigger essentially an entire shutdown in the body. And the technical name for this is tonic immobility. Tonic immobility is often referred to as “rape-induced paralysis.” It is an autonomic response, meaning that it’s uncontrollable. This is not something a victim decides to do. It is a mammalian response. It is evolutionarily wired into us to protect the survival of the organism. [...] Behaviorally, it is marked by increased breathing, eye closure, but the most marked characteristic of tonic immobility is muscular paralysis. A victim in a state of tonic immobility cannot move. She cannot move her hands. She cannot move her arms. She cannot move her legs. She cannot move her torso. She cannot move her head. She is paralyzed in that state of incredible fear.

Research suggests that between 12 and 50 percent of rape victims experience tonic immobility during a sexual assault, and most data suggests that the rate is actually closer to the 50 percent than the 12 percent.

[...] Because they had this reaction, they’re afraid of how it’s going to be perceived by others, so they’re very reluctant to seek help. And when they do come help, it’s always there in the back of their mind. They are dreading that question “What did you do?” Because their answer is one that they don’t think anybody’s going to understand and quite frankly they don’t understand, because their answer is “I did nothing. I couldn’t do anything. I just laid there.” When people disclose tonic immobility, when victims disclose it, family, friends and service providers often react very negatively to this. You got the, “Well you must have wanted it, because you just laid there. You coulda, woulda [skips] something.” They can’t. Remember, it’s an autonomic mammalian response wired into our brains to protect the survival of the organism. So it can be helpful to try to explain tonic immobility and normalize this. Fight, flight, or freeze.

2) The victims’ emotional response after the assault is not always “hysterical” and “upset”:

Opiates released in very, very high levels during sexual assault, again blocking the physical pain, the emotional pain. But morphine — if any of you have had major surgery — morphine’s not sensitive to subtleties. It’s out. It blocks the pain. So the affect that a victim might be communicating during the assault and afterward may be very flat, incredibly monotone — like seeing no emotional reaction, which again sometimes can seem counterintuitive to both the victim and other people. It’s like “This was a horrible traumatic event. Why aren’t you showing these kinds of emotions?” Opiate morphine is not letting it come through. It has been blunted.

[...] These neurobiological changes can lead to very flat affect, that sort of bluntness or what appears to them to be strange emotions, or huge emotional swings that over the course of the interview you can see them high, you can see them low, you can see them somewhere in between. And you can see that all unfold in a span of about 90 seconds or less. And then the cycle will repeat.

So the behavior that they see is due to a hormonal soup. Remember how we talked about how those hormones can sometimes even be working at cross-purposes. Which hormones are released at which levels? We don’t know yet. We don’t have data on that, but we know that there’s a lot — that those are the four main ones that are being released and that they can kind of put the body at cross-purposes. So what is often interpreted as a victim being cavalier because she’s just sitting there or interpreted as lying because she seems so cavalier and not upset about it, is very likely attributable to the opiate levels in her body, because those will be released at the time of the assault and they can stay very elevated for 96 hours post assault. So the key thing that practitioners need to know is that there is, in fact, a wide reaction of emotional reactions to sexual assault, and it can be helpful to normalize those reactions for victims, because they don’t understand why they’re behaving that way either.

3) Memory consolidation and recall is difficult for victims. The encoding and consolidation of a sexual assault into memory happens in a fragmented way. There might be several gaps in memory too, particularly if the victim was assaulted while under the influence of alcohol.

That’s why memory can be slow and difficult — because the encoding and the consolidation went down in a fragmented way. It went down on little tiny post-it notes and they were put in all different places in the mind. And you have to sort through all of it, and it’s not well-organized, because remember I told you to put some of them in folders that had nothing to do with this. I told you to put one in the pencil jar. It’s not where it’s supposed to be. It takes a while to find all the pieces and put them together. So that’s why victims, when they’re trying to talk about this assault, it comes out slow and difficult.

But the question everybody wants to know about is the accuracy of that information, okay. And what we know from the research is that the laying down of that memory is accurate and the recall of it is accurate. So what gets written on the post-it notes — accurate. The storage of it is disorganized and fragmented.

However, there is an exception — alcohol. If the victim was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the assault, the encoding process might not have happened at all or in any degree of accuracy. I think in a group of this size all 21 and over, we can appreciate that alcohol impairs encoding across the board — not just for traumatic events, for a lot of events. So if you have a traumatic event that occurred under the context of alcohol, the information might not have been encoded, and it may not be consolidated, and it may not be transferred into long-term memory. So for victims who are assaulted under the influence of alcohol, they may not have anything to retrieve. So to speak, their post-it notes are just blank. They may not have it, okay? But for those who are able to remember it, either in pieces and parts, it does go in accurately, it does come out accurately, but it comes out slow, steady, fragmented and disorganized.

[...] How are law enforcement and prosecutors trained to handle something that looks fragmented and sketchy? They’re trained to believe that that is something that is not truthful, and their job is to hone in on it and look at it from multiple points of views and keep cycling back on it to try to ferret out what is true and what is false. And again, they interpret this victim’s behavior as evasiveness or lying. And again, what it really is, most often, is that the victim is having difficulty accessing the memories. Again, the content of the memory the research tell us very clearly is accurate. It’s just going to take some time and patience for it to come together.

Victim Responses to Sexual Assault: Counterintuitive or Simply Adaptive?

Here’s a second resource on the subject: the publication Victim Responses to Sexual Assault: Counterintuitive or Simply Adaptive? by the U.S. National District Attorneys Association. Again it examines responses to sexual victimisation, and how these responses appear “counterintuitive” to the general public. The authors are careful to explain what they mean by that term:

The term “counterintuitive” is used to explain how a juror may perceive a victim’s behavior and not the behavior itself. For local and state prosecutors involved in sexual assault cases, it is important to remember that labeling these certain victim behaviors for members of a jury as “counterintuitive” reinforces the notion that there is an appropriate or “normal” way to behave after a sexual assault and that anything outside the realm of a presupposed reaction is somehow inappropriate or abnormal.

The authors go on to present research on (1) how victims cope with sexual victimisation, (2) the variability in victim responses, and (3) rape myth acceptance.

The need of the day is for us to educate ourselves and others about these myths. As Campbell points out, the widespread ignorance about these issues is partly responsible for the secondary victimisation of rape survivors. The police and prosecutors themselves have misconceptions about victim behaviour, which leads them to not believe the victims’ story. In fact, many rape survivors themselves are not aware of these facts, and as a result end up feeling guilty or blaming themselves. Here’s Campbell again, quoting one of many emails she receives from rape survivors:

“I cannot believe I am reading this article. After years of blaming myself, questioning myself, feeling tormented, I now understand why I froze every time I was assaulted. It now has a name. I don’t have to wonder why or what’s wrong with me or why didn’t I do anything. I can’t tell you how much relief this article brings me. You must know how much your website and your work helps those of us who have suffered in silent torment and agony. You give us a voice. You give us compassion. You give us strength and hope. There are no words to express the gratitude I feel.”

On Appropriation of Ambedkar

When Caravan published Arundhati Roy’s piece The Doctor and the Saint, I was one of those who celebrated it as the next big thing that was to emerge in the Indian academic circles. Roy’s essay constitutes the first half of Navayana’s annotated edition of Bhimrao Ambedkar’s seminal work ‘The Annihilation Of Caste’. The article, like every other work by Roy, sparked instant controversy. Almost in every controversy, and even in the sedition charge, I was one of the scores of Arundhati Roy Fans who not only argued for her right to expression but also the arguments she raised in her works. But this time, my support for Roy is only limited to her rights and liberties, and not the case she and Navayana is trying to make.

I was always of the opinion that Roy because of her activism understood very well how power works. Whether one agrees with her or not, one can not deny that her activism and her politics was always to put attention on the expendables of India. She was the one who made the following statement,

‘There’s really no such thing as the ‘voiceless’. There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard.’

What baffles me is the most is that both Roy and S. Anand, publisher of Navayana, did not see that their action amounted to something as indecent as appropriation. Even this Scroll.in article misses the point. And so do every other privileged activists and writers.

The Dalit anger and resentment against both Roy and a Navayana is best articulated by the irreverent Anoop Kumar here at the The Round Table India (not the nationalist one).

You need Omprakash Balmiki’s Jhootan’s English version to know the caste horror. Need Fandry to get shocked. You required 60-70 years to discover Ambedkar..You also require your own high priestess to now interpret Ambedkar for you. To tell you what was right and wrong with Ambedkar. To force you to even start reading him..

How long this will go on man, just how long!

To be honest even I was of the opinion that all this resentment was highly misplaced. If for Roy reading Ambedkar’s work felt “as though somebody had walked into a dim room and opened the windows”, reading Kumar for me felt as if somebody snapped me out of the delusion that I’m blind. Blind to my privilege and the privilege of the likes of Roy and Anand.

In none of my rants I suggested that it is about her essay actually. I do not care what she has written on Ambedkar or on anything else she wrote about in her essay. My rants are about something else. My rants are about what she actually represents before us, not as a person, but as someone who gets two national magazines simultaneously to provide her ample space – to talk about her essay, about caste, about dalits, about Ambedkar – which is so cruelly denied to us, is shut for ever. Not even Ambedkar could ever breach it, till he got discovered by people like Ms Roy.

Closely related with what she represents to us is another issue of the whole politics of her introducing Ambedkar’s seminal text to the world, to upper castes, to western world as has been continuously professed by her publisher and his friends – both desis and whites- telling me in no uncertain terms that this publication is actually not meant for me, for dalits, for all those who know their Ambedkar but for upper castes who have refused to read him and for western academia who have yet to discover Ambedkar. Your introducing him will make them all to read more about Ambedkar they say.

And they are accusing me of wrongly calling you a messiah!

You are already a messiah, Ms Roy!

Declared and accepted by many, all those who actually matter in this country. It is not for nothing that national magazines provide you so much space on issues they care two hoots about. What is it if not the ardent belief of your followers on your miraculous power to make people read something that they have avoided their whole lives?

And like what happens with every messiahs, you already have very cunning followers who are quoting your messiah status for their private gains, cheating gullible masses who believe in your messiah-ness.

I am merely resisting your messiah status now being thrust on us. Just for the simple reason that it is more difficult to dislodge a messiah, a mahatma, than to create one. We spent some seven decades and enormous efforts in dislodging one, thrust on us quite forcefully, by others who also were as persuasive as you are today in claiming that it was only in our best interests.

The Age Old Cultural War and Broom Wielding Footsoldiers

This interview was done more than a year ago during a research concerning social prejudices in mass media of India. The research compared projection of Ganesha festival in Mumbai and Dr. B R Ambedkar’s death anniversary. Both of these events draw a huge crowd from different social groups. However, the mass media has been vehemently prejudiced when portraying these public ceremonies. Ironically, what Dr. Ambedkar had said about bramhanical mindset being “ascending scale of reverence and descending scale of contempt” continued to be a part of the nation’s cultural fabric and even made his legacy to disappear from mainstream public spheres.

Here is an interview of a former sanitation worker who like most others is from a socially and economically backward caste. He comments on the current nature of the cultural war between brahmanic and non-brahmanic forces that have been taking place in Indian peninsula for more than a thousand years. There exists a hidden apartheid in India where the former untouchables are still doing the duties allocated to them in traditional rural socio-economy. Most of the sanitation work in urban India is done by these castes without any hygienic facilities availed to them or any social security. These jobs are done on contract basis and carried on for generations even after India achieved independence. Most inhuman among this work is entering the manholes without any safety equipment and cleaning human excreta by broom and hand.

Some of the revered figures of this land who justified manual scavenging are M K Gandhi (well known as Mahatma) and current Prime Ministerial Candidate from BJP Narendra Modi. Even another Prime Ministerial candidate Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, who in the most gandhian fashion, is being described as virtuous also did not take any steps which he promised to the sanitation workers in capital region after hijacking their plebian broom as a symbol for his political party.

A recent article in a national newspaper is “surprised” over the existence of manual scavenging in India which is more offending than the existence of manual scavenging itself. Nonetheless she does try to save the last shred of upper caste journalist morality by saying “How can a country that sends rockets into space not be able to figure out how to prevent trains from discharging toilet waste on to the tracks? It’s the same nation whose capital city’s world class metro system has an unmanned ticket checking system but where men and women still have to get into sewers when they get clogged.

Interview of Mr. Ramesh Haralkar, a former Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) clean up worker. He is now a full time activist in Ambedkarite movement.
Date: 9th December 2012.
Venue: Centre for Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policies, New Campus, TISS, Mumbai.

Researcher: What is your opinion on Ganesh Festival?

Ramesh Haralkar: After Dr. Ambedkar’s conversion, the educated Buddhists started spreading the de-hinduizing message of Buddhism. To counter that, Ganesh idols which were inside the home, were brought out on the streets. ‘Sarvajanik Ganesh Mandals’ were formed. From those Mandals political leadership started appearing. From that leadership, Corporators, MLAs, MPs were born. Then, they became conscious of their roles as leaders and the need to protect religious identity and culture. On one side there stood (Buddha’s) Dhamma and on the other there was (Brahmanic Hindu) Dharma. But they noticed that, these people (Scheduled Caste Buddhists) criticize Hinduism but a lot of them still follow it. We (SC Buddhists) critique Hindu gods Ram, Ganesh etc. and make scientific questions about their non-human bodies and behavior. At the same time, they know that a large chunk still follows Hindu traditions. We lacked the co-ordination to implement this revolutionary thought of Babasaheb. We started following Hindu methods of celebrations blindly. We started celebrating Dr. Ambedkar’s Birth Anniversary like they do their festivals. They also started supporting it. They have a powerful mechanism to support such mass participation in grand public ceremonies. So they will encourage Christians, Buddhists et cetera to have rallies and grand celebrations. It is a ‘give and take’ policy. You scratch my back, I will scratch yours. We have adopted their culture. They play cards in the Ganesh Pandal and the lower caste people in the vicinity will also join them. Having such public ceremonies is a platform to gain political weight. The organizers will invite local politicians and the number of participants becomes a tool of displaying political power. Because of such mass processions in a crowded city, a sick person requiring urgent medical attention dies on the way to hospital. This happens regularly. When Bal Thackeray died recently, all the cameras were focused on the procession but no one cared about people’s access to hospitals. There should be some law and order but no one is willing to question this. Such is the terror (in people’s minds).

Researcher: So the processions are all about display of power?

Ramesh Haralkar: Yes. Display is the correct word.

Researcher: During this research I participated in the immersion procession of Lalbaugcha Raja as an observer. There is a mosque near Byculla railway station and the surrounding area was packed with Rapid Action Force, Bomb Squad, Reserve Police Force. So on one side, celebrating Hindu festivals like Ganesh Festival and Diwali is projected as being secular but at the same time we see a subtle discourse of Hindu nationalism in the celebration. No mass media talks about this.

Ramesh Haralkar: No. They don’t talk about it. When a muslim conducts ‘Aarti’ of Ganesh, he attains a status in his area. He is also respected by (Hindu) youth of Lalbaug. No muslim then dares to interfere with him. He gains political weight. Even those religious leaders issuing ‘Fatwa’ don’t dare to question him. They are worried about their own safety. The Imams of Delhi speak only when told by the political leaders.

Police standing outside Hindustani Masjid near Byculla station few moments before Lalbaucha Raja’s procession was about to pass by.

Police standing outside Hindustani Masjid near Byculla station few moments before Lalbaucha Raja’s procession was about to pass by.

Researcher: Please tell us about the treatment given to clean up staff during festivals.

Ramesh Haralkar: The clean up staff is also made to work more than 8 hours. They are treated like servants. Anyone mistreats them. At the time of immersion cleanup workers are considered as servants of that religion and not as BMC employees. (emphasis mine) Having so many festivals is a necessity of their religion. Their festivals are like garbage. Even small festivals leave huge heaps of waste. There are no guidelines or restrictions to it. Whether its Hindu festival or Muslim’s Roza, we are there to clean it 24 hours.

Researcher: 99% of them (cleanup workers) are Scheduled Castes.

Ramesh Haralkar: Yes. The clean up duty of Mahars in the village has continued in the cities. They have no saviors. All the Hindu religions are about noise pollution and waste. If a procession is passing by your house and an elderly person dies, you can’t dare to go out and tell people to stop their instruments. Those noise mapping instruments are used only in Shivaji Park . In the small alleys of city you can’t complain about noise.

Garbage outside Lalbaugcha Raja Pandal, Ganesh Galli, Mumbai

Garbage outside Lalbaugcha Raja Pandal, Ganesh Galli, Mumbai

Reseacher: What about the garbage on Dr. Ambedkar’s death anniversary? Is it because of internalization of populist Hindu culture?

Ramesh Haralkar: The people, who come to Mumbai for Dr. Ambedkar’s death anniversary, only want to pay homage. They don’t beg for any material desires. They roam the city and buy some books. I don’t know which caste group you belong but Dr. Ambedkar was a Hindu Mahar and so all of those who converted were only Mahars. Dr. Ambedkar was cremated in a small place outside Smashaan Bhoomi in Dadar. The whole neighborhood is dominated by Deshpandes, Bapats et cetera (Brahmins). They feel disgusted about the untouchables. The current scenario is that only old people reside near Shivaji Park and their children live in Thane, Pune et cetera. All of them vacate the place by 1st December to stay with their children. The incoming population of rural SCs doesn’t know the concept of cleanliness. In rural areas the waste has been traditionally organic. Throwing it anywhere was not a concern since it would be naturally neutralized. They will eat and sleep anywhere on Shivaji ground. It’s not as if they don’t want cleanliness but they don’t know the usage of dust bins. We have been serving food through stalls on 6th December since 1975. If you tell them not to spread waste, they will certainly listen to you. They will also wash their hands in the dust bin. That is why we must tell our people not to spread waste. Politicians and urban followers should tell them about this. Not because of the fear of Brahmins but as a necessity of maintaining cleanliness. It is our duty and not Brahmins’. After all, it will be ‘our’ (Scheduled Caste) cleanup worker who will be picking up waste. Brahmin will not be cleaning it. Now we will know (Shivaji Park residents’ attitude) about wastage because a large chunk will again gather on the grounds to commemorate Bal Thackeray’s death anniversary but they will be touchable folks. So no controversy about their wastage will emerge. The Ambedkarite people don’t get enough information about BMC’s sanity infrastructure so they will attend nature’s call in any less visible place they find. If a Brahmin shouts at them for peeing under the building, our people will threaten them. This gets published in print media immediately because ‘their’ people only handle it. Now on the coming 17th November we will see that all the arrangements are done perfectly by BMC on Bal Thackeray’s death Anniversary. Last year, we asked the Ward Officer about insufficiencies of sanity infrastructure on 6th December. The Sanity Van did not have flush. They were not attached to drain. By the Supreme Court order, they should have been attached to drain. Again, ‘our’ clean up worker will do those arrangements. There is no co-ordination. One more aspect of administration I would like to share. Wherever there is a majority of a certain caste or community, people from those social groups will be appointed by the government to arrange administration. In Muslim festivals a Kulkarni (Brahmin surname) is not sent. In Muslim dominated areas, only Muslims are appointed in Police stations. SC officers can also be accommodated but Brahmins are not sent in those areas.

Garbage on Girgaum Chowpatty after 10th day of Ganesh festival

Garbage on Girgaum Chowpatty after 10th day of Ganesh festival

It’s Time to Become an Anti-National

One of the goals of the Hindutva project is to make “India” synonymous with “Hindu”. So a true Indian is a Hindu whereas one who is not a Hindu or doesn’t acknowledge the Hinduness of India is an anti-national. Over the recent years, this Hindutva project seems to be gaining some perceptible ground.

A while back Subramanian Swamy wanted Indians to either acknowledge their Hindu antecedents or give up their voting privileges. This feat of bigotry cost Swamy his Harvard position. but his views won him millions of fans in India. By any standard, he is a very popular politician in India and that is not because of the various lawsuits he filed, but mainly because of his new found Hindutva piety.

Then there is the intolerance of any contrary views when it comes to issues like Kashmir. So people like Arundhati Roy and Prashant Bhushan became seditionists and anti-nationals. The question here isn’t whether they are justified in their views or not, but whether they have the right to express those views in the first place. But the increasing jingoistic cacophony doesn’t make any allowance for such questions. It only has patience for one mindless chant – “India First”; where what counts as “First” is an euphemism for putting Hinduness before the constitutional idea of India.

In the recent weeks there was the rhetoric surrounding academic research on Hinduism. Apparently, not joining the Hindutva orchestra in demonizing the likes of Doniger is grounds for suspecting that one is anti-national.

And this week, some Kashmiri students were booked for sedition because they supported Pakistan in a India vs Pakistan cricket match. It may well be that the students are enamoured of the Islamic state of Pakistan and so support it, but that is no grounds for sedition.

So where does that leave freethinkers like me?

I liked Doniger’s “The Hindus” in that I got to hear Hindu voices that lie outside the framework of Vedic Hinduism. I think people like Arundhati Roy have the right to express their views without the threats of sedition charges. I have no love for the Islamic path that Pakistan has taken, but someone supporting a cricket team should never be treated as a thought crime that would eventually lead to they becoming traitors.

Given those views of mine, the “India First” brigade may well decree that I am an anti-national. In that case I gladly accept that label. I would not have settled for anything less, as for me people and their rights come first.

Riffing of an old Hindutva slogan, Garv se kaho hum anti-national hain (Translation: Proclaim with pride that we are anti-nationals).

Keeping Rainbows Undimmed

-Taking back the night…and our own bedtime stories-

Cover of "On Hinduism"This article, making an earnest and anguished plea to recall alternatives in the popular imagination was posted on Nirmukta after the publishers’ recall of the Indian edition of The Hindus : An Alternative History by Wendy Doniger. It now seems that it is not just alternative narratives that are under threat, but even quotes of ‘standard’ narratives that are being silenced. At the time of writing, On Hinduism by the same author faces recall and pulping. One of the ‘offensive sections’ in the book, as cited by the petitioners (from the report in the Outlook weekly here ) is this:  Lakshmana… says, ‘ I don’t like this. The king is perverse, old and debauched by pleasure. What would he not say under pressure, mad with passion as he is? The king referred to in that piece of dialogue is Dasharatha, father of the deified Rama and his brother Lakshmana, the apotheosized paragon of fraternal conduct. The petitioners who apparently treat such deification and apotheosis as undeniable truth, are perhaps shocked at an attribution of such filial irreverence towards Dasharatha, the revered patriarch and head of the archetypal Hindu-Undivided-Family on part of Lakshmana, the foremost of the Ram Bhakts (devotees of of Rama). Trouble is, the Sanskrit version of the Ramayana most commonly accepted as the original one, namely the version attributed to the poet-saint Valmiki of uncertain historicity, puts those very words in the mouth of Lakshmana:

Valmiki Ramayana Ayodhya Kanda Sarga 21 Verse 3

C. Rajagopalachari, Indian independence activist, scholar of Indian classics and patron-saint of sorts for the Indian ‘centre-Right’, had no compunctions quoting other verses similarly unflattering to the patriarch, from the same chapter in his well-loved English retelling of the Ramayana, which can be read hereEven your enemies, O Raama, when they look at you begin to love you, but this dotard of a father sends you to the forest. It turns out that Lakshmana doesn’t stop seem to have been in a mood to stop with verbal barbs. Verse 12 of that very chapter goes “If our father with an evil mind behaves like our enemy with instigation by Kaikeyi. I shall keep him imprisoned with out personal attachment or if necessary, kill him.” This is not Doniger’s Lakshmana speaking, but Valmiki’s Lakshmana, if only those who claim to treat that retelling of the epic as their ‘scripture’ had been paying attention. Both Rajagopalachari and K M Munshi,  founder of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan whichpublished the former’s Ramayana were in their time considered Hindu stalwarts and respected spokespersons of Hinduism. Those who self-identify as Hindus today, at least those among them who would like to consider themselves literate and liberal, must be gravely concerned about the precipitous fall in the quality of their spokespersons from those endowed with classical scholarship to bumptious demagogues and cultural protection-racketeers who make a mockery of India’s much-vaunted intellectual traditions.

So much for why liberal Hindus, whom I am told constitute a silent majority, must be concerned about the fate of The Hindus and On Hinduism. Why should humanists be concerned about the straitjacketing and suffocation of mythical narratives and retellings? Here’s a snippet from a conversation that might help understand what’s at stake here for anyone who values equity and diversity. In this section of a Tamil videomade by members of Orinam, a Chennai-based organization for LGBT advocacy, a participant speaks of how an writings by Devdutt Pattanaik on homosexuality in Indian epics were a useful conversation-starter while coming-out to a straight friend interested in Indian lore. In a report of the Bangalore Pride Walk of 2013 published in the Nirmukta blog, one of the placards is quoted as asking “Our epics do not discriminate, why do we?” Well, it turns out that while the epics by themselves don’t lend themselves to a single discriminatory slogan and may on occasion even supply a humanist slogan, the Doniger-haters’ reading (actually ‘unreading’ and attempted unwriting) of the epics does indeed discriminate. Like the scriptural literalism afflicting the Religious Right in the US (conveniently selectively), what afflicts such ‘defenders-of-the-faith’ in India maybe called an epic litero-clasm, an infliction of iconoclasm on any  literature, however classical, that does not align with the palingenetic myth they are peddling and seeking a monopoly for. Their motto may well be “No listening. No story-telling.“, a more menacing variant of the grudging “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell.“, and they seek jurisdiction and the last word over every town’s night-life and any bed-time story that departs from their revisionist ‘history’.

Be it Batra vs Penguin Book India Pvt Ltd or Koushal vs Naz, such unimaginative and inhuman readings of either Law or lore, represent different fronts in the same larger struggle. The ‘defenders of the faith’ are ostensibly wielding legal and constitutional means, but relying on the unspoken, implicit and very palpable threat of orchestrated civil unrest. The threat is not vaguely implicit but has been manifested unmistakably in the past, be it a ransacking of an archive when a hagiography was revisited scholastically, or the vandalizing of art galleries when mythical motifs were reimagined. With such an intimidatory history and with colonial-era legal provisions by their side, such custodians of ‘normalcy’ are attempting, and alarmingly appearing to succeed, in an attempt at usurpation of cultural space and disinheriting anyone whom they consider not ‘normal’, of the slightest socio-cultural capital. This cultural disenfranchisement calls for a resolute resistance to enforced dourness and colourlessness with undimmed rainbows, and can begin with something as simple as Iranian youngsters celebrating a ‘pagan’ Nowruz in the face of the Ayatollahs’ strictures.

Sangh may not make a debut in Kerala, but…

Video: Audience at ViBGYOR protest vandalism by RSS workers

400 and more. All shouting in unison “RSS GO BACK! GO BACK! GO BACK! GO BACK!”.

So proud to be a Malayali, right now (I can’t believe I missed out on this video for so long). The video shows the reason why the Sangh will never crack into the state, any time soon. The following is a quote from a friend.

“I do not believe in banning the RSS. It has a place. It has a place in the shadows, the last benches, the corners which the broom has missed, the gutter left neglected over the years. It is a badge of shame we didn’t clear out with the other bric a brac from the dusty attic of our past, a rabid cur we skirt past on the road, a lunatic’s abuse heard from afar and immediately forgotten. Such is the place of the RSS. And I believe it should continue to occupy its place as a constant reminder of the darkness that can envelope us if there are no lights kept burning, those of tolerance, pluralism, free speech and ever widening knowledge. No, I certainly do not believe in bans. But they should know their place and know it well. 400 people in the audience during the screening shouted “RSS go back” and back they went. Because, those 400 voices represent the true voice of this great nation.”

~ Gautam Benegal

“RSS workers stop screening of ‘Ocean of Tears’ at film festival”

But there is still much to be concerned about. The police did not arrest the vandals even though they assaulted some of the audience members. Almost a week later, we hear about police brutality against some of the ViBGYOR activists, a female filmmaker AND their female lawyer and her children, for staging “Vagina Monologues”. So while we revel at the unanimous rejection of the fascists by the audience, we should not forget that Kerala is not exactly the vacation spot for progressives and liberals. If anything it’s getting worse.

These incidents seem unusual in Kerala, a state known more for its liberal values, high literacy rates and excellent social indices. Historian J Devika believes that the attacks are a fallout of the success of Sangh Parivar members in getting Wendy Doniger’s book on Hinduism pulped, and are a sign of the national assertion of what she calls “Moditva”.

“These are goons, and what we see is not a rise in their intellectual confidence, but in their brazen determination to inflict violence and terrorise others,” said Devika. “Interestingly, their supporters in the police have also found it easier to hit out now, and the most vulnerable sections they can target are precisely young people who identify with the non-mainstream left.”

According to Devika and Sasi, extremist elements – with the help of the police and the media – have been trying to whip up “Islamophobia” in Kerala. Said human rights activist BRP Bhaskar, “The Modi factor is giving them more encouragement.”

A Question for Free Market Proponents

I finally finished reading Michael Sandel’s What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (I’d talked about it earlier in this post on rhino hunting auctions). Since reading it, I’ve been pondering a question, which I wish Sandel had posed to his opponents during this LSE debate.

During the debate, one of the examples (of the moral limits of markets) Sandel gives is blood – i.e., rather than (or in addition to) donating blood, should one be able to buy and sell/auction it? In his response, his opponent Julian Le Grand promptly says yes, there should be such a market. The question I wish Sandel had asked as a follow-up is the following:

Practicalities aside, and assuming fair background conditions, is there anything which you think should NOT be on the market? If YES, what is your argument for the same?

Let me clarify it a bit – I say “practicalities aside” so as to exclude reasons like “it would be impossible to regulate” and “it would get misused”. And I say “fair background conditions” to exclude reasons of inequality, since this is bound to be the most common reason given (markets can exploit the under-privileged). Instead I want to keep the focus on the fundamental nature of the good itself. (This is one of the main arguments in Sandel’s book – markets “corrode” certain goods and change attitudes and practices associated with those goods for worse.)

Here are two examples that I thought of for the question:

1) A market in child adoption. I.e. biological parents hold an auction where adoptive parents bid for the baby.

2) A market in tickets for capital punishment. States (where capital punishment is legal) sell/auction tickets to an execution, and pump the proceeds back into improving the prison system. The state also auctions a single ticket to be the executioner.

It would be interesting to hear the “YES” responses from free market proponents. (Note: I’m genuinely interested; this is not a “let’s troll those libertarians” post.)

 

Weeping for the Modern Caste-Hindu?

Jakob de Roover

Outlook recently published, on their website, Jakob de Roover’s reaction to “l’affaire Doniger”. In the article, de Roover cooks up a story to explain how the “deeply flawed” narrative of the caste system and the Hindu religion is responsible for the creation of Hindu fundamentalism.

What brings Hindu organizations to filing petitions that make them the butt of ridicule and contempt? Whence the frustration among so many Indians about the way their culture is depicted? Why is this battle not fought out in the free intellectual debate so typical of India in the past?

S. N. Balagangadhara

Nevermind the fact that the inspiration of this story is S. N. Balagangadhara, the Ghent University professor and beacon of caste-Hindu privilege blindness and arrogance (“how can we conclude from just 38 murders that caste discrimination exists in India?”), the story even in its isolation stands as a shining example of caste privilege apologia.

What comforts me is the prompt responses it received from Nivedita Menon (first published by Kafila and later by Outlook) and Prashant Keshavmurthy of McGill University.

The following is from Nivedita Menon’s article,

So let us imagine another growing child— not De Roover’s boy, but his sister. She hears (and retains) some other stories that the boy chooses to forget or ignores —the cruel slashing of Surpanakha’s nose for her merely expressing desire for a young handsome man, the even more cruel abandonment of pregnant Sita, the Lakshman Rekha that she is called upon to observe every single day of her twentieth century life—imagine her excitement when on growing up and entering the world of scholarship, she comes across Indian feminist scholarship that attacks both Western Orientalist critiques of Hinduism as well as nationalist responses that reconstruct a Golden Age before “Muslim invasions”—for instance, Uma Chakravarty’s critique of the ‘Altekerian Paradigm’. Or Iravati Karve’s Yuganta. Or Nabaneeta Deb Sen’s account of women’s Ramayanas in which Rama is a far cry from the ideal man. Village women sing “Ram, tomar buddhi hoilo nash’. Oh Ram, you have lost your mind. Molla, a Shudra woman in the 16th century wrote a perfect classical Ramayana, which the Brahmins did not allow to be read in the royal court. Chandrabati’s version that told the Ramayana from Sita’s point of view was criticized as a weak and incomplete text by the same arbiters of taste and morality.

Imagine this young woman trying to engage her sulky brother in dialogue as he rants about the denigration of Hinduism. Imagine the absolute lack of empathy from his side as he fulminates…

Imagine after this, the daughter of the Dalit woman who cleans the toilets of that young Hindu boy’s home. Imagine her excitement at learning, if she ever reached school, that one BR Ambedkar had torn apart the entire foundation of the religion so celebrated by the boy and his family. Or that Ranganayakamma had written a book called Ramayana The Poisonous Tree, saying we should reject it because it supports the powerful against the powerless. Or that EV Ramasami had deconstructed the story of the killing of Shambuka by Rama for daring to recite the Scriptures despite being a Shudra.

Imagine the fact that this girl would literally have been invisible to the sulky boy as the household spun silently around him on the labour of women and lower castes, as he prepared to go to America ‘for a few years.’

For De Roover and his ‘Hindu gentleman’, sexuality is not the problem, mention of caste discrimination is. By putting Christian distaste for both sexuality and caste in the same basket, De Roover is able to suggest that both critiques are tainted. But of course, some of us may want to take a more nuanced position, celebrating sexuality and attacking caste oppression, even if critique of the latter comes exclusively from ‘the West’, which of course, it does not.

And this one is by Prashant Keshavmurthy,

One doesn’t have to have read the theorist of post-colonial identity, Edward Said, to expect a modicum of reflexivity in the use of such categories of identity. Nor does one have to be familiar with the English poetry (that adapted an American Modernist minimalism by discovering its elective affinities with ancient Tamil poetry) and scholarship (bringing European Folklore Studies and semiotics to bear on pre-modern Tamil and Kannada literatures) of the founder of South Asian Studies in the University of Chicago, A.K. Ramanujan, to expect a minimum of intellectual sophistication in not simplistically equating ethnicity with scholarly identity. So much for shallowness and theoretical poverty.

In the end I’d like to say that, de Roover’s Hindu Boy is not a fictional character, but a real one. I see him in my family, in my father, my cousins, neighbours, roommates, friends, on the social network, everywhere. He definitely exists and he is someone to be wary of, since avoiding him is not an option in India right now.

On Comparing Tragedies and Responsibilities I

“Don’t worry, christianity harmed and killed just as much people and destroyed properties. Or maybe more?”

“That’s nothing. Christians can do twice as much in half the time. next time, call a marine.”

“Why don’t you mention what the Christians are doing?”

These are some of the comments that a post on The Paleolibrarian Page on FB, regarding the recent attack by the Islamist organisation Boko Haram in Bama, Nigeria, had attracted. These comments made me think about two things.

a. How justified are we in comparing tragedies?

and,

b. Is the responsibility collective in cases of such deadly sectarian violence? How de we know?

In the case of (a) I would first like to assert that there are two kinds of comparisons: one that compares the gravity of each tragedy and the other with an intention to bring in some commonality in human suffering and make one tragedy a part of a collective human tragedy.

The first kind of comparison is more disconcerting to me as I find it to be an exercise in dehumanising of the victims of a tragedy. When one compares tragedies and crimes (especially crimes against humanity) it almost always is with an underlying intent to trivialise the suffering of the victims, and includes overtones of victim blaming and a self-defeating whataboutery and buck passing. This comparing of tragedies is very common in India and those of us taking a stand for secularism and justice, are more often than not faced with such horrendous questions as “What about 1984?” or “What about the Kashmiri Pandits?” or “What about the hungry children?” (this one was specifically asked to me by many different people, whenever I brought up Section 377 after the Supreme Court verdict). The comments on FB quoted above are very similar to such “what about” questions. The difference, is that a “what about” question is bigotry under the pretense of humanitarian concerns, while the quotes are assertions (possibly stemming from an urge for political correctness or misplaced priorities). Comparisons and pitting of tragedies and crimes against one another does nothing but justify violence, yet people resort to such hypocrisy. Why?

Mind that such comparisons do not come from the victims or even objective observers, but from people with specific political ideals to follow and cases to make. Those people who want a clean conscience even if they make an irrational argument. Take the hungry children question, for instance. It was first thrown at me by a pro-Modi and pro-BJP atheist. His contention was that there are more important things to worry about, than LGBT rights. And hence I should worry more about the poor and “hungry children”.

Nevermind the fact that he was dictating me on what to and what not to worry about, his entire argument ignored the possibility that there might be gay or genderqueer children that are poor and hungry as well. The reason I feel why he maintained his stand was possibly because of the then recent decision of his favourite party to remain homophobic.

Comparing tragedies involve a whole lot of omissions. Comparing criminalised sexuality with malnutrition takes a whole of lot of bigotry and privilege blindness, and a deliberate disconnect from reality, and it is the same for every other comparisons.

How Rapists Manipulate Their Victims

(Content note: contains numerous quotes from rapists, taken from Project Unbreakable.)

I’ve been following Project Unbreakable (tumblr, facebook) for almost two years now. If you aren’t familiar with it, it’s an American initiative started in 2011 by then nineteen year old Grace Brown, which photographs sexual assault survivors holding posters with quotes from their attackers. There are over two thousand images to date. Every post is like a hammer blow. The posts that chill me the most are the ones where the pattern of manipulation becomes apparent – i.e., the way the attackers manipulate their victims. They do this before the assault, after the assault and even during the assault. Accounts like these corroborate the research which shows that rapists are not “accidental”, there is no “misunderstanding” (see these two links for more). They know what they are doing – they just want to get away with it, and they don’t want society to consider them rapists.

Over time I started bookmarking these posts, because seen together one can clearly see the pattern. So here they are, about fifty of them. I’ve copied out the quotes from the rapists (and some comments from the victims), and the quotes link directly to the photographs, or in some cases to the facebook post:

“Just the tip.” “It is your fault because you make me so hard.” “I’m sorry for what you think I did.” A year and a half later: “I’m sorry for any hurt I caused you.”

“No, stop, this will make it feel better.” (He is married now with a daughter.)

“You’re FINE. You’re FINE.”

“Shhh, just lay back. You can’t say ‘no’ now.”

“You scared me… I thought I did something wrong.” (You did.)

“I know you were uncomfortable.” (Then why did you keep going??)

“Shh.. sweetie… it’ll be over soon.” - My first attacker, while 4 others encircled the bed, waiting for their chance.

“Don’t regret it in the morning.”

“I’m just trying to show you how much I love you.”

“You never said anything.”

“Things like this just happen, and we should just forgive and move on and learn from it, I don’t know why you’re so unwilling to do that… you make me sound like a monster.” (2 days after)

“Stop playing hard to get.”

“If I do that again I want you to slap me as hard as you can, okay?”

“I would have been fine without anything happening but it did. Now somehow, it’s my fault for treating you the way you presented yourself?”

“If you really loved me, you’d do it, regardless.”

“I can’t help it/Don’t you know that I love you?/Why won’t you show me that you love me?/If you loved me, you’d let me.”

“I love you. I know it’s early, but I know I’ll marry you.” “I want to fuck you so bad.” “Oh god – I’m suck a fucking asshole – I won’t do it again.” “How does that feel against your pussy?” “I’m a monster.” “You’re so wet.” “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” “I just masturbated in your bed, I had to release – you just turn me on so much.” “BUT I LOVE YOU!!” “You should masturbate – you don’t know your body at all.” “I just want to please you because I love you so much.”

“If you don’t want me to, I won’t.” (He lied)

“Don’t exaggerate. It can’t hurt that much.”

“Is this okay?” (No.) “Do you like this?” (No.) “You’re lying.”

“Stop whining, you’re acting like I raped you.”

“Why are you crying? You know you want this.”

“Just relax, trust me.”

“It’s your own fault. If you didn’t want it, you should have said something.”

“You’re not going to, like, call the cops or anything right?”

“I did it because I love you.”

“It’s already happened now you might as well let me finish.”

“You said no too quietly, it was basically a yes.”

“You wanted it too.”

He heard me say “No!” but he said “You didn’t sound certain.”

“We’re cool, right?”

“You can’t stop me now.”

*laughs* “I’m just playing with you… stop moving away from me.”

“This is what you wanted.” “Stop moving, it will hurt less.” (Afterward) “Don’t you dare tell anyone I raped you.”

“I thought you were just teasing when you said no.” (I repeatedly said no and struggled.)

“‘NO’?! Come on… just relax and stop fighting! I know you want it.”

“It’s not rape because we are married.” “If you love me you’ll let me do it to you.”

“You still bitter about a simple misunderstanding?”

“You’re a champ.”

“I don’t want you to think that I took advantage of you.”

“Don’t you love me? Don’t you trust me?” / “I can’t believe you’re gonna be MAD about this.”

“It hurt even for me.”

“It’s OK. You’ll like it.”

“It was just a joke.”

“Relax… it’s all just part of a joke. Others do too. You have nothing to worry about.”

“It must have been the alcohol, I didn’t even realise what I was doing.”

“Just do it, you’ll like it.” / “It’s okay, it will feel good.”

“Please come back on the couch. It’s OK.”

“I love you…” “We’re married in god’s eyes now…” “Stop crying…” “It won’t hurt if you relax.” “You have no idea how good this feels.” “Just let me do it.”

“I’m sorry about last night… I hope we can still be friends.”

“You can’t do that. Don’t worry I’m almost done.” (after I asked him to stop)

“Was that good for you?”

“It’s okay.”

“Shh… it’s fine.”

“I don’t want people to think I’m a bad guy.”

“You said ‘yes’ already, you can’t change your mind.” / “Don’t you trust me?”

“Just try to forget.”

“Hold still, you’re safe.”

“Don’t worry, we can wait until you’re ready.” (and so I let my guard down)

“You know I would never do anything that would deliberately cause you distress or harm.”

“Shhh, it’s okay.”

“Just trust me?”

“Don’t cry, you’re going to make me feel bad.”

“Please, just once.”

“It’s a good kind of hurt.” / “I’ll stop eventually.” / “You never said no or stop.”

“I’m your boyfriend, it’s not a big deal.”