En el contexto Internacional

As a PO, you may sometimes feel frustrated, helpless or even angry if the aggrieved women who approach you appear not to be taking concrete steps to remove themselves from situations of violence. People who work with women on issues of domestic violence frequently ask themselves the following:

“Why do women accept violence? Why don’t they protest? Why don’t they walk out of abusive relationships? Why don’t they take action against those who perpetrate the violence?”

“The woman came to me, I gave her all the help I could think of and, then, two weeks later, she told me she still does not want to go to Court. All my effort was wasted: what was the use of her coming to me if she wanted to go back and reconcile?”

“Why doesn’t she understand that it is stupid to go back to a man who beats her?”

“What is the point of her settling the matter out of Court, when he could easily turn against everything that was agreed upon and she won’t be able to do anything?”

“How can I help her if she is not even willing to speak up against her own husband?” It is not within the scope of this Manual to discuss at length the socio-psychological dynamics of domestic violence, although the topic has been, and continues to be, the subject of rigorous scholarly research and activism. Instead, in part 5.2.3, we attempt to address some of the most common justifications for violence that you are likely to encounter. We place these justifications within our local socio-cultural context in order to enable you to understand why some of the women you meet in the course of your work make the choices and decisions that they do. Remember: instead of summarily dismissing a woman’s reasons as wrong, you must respect the fact that the reality of her specific situation compels her to behave in certain ways.

At the simplest level of explanation, women in our society are regarded as inferior and are socialised, from the time they are children, into believing that violence perpetrated on them is natural and acceptable: i.e., that they are the appropriate objects of the perpetrator’s anger (an anger which is allowed to be uncontrolled in stark contrast to women’s behaviour which is strictly circumscribed). One reason why the PWDVA elicits strong reactions is that it has brought the issue of domestic violence out from the ‘private’ sphere of the home into the ‘public’ domain of law and policy and, in so doing, asserted that domestic violence is not a cultural prerogative or a problem between two people, but rather it is the product of patriarchal social structures that determine the behaviour of women and men.

(This notion of family privacy is also why you might find that your attempts to elicit more information regarding these matters bring out strong reactions from the women who come to you. They may even suspect your intentions for wanting to know more or do more than they feel is necessary.)

It is not just that violence against women is considered acceptable in our society, but also that the very definitions of what constitutes violence in the first place vary widely, with many people – both women and men – failing to recognise certain actions as violent at all or dismissing them as ‘minor’ in relation to ‘more’ serious, more ‘real’ forms of violence. So, in most places you will find that a certain level and some forms of violence are designated as ‘normal’ and acceptable within domestic relationships. Many women will tell you that some incidents of violence were just ‘an occasional outburst’ or that a show of temper that resulted in ‘just one slap’ need not be counted in the history of violence. Many will even tell you that they have come to you for one critical incident and that the rest of the incidents are routine (“yeh sab to chalta hi rehta hae”). You must also guard against such prejudice in yourself: you might find yourself trivialising certain forms of domestic violence by saying: “Husbands and wives do fight, this is normal” (“pati patni mein tu-tu mae-mae to hota hi hae”) or “it takes two hands to clap” (“do

bartan ho to awaz to hogi”).

As mentioned above, both men and women will provide several culturally sanctioned explanations for the perpetrator’s anger:

Women will often tell you: “When we got married, he was a very nice man, he earned a lot and never once hit me. But now he has fallen into bad company and started drinking. Now he comes home drunk and curses and beats us. He spends all the money on alcohol.” Or they might make excuses for his drinking: “He gets so tired that he needs something to help him relax, so he drinks a little. But the drink overpowers him; it isn’t his fault.”

Alcohol is seen to transform an otherwise nice person into a violent one: it absolves the perpetrator of responsibility because he is seen to have no control over himself when under the influence. But ask yourself this: if, indeed, the man cannot help himself when he is drunk, then why does he not go outside and attack other men or people bigger than himself? Why does he only unleash his violence on women and inside his home?

Another commonly given excuse for violence is the woman’s inability to bear children or – rather more often – to produce a male child.

When’s a woman’s sole purpose is understood to be bearing children, then her ‘failure’ to do so – especially her ‘failure’ to produce a male heir – is seen as worthy of violent punishment. A woman will tell you: “I am being hit for a reason: I haven’t been able to give my husband a son.” Or: “I know I’m not well, but I had two girls one after the other, so we have to keep trying to have more children. That is why he uses a little force sometimes.” Or she might say: “I couldn’t have a child, so they used to hit me then, but now that I have a boy, I don’t see why they should hit me anymore.” She might even justify her husband’s bigamous relationship: “I couldn’t give him a son, so I told him that he could marry again, but now that I have a son, I want him to come back to me.”

As you know, women can be severely beaten, thrown out of the matrimonial home or sent back to the natal home for this reason. The biology of pregnancy and gender determination is rarely understood; instead, the ready explanation you will hear is that the woman is “barren”.

Women are frequently forced to have numerous children, even in the face of their deteriorating health, in the hopes of a male child. Most women will not consider this a form of sexual violence.

One of the rarely spoken about but frequently occurring manifestations of domestic violence is sexual violence, often in the form of forced sex.

When women’s bodies are considered the property of men, then sexual violence by their male relatives is justified as the rightful exercise of male authority. Women might refer to this violence obliquely: “sote mein mara” (literally: “He hit me as I slept”). One of the primary reasons for condoning this kind of violent behaviour is the belief that men have stronger sexual urges than women. So you might have women say to you: “He knows I am very young and I am scared, but how can I refuse my own husband?” Or: “How can it be rape if he is married to me?” Or: “If he wants it, he can do whatever he wants, even if he hits me; you see men are very different from women.”

It is possible that you may find it difficult to ask about, deal with or even accept this form of violence. However, the fact is that sexual violence is a very widespread problem in India and comes in many different forms. You will have to overcome your own reluctance and shyness, learn how to ask

women if they have suffered this form of violence and be able to clarify their doubts regarding what constitutes sexual violence.

Another common excuse for violence is the ‘misbehaviour’ of a ‘disobedient’ (or ‘immoral’) woman.

Our patriarchal moral code divides women into two categories: ‘good’ women and ‘bad’ women. Men (fathers/fathers-in-law/husbands/brothers/sons) are seen as the protectors/disciplinarians of ‘good women’ who must perform the role of obedient daughters/daughters-in-law/wives/sisters/mothers. Any deviation from the behaviour that is prescribed by men for ‘good women’ is seen as reason for men to exercise control and punish ‘bad women’. Women themselves internalise these values to such an extent that they never question who defines these values, on what basis and why? Women are told and tell each other that it is not permissible for them to use violence even to protect themselves; any sign of female protest marks her as a ‘bad woman’. In fact, most women see it as their duty to bear violence in silence so as to preserve family ‘honour’.

As a result, you will find women might condone male violence by blaming the woman’s character or wifely attributes. You might hear statements like: “She doesn’t look after the house properly, so she deserves to be hit. She knows he likes hot food when he comes home from work, so why doesn’t she keep it ready?” Or: “She spoke insultingly to her in-laws and needed to be taught a lesson.” Or: “She is so stubborn (“bahut ziddi hai”); how can they not hit her?”

Property disputes often become the reason for escalating violence.

You will hear women say: “My brothers threw me out of the house after my father died because they thought I’d ask for a share”. Or: “My sons beat me up after my husband died because they wanted his house.” Or: “There was reason why my husband’s family used to curse me after I got married; they thought I would alienate him from his family and make him ask for a share in the property.”

In yet another instance of cultural condoning, the perpetrator is presented as the helpless innocent caught between antagonistic women and spurred on to violence for which he cannot, therefore, be held responsible.

In this context, you might hear the aggrieved person say: “My father didn’t want to raise his hand, but my mother told him he must discipline me.” Or: “My husband is actually a very nice man, but my mother-in-law keeps telling him to put me in my place” (“usko uksati rehti hae”).