Delhi’s Prowlers

In the early hours of October 4, a 28-year-old woman from Nagaland alleged that three men travelling in a white Mercedes attempted to abduct her and a friend near the exit gate of a five-star hotel in Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, at around 3.30 am. Police said the allegation was being investigated and that the incident appeared to involve an argument and a scuffle between two groups. The larger question is- why is the first instinct of society so often to examine the woman rather than the conduct of the men? The familiar questions appear almost automatically. Why was she out at 3.30 am? What was she wearing? Why was she in such a place at such an hour? The implication is clear- a woman who is outside late at night has somehow increased the possibility of trouble and must therefore accept a greater share of responsibility when trouble comes. There is nothing unreasonable about advising anyone, woman or man, to exercise caution in unfamiliar surroundings at vulnerable hours. However, caution is not culpability. A late hour may increase risk, but it does not confer a licence on another person to threaten, harass, assault or attempt to abduct someone. Nor does clothing provide an excuse for criminal behaviour. A woman’s skirt, dress or choice of lifestyle cannot become evidence of consent to harassment. The issue becomes even more serious when the victims are women from the Northeast. For years, Northeasterners living in Delhi and other metropolitan cities have reported racial abuse, stereotyping, harassment and discrimination. The Bezbaruah Committee and other studies have documented the difficulties faced by people from the region in major cities. Northeastern women, in particular, have often been subjected to racial slurs and crude, hyper-sexualised stereotypes. Their appearance, accent, clothing and comparatively different social habits can become convenient targets for prejudice. Even language can become a vulnerability. Many Northeasterners speak English comfortably but may not be equally fluent in Hindi. In an emergency, instead of receiving understanding, victims can sometimes find themselves questioned, judged or mocked. The answer, however, cannot be to tell Northeastern women to dress differently, stay indoors after a certain hour or imitate what others consider socially acceptable behaviour. Such advice may be offered in the name of safety, but it quietly transfers responsibility from the aggressor to the potential victim. It also assumes that a woman’s appearance sends a message that men are entitled to interpret according to their own prejudices. The real issue is the conduct of those who believe that another person’s appearance, ethnicity, gender or presence in a public place gives them some claim over that person’s dignity or freedom. Chauvinism, racial prejudice and macho aggression do not suddenly appear in a hotel parking lot. They are cultivated through attitudes that society too often excuses as youthful behaviour, drunkenness, bravado or harmless fun. Safety precautions are sensible but it must never become a verdict on character.The alleged incident in Chanakyapuri should therefore prompt a more uncomfortable question. Instead of asking what the woman was wearing or why she was out so late, why are we not asking what made those men believe they could behave as alleged? Until society asks that question first, the burden of preventing male misconduct will continue to be placed on women. That is not safety abut a blame disguised as advice.