CHENNAI, India — In a country still struggling to deal with widespread violence against women, an Indian judge has touched off a firestorm by suggesting that a rape victim and her attacker heal their rift in the hope of a happy ending.
When Madras High Court Judge P. Devadass recently let a rapist out of jail on bail so he could “mediate” with his victim, it caused an uproar among legal scholars and women’s rights activists.
The move was deemed “retrograde,” “misogynistic” and simply bad jurisprudence. Lawyers who work in the courthouse’s mediation center wrote a letter to the chief justice, demanding that Devadass’s order be rescinded. India’s Supreme Court, weighing in on a different case, said last week that any compromise between a rape victim and a perpetrator would be a “spectacular error.”
Devadass, a former family court judge, declined through staff members to discuss his order. But critics say it provides a glimpse of the patriarchal attitudes still prevalent in the male-dominated Indian judiciary.
More than two years after the fatal gang-rape of a student brought protesters to the streets and a clarion call for change, judges in India continue to court controversy with their comments in rape cases. One judge asserted that child prostitution is not rape, and another suggested that women who have premarital sex are prone to cry rape or kidnapping later.
The lawyers in the Madras High Court mediation center, an alternative to the overburdened court system, arbitrate mostly civil cases and have called Devadass’s order “highly inappropriate.” They said it reinforces centuries-old Indian cultural stereotypes — that a woman who is the victim of sexual violence should marry the perpetrator to protect her honor, especially if a child is born from the assault.
“The thinking is if there has been a rape, there has been sexual contact and, therefore, the best solution for her would be to marry the man,” said Geeta Ramaseshan, a Madras High Court lawyer and mediator. “It’s a very patriarchal mind-set.”
Rape and conviction
The victim, now 22, remembers vividly what happened to her in 2008. The aunt who raised her was at a funeral in a nearby town, she said, leaving her to babysit children in the home of her neighbor.
Her neighbor’s son, V. Mohan, a college student, had been nasty to her in the past but was friendly this time, offering her a cold drink. She soon became dizzy and passed out. When she came to, she was lying on the floor. Mohan beckoned her over to show her his cellphone. He had photographed his assault and threatened to use the images to blackmail her, she said.
“To this day, I do not know the reason why he raped me,” the woman said quietly on a recent day.
A week after the rape, she broke down and told a friend. Word spread in the village, a cluster of just three lanes in the southern state of Tamil Nadu. Her father, an alcoholic who was an itinerant presence in her life, beat her. “Why did you not tell us?” relatives demanded.
Her family went to the police to file a report. The situation worsened when it became clear that she was pregnant. A DNA test later confirmed Mohan’s paternity. He and his parents offered to pay a $3,000 settlement if she got an abortion. Even the village elders weighed in, also urging abortion.
Mohan was arrested and convicted in 2009, sentenced to seven years in prison. Last year, he filed an appeal.
In his recent order, Devadass ruminated that women were often the “soft targets of male lust” and lamented that there were two victims in this case — the woman as well as the child born as a result of the rape.
“Now, [the victim] has become mother of a child,” the judge wrote. “But as on date, she is nobody’s wife. So, she is an unwed mother. Now there is a big question mark looming large before [the victim] as well as her child, who is completely innocent.”
The judge deemed that mediation was the best option in this case, noting that he had recommended it on another occasion earlier this year, with the rapist agreeing to marry the victim, a case now heading toward a “happy conclusion.”
Sriram Panchu, a senior lawyer, said the judge’s order is being protested partly because mediation is normally used to resolve marital or commercial disputes, not violent crimes.
The victim said that the judge’s directive caught her by surprise and that she has been living in fear that her attacker would find and harm her.
“If I meet the judge, I would ask him, ‘Do you know the pain I suffered as a child and was raped, and raising this child?’ ” she said. “You are sitting in an air-conditioned hall writing your judgment. Have you ever thought of me? How I have suffered? The scar still remains.”
Mohan said in a brief telephone interview that he wants to pursue mediation, and his attorney, C. Arunkumar, said they would participate. Neither discussed the case in detail, although Mohan had earlier said that the sex was consensual.
‘I will not go’
Karuna Nundy, a Supreme Court lawyer, said there had been a slow attitudinal shift within the judiciary as gender-sensitivity training increases and awareness grows. But advocates say more is needed, including gender equity on the bench. Only a small percentage of judges in India’s high courts are women, and there is only one female Supreme Court judge.
“The habits of patriarchy die hard — in any country,” Nundy said.
Since the mediation order, the victim and her daughter, now 7, have taken refuge in a women’s shelter. Over the weekend, they watched cartoons together as evening drew in.
The woman, soft-spoken and dressed in the traditional shalwar kameez suit, said she was shunned after the birth of her daughter and struggled to find employment, working briefly in a knitting mill and doing other odd jobs. Both the victim, who left school in 10th grade, and her daughter are now in school.
A mediation hearing in her case has been set for Monday, and women’s groups are planning to protest.. Ramaseshan says the victim should simply not show up, because mediation requires both parties to be willing. And she is not.
“I do not want to see him at any cost, for any reason,” the victim said. “Even if it is mandatory, I will not go.”
When Madras High Court Judge P. Devadass recently let a rapist out of jail on bail so he could “mediate” with his victim, it caused an uproar among legal scholars and women’s rights activists.
The move was deemed “retrograde,” “misogynistic” and simply bad jurisprudence. Lawyers who work in the courthouse’s mediation center wrote a letter to the chief justice, demanding that Devadass’s order be rescinded. India’s Supreme Court, weighing in on a different case, said last week that any compromise between a rape victim and a perpetrator would be a “spectacular error.”
Devadass, a former family court judge, declined through staff members to discuss his order. But critics say it provides a glimpse of the patriarchal attitudes still prevalent in the male-dominated Indian judiciary.
More than two years after the fatal gang-rape of a student brought protesters to the streets and a clarion call for change, judges in India continue to court controversy with their comments in rape cases. One judge asserted that child prostitution is not rape, and another suggested that women who have premarital sex are prone to cry rape or kidnapping later.
The lawyers in the Madras High Court mediation center, an alternative to the overburdened court system, arbitrate mostly civil cases and have called Devadass’s order “highly inappropriate.” They said it reinforces centuries-old Indian cultural stereotypes — that a woman who is the victim of sexual violence should marry the perpetrator to protect her honor, especially if a child is born from the assault.
“The thinking is if there has been a rape, there has been sexual contact and, therefore, the best solution for her would be to marry the man,” said Geeta Ramaseshan, a Madras High Court lawyer and mediator. “It’s a very patriarchal mind-set.”
Rape and conviction
The victim, now 22, remembers vividly what happened to her in 2008. The aunt who raised her was at a funeral in a nearby town, she said, leaving her to babysit children in the home of her neighbor.
Her neighbor’s son, V. Mohan, a college student, had been nasty to her in the past but was friendly this time, offering her a cold drink. She soon became dizzy and passed out. When she came to, she was lying on the floor. Mohan beckoned her over to show her his cellphone. He had photographed his assault and threatened to use the images to blackmail her, she said.
“To this day, I do not know the reason why he raped me,” the woman said quietly on a recent day.
A week after the rape, she broke down and told a friend. Word spread in the village, a cluster of just three lanes in the southern state of Tamil Nadu. Her father, an alcoholic who was an itinerant presence in her life, beat her. “Why did you not tell us?” relatives demanded.
Her family went to the police to file a report. The situation worsened when it became clear that she was pregnant. A DNA test later confirmed Mohan’s paternity. He and his parents offered to pay a $3,000 settlement if she got an abortion. Even the village elders weighed in, also urging abortion.
Mohan was arrested and convicted in 2009, sentenced to seven years in prison. Last year, he filed an appeal.
In his recent order, Devadass ruminated that women were often the “soft targets of male lust” and lamented that there were two victims in this case — the woman as well as the child born as a result of the rape.
“Now, [the victim] has become mother of a child,” the judge wrote. “But as on date, she is nobody’s wife. So, she is an unwed mother. Now there is a big question mark looming large before [the victim] as well as her child, who is completely innocent.”
The judge deemed that mediation was the best option in this case, noting that he had recommended it on another occasion earlier this year, with the rapist agreeing to marry the victim, a case now heading toward a “happy conclusion.”
Sriram Panchu, a senior lawyer, said the judge’s order is being protested partly because mediation is normally used to resolve marital or commercial disputes, not violent crimes.
The victim said that the judge’s directive caught her by surprise and that she has been living in fear that her attacker would find and harm her.
“If I meet the judge, I would ask him, ‘Do you know the pain I suffered as a child and was raped, and raising this child?’ ” she said. “You are sitting in an air-conditioned hall writing your judgment. Have you ever thought of me? How I have suffered? The scar still remains.”
Mohan said in a brief telephone interview that he wants to pursue mediation, and his attorney, C. Arunkumar, said they would participate. Neither discussed the case in detail, although Mohan had earlier said that the sex was consensual.
‘I will not go’
Karuna Nundy, a Supreme Court lawyer, said there had been a slow attitudinal shift within the judiciary as gender-sensitivity training increases and awareness grows. But advocates say more is needed, including gender equity on the bench. Only a small percentage of judges in India’s high courts are women, and there is only one female Supreme Court judge.
“The habits of patriarchy die hard — in any country,” Nundy said.
Since the mediation order, the victim and her daughter, now 7, have taken refuge in a women’s shelter. Over the weekend, they watched cartoons together as evening drew in.
The woman, soft-spoken and dressed in the traditional shalwar kameez suit, said she was shunned after the birth of her daughter and struggled to find employment, working briefly in a knitting mill and doing other odd jobs. Both the victim, who left school in 10th grade, and her daughter are now in school.
A mediation hearing in her case has been set for Monday, and women’s groups are planning to protest.. Ramaseshan says the victim should simply not show up, because mediation requires both parties to be willing. And she is not.
“I do not want to see him at any cost, for any reason,” the victim said. “Even if it is mandatory, I will not go.”
COMMENTS