Pressing the Panic Button on Women's Autonomy

Ever since the horrific incident on 16 December 2012 in the bus in Delhi, several measures have been taken both by the governments at the centre and in the states, for the cause of women's safety. For example, the enactment of new laws based on the suggestions of Justice Verma Committee. 
Some of the fallout, however, may not have been beneficial to women.

For instance, the government of Delhi had promised a surfeit of surveillance cameras  on DTC buses and bus stands to intimidate attackers and deter crime against women and hopefully help bring the perpetrators to book.What remains unsaid in this intent, is who will police the police? experiments in other cities have shown that survelliance rarely acts as a deterrent. Instead, knowing how our law enforcement works, we should wonder if the invasion of the privacy of millions of women is worth the rare chance of catching culprits and deterring crime. 

There has also been a suggestion for a national women's helpline number. Most cities already have a functioning emergency helpline number so what purpose is a separate one, dedicated to women, expected to serve, isn't immediately clear. Where the additional resources required for this, such as manpower and gadgets, will come from, has not been clarified either.

It has recently been announced that mobile phone companies have agreed to install a panic button  and for women in distress, and that police help will soon be available with just a press of finger on their phone. 

There are two problems with this. How many Indian women own smart phones or even mobile phones, for that matter? Out of the total 612 million female population, only 28% own a mobile phone says this report in live mint. 

Secondly, what happens once the panic button is pressed? Sadly it doesn't connect us to a spanking new, efficient and empathetic criminal justice system. Response times is such situations are crucial. Not to forget, a perceived threat by the perpetrator may lead to further endangering the victim, rather than help her. 

As Rukmini Srinivas wrote in this piece in The Hindu,  on the rhetoric surrounding rape, that women are far more likely to be assaulted by a partner, husband or family member than by a stranger. However, seeing as marital rape is illegal and incest too incendiary a topic for discussion or debate, the days way out is to shift the discourse to stranger rape and harp on the attack on mostly upper class women by men of lower socio economic strata.

The Indian state has always been paternalistic in its attitude toward women, looking upon them as creatures needing protection, with no will of their own. The surveillance cameras and the panic buttons all fit in with this mindset of women being considered helpless creatures needing protection. 

Studies have repeatedly shown that well lit pedestrian areas, street hawkers, good urban design, frequent public transport, are the most effective deterrents for criminals. 

On the one hand, an efficiently conducted investigation, thorough trial and closing the entire process within a certain time frame would help further the cause of justice by bringing the perps to book. At the same time, centering the survivor or a sexual assault or rape, aiding her recovery, physically and psychologically, should be the aim of any civilised society. Both of these objectives can be met by one stop trauma centres.

 However, when it comes to such measures which would have the most impact this is how our government responds; by backtracking and cutting down on crucial infrastructure: just 36 of the 660 promised rape crisis centres are going to be built over the coming years.

Safety, it turns out, is yet another stick which can be used to beat women with. If anything the loud voices harping on "women's safety" on the one hand and only looking at gimmicky, myopic short term solutions, on the other are only working to further limit women's autonomy. With each cry of 'safety' the doors are locked more firmly in women's faces and the bolts fastened more surely than ever. 

(restricting this discussion to women but let's not forget the fact that non gender performing persons/LGBTQ folk are more likely than women to be attacked yet there seems no provision or talk about their safety) 

To Pee or Not To Pee

So, during my morning run a few days ago, I got flashed by a man.

At first, I assumed he was peeing in public, in the park where I go for my morning run. Dawn was just breaking with the sun yet to come up and the light was pleasantly dim. I looked away. But as I approached him - he was right in my way- he slowly turned towards me and flashed his penis at me. I was outraged, and I felt violated.

I've ticked off men peeing in public before. I make a pointed comment, "is this a public toilet?" to men hunched against walls in all kinds of public spaces, along a road, in a park, what-have-you. Not sure how much it helps but my hope is maybe the person will not repeat the offence, at least for a while, though of course, I have no way of knowing.
I was still making up my mind whether to go ahead with it, when he precipitated the situation and I was too dumbfounded to do speak. I looked away and walked off.

My first instinct was to go up to the private security guard a little distance away and report it to him. However, anticipating a not very helpful reaction from the guy, and knowing it would only make me angrier at the situation, I walked home, upset.

This is a call every woman has to make at various points in time, almost on a daily basis, specially when negotiating public spaces. All kinds of creeps are out there harassing you. How you react to each incident affects how the rest of your day will go. It entails lost time and energy, if you choose to make a complaint. That's assuming there's someone in authority willing to even hear you out, let alone act upon it, and to to your benefit. It also involves allowing a stranger to determine your mood- you are bound to become angrier as you discuss this and have to explain exactly how the situation arose.

But I digress. My thoughts here are prompted by something more mundane : public toilets , or the lack of them. I go for my morning run, the Rabindra Sarobar in Kolkata which is open to the public. In a public space spread over an area of 73 acres (300,00 sq m) of you'd expect at least a few toilets. Guess how many are there? Not one. Wonder whether the Kolkata Improvement Trust is aware of this or has even given it a thought. It would seem like common sense to me.

Had there been easily available toilets in public spaces, hopefully men would not be let off so easily for relieving themselves in public, either to urinate or for urges best restricted to private spaces.

So although one may outrage at men peeing in public, the fact remains that without a valid option, what is a man to do? Till such time as the government provides more options for the public to relieve themselves, the recent drive to send people to jail for relieving themselves in public can only be seen as a piecemeal effort. Not much will be achieved from such drives.

There's a laudatory effort undertaken by a lone woman Mayuri Bhattacharjee who is going around our city checking out loos  for our benefit.
Of course, we don't regularly come across women peeing in the open, for some strange reason. Wonder why? 

Women Only Spaces Limit Freedom

It's election time and once more women's safety is one of the issues being discussed, in the run up to theelections in Delhi. Happy news as it is to see women being given some importance at last - if only in party manifestos, with promises of protection. Of course, no political party is prepared to concede half

or even a third of its seats to women candidates. 

Once more the talk veers to "safety" the holy grail of a woman's existence. This talk conveniently ignores the fact that we live in a society underpinned by patriarchy, which celebrates and elevates machismo and toxic masculinity. This is the primary reason women are unsafe, and it is men from whom women need to be protected. 

The traditional wisdom of women's safety, usually centered around keeping certain women (upper caste) away from dangerous zones locked up at home has at least changed somewhat. We have not even begun talking about what goes on inside the home, where the vast majority of indian women report facing the most abuse and violence. About 6% to 60% percent women report facing domestic violence.

"Women only" spaces, are being suggested once again. Whether public spaces or in public transport, "women only" spaces are not the answer to all problems of women's safety. By limiting women's access to public spaces we not only pander to the fear psychosis but more importantly, limiting women's freedom we support the idea of women as fragile creatures needing protection in order to be safe. What about their liberty to be out and about, earning livelihoods, running errands, or if they so fancy, simply gallivant around town? 

Segregation based on gender only contributes to the impression that women are different, less able, fragile. A society where gender based segregation is the norm and boys are encouraged to see girls as different, 'the other' gender roles become even more entrenched by encouraging separate spaces for women in public too. 

Women do face assault in public spaces. Most women who must spend their lives in public are already stigmatised by the state in various ways. As most of these women happen to be "lower" caste women, their safety is not a concern of the state, apparently. Indeed the agents of the state like the police, or public officials run the gamut of harassing them, preventing them from going on with the basic business of survival. 

That a profusion of closed circuit televisions would enhance women's safety is not supported by research data either. It has been shown that CCTV is most effective when combined with other crime reducing methods such as improved lighting, security guards, and defensible space.  Why do the AAP people not think improving street lighting?

Women's agency and their privacy cannot be subsumed to surveillance. Do we trust such a large network of closely monitored surveillance in the hands of the government? Moreover at each step of the collection of this data there will be humans, mostly men involved. Who will guard them, and who's to ascertain there will be no breach of privacy of the women whose movements are being recorded. As this article states, when Delhi Metro CCTV footage leak was reported, people were more outrages that the couple were observed cosying up, rather than focus on the fact that their privacy had been breached! 

Would you feel safe knowing your every move was being tracked by a public eye ? Big brother is here; all hail Big Brother !