Credit: DH Illustration
The sexual assault and murder of a medical student in Kolkata have sparked justified outrage. While the medical fraternity across the country has rallied for the safety of their colleagues, the incident is a stark reminder for others of how far we still have to go in building a society that is truly safe for women. From Nirbhaya to now, the call for a culture of gender equality remains as urgent as ever. Yet, moments of outrage, no matter how righteous, are often sporadic and spontaneous. The media silence that followed the initial outpouring of coverage regarding a prominent politician from Karnataka accused of sexual assault after he surrendered reveals our collective deficit of sustained attention. How do we sift through the emotions and work towards a solution?
Among many things that need fixing, the mindset of the average Indian is an infinitely difficult task. However, reforming law enforcement and criminal justice is a more tangible goal. While the full truth of the Kolkata case is still emerging, with media reports as our primary source of information, concerns have already been raised about the integrity of the crime scene. Allegations that more than one offender may be involved, based on the quantity of semen found on the victim, suggest that any confession from the accused might do little to aid a thorough scientific investigation.
In this sense, the Kolkata case bears an eerie resemblance to the Umesh Reddy case in Chitradurga, where the Crime Investigation Department (CID) investigated the rape and murder of a young woman. In that instance, the CID relied heavily on the word of the main accused, Umesh Reddy, to implicate multiple individuals. However, the entire case, including the charges against Umesh Reddy, eventually collapsed due to a lack of evidence. Similarly, one cannot forget the Aarushi Talwar case, where a compromised crime scene irreversibly obscured the truth of who murdered the 14-year-old.
There are a variety of reasons for these recurring patterns of compromised investigations, but from experience, one thing remains constant: sexual assault cases are incredibly difficult to investigate and even harder to convict. These crimes often occur in intimate settings, free of eyewitnesses. Survivors are hesitant to report the crime, fearing both the stigma and the lengthy, intrusive, and insensitive (sometimes unintentionally so) legal processes. This delay often results in the loss of crucial biological evidence. Combined with the lack of witnesses, the abysmal conviction rates for sexual assault cases in India can, at least to some degree, be attributed to the inherent nature of the crime itself.
However, law enforcement needs fixing too. The behavioural sciences unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States, which relied upon pioneering studies by Nicholas Groth, Ann Burgess, John Douglas, Robert Ressler, and Roy Hazelwood to scientifically affirm what the feminist movement had long argued—that rape is driven by the need to assert power, express anger, or act on sadistic tendencies, not by the victim’s appearance, choice of clothing, or even consumption of pornography. Today, this research enables the FBI to create criminal profiles based on crime scenes and victimology with astounding accuracy. On the other hand, Indian police largely work in the blind without any proactive intelligence on what drives people to rape, their motives, their modus operandi, or their signatures. This has resulted in significant ignorance. For example, it is common for people as well as the cops to believe a victim if she is beaten black and blue during the rape, but not so much if she seems physically uninjured. However, the one subjected to violence is probably the victim of an anger rapist, whereas the physically uninjured victim is the victim of a power reassurance rapist. Having sight of such nuanced distinctions steers the investigation in the correct direction while also ensuring greater sensitivity and professionalism towards the most important witness in the case, i.e.,
the victim.
However, the structural design of the Indian police, prone to frequent transfers, politically motivated postings and promotions, and a lack of exclusive, dedicated, and specialised units focussing on specific crimes, such as sexual assault, means that talented police officers don’t always investigate these crimes, and when talent is groomed and nurtured, it is wasted through transfers effected by politicians with vested interests. The fact that the same station house officer has to investigate economic offences and rape cases, both involving vastly different dynamics, means that either one or both of them are likely to not receive the right kind of focus and dedicated attention. A rapist is specialised in his approach, whereas the police aren’t. This results in an unequal playing field where law enforcement has to frequently catch up, and often it’s too late. The recent criminal law reforms were disappointing, for this fundamental problem that ails our police has not been addressed at all. A classic case of old wine in a new bottle.
I digress, however, for the topic is the outrage. Anger is energy, and it must never be wasted, especially where it is righteous indignation. A blind call for safety, high in energy but low in endurance, is ultimately time-bound and fizzles out until the next crime wakes our conscience. Amidst all that outrage, what we actually want is a more professional police force that is not structurally designed to fail and instead is founded upon a doctrine that meets the needs of the 21st century. If we have to honour our victims who we lost to such heinous crimes, this is the need of the hour. Hopefully this time around, the parliament will do more than change the words of a statute and instead dedicate budgets, resources, and efforts to making the police force a body that is independent, merit-based, and capable of inspiring a sense of confidence.
(The writer is an advocate)