Communist leader and rights activist, Brinda Karat’s book on the state and status of women during India’s more than decade-long BJP rule is a long story of systemic and systematic violence against women, Humaira Nabi writes
In its 2014 election manifesto, the right-wing BJP emphasised the need for women’s security as a precondition for empowerment. “BJP recognises the important role of women in the development of society and the growth of the nation, and remains committed to giving high priority to women’s empowerment and welfare,” the party stated. “BJP-ruled states have demonstrated this through various schemes.”
The manifesto outlined steps for women’s welfare, including launching a national campaign to save and educate the girl child – Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao and the strict implementation of laws related to women, particularly those addressing rape. A decade later, the BJP has come to power three times, however, contrary to its commitments; violence against women has grown exponentially.
A Critical Examination
In her Speaking Tiger published book, Hindutva and Violence against Women, Brinda Karat a politician activist, examines how women’s safety, dignity and security were compromised in the NDA-led decade. Brinda highlights some of the most horrific incidents of violence against women and the lack of official response to them- the release of Bilkis Bano’s rapists; the campaign in favour of the men who brutalised Asifa Bano; the covert cremation of the body of the Hathras victim; the rape and murder of Kuki women in Manipur.
The book identifies two key aspects of the rising violence against women in India. First, the anti-minority bigotry, particularly against the Muslim community, which Brinda calls ‘communal majoritarianism.’ Second, the intrinsic nature of the Hindutva project, which selectively glorifies traditions and customs tied to their ideal of the ‘pavitrara nari’—the pure woman, derived from the Manusmriti, which is regarded by Hindutva advocates as the fundamental law for Hindus.
Bilkis Bano Case
Brinda’s book begins with communal majoritarianism with the case of Bilkis Bano, whose 11 rapists were released on August 15, 2022. Although their release was later overturned by the Supreme Court on January 8, 2024, Brinda views this case as emblematic of the shifting sands and weakening institutional foundations of justice in India. As a member of the delegation that met with survivors of the 2002 Gujarat riots at the Iqbal Relief Camp in Godhra, Brinda details the delegation’s report, including Bilkis Bano’s testimony.
It also includes details about Randhikpur village where the VHP and the Bajrang Dal had attacked the whole village in early 1999. Three hundred and fifty Muslims were forced to leave the village. Brinda believes that the 2002 riots were an implication of many such events where no action was taken. “At that time too Gujarat had a BJP government led by Keshubhai Patel. If action had been taken against those unleashing violence in 1999, a strong message would have been delivered that communal violence targeting the minorities will be strictly dealt with,” she wrote. “In the absence of action, the same area witnessed the horrific violence against Bilkis and her family.”
Brinda compares the Bilkis Bano case to the Nirbhaya case, questioning why the court deemed the Nirbhaya case as a ‘rarest of rare’ case but not the Bilkis Bano case, despite its brutality. She questions if the difference in categorisation is due to the religious identities of the victim and perpetrators. Nirbhaya was a Hindu upper-caste girl; the criminals were men mainly from the lower castes and poor families. Bilkis is a Muslim and the perpetrators are all upper–caste Hindus. She had written that the use of women’s bodies as the site to commit unspeakable sexual crimes during communal violence has never been considered by the courts as among the ‘rarest of rare’ cases. There has never been a sentence of death in a communally motivated sexual crime and murder of a woman. Why do courts not consider this as the ‘rarest of the rare’? Is it because such crimes have become ‘normalized’? Brinda asks.
The Manipur
Brinda discusses the ethnic violence that erupted in May 2023 in India’s north-eastern state of Manipur between the Meitei people, who are the majority in the Imphal Valley, and the Kuki-Zo tribal community from the surrounding hills. She narrates some incidents of rapes and killing of the women from the minority Kuki community. She states that the RSS shakhas in Manipur spread lies about the Christian tribal communities to strengthen their influence among the Meitei under a Hindutva religious identity.
Brinda asserts that the governing politics are designed to create a majoritarian mindset to justify violence against targeted communities. Aiming to consolidate the Hindutva identity through the Meitei community, the government did not take steps to isolate the perpetrators of violence. She also contends that women in Manipur were targeted because of their ethnic and religious identities. According to Brinda, another striking lesson from Manipur is the dehumanising impact of such politics on women, fostering a culture that justifies the rape of the identified ‘other’.
While examining the 2018 rape and murder case of a minor Bakerwal girl in Kathua, Brinda writes that the targeting of women during ‘normal’ times equally marks the drive towards majoritarian Indians as targeting of minority women during communal strife. The charge sheet in the case stated that the girl was raped because she was a Muslim. Stating it as the most shameful display of communication of crime and a deliberate attempt to terrorise the Bakerwal community into leaving the area, Brinda questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s silence over the crime till three months even after the case was internationally reported.
The Masculinisation
Brinda writes that the masculinisation of Hindutva, a key component of the movement, has a significant impact on the mobilisation of women. This mobilisation, in the drive toward a majoritarian India, serves two primary objectives. The first is the active participation of women in aggressive Hindutva activities. The second is reinforcing the central role of the ‘family’ and the idealised position of the wife and mother in Hindutva’s cultural-nationalist narrative. The Rashtra Sevika Samiti, established in 1936, was created to fulfil these objectives. Brinda highlights that anti-Muslim campaigns in the 1990s, especially before and after the Babri Masjid demolition, were led by women like Sadhvi Rithambara and Uma Bharti, who used extremely abusive language, while stating that many other similar women leaders have emerged.
Brinda compares data on violence against women in India, noting that a 2018 survey by the Thomson Reuters Foundation (TRF) found India to be the most unsafe place for women. The Modi government dismissed the survey as unscientific. However, in 2013, when India was ranked fourth in the TRF survey, BJP leaders used the report to criticise the then UPA government, Brinda writes.
The data reveals that the rate of crimes committed against women per lakh population increased from 56.3 per cent in 2020 to 64.5 per cent in 2021 and further to 66.4 per cent in 2022. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reported a further four per cent increase in crimes against women in its December 2023 report. Brinda expresses concerns about whether the police and judicial systems can ensure the certainty of punishment, an issue that women’s organisations and movements have been particularly worried about. In India, various factors, including class, caste, and community, contributes to the denial of justice to rape victims.
The book traces the evolution of the masculine Hindu from the days of the Savarkar to contemporary India when the big shots in the Hindutva eco-system believe the Hindus are engaged in a millennium-long war. “Savarkar’s slogan of the “militarization” of the “Hindu race” is reflected in the promotion of masculinity as a core feature of Hindutva, the creation of the macho man, the eternal warrior, whose very existence is dependent on aggression against the identified foe; whose every action must be imbued with the spirit of avenging “historical wrongs”; for whom every non-Hindu must be viewed as a potential enemy of the nation until the non-Hindu redeems himself by accepting the crimes of his forefathers and atones for them by subordinating himself to whatever punishment is meted out to him,” she wrote. “Conversely, the belief is fostered that no Hindu can ever be a “terrorist” but must always be thought of as a man with the highest of virtues, especially if he is a Brahmin.”
The book offers telltale instances of the women ideologues who preach it openly in speeches and on social media. Though in certain cases, some of these people were shifted from party positions, no one was prosecuted for the hate campaign. The author concludes: “When a country is ruled by those whose ideology is based not on the constitution but on their selective interpretations of religion, tradition and culture, for the court to abdicate responsibility poses new challenges to those fighting for justice.”
