Nirbhaya Was Not Raped! – Bullshit Official Statistics

The documentary “India’s Daughter” has angered people in India who like to feel victimized by the “west”. According to these guys, the rape situation in India is actually better than in most countries. And to prove it, they show…wait for it…government statistics! Check out this article by the telegraph. It would have us believe that India is a haven for women compared to countries like the UK because the “per capita” reported rapes in the UK is greater.

Oh really?

Under Reporting Rape in India

Rape is an under reported crime throughout the world. The stigma attached to a survivor is strong, no matter where you go. But in India, the problem is much, much worse. If only 30% of rapes are reported in a country like the UK, the figure is easily 90% (and probably 99%) in India.

Those defending India’s situation on women would have us believe that a country like Sweden – which consistently ranks amongst the highest in the world in terms of gender equality – is a far more dangerous place than the streets of Delhi. Seriously.

The Police Don’t Register FIRs

Let’s say a rape survivor plucks up the courage (maybe even several days after the act) and goes to the police to register a case. What do our brave men in khaki do? That’s right – they often refuse to even register an FIR contrary to the explicit instructions of the Supreme Court.

Why do they do this? The reasons can be many. From wanting to keep the crime reporting low for their district, to the accused being a powerful figure, or whatever.

Bottom line – if you think rape is under reported, consider what happens even when it is reported!

Even Nirbhaya is not Counted as a Rape!

The single most famous case in the country responsible for sparking mass movements throughout the country regarding security for women doesn’t count as a rape in India’s statistics!

Why? Apparently according to our wise lawmakers, only the primary offence on the FIR is to be counted for reporting purposes. In this case, it was murder. Now, I’ve always held that murder is a more serious crime than rape, but to not count the crime at all for reporting purposes? That is seriously messed up.

Marital Rape is Legal in India

This is a biggie. In India, it is legal for a man to rape his wife! Even if he comes out in the open and admits it. Even if he makes a video of the act and shows it to everyone, the law cannot touch him! All because of the fucked up belief that a man is entitled to sex with his wife on demand.

Needless to say, this is bullshit. Rape is the same, regardless of the relationship of the victim to the criminal. But this huge category is not even treated as a crime by the Indian government! Now isn’t that a convenient way to reduce crime statistics? When a crime is no longer defined as a crime, it will magically vanish. Who knew!

All of this combines to make rape statistics in India worse than meaningless. Worse, because it actually gives a false illusion of security – and more recently, moral superiority. Do other civilized countries have problems with the under reporting of rape? Oh yes, they very much do. There’s a long and uphill battle ahead of them. But to consider the exponentially poor situation in India and place it on an equal footing is outright dishonesty and wishful thinking.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (10)
  • You're an asshole (2)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (1)

40 thoughts on “Nirbhaya Was Not Raped! – Bullshit Official Statistics”

  1. I just came across this Quora question about India’s Daughter documentary.
    http://www.quora.com/Does-Indias-Daughter-documentary-lower-Indias-image-to-the-world
    Read the most upvoted answer (by Omkar Patil). He claims, even if we assume that 90 % of rapes in India go unreported and every single rape is reported in western countries, even then the statistics will be in India’s favor by a good margin (and mathematically, that seems correct). Now how do you counter this argument.

    Reply

    • In reply to Rajat Gaur

      Indeed, let’s look at that argument in detail:

      1. I find it incredible that in the chart, the countries with the lowest rape statistics are the following:

      Serbia
      Syria
      Yemen
      Nepal
      etc.

      I mean, are we supposed to believe regions like UAE, Bosnia, etc are safer for women then Sweden? At this point, I think we are better served by simply junking each and every rape statistic for every country. Period.

      2. I think 90% is actually a gross underestimate of the rapes happening in India. To start with, as I’ve pointed out already, many crimes in western countries are charged as rape when the same would be considered a minor molestation or something in India. Remember how Julian Assange was charged with rape simply for not wearing a condom. I guess the true facts of that case will never come out, but it’s just an example of the kind of definitions we’re talking about here.

      3. Marital Rape – no need for any explanations on this one. It’s legal in India and not even counted. So the question of “reported/underreported” simply does not occur. A Joint Women Programme NGO in its survey found that 1 out of 7 women had been raped by their husbands at least once. I myself have spoken to women – well educated, very aware women who told me very casually that their husbands force them to have sex.

      To quote from the report I referenced: “Subsequent research finds that more women are raped by their husbands each year than by strangers, acquaintances, or other persons. Over a third of the women in our country’s battered women’s shelters report being sexually assaulted by their husbands.”

      Reference: http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com_content&itemid=1&do_pdf=1&id=584

      The National Family Health Survey, India (NFHS) found that just 2.3% of rape that women talked about was committed by someone other than the husband! Here’s a link to the official report: http://www.thehindu.com/data/statistics-on-marital-rape/article6586829.ece

      To put this in perspective: Out of 100,000 women, a staggering 6590 women admitted to being raped by their husbands. This makes a mockery of the tiny “2.7” per 100,000 in government rape statistics.

      I believe that marital rape alone in India is enough to put it way, way above the countries we like to compare ourselves to.

      Reply

    • In reply to Rajat Gaur

      Couple of other points:

      1. It’s interesting to read the responses to the Quora answer you linked to. There are some other interesting viewpoints.

      2. For rape in many western countries, each “act” is counted as a separate case. How many times in the newspapers have you read “She was raped for over a month by her uncle/father/whatever”. In India, that would be a single case of rape. In a place like Sweden, it would be counted as some 300 cases – an estimate of the number of actual acts that were performed.

      Just trying to throw more support behind my argument that rape statistics without standardization are so much manure.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        You have forgotten that just like certain kinds of rape, such as marital rape, are not recognized in India, there are forms of “rape” in India that are not recognized in the West.

        So, lets count. About 25% of rapes in the US, for instance, are marital rapes. Clearly, since India doesn’t count marital rape, that pushes down the numbers for India artificially.

        But, why not remember that India counts a particularly silly form of rape, called “rape on promise of marriage”. Did you know that a mammoth 72% of all “rapes” reported in Mumbai are “rapes on promise of marriage”?

        http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-72-of-rape-in-mumbai-by-victim-s-boyfriends-on-pretext-of-marriage-2038830

        So, don’t you think this 72% would artificially inflate the numbers for India far more than the 25% deflation caused by not counting marital rape?

        Have you considered the fact that a lot of “rape” cases are filed in India by parents who are trying to cover up the “shame” of a daughter running away? In Delhi, a solid 40% of all “rape” cases are filed by angry parents over consensual sex!!! A further 25% of the “rape” in Delhi happens “under promise of marriage”. That means a full 65% of all rape cases filed in Delhi are filed under laws that do not exist in the West!

        http://www.thehindu.com/data/the-many-shades-of-rape-cases-in-delhi/article6261042.ece

        It’s okay to talk about what’s bad in our country, but there is no reason to crucify ourselves over propaganda…

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Rape on promise of marriage is a totally ridiculous thing that I’ve written about in the past on multiple occassions: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2014/politics/should-cheating-a-woman-be-a-crime.html/. While it’s certainly a problem, and while a lot of men unnecessarily suffer due to it, it’s still something mostly restricted to the cities. I do not think its effects have a meaningful impact on the totality of rape in India.

        Second, I would say the assumption of only 25% marital rapes in India is flawed. As the research I linked to in my previous post puts it, the number would be more like 97.7%.

        I would go so far as to say that even if we take out all non-marital rapes in India, the marital rapes alone would dwarf the numbers for many of the countries on that list.

        However, notice how neither of us is in a position to authoritatively report on what’s happening. We have estimates, guesses, and (I don’t mind saying this) most of them are probably way off mark. Which is why I think it’s better to disregard all rape statistics from ANY country.

        So the question is, why did I bring up rape statistics in the first place? The answer is because of “India’s Daughter”, people have started talking about rape statistics between India and other countries. In an attempt to demonstrate the utter futility of rape statistics, I wrote this piece.

        In reality, we don’t need to look at other countries at all. Honestly, I don’t even see what the documentary had to do with any other country on earth.

        Reply

  2. “Which is why I think it’s better to disregard all rape statistics from ANY country.”

    This time I agree. Which is the exact reason why the BBC coming into India and deliberately picking on us hurt so much. And of course, with the BBC, there is an additional burden of colonial history. Should I remind you that the same BBC refused to use the term “terrorist” for Kasab and his friends on 26/11? The BBC’s defense was that referring to these 10 people who massacred 165 innocents as “terrorists” would imply moral judgement!!!

    I suggest you read the BBC’s reasoning here:

    http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/14mumterror-mj-akbar-slams-bbc-for-biased-coverage-of-mumbai-terror-attack.htm

    Yes, incredible as it may seem, the BBC refused to take a position on whether massacre of 165 people in Mumbai is moral or immoral! Who knows? Maybe those people deserved to die. Maybe Kasab and his friends were the good guys killing the evil babies in Cama Hospital… BBC cannot make up its mind!

    So, when the same BBC is eager to pass moral judgement on our entire nation over rape, it is natural to suspect an agenda.

    Reply

    • In reply to Sumit

      That’s a little ridiculous.

      Making a documentary is not making a moral judgement. It is showing facts as it is. The only people judged in the documentary were the actual rapists. Do you have a problem with that? I am shocked and worried that so many men and women in India seem to identify with the rapists and their ideas because I can see no other reason why they would consider the documentary to be a judgement on the entire nation. I don’t consider it is about me . Why should anyone else think so?

      Yes, BBC has a major problem with certain reporting. They especially seem not to criticise their royal family and their excesses. It’s not perfect, but that does not mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater. The documentary made by Udwin has nothing to do with BBCs political stance over international issues. We should consider whether the documentary is a help to us or not, rather than who made it.

      British too in general have a huge problem with Islamist appeasement, but once again, that’s nothing to do with this specific issue.

      Reply

      • In reply to Fem

        “The only people judged in the documentary were the actual rapists.”

        The documentary is called “India’s Daughter”. And there are clear unequivocal statements from the documentary maker saying that Indians need to be shamed as a whole. So, its pretty clear that BBC wasn’t targetting a certain rapist, but a nation as a whole.

        I am only surprised that BBC that refuses to call Kasab a “terrorist” wants to call this Mukesh fellow a “rapist”. Why suddenly this desire from BBC to pass “moral judgement” on Mukesh? When Kasab and his friends broke into Cama Hospital and started shooting sleeping sick people, BBC could not decide who are the bad guys. Don’t you think Kasab would have justified his act by saying something like this:

        “My religion is the best religion. According to my religion, there is no place for Kafirs. If Kafirs do not accept my religion, such things should happen to them”.

        Is that really all that different from what Mukesh and his lawyers were saying? Both the Nirbhaya rape case and 26/11 are events that happened outside the UK. How come BBC is suddenly capable of seeing right from wrong?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Are you really going there? Unbelievable! So people should not criticise Mukesh because of BBCs stance on some other irrelevant issue! I feel like puking now!

        I don’t quite see what the terror attacks have to do with this case. You keep talking about it, but I don’t get the connection. Those people have been killed, the trial’s over, the sentence carried out, and all the political drama has been dealt with. Why is it even relevant?

        Also, it’s not a question of what BBC thinks is right or wrong. It’s what is ACTUALLY right or wrong. What BBC thinks or does not think does not matter. What matters is that the brutal rape, torture and murder on which the documentary focused actually happened. What matters is the fact that rape culture is pervasive in this country, though most people don’t recognise it. What really matter is that we should concentrate on dealing with our own misogynist culture than worry about non-issues.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        “And there are clear unequivocal statements from the documentary maker saying that Indians need to be shamed as a whole.”

        Can you show me which part of the documentary contains this statement from the makers?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “For me, it’s not important who made the documentary. I’m blind to that aspect of it.”

        How sensible is that? An enemy country is running a massive propaganda machine to defame our country and you choose to be blind to that. And make no mistake, this documentary hurts you too economically and the most important point is that it was intended to hurt you. If someone is bombing your house, how smart is it to not care about who is bombing and how to stop them and focus on cleaning up after the bombing?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        I’m pretty sure the UK is not classified as an “enemy”, and neither are we at war with it :). Now this is becoming hyperbole.

        I believe in freedom of expression, and words are not bombs. After watching the documentary, I am hale and healthy. Life is good. Very different from how it would be if a bomb were to fall on me!

        So once again – I am least interested in who makes a work of art. Just like I fast forward through the director’s names and even the actor names when watching a movie. I just don’t care. I watch the content and nothing more if it interests me.

        In fact, I found out “India’s Daughter” was made by the UK only when someone told me. By myself I wouldn’t have bothered to get that piece of information.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “I believe in freedom of expression, and words are not bombs. After watching the documentary, I am hale and healthy.”

        Obviously I am talking about economic bombs here. Major nations are long past the point of dropping bombs on each other. It is an undeniable fact today that the economic interests of European countries are directly clashing with those of BRICS nations. They have the high economic ground worldwide and are losing the power to hold on to it.

        And I can assure you that your economic health has definitely been hit by this video. Do you think foreign business and tourism coming to India does not help your economic health?

        And just how have I infringed on freedom of expression of the BBC? They are a sovereign country and can do what they want inside their borders. I am only requesting people to recognize their underlying motives and not become willing/unwilling collaborators in their propaganda.

        Reply

  3. I can’t believe that people are more worried about whose rape statistics are worse, instead of actually protesting against the act itself, wherever it is. This behaviour is just insanely ridiculous. I fully agree with your post, but this entire discussion is doing my head in.

    Reply

    • In reply to Fem

      “I can’t believe that people are more worried about whose rape statistics are worse”.

      I am afraid we have to be practical. Because there is very very big money involved. And complex geopolitics too.

      A documentary like this which shames India as a whole means hundreds of millions of dollars for the international NGO industry. It involves losses of several hundreds of millions of dollars for the Indian tourism industry, which had just started to take off again. By hurting India’s international standing, a documentary like this means several billion dollars of foreign investment foiled. And it takes away India’s moral right to speak in international forums, which means everything from India finding it harder to keep its stance on Kashmir to nuclear weapons to uranium imports.

      There is a certain attitude among the Left to dismiss such concerns as vanity pursuits, but they are not. Access to energy is a life and death issue for poorest Indians. Business and tourism refusing to come to India means lakhs of jobs not being created and literally hundreds of millions wallowing in hopeless poverty.

      We cannot overlook the fact that BBC is an arm of the British government. In the global economic order, Europe as a whole is in serious danger of losing its sheen. Retaining the high ground is a crucial issue for Europe. For instance, Europe enjoys a monopoly on heading the IMF. Do you think this stuff is of no consequence? Because of this, a bankrupt country like Spain or Italy gets to borrow in its own currency (Euros), but India has to borrow/pay only in USD or EUR at very high interest rates. When the INR falls, our ability to pay suffers. Not for Spain or Italy…they have the luxury to pay in their own currency.

      These differences account for hundreds of billions of dollars. Do you think these hundreds of billions of dollars do not hurt Indian poor? Do you think Europeans do not understand the value of holding on to these economic privileges? You think Europeans will not benefit from projecting challenger nations as hopelessly backward and lawless?

      We have to follow the money. Everyone knows that international diplomacy is amoral. As such, when an arm of the British government suddenly displays selfless sympathy for an Indian woman, I suggest you ask: “What’s in it for them”?

      Reply

  4. Lets me start by saying: ‘Rape is crime and the offender has to be punished.’

    1. About the views of the offender: They are his personal view. Statements like “Indian Men are like this.. they think like that..” is a mass generalization of at least 0.6 billion individuals, which is kind of stupid. The offender can have any view of any subject, including status of women in society. Why are we passing on moral judgements on his views and ascribing them to the society. He can think whatever he wants (however mean they may be).. as long as he does not commit a crime. For instance he has the right to “think” that women should not be outside after 6 pm. What he should not be doing is trying to enforce-into / punish-for-not doing what he “thinks” is right. I have a right to think that all two-eyed men should be shot in one-eye.. as long as I don’t do it, I am fine. Why give so much credence to one opinion? Do we have a scarcity of stupid people in any part of the world? If we say everyone has to have the same view (even liberal) on any subject, then aren’t we being fundamentalists ourselves?

    2. Rape is a crime in India (unlike some other countries). We are on par with other developed countries there. Respect that. We have millions marching in support of the victim and lambasting police and government for the apathy. We are able to do that. Respect that. We are not a country of cribbers.. we try to change the system to respond. Bloody hell.. Respect that. We don’t like the current system..but we have to pull along 1.2 billion of us 3 times more than the richest nation.. and we do that admirably.. Respect that.

    3. Crime statistics. I guess we need to look at all crimes.. not rape alone. Check for crime-rate per 1000 population. See if we do badly. No we don’t. We do as good as most developed nations. We have lots of preventable crimes.. but that is more to do with lack of policing than something wrong with people.

    Lets take our favorite topic – traffic. Traffic near my house is bad. I haven’t seen a traffic-constable in 5 years I have been there. The probability of getting caught and fined is infinitesimally low. But, more than 90% of traffic flows in the right way. There are a few offenders.. but with such a low patrol, I don’t see so much violation. So, as people, most of us are good and follow law. But as implementers of law we lack a great deal.

    There is a time to see that 10% violation and see where we can improve. There is a time to see 90% of adherence and appreciate our honesty. They both have a place and we shouldn’t come at the cost of one another.

    4. About BBC having vested interest, yes, that’s a problem we have to face. Why only ‘rape’, we shouldn’t expect BBC to be forgiving on us on any issue. No other nation has given a blank check to us. We have to fight for our opportunity and existence. Either lets not give them a chance to complain or don’t bother about their opinion and negotiate on other terms. Crying foul will only make us look wimpy. They were never our partners.

    Reply

    • In reply to Murali

      “About BBC having vested interest, yes, that’s a problem we have to face. Why only ‘rape’, we shouldn’t expect BBC to be forgiving on us on any issue. No other nation has given a blank check to us. We have to fight for our opportunity and existence. Either lets not give them a chance to complain or don’t bother about their opinion and negotiate on other terms. Crying foul will only make us look wimpy. They were never our partners.”

      I am not complaining about the BBC. They are an enemy country and they are doing their best to make India look bad. I am complaining about their Indian sepoys who are actively collaborating with the BBC in its anti-India enterprise and calling me delusional if I refuse to be a sepoy as well.

      Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Again, you are simply wrong. One, the BBC is not a country. Two, the UK is not classified as an “enemy country”. Three, you have no proof that this was done with “the intention to make India look bad”.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “One, the BBC is not a country.”

        It is an official undertaking of the British government.

        ” Two, the UK is not classified as an enemy country “.

        I wonder if anybody is officially classified as an “enemy country”, including China. That kind of language is simply not used in diplomacy. The only question is whether a fading European country like UK has something to gain by projecting challengers as lawless states. That makes them enemies. Major nations of the world are way past the point of military enmity. Its about the economic enemies now. And if UK has more economic power, we will have less. That makes them an enemy country.

        “Three, you have no proof that this was done with the intention to make India look bad.”

        That kind of “innocent until proven guilty” applies to individuals in a court of law, not sovereign nations. We are not trying the UK. We have no power to try the UK. International relations are completely amoral. This is a well known fact. If you genuinely think a foreign government is consumed by human sympathy for rape victims in India, people will laugh at you.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        This is not “innocent until proven guilty”. This is simply a question of me asking you not to be paranoid without proof. Since you’re on this blog, it’s obvious you wish to discuss things. And my terms of discussion are for you to give me reasons for your statements. It has nothing to do with a court of law.

        The BBC is independent of the British government. This is evidenced by the fact that they regularly criticize it, despite frequent requests by the British government not to do so. Free press and all that you know. And in the spirit of references, here’s the layout of how the BBC is run from the government’s own website: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bbc-governance

        An enemy country is officially declared in times of war. The UK is not an enemy country. And your definition “enemy” is pretty unique to you. That’s not how we use the word in regular English language.

        And once again, this is not done by the British government. If you say it is, then give me a reason to think that and we’ll discuss. Otherwise wild speculation doesn’t really deserve a debate now does it?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “This is simply a question of me asking you not to be paranoid without proof.”

        Okay, let’s see. There are only 2 possible reasons why the British Government is doing this documentary.

        1) Propaganda against India:

        Do they have motive to do anti-India propaganda?

        Diplomatic motive? Yes
        Economic motive? Yes
        Historical motive? Yes

        2) Human emotion: This is crazy. A foreign government genuinely concerned about rape victims in India? Come on… How is this even possible? Do you honestly believe that there is anything that a foreign government has ever done for people of another country out of genuine human emotion? Why should they? Has India ever done anything for any other country out of human emotion?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Sumit,
        I agree with your worry about the loss we (Indians) have to bear. And, it is an unfair situation.

        “We” is a difficult word to use in context of nations.

        We – The Government of India – has a responsibility to represent India’s interests outside and has to do necessary negotiations and lobbying at appropriate levels to get our fair share. If my government fails on this, then I (and others) suffer and hence my response is to punish those in government by removing them or suing them. Malafide intent is punishable here. It is a ‘Duty’ here.

        We – The individual Indians – have no such responsibility. We have to understand what is right and what is beneficial for our individual self. So, if my neighbor has a narrative and says it in public, it is his/her prerogative. Malafide or non-malafide “intentions” do not matter here. It is a ‘Right’ here.

        Other institutions/governments must learn to understand this. Modi’s visa is a case to point. U.S learned the hard-way not to trust their unconstitutional lobbyists on foreign affairs. While we suffered briefly, we would have lost more had we been issuing gag-orders on everyone. Although in this specific case, I would have expected GOI to have lodged a protest to U.S.

        Reply

      • In reply to Murali

        “We – The individual Indians – have no such responsibility. We have to understand what is right and what is beneficial for our individual self. So, if my neighbor has a narrative and says it in public, it is his/her prerogative. Malafide or non-malafide “intentions” do not matter here. It is a ‘Right’ here. ”

        Well sure! You have a right to fall for foreign propaganda. And foreign governments have every right to run such propaganda. In fact, the British government probably has a duty to British subjects to run such propaganda that will hurt the economic interests of challenger nations. As for us Indians, you have a right to believe their propaganda. You have the right to become an alcoholic. I’m just pointing out that it isn’t smart to do so :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        No, actually you are advocating that we treat the UK as an enemy country. You know what we do to enemies? We destroy them in whatever way we can. Are you saying that India wants to destroy the UK?

        Never mind the completely red herring that the BBC is not equal to the government in the first place.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Huh? You had some confusion about the context in which I am using the word “enemy”. So I am just clarifying the context.

        As an economic and diplomatic rival, of course the UK is an enemy. The UK currently holds several major economic and diplomatic statuses in which we would like to replace them. Are you really telling me that the UK’s status as a permanent Security Council member or Europe’s monopoly of heading the IMF is not a problem for us?

        “You know what we do to enemies? We destroy them in whatever way we can. Are you saying that India wants to destroy the UK?”

        Yes, wouldn’t India like to take the UK’s seat on the Security Council? India would want to destroy the UK wherever it provides economic and diplomatic benefits to us, wouldn’t it? But destroying them “whatever way we can” is a child’s view of enmity if you are hinting at things like war. Those notions went out of fashion long ago. This isn’t religious or racial enmity. This is diplomatic/economic enmity. So, we destroy their diplomatic and economic might whatever way we can. What’s the problem?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Fully agree with you Sumit.

        While some others have the freedom to malign India and misguide others, You (or I) (must) have the full freedom to discuss this topic and inform others of the misguidance. Then leave it to each to decide. I don’t see where we disagree.

        I don’t see your point of view as wrong, though not substantiated. I don’t care for BBC’s intentions. Human (Womens’) Rights violations in middle-east are amply discussed by western media. But that hasn’t stopped U.S having bilateral ties with many. Each country sees where its bread is buttered, and often ignores the ill of others in such cases.

        We must fix our systems for our sake.
        We will be marginalized by bigger powers.. if not by this issue, then by another issue. We have to pick our battles on our strengths. This topic isn’t one of our strong points, and we can’t win this by crying foul.

        Reply

      • In reply to Murali

        “Rights violations in middle-east are amply discussed by western media. But that hasn’t stopped U.S having bilateral ties with many. ”

        I think we aspire to more than just “bilateral ties”. The countries in the Middle-East are minor countries and will forever remain minor countries. I am sure you feel India aims to play a great power role in the world. Remember the massive cacophony in the West between 2000–2008 about human rights in China? Have you noticed how silent things have gotten since then? Has the human rights situation improved in China? No, in retrospect, it is clear that the outrage was basically a whiny West complaining about rise of a great power. Once China rose, they gave up.

        “We must fix our systems for our sake. We will be marginalized by bigger powers.. if not by this issue, then by another issue.”

        Exactly why I see it as a losing battle. If we all jump into bed with BBC and start castigating ourselves, they will run us over. Even if there isn’t a single crime against women for the next decade in India, the British will find another issue to attack us. We can’t win like this. You can’t let the British set the agenda or you are bound to lose. See the importance of understanding the British govt intentions?

        If anything this current British documentary should show us how a small nation with a big megaphone like BBC can hurt us worldwide. We Indians in general still don’t understand the power of propaganda. We need to learn to respond in kind. I’m not crying foul. Crying foul means you treat the British as a higher authority and expect them to do “right” by you. And crying foul involves emotion. No place for emotion in cold, amoral international relations. In fact, in some way I am appreciating how the British govt is using media to undermine an enemy. I am saying we should steal their technique and do to them what they are doing to us.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        So go ahead and do it. I don’t think anyone will mind. As for me, I still don’t care about the author of a documentary. I deliberately blind myself to that since I see no use for it.

        Unless I can see immediate negative effects – specifically physical effects – I don’t bother about words.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “Unless I can see immediate negative effects – specifically physical effects – I don’t bother about words.”

        Don’t you think you sound a bit like climate change deniers who say global warming isn’t happening because the US & Europe are having a harsh winter? What do you mean “no physical effects”? How are losses in foreign tourist dollars and foreign business not “physical effects”?

        Yes, I agree that no one is going to come and steal your wallet because of this documentary. If you think there are no other physical effects possible…well…what can I say?

        Did you see the Indian student who was cut off from an internship in Germany because of this documentary? If you think lack of tech and scientific cooperation between India and Germany does not have physical effects for you… well…

        I’m curious: are there any “immediate negative effects” or “physical effects” of global warming?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Climate change is measurable. There are statistics, and I believe the scientists who are qualified to say it’s happening. It’s very much an immediate and physical effect since the measurements are real and we postulate a direct cause and effect.

        There are entire websites and books dedicated to measuring the physical effects of climate change. If you want, I can point them to you.

        Now show me the same measurements for your case. Show me the exact amount of economic damage the BBC has inflicted on us with the documentary. Moreover, show me that it was done with malafide intent.

        I think you give too much importance to India. I bet the UK doesn’t even think about us.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        As I said, Sumit, I agree with your point of view. But that’s all there is to it. We shouldn’t fight this battle. We need to trade with them, make money and forget about them. If the propaganda effects our interests, GOI should issue protests and publish stats wherever it matters our interest.

        Movie ‘PK’ is a point of view. It may have vested interests/malafide intent. Even if it has, it should not matter. Individuals need to treat it as point-of-view. GOI need to treat it as ‘Right’ of individuals.

        Like you don’t buy this bull, a lot of people don’t. There are a lot who do too.. but what can we say.. you can just put out your view.

        Reply

      • In reply to Murali

        Movie PK is put out by an individual. The documentary is from the British government. I don’t think allowing foreign governments to malign us is covered by free speech. Tomorrow, if the UK takes a pro-Pakistan stance on Kashmir, will you tell me to not worry about it?

        Reply

  5. Irrespective of who made the documentary, instead of acknowledging the flaws in the mindset of the society which makes it highly unsafe for its females in India (again irrespective of the status of safety of females in any other country) and taking corrective measures to make the country safer for females than it is now, all that these nincompoops can care about is foreign dollars through tourism and iternational enemity ! Gosh…

    Reply

  6. I find it amusing how much sumit says ‘enemy country’. Maybe the U.K. and India are competing, but that doesn’t make them enemies, and I see so much ‘us or them’ in this, it’s insane. The U.K. is not out to destroy India; i’m not saying they wouldn’t mind doing so, but they’re not going to direct their energies towards that. Do you really think most modern government just have time on their hands for that shit?

    By the way, you want a non-emotional motive? The BBC realised that people are interested in this subject and decided to leverage that to make a ton of $$$$$$. GG!!! Not to mention the BBC is not the government, people have feelings and want rape to stop, etc.

    I think the most important thing to do, though, is ask yourselves: why did this ‘propaganda’ have any effect? Firstly, because it’s true and based on true things; even if this WAS done with malicious intent (and holy lol it totally wasn’t), kinda your bad for leaving yourselves open and making people believe this could be a thing. If you want India to stop looking bad, get your shit together and…stop looking bad. That solves the ‘propaganda’ problem at the root.

    Reply

Leave a Comment