I was shocked when I read what the commissioner of Delhi police had to say when confronted with the large number of rape cases in the city. Here are his exact words:
“You can’t travel alone at 2am and then say Delhi is not safe. It would be ideal if a woman takes her brother or driver along. It’s wrong to say the Capital is not safe for women”
For those wondering why I find this offensive, let me spell it out for you. As a citizen of India, I have a contract with the government and the system, viz, I pay my taxes, and follow the laws. In return, one of the benefits I get is protection from crime no matter where I am and what I’m doing. A police system that systematically fails to protect law abiding citizens in the country is a failure no matter what the circumstances. A police chief who tells people they’re not safe at certain times of the day doesn’t understand what is required of him in his job.
How would the government like it if I stopped paying my taxes just because they don’t provide me with the services I have a right to? How about we use the barometer of the government’s performance to determine what percentage of our taxes we pay?
To drive home the right of women – or any citizen for that matter – to walk out safely at night, Indian women must do what their Canadian counterparts did when their own police chief said something stupid, namely that women should not dress like “sluts” to avoid getting raped. Indian women must take out a mass rally at 2 am without any men around and show the Delhi police commissioner that they have every right to do so and that it’s his job to protect them. It’s his bloody job!
Now the commissioner might say with some justification that he doesn’t have the resources to police every single woman at night. But does this mean every single woman in the day time is safe? What’s so special about night? Moreover, he must admit to the failure of the police department if he can’t give such a guarantee. He mustn’t claim (as he did,) that the capital is safe for women. He must come out and say “We don’t have enough resources to keep most women safe at night. We need xyz funds to do this.” Either that or he must admit that he’s incompetent.
It’s not my job to fight for protection. As long as I hold up my end of the bargain, obey the laws and pay my taxes, it’s the responsibility of the police department to ensure that I can walk around in my country at any damn time I wish, and in whomsoever’s company I wish.
Hear! Hear!
Firstly, in no way am I condoning the assault on the women, but I think you’re unnecessarily misunderstanding what the police commissioner said. Try and understand the pressures he’s under and the limited resources he has. He may not be perfect, but he’s a guy with a difficult job and he’s just asking people not to make it more difficult for him.
Paying you taxes doesn’t abdicate you from exercising common sense. Don’t you lock your doors at night or when you’re not home? Why? As per your reasoning, you should leave them wide open, and also never lock your car or bike. Banks should leave their doors and vaults open. After all its the job of the police to prevent any crime, and none of us have any responsibility at all. Sounds ridiculous, but its an extension of the same flawed logic. Idealism is a fine goal, but it needs a reality check occasionally.
Night is different from day – that can’t be denied. Visibility is less, reaction time is less, and most importantly, the number of people around (which is a deterrent to a criminal) is negligible compared to day. So for someone with crime on his mind, night is a more favourable time.
Incidentally, I agree with many of your views, and also feel that all of us should be safe all the time. But this will not happen inspite of any police force – it can only happen when crime is driven out of the human psyche. And till that ideal state is reached, its not too much to ask for that we all exercise a little common sense, is it?
By the way, what will a rally at 2am achieve? Knowing our national apathy, it’ll just be an interesting tidbit in the daily news, soon forgotten.
In reply to Doc
I think I read this in some other blog (or this may-be), that 2 things that make Mumbai safer(relatively speaking) than Delhi is 1. Working Street-Lights 2. Presence of people at most corners around night.
The commissioner may be used wrong choice of words. And the problem also lies with the average Delhi Male. It also should be agreed to Doc, that till the psyche is not changed, an overnight change is idealistic.
Maybe the police can asked for a deadline
Make it safe for women to roam till 12 AM by 2012, and 2 AM by 2014, or such.
In reply to Khalil Sawant
Agree with Khalil. It is widely believed that streets of BLR became (relatively) safer due to the call-center cabs running around all times of night. Its a simple statement of truth that our cities arent particularly safe. The comm. should just have owned up to that.
OTOH, its very foolhardy to just venture out without taking any precautions alone and late at night, for either gender. the risk is just higher for women. this simply seems to be a true statement (to me). Bhagwad, please advise how much p.c packaging is required around it to be able to make this statement on this blog.
For instance, should I say in public and on blog that I encourage women to go around alone at 2am because its their right, and then in private caution women I interact with and am related to, and try my best to not have them out alone at 2am? I can pass tests of p.c.ness with flying colors and also keep my conscience clear w.r.t real women I see, real situations and real consequences. But that is soooo fake and hypocritical.
OTOH there is a free-rider problem here. I desire neighborhoods to be safe at 2am for everybody. I am letting some gutsy women take the challenge and solve the problem, and me and the women in my life will benefit when the battle is won! That is bad too.
It strikes me that one bad but morally-consistent solution is to not take the benefits. If me and mine are all indoors by 10pm, then we are not free-riding on anybody’s efforts. We would have given in to the social code though that we dont necessarily agree with.
thanks
Jai
PS: Some real free thinking on this comment. I will be lucky to get out of this untarred and unfeathered :-)
In reply to Jai_C
You’re right Jai – venturing out at 2am without precautions is certainly foolhardy – and I’m careless enough about being p.c to say it without batting an eyelid.
But here’s the thing. Women already know this! I know a lot of women who are pretty active in the “women’s movement.” But not even the most intrepid of them will go out at night alone without thinking twice. But let’s get one thing clear. That fear is because of a failure of of the police. It’s not “the way things should be” and we all want it to change.
When the commissioner himself tells women not to go out alone at night, he’s legitimizing that fear because he carries the weight of authority. He said that the women are to blame if they venture out alone when no woman in her right senses will do so without good reason! In the process, he’s essentially saying that even if a woman has good reasons to be out at night (say work reasons) she’s to blame if she gets raped.
And that is the problem in a nutshell. Blaming the victims.
In reply to Doc
wow doc. So a women walking alone at night is like a open bank vault…Do you provide your opinion for free or do you charge fees??
In reply to Doc
I feel the difference lies in what’s being denied us. Locking up my doors at night doesn’t deprive me in any way. But telling citizens of a country that they’re to blame if something happens to them is a violation of their fundamental rights.
Women aren’t idiots really – only those women who really have to will risk going out so late at night without company. By telling people that the police isn’t to blame, he’s trying to abdicate his own responsibilities.
@Doc – women are not commodities that have to be locked away safely.
Stop blaming the victims.
Hear hear! And as expected the same ‘don’t you lock your house’ argument is given, as was the case with Slutwalk. Yeah, if only all women could be locked away safely, though I dare say even then desperate souls unable to control their baser instincts will break in and the women will be chastised for not hiding away in the cupboard or something.
I also think we should start paying taxes based on the government’s performance since the government seems to do precious little for us based on the enormous taxes we pay.
By the way, there is an international effort called Reclaim the Night on similar lines.
In reply to The Bride
I too feel the “don’t you lock your house” argument somewhat perpetuates a certain way of looking at women’s bodies which is find repulsive.
Yeah that’s right. Let him admit Delhi is unsafe. Why say a place is safe but you shouldn’t travel at 2 a.m. without company? If such travel is dangerous, then the city has to be labelled as unsafe. Elementary.
I am all for a mass rally at 2 a.m. I simply love the idea that I pay taxes according to what and how the government delivers.
@ Itra & The Bride:-
Kindly read my comment carefully before spouting the usual rabid clueless pseudo-feminist claptrap. I said:-
“Incidentally, I agree with many of your views, and also feel that ALL of us should be safe all the time. But this will not happen inspite of any police force – it can only happen when crime is driven out of the human psyche.”
Nowhere have I referred to only women as being unsafe, and definitely not commodities by any stretch of imagination. Please refer to any good grammar textbook – you’ll find that an analogy differs from literal truth.
@ The Bride & Shail:-
About paying taxes as per government performance – how would it be if the government accepts your proposal, but in turn only provides facilities and protection based on its assessment of your productivity and contribution to the country? Would that be okay with you?
In reply to Doc
The citizens pay the government whatever it asks. When it raises the tax rates, we quietly pay or go to jail if we don’t. For that, we have a right to demand that it do it’s job properly and not systematically fail.
Almost everyone would agree with all you wrote above; because it makes sense. But I think the issue requires much deeper analysis. This post can be a good starting point.
http://harmanjit.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-men-and-women.html
Of course the commissioner is short of resources, of course he cannot police every inch of the city every hour of the day. Nobody expects him to.
But really, nobody needs this kind of friendly advice. People are not stupid.
It is understood that if you go walking around at 2:00 AM in any third world country, you will probably get robbed. The commissioner was merely stating facts. He should have stuck to the facts and kept his opinion to himself. We really do not pay him for his opinion. When I say we, I mean tax payers. Unless, of course, the government is paying him with loan money from IMF or the world bank. Even then the government takes loans in our name and we are the ones paying him.
So really, more work and less talk is the need of the hour.
In reply to ramakant
Quite true – after all, every woman in her right mind will take all necessary precautions. Such advice is not only redundant, it’s pretty insulting.
In reply to bhagwad
Which point unfortunately seems to escape many!
In reply to bhagwad
To be nitpicky what if the woman is a visitor and unaware of the risks? or just is plain naive and maybe generally ill-informed. Or is not “in her right mind”?
the best course of action in this regards if you are a male:
option a: make sure no other woman is around who is in her right mind and will feel insulted. then go ahead and warn the newbie and get out quick before rightminded women come along and get insulted by it :-)
option b: find right-minded women and simply state to them the facts about newbie being a newbie. draw *no* conclusions whatsoever (this is important for the safety of your reputation and p.c rankings). leave it to the right-minded lady to deal with the wrong-minded newbie. since she is a woman, she has considerable immunity in this regard and may actually be able to say stuff that you cannot.
thanks
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
To be honest, I’m sure no woman right minded or not will mind a man giving another woman an advisory as to not to go out alone at night. You see, it all depends on the way the advice is given and what the insinuation is.
If the guys just says it out of concern for the woman’s safety just to make sure she knows the risks no one will mind. But if a guy tells a woman that if she goes out at night then she deserves what she gets or that she’s a fool for thinking the police should protect her, then that is something with which any right thinking person (not just a woman) will have a problem with.
What do you think?
In reply to bhagwad
“if you go out now you deserve whatever may happen to you”
– That’s offensive! Nobody would give advice that way. I’m not sure commissioner Delhi said this either.
“if you go out now its very risky and police wont protect you”
– i’m probably being wrong minded and male here but I couldnt see too much wrong with this statement, esp made to a newbie, who doesnt know the dim prospects of actually being protected.
Thanks for the tip bhagwad, i might actually have made that kind of statement to ppl but for this thread! If this were a real incident I would be more concerned about my own safety at 2am. I wouldnt want to escort her at 2am even if she requested it.
considering my inherent fear/ cowardice, I can see that the best course of action for me would be to keep my trap shut :-) But for gutsier guys who are engaging in conversation with this newbie, I suggest this is the p.c version of the warning:
“if you go out now its very risky and the police though they *should* protect you, most likely wont”
thanks
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
to align my 2nd statement more closely to yours:
“if you go out now its very risky and its *foolish* to expect that cops will protect you”
I can see how much more unp.c that has become with the “foolish” part but there was still a slim chance I’d say that depending on how well newbie and I got talking. I’d have said it quite casually to a newbie guy. I’d have hesitated with a newbie girl, one does take more care in cross-gender conversations, but chances were not zero (until reading this thread).
Here is the p.cfied version of that line:
“if you go out now its very risky and its *unwise* to expect that cops will protect you though of course they should”
thanks
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
It’s reflected in the language Jai. For example, you said the police “wont'” protect you. The problem is with the word “won’t.”
The people are ok with a police force that’s trying to protect women at night. So if they said “As of now, we can’t protect you, though we’ll hopefully get better in the future”, then citizens can focus on how to make things better.
But when you say the police “won’t” protect you, you’re essentially claiming that everything is fine as of now and there’s no need to improve any further!
And that’s the problem with the police commissioner’s statement. He seems to claim that he’s happy with the current state of affairs where women aren’t safe at night because well….it’s not the job of the police to keep them safe!
He should admit that Delhi is not a safe place for women. He must admit that it’s not acceptable to expect 50% of the population to restrain themselves from going out for eight hours a day. Not claim that every is hunky dory.
In reply to bhagwad
Bhagwad,
This is probably getting into flogging-dead-horses territory :-) But one clarification and one attempt to highlight the possible differences in our stands.
Clarification:
My statement was referring to the newbie leaving some safe place for the city streets at 2am, where I am (or somebody who is not a police commissioner is) advising the newbie. I would say “wont” since it means that they will not be trying their best. If I say “cant” newbie might get the impression there is some protection likely.
Our differences:
Since there really isnt much difference of opinion on road safety at 2am, let me go with burglaries. Here are some statements with made-up names and numbers:
StateAbsolut: “Private property should be protected at high costs to the state with no concern to owners responsibility. I am okay with taxes being levied at 30% to achieve this”
BhagwadJPark: “There should be reasonable expectations of owner responsibility. I am okay with taxes being set at 20%, imo adequate to catch thieves who burgle open homes but not okay with StateAbsolut’s proposed expense”
Jai_C: “There should be expectations of owner responsibility that are more stringent than set by Bhagwad JP. I am okay with taxes being set at 15%, imo adequate to catch thieves who get past some deterrence from the owner but not okay with Bhagwad’s proposed expense”
LibertarMax: “This is individual responsibility. I have attack dogs and private guards. I am not okay with any taxes being levied on me to foot security expenses”
So you see at a non-binary level this has differences in say our voting patterns and perhaps even budget allocations.
thanks
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
A good way of putting it Jai. Of course, the point is somewhat academic since the police are supposed to protect everyone regardless of precautions taken or not. I would be willing to accept less provided the rules were laid out in the open.
I want the commissioner of police to stand up and say: “Given my budget and resources, it’s not the responsibility of my force to protect women at 2 am at night. If people want me to do that, I need more money and manpower. To be specific, I need x,y and z to achieve these results.”
Then we can talk. But as of now, it’s implied that it’s his role to protect absolutely everyone no matter what the circumstances.
Doc, sorry if it sounded like I was jumping down your throat. The reason the “lock your house” analogy annoys the hell out of me is because it is what we are told time and time again. The implication of that analogy is twofold:
1. Women are comparable to houses or possessions that can be locked up for their own safety. The fact is that it is not possible to live a full and free life under these kinds of restrictions. Women are not inanimate objects or cattle. This police commissioner says 2 am, the Bangalore police says 11 pm (that they cannot ensure safety of the city if young people are out of the streets after pubbing post-11 pm), a vast majority of the Indian population might say 8 pm, and some people might say never (and who can argue with them because the fact is that women are actually unsafe on the streets at any point, day or night). This common sense is so variable it might not be common sense at all.
2. The other implication is that the victim of the crime bears some responsibility for the crime being committed. This is the implication whether you are talking about women being assaulted at night or houses being robbed. You are wrong. It is not the responsibility of people to lock up their possessions or their women as if they are possessions. It is the responsibility of people to keep their thieving hands to themselves and if they do not, it is the responsibility of the law to come down heavily on these people. It is not expected of law-enforcers to make excuses for those perpetrating a crime in order to make their own jobs easier or to excuse their inability to do their jobs.
The suggestion that women enlist a brother or employ a male driver to escort them is not only distateful it is dangerous. It promotes the erroneous idea that women need protection from men, that a woman without a brother or a husband is exposed and vulnerable, that girl children are a big responsibility (this is what many women are told when they give birth to a girl child) and by extension a liability.
Yes, every society needs some amount of risk mitigation, and for that we have the police. Why must we be asked to enlist our own private armies for our protection? A society which requires private guards for women, even if they are called brothers, is a society in deep trouble and we need to just acknowledge that instead of making it sound like the women are stupid for venturing out without protection. Just as is a society that imposes a curfew on half its population in its capital city no less. Curfews are meant for wartime and states of emergency, not to go on indefinitely for centuries.
Crime is not ever going to be driven out of the human psyche. Again, for this reason we have the police. It is deemed by most societies that one of the primary jobs of the metropolitan police is to ensure the safety of the city both during day and night. If the police commissioner believed this to be an unrealistic expectation, he should have said so when offered his job. If after taking on the job, he feels unequal to the task he promised to perform, he can step down. If he feels, he has limited resources, he can bring it to the attention of the public.
It would have been more reasonable for him to have said: “I am sorry that I am unable to perform the duty vested in me by the citezens of Delhi to ensure safe passage for all its citzens at night. I would be able to perform this very necessary task if I had XX more men or XX more money”. Or he could have said: “The police of Delhi will do everything in their power to ensure the safety of its women at night. If there are crimes, we will go after the suspects no holds barred. We will not delay registering complaints. We will organise more night-time patrols. We will cooperate with citezen groups to organise neighbourhood watches. We will liaise with the government to ensure better street lighting. We pledge to respond within 10 minutes to a 999 call. We will do our best. it would help if citezens pressure the government for XX funds to execute our plan. We promise results in five years.” That is all we ask, that the police do their best. If they failed, they failed trying and not making excuses. At least one can respect that. Imagine the CEO of a bank saying “Arre what can I do, recession” for a decade or longer? He/she would be out of a job.
The problem lies with us and our propensity to accept excuses and mediocre governance and not demand our full rights as citezens. We are always asked to adjust and adjust we have for time immemorial (either adjust or cut corners) – women and the poor of course are asked to adjust more than anyone else, and poor women most of all. Our defense mechanism in India is to say – at least we are better than XX. Then suddenly, we realise with a shock that we are on a list of the five most unsafe countries in the world for women – sharing the limelight with Afghanistan and Somalia.
Regarding your point on taxes, please note that the government are not our rulers or landlords to whom we have to pay rent to. The government in a democracy is the servant of the people, employed by the people fulfill certain duties. They are like a building management company. If the building is in disarray, infrastructure crumbling, garbage piling up, residents unsafe, the building management company would be sacked. One might decide to hire a cheaper building management company and perform certain tasks onself or outsource them to specialists. Indians pay and extremely high tax rate and get very little in return. One might buy the argument that we are a big country, many problems to solve etc. if corruption wasn’t so evidently rampant. When funds set up to alleviate poverty remain unused and stagnant waiting for someone to siphon them off, then I’m sorry I refuse to buy that argument.
Finally, if I sound angry, it is because is this not an academic question for me. It is a question of daily life. It is a question of being told to adjust and adjusting and still having my breast pinched hard when I was 12 years old and walking to school in my uniform. It is a question of my friend having a guy masturbate down her back in a train. It is a question of women of all economic classes being restricted from certain jobs because it is not safe at night. Our cities are not safe – not for men, and definitely not for women. The police need to accept that instead of passing the
buck onto the victims.
PS: Why pseudo-feminists?
Sorry for this long common Bhagwad. I tried to keep it short in the previous one but clearly my point was not clear.
In reply to The Bride
Extremely well argued out, bride. In fact, I think this should be a separate post in itself! What do you say?
In reply to The Bride
@The Bride, You should send this to the Delhi Police Commissioner!
In reply to shail
He should definitely read this!
*grins sheepishly* Yes, it is a post. Think I will copy/paste the whole thing – with maybe some additions – on my blog. I decided to post it as a comment here because Doc addressed me here. Thanks for hosting my very long spiel.