Nimalka Fernando asked an interesting question when Thilini
was arrested by the Police. Thilini is
the woman who responded to alleged lewd remarks by a person called Selva by
slapping him repeatedly (all caught on camera).
Nimalka asked if the police arrests all men who beat up women.
Now a situation of domestic abuse is more complicated that
an insulted woman turning around and slapping someone. The perpetrator and victim not just live
under the same roof but are ‘tied’ by the fact that they are parents to the
same children, have histories which in all likelihood contained happy and sweet
moments and so on. The victims don’t
always go to the Police and the act of violence is hardly ever caught on
camera.
Nimalka’s question points to certain skewed elements in gender-based
violence, but nevertheless doesn’t rise above cheap rhetoric. The equivalence implied remains at best
dubious. The Police cannot act unless there’s complaint
or else wrongdoing is apparent and warrants intervention. In this instance, this side of a case for
self-defence, Thilini acted as judge and enforcer of judgment. That’s wrong, it can be argued. Since it is all on camera, since the
physical assault did not follow physical assault or drag the other protagonist
into fisticuffs, there is a solid case for arrest. This of course does not mean Selva was
innocent or that his remarks were ‘okay’.
But that’s a separate case; linked, but separate.
And yet, there’s something in the question that Nimalka has
posed that goes beyond incident, embraces the entire gamut of issues pertaining
to gender-based violence and most pertinently (and disturbingly) the entire
corpus of the law.
First of all, inadequate social, cultural and legal
safeguards have created so many gaps through which the likes of Selva (and
worse) thrust their dirty hands to touch, grope and worse. The same loopholes are used to spout verbal
abuse. Therefore, citing strict caveats
such as ‘evidence’ and ‘complaint’ are inherently problematic. If the law is silent on other transgressions,
if society in general is ready to look away when the Selvas can’t keep hands
and tongue under check, then society and the law cannot intervene in event of other
transgressions. If ‘evidence’ and
‘complaint’ are what count, then what of tying people to trees (recorded and
relayed on television), one might ask.
These are all issues that are currently being widely debated
in social media. Thilini is a hero to
some while others feel Selva got a raw deal.
‘Punishment should fit the crime,’ some argue while others add ‘Thilini
took the law into her hands’. Some are
happy that the law is taking its course while others are livid that the victim
was arrested. It is clear, though, that
Thilini’s response, as many argue, is larger than Thilini and Selva, a lewd
remark and a perhaps over-zealous reaction.
For every Thilini there are hundreds of thousands who have had to suffer
in silence similar or worse acts of transgressions from hundreds and thousands
of Selvas. Thilini’s response,
therefore, has to be read as a kind of ‘this is it, we will not take this
anymore’ articulation, even if Thilini never once thought she was representing
all the Thilinis who came before and who will come after the Wariyapola
incident.
The key word that is the crux of the larger problem is
‘selectivity’. The law is
selective. The judicial process favors
the powerful. Redress, often, hangs on
affordability of skilled legal representation.
The perpetrators are as protected by these realities as by convention, a
manifest reluctance to object to transgressions by the general public and the
helplessness of victims. It must be
mentioned that if someone is seen picking a pocket, it is quite likely that
someone would raise objection and that others would support the objector, but
sexual harassment is largely responded to with silence and inaction which, we
have to conclude, adds up to consent on the part of each and every witness.
The incident has certainly served to bring up these issues
for discussion in various forums, especially social media and that’s a positive
outcome. It has also provided
project-starved NGO personalities and NGOs a lifeline is indicative of other
social problems but that’s another issue altogether. Nimalka’s question is dodgy, speaking
strictly in a legal context, but it does invite discussion on a range of issues
pertaining to gender relations, sexual harassment, violence and most
importantly the selectivity and therefore the loopholes inherent in the
apparatus of justice in this country.
In short, the Selvas of this country are not just using
apathy and legal-lax to insult a woman but are abusing these very facilities to
pick pockets, throw punches, cheat taxpayers and plunder state resources. In this context, i.e. where the law is made
of holes, it is inevitable that there will be Thilinis. This time it was Selva. One man, one woman. If things don’t change we will have an army
of Thilinis taking on an army of Selvas and as things stand it is hard to say
if that is necessarily an unhappy situation.
It is, sadly, about ‘Law vs Justice’, and that’s typically an invitation
to either revolution or anarchy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment