The honourable Congress MP from Goa, Shantaram Naik, made a statement in Parliament to the effect that women who socialise with strangers beyond midnight invite rape. His remark was later expunged – I love this word – from the records of the House. It’s as if those words were never said. Would that it were that easy for the victims to expunge the memories of rape…..as if it never happened. And why blame this man, when the Chief Minister of Delhi, herself a woman, believes that a woman travelling alone at night invites trouble? And, given her liberal parole-granting record, we can safely guess that she also believes a woman working in a bar after midnight is asking to be shot.
So, I thought to myself, let me get this argument straight. What do we have here? What does this argument, so often touted by our law-makers, imply? Well, here’s what Naik actually wished to say but couldn’t fully articulate (he’s a politician after all!): a prostitute deserves being coerced into a sexual act by cops. A woman out at night with strangers deserves to be raped. A woman out at night with friends deserves to be raped. A student travelling on a rickshaw with her brother deserves to be raped. A female tourist in India deserves to be raped. A girl spending time with her boyfriend deserves to be raped. A two-and-a-half year old child deserves to be raped. A mentally-challenged twelve-year old girl deserves to be raped.
Well, I know I am a little slow, but I finally got it. What Naik and his ilk actually meant is this: if you have a vagina, you deserve to be raped.
I think that’s a very clever argument. And we are extremely fortunate to have such people decide our destinies. It’s just a matter of time before these bright sparks figure out that this line of thinking – ‘blame the victim’ – can be extended to many other sticky situations. Say I die in a terror attack. Clearly it was my fault. Why was I out shopping, or eating out, or even travelling in a train? I should have stayed home. I deserved it. And if I die because the overloaded boat I’m on capsizes? You guessed it. My fault again. Who told me to take a holiday? I should have stayed home. I deserved it.
Ok, I get it. I should be home. But what if I die at home? Say terrorists attack my building and shoot me dead. Or, if I wish for a relatively more prosaic ending, my unauthorised, bribe-enabled and therefore sub-standard building collapses. What then?
Why, then we have the failsafe! That’s right, you suckers, we’ll expunge that awkward question!
See? It’s as if it was never asked.
Expunged. I just love that word.
The Quirky Indian 
December 17, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Shit. He really said that? I was shocked when Shiela Dixit said what she said about women going out alone at night. At first I wanted to give her some benefit of doubt, maybe she wanted to say that women need to be careful when they step out, but NO! She meant what she said. That women invite violence by stepping out alone at night. This makes me so proud.
December 17, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Very well said. I wish I could blow up this post big size and post it with full reference links on all the major newspapers front pages.
You and I would get killed the next day though.
Wish we could teach those bastards a lesson.
December 17, 2009 at 11:11 pm
You and I would get killed the next day though.
And it will be said that you invited it.
😦
December 18, 2009 at 1:16 pm
and then expunged…
December 17, 2009 at 8:52 pm
QI, You said it as it is! Yes, it is always the victims fault! How dare we think that the perpetrator is to blame? He just took what was in front of him – be it a woman or a life!
December 17, 2009 at 10:55 pm
i wrote a post once…a strong, fairly offensive one questioning the attitude of the indian men. here is a response i got from a 61 year old man:
Dear Teen,
You are like my grand daughter and have every right to express your feelings against me and all others.
But, are only the boys to be blamed? Is not nudity of girls aimed at attracting the gazes of the males. Men have to be primarily responsible and disciplined and must respect the feminity, but you also need be sober in dressing.
When my eyes get attracted by a young girls bare/peeping breasts, I feel ashamed for both – me as well as parents of the girl.
nilateral blaming is of no worth.
and this is wat a young man wrote:
i would like to ask a question to all you and your gals followers.
Be it a tight fighting pant or a bermuda or even a sleeveless shirt, me being a guy will think twice(rather not wear) before wearing any of these when going to the market.
I can see almost all the gals around me wearing those extremely tight fighting, low bottom pants these days. The thing that I wanna know is do all you gals wear it because you want to flaunt your buttocks(asses).Dont you feel ashamed like I would while wearing these pants
SAD. that’s all i can say. great post. loved every bit of it.
December 18, 2009 at 11:38 am
in this entire comment the only thing this i liked is the “tight fighting pants” 🙂
their attitude needs to be taken to the cleaners tho!
December 17, 2009 at 11:37 pm
You’re brilliant, even if you’re slow 😉 I mean, I still hadn’t worked out the math of how a vagina invites rape. Of course, you must concede, our politicians are more brilliant for actually coming up with it in the first place!
December 17, 2009 at 11:51 pm
It should be against the law to make such irresponsible statements.
December 18, 2009 at 2:26 am
I cringe when these things come across. U at least had the patience (or outrage) to blurt it out. I feel sick and pathetic of being human (more so of Indian)… Expunge; I love the word too. Its my favorite word of the decade.
December 18, 2009 at 7:38 am
I expect men to make such statements but I was shocked when Sheila Dixit said what she did but then she can afford to make such idiotic comments because she has black cats toting around with her…
December 18, 2009 at 10:49 am
Man I was just thinking about writing on this last night and today morning i read this. Couldn’t have put it better. All these incidents makes one ashamed of being born a man!
December 18, 2009 at 11:02 am
Excellent. Excellent. Excellent post. Loved those links on “deserves”. Just loved the way it was written and cudnt agree with you more.
These people ought to be punished in public for being called our leaders!!
December 18, 2009 at 11:18 am
Brilliant post! Up until now you’ve had only positive comments. But don’t fret, soon enough the “she was asking for it” brigade will deem it essential to share their valuable insights.
Just one doubt, what when young boys or men are raped? Were they asking for it by wearing “revealing clothes”, “flaunting themselves” and “being friendly with strangers”?
December 18, 2009 at 11:54 am
Well said QI!
i couldn’t believe the audacity of the man! An attitude transplant is in order!
As for rapists-Which part of NO don’t these people understand?
With two kids under the age of 3(one extremely friendly two year old!), i sometimes have a hard time drawing the line between overparenting and letting my kids be independent. And when i read stuff like this it just gets that much more tough!
December 18, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Of course if we die we are responsible for it, I mean why were we even living?
All I will say is “an excellent post”
December 18, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Quirky Indian,
One of the mistakes we make in dissecting politicians’ statements is in assuming they mean what they state! 😉
In politics, just like in rape and love, naa ka matlab haan ho sakta hai! 😉 Depending on which (affirmation or negation) could win you more votes. 😉
‘Real’ meaning of a statement reveals itself only following a spate of clarifications, which in turn are charted out after ‘deliberations’ with the party high-command. 😉
Oh, and you’re definitely slower than me in learning this ‘blame-the-victim’ game. 😉 People who brood too much before me as to how miserable their life is, I tell them: “the biggest mistake you ever made is to take birth”! And they all agree with me!!!
On a more serious note, reading the news piece, it seems like, though Shantaram Naik couldn’t phrase his concern properly enough, he was referring to those minority of cases where an informed, valid consent to indulge in sexual intercourse is given BEFORE the act, but is retrospectively withdrawn AFTER committing the said act because of certain benefits doing so could bring to be deemed as ‘victim’. How does one circumstantially differentiate such cases (though a minority, which do occur) from the clearly illegal, immoral, unethical heinous cases of rape you’ve described in your post?
It should be borne in mind that selective and manipulative reporting and quoting of statements is a very commonly employed ploy by the media to weave sensationalist news. I’m not sure if you’ve read my serial post dealing with news on two Raigad doctors, where I have clearly pointed this out.
I understand, I’m in minority position on this, and I might be clubbed together with the likes of rapists and politicians, but that’s an acceptable risk I’m taking in stating something different than what the majority here has stated. 🙂
In my opinion, one of the practical reasons for Delhi’s relative (to Mumbai) lack of safety is because of high density of wine shops that remain open late till night. Some might agree, some not. But that’s what’s been my observation. And of course, to enhance Delhi’s safety, these will require to be closed, which the government won’t do ‘cuz they are valuable contributors to state treasury! 😉 So best is to blame the ‘victim’. 😛
As usual, and entertaining and well argumented post coming from you! Congratulations!
TC.
December 19, 2009 at 7:26 pm
It makes me so sad to realise we are surrounded by such monsters, who are cruel beyond imagination. As always, a brilliant post, Quirky. What else can I say? I am so upset, and I haven’t even read all those ‘deserving’ links yet.
😦
December 19, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Is he the only one who believe so? Aren’t most of the men – and unfortunately some women too – believe that by doing things like roaming around alone at night or wearing clothes of your choice (Jeans, Tee, blah blah…) means that the lady wants to invite others to rape her? I sincerely believe that people like Mr. Naik should decide what all Indian women should wear, eat, drink and where they should go, how they should go and when they should go.
It’s a tragedy that someone can make such a statement in public. 😦
December 19, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Had forgotten to subscribe to the comments on the thread by checking the box below the ‘Submit Comment’ button 😛
December 20, 2009 at 12:14 pm
The statement is pathetic to the core…
But just wondering, how can the government possibly stop people from meeting and socialising with strangers late in the night or whenever… How then, is that rape, the government’s responsibility.
Yes if rape happens, the guilty should be punished but isn’t the girl taking a risk in meeting a stranger late at night at a secluded place?
But yes, if this is used as a justification or as an excuse to pardon the guilty, as is often done, it is pathetic.
December 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm
QI, fantastic post. I was incensed when Mrs. Dixit had made that remark. But still Mrs. Dixit won with a majority, just goes to show how this as an issue does not matter to most of us. It is a shame and a pity. 😦
December 25, 2009 at 2:00 am
would echo Poonam’s thoughts completely.. 😦
December 21, 2009 at 11:11 am
thank you for this post! the world needed it.
December 21, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Of course the mantriji is correct. How dare the woman walk around at night? And who will control the mantriji’s libido ?
Btw, i love the process of expunging remarks. Curse someone with the choicest expletives and then expunge them.
mantriji ki jai ho.
December 22, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I think you put it best when you wrote: “If you have a vagina, you deserve to be raped”.
This reminds me of the new year incident in Mumbai where the men arrested actually defended their actions saying the women in question were out late at night (never mind that they were with their husbands) and had been drinking.
And I love the word “expunge” too. As long as the comments have been expunged, no one can track his words later and throw it on his face, see?
December 22, 2009 at 2:16 pm
[…] supposed to protect us… not strangle!! It was bad enough that politicians all over India are blaming the victims of a rape for having invited it, Supreme Court goes out to say A husband and his relatives cannot be prosecuted for […]
December 22, 2009 at 3:50 pm
@Shilpadesh: He said, she said…both true.
@Ramit: That will be the end of QI!
@Smitha: Like I said, I’m slow but I finally got it…
@Nikita: After ‘peeping breasts’ and ‘fighting pants’, can anyone say anything else?
@D: Right you are – even my brilliance 😉 pales in front of the politicians….
@IHM: What do we do when our law-makers make such statements? Who holds them accountable?
@Vee: Sometimes I wonder if it is worth getting angry about, worth writing about. Things don’t seem to change.
@Bones: She has quite a strange track-record, what with the awful crime and safety record of Delhi, statements like the one she made and the Manu Sharma parole…but all that hasn’t affected her.
@Che: I’m not sure if writing this served any purpose….we are quite powerless to bring about any change.
@Nova: Thanks. Yes, those links are quite distressing.
@Dreamer: Thankfully, the people that do read this blog are not part of that group. I have in the past got weird hate mail for some specific posts, but none so far for this. And you have asked a very good question…one for which I do not have an answer.
@Gypsygirl: More than an attitude transplant, I wish we could transplant them to some other planet!
December 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm
@Smita: You’ve understood the argument perfectly!
@Ketan: I don’t think it would be very accurate to interpret the MP’s statement in the manner you have, because in all news reports, ,consent has never been mentioned as being a part of the speech. More than consent, I think the MP meant character. In all his subsequent interviews and clarifications, he himself has not mentioned consent.
And unlike the Raigad doctor story, the reporting has been very consistent in this case, both in print and on TV. Here are a few more links:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/What-Not-To-Say/articleshow/5348563.cms
http://connect.in.com/shantaram-naik/article-goa-mp-defends-rape-remark-252737-6d56e71b07bc0ce595b4e5b1b40bda97230d9efe.html
http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-12668.html
http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/goa_mp_suggests_russian_rape_victim_asked_for_it.php
And wine shops remaining open should not absolve the Delhi administration of its inefficiency.
@Pal: Quite sad! And thanks.
@Haresh: You’re right. Most men, and many women, believe that. And it is a double tragedy because the man is an MP.
@Rakesh: You are correct in saying that women should take reasonable precautions against rape, as much as all citizens, men and women, should take reasonable precautions to avoid getting mugged or robbed. The point is, even if a woman does not take these precautions and is raped, it doesn’t make the crime any less. And the guilty have to be punished. You cannot have anyone – let alone an MP or a CM of a state – justify rape because of that. Especially because, in this case, the ‘reasonable precautions’ they talk about mean the woman should be cloistered at home, covered from head to toe etc – basically, think Saudi. Very regressive. As for ‘character’: everyone, including a prostitute, has the right to say no.
@Poonam: Yes, I too wonder if anyone cares anymore. It does not seem to matter to most people in this country.
@Sonal: Good to see you back.
@Liju: Isn’t expunging a great tool? Jai Ho!
@Chennairamblings: Nice to see you back. Yes, it seems as if that is the essence of the argument.
December 22, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Quirky Indian,
“rape case should be treated differently if the victim was known to be moving with strangers beyond the middle of the night.”
“…an alleged rape of a lady who moves with strangers for days together even beyond middle of the night is to be treated on a different footing”
Firstly, above are the two versions of his statements. On a cursory glance, they seem to mean the same. But from the first version, the word ‘alleged’ has been removed. What this does is, the first version sounds like a remark on moral standard of the woman concerned, whereas, the second remark sounds like he was talking of the legal aspect.
Probably, I should’ve been clearer in my earlier comment. From a LEGAL point of view, how does one determine the PROBABILITY that the that the said sexual act was with the woman’s consent (in which case it will NOT be a rape) or was it truly against her will and without her consent? In simpler words, how does one determine the PROBABILITY the woman in question is simply LYING while alleging that the sexual act was against her will?
From the second version, that is the interpretation that seemed to fit better with Naik’s remark. ‘Cuz in law, the word ‘alleged’ is very, very significant. And I felt (and my feeling could be wrong), that’s what Naik was trying to draw attention to. Because a woman actually getting raped as against simply falsely alleging that she was raped, send out two very different signals about a region’s (Goa) perceived security situation, which would be his concern.
I’m afraid, you misunderstood me with regard to the Delhi comment. I was not even remotely trying to justify Sheila’s comment. I was simply pointing out one of the practical things the Delhi government could do to improve the security situation. And if they don’t try to do it (at least in my opinion), they are guilty of inaction. Pointing out the intention behind a deliberate administrative lapse does not amount to trying to justify it! If I point out a robber committed a robbery to earn easy money, doesn’t mean I’m justifying the act of robbery. 🙂
Sheila’s statement was anguishing to the core. I did not state that earlier ‘cuz anyway everyone had said that and it was obvious, and also ‘cuz I wanted to save on a bit of typing.
If Naik was not talking of the legal angle, then his statement too was disgusting, and worthy of strong critiquing.
I hope, I was clearer this time.
TC.
December 23, 2009 at 2:40 pm
@Ketan: Thanks for the clarification. 🙂 IMHO, you’re still mixing issues. Alleged rape is very different from ‘proven’ rape, yes. But even if, as you suggest, Naik was talking of the legal angle, his argument was, apart from being offensive, ridiculous. Because an accusation or allegation of rape cannot be discredited simply by pointing to the victim’s “character” or past behaviour. It has to be done on the basis of evidence, including medical evidence. Being a doctor, you will be in a better position to comment on this aspect. If, as you imply, Naik is questioning whether the rape happened, then he cannot do so by saying the victim socialised with the alleged rapist beyond midnight and so her testimony is suspect. If he is questioning rape, it should be on the basis of incontrovertible physical and medical evidence. Again, and I am no expert here, and perhaps you are in a better position to explain this – aren’t the signs, medically speaking, of consensual penetrative intercourse very different from those of forced penetrative intercourse and even attempted rape? Surely the ‘alleged’ bit should not be very difficult to sort out? But the point of my post is this – even if you have to question whether or not a rape took place, pointing to the victim’s character is not the way to do it. Unfortunately, that is the defence most commonly used.
As for the liquor shop issue: it seems to me that your argument against liquor shops is very similar to saying that as far as women go, wearing ‘revealing’ clothes, or travelling alone at night, causes them to be targeted. So, to improve this law and order situation, women should be prevented from doing so. This is not to say that women shouldn’t take sensible precautions – but their exercise of a personal choice cannot be used to justify the lack of effectiveness of the law and order machinery and neither can a ban on that choice be condoned. I don’t think anyone expects the police to be everywhere and stop every instance of crime – but neither does one want blanket restrictions on lifestyle choices enforced on us in the name of law and order.
The simple truth is that good and timely enforcement of the law serves as a deterrent. One look at our abysmal conviction rates tells us that potential rapists (and other law-breakers) have no fear of the law. This is what has to be fixed. Not shutting down a legitimate business enterprise (or having a night curfew for women) to cover up the administration’s ineffectiveness. 🙂
Cheers.
December 23, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Hi QI 🙂
Sorry, my comment has nothing to do with your post.
I just read that:
http://eco.rue89.com/2009/12/23/un-parfum-dapartheid-lors-du-lancement-d-haeagen-dazs-en-inde-131050
You can use Google to translate but the story is about the 1st shop opened by the American company Häagen-Dazs in India.
Anyway, the picture is clear (the last 2 sentences of the placard)… Have you heard about it? Or your readers?
WOW…
December 25, 2009 at 2:03 am
brilliant post as usual..hits the nail on the head…
you summed up our pathetic country and some of the worms living in it in one single post…you deserve appreciation simply for that…
I just want to say ughh…thats how far my vocabulary goes when it comes to slime like him..
December 31, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Now, that’s a very good post!
but let’s look at it this way. Inviting rape, and inviting trouble type of statements which, you rightly said, reflect the blame the victim attitude. These statements are POLITICALLY INCORRECT.But sadly, reflect the state of our country, of the governanance which scarcely covers the safety of a person out at night, or out with the wrong persons. our (the citizens) safety is in our hands. thats what these goons mean when they say things like this.it’s too much for the state to take care of with its milling population. you do your bit and you can be safe. – what a callous attitude!
but see the rathore case, and jessical Lal case. guess the law will wake up and find its lost tooth and go after molestors and rapists and murderes if we are persistent.
Since the state has washed its hands off such responsibilities, people need to be educated to go after violators instead of shrinking away with fear.
anyway, the involvement of the home ministry in the rathore case is a good sign.
lets hope all those indulge in homicidal and high libido crimes get the message.
believe me, things are no better in developed countries. i’ve been reading chicago tribune for the past 2 weeks. examples of systemic failures are aplenty.
January 6, 2010 at 5:56 am
Well said. Sadly, only those who get the sarcasm get the point as well.
On another note QI, you should look into writing columns (if you aren’t already). Seriously.
g
January 8, 2010 at 1:25 am
QI,
As a mother, I actually agree with what these guys say. As a young woman in my early 20s I’d have seen it as gender bias or stupidity.
They are not really accusing women of inviting trouble. They’re saying trouble exists. They are inarticulate people saying what our own mothers told us time and again. What whole religions and religious dogmas were constructed around. That strange men and even familiar men are trouble. They are not condoning the crime.And ofcourse I’m generalising. I believe that if 9 out 10 men respect women, one must question why the 10th man is different.
Until things change at grassroot levels…and all males are taught to respect all females irrespective of their age, profession and status, what they said will remain true.
It is pathetic the conditions in which we bring up our kids today. Whether it is the regressive Muslim countries where women are in purdah out of fear of men ..or the wicked wild west where women are ‘free’ yet rape is an everyday affair..fact remains that no place is safe. Not for women or men.
It is a reflection of our times… not of the character of a woman or the mindset of the people who say it like it is.
………………………
And…while I wouldn’t call myself regressive, I did see many women in the UK this winter in the flimsiest of clothes [short skirts, sheer stockings, jackets, boots – yes outside in the cold – a sort of new winter uniform – to work/shop/dine/travel in] in minus3 degrees C while the male counterparts were in layers of warmies. Didn’t get the logic if there was any.
[There is an entire fashion industry thriving on this man made necessity for show of female flesh. No I don’t belong to the taliban or MNS…yes I like skirts. I’d just like men to wear them everywhere and in all seasons too.I do believe in equality.]
Sorry (not really) i digressed..the different levels of hypocricy getting to me!
January 8, 2010 at 8:25 am
And the first question anyone will ask in a country like ours…however ‘evolved’ we may be is ‘what the hell were you doing there at that time?’…tho I agree with your sentiment that the victim mustn’t be further victimised or stigmatised.
January 13, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Well said QI.
June 10, 2010 at 10:54 pm
[…] We the Deserving…. […]