What I've Learnt from Violence

On facing abuse

This post is personal in nature, it focuses on domestic violence although it is not limited to domestic violence, and it describes what I've learnt of violence (mainly in relation to myself with reference to my class). It is by no means intended to speak for every woman, neither am I anywhere near certain that I've got it right. I've used the term 'abusive situation' as opposed to 'abusive relationship' simply because public discourse (in India) relating to domestic violence is largely limited to domestic violence perpetrated against wives by husbands and in-laws, almost completely ignoring other forms of domestic violence (including that perpetrated by natal families).

I've also written of episodes of domestic violence earlier (here) in a post which isn't an accurate depiction of events.

First Impressions: Oxford Bookstore

Finally visited Oxford Bookstore at CP; it's reopened on the outer circle, almost opposite Barakhamba Road's Statesman House. I loved being inside a bookstore after ages... especially this one. It still has Cha Bar (open from 10 am to 10 pm) which brings back some lovely memories for me.

I didn't particularly care for the décor though: it took me a long time to find a word to describe it. I finally zeroed in on 'stark' — whiter than white. Lines so clean they're unfeeling, harsh. And as much as I love white décor, I couldn't warm up to what I saw at the bookstore... was reminded of van Gogh's Lampost symbolising all that's wrong with modernity.

As a (?) concession to childhood, shelves 'stocking' — not 'housing', and that's the problem, to my mind — children's books were in light blue & green. All very industrial, clean & 'unhomely'. There were 'steps' where one could sit nearby though, and while I was there, a couple settled down and pored over the same book. Seeing them together made the trip worth it for me.

Human Rights, Feminism, and Domestic Violence

This post contains personal opinions which I'm still in the process of clarifying in my own mind.

It isn’t entirely clear to me how being in favour of feminism is spectacularly different from being in favour of the availability of basic human rights to everyone. And I have a great deal of trouble understanding statements (heard all too often) to the effect that someone believes in non-discrimination on the basis of gender but is not a feminist — unless that refers to an in-principle approval (but not one in practice), it seems to me that the assertions (invariably contained in the same sentence) are internally inconsistent.


At its core, feminism is about substantive equality for everyone, control over one’s own body, and freedom from discrimination and violence on the basis of one’s gender. And here’s another thing: the core principles of feminism aren’t spectacularly different from the core principles of what are understood to be human rights in contemporary times. Personally, the only reason I prefer the term ‘feminism’ to ‘human rights’ is simply because — and this is a personal view — I see ‘human rights’ operating in a field larger than ‘feminism’. To me, ‘human rights’ addresses the infringement of personal rights in both war and peace, while ‘feminism’ focuses on the infringement of personal rights in peace. I make this distinction on the basis that feminism pays a great deal of attention to nuance, and that it treats the personal as being political. Feminism also looks at issues which I believe would be extremely low on one’s list of issues which needed to be addressed in times of war. (Think of the President calling a woman lawyer beautiful.)

On Porn and Free Speech

Update: The tweets below formed the basis of this post: Thoughts on Pornography and Free Speech at Indian Copyright.

THIS post by @tanyagold1 captures why I'm anti-porn ► Porn is like meat. Ask how it is made before consuming it. m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/…
— Nandita Saikia (@nsaikia) March 18, 2013

Porn has massive sourcing issues, and, IMO, if you consume porn without being able to vouch for its being exploitation-free, you're a creep.
— Nandita Saikia (@nsaikia) March 18, 2013

A Walk

Tweets on a recent #walk of about 1.5 km in Noida: Guy 1 on bike drives ahead, looking backwards at me • Guy 2 walks behind me singing +
— Nandita Saikia (@nsaikia) March 17, 2013

+ "Choot bana... [something, something]", disappears upon being ignored, I #walk across the road • Guy 3 on the otr side of the road sings +
— Nandita Saikia (@nsaikia) March 17, 2013

Against Absolute Equality

I don't support gender equality per se; socio-political constructs should be considered. Once that's done, egality emerges (not equality). +
— Nandita Saikia (@nsaikia) March 3, 2013

+ Find 'men & women are equal' arguments bizarre—they remind me of A France referring to both the rich & the poor not being allowed to beg.
— Nandita Saikia (@nsaikia) March 3, 2013

Engaging a Lawyer

A compilation of tweets comprising random thoughts on what to expect upon engaging a lawyer; these are, of course, personal (not professional) opinions:

MT @nsaikia: Experience alone isn't a substitute for knowledge. Don't get intimidated by lawyer referring to experience without explanation.
— Legally India (@LegallyIndia) February 20, 2013

If a lawyer says something that strikes you as odd, ask for a legal basis; it's ok to expect your lawyer to confirm using statute/case law.
— Nandita Saikia (@nsaikia) February 20, 2013

On Missing Being Abused

Note: This is an old diary entry (now edited) which I stumbled across. It is not intended to reflect the general experiences of women who have been in an abusive situation; I don't know if this is a common experience.

That horrible feeling of emptiness that you wake up to every so often to after it’s over. Nothing but memory to keep you company. And a void in the present. You rewrite history in your own mind, tell yourself that you misunderstood. That you exaggerated the unpleasantness. That it wasn’t quite as bad in the way you’ve convinced yourself it was. You think of the good which you’ve convinced yourself interspersed the not-so-good — you no longer even call it bad — and you focus on it.

There’s nothing now; neither kindness nor unkindness. Just a gaping void, and the memory of endless instructions. You do precisely the opposite of some of those you remember, just to make a point to yourself. That you’re your own person, and that you make your own choices. Except that you really have no idea of how to make your own choices. ‘Your’ choices, even when you’d been asked for them, almost invariably replicated his. It was safer not to use your own mind and less disappointing not to have your own desires since your priorities were yours alone.

Marital Rape and Sexual Assault Law

It would appear at first glance, that the premise underlying the Sexual Assault Ordinance is what may be the most complete expression of patriarchy imaginable: the ownership of some women by certain men. This basic premise seems to be evidenced over and over in the text of the Ordinance through what is made a criminal offence and what it not, and a theme which seems to run through the substantive amendments to the Indian Penal Code is that men who would historically have been considered to own or have various rights to specific women would not be held to be criminally liable for sexually assaulting those women. The Indian Penal Code, as Madhu Mehra has said, "continues to be steadfast to its patriarchal moorings."

The most glaring example of this is, of course, the non-criminalisation of marital rape of women with two exceptions: where the wife is under sixteen years of age or where the wife is ‘living separately under a decree of separation or under any custom or usage’ — this not a spectacular change from the law in force prior to the coming into effect of the Ordinance. What is a spectacular change from current law is that it may be possible to interpret the Ordinance (as Pratiksha Baxi has done) to prosecute a wife for having raped her husband, even though the wife would not be able to similarly prosecute her husband under the Ordinance. This is because, under the Ordinance, sexual assault itself is gender-neutral, and there is no exception to it when it comes to a wife engaging in sexual activity with her husband.

The argument made to defend the non-criminalisation of marital rape of women may be considered from three angles; three sub-arguments, if you will, all leading to the same result: that marital rape of women should not be treated as a crime. The first is roughly that women need to be cared for by their husbands (even if the husbands happen to be rapists) and, therefore, imprisoning rapist-husbands is undesirable. The second is that women would lie and misuse a law which criminalised marital rape of women in order to settle unrelated scores with their husbands or to blackmail them. And the third is that there is a difference between ‘forcible sex with wife’ and ‘rape’.

First Impressions of the Sexual Assault Ordinance

So, @prslegislative seems to have got hold of the text of the new Sexual Assault Ordinance: prsindia.org/uploads/media/… via @zerot0lerance



— Nandita Saikia (@nsaikia) February 4, 2013