WHO GOT PUNISHED- THE KNIFE OR THE MURDERER?

 I still remember that morning of February 2017, waking up at a Government Guest House in Kochi when the shocking news of well-known actor being raped in a moving car was reported.  The first thought that came into my mind was ‘This is not a normal rape; somebody is behind this’. I chided myself for even thinking that way at that moment. 

Why would anyone even think of getting another person raped in this age and time? Can a human being be filled with so much of vengeance? 

 

My own experience has been that this is not impossible. Whether it is Bhanwari Devi way back in 1992 where upper caste men raped her in front of her husband and son as a means to teach her a lesson or my own self 35 years back when I was targeted with a sexual assault as some men in the village where I was involved in a neo literacy campaign  thought I was getting too big for my boots and was influencing young girls the wrong way. 

 

After fighting sex trafficking and sex crime for over 30 years I have learnt sexual assault can be inflicted to teach a lesson, to humiliate, to build fear so that no others will raise their voice or for even a petty reason to settle scores.

 

But who could be so deeply bitter, inside or outside the film industry to target a well- known face that was a mystery!  How can anyone fall so low to commission a ‘Quotation Rape’? 

 

The days that followed, demonstrated an unprecedent awakening. The entire Malayalam film industry was forced to wake up. A first of its kind collective solidarity was openly seen in a public meeting. Emotional speeches were made; justice was demanded. 

 

As the information trickled into the public domain, things became clearer. The sexual assault was meant to be a sextortion weapon as the act was being recorded. The rapist and his five accomplice did not think that the actor will ever report this. They had planned the act not just to permanently keep the person in silence but also keep her intimidated. Their plan miserably failed as the actor not only reported but geared up for a legal battle. The profile that emerged regarding these six men was that of 'contract criminals' who committed a crime when given a contract or quotation with a pre-defined amount. 

 

But the question remained in my mind, for whom are  these 'contarct criminals' doing this? Who is behind this? What is their motive?

 

In the weeks and months that followed, the story became murkier by the minute. 

The initially arrested six men became the reason for the angle of criminal conspiracy to slowly unfold. A male actor who was also a producer and distributor became the prime focus. Just that description should be indicative of how powerful this person could be. The Special Investigation Team of Police was working overtime. 

The sensational case had shaken the public conscience in a big way and women in the film industry for the first time started speaking in a ‘intolerant tone’ indicating that women in large numbers were facing sexual harassment rampantly within the industry and require a collective platform for their voices to be heard. 

For the first time in the history of the country a’ Women’s Cinema Collective’ was founded with like-minded women and men within the film industry as an emotional and legal support system for anybody within the industry who is going through such an ordeal.  

 

This collective pushed the Government to set up a committee to study the sexual harassment faced by women in the film industry. The Government set up the ‘Hema Committee’. At the face of it, the Government was desperately trying to maintain the narrative that they were prioritizing this matter at the highest level. But time clearly showed how hypocritical this was. The Hema Committee Report after being submitted was kept under lock and key for over 4 years until public pressure pushed the Government to finally bring the edited version of the report to the public domain.  Again, due to public pressure some measures were taken, which in my opinion was pure hogwash. In any case they had to maintain pretenses for a favorable public image. 

In the meantime, some of the active members of the collective faced their own set of backlashes for the choices they made. This was clearly seen in their lesser or diminished presence in films. Sadly, even the well-wishing financiers /investors could not come forward in acts of solidarity to salvage their careers.    

 

In the meantime, the case was moving at a snail pace with multiple allegations floating everywhere. The male actor who was arrested, remanded and later came out on bail   was represented by a high-profile lawyer who was using all legal loopholes to delay the proceedings. Over 200 witnesses were being examined. Many turned hostile and that is not very surprising. 

Since the case had media attention, anything and everything was reported. Channels also had to position themselves to maintain public image. More than standing for ‘justice’ it felt compelled to play the role of the jury clearly giving their final judgement. 

The scenes inside the court were no less dramatic, with prosecutors walking out and repeated request by the survivor to change the judge. 

For nearly a decade, the survivor waited patiently for justice with never allowing despair to consume her.     

 

After 8 years, the verdict was out. The first six who appeared in the first FIR were convicted, the rest four including the actor were acquitted of all charges. Conveniently all allegations of a criminal conspiracy went for a toss! 

Some petty criminals just went about raping a high-profile person and recording the dastardly act and nobody was behind it! Is that even possible?

 

All the statements made by the convicted criminals indicates that the male actor was the conspirator. The acquitted actor vehemently denies and is threatening legal action. 

Does that mean, he will file case against the convicted six who mentioned his name and described his involvement in detail?  Does that also mean he will also go behind those who were behind his name being mentioned and had given evidence in the court?

 

Did everyone involved in this shameful case of ‘Quotation Rape’ get punished?  Or is it the same case of some lower executors getting punished and the kingpin remaining at large?

 

I hope like so many other cases like the ‘Nithari Case’ where despite dead bodies of little babies being recovered in the same house the main accused is acquitted and the truth is buried forever; does not happen in this case.

 

The truth should come out. 

Is the person now acquitted innocent?  And if he is, then who is the real culprit?

 

As a survivor, I salute this brave woman who has survived this heinous crime, was under public scrutiny for years and still did not lose hope or her drive to fight for justice. I also salute all those who stood bravely as witnesses and testified despite the real risk of retribution.

 

While saluting is just a symbolic gesture, the real solidarity will be in continuing to support the survivor to unravel the truth and expose those behind such monstrosity.      

 

 

 

       

 

 

            

FEAR AND SILENCE

 

Just yesterday, Sonam Wangchuck, the face of the relentless movement of Ladakhi’s to be recognized as a state or to be included in the six schedule was arrested. This arrest comes after violence in Leh two days back and the Government’s position that Wangchuck played a catalyst role in the same. 

I may not differ with the Government’s point of view as I was personally appalled listening to his interview with Rajdeep Sardesai on Indian Today. To my ears, it sounded as if he was justifying the violence and kind of saying that ‘you asked for this’. In fact, many of his twitter video posts for the last few days indicate what could happen if the Government does not pay heed to people’s voices. Drawing parallels of what happened in Nepal and Bangladesh in my opinion also did not sound fine. Where is the connection?   

 

Could all of that be considered as a ‘threat content’ or as the voice of a person firmly grounded with the community who is just voicing the community’s frustration?  

 

I personally do not know Sonam Wangchuck. I have only watched him from far and have always considered him as the best activist in the country who has used social media especially twitter for his movement. Through his videos we came to understand the legitimate aspirations of the community. I found him sensible and balanced giving a very clear perspective of the situation; expressing gratitude and progress when required and alerting when there was a red flag. Unlike many other activists who depending on their ideological positioning will only speak negative about others, Wangchuck differed. He would be the first person to speak and acknowledge when there was even an inch of progress coming from the other side. 

 

So, what went wrong? When MHA was continuing to hold meetings with the leaders and the channels of communication was actively open, why did Wangchuck start the protest? Was it because the explicit promises made did not seem to be going anywhere near to realization and the talks felt shallow?

 

I have great reservation when constantly the civil society movement is attacked for getting foreign funds. Any movement across the world requires funding. While our own in our country are least bothered about what happens in another country until it directly does not hit you in some way, there are many globally who think otherwise. Some of them might also have their own agendas in extending support. All of us seek funds from our own countrymen and from others in foreign shores; some more, some less. 

 

But every time when the voice of dissent is loud, actions to suppress the voice is manifested by cancelling foreign funding license is not a fair response. The unfairness lies in the fact that many activists like Wangchuck have pioneered transformative work on the ground and that should not be affected because they chose to fight for their community in a way that is now not very acceptable to the authorities.   

 

While I have no opinion to place regarding detention of Sonam Wangchuck under National Safety Act and any other criminal proceedings that the Government is planning; I can only say this creates an aura of fear regarding raising your voice even if it is the most balanced one. A well-known political leader the other day was saying ‘why is Indian diaspora in America not speaking up against H1B or the tariffs? My answer to him would be ‘fear Sir fear’. Today even the most accomplished Indian American who has contributed much to make America Great can be packed off if he/she raises a dissenting voice. 

Is that the kind of environment we want in our country. A fear that silences many? 

 

I think it is also important to reflect at such times which is bigger the ‘person’ or the “cause”. In my considered opinion the ones who are holding power should be mindful about this and ensure that the legitimate aspirations of the people of Ladakh is heard and the promises made are fulfilled. By allowing a ‘individual face’ above ‘legitimate rights’ I think it becomes a distraction tactic which should not be entertained at any cost. The people’s struggle was for a legitimate reason, and those talks should continue and quickly reach a logical conclusion that is acceptable for the people living there. 

 

Having said all this it is also important for us also to reflect why do peaceful protests that has gone on for years suddenly become violent? Why do people feel they are not heard until they don’t do something drastic to attract one’s attention? Why are genuine aspirations of the people which should be rightfully supported never given its due? Why do systems fail the citizens and they are compelled to seek more attention seeking options that will get them the negotiating space. It is not a pleasant journey when one must fight for every inch for what is rightfully yours. 

My conviction is compassionate listening, open communication and decisive action, and will go a long way in curbing explosion of violent streaks in any human being.        

   

           

What is ‘Rarest of the Rare’?

On 20^th June 2025 two major verdicts were passed in two different corners of our country. One in southern tip of Kerala and the other in the Eastern tip of West Bengal.

The one from West Bengal was a much awaited one. This is a case of a doctor being raped and murdered in a hospital. This case had generated large scale national outrage, politicized to some extent and some weird suspected foul play by the state government which was well publicized. Notwithstanding that, the Chief Minister of the state made a big show of marching on the street with protestors and generally going around promising sun, moon and stars as justice for the family. The crime was heinous, Barkha Dutt a journalist of much repute summarizes it “the doctor at RG Kar hospital was killed from smothering and manual strangulation, her body had 16 external injuries - abrasions on the cheeks, lips, nose, neck, arms and knees - and 9 internal injuries, including to her private parts”. 

The national outrage, sustained protests by the doctors, the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) taking over the case, the multiple political proclamation and speedy trial, all of it reassured the general public that ‘capital punishment’ will be hundred percent awarded. To everybody’s dismay the court declared that this was not a ’rarest of rare’ case and awarded ‘life imprisonment till the end of natural life’ as punishment. 

 

On the very same day and perhaps at about the same time another verdict was being passed in Kerala. This was a young woman about 24years old who had murdered her boyfriend by giving him a ayurvedic concoction mixed with a lethal herbicide. The motive of the murder was to eliminate the boyfriend after he refused to step back even after the young woman’s marriage was fixed with somebody else. The woman had made a failed attempt to kill him a month earlier which was the clinching point to award her ‘capital punishment’ by the Hon’ble Court. This conviction has the distinction of being the youngest woman to be awarded with capital punishment in Kerala. The judge in his judgement stated that the criminal mindset beyond reformation that the woman displayed makes it a deserving case for this quantum of punishment.  

 

Now the question that comes to my mind is what is ‘rarest of rare case’?  How did the first case not qualify to be rare especially considering the fact that it was a busy hospital and the young doctor was resting in a vacant conference hall. The brutality of the murder and the horrifying injuries on her private parts shook the conscience of the nation. Doesn’t this deserve the most stringent punishment that any court can award especially in a context of gender justice? For 75 years the society and the Government has struggled to ensure equitable access to opportunities for women. Women in medicine or any other professional space has come after years of sustained efforts to reduce gender discrimination. And in such a scenario if a woman that too a doctor is raped and murdered in her work place what is the impact of it on millions of parents who will now think twice to send their daughters to work?  Shouldn’t the corridors of justice also consider the cascading message that a judgement sends to perpetrators and potential perpetrators?

I am not in any way saying that the second case did not deserve a stringent punishment. The appalling criminal mindset of the woman to invite the young man to her house promising sexual intimacy and ruthlessly poisoning him which led to his death 11 days later deserves the most stringent punishment. Combined with the fact that she had made a previous attempt a month back only shows that she is a hard core criminal. But would this be a ‘rarest of rare’ case I have my own doubts.  A very interesting outcome of this judgement has been a strong lobby now demanding for a ‘Commission for Men’ on the lines of ‘Women’s Commission’ to address the grievances of men who are subjected to violence by women. That is separate matter altogether but suffice to say every judgement has a social impact which goes a long way in changing the mindset of the community regarding crime and punishment. 

 

It is high time in my opinion, for the legal luminaries to really apply their mind on what would constitute ‘rarest of rare’. Of course how one can even imagine a rarest case is beyond me but at least some clear parameters could be laid down taking into consideration the larger impact on the society and the message the judgement  should convey.

 

While I am not somebody who believes in ‘eye for an eye’ but I definitely believe that a heinous crime deserves a commensurate punishment that the legal framework provides. I also believe that a cancerous growth has to be removed whether it is in the body or in the society, there is only that much that can be achieved by curative means.