论文部分内容阅读
The east Indian province where I grew up held many taboos. For a widow to remarry was frowned on， divorced women were dimly regarded， and girls were discouraged from wearing trousers.
As a result， we do not like bans. Therefore， I was against the Indian Government’s decision to ban India’s Daughter， a documentary by British filmmaker Leslee Udwin concerning a gang rape in New Delhi three years ago that even today， possesses the power to outrage for the sadistic actions of the six perpetrators， one of whom was in his teens.
Udwin interviewed one of the rapists in prison. She provides insight into a mentality of the attackers， who blame the 23-year-old victim for the fatal attack， and say the fact that the girl was out in the evening with a man demonstrated her lack of morality and that the attack was so severe—the rapists had disemboweled her with a metal rod—because she had resisted.
Udwin also interviewed two defense lawyers， who echoed the perpetrator. During the trial， one of them had claimed that he would immolate his daughter if she went out in the evening with a man.
It’s not just the rapists or their lawyers who feel this way. Dozens of societal leaders in India have been expressing similar sentiments since time immemorial. Despite protests by women’s rights organizations， no Indian Government has ever taken a firm stand on punishing the perpetrators of such crimes. Indeed， Udwin’s film served several important purposes. It highlighted the two lawyers condoning violence against women， which led the Bar Council to initiate proceedings that may lead to them being disbarred. The move came three years too late but now， the wheels of justice have been set in motion.
Additionally， Udwin’s film has stoked fresh outrage， sorely needed， given other developments. Around the same time as the Delhi attack， a woman was gang raped in Kolkata while returning home from a nightclub. One of the five attackers remains at large after three years and the trial has yet to conclude. The victim， who courageously campaigned for justice， died this month of meningitis.
While justice eludes hundreds of rape victims， the attacks continue. Now people in high places are being named as potential perpetrators. Last month， Rajendra Pachauri， Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with Al Gore， stepped down following sexual harassment allegations. The allegations came as a famous Indian author faced trial on rape charges. This month， a 70-year-old nun was sexually assaulted by a gang inside her convent in east India， showing how endemic the menace has become. So why then has Udwin’s film engendered such controversy？
Perhaps it is not the message but the messenger that is suspect. The New Delhi rape triggered sustained protests in India， with people from all sections of society demanding justice. This resulted in the institution of fast-track courts to try rape cases and amendment of several laws. All the perpetrators involved except the teen received the death sentence. The protests also emboldened other victims to seek police help versus the conventional practice of remaining silent owing to social stigma or reprisal.
However， all of this was ignored when the BBC decided to air the film on Women’s Day. A standalone portrayal of Indian women as mere victims misrepresents people who can now inherit property， prevent husbands from committing polygamy， and decry harassment at work. India has had a female prime minister and president； several provinces have women chief ministers who have risen from lower levels. Female scientists， athletes and writers have done the country proud. The world too needs to take such women into consideration when talking of India’s daughters.
The BBC’s broadcasting of the film despite Indian Government objections smacks of hypocrisy. This is the organization that spent tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money making a Princess Diana documentary and then pulled it for fear of upsetting the royal family. Not to mention the case of BBC presenter Jimmy Savile using his status to abuse young children. Not only did the BBC ignore the mounting evidence， but also shelved a report investigating the cases of abuse.
Reforms should begin at home. Perhaps the BBC should look at allegations that Britain’s Prince Andrew partook in orgies involving an underage “sex slave.”Abuse by men in power who evade punishment is far more serious than tried crimes since they encourage more of the same.
As a result， we do not like bans. Therefore， I was against the Indian Government’s decision to ban India’s Daughter， a documentary by British filmmaker Leslee Udwin concerning a gang rape in New Delhi three years ago that even today， possesses the power to outrage for the sadistic actions of the six perpetrators， one of whom was in his teens.
Udwin interviewed one of the rapists in prison. She provides insight into a mentality of the attackers， who blame the 23-year-old victim for the fatal attack， and say the fact that the girl was out in the evening with a man demonstrated her lack of morality and that the attack was so severe—the rapists had disemboweled her with a metal rod—because she had resisted.
Udwin also interviewed two defense lawyers， who echoed the perpetrator. During the trial， one of them had claimed that he would immolate his daughter if she went out in the evening with a man.
It’s not just the rapists or their lawyers who feel this way. Dozens of societal leaders in India have been expressing similar sentiments since time immemorial. Despite protests by women’s rights organizations， no Indian Government has ever taken a firm stand on punishing the perpetrators of such crimes. Indeed， Udwin’s film served several important purposes. It highlighted the two lawyers condoning violence against women， which led the Bar Council to initiate proceedings that may lead to them being disbarred. The move came three years too late but now， the wheels of justice have been set in motion.
Additionally， Udwin’s film has stoked fresh outrage， sorely needed， given other developments. Around the same time as the Delhi attack， a woman was gang raped in Kolkata while returning home from a nightclub. One of the five attackers remains at large after three years and the trial has yet to conclude. The victim， who courageously campaigned for justice， died this month of meningitis.
While justice eludes hundreds of rape victims， the attacks continue. Now people in high places are being named as potential perpetrators. Last month， Rajendra Pachauri， Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with Al Gore， stepped down following sexual harassment allegations. The allegations came as a famous Indian author faced trial on rape charges. This month， a 70-year-old nun was sexually assaulted by a gang inside her convent in east India， showing how endemic the menace has become. So why then has Udwin’s film engendered such controversy？
Perhaps it is not the message but the messenger that is suspect. The New Delhi rape triggered sustained protests in India， with people from all sections of society demanding justice. This resulted in the institution of fast-track courts to try rape cases and amendment of several laws. All the perpetrators involved except the teen received the death sentence. The protests also emboldened other victims to seek police help versus the conventional practice of remaining silent owing to social stigma or reprisal.
However， all of this was ignored when the BBC decided to air the film on Women’s Day. A standalone portrayal of Indian women as mere victims misrepresents people who can now inherit property， prevent husbands from committing polygamy， and decry harassment at work. India has had a female prime minister and president； several provinces have women chief ministers who have risen from lower levels. Female scientists， athletes and writers have done the country proud. The world too needs to take such women into consideration when talking of India’s daughters.
The BBC’s broadcasting of the film despite Indian Government objections smacks of hypocrisy. This is the organization that spent tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money making a Princess Diana documentary and then pulled it for fear of upsetting the royal family. Not to mention the case of BBC presenter Jimmy Savile using his status to abuse young children. Not only did the BBC ignore the mounting evidence， but also shelved a report investigating the cases of abuse.
Reforms should begin at home. Perhaps the BBC should look at allegations that Britain’s Prince Andrew partook in orgies involving an underage “sex slave.”Abuse by men in power who evade punishment is far more serious than tried crimes since they encourage more of the same.