DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - THE SHADOW PANDEMIC

‘DOMESTIC VIOLENCE’ - THE SHADOW PANDEMIC:

“The brightest flame casts the darkest shadow.”     - George R. R. Martin

Covid-19/Coronavirus disease has indeed become one of the brightest flames claiming not only millions of lives and livelihoods across the Globe, but also casting some ugly shadows that are as dark, if not more, as the pandemic itself. To combat such a ferocious virus, India was forced to go for lockdown which not only brought the nation to a stand-still, but also paved way for many suppressed realities of our society to emerge out in open and run parallelly as “Shadow Pandemics”, one such being “Domestic Violence against Women”.

The statistics provided by the National Commision of Women, India, shows a drastic increase in the number of domestic violence cases reported during lockdown in the country, and this paper is an attempt to understand the reasons for the same. 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND PATRIARCHY:

‘Domestic Violence against Women’ is a crime that is placed in the misogyny of the societal setup. As the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men puts it:

“Violence against women is a question of power, of the need to dominate and control. This in turn is rooted in the organization of society, itself based on inequality between the sexes. The meaning of this violence is clear: it is an attempt to maintain the unequal relationship between men and women and to perpetuate the subordination of women.” 

“Traditionally the basis of social differentiation was biological as women had to undergo the process of child bearing and rearing and men were predisposed for earning livelihood for the family. They were assigned the role of father and husband and treated as heads of household under a patriarchal system. This, in turn, made them centres of power, resource, property, etc., where women were restricted to the husband and children through the institution of marriage and family. The dependence on men resulted in an unequal distribution of power relation in the family.”

THE PROVISIONS OF THE PWDVA AND ANALYSIS OF THE DEFINITION OF ‘DOMESTIC VIOLENCE’ AND DISPARITY IN THE ABUSES INTER SE:

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (PWDVA) was considered as a victory of a battle long fought. It was devised to protect women from the abusive hands and minds of the people who are her ‘family’. The provisions of the Act are indeed commendable as it provides for, inter-alia, a very extensive and an inclusive definition of ‘domestic violence’; Protection Officers; assistance mechanisms; right to a shared household; right to an alternate accommodation; Protection Orders; right of removal of the perpetrators of violence from the shared household and the like and in addition to all these reliefs, compensatory reliefs are also provided for. However, the benefits of all these accrue to a victim of abuse only when the act complained of is considered as “domestic violence” and hence the definition of “domestic violence” becomes the backbone of the legislation. Chapter II, Section 3 of the Act defines “Domestic Violence”. It lays down that, inter alia, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the Respondent which harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so is “domestic violence” and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse.  Thus, it sub-categorises the abuses into four, namely, physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, and economic abuse. 

When it comes to the matters of a family confined to four walls, where the access to truth, precision and reality is too dim and the act/s complained of cannot be viewed in isolation but through the entirety of the situation and circumstances, the overall consideration of various factors involved behind the alleged act of abuse becomes primordial for a meaningful interpretation of “domestic violence”. For some women, a slap on the face may not justify as an ‘abuse’ as it has become their way of life, which ideally should change; but for some others, mere ‘silence’ by the Respondent/s in a situation that warranted his/their words may become an abuse. For some women, a slap behind closed doors is not an abuse but the same in the presence of others may become an abuse. I cite these examples to highlight the importance of Explanation II to the definition under the Act and that, according to me, is the most important tool provided under the Act which has to be exercised diligently.

In a famous English case of R. v. Dhaliwal, the husband continually undermined and demeaned his wife for a long period of time, before she finally committed suicide. Each act looked at separately might have been regarded as no more than an unpleasant remark, a cruel insult at worst. The English Court of Appeal was also unable to find an offence committed by him. However, once the final act of suicide was seen in the broader context of prolonged and regular subjection to belittling remarks, the impact of which were such that she was reduced to committing suicide, it was difficult to miss the severity of the alleged behavior. 

When a woman runs to a police station to complain about an emotional abuse caused by the indifferent attitude of her husband, the first set of questions that she has to cross through is, does he hit you? or does he force for sex? or does he insult you? and if the answers to these questions run in the negative, then the abuse becomes ‘trivial’ and the woman becomes ‘silly’. This is so because an ‘emotional abuse’ by the ‘indifferent attitude’ of the ‘husband/partner’ is no abuse at all. This episode speaks a lot about the efficiency of PWDVA. Such an approach towards the ‘emotional abuse’ is not only placing it below in the hierarchy of abuses but is also creating a disparity in our approach towards the various kinds of abuses enshrined in the Act. The emotional, verbal and economic abuses are not only compared and contrasted with that of physical and sexual abuses every time, but are also undermined because they are deemed to be less graver than the physical and sexual abuses. Undoubtedly, physical and sexual abuses are harsher as they inflict both physical as well as mental pains, but that does not justify ignoring and undermining the other kinds of abuses mentioned in the Act, which, if done, defeats the whole purpose of the Act itself. 

Physical and sexual injuries are offences under the criminal law as well. They are invariably visible and hence, tough to be denied. But when the act complained of involves an emotional or a verbal or an economic injury, such injuries are not visible and thus become subject to the subjective analysis of the ‘men’ in authority and if it passes the test, it becomes an abuse, otherwise it fails to even reach the book of law. This is one of the huge drawbacks of the PWDVA which leaves such abuses to the mercy and understanding of an individual concerned and his subjective approach.

Another reason for such a disparity between the four abuses to exist is, in reality the word “omission” present in the definition of ‘domestic violence’ has almost become redundant. Majority of the reported cases of domestic violence pertain to the ‘commission’ of an act amounting to ‘abuse’ but do not consider ‘omission’ or abstaining from the duties/obligations cast upon the Respondent/s towards the well-being of a woman as an abuse.  In other words, the definition casts both positive and negative duties on the Respondent, while the ‘Negative duty’ requires him not to do acts that endanger/harm the well-being (mental or physical) of an aggrieved person, the ‘Positive duty’ requires doing of acts that are towards the welfare and well-being of the aggrieved person. However, if a case of an omission to do a particular act towards the well-being of an aggrieved person is reported to the police or any such like authority, it fails to gain any attention whatsoever, as it is again compared with the commission of some overt acts of violence/abuse and thus ends up as ‘less graver’ form of abuse or no abuse at all.

Watching a woman harm herself physically or mentally when pushed to that state by any person or circumstances and doing nothing about it, is a form of physical abuse too. Subjecting a woman to exertion by denying a helping hand to her in times of a lockdown where there is no domestic help, is again a form of physical abuse. Deliberate abstinence from fulfilling the sexual needs of a woman is a form of sexual abuse. Reluctance towards the emotional requirements of a woman is an emotional abuse too. Limiting the financial resources for a home so as to satisfy one’s luxurious self-needs is a form of economic abuse. All these are instances where an abuse is caused not by ‘commission’ of a violent act, but by ‘omission’ of a duty. Unfortunately, the term ‘domestic violence’ in India has become almost synonymous with only the infliction of pain/injury by doing acts of violence but does not cover under it the ‘non-doing’ of acts of kindness and care which are the foundations on which an intimate relationship like that of a marriage or the like, stands on.

In the case of Vajresh Venkatraman Anvekar vs. State of Karnataka, the complainant-wife committed suicide pursuant to being tortured and slapped by husband and his other relatives, and the Learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the husband and other accused, held as follows: 

“........Therefore, giving one or two beatings is not cruelty to drive the deceased to commit suicide.”

While setting aside this holding of the Learned Sessions Judge as “perverse”, the Apex Court held as follows:

“28. The tenor of the judgment suggests that wife-beating is a normal facet of married life. Does that mean giving one or two slaps to a wife by a husband just does not matter? We do not think that that can be a right approach.…..Assault on a woman offends her dignity. What effect it will have on a woman depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be any generalisation on this issue.….The above quoted extracts add to the reasons why the learned Sessions Judge's judgment can be characterised as perverse. They show a mindset which needs to change…..”

Unfortunately, not all such cases reach and can afford to reach the Apex Court in India for it to intervene and lay down the real meaning of ‘dignity to life’ and therefore, such abuses and the victims of such abuses see their death in this: “Therefore, giving one or two beatings is not cruelty to drive the deceased to commit suicide.”

DISPARITY IN THE DOMESTIC ABUSES VIS-A-VIS THE CRISIS OF A PANDEMIC:

The point that I wish to drive home by the aforementioned discussion is that, unless the ‘omission’ to do acts towards the well-being of a woman is also brought under the purview of ‘domestic violence’, the true purpose of the PWDVA remains partially achieved. And that explains the increase in the number of domestic violence cases against women across the Globe and in India during a crisis like that of a lockdown. The word omission has been omitted from the minds of people which requires them to consider the woman-partner of the family as an ‘equal’ and thus contribute positively towards her physical and mental well-being by sharing her burdens and not as a cushion that is there to absorb the frustrations and tensions of men at her home. Most of the domestic violence cases reported during lockdown pertain to men denying help in doing house chores or other such works and thus women getting exerted; abuse from an alcoholic withdrawn husband; restrictions on movements to maternal places or any other such deemed safe places; frustrations of job and income issues being vented out on woman; frequent quarrels at home over economic issues; and most importantly, the expected police apathy towards the domestic violence cases in times of a lockdown which has already over-burdened them, and the like. 

The overview of these complaints make us realise that there is a need for us to change our way of looking at ‘domestic violence’ cases. Most of these would not even satisfy the definition of ‘domestic violence’ previously, unless it involved some form of physical/sexual/emotional/economic injury, as mere failure to do some positive acts towards the well-being of the woman of the house was deemed to be no abuse at all. All the existing socio-legal mechanisms like that of NGOs, police, lawyers, law-makers, judiciary, local administrators, panchayats, and the like, have greatly fallen short by giving such a narrow interpretation to ‘domestic violence‘, and thus, should step-up now and broaden their vision and mindset about ‘domestic violence/abuse’, otherwise the object of the whole Act gets compromised. 

In addition to this, the service of the ‘Protection Officers’ provided under the Act should come under the “essential services” for them to be effective during a crisis like that of the current one, otherwise the women with no means to seek help will suffer enormously. In regard to the fear of the victims of domestic abuse vis-a-vis the over-crowding of ‘shelter homes’ during a lockdown, and thus their failure to report such abuses, the Government should step-in to ensure that it will be the perpetrators of abuse that shall be removed from the household and not the victims, and thereby put the provisions of the PWDVA to a meaningful use.

CONCLUSION WITH SUGGESTIONS:

‘Domestic violence against women’ is a crime that happens behind the closed door between people emotionally involved and linked intimately. It is a very heavy load on the victim that has the capability of breaking homes and lives associated with it, if reported. It is an offense that umbrellas various variables like educational, social, economic, and religious backgrounds, societal status, individual principles and the like of the parties involved. Therefore, it is almost impossible to have a universal definition of this crime and should be that way. The true purpose and meaning of the PWDVA will be achieved only when each case is studied in isolation, objectively, and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances involved, and then applying the parameters of ‘domestic violence’ as laid down in the Act.

Time has come to not only ensure that every woman of the land is free from infliction of any kind of physical pain on her body, but also is shielded well when it comes to the abuses that are bulleted into her emotional sphere. Mental health and hygiene is as important as that of physical health and hygiene and therefore, emotional/verbal/economic abuses which may not touch a woman's body per se, are still abuses and there is no right for anyone to to snatch away the rights of a victim of these abuses by placing them in comparison or in contrast to physical/sexual abuses. 

Women, irrespective of their class, age or region, are made the primary custodian of the home-management affairs in two ways, one, they are shredded with these responsibilities as a matter of right without knowing their individual wish and will, and two, they are judged adversely if they do not wish to take up these responsibilities. Biological responsibilities of a woman like that of rearing a child or breast-feeding a baby and the like are understandably to be done by her only, but these socially tailored practices made in the name of ‘division of labor’ without taking the consent of the woman involved, to systematically keep her away from the sources of authority and power and satisfy one’s selfish ends, should stop. The Stone Age is long gone, and so should these. This so-called ‘division of labor’ has not just remained a matter of convenience of each house, subject to the mutual arrangements of the partners involved, but has become a deep rooted thought and phenomenon in the minds of people, including both men and women. Therefore, I feel, the current pandemic crisis or not, such a still-existing patriarchal mind-set of people at large has always been a big hurdle in giving the true meaning to the provisions of the PWDVA or for that matter, any other woman-oriented law, and thus the same has to change.

And lastly, it is high time now that men not only stop hitting a woman or force her for sex, but move a step ahead and shun the idea of being 'seen blind and heard deaf' on seeing a woman in distress, and do something positively towards her well-being and give her the dignity and respect that she deserves and are rightfully hers.