In the debates
following the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against
Women observed a few days ago, some critical issues have come to the
fore. Is it time to advocate for a completely separate apparatus of
courts, law enforcement mechanisms and laws for women? What are the
strengths and limits of such a proposal?
The issue of separate courts for women or family disputes has been a
subject of debate for many years. A number of states have already set
up special courts for women, including Maharashtra, with proposals
pending in Karnataka and Delhi. These courts have taken on different
incarnations at the state level with the Maharashtra courts designated
as family courts to deal with family disputes and matrimonial matters;
the Delhi courts are intended to deal exclusively with rape cases.
However, the idea behind the special courts is to deal speedily with
atrocities against women.
In 2006, a Bill to set up special courts for women was introduced in
the Lok Sabha. The courts are intended to deal primarily with offences
of rape, criminal assault, mental injury and sexual harassment against
women. The courts are to be presided over by a chief judge, with
additional judges appointed depending on the requirement in specific
cases, and at least half of the judges’ posts are to be reserved for
women.
The idea behind these special courts is that they will provide speedy
justice to women and be women-friendly as well. These courts are also
intended to provide a more private space for women, especially to rape
victims who are frequently traumatised by the trial process that
currently exists.
The idea of separate women police cells has also been mooted from time
to time. The Centre has been advising state governments regarding the
steps that need to be taken, especially at the level of law
enforcement, to afford greater protection to women and in particular to
prevent crimes against them. These advisories include gender
sensitisation of the police, adopting appropriate measures for swift
and effective punishment to public servants found guilty of custodial
violence against women, minimising delays in investigations of murder,
rape and torture of women and setting up ‘crimes against women cells’
in districts where they do not exist.
The National Commission for Women has also undertaken visits to various
states to review the status of women and conduct its own investigations
in certain cases of serious incidents of crime against women. The
commission’s findings indicate that the level of sensitivity and care
with which crimes against women are handled is woefully inadequate. It
has also observed that the filing of FIRs even in acutely abusive or
violent cases continues to be a problem.
The setting up of women police cells is one of the ways in which to
alleviate these problems.
Finally, the idea of specific laws for women is provided for in the
Indian Constitution. Laws against dowry, rape, sexual harassment and
domestic violence have all been enacted on the basis of empirical
evidence that such crimes are experienced primarily by women and that
these experiences need to be specifically addressed in law. The
constitutional provisions that enable such gender specific laws are
intended to ensure women’s right to equality.
While proposals for separate courts, police cells and specific laws for
women are demands that women themselves are making, there is a need to
be attentive to the ways in which such initiatives might actually
boomerang.
Addressing women’s issues of violence in a separate court structure
could sequester women’s issues into a dark corner, where reports of
violence and abuse become muted. The role of the media in bringing the
spotlight to bear on issues of violence has been crucial.
Similarly, the assumption that women police cells would increase
sensitivity towards female victims is not necessarily true. Unless
there is also a simultaneous change in the thinking around women as
subjects of rights rather than merely subordinate to male authority,
the ‘manning’ of police cells by women is not per se going to make much
difference.
Finally, the constitutional provision that enables laws to be enacted
for women’s benefit can be a double-edged sword. When women are treated
as a ‘special group’ then assumptions about their inferiority, lack of
decision-making capacity, weakness and passivity can be reinforced.
These laws could end up reinforcing gender stereotypes and becoming a
highly protectionist response to women, rather than being liberating.
Such has been the case in the area of anti-trafficking interventions,
which often collapse women’s migration with trafficking and result in
increased restrictions on women’s movement and higher levels of
scrutiny over women’s sexual conduct.
Similarly, sexual harassment guidelines and codes of conduct have
inadvertently led to a censoring of sexual speech and conduct in the
workplace. Such initiatives have literally resulted in sexual
sanitisation, the further stigmatisation of sex as well as the
curtailment of space for women’s sexual autonomy. When calling for
special provisions, activists, advocates and policymakers need to
ensure that such initiatives are framed as affirmative action measures,
designed to eliminate the historical disadvantage women have
experienced. Such measures are temporary and directed towards producing
a more woman-positive environment.
The history of ‘separate, but equal’ has demonstrated that such calls
can reinforce and reproduce the very discrimination and stereotypes
that such initiatives are intended to eliminate.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorial/LEADER_ARTICLE_Separate_And_Unequal/articleshow/2595895.cms
Copyright
© 2007 Times Internet Limited.
