Tragic death

[Delta40]

Is this tennis or ping pong?

[Paulclem]

In my view I think you broached the subject of FGM in the wrong way. You have stated that you don't agree with it, but seem to have subsumed this disgust with it to the intellectualism of anthropology. It seems you think that we don't understand cultural relativism as you've laid it out - hence your frequent repetitions, but I have no doubt we do. It's just that the relativism is considered secondary to the natural human reaction of revulsion towards a disfiguring practice.

If you had stated - as you already have - your disgust with the practice, and then gone on to explain why an anthropological approach would be more skillful than an outright ban, then I think we woud have had a different debate. Instead you came from a don't even consider it, it is best left alone attitude.

As for your equation with male circumcision, I think the difference lies in the fact that you don't hear of any traumatised men who have undergone this. I don't doubt that there are mistakes and infections etc, but the lasting trauma, physiological difficulties and cultural exclusion are not heard of. I don't mean to suggest that I support it - I have said that I feel it is a useless and redundant practice.

[MarkBastable]

I have already answered that. You just want to pretend you know Logic. Please stop. You're insulting your Logic professor.

And you are insulting everyone.

However, please stop avoiding the question.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Inflammatory and/or off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[Madhuri]

If you're from India and trying to present the phenomenon of rape in India as normal like in other countries, you're not helping your country. Babies and grannies are victims of rape in India. China is as big as your country, but I don't see/hear Chinese news detailing ordeals of raped kids in a daily basis. Throw away your pride and feel the shame. Only collective shame will make your countrymen change their culturally-accepted misogynistic attitude towards women.

What makes you think that I am proud of what happened here? How do you know nothing is being done to change from where we were to where we are/want to see ourselves? Reading online newspapers will never teach you anything about any country. The news is often sensationalized, sometimes benefiting the case and it sometimes provides masala news to some people who would read it and think that's enough to know about a nation.

This case is horrible for the girl and her family. Nothing takes away from that fact.

The wider questions raised also come because of the attack, and the problem is the inequalities which exist in India - particularly for women. I don't think you can get away from inequality to women/ attitudes to women/ caste because the caste situation creates and sustains inequality. This is particularly difficult for women who are vulnerable to negative influences and attitudes.

All rape cases are not related and cannot be always related to gender inequality or caste; I don't think we can generalise like.

Clearly anyone can have something unfortunate happen to them, but would it receive as much attention as it has done if the girl had been an untouchable?

It will, if it were picked up by media and highlighted like the way it has been done in the current case; and there are many instances of other such cases being highlighted.

It is thus difficult to come up with figures, but we have agencies in the UK which deal with victims beyond the criminal justice system. They regularly make statements and try to positively affect policy. It's not perfect, but what is? It can only improve. The work done has removed the stigma of rape for women to a greater extent than in the past, and attitudes are healthier than they were. Can you say that attitudes in India to a raped girl are healthy and that the stigma has been removed? It requires a very large cultural shift which will not happen overnight.

By the way, I don't know where Miyako is from or why they are so negative about India, or why China - that bastion of human rights - is held up as a good example in comparison.

Why might Indian police be less than approachable or sensitive to victims of rape, especially rape by strangers and, more especially, rape with assault? Are there cultural or historical factors that makes India different? Is community tolerance for honour killings somehow related?

The attitude is healthier when we compare ourselves with our past, but not as healthy when compared or other nations, such as the UK. The stigma is still there - what will happen to the girl's future, who will marry, or if the girl is married then it will have an impact on the whole family etc. etc. It is not considered good to get involved with the police not just in rape cases, but infact in anything because of the corruption and the way police deals with the victims or even the culprits. In rape cases, the amount of detail with which the police interrogates the victim is quite humiliating and more often to get some masala news, which is not required. This is one of the reasons that many cases are never reported thinking who will go to the police and be subject to such humiliation or who will fight the long court battles that can run for decades. It definitely has to do with the mindset of the people because even the police and support agency people come from the same society with the same thought process.

Media has a good role to play and I hope they continue highlighting more cases because we definitely need a drastic change not just in the laws but also in the attitude.

On the caste issue - being an upper caste does not mean that people have by default more privileges. There are upper-caste people who live in extreme poverty and are illiterate too; whereas there are lower-caste people who are affluent. As per the law, lower-caste people/tribes/obc's etc have a quota and reservation in everything. They get free education, food and even jobs are reserved for them, so much so that there are vacancies that remain unfilled and are never open to general candidates where the competition is more. Of course there is a lot more to castes than the very very high level picture that I have given you.

[Paulclem]

I think what you say in most of your post is fair and honestly self critical.

On the caste issue - being an upper caste does not mean that people have by default more privileges. There are upper-caste people who live in extreme poverty and are illiterate too; whereas there are lower-caste people who are affluent. As per the law, lower-caste people/tribes/obc's etc have a quota and reservation in everything. They get free education, food and even jobs are reserved for them, so much so that there are vacancies that remain unfilled and are never open to general candidates where the competition is more. Of course there is a lot more to castes than the very very high level picture that I have given you.

I have to say i am suspicious of the more affluent Indian's pronouncements upon poverty - though not of you as you seem honest in your response. I have heard and seen reactions to poverty from upper class Indians, and very uncomfortable they can be.