When D K Ravi the victim triumphed over D K Ravi the 'villain'

The public stood firm in its demand for a CBI probe into the IAS officer's death despite selective leaks about his personal life. But such attempts to tarnish a victim is an old strategy, particularly in complaints of rape and sexual harassment

When the news that IAS officer DK Ravi had been found dead in his apartment in Bengaluru broke, there was an outpouring of grief at the sudden death of a young officer who was not afraid to take on corruption, which turned to anger that the unnatural death was not being probed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). At the same time, reports began to appear in some newspapers, quoting anonymous sources, that Ravi had been in love with a married batch-mate, had been pursuing her relentlessly and had made over 40 calls to her the day he died. As additional chief secretary Madan Gopal told Business Standard, it looked like selective leaks were being made to reduce the intensity of people’s anger. The victim, Gopal said, was being made the villain.

Unfortunately, this strategy of questioning the “morality” of the victim is used all too often, particularly in instances of women who complain about rape or sexual harassment. Take the West Bengal government’s response to complaints of rape in her state. “No matter where the culprits are, strongest action will be taken against them. We are fully committed to that,” Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had told reporters a week ago after visiting the victim of a gang-rape. But three years ago, the same Banerjee dubbed another gang-rape in Kolkata a “sajano ghotona”, a concocted incident. Then Trinamool Congress minister Madan Mitra thought the important question was why the victim had been out late at night while member of Parliament Kakoli Ghosh is reported to have told a TV channel: “The incident... was not a rape at all. It was a misunderstanding between two parties involved in professional dealing — a woman and her client.”

Why were the reactions a world apart from each other, though the crime was the same? Because in one, the victim was a 71-year-old nun while in the other, it was Suzette Jordan, a single mother, who loved going out dancing and enjoyed a drink. A nun could not possibly have been “asking for it” while, in Jordan’s case, the victim was indeed the villain. When I read Banerjee’s response to the rape of the nun, I wondered if the unfairness of it all would have stung Jordan, had she been alive today.
 

The attempts to cast aspersions on the victim is aided by our own typecasting, both of victims and perpetrators. Everything needs to be black and white -- victim must be “good”, perpetrator “bad”. When we look through this prism, “He/she is not that type of person” is a classic response while defending perpetrators, while victims will get sympathy only if we see them fit to be put on a pedestal, particularly when it comes to women who have been victims of sexual assault.

In the case of Ravi, the public thumbed their nose at the reports that he might be an adulterer and stood their ground in demanding a thorough inquiry by CBI. If only our elected representatives could take a leaf from their book before making statements about victims' personal lives, what they were wearing or what time of the day they chose to go out.