TheDaak review

OPINION

The recent rape, and subsequent murder, of a female medical professional in Kolkata has once again ignited public outrage and mass protests across India. This horrific incident brings back the memory of the 2012 Nirbhaya rape case in Delhi, which sparked nationwide demonstrations and eventually led to reforms in India’s rape laws.¹ However, the brutal reality is that little has changed – sexual violence against women remains endemic, while the perpetrators often evade stringent punishment. As people take to the streets demanding justice, it is worth reflecting on the deeper political dynamics at play.

The Paradox of ‘the People’ in India’s Democracy

The Preamble to our constitution begins with the words “We the people of India,” establishing the foundational principle of popular sovereignty. This phrase evokes a vision of a unified, empowered populace, which gives legitimacy to the Indian state. But such descriptions of ‘the people’ frequently hide a more complex reality. The public’s mobilisation around gender-based violence in India is complicated; there is a fundamental conflict between the state’s definition of ‘the people’ and the actual realities of the condition of women in India (the same can be said about other marginalized communities and minorities). In parliamentary democracies, ‘the people’ has become a category which the state uses to give itself legitimacy, rather than reflecting the genuine will and agency of the population (Badiou et al., 2016, pp. 24-25). Despite the constitutional proclamation of right to equality, the Indian state has consistently failed to uphold the rights and safety of women. This is portrayed by the concept of ‘exclusionary inclusion’ (Behl, 2019, pp. 2-5). This idea refers to the range of practices, norms, and discourses that formally include marginalized groups as citizens with equal rights, yet in reality exclude or restrict their full participation. In a deeply unequal society like India, with the coming of the constitution, all of India’s population was made equal by formally including them within the legal framework. But Patriarchal practices and gender norms in society excludes and prevents women from gaining formal equality. Thus, the name ‘exclusionary-inclusion’. For example, women in India are legally equal citizens but in practice face many barriers to exercising their rights and participation in public life. The recurring instances of brutal sexual violence, accompanied by delayed legal proceedings, inadequate punishment of perpetrators, vote bank politics around the victim etc. brings to the surface the disconnect between the state’s commitment to ‘the people’ and its actual realities and power structures.

The ‘non-existent’ in the Indian state

There are segments of the population that the state effectively renders ‘non-existent’. In the Indian context, women constitute a glaring example of this marginalized, “non-existent” portion of ‘the people’. Despite making up roughly half the country’s population, women’s voices and concerns have long been sidelined within India’s formal political structures. The representation of women in the Indian parliament hovers around 14% – well below the global average for national legislatures. This stark gender imbalance inevitably shapes the priorities and policy agenda of the state, leaving women’s fundamental rights and safety deprioritized. The endemic sexual violence that women in India face is not simply a matter of individual criminal acts, but a systemic issue rooted in the patriarchal power structures that permeate both society and the state apparatus. The state’s failure to address this crisis demonstrates how the official conception of ‘the people’ excludes women. 

India’s democratic institutions, rather than empowering women, have often served to co-opt and contain their demands via the process of tokenism and vote bank politics. The protests over sexual violence against women, then, must be understood within this broader context. Women are not merely seeking justice for individual crimes, but asserting their fundamental right to be recognized as equal. Their mobilization represents a refusal to accept the state’s narrow, elite-dominated conception of ‘the people’ and its structures of power and exclusion. This disconnect between the state’s rhetoric of inclusive, representative governance and the realities faced by the ‘non-existent’ is a profound source of political tension. By taking to the streets and demanding accountability, the protesters represent a refusal to accept the status quo.

Pathways to transformative change

The public outrage and mass protests following the Nirbhaya case did result in some legal reforms, including harsher punishments for rape and the establishment of fast-track courts to expedite sexual assault cases. However, the persistence of sexual violence in India suggests the insufficiency of such piecemeal interventions. Rape convictions remain dismally low, while the justice system’s procedural delays and systemic biases leave survivors betrayed and disempowered. The vilification and ‘othering’ of protesters, the harsh crackdowns on dissent, and the blatant politicization of victims all demonstrate the state’s determination to preserve its own authority rather than delivering justice.

If legal reforms and state-sanctioned interventions have proven insufficient, how then might the marginalized women of India chart a more empowering and transformative political path? These are situations where previously excluded or subordinated groups take matters into their own hands. The Kolkata and Nirbhaya protests exhibit glimmers of this kind of radical political rupture. By taking to the streets and asserting their rights and humanity in the face of state indifference, the protesters have refused to be mere objects of state. They come out of the passive nature of ‘the people,’ and make ‘the people’ political. The transformative potential of such mobilizations depends on their ability to maintain an organic connection with the wider populace. Only by expanding the political horizons of ‘the people’, can these movements achieve the kind of systemic change that meaningfully addresses the crisis of gender-based violence. This requires the proactive construction of new forms of political organization and collective action rooted in the lived realities of the ‘non-existent’. Ultimately, the path towards gender justice in India requires a fundamental reimagining of the country’s democratic project. It requires a confrontation with the state and the society’s role in sustaining patriarchal norms. It means ‘the people’ exercising their collective power, not as passive citizens waiting for state kindness, but as actual actors of political reform. In doing so, they may create a new, more inclusive, and fair definition of ‘the people’ – one that reflects the full diversity and aspirations of India’s long-silenced women population.

References

1. Badiou, A., Butler, J., Didi-Huberman, G., Khiari, S., Rancière, J., Bourdieu, P. (2016). What Is a People?. United States: Columbia University Press.
2. Behl, N. (2019). Gendered Citizenship: Understanding Gendered Violence in Democratic India. United States: Oxford University Press.
3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/how-nirbhaya-case-changed-rape-laws-in-india/articleshow/72868366.cms

Note

1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/how-nirbhaya-case-changed-rape-laws-in-india/articleshow/72868366.cms ↩︎

---

Prabhat Sharma has completed his M.A from Centre for Political studies (CPS), JNU and is currently a PhD candidate at Central University of Rajasthan, Ajmer.