Kolkata Rape-Murder Case: Trading Freedom for Security

The country has been shocked by the gruesome Kolkata rape. Once again, a promising young woman has been silenced most cruelly. We all became part of token marches, night vigils and social media posts.

Suddenly, similar reports started pouring in from all over the country, the Badlapur sexual assault case being the most prominent one. This news sends shivers down my spine as a mother of a 2.5-year-old daughter. I enquire about camera access in her playschool and get panic attacks thinking about her future in this country.

I suspect that I will also become an anxious mother like many others. It is quite ironic that a woman who once raised slogans for ‘bekhauf azadi’ (fearless freedom) is today thinking about how she will justify policing her daughter.

The women’s movement has always walked on a double-edged sword. Whenever women start challenging patriarchy by participating in the labour force and collectively bargaining for their rights, incidents such as these derail the movement.

This news sends shivers down my spine as a mother of a 2.5-year-old daughter.

These mishappenings make freedom negotiable. When the State cannot ensure safety and freedom, citizens are forced to voluntarily curb their freedom. So, late night shifts or offsite visits are avoided, all girls’ schools are preferred and participation in the labour force becomes need-based and not a choice. An unsafe State indirectly supports curfew for girls and regressive parents. In short, nothing changes, and patriarchy continues uninterrupted.

Gender-based violence is rooted in deep-seated gender inequalities and underscores the persistent challenges that women face in their quest for equality and safety. The impact of horrifying cases such as the Kolkata rape case or the Badlapur sexual assault case reverberates through society, often undermining the progress made by feminist movements and reinforcing patriarchal norms that the women’s movement strives to dismantle.

Reinforcement of victim-blaming culture

One of the immediate setbacks caused by incidents such as the Kolkata rape case is the reinforcement of a victim-blaming culture. In the aftermath of such crimes, public discourse often shifts toward questioning the victim’s actions— her choice of clothing, her reasons for being in a certain place at a certain time, or her behaviour before the attack.

This narrative, deeply entrenched in patriarchal thinking, suggests that women are somehow responsible for the violence inflicted upon them. This not only diverts attention from the real issue— the perpetrator’s actions— but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes that women must adhere to certain behaviours to avoid being assaulted.

For the women’s movement, which has long fought against such victim-blaming attitudes, these incidents represent a significant regression. Instead of focusing on the systemic changes needed to protect women and ensure justice, the conversation often devolves into debates over women’s conduct, reinforcing the very biases that the movement seeks to eliminate.

Undermining of public space for women

Another setback is the further restriction of women’s access to public spaces. In response to incidents such as the Kolkata rape case, there is often a societal push to ‘protect’ women by imposing restrictions on their freedom of movement. Curfews, warnings to avoid certain areas after dark, and advice to dress conservatively are common reactions.

The women’s movement has always walked on a double-edged sword.

While these measures may be framed as protective, they effectively penalise women for crimes committed against them, limiting their autonomy and reinforcing the idea that women’s presence in public spaces is inherently unsafe.

The women’s movement has long advocated for the right of women to occupy public spaces freely and safely, challenging the notion that certain spaces or times of day are off-limits to women. However, when high-profile crimes occur, these hard-fought gains are often reversed, with society reverting to a protectionist mindset that restricts women’s freedoms rather than addressing the root causes of violence.

Shift in focus away from systemic change

High-profile rape cases often prompt calls for immediate, reactive measures such as harsher penalties for offenders or increased policing. While these measures can be important, they sometimes overshadow the need for broader, systemic change.

The women’s movement has long emphasised the importance of addressing the root causes of gender-based violence, such as ingrained patriarchal attitudes, economic inequality, and inadequate education on gender issues.

When the focus shifts primarily to punitive measures, there is a risk that these deeper issues will be neglected. The women’s movement’s efforts to promote long-term, sustainable change— through education, advocacy and cultural shifts— can be sidelined by the urgency of responding to the latest incident.

This can stall progress on the broader goals of the movement, as resources and attention are diverted away from the structural changes that are necessary to prevent such crimes.

Psychological impact on women and activists

The psychological impact of incidents like the Kolkata rape case cannot be understated. Such crimes instil fear and anxiety among women, reinforcing a sense of vulnerability and helplessness.

For activists within the women’s movement, these incidents can be particularly demoralising. Despite years of advocacy and progress, the recurrence of such brutal acts can evoke feelings of frustration and despair, as it becomes clear that the fight for gender equality is far from over.

One of the immediate setbacks caused by incidents such as the Kolkata rape case is the reinforcement of a victim-blaming culture.

This psychological toll can lead to burnout among activists, slowing the momentum of the movement. The constant need to respond to such incidents, to provide support for victims, and to campaign for justice can be exhausting, leaving less energy for proactive efforts to drive systemic change.

The delicate balance between individual freedom and collective safety is a cornerstone of any democratic society. However, in the aftermath of heinous crimes, this balance is often disturbed, leading to a shift in how citizens perceive their personal liberties and their trust in the State’s ability to ensure their safety.

Erosion of trust in the State

One of the immediate consequences of such traumatic events is the erosion of trust in the State. When a crime as brutal as rape occurs, especially in a public space, it shakes the very foundation of citizens’ belief that the government and its institutions can protect them.

The perceived failure of the State to prevent such crimes or to respond swiftly and effectively can lead to widespread disillusionment. This disillusionment manifests in many ways, most notably in the preference for self-reliance over State dependence for safety.

In many cases, citizens begin to feel that their individual freedom is compromised not only by the threat of crime but also by the State’s response to it. When the State imposes stricter security measures, such as increased surveillance, curfews or heightened policing, it often does so at the cost of personal freedoms.

While these measures are designed to protect the public, they can also create a sense of confinement, where citizens feel their movements and activities are being unjustly restricted. This, in turn, can lead to resentment and a further decline in trust in the State’s ability to balance safety with freedom.

Rise of self-protection and vigilantism

As trust in the State erodes, citizens often turn to self-protection measures. This shift is driven by the belief that if the State cannot guarantee their safety, they must take matters into their own hands. This can manifest in various forms, from the adoption of self-defence practices to the rise of neighbourhood watch groups.

Another setback is the further restriction of women’s access to public spaces.

While these measures may provide a sense of immediate security, they also contribute to a more fragmented society, where collective safety is replaced by individualistic approaches to protection.

In more extreme cases, this shift can lead to vigilantism, where individuals or groups take it upon themselves to punish those they perceive as threats. This breakdown of trust in the legal system is particularly dangerous, as it undermines the rule of law and can lead to further violence.

Vigilantism is often fueled by the belief that justice will not be served through official channels, leading to a cycle of retribution that destabilises the social order.

Impact on social cohesion

The shift from relying on the State to prioritising self-protection has profound implications for social cohesion. In a society where individuals feel they must constantly look out for themselves, the sense of community and collective responsibility diminishes. People become more isolated, suspicious of others, and less willing to engage in public life. This erosion of social trust weakens the very fabric of society, making it more difficult to foster cooperation and mutual support.

Moreover, the emphasis on individual safety can exacerbate social inequalities. Those with more resources can afford better security measures, leaving vulnerable populations at greater risk. This unequal distribution of safety further fragments society and deepens existing divides.

The women’s movement has long emphasised the importance of addressing the root causes of gender-based violence, such as ingrained patriarchal attitudes, economic inequality, and inadequate education on gender issues.

The notion of ‘trading freedom for security’ is particularly poignant when it comes to women navigating their daily lives. In many societies, women often find themselves making this trade-off, sometimes consciously and at other times subconsciously, as they seek to protect themselves in environments that can feel unsafe. This balancing act between personal freedom and safety reflects broader societal issues, including gender inequality, cultural norms and the persistent threat of violence against women.

The pressure to self-regulate

Women frequently alter their behaviour, limit their movements, or adjust their appearances to minimise perceived risks. This self-regulation is a form of trading freedom for security, where the freedom to move, dress, or speak as one wishes is compromised to avoid potential harm.

For example, many women avoid certain areas after dark, choose clothing that they think will not attract attention, or refrain from engaging in activities that might be deemed risky. These choices, though often seen as necessary precautions, represent a significant reduction in personal liberty.

The societal pressure to self-regulate is reinforced by a culture that often places the responsibility for avoiding danger on the victim rather than addressing the root causes of violence.

Women are socialised from a young age to be cautious, to avoid making themselves targets, and to always be aware of their surroundings. This creates an environment where the burden of safety falls disproportionately on women, who must continuously negotiate their freedom in the face of potential threats.

Impact on personal autonomy

This constant need to prioritise security over freedom has profound implications for personal autonomy. Autonomy is the ability to make choices about one’s own life, free from external constraints.

However, when women are forced to adjust their behaviour to avoid danger, their autonomy is compromised. The choices they make are not entirely their own but are influenced by the fear of what might happen if they do not conform to certain safety protocols.

These societal expectations are deeply rooted in patriarchal norms that view women as inherently vulnerable and in need of protection.

This compromise can be seen in various aspects of life. Women might turn down job opportunities that require late hours or travel, limit their social interactions, or avoid public spaces where they feel vulnerable.

These decisions, made in the name of safety, can have long-term effects on a woman’s career, social life and overall well-being. The opportunity cost of this trade-off is substantial, as it restricts women’s participation in public life and limits their potential.

Internalisation of fear

Over time, the repeated need to trade freedom for security can lead to the internalisation of fear. Women may begin to view the world through a lens of potential danger, where every decision is weighed against the risk it might pose. This internalised fear can become a pervasive part of a woman’s psyche, influencing her decisions, actions, and even her self-perception.

This internalisation is not just a personal issue but a reflection of broader societal attitudes towards women’s safety. The fact that women feel the need to trade freedom for security highlights the failure of society to create an environment where women can feel safe without compromising their autonomy.

It underscores the persistence of gender-based violence and the inadequacy of measures to protect women without infringing on their freedoms.

The role of societal expectations

Societal expectations play a significant role in this trade-off. In many cultures, there is an implicit expectation that women should prioritise their safety, even at the cost of their freedom. This expectation is often reinforced by family, friends, and the media, which collectively send the message that a ‘good’ woman is one who knows how to protect herself by making ‘wise’ choices— choices that often involve sacrificing personal freedom.

These societal expectations are deeply rooted in patriarchal norms that view women as inherently vulnerable and in need of protection. This narrative not only limits women’s freedom but also absolves society from addressing the real issues of gender-based violence and inequality.

Instead of challenging the structures that make the world unsafe for women, the focus is placed on how women can adapt to these unsafe conditions.

A call for change

To move beyond this trade-off between freedom and security, there needs to be a shift in societal attitudes and policies. Instead of placing the onus on women to protect themselves, society must focus on creating safe environments where women do not have to choose between freedom and security. This involves not only legal and institutional changes but also cultural shifts that challenge the norms and expectations that restrict women’s autonomy.

Empowering women to reclaim their freedom without fear requires a collective effort to address the root causes of violence, promote gender equality, and support women’s rights to move, speak and act freely.

Only then can we create a world where women no longer have to trade their freedom for security but can enjoy both equally.

Manika Kamthan is a lawyer by training, an academician by profession, and a mother by choice.