Monday, Mar 25, 2002
`Put a stop to domestic violence' — Dr Sarah Matthew, President, Feminist Assn. for Social Action
Rasheeda Bhagat
Any domestic violence law should ideally put a stop to violence, give protection against future abuse and use punitive measures to combat continued domestic violence. What renders women powerless now is that in the absence of legislation defining a marital household, a woman is forced to endure repeated domestic violence so as not to be thrown out of the house.
WITH the Protection from Domestic Violence Bill awaiting the Parliament approval to become law, women's groups have suggested certain changes to the proposed law to make it more effective.
In an interview to Business Line, Dr Sarah Matthew, President of the Chennai-based Feminist Association for Social Action, spelt out the concerns of women activists regarding lacunae in the Bill that could easily be corrected before it became law.
Excerpts from the interview:
What issues should any legislation concerning domestic violence address?
Any domestic violence law should ideally put a stop to immediate violence, give protection against future violence and use punitive measures to combat continued domestic violence. What renders women powerless now is that in the absence of legislation defining the concept of a marital household, a woman is forced to endure repeated domestic violence and abuse so as not to be thrown out of the house. That is why most modern domestic violence laws ensure and protect the right of the woman to remain within the marital home.
How can this be ensured?
Normally under the Domestic Violence Act, the court is empowered to forbid the husband to enter the premises if he does not give an undertaking to observe non-violent behaviour. Second, it prevents the husband from summarily expelling his wife from home.
What are the statistics worldwide on domestic violence?
Recent statistics put out by the International Centre for Research on Women, through public ads on television, reveal that one in four women suffers domestic violence — from verbal abuse to extreme violence such as kicks to the stomach.
What is your gut feeling about the level of violence in Indian homes?
I have run a counselling centre for nine years and also been an honorary counsellor in family courts for five years. I have seen violence across economic classes and it is true that many women suffer domestic violence because they feel they have no other option. They cannot return to their parental homes, they have no economic means to obtain accommodation, and they have no recourse to law whereby they can insist on remaining in their marital homes without being abused.
And it runs across class, caste, religion... ?
Yes. The concept of wife-beating as a form of correction seems more prevalent in certain classes than in others. What do you mean by `correction'? Women tell me that when the husband returns in the evening the mother-in-law will say she (the daughter-in-law) woke up late, or let the milk boil over... and he would immediately slap her.
Women get beaten for such silly reasons... ?
Yes. The severe forms of violence are due to alcohol and rage, where men feel the women are defying their authority.
And this happens to working women too?
More for working women. I was once told in a family court by a woman, a professor in a Chennai college, that she did something that so enraged her husband, also a medical professor, that he removed his belt and chased her into the neighbour's house beating her. This is called rage. In the West, where a lot of women do have access to alternative accommodation, they still need a Domestic Violence Act to prevent husbands under the influence of alcohol or in rage from inflicting violence to assert their authority. Neighbours who find a woman being beaten up can ring up the police and report the husband. If he does not stop, they can get an order from the magistrate expelling him from the house for 24 hours.
Do younger women suffer more domestic violence than older ones? Because, as the marriage progresses the two might settle down into a more peaceful relationship!
Not really. I have not found that. Some men are very authoritative. Recently we had a case from an upper-middle-class family. The man was a chief executive in a public sector corporation and he still beat his wife. He would not allow his daughter-in-law to sit in the drawing room while he was there. She had to stand. In the lower classes, the men tend to be more violent. If the man comes home drunk and say food is not ready, he might kick her in the stomach. Men tend to use their legs a lot.
What about women hitting back?
I have been told by some men that some women do hit back. In fact, some women even initiate quarrels. According to one man, his neighbour takes the frying pan and hits her husband. We have also found that women of a higher economic and social status do abuse their marital partners. It might not be physical abuse, it can be verbal... making him feel unimportant, going away to the mother's house and the like. That can trigger frustration, and men can claim that they indulge in violence due to frustration — but that is not true. It can have its origin in different causes; it could be sadistic or authoritative. Some men have ungovernable rages and they need counselling. Or it could be dowry harassment and blackmail on this count.
When you call men for counselling, what is their response? Do they turn up for counselling at all?
In family courts the counselling process is mandatory. But most men are reluctant to go to professional marriage counsellors. Therefore, in some way the protection officer system, devised in the Bill, is a method of bringing outside professional intervention into a troubled and violent marriage.
Several women's organisations met in Chennai recently and discussed the lacunae in the Bill. What are these?
One of the Bill's defects is that it does not make the protection officer accountable to a particular system. I have two objections about this Bill. One, the definition of domestic violence is vague. The UN definition of domestic violence in the CEDAW includes psychological and physical violence. It includes assault and abuse. The second thing is in its functionality. We had asked that the protection officer be attached to a family court or its equivalent under the Family Courts Act so that he could function under the aegis of the civil courts. Since family courts are expected to help regulate marriages and prevent them from reaching the point of dissolution, a protection officer under the Domestic Violence Act attached to civil courts would serve this purpose. But the bill attaches him to a magistrate's court. We do not think this is desirable because most women do not want the marriage to end nor do they want their husbands arrested. What they do want is that the violence should end. Some outside intervention might be necessary.
Like counselling?
Yes. If the man thinks he will be punished for domestic violence, and that his wife can seek recourse to a protection officer who can ask the neighbours about what is happening and conduct an independent inquiry, he will end the violence. Otherwise it is only her word against his.
In a country such as ours, with such a huge population and where the systems often do not work, how reasonable would it be to expect such a legislation to work?
Having been in the family court and even though the system might not be perfect, the fact remains that many women do get maintenance or custody of children because of these courts. Even though it might not serve all the needs, the court sets a very good example by serving some need, instead of letting an important problem go untended.
Do we need more family courts?
Certainly, and in every district. Basically the idea is to have one protection officer in every district to whom victims of domestic violence can complain to. This would be a tremendous source of support to such women. Making a complaint in a police station is much more damaging to the future of the marriage than filing a complaint with a civil officer, who though attached to a civil court, might not necessarily take the case to court. In some western countries, there are family welfare officers. We do not have this concept. The very fact that one can go to court and restrain a man from throwing his wife out would give her a great sense of confidence.
Any other suggestions for the Bill?
The other lacuna in the Bill is that it is necessary to provide some economic support to an abused woman — both from the view of rehabilitation and a deterrent against continued violence. Money talks. If a man beats his wife and is made to pay a compensation for it, he may not do it again. In one case a man slapped his wife, broke her eardrum and left her deaf for the rest of her life. Should he not pay a compensation for that? The problem is that many men do not even think they are committing an illegal act when they beat their wives. As I said, many of them use violence as "corrective action". They have seen their fathers beat their mothers and if she says something that makes them angry, they are slapped. And these habits could get passed down on... ! They do, because patterns of domestic violence are usually carried on from one generation to another. I would like to reiterate the right of residence. It should be a shared household. Women should not be thrown out of their homes by husbands or brothers — the latter do it for property. When we are protecting the rights of tenants to reside, shouldn't women have the right of residence in a shared household? This would be the most important requirement of any domestic violence legislation.
Responses can be sent to rasheeda at thehindu.co.in Copyright © 2002, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line