At NCERT: On Founding Mothers

What is the Legacy the Founding Mothers left behind for us to follow?

The legacy of the women members of the Constituent Assembly is profound, as they played a pivotal role in shaping India's political and social framework. These women members have left an indelible mark on the life, history, and progress of India, influencing every aspect of the nation's development.

Despite the significant challenges they faced, they paved the way for future generations of women to engage actively in public life and policymaking. India owes a deep debt of respect to these founding mothers for their enduring contributions. Their impact is evident in the ongoing movement toward gender equality, underscoring the essential role women played in crafting the nation’s foundational principles.

Through their advocacy for women's rights and active participation in policy discussions, they influenced key decisions and paved the way for future generations of women in public life and policymaking. Their unwavering spirit, courage, and wisdom left a lasting impact on India's development, particularly in areas like gender equality, individual freedoms, decentralization, and social justice. Their contributions continue to inspire and ensure that their efforts are remembered in the nation's history.

 

Ending Hunger, Enforcing the Right to Food

 Ending Hunger, Enforcing the Right to Food

 

 

India is a larger producer of food, yet millions are starving in the country. In 2023, India ranked at the 111^th position in the Global Hunger Index out of 125 countries with a score of 28.7 and categorised at the position with the serious level of hunger[1]. The website of the World Food Program reported that despite enjoying a steady economic growth, India houses a quarter of all undernourished people in the world[2]. As per the fact sheet by the WHO[3] released on January 28, 2022, children under 5 years of age are facing acute malnutrition. The SOFI Report[4] states that almost two-third of Indians are unable to afford a healthy diet.

 

One of the interesting examples of the successful but tedious people’s struggle relates to the right to food in the neoliberal globalized India. In PUCL v Union of India[5] a petition was filed in April 2001 to prevent starvation deaths when surplus of the food was rotting in the government silos[6]. The Supreme Court issued a series of interim orders over the years and mandated the government to take a range of actions to prevent starvation and hunger, and converted the state welfare measures into a legal entitlement as the right to food through which the state can be held accountable to its obligations to maintain nutrition. Provisions have been laid down for the midday meals in schools, supplementary nutrition for pregnant and lactating mothers, the food subsidy scheme, pensions, and maternity benefits.

 

These orders became a rallying point around which a network of activists and groups in different states came together, and the Right to Food campaign was constituted[7]. The campaign took collective action to achieve its goals. Slogans such as starving bellies, overflowing godowns (bhooke pet bhare godam)[8]. When the interim orders were not enforced by local state institutions, civil society groups and local citizens organized and demanded enforcement of the interim orders[9]. The Right to Food Campaign allies with the state in the fight against hunger, also, at the same time, it critiqued the state institutions for neglecting their duties, exposes leakage, highlights the weak links, and emphasizes the element of corruption. The campaign also countered the WTO policies relating to the rollback of welfare provisions. The campaign also pressured the state to enact a nationwide comprehensive legislation.

 

The fight against hunger resulted in the enactment of the National Food Security Act, 2013[10].  This law is a milestone in history. It empowered more than 800 million Indians (75 percent of the rural and 50 percent of the urban population living below the poverty line) to legally claim their right to subsidised staple food. The struggles significantly raised the idea of moral and distributive justice. It reminded the state of its social obligations while comprehensively elaborating on socio-legal dimensions of the concept of the right to food in terms of freedom from hunger and starvation, the right to clean, nutritious healthy food, right to clean drinking water, health care[11] and over all basic dignity to life for all including the farmers and peasants[12]. The struggle also debated the issues pertaining to food security, food sovereignty, and the agrarian economy.

This struggle significantly raised the idea of moral and distributive justice[13]. It reminded the state of its obligations and elaborated on the socio-legal dimensions of the right to food, encompassing freedom from hunger, the elimination of starvation, the right to clean, nutritious, healthy food, access to clean drinking water, health care, and, the overall dignity to life for all, including the rights of the farmers and peasants. The recognition of food as a legal entitlement for the poor became possible because civil society applied the prism of rights and justice, connecting it to basic human needs.

However, in the New India, food as a right is diminished and reduced to a dole by merging the two schemes under the PM Garib Kalyan Yojna and the NFSA[14]. The ranking of India in the Global Hunger Index is consistently declining. Over the past few years, consistently, the anti-people decisions have reduced the idea of citizens as rights-holders to passive recipients or beneficiaries (Labharthi) or a receiver of doles, services, and tangible benefits. The political discourse around revdi culture (freebies) has diminished the idea of rights as concrete entitlements of a citizen. Consequently, the citizen-state relationship is now construed as a transactional interaction, shifting the accountability of the state onto the duties of citizens[15].

The need, therefore, is to revitalize the people’s struggles for their rights. To enforce rights, what is required is an impartial, equitable, transparent, fair, sensitive, and inclusive mechanism that not only respects, protects, and promotes rights but also acts to build the capacity of its citizens to raise their concerns.

The rights-based discourse must be strengthened to revitalize the struggles of the marginalized to 1) Demand their rightful share of power, resources, identity, belongingness, and overall justice, or haq ki ladai (struggle to reclaim dues or entitlements); 2) Protect their rights to jal, jungle, and zameen (water, forest, and land); 3) Claim basic entitlements such as roti, kapda, aur makaan (bread, clothes, and housing) as well as the right to livelihood, health, safety, environment, information, and education, all essential for a dignified life 4) Demand positive freedoms such as freedom of information and affirmative actions to support the marginalized among others; and 5) Foster solidarity to reclaim swaraj (self-rule) and Azadi (freedom) from fear, violence, starvation, and oppression to create a just social order[16].

 

 

 

---

[1] https://www.globalhungerindex.org/india.html

[2]https://www.wfp.org/countries/india accessed on July 2, 2024

[3] WHO (2022) Child Mortality (under 5 years) January 28 https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/levels-and-trends-in-child-under-5-mortality-in-2020#:~:text=Malnourished%20children%2C%20particularly%20those%20with,under%205%20years%20of%20age.

[4] FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2023) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023. Urbanization, agrifood systems transformation and healthy diets across the rural–urban continuum. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3017en

[5] PUCL v Union of India (Civil No. 96 of 2001)

[6] Birchfield, L. and Corsi, J. (2010) ‘Between Starvation and Globalization: Realizing the Right to Food in India’, Michigan Journal of International Law 31.4: 691–764

[7] Hertel, S. (2015) ‘Hungry for Justice: Social Mobilization on the Right to Food in India’, Development and Change 46.1: 72–94

[8] Srinivasan, V. and Narayanan, S. (2007) ‘Food Policy and Social Movements: Reflections on the Right to Food Campaign in India’, in Food Policy for Developing Countries. Edited by P Pinstrup-Andersen and Fuzhi Cheng, Cornell University, New York

[9] Drèze, Jean. (2004) Democracy and Right to Food, Economic and Political Weekly 39, 1723-31

[10] National Food Security Act 2013 talks about legal entitlement for food security is passed after a long struggle.  Act No. 20 of 2013 http://indiacode.nic.in/actsin-pdf/202013.pdf 

[11] Dreze Jean (2004) Democracy and Right to Food, Economic and Political Weekly April, 1723-31

[12] Nigam Shalu (2015) Everyday Survival, Everyday Struggle: Fighting Against Hunger in South Asia, countercurrents.org, January 26 https://countercurrents.org/nigam260115.htm

[13] Nigam, Shalu. (2015). “Everyday Survival, Everyday Struggle: Fighting Against Hunger in South Asia.” countercurrents.org. January 26. https://countercurrents.org/nigam260115.htm

[14] Sinha Rajesh, (2023) Analysing the Masterstroke: Modi Govt cut Food Allocation to the Poor, The Deccan herald, January 2, https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/analysing-a-masterstroke-modi-govt-cuts-food-allocation-for-the-poor-1177148.html

[15] Nigam Shalu (2024) Human Rights in Everyday life in India: The Praxis from Below, We the People Network, Delhi https://amzn.in/d/hDbGlCP

[16] Nigam Shalu (2024) Human Rights in Everyday life in India: The Praxis from Below, We the People Network, Delhi https://amzn.in/d/hDbGlCP

Violence Against Women: Backlash and Resistance

 Violence Against Women: Backlash and Resistance

This post is based on my speech in the Webinar held on 25 November 24, organized by PUCL

By Dr Shalu Nigam, Vice President, Delhi PUCL

 

Good evening to all of you. Today we have gathered here to celebrate 16 Days of Activism on Gender Based Violence, which commenced every year on 25 November, the International Day of Violence Against Women, and ends on 10 December, Human Rights Day. This campaign was launched globally during the 1990s to highlight the centuries of oppression against women and that violence is the most pervasive breach of human rights worldwide. It advocates for the rights of women and demands the elimination of violence against women and girls (VAWG). The theme for the year 2024 is “Every 10 Minutes, a woman is killed. #NoExcuse. UNiTE to End Violence against Women”.

This year is also special because the world is approaching to celebrate the 30^th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action in 2025. This is the blueprint for achieving gender equality and women’s rights everywhere.  

The reports say that Nearly one in three women experience violence in their lifetime. Girls are at particular risk of violence—1 in 4 adolescent girls is abused by their partners.

In 2023 at least 51,100 women were murdered by their partners and family members.

16% to 58% of women globally experience technology-facilitated gender-based violence. Young people are the most affected.

70% of women in conflict, war, and humanitarian crisis, experience gender-based violence. In Gaza, the world has witnessed how women and children are specifically targeted and deprived of basic necessities such as food and medical aid. Historically, sexual violence is a common factor in all wars. The war machines work in a way to destroy women and children the most.

The data on the crime against women in India, as recorded by the NCRB, shows that India recorded 51 cases of crimes against women every hour, and these are the reported cases.

And when I say VAW, it entails not only physical, economic, sexual, or psychological violence but also denial and discrimination of the rights of women everywhere. For example, the women in the tribal areas are being forcibly denied their rights to land and forests. We should also take these forms of violence into account. Rather, New India is every day witnessing severe forms of violence and simultaneously fierce resistance by women. These images (women resisting the demolition by bulldozer and the policeman holding a pistol towards the women voters in UP during the election in November 2024) of women’s resistance are etched in the history and memories of India of the 21^st century and will remind future generations of the stories of oppression and resistance.

Moreover, globally with the rise in authoritarianism, women are facing severe backlash where misogyny pervades not only in the language and actions of political leaders but also among common men on the street and online. We have seen how sexism is threatening women in digital spaces.

We know that in recent years, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the decision in Roe and Wade to deprive women of their abortion rights when Trump came into power.  Also, in 2024, a few hours after Donald Trump’s victory in the elections in the USA, the far-right slogan “Your body, my choice” spread around, sparking the misogynist trend[1]. Messages such as “You no longer have rights” were sent to women users of social media. This violent onslaught, unchecked misogyny, and resentment reveal that men do not treat women with dignity as equals. Rather, these men view women as inferior.

 In response, the 4B or 4 No’s digital movement started trending in the USA. This radical movement was initiated in South Korea earlier and propagates no sex, no dating, no marriage, and no procreation, with men gaining a trend to combat the patriarchal state and conservative society[2]. It was started to combat the patriarchal state and the conservative society. This movement rejected the heteronormative expectations of state and society around women’s bodies and articulated the concerns around patriarchy, precarity, consumerism, and capitalism[3].

In Afghanistan, we all know how the Taliban is denying women their right to education. The reports say that in their rules for three years, the Taliban has deliberately deprived 1.4 million girls of their right to education, putting the future of the entire generation in danger[4]. 

In Iran, a few days back, the world witnessed how a student was harassed for hijab by the dress code enforcers, and she protested uniquely. She was later arrested. The Iranian government later declared that the girl was mentally unstable. Several reports later say that Iran is planning to send women revolting against the hijab to mandatory psychiatric facilities. Rather, the hijab removal treatment clinics have been specifically set up to defend and forcibly enforce a piece of clothing on women[5].

Meanwhile, multiple women political prisoners are facing the risk of execution in Iran based on false charges. The Center for Human Rights in Iran said that four women have been accused of manufacturing charges of armed rebellion, a charge often used by authorities against dissenters, and sentenced to death in July 2024[6]

After decades of deliberations on human rights and raising slogans such as Women’s Rights are Human Rights, a handful of men are deciding what women should wear, when they should marry, and even controlling the wombs of women. India has also imposed such a ban when young Muslim girls were denied entry into educational institutions because they insisted on wearing the hijab. So the question that arises here is that in a democracy, how come a few men are deciding what women should do or not do? The women’s movement globally and locally is demanding various freedoms, but the handful of men in power are doing exactly the opposite.

In recent years, within homes, digital spaces, or public spaces, violence is ever expanding not only in terms of numbers but also in its severity, scope, and outreach. Over the past few decades, the UN and other agencies have been generating literature and developing indices to measure progress and empowerment, demanding safety and determining rights at the same time extreme form of violence is being normalized and legitimized.

Resistance and oppression continued simultaneously. With brutal violence, resistance becomes fierce, leading to further violence, and this spiral of violence against women continues.

In France, the case of Gisele Pelicot, a 72-year-old woman who was sedated, drugged, and raped by her husband and fifty other men for nine years, shows how women are deceived by the systems and institutions, which promise them safety, comfort, and justice. The trial of this case is still going on. However, the video records and the documents found during investigations presented before the court indicate the terrible nature of violence. This case has raised questions about consent, betrayal in marriage, digital violence against women, toxic masculinity, pornography, and pervasive rape culture. It shows how the masculine code operates, where none of the men invited to rape her complained against it. This case shows that any man can be a predator, or as Ms Pelicot says, he can be any man in the family, among our friends.”

Important in this case is Gisele Pelicot’s reaction, her courage and determination to speak for all women victims and survivors of violence, despite being hurt, and her zeal to support the cause of survivors of violence are empowering. In her response to her ordeal, she said that she felt betrayed, broken, and completely destroyed. She precisely stated that the `shame should change sides’. She rightly challenged the system to ascertain that all men who stayed silent should be shamed for their violent acts.

The world has also witnessed how women in the Parliament of New Zealand resisted the anti-people law.

Globally, governments are paying lip service to the issue of women’s empowerment, but they have failed to stop the culture of violence with impunity. The backlash is evident from the fact that when women become vocal in the public domain, in politics, in journalism, or as women human rights defenders are targeted intentionally both online and offline. With increasing digitalization, videos of horrific crimes are being circulated around in social media without any restriction or control.  The spectacle of brutal violence evokes sadistic pleasure, and not only are the bodies of women objectified or commoditized, but repeated pleasure is obtained in sharing such dreadful images while normalizing and legitimizing violence.

The misogyny is so deeply permeated that last week in India, a huge crowd gathered in Patna to see the film trailer of the movie Pushpa 2, which was deemed as a deeply misogynistic movie by the critics. However, no such crowd gathered to demand justice against violence in Manipur.

The incidents of VAW that took place in Unnao, Hathras, Karnataka, the wrestlers’ case, and various other cases show how justice remains elusive. The complaints or FIRs are not registered. The police and the administration stand with perpetrators of violence, rather women victims are being compelled to bow down to the demands of perpetrators and their families. The voices of women are being forcefully silenced. Women, in many cases, are penalized for demanding justice.

Not only in the case of Bilkis Bano but in many other cases we have witnessed how the rapists and murderers have welcome and garland after being released on bail. The society that still prefers sons is complicit in the crime when it takes pride in such violent, toxic masculinity. The political parties that weaponize VAW to target their opponents are as guilty of the crime as the criminals themselves. The institutions, such as the courts, police, and the national commissions, are much part of a larger network that silences women complainants and therefore are guilty of crime.

Humanity is doomed when, during the pandemic, the political leaders decided to play Twitter Antakshari, and those in their ivory towers clapped when thousands of women and children walked down the road for thousands of miles with no support or facilities, and several women were forced to give birth to children on roads.

When women demanded Beqhauf Azadi, as we have witnessed during the Nirbhaya protest, the state denied autonomy to women by giving the law of love jihad.

Tragically, we are living in a country where the judges rely on the divinity and not on the constitutional values while pronouncing judgements. More so, in the matters of women, religion, superstitions, myths, and misogyny all work together to deny justice. From the Mathura to the Manorama and Hathras cases, we have witnessed how justice is denied to women. Women in police stations, courts, and communities are chasing justice, but the more they chase farther it goes. The apathy, indifference, and hostility exist within public spaces, in courtrooms, police stations, creating a disillusionment with justice.

The more we women demand rights, the more the misogynist forces suppress our voices. And to counter such violence, in several cases, women have deployed diverse and unique methods as we have witnessed in the case of protests by Naga mothers or in the case of Akku Yadav, where the accused person was protected by the police and judiciary and yet he was murdered in the courtrooms by the survivors who were frustrated by the indifference of the system.

In India, generally, we assume that once the law is made, justice will follow. However, this is not happening. 

Ironically, in the contemporary situation, we are living in a society where the pain and suffering are categorized into hierarchies based on the caste, sex, or religion of the victim. Frequently, women’s issues are sidelined. The pain of a woman who is raped in home day in and day out by her so-called protectors in no way receive sympathy or empathy from the state or society. Hence, all the institutions that silence the voices of women are complicit in crime because they embolden men and create a culture of impunity where men feel entitled to violate the mind, body, and soul of women as per their whims and fancies.

Lastly, I will end with the point that there is debate on social media regarding `#Not All Men’ to depict that not all men are violent. It is in response to discussions regarding misogyny or abuse, which blame men as perpetrators. The proponents of this phrase ignored the feminist voices, which have been highlighting that violence is not a man versus a woman issue. Violence against women is about patriarchal oppression and the culture of impunity, which harms society at large. This is depicted from the responses of women who initiated the hashtag #YesAllWomen and #MeToo movement. In both these online movements, women shared their experiences of sexism, harassment, and discrimination they faced because of persistent misogyny in some way or the other.

More specifically, in India, it is the culture that tolerates and promotes practices such as dowry violence, female foeticide, son-preference, honour killing, forced marriages, child marriages, witch hunting, widow discrimination, and girl-child discrimination that is guilty of perpetuating violence with impunity.  All men and women who stay silent in situations of VAW are complicit in the crime. A few days back, a video was circulated on social media where a woman was raped on the road in the day light and no one came to rescue her. Hence, a society that tolerates misogynist speeches and sexist jokes every day is guilty of perpetuating the culture of violence with impunity. `Not all men,’ but `Yes, all men and women who stay silent’ propagate the culture of violence with impunity, and this should end.

So, what is the solution to stop violence? It is to speak out against violence. We women refused to be silenced till the VAW ends. While a multi-pronged approach is desirable and may go a long way to rethink laws and policies, we need to stop the culture of violence with impunity. Speaking out against violence is as important as supporting the survivors, their agency, and resilience.  We don’t need false promises or lip service from the state. We demand concrete and collaborative actions to end violence against women. I will end with the slogan Leave no one behind by the UN.

In Solidarity and support to end violence against women, I end this session here. We can take further questions.

 

Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUBpNjGSgBU&ab_channel=IMPRIImpactandPolicyResearchInstitute

https://www.youtube.com/@dissentingvoices-r3v

---

[1] Ramos Andrew (2024) Misogynistic Social Posts, bullying of women and girls have spiked since election, CBS News, November 13, https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/misogynistic-phrases-bullying-women-girls-since-election/

[2] Lee, J., and E. Jeong, (2021). The 4B movement: envisioning a feminist future with/in a non-reproductive future in Korea. Journal of Gender Studies, 30(5) 633–644. 

[3] Shamim Sarah (2024) What is the 4B Feminist movement from S Korea that’s taking off in the US? Aljazeera.com, November 9, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/9/what-is-the-4b-feminist-movement-from-s-korea-thats-taking-off-in-the-us

[4] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/15/taliban-deliberately-deprived-1-4-million-girls-of-schooling-un

[5] https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/iran-plans-to-send-women-revolting-hijab-mandate-to-psychiatric-facilities-7020639

[6] https://iranhumanrights.org/2024/07/women-activists-increasingly-sentenced-to-death-as-political-executions-in-iran-surge/

Yes, All Men and Women Who Stay Silent Perpetuate the Culture of Violence with Impunity

Recently, there was a debate on social media regarding `#Not All Men’. This phrase is popularized online by mostly the Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) to depict that not all men are violent. It is in response to discussions regarding misogyny or abuse, which blame men as perpetrators. The proponents of this phrase ignored the feminist voices, which have been highlighting that violence is not a man versus a woman issue. Violence against women is about patriarchal oppression and the culture of impunity, which harms society at large. This is depicted from the responses of women who initiated a hashtag #YesAllWomen and #MeToo movement. In both these online movements, women shared their experiences of harassment and discrimination they faced because of persistent misogyny.

To counter this argument, in my article `Yes, All Men and Women Who Stay Silent Perpetuate the Culture of Violence with Impunity', (appeared here https://countercurrents.org/2024/10/yes-all-men-and-women-who-stay-silent-perpetuate-the-culture-of-violence-with-impunity/), I wrote how society silences women victims and survivors of violence.  

The women who try to raise their voices against such violence are ostracized, stigmatized, ridiculed, shamed, and alienated. The families, the communities, and all other social and legal institutions blame women. All efforts are made to silence women who defy patriarchal norms. 

Men and women in positions of authority within families, politics, society, or the legal system deploy all the strategies to silence women who raise their voices against violence. The arguments of discipline, love, sacrifice, honour, shame, and stigma are all made to compel women to `adjust’,  `forgive and forget’, or `move on’. 

Patriarchy conditions women to bear violence silently. It also trains women to sustain this culture of blaming victims for the violent acts committed by abusive men.

Also, the laws made to protect women from violence are appropriated to serve the masculinist order. The legal system, instead of punishing the abusers, discredits women survivors of violence. Myths and misogyny are propagated to portray the survivors of violence as liars and gold diggers. 

Victim blaming shuts the women’s voices of pain and suffering while ignoring the cries for justice. The moral compass of society works in a way to put the burden of guilt and shame on the victim of violence rather than shaming the abuser for their violent and criminal act. The androcentric courts are also guided by this patriarchal ideology, which silences the voices of women survivors of violence.

This system puts the entire burden of violence on women victims while evading to fix the accountability of a violent man, creating a culture of impunity. Violent men felt emboldened and entitled in such a culture because they knew that they would not be held liable for their criminal actions. Thus, society enables conditions where abusive men are excused for all their horrific, vile, and criminal actions.

Perhaps society fails to penalize men guilty of violence against women because these men are ordinary men. They are someone’s father, brother, husband, or son. This logic ignores the fact that a victim is also someone’s daughter, mother, wife, or sister, and more importantly, a human being and citizen endowed with rights. She deserves justice.

Not only in India, but across the world, women are discriminated against and alienated by the social and legal system. For instance, recently, the horrific experiences of Gisele Pelicot, a French woman, sedated and raped by her husband and dozens of other men for nine years, show how women are deceived by the systems and institutions, which promise them safety, equality, and justice. The trial of this case is going on. The video records and the documents found during investigations presented before the court indicate the terrible nature of violence. This case has evoked discussions relating to the prevalence of rape culture, consent, betrayal in marriage, pornography, and digital violence against women, and importantly, it shows how the masculine code operates, where none of the men invited to rape her complained against it. It shows that any man can be a predator, the one who is not just “someone met in a car park late at night” but “can also be in the family, among our friends.”

More importantly, Gisele Pelicot’s reaction, her courage and determination to speak for all women victims and survivors of violence, despite being hurt, and her zeal to support the cause of survivors of violence are empowering. In her response to her ordeal, she said that she felt betrayed, broken, and completely destroyed. She precisely stated that the `shame should change sides’. She rightly challenged the system to ascertain that all men who stayed silent should be shamed for their violent acts.

The cases of violence against women in India and worldwide depict how the families, communities, the law, the legal system, and society are complicit in the crime against women and create a culture of impunity where men feel entitled to violate the soul, the mind, and the body of women as per their whims and fancies. Therefore, the violent men and patriarchal society that silence women and embolden men, should all be held responsible for creating a culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, all women experience sexism, discrimination, misogyny, and violence in some way or another.

Yes, all men and women who stay silent in situations when violence is inflicted on women or refuse to acknowledge the persistent situation of discrimination against women are complicit in crime. 

Yes, all men and women who intentionally turn their faces away when a woman faces violence in a public or private space are guilty of perpetuating the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, all men and women who intentionally indulge in fierce backlash against women’s rights while promoting misogyny and toxic masculinity, disseminating myths, knowing that cases of violence against women are increasing in terms of scope, outreach, and barbarity, are guilty of perpetuating the climate of injustice.

Yes, those backlashers who propagate the myth that women are liars and gold diggers to divert attention from the role of men and society should carry the burden of the guilt of creating the culture of violence with impunity. 

Yes, all families who silence the voices of women and prevent them from complaining encourage the culture of violence and impunity.

Yes, the families who turn away women in pain rather than supporting her are complicit in creating a culture of impunity.

Yes, the communities that compel women victims and survivors of violence to carry the burden of shame and guilt while excusing men for their violent crimes preserve the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the culture that tolerates and promotes practices such as dowry violence, female foeticide, son-preference, honour killing, forced marriages, child marriages, witch hunting, widow discrimination, and girl child discrimination is guilty of perpetuating violence with impunity.

Yes, those who welcome and garland the murderers and rapists are complicit in crimes against women.

Yes, the society that tolerates misogynist speeches and sexist jokes every day is guilty of perpetuating the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the media that propagates the misogyny 24/7 is guilty of perpetuating the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the businesses that objectify and commodify women for their profits are complicit in the crime of creating a culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the onus lies with society, which upholds and perpetuates patriarchal norms that favour men while silencing women for maintaining the culture of violence against women with impunity.

Yes, those who sideline `women’s issues’ believing that women’s pain and suffering are less important than all other problems in the world and should be attended to when all other problems are resolved, create a culture of violence against women with impunity.

Yes, the state, which has failed to enforce the laws and policies to facilitate conditions to eliminate violence against women, is complicit in the crime.

Yes, the state that has failed to allocate budget to provide services to the victims and survivors of violence is guilty of creating a culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the legal system, including the police personnel, the prison administration, the policymakers, the lawmakers, and enforcers, who discredit the voices of survivors of violence and deny justice to women, are complicit in the crime in creating the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the police personnel who refuse to register the complaints of violence against women are complicit in crime and create a culture of impunity.

Yes, the lawyers and the judges who apply the arguments of divinity and politicize the law and the legal system to marginalize the oppressed are guilty of sustaining the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the lawyers and judges, who instead of using the constitutional provisions, subjectively release the abusers, are reinforcing the climate of impunity.

Yes, the lawyers and judges who himpathize with the abusers for being young, or he has a family to support, and similar excuses uphold the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the lawyers and judges who ignore the needs of the victims and their families for justice are complicit in perpetuating the culture of impunity.

Yes, the legal system that delays cases related to violence against women is guilty of perpetuating the culture of impunity.

Yes, all men and women in positions of authority who stay silent to uphold their vested gains when women’s rights are violated are guilty of contributing to the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, all men and women politicians and parliamentarians who refuse to acknowledge the increasing violence against women and choose to do nothing about it are complicit in the crime against women.

Yes, the political parties who sideline women’s issues and give tickets to men guilty of committing violence on women are complicit in creating the culture of crime against women with impunity.

Yes, all men are guilty of perpetuating the culture of violence with impunity when, in conflict situations, women’s bodies are being targeted to teach a lesson to the enemy.

Yes, when the institutions created to protect women fail to fulfill their obligations, these institutions are guilty of failing women and are creating the culture of impunity.

Yes, the army personnel guilty of rape, when shielded by their higher-ups; the system are responsible for creating the culture of violence with impunity.

Yes, the system that has become immune to the screams of women facing violence is guilty of perpetuating violence against women with impunity.

Yes, `the shame should change sides’ as Gisele Pelicot stated.

Yes, the system of blaming the women who experience violence should change.

Yes, the culture of violence against women with impunity should change.

Yes, the state, society, and communities should fix the accountability of abusive men.

Yes, the perpetrators of violence should be carrying the burden of shame and guilt of committing the crime against women.

Yes, the patriarchal social and legal norms must change in the spirit of justice, and the culture of violence with impunity must be altered.

Yes, the system should facilitate the conditions necessary for the women who face violence to openly speak against it without any guilt or shame and promote the healing of survivors and victims of violence.

Yes, the structural oppression and systemic inequalities must end.

Yes, we need to smash patriarchy.

`Not all men’ but `Yes, all men and women who stay silent’ propagate the culture of violence with impunity, and this should end.