Chuck the knight

Sir — I found Anchita Ghatak’s article, “Sulking knights, selfish damsels” (July 24), disturbing since it seems to look at the incident involving Jagannath De from a twisted perspective. The media hype around Jagannath might be a bit out of proportion but it cannot be denied that he did act heroically when he protested against six boys harassing a girl in the bus while other passengers watched the fun. As a student of psychology, I would like to cite the theory of diffusion of responsibility to explain why no one came to help Jagannath. When the girl was being molested in the crowded bus, none except Jagannath tried to rescue her because the urge to help the victim was diffused among the passengers and each thought that the others present in the bus would take the initiative. The fact that Jagannath succeeded in shaking off the subconscious reluctance speaks of his mental strength.

Ghatak fails to appreciate the worth of Jagannath’s courageous gesture. On the other hand, she belittles him by calling him “this woman’s supposed rescuer”. It is indeed normal, as Ghatak says, to expect people to protest when a woman is being harassed. But the duty of registering objection lies as much with women as with men. Why didn’t the other women who must have been in the bus come to this girl’s aid? Because of a peculiar social mindset, people in India do not seem to bother about any event until it affects them personally. If a woman is being harassed in public, it is best for her to defend herself instead of waiting for others to do it for her. If women consider themselves equal to men in every way, they should not require a knight at all.

Yours faithfully,
Subhankar Mondal,
Bangalore

Sir — Every time a woman is assaulted in public, a hue and cry is raised, with some blaming the victim, some the unmoved spectators, while others go overboard in praising the one who objected. But nobody locates the root of the problem or suggests remedies. Such cases of harassment would not occur at all if the police were sufficiently active. The present Police Act must be radically modified to make it more favourable towards citizens in distress. Why do the police have to wait for an FIR to start acting on a case? Cannot they take suo motu action based on media reports of an incident? Besides, atrocities against women must be made non-bailable offence, and handled by special courts. There should be exemplary punishment for such crimes. Rape, for example, must draw the death penalty and eve-teasers should be flogged in public. It is also necessary to upgrade the public transport system so that all buses have partitioned sections meant solely for women. Women should also learn self-defence techniques or carry pepper-spray guns while travelling. Now that we have a lady as the head of the State, can we not expect women to move about more freely in the country?

Yours faithfully,
Jayanta Dutta,
Calcutta

Sir — Eve-teasing has become a persistent menace in Calcutta today. This is largely because of the social attitude towards women, which, as pointed out by Anchita Ghatak, refuses to change. Even when women are at the receiving ends of male violence, they are somehow seen to invite it. It is ‘cool’ when Salman Khan rips off his shirt on stage. But if a woman’s dress has a plunging neckline, she will be stared at and considered ‘loose’. In the case of Jagannath De, people have again found a way to shift the blame on the woman, as she refuses to come out with her story. The people exhorting her to identify the men and so justify Jagannath’s heroism, should understand that she will have to travel, perhaps by the same route, everyday after her confession. Even if the police arrest the culprits, they will soon be out on bail. In the absence of police protection, the lady will have to live in perpetual fear of being assailed again.

Yours faithfully,
Lala Tanmoy Das,
Calcutta

Head in the clouds

Sir — It is wishful thinking to suppose that a smoker will ask for the maid’s permission to smoke at home (“Ask the maid for a puff at home” July 21). It is proving difficult to make Indians quit smoking altogether. Even those who do not have the habit suffer as passive smokers because of the governmental failure to stop smoking in public places. Awareness campaigns cannot produce the desired results because of the double standards practised by the government. The sale of tobacco and tobacco-related products generates a considerable portion of revenue, and so anti-smoking measures adopted by the government have always been half-hearted. Even the latest steps proposed by the Union health minister, Anbumani Ramadoss, to make the laws on smoking more stringent come with an ironic twist. A group of ministers is trying to pass a legislation to make the image of skull and crossbones on cigarette packs optional. As pictorial warnings have an instant impact, doing away with the sign will be regressive step.

Yours faithfully,
Surajit Das,
Calcutta

Sir — It seems that Anbumani Ramadoss lives in a utopian world if he dreams of the master of the house taking permission from the maid before lighting a cigarette. Perhaps Ramadoss is not aware that domestic workers are mostly treated as slaves, and denied many basic amenities. If Ramadoss is serious about his job, he should introduce the skull-and-bones sign on cigarette packs and give up on his silly ideas.

Yours faithfully,
A.S. Mehta,
Calcutta