If the killing was brutal, the reactions that followed haven’t been kind either- Sharanya condemns those who are condemning the victim:
Linked by kuffir. Join Blogbharti facebook group.In other words, the condemning of the murdered girl, her family, her friends, their lifestyles and their choices is a typical misogynist response – the wicked woman gets her dues. And this time, there are not one but two “wicked women”: Fiona MacKeown, mother of not just the victim, but of several more children of “varying paternity”, and Scarlett herself. That the women in question happen to be from the West (that corrupter of our chaste and virtuous ways of life!) is icing on the cake.
The magnitude of the ignorance displayed on this post not only is insulting to the event but also to the claim of feminism. I’m not defending the ineptitude of the Goa police or approving the course of events. I’m wondering on the irrelevance of some of the points you have made or rather, I believe you have made.
Alleging injustice can be rational if and only if all the facts are placed in the basket.Lifestyle , sex , local politics, Goan tourism, media hype or unfairness, western influence and your equally disappointing counter-paragraphs are all rationalizations of banal attitudes prevalent in the culture.
Here are some of my musings?
Scarlet is 15 , a minor by Indian law; she is not a tourist in the sense of the word, she is a resident Briton in India ( the family earns their living in goan markets). Her mother who was responsible for her well-being left her in the company ( note: not under the care) of someone she knew. And a gruesome crime happened. As for me it is not a question of morality at all but simply of judgement. So far all the blame has been heaped on Goa police ( for their stupidity not efficiency). No police anywhere in the world is responsible for anyone’s safety. Only for law and order. What is your take on how much her mother took things for granted – which was ante and not how much the police took things for granted which was post?
Aside the underpinnings of all the parties , the grieved mother, the shameless police force, the hopeless political background, the sham of the media, how you without any bearing on any of these factors claim that the nation of India has failed the victim? What is the rational basis of your allegation apart from your own grievance? To em it is no better than someone saying scarlett was given to debauchery.
And how is all of this related to feminism and women safety, which is an oxymoron if you just limit yourself for this case. Madeleine McCann case ( minor left on own again in Portugal ) and the teacher who was thrown out of Kenya would also be feminist issues then? right? ? Portuguese police and Kenyan government have all failed these part. And why hasn’t India failed that woman who was killed by her hubby in blore but only scarlett? I wonder how someone getting killed in her own home is not feminism while someone getting killed outside is? Even if she is one drugs and booze( which btw, is considered in law all over the world, that whether the victim was under the influence?)
The answer is it is all associated with culture and motives as much as if not more than how scarlet’s mom failed to safeguard her own daughter. As much as if a gang of thugs attacked you in Devon. It doesn’t mean Britain has failed you.
Scarlett case is a criem and that alone; response is local and cultural; India, feminism has nothing to dow ith it. Its for this reason people would come to Goa regardless. Some are sane.
Thanks.
Thanks Sunil for bringing in some objectivity into the debate.
Mridula, I really hope that was sarcasm..
Madhat, I have followed this debate on Indiamike too 9however it is in an area that is open to members with more than 50 posts so can’t put a link here) and although everyone agrees that what happened to Scarlett was really sad and the handling of the case is pathetic but can the mother really escape some soul searching? I mean who in their right minds will leave their 15 year old with a tour guide without adequate money or a cell phone? So I for one can see both the sides of the argument.
sunil,
usually like your comments. but i don’t find this very coherent.
Mridula,
The point that Sharanya makes is that of slut shaming –
the idea that ’she had it coming’
and ‘it is her own fault (and her mother’s) that she is dead’
and that the onus of responsible is on the women but not on the men who commit the crime.
women are expected to behave impeccably and if they don’t, any misery that happens to them is blamed on their errant behaviour.
sample this – Tanushree says no to Nana, booted from film
Under the veneer of objectivity, the report actually kind of supports the attack on the women who said no. her refusal to do a scene with the actor is taken an insult to the said actor. the underlying assumption being that she would have done with someone else as she is a ’slut’.
don’t believe me? see the news today – Rakhi rescues Horn Ok from Tanushree’s tantrums
the title says it all but read the entire story. it just gets better.
slut shaming happens very regularly in the media. the case of scarlett is not an exception but is the rule and that says a lot about the ‘morality’ of our society…
I respond because of two reasons. Firstly I benefit from the work you folks do here and more importantly it is promising to see some conviction in your own views, and its differences, unlike the herd mentality of such committees I have come across before.
To address with the issue of coherence lets be more specific.
Ante-event: Fiona leaving her kid with someone she knew.
Event: Scarlett getting killed.
Post-event: the shameless cover-up, the yellow media and subsequent fallouts.
The entire post in question looks down upon variety of post-event responses. It doesn’t make a case of its own and conveniently uses the event to hide its own fallacies, alternating between sham and melodramatic. Lets see how.
At times Scarlett is a teenage tourist and at times she is kid by Indian standards.
Question: what is the exact position on Scarlett in the post? There is none expressed except for the utility of the timely rhetoric in different paragraphs.
Premise : If she is a kid, then by Indian law she is a minor and her mother would be the immediate responsible adult. She becomes both accountable and answerable, and more so, if it was her voluntary judgement which is under the question by the law of the land where the event happened? Ie India.
That the crime was gruesome or it would aggrieve the involved party as harangued in the post is not an excuse not to question.
Laterals: Madeline McCann Portugal 2007.
Ramesh Koli vs. Police of Rajkot. Jan 2008
Premise : If she is not taken to be a minor then all suspects would be questioned and examined for evidence inc Fiona and Julio. Under Indian law she isn’t an adult. Period.
Next: All murder investigations, anywhere on earth entail a certain loss of privacy and loss of certain rights. It is not exclusive to India, to suggest which is a display of absolute ignorance. Bob Woolmer’s diary, laptop for example.
Further: Scarlett’s boyfriend ( was he now?) simply can be open to be charged for having a sexual intercourse with a minor, not an offence the Indian judiciary takes lightly( look up the history of sentences if you wish). I admit I don’t know why he was taken to custody- to have a cup of tea or to collect an ejaculate which would match with the stains? All of us can sit here and speculate all week.
But how, I wonder, is his detention – a fairly routine procedure followed by all world police teams is related to broken hymen and peeing in straight line( which I found funny) ? The argument is sold on the basis of its own biased assumptions. And this is what I mean by using it conveniently to hide the fallacies of the post. What is the writer whining about- Julio’s arrest or some idiotic editor painting it publicly with his tabloid thoughts- er sexually active? If it is the latter, which seems to be the sentiment of the post, it is not an issue with the event per se but with the Indian media – a subject which I am not willing to expend my time on.
Furthermore, there are some absolutely ridiculous noises and defences made about the being western in the post which isn’t consistent if you apply it in toto. And I tell you– if this had happened in Devon, all her remaining kids would be placed under social services pronto, regardless of investigation? How would you like that for infringement of privacy? Actually she wouldn’t have been let to raise the kids on her own in the first place.
Finally, if the victim was under the influence of drugs and alcohol there would have been an entire court-session of cross examination for Fiona, a fairly standard procedure in the western world. So lets not be under the impression that any western law would ignore Fiona’s negligence. That India doesn’t require a law to hold parents responsible for their kids is a tribute to its social system.
And it is this cultural appraisal Fiona has to go through for taking things for granted. As I have said the issue is cultural, for it was the same ethos of the people which tried to lynch Karunakaar das for raping a seven year old girl in orissa in a less sensational case though the same crime. I’m sure many readers would have to look it up.
The whole post repeatedly blatantly and ignorantly attacks the responses to the event — which happened for one and one reason alone – that Fiona misjudged her daughter and her own acquaintances. The crime of course is exclusive of it. But the post, convincingly conflates it all asserting as if the responses led to the crime without even without once mentioning one single word about the any factor that preceded the event. That is BIAS attributable to the gaps in rational thinking .
If India killed her which gets direct a wow -response from me as much the same when someone alleges that scarlett deserved it. The latter type of ignorance is thankfully receding and the former unfortunately is growing despite the education.
I have to borrow Naipaul here: India feeds its own intellectual crisis. At one moment they express the old world, of myth and magic, alone; at another they interpret the new in terms of the old.
Now with all these said, and to prove Naipaul wrong would someone explain to me coldly, rationally, in what fertile imagination that the crime is related to feminism and for heaven’s sake how, as foolishly ( no better word I’m afraid) claimed by the writer that the nation of India has failed Fiona more than any nation that has failed any 15 year old from rape and murder?
Thanks.
Asides: Kuffir, thanks for the words. I would be glad to clarify anything more.
Madhat: I know she was sarcastic.
sunil,
thanks for the clarification. and yes, i’d always found naipaul’s ‘magic’ formulation useful in understanding some things too. that said, i’m still not sure i fully understand your disagreement with the author of the post linked to. but i’ll keep trying. allow me to offer some of my own views, or my understanding, on/of some issues you’ve touched upon:
‘No police anywhere in the world is responsible for anyone’s safety. Only for law and order.’
i can’t fully agree with that. the modern state shares the responsibility of every individual’s safety with the individual. which means a dilution of the individual’s right to defend himself/herself (like he can’t bear arms,) to a certain extent, for the common good. one could interpret that as: the state undertakes a significant part of the responsibility of individual safety. through its various arms of government, like the police etc., it seeks to protect individuals in public spaces, and to a certain extent, in private spaces. the wikipedia says that british common law considers murder a ‘public wrong.’ in the broadest sense then a murder ia a ‘wrong’ inflicted on not just the victim and his/her family but the state, the public or citizenry at large. the term ‘law and order’ rightly belongs to a colonial context, to india’s erstwhile life as a british domininion when there were only subjects, and no citizens. subjects disturbed ‘law and order’ in a colonial state because its interests were not aligned with the subjects’ interests. now, there are no subjects, only citizens whose interests and rights are recognized and protected, ostensibly, by the state. so why would they need to disturb the ‘law and order’? the absence of a police officer at every door doesn’t mean that the state does not share the responsibility of individual and public safety- it only means threats to safety are fewer.
in this specific instance, i’m sure there are regulations covering usage of public beaches, patrols, police pickets etc., and also the operation of nightclubs, bars and liquor stores etc., were the public places policed enough and were the regulations enforced fully? in india, we usually find that the government imposes a great deal of restrictions on the individual’s right to use public spaces- we now have even a regulation banning smoking in public places. but is the the government capable enough of enforcing these restrictions fully? it can’t even restrict such stationary violators as people peeing in public (to express their contempt for the government’s grand ambitions, perhaps?). i’ve read somewhere that the u.n. has set a certain norm for the number of policemen to cover a certain population size- the international minimum norm is 220. while the ratio is around 120 for every 100,000 citizens in india, in the west, the number is usually much higher than 300.
the thrust of all this longwinded musing is that: yes, the indian govt does share a not-insignificant part of the responsibilty for murders such as scarlett’s that occur in public spaces. its capabilities do not match its stated aims or, in plainer words, it bites off more than it can chew. but that doesn’t absolve it of paying for what it bit off.
‘Scarlet is 15 , a minor by Indian law; she is not a tourist in the sense of the word, she is a resident Briton in India ( the family earns their living in goan markets).’
it doesn’t matter even if scarlett was an illegal immigrant from across the border. the indian state still shares a not-insignificant responsibility for her safety.
‘If she is a kid, then by Indian law she is a minor and her mother would be the immediate responsible adult. She becomes both accountable and answerable, and more so, if it was her voluntary judgement which is under the question by the law of the land where the event happened?’
you raise some ethical questions- part of the condemnation that sharanya refers to was about this. around 120 million children work in india and nearly 20 million of them live and work on the streets. why doesn’t the indian media and the debating public discuss whose responsibilty those children are, half as intensely as they discuss this one particular child and her mother? as you pointed out, fiona comes from a society that recognizes that all parents can’t be depended upon wholly to care for their children- so the state steps in whenever needed. one can only conjecture: these kind of debates must have happened over there earlier, and society at large must have become sensitized to these issues and the government was entrusted with a part of the responsibility of these children. so an unattended 15 year old in public places mostly visited by adults would draw attention in britain, perhaps.
this debate on scarlett, focussed on the mother’s and child’s personal lives, would have been more meaningful, if indian society had been more capable of focussing on working children, street children as other societies have been. if those capabilities had been built, unattended 15 yr olds in public places mostly frequented by adults would have drawn attention in india too. india has failed its children, so there was no question of scarlett being cared for here. which means indian debaters might not really have the moral authority to question any particular mother’s failure. and as madhat pointed out, all they seem to be interested in is the *mother’s* failure.
It looks like, with all the lack of understanding and the confusion with respect to the post and subsequent comments, I will have to unabatedly explicit. If you feel humiliated you just have to be kind enough to pardon me. I must say Im not sharing my views on the event but challenging the basis of the views expressed in the post.
Lets revisit the post for the sake of readers who cant judge or are given to misjudge the essence of the post. And to avoid any more shenanigans lets break it into paragraphs.
Paragraphs 1 and 2: Backgrounds the event.
My contentions: Factually incorrect. SK isn’t a teenage tourist or on a six month long trip. You are a tourist if you are travelling. Scarlet was living in one locale in India and as I have mentioned before the family were earning their living in local markets. There isn’t such thing called six-month tourist while residing in one place.
And kuffir: there is nothing illegal about her stay. Neither did I claim that would minimise the crime, I quoted that because it is incorrect.
Paragraph 3: Scorns the cultural response.
My contention: Fiona left her daughter with someone she knew. It turned out that she misjudged everyone, including scarlet. So what is so unacceptable about people alleging that Fiona was less careful or negligent in the context of culture of the land.
If you look at it, it is not even culture it is only natural: more than half the Britain feels McCanns weren’t exactly good parents by leaving their kids on their own.
As I have said before no one would have chastised Fiona if the incident had happened in England, but the Child protection services would have immediately ( response time is 30min -120mins) taken away her kids. As simple as that.
In India they don’t have a public law because that isn’t the culture. It is the same culture which tried to lynch Karunkar Das who raped the seven year old.
It is the same culture where people match horoscopes, where people still frown upon inter religious marriages or where children are obligated to look after their parents. So what exactly is SM whining about which is relevant to SK’s case?
SM is arguing in her own skewed way that everyone can live the way they want and no one should judge them? I can see the argument of the masses- chokri subah saade chaar baje ko kya kar hi thi? I might not approve of it but I am not saying oh all of you are so so wrong in asking such questions.
Further, what is take of the post on Fiona who hasn’t uttered a word about her failed judgement? That I tell you is universal- Britons here feel what mridula in Delhi feels – that it takes someone of a less sound mind to do what she did.
Paragraph 5 ; is on Indian media and few other points.
a. Hilarious are the points where SM states that Fiona is grieving and hence should be left alone. I mean it can get anymore Indian than that ( vide supra for the Naipaul quote) Does SM have a basic understanding of the world around and media trials?
Every minute detail of public trials are part of our daily news. Wake up to it , these are times we live in. Diana inquest is on bbc every other day even after a decade of her death, I have mentioned Bob woolmer; of course we know every pickety thing that happened in Paul McCartney divorce. So Why is that SK case an exception?
b. Also note suddenly in between SM says SK is a child by Indian standards. Jesus. So tender volte face from a teenage tourist. Hence my question what is the position of the post on Scarlett? SM doesn’t have one, she just twists for her convenience.
So how many 15 year old kids by Indian standards are on drugs and having sex regularly? Note: There are independent retro temporal evidence by independent witness that Scarlett was on drugs. By Indian standards she should have been in a Juvenile home.
c. Regards the media: I don’t think it is specific for this case and it’s a sham through n through, because it is made of people no better than SM who report their prejudices. As far as I am concerned Indian media is on par world media in tabloid journalism but what India lacks is good quality journalism to stay a step on top of tabloids.
Paragraph 6 and 7: little relevant ; I have written about it in previous comments. I’m not bothered if he was taken for medical fitness or to buy a bottle of fenny – it is a fairly routine procedure everywhere. He has changed position against Fiona because he is susceptible to be booked for having sexual intercourse with a minor, which would also open Fiona’s role in it.
Rest of the post is a harangue and waste of SM’s education. What happened to scarlet happened because she was on drugs and booze and on her own – It matters legally if she was under drugs and alcohol. That is all over the world. And one because of the event and two because she had a history – breaking the law for underage drinking and using substances. She wasn’t murdered in her home like in Blore case or dragged out of a hotel she had checked into in Agra and then raped and murdered. Which is why there is this process cultural appraisal which is lacking in other cases of same crime. That SM cant see it is a shame and lack of understanding of her own premises and people around her.
And mind you, I am not asking her to agree or approve. I am stating she simply doesn’t know- which is what I wrote in my first line in my first comment – ignorance of your own people and land.
A word about the Tribe:
That SM and her whole feminist tribe lack imagination to do anything. This is all not new. Events after events happen regularly. I have noticed this phenomenon over last two years while checking Indian blogs; All these folks do is piggy collect their emotions, make blog committees and write blogs after an event and wait until the next event to write more. Blogs, who only themselves read.
They cant achieve one iota of progress because:
1. Sitting in their offices, they don’t understand the masses of Indian women and problems around them. And they lack imagination to asssimlate perspectives without direct contact. Hence they have no means to be representatives. The women on the street, themselves everyone know that.
2.They cant think on their own. All regurgitate is a feminist publication of 1960s. Where are the answers for the questions I asked?
3.They don’t know about India beyond their family.
The only thing that is working for the uplift of Indian women, if any at all is the widening of middle class bracket dues to liberalization.
Thanks.
Here I repeat the questions:
1. What is take on scarlet’s legal position?
2. What is the take on fiona’s lack of carefulness?
3. How is scarlett’s case different from any case of rape and murder?
4. How has the nation of India killed her?
5. How has nation of India failed her?
These two question flew away soemhow?
6. How is the crime related to feminism?
7. What si the basis of the argument that Scarlett should be free to do whatever she wished but the people shouldnt be free to say whatever they wish?
More for you kuffir:
Frankly I’m disappointed by your response. But hey lets hear this:
Firstly see we have moved away from the event that happened.
Imagine this: you are walking in a street and you slipped by a banana skin and injured your knee. Banana skin on the street made you unsafe and there fore made you receive an injury, it threatened your life. How on earth are the police responsible for your safety and banana skin?
Imagine it was Scarlett who slipped broke her wrist in the absence of her mother. Though her safety was compromised would the police be involved ?
No.
The police became involved because scarlet was murdered. It is illegal. Law was broken. Your confusion stems from your lack of understanding the word safety. The girl in Bangalore was safe in her home but was killed. Law was broken and hence police were involved. Similarly I cant call up the police and say hey folks I might have left my front door open. Would you guys make sure its safe?
It isn’t applicable in any of the democracies: because dear friend, in all constitutions- the American Bill of rights, the French liberty and British human rights and Indian fundamental rights, no where there is a promise to safety. It is in the nature of the word if you care to think about it.
So the whole argument by SM Is naïve , juvenile and plainly stupid. What she is saying is – oh don’t tell anything about anyone; everyone is the world should be safe to do whatever they please anytime. Frankly, she should wake up. There is no country or land on earth which is safe. So, you sir, please, it has nothing to do with any country or police number? Lets stop that.
Coming to your astonishing remark on law and order. Forgive me if I am instructive here: the statements are appalling. I wonder where did you got this idea that it has something to do with colonial relations. All the four democracies I talked about use it. How is that British constitution use the same term to police its citizens? Is that colonial? As I said in the above paragraph, there is no police on earth which is entrusted for safety ( there are special protection units for security of individuals, queen gaurds n Z in India etc) but none for Safety. Only for law and order. All the four democratic constitutions mention only law and order.
Limiting to Indian, which was written by Indians as you know. You remember The services list do you? The central? State? Concurrent? Etc? the good ole civics book?
Police is in state list- check it up, article 256 Indian constitution: state list : first duty of the police is to maintain order. Second preserve law.
They are involved in SK case because law was broken by murder and rape.
It is the duty of Goa police and Goa state to bring the culprits to justice.
The centre isn’t involved, police isn’t under the central list . So lets stop this nonsense about using Indian government in every other sentence.
It is for these reasons I asked SM what is the basis of alleging India killed and India failed her? So far I have no answers. There is no basis except for SM’s old personal agiataion. which is just an emotion akin arey ladki saade char baje ko nanga phir thi hain, to aisa hi hoga. Except SM wants to display her foolishness in English.
Street children and parentless children are irrelevant- the case has nothing to do with it. Scarlett had a parent who should have been careful.
People should know their country before carrying around fancy ideas.
Thanks
Are we all not still “fair and lovely” struck? Had SK and her mom FM not been photogenic, English speaking white people, would India have spent so much of time in abstracting and stretching something which happens to ordinary Indian minor girls every day, without us being aghast or shamed?
Tell me a place in the world where a drunk, stoned, semi clad, penniless SK walking into a drink shack alone at 3 AM would have been totally safe? No defence for those who committed the crime. But let us not just keep at it mindlessly, endlessly.
Hi Vinod,
As for the sentiment of the India I am seeing lately, you hit it on the head. So the answer to your question is a big definite NO.
The sole reason why I see such people like Sharanya are at it is because they derive some sort of rare pleasure of being superior to the masses by announcing such foolish statements which they cant defend. Evidently they don’t a speck of an idea of what is all about in the world?
I bet she doesn’t even realise what she means by statements like India killed her or India failed her. What malarkey?
A couple of generations ago, people in India believed that you should remarry now sharanya here believes India killed her. The reasons for both we don’t why except their own beliefs- India just recycles its own absurdity.
The world has to bear it.
But having said all that, Fiona and scarlet were fair all right but far from anything more. But it seems like for folks in India including our Sharanya here that should be more than suffice. Wonder why did not the USA field those techies . No why did it not kill them?
errata:
Hi Vinod,
As for the sentiment of the India I am seeing lately, you hit it on the head. So the answer to your question is a big definite NO.
The sole reason why I see such people like Sharanya are at it is because they derive some sort of rare pleasure of being superior to the masses by announcing such foolish statements which they cant defend. Evidently they don’t have a speck of an idea of what is all about in the world?
I bet she doesn’t even realise what she means by statements like India killed her or India failed her. What malarkey?
A couple of generations ago, people in India believed that you should NOT remarry –now sharanya here believes India killed her. The reasons for both we don’t know except their own beliefs- India just recycles its own absurdity.
The world has to bear it.
But having said all that, Fiona and Scarlet were fair all right but far from anything more. But it seems like for folks in India including our Sharanya here that should be more than enough. Wonder why did not the USA failed those deceased techies . No!! why did it not kill them?
Hi Sunil,
Glad to see hear you say what really needs to be said. One murder of a white has led to such an abnormal outcry against Goa that tourism has taken a serious hit! Even the British media and public has been more objective and responsible than us Indians. I had earlier written on the subject with the title “Why is India going ‘Scarlett’?”. The article can be found here http://vinodksharma.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-is-india-going-scarlett.html
Kuffir,
Your picks are usually interesting but not this one. The case the blogger wants to make – if I understand her right – is that the Scarlett Keeling case is a consequence of and reflection of Indian attitudes towards women. However, the same does not apply to say, a women raped and murdered in the UK or the USA or the “West” because that is an “exception” and not an indication of general attitudes towards women. Thus, if Scarlett Keeling had met her tragic end in the US/UK/”the West”, then that would be an unfortunate incident but as it happened in India, that is the fault of “India.” (Which “India” one wonders? It can’t be Indian women, so is it Indian men? All of them? The Government of India? The Government of Goa? Exactly whom or what?)
Anyway, there you have it – the blabbering of Ms. Manivannan summarized. The problem is that this type of connection is hard to establish. If we talk about traditional Hindu attitudes towards women – say as summarized in the infamous Manav Dharmashastra of Manu – then yes, it does accord women a lower status than men but neither does it condone rape and murder. You can’t jump from that to “rape and murder are condoned” and from that to the conclusion that “Scarlett Keeling’s murder was no surprise.” Incidentally, in many traditional societies all over the world – women were/are accorded a lower status – but I know of no society where rape and murder of women were condoned.
I wonder if Ms. Manivannan has wondered as to why, if her thesis is correct, did we have to wait until 2008 to see an incident like this one? Presumably, they should be happening all the time and Goa has long been a favorite of Western tourists. So, then, why are there so few cases like that of Scarlett Keeling?
All I can say is that this blogger has still to learn that anger does not an argument make.
Cheers,
Suresh.