It's Time To Junk Nirbhaya And Laud The Real Braveheart Jyoti Singh

There is no case anymore for calling Jyoti Singh Nirbhaya. The braveheart should be called Jyoti Singh. Full stop.

We seem to have fallen so much in love with a mythical brave woman called Nirbhaya, that we forget the real courage and bravery of the actual rape victim, Jyoti Singh. Little wonder that the parents of Jyoti Singh, the 16 December 2012 Delhi bus rape victim, one of whose tormentors is about to released after completing three years of detention under the Juvenile Justice Act, are miffed that their daughter is still referred to as Nirbhaya (read here).

There is probably an excess concern for the law, where section Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) prohibits the naming of a rape victim.

Section 228 A says that “whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any persons against whom an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D (all concerning rape) is alleged or found to have been committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Soon after the rape, one news channel, Zee, was charged under section 228A for interviewing Jyoti Singh’s friend, who was with her during the rape and who too was beaten up by the rapists, since this indirectly indicated who the victim was.

Even though Section 228A also says that the anonymity provisions will not apply if the victim is dead, or where the victim’s kin authorise the disclosure in writing to the authorities, Nirbhaya continues to be Nirbhaya, not Jyoti Singh.

Section 288A is vital for protecting the identity of a rape victim, especially in a society where the victim is seen as being partly responsible for the rape. Her dress or demeanour will be said to have invited the rape. Bandying the victim’s name about also tends to make it difficult for her family to seek a groom through the normal arranged marriage route.

However, the forced anonymity also has some subtle negative consequences for a society that sees rape as a curse rather than just a crime against women.

The downside of the anonymity provided by section 288A accentuates the shame aspect for the victim, when it is the perpetrator of the crime who ought to be the one ashamed. In fact, there are reasons to give anonymity to the rape accused, for the simple reason that sometimes men wrongly accused of rape may have their reputations tarnished by disclosure. But that is another issue.

While it is no one’s case that a rape victim must disclose her identity, the law and society should encourage bolder victims to emerge from anonymity if they want to. It makes no sense to conceal the name when the victim, or her family, want to tell the world her story and hold their head high. Anonymity conceals the truth and prevents a society from coming to terms with the real nature of the crime.

There is no case anymore for calling Jyoti Singh Nirbhaya. The braveheart should be called Jyoti Singh. Full stop.