writes Saad Rafi
At the very outset, I would suggest to the reader to approach the issue of “Domestic Violence” with a rather detached mind. Consider this as just a perspective and an opinion. And that when somebody gives an opinion, one need not accept it until one is convinced, it is correct. Earnestly, I never consider anything immune to valid criticism.
To many of us the very word, “domestic violence” generally, flashes a picture, of “wife beating” turned into Olympic sport. Wife beating, albeit, does include as a major cut up of “Domestic Violence”, yet, it is not the only one. And that’s exactly the general idea behind our discourse today.
Having said that, the question arises what constitutes “Domestic Violence” then. Well, judging by the mainstream studies, and by the massive media coverage, it incorporates emotional, verbal, physical, economic, carnal violence perpetrated by a man on women especially wife. Refusing money to women / wife. Not allowing her to take up a job or making her give up on it. Shouting. Even disagreement. Just about anything, whether rightly or wrongly, a man says or does, which conceivably can upset a woman is classified as “domestic violence”. In short “men only” are held guilty of domestic violence. Remember, this perspective is more akin to the “Feminist” approach, where a “woman can do no wrong”. Nothing, ironically though, can be farther from the truth.
What they (feminist) apparently, suggest is that, domestic violence is a gender issue. It is based on the belief that there is never a reason for a man to disagree with a woman. Since men are physically stronger, they are more likely to be perpetrators. To me, to take this insidious version as standalone explanation is flawed understanding of the whole issue demonstrating lack of intellectual rigor.
They seem to miss the part, nevertheless. Domestic Violence also includes a mother intimidating or beating her kids where they can easily be styled to rectitude. Fatherlessness. In that, a wife restraining, her husband from giving his kids, fatherly love and affection. An angry wife tossing at her husband whatever she gets her hands on. Or, denying the husband and children or reluctantly offering a cooked meal for dinner. Parents not devoting time to lend an earnest ear to their children’s woes. Even, older siblings raising their voice / hand on the younger ones or vice versa.
Domestic Violence in contemporary time, has several causes. Industrialisation. Sudden economic growth marked by ever growing materialistic inequalities. Negative westernization Unhealthy media. Occupational and professional diversification. Ideologies. Battered childhood. Male Chauvinistics. Undirected / misdirected education. Imitation. Sometimes, self-styled interpretation of religion. Psychological factors e.g. “Borderline Personality Disorder” characterized by histrionics or, accusing others for being cause of one’s problems. Societal transformation from traditional to transient to modern. One can go on forever. But, all of the afore-mentioned causes, jointly as well as severally, have exacted one fundamental effect. An effect which, to me, goes down to the root of the issue. The effect of “Role Conflict”.
Generally, an individual performs a number of roles. Example, a male performs the role of a son, doting father, professional, and of course a “loving husband”. Likewise, a female, say a working lady has to perform roles of a caring mother, a daughter, “devoted wife”. Or, child performs role of a dutiful son/daughter, student etc. Nonetheless, somewhere down the line, an individual experiences strain in the proper, acceptable and effective performance of the designated roles and amongst roles themselves. Hence, Role Conflict.
To cut the long story short, Role Conflict is a psycho-sociological phenomenon where an individual experiences a clash with respect to the effective performance of different roles donned by him/her. Role Conflict, by extension, even occurs between people occupying two different positions in an organisation or society. Example, between worker and manager; rich and poor. Analogically, husband, wife and even children aren’t immune to it.
Ergo, say a male, who holds the position of M.D. in a company, starts to take performance of such role home, he would be more prone to become perpetrator of domestic violence. On the other hand, should a strict disciplinarian female school teacher acts likewise at home may either run the risk becoming a victim or perpetrator of this now legally recognizable tort. Alternately, mismanagement in or ineffective performance of the roles so possessed by an individual on familial level usually culminates into domestic violence.
In this age of hyper and rather undirected modernity, one is bound to come across greater degree of ‘role conflict’ affected individuals. Result, often corporeally contesting spouses and derailed, defiant children. So, increase in role conflict is inversely proportional to forbearance and tolerance. Alternately, greater the role conflict, higher the incidences of domestic violence. Now what is domestic violence, if not an attack either verbally, emotionally, economically, or corporeally by somebody who is close to you, loves you, or is supposed to love you, by which the other person (victim) is so intimidated that it ruins their quality of life. Male or female, regardless.
Now it seems as plain as daylight that, contrary to what feminist would have us believe, domestic violence is not only about man’s “power and control” over a woman. Accordingly, violence has not to boil down to the female version of the story. To me, the feminist perspective is defective and also counterproductive. In that, it tends to makes slaves out of women; by giving them a slightly misplaced idea that they have no choice and that they are not are not responsible for anything. Vilifying men will be a huge dishonest disservice to the society. After all, blanket prejudice is a hate-crime against men.
Although, the structural and functional dynamics of our society have undergone sea change yet, our understanding of it yet remains in its infancy. So what we have to do is educate ourselves. Here on out, when someone amongst us goes home with self-conceit or over-bearing sense of self-importance from the earlier performed role, and looks down their nose with contempt at their spouse, children or sibling. He should immediately sit in judgment over it and decide whether it is natural role to be performed at home, or are they suffering from “role conflict”.
The societal pulls and pressure in and around us are so intense that adults, whether they like it or not, are often likely to regress into childlike behaviour. Nonetheless, as that moment of temporary madness passes, we must later make a responsible pause and ponder considerately over it. After all, we are dragging our children through dysfunctional and abusive relationship which may be on a fast track to divorce. Moreover, as psychologist suggest that children from such relations are more susceptible to suffer schizophrenia and multiple-personality disorder. Let alone, mental disorders and vices – alcohol and drugs. Besides, they are going to age into such adults which may relive such moments in their adulthood. As they say home is the first academy for the children.
If somebody loves you, they would build you up rather than bring you down. It is true, acting in a vile, uncouth and trans-civil way can never be justified. But it is also true that, individuals can never be expected to behave and act rationally all the time. However, as rational beings we must bring ourselves together to face the truth and admit to our part rather than passing the buck. Which is why, we have to “KNOW” domestic violence for “NO” domestic violence.
(The writer is lawyer , The High Court of J&K.)