Once again, sections of social media have erupted in a frenzy to shield the son of a powerful politician from allegations of sexual abuse.
Bandi Bhageerath, son of Minister of State for Home Affairs Bandi Sanjay, also the former Telangana BJP chief, was booked on May 8 for allegedly sexually harassing a minor. Later, charges of rape were invoked against him. Ever since the allegations came up, Telugu social media has been swelling up with campaigns to malign the survivor and her family.
Those lobbying for Bhageerath have brought up pictures of the survivor interacting with him, interpreting them as “proof” for consent. Several people also present such repeated interactions between him and the survivor as “evidence” of a honey trap.
While we don’t know how the case will pan out, data on sexual violence has, time and again, disproved this ‘theory’ of equating camaraderie or even blood relation with consent for sexual intimacy.
The latest National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) statistics say that of the total cases registered under the POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) in the country, 96.6% of offenders are individuals known to the survivor. Furthermore, in Telangana, the data indicate that in 2076 out of 2078 cases registered, the offender was known to the child. In only two cases, the child was assaulted by an unknown offender.
Known offenders include family members, friends, neighbours, employers, live-in partners, online friends, or anyone else who interacts with the survivor or is in touch with their family over a period of time.
In the case of rape, also, this pattern holds.
NCRB data says that 96.8% of the cases where adults are victims, across the country, offenders are people known to the survivors. Of this, friends/online friends or live-in partners, or separated husbands account for 47%. Family friends, neighbours, employers or other known persons account for 43%.
When it comes to Telangana, 99.6% of the offenders are known to the survivors. Friends, online friends, or live-in partners on the pretext of marriage, and separated husbands account for 52%. Family friends, neighbours, employers or other known persons account for 34%.
However, none of this is to say that Bandi Bhageerath is guilty or innocent. That truth is for the investigation and the courts to uncover. But the problem is in how interactions between the survivor and him are positioned in ways that insult the survivor and cast suspicion on her moral integrity.
There is also an undeniable power imbalance between the accused and the survivor here, which, as a society, we must be vigilant of. The police, for instance, did not take any action in the first few days after the complaint was filed and an FIR was lodged. It was only after pressure mounted that Telangana DGP CV Anand addressed the issue.
When the accused has such enormous political clout, potent enough to destabilise justice at his will, it is all the more imperative that we remain cautious. While discussions and statements of facts about the allegations are part of everyone’s right to express, shaming the survivor for having known the accused is not just inappropriate, but downright inhuman.
We must remember that several women in this country are forced to be respectful and even loving to their abusers because they have no means of escaping cyclical violence. In the case of sexual violence like marital rape, even the law does not give survivors an out.
Here, the question is about a minor survivor, and it is only befitting of us to show some modicum of decency while relentlessly dissecting her case.
Views expressed are the author's own.
We vouch for justice and accountability over sensational headlines. Subscribe to support journalism that cuts the fluff and brings you in-depth analysis.